quote:
Having IE and WMP intergrated into the OS is a great idea if you ask me. Take for instance..compare Windows 98 to Win95 without IE4+plus the desktop enhancement.
I actually preferred the look of Windows 95 to Windows 98.
quote:
Without IE Windows 95 can't use gif, jpeg, jpg, png, etc. as a Wallpaper(it can only render bitmaps).
I don't like using anything other than bmp's for my background anyway, because using jpegs, gifs, etc. take up system resources in Windows. It's not that hard to save a picture file as a bitmap.
quote:
Without IE you don't have those nifty lil back and forward navigation buttons for surfing Windows explorer, without IE you can't enable single clicking to open files, without IE you can't add wallpapers to different folder Window backgrounds, without IE you can't have an active desktop wallpaper(say for instance you want to have a news site or even something like this forum as your wallpaper you can see the updates, new news, new posts, etc. from your desktop). IE enhances Explorers' rendering capabilites big time.
So? I don't want a website as my background. I don't always use my computer to surf the internet, I use it for many other things as well. These are all superficial features that I've never cared for, and, if Linux didn't do any of this, I wouldn't really care.
quote:
Don't most distros of Linux come with Konquerer and Mozilla? That is bundling a browser(s) with the OS too, so why don't you bitch about it? Doesn't KDE 3 use Konquerer as an explorer(like Windows+IE)? That is making the browser an intergrated part of the GUI...why don't you bitch about that?
For the record, I don't like that KDE uses Konqueror to browse files anymore than I like that MIcrosoft uses IE to browse files. However, the main thing to keep in mind is that Konqueror is not integrated into the OS, it's just there. IE, on the other hand, is forced on to your OS and you use it no matter what, even if you use a different browser to surf the internet with.
quote:
WMP being intergrated into the OS allows for you to play music from folders without even having to open the full media player.
So does Winamp, Real Player, Quicktime, and every other media player, depending on your file associations.
[quote}
Also, if you have tried WMP 9 on XP and Win9x/2K you would see that the enhancements that XP gives to Media Player from having it binded into the OS make it a much better product.
[/quote]
Why should I buy a different OS just to use their media player?
quote:
In Win9x/2K you can't play quicktime media, VCD's, SVCDs, DVDs with WMP9 out of the box(you have to install extra codecs), you can't minimize WMP 9 to the taskbar and use it as a taskbar player in pre-Windows XP OSes.
I can use Quicktime, MPlayer, and other programs to watch all of those. And I can watch DVD's on my DVD Player. I think it's better to have separate programs specializing in each function, because, since they're concentrating on that function, they work better.
quote:
The taskbar player is an example of what can be accomplished when the software is part of the OS...it is binded to everything in the OS..even the taskbar and the taskbar player is the result of that intergration.
Again, it's a superficial feature. I'd rather use other programs that do the job much better.
quote:
Personally, I really like the taskbar player too because it is always there for the clicking no matter how many windows you have open and it doesn't clutter the desktop. If you have video playing in the taskbar player the little video Window always stays on top making it easy to watch videos and do other stuff at the same time. WMP looks terrible in Win9x/Win2K too(the XP skinning engine makes WMP 9 look alot cleaner and more modern).
I guess it depends on personal preferences. But I don't see the advantage of WMP over any other media player.
quote:
Don't most Linux distros come with XMMS installed by default...that is bundling a Media Player with the OS....why don't you bitch about that since it is soo bad?
You're missing a very important distinction here. XMMS, while it is included with most distros, it is not an integral part of the OS. It can be installed and uninstalled at any time, unlike Windows Media Player. WMP is forced into the OS, whether the user wants it or not, and he/she can't remove it if he/she finds he/she doesn't want it there. At least
http://www.litepc.com is working to make these "integral components" optional features.
quote:
I think the intergration is fine. It isn't like MS stops you from running other browsers and media players. If you are really worried about losing a whole 15MB of space from those apps being installed you need a larger hard drive.
I don't know how you've compressed your data that much, but I can assure you, IE and WMP take up far more disk space than 15 MB. Internet Explorer is always in the system memory, regardless of what browser you use. The point is, it shouldn't be Microsoft's decision what software we should use. The people selling the computers, and more importantly, the people buying the computers, should have the final say.
quote:
Apple bundles Apple software with thier Mac OSes..why don't people bitch about that? You guys complain about shit that every other OS maker does. MS makes the Windows OS so MS has the right to bundle whatever MS software with thier OS that they want to bundle.
The difference here is that Apple makes all of their own hardware to run the OS on, so they can pretty much do what they want. And I really don't have a problem with MS having their extra programs as options on the install CD, I just have a problem with them being forced on to the operating system uninstallably. Not everybody wants these programs installed.