Here's how YOU would change Windows

COMMENTARY-- Microsoft's proposed middleware plan--to hide icons that lead to Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and other apps--is due to arrive later this year as part of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP. As expected whenever the middleware issue is brought up, there's plenty of turmoil on the TalkBack boards.

"Sure, it's possible--even probable--that companies other than Microsoft would offer new modules to supply these functions. Software developers could then, presumably, use the services provided by these modules to bolster their apps," my colleague David Coursey wrote in a recent column.

"But all those middleware apps would have their own programming interfaces through which other apps and the operating system itself would access them. This means that applications developers would have to decide which of these programming interfaces to support--with no discernible advantage to users. In other words, developers would have to work harder just to stay where they are today," Coursey wrote.

With about 350 postings, the discussion in response to the article was wide-ranging, to say the least. Many of you speculated that the changes could affect Windows's already-suspect reliability and security, with viruses or worms finding new ways to take advantage of the now-hidden middleware applications and services. Others thought that any variation from the status quo could lead to additional costs for third-party software and even Windows itself. For many of you, the SP1 solution will be just fine, while to others it's that same old window-dressing.

Here are some notable responses.

* Eric Peckham suggests that free is a fine price for functionality:

"Who the heck are [the nine states still pursuing the MS antitrust case] fighting for, anyway? Do you really think the vast majority of computer users want to go shopping for a different browser or media player when they can have them for free, already installed with the operating system?

"My state is one of the nine, and they sure aren't fighting for my benefit. Of all the people I know and the corporations I consult for, I can't think of anyone who would benefit from their remedy." READ THE FULL TALKBACK.

* Kevin Morgan wants more "well-documented APIs" and fewer "adequate front-end programs" from Microsoft:

"The argument's then made: If the consumer gets more and more product for free, where's the harm? But the product isn't  free; it's rolled into the cost of Windows, which we can no longer do without. The cost of every piece of hardware and virtually every piece of software has dropped, in absolute terms (even before accounting for inflation), for the last 20 years. The sole exception is Windows, which constantly costs more.

"'But it does so much more than it used to!' they say. Well then, those extra bundled apps aren't free, are they? We have to pay for them in the form of higher Windows costs, and having 'bought' Media Player, will people then pay for RealPlayer? Not many, I bet." READ THE FULL TALKBACK.

* Walter Bamberger considered the SP1 changes a start in the right direction:

"Hiding the icons from the desktop is a sham. The offending elements with all their bloat, intricacies, and security issues are still there. But it's a start.

"Building an application that relies upon an MS application sounds an awful lot like merely skinning. But it's almost acceptable if the designer is honest and upfront about the fact that an MS application is being relied upon. (An IE vulnerability by any other name is still an IE vulnerability.)

"Removing the MS application completely from the OS is still the ideal. That way, a competing application designer can build from the ground up without fear that functions would conflict." READ THE FULL TALKBACK.

* Vadim Rapp sides with Microsoft:

"Everyone is completely free to write any application that is better than the very basic ones included in Windows. Microsoft was always encouraging these efforts--this is the key to Microsoft's success. Every developer always had a full support from Microsoft, including APIs, examples, articles, newsgroups, libraries, etc. Take a look at MSDN.

"Can you point out another company supporting the developers at that level? That's why developers wrote tons of applications for Windows and not for OS/2. That's why Windows survived, while OS/2 died." READ THE FULL TALKBACK.

* Deniz Copur wrote that middleware modules should be installed manually as needed by the user. He also pointed to different models for interoperability:

"It is possible to create standard programming interfaces (even cross-platform ones) for all different types of modules for interoperability. This would lead to modules that chose to communicate with another module.

"Such interoperability APIs should have been done at the beginning. Is it late? Of course not. These type of things were known and investigated in the past already. For example, check out Project JXTA and Sun's Jini, which is a very related Java-based framework." READ THE FULL TALKBACK.

David Morgenstern, past editor of eMediaweekly and MacWEEK, is a freelance editor and branding consultant based in San Francisco.

Do you think Microsoft's plans for Windows XP Service Pack 1 are good? Why or why not? TalkBack to me below!