Windows 7 gets an outside tester: The government

The headline was updated at 3 p.m. to note that it is several states, not the U.S. department of Justice, that are overseeing the compliance of Vista and future Windows versions with the consent decree.

Microsoft has said precious little about Windows 7, but it has provided at least one outsider with an early test version of the forthcoming operating system.

The software maker confirmed in a court filing last week that it has provided a test version of Windows 7 to the technical committee helping to oversee Microsoft's compliance with the U.S. antitrust settlement.

Windows 7 crops up about a third of the way through the 21-page joint status report, initially with Microsoft noting that the technical committee would like to see an unspecified issue addressed in Windows 7.

"In addition, the (Technical Committee) has begun to review Windows 7 itself," Microsoft and regulators said in the filing. "Microsoft recently supplied the TC with a build of Windows 7, and is discussing TC testing going forward. The TC will conduct middleware-related tests on future builds of Windows 7."

The Windows 7 mention was not a major topic at last week's court hearing, but did get noticed this week by Information Week and others. (Note: While the federal court retains oversight of the U.S.-Microsoft antitrust case, the federal Department of Justice is no longer evaluating whether Windows XP, Windows Vista and future versions are in compliance with the consent decree. Several states and the Technical Committee are still evaluating Windows, hence the Windows 7 access provided to the committee.)

Microsoft has not said when Windows 7 will arrive, nor said much about what features it will contain, though Bill Gates said in a recent interview with CNET News.com that Windows 7 is "a big step forward" in speech recognition and other natural interfaces.

Also of note in the status filing is the fact that Phoenix Technologies, which makes the firmware that helps computers boot up, had complained about Microsoft's Vista licensing terms, which limited which versions of Vista could run inside a virtual machine.

"After discussions with Plaintiff States and the TC, Microsoft agreed to remove the EULA (end-user license agreement) restrictions and has done so," Microsoft said in the filing. "This change has been widely reported and well-received in the trade press."

The thing is, Microsoft made no mention of Phoenix's complaint when it announced the change in January.

"Now is the right time, we believe, to make it easier for technical enthusiasts...to experience and see if virtualization is right for them," group product manager Patrick O'Rourke said in a telephone interview when the change was announced.

ZDNet blogger Mary Jo Foley notes that Microsoft has strained its credibility recently by announcing moves and then later disclosing outside pressures that might have influenced the moves. In another example, Microsoft announced a series of interoperability principles in February, only to be hit with a record fine from the EU a week later.

Asked about the timing, CEO Steve Ballmer told CNET News.com in an interview that Microsoft knew the EU fines were coming when it made the interoperability announcement, but maintained they related to past non-compliance and that Microsoft believed it was already in compliance prior to that announcement.

Click here for more news on Windows 7.

[slickuser]

Now, who is stopping innovation?

This is just crazy that a software company has to send the software to Government for review.. whats next? The members of Congress will write code for the next OS?

[Commander_Spock]

Maybe; And, Just Maybe....

Private contracting "BlackWater USA Style" might turn out to be a very, very good "Business Model" for the U.S. Software Industry Alliance. ;-) !

[chash360]

What would you prefer?

Should government be expected to adopt technology untested? Should M$ software be allowed to run on the internet, violating all prior security models and practices as they have in the past?<br /><br />M$ claims to support protocol standards, but they deceive, their implementations do not strickly adhere to the protocols, accepting and acting upon many things outside the established protocols, these items of course are not documented (for that would prove their non-compliance) but are regularly evidenced in IT security alerts on things that have to be patched or fixed because hackers eventually discover their 'backdoors' into the system.<br /><br />This is what they were sued for in the EU, they were told to produce the evidence that would prove their strict compliance, and they refused, because they do not truly comply, even though they claim to. ( the fine is pennies compared to the lawsuits that would follow if they complied )<br /><br />As a background: M$ does not own or control internet protocol standards, these are established and reviewed by public and industry committees. M$ does not have the right to add additional functionality (documented or not) to these protocols without going through these standards setting processes, which is what they have been effectively doing in the past.<br /><br />If I write software for a Credit Union, or other banking system that has an undocumented function to put all round off error of pennies into my own secret account, that I of course have a back door to, is that legal? (Way back in the day when M$ missed the Internet boat the first time, this is what they were concetrating on, they wanted to become the banking industry's computing system of choice, and skim sub-pennies off of every online electronic transaction.)<br /><br />If I make the software with a backdoor to disable it, when I need more contract work (and thus money), through fixing the problem I created (by using the backdoor) in the first place, should that be legal? (hint: M$ already has done this one, several times, just look at any piece of software that has to be patched, that has already been patched more than once or that affects several prior systems or applications as well) <br /><br />As example: the GDI portions, every image on any web page opened using M$ resources (GDI) has the ability, if properly crafted, to execute arbitrary code embedded in the image data, including sending private data to remote sites, etc. This has been patched more than once, but continues to contain this 'flaw' (they just move the holes around when they patch it). In a few cases I have found they have fixed or patched a resource, only to not include the fix or patch in the next release.<br /><br />Is this what you call innovation?<br /><br />(Real innovation comes at the hardware level not software, there is nothing that is done from the user's persective, in software, that can not be done on much older CPU's, because instruction sets have not really changed that much) Add, Subtract, Multiply, Divide, AND, OR, XOR, NOT, shift bits, move or copy memory, and jump to address, etc. These things have not changed, and they are what comprise the act of computing.<br /><br />Software does not work without hardware, and M$ does not innovate hardware, they corrupt it. I have been touting these gross violations for years, to the point that if it were not true, they would have perhaps enough grounds to sue me for slander, but I have no fear, because I know how to read code, and hex dumps, and how to do packet sniffing for unauthorized net traffic. Not to mention the huge amount of evidence in the public record for 'patches and fixes'.

[msims]

Re:Now, who is stopping innovation?

No, not at all. Its just that the DOJ has to make sure that Windows 7 complies with the Windows 95 decree that was issued by then Justice Pinfield<br />jackson in the late 90's. To sum up the decree it states that I.E. shouldn't be the only dominant browser offered with the OS and lets the consumer decide which browser to install on the desktop.<br />==========================================<br /><br />This is just crazy that a software company has to send the software to Government for review.. whats next? The members of Congress will write code for the next OS?

[colamix]

windows 7 should be Vista SP2

Assuming Windows 7 isn't worse, it should be released as Vista SP2. Microsoft might buy back some credibility with consumers instead of leaving them stranded a la windows ME.

[SpiritWater]

Windows Server 2008 should have been SP1

There was an article on Infoworld about using Windows Server <br />2008 and a workstation OS. The writer wrote about the wonders <br />of how Server 2008 was supposedly based on the Vista code but <br />had all to the spunk and performance that Vista lacked. He put <br />some of the blame on Vista's lackluster performance on DRM. <br />The rest of the disparity between the two operating systems is <br />due to the more extensive optimization of 2008.<br /><br />In light of that article I would recommend that Microsoft release <br />a workstation version of Windows Server 2008 like tomorrow.<br /><br /><br />Break the wedge!<br />www.breakthewedge.com