Why do these programs still exist?

[reallyscrued]

WinDirStat
Adobe PDF Reader
Fraps
GPU-Z/CPU-Z / Speccy
iTunes/ Winamp / VLC / MPC
Burnaware, Nero, etc
Keepass
Speedfan
uTorrent
ImgResizer
Audacity
7-Zip
Gimp / Paint.Net
All of PiriForms offerings
Dropbox



Why the hell do these programs still exist? My confusion stems from this:

I've grown up with Windows and Microsoft's OSes from 95 OSR2, since then I've made the transition to 98SE, Me, 2000, XP, and now 7. I always wondered why in all of these iterations, they haven't incorporated their own versions of pretty simple things which most computer power users install right after installing a fresh copy of Windows?

Shouldn't there be a simple OS utility that shows you your files and their sizes in a graphical map? (WinDirStat). Shouldn't there be a utility that tells you about your CPU and motherboard, RAM sticks, their temperatures? Even cars have a temp gauge on the dash that lets you know if your radiator fluid is overheating.

I remember the first time I used Dropbox, my immediate reaction to it was "Why hasn't this been thought of yet by Microsoft themselves?"

Is there a reason there isn't a department of Microsoft's Windows Development that isn't constantly looking for useful freeware utilities and writing their own versions of them to complement newer versions of Windows?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Is there a reason there isn't a department of Microsoft's Windows Development that isn't constantly looking for useful freeware utilities and ways to incorporate them into their own shell?

Yes, because most "freeware" is generally only free for home or personal use.

 

[FoBoT]

if Microsoft bought all of that and included it, the DoJ would sue them. again.

 

[reallyscrued]

Yes, because most "freeware" is generally only free for home or personal use.

Awesome.

How would that conflict with what I was asking? There are Windows versions labeled "Home" too.

 

[Hyperblaze]

Not only that.....

But some of these third party software have patents that Microsoft probably doesn't wish to pay licenses fees for for incorporating in with their operating system.

Plus....

Not every user wishes to have all those applications installed.....I myself use maybe 20 to 30% of the software on your list. I might no longer be a windows power user (whatever).

I for one am HAPPY that I need to install third party apps after a fresh installation of Windows. Microsoft in the past restricted choice in various different ways (although it's more open at this point).

 

[reallyscrued]

if Microsoft bought all of that and included it, the DoJ would sue them. again.

Maybe I should've been more clear. Not buy out the companies and use their products outright, but write their own program that has a small footprint, doesn't need to be installed, maybe just comes along in the Administrative or System Tools folder that has the functionality of some of the programs I listed above.

 

[DesiPower]

I still use acrobat reader and VLC, pretty important to me..

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Awesome.

How would that conflict with what I was asking? There are Windows versions labeled "Home" too.

You're not getting what I am saying. If Microsoft simply downloaded "freeware" utilities and burned them onto OS CDs, even Home versions, that would be considered commercial use since Microsoft is the one downloading and installing the software. If you or I download a copy and install it on our PCs, that is personal use; if Microsoft took a "free" utility and installed it on millions of PCs as part of the Windows install, that is commercial use regardless if those millions of PCs reside in homes.

EDIT: Saw your clarification after I wrote this post. See my next post to address that.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Maybe I should've been more clear. Not buy out the companies and use their products outright, but write their own program that has a small footprint, doesn't need to be installed, maybe just comes along in the Administrative or System Tools folder that has the functionality of some of the programs I listed above.

Ok, that's a different argument and there are a few different reasons MS won't do that:

1. Other companies might hold patents and they'd have to pay royalties.
2. If good and free/cheap stuff is available, MS doesn't feel it is worth spending money recreating the wheel.
3. Risks the wrath of the DoJ.

 

[Hyperblaze]

if Microsoft bought all of that and included it, the DoJ would sue them. again.

Not that it would make much of a difference. All they received last time was a slap on the wrist.

 

[FoBoT]

i still think they'd face additional Monopoly scrutinization from the DoJ by adding too many features as you describe, whether they buy the existing software or write it themself

isn't that what the whole 'bundling IE' thing was about?

 

[reallyscrued]

You're not getting what I am saying. If Microsoft simply downloaded "freeware" utilities and burned them onto OS CDs, even Home versions, that would be considered commercial use since Microsoft is the one downloading and installing the software.

Sorry, I think you got the same idea Fobot got. I don't think I made my OP clear enough.

I didn't mean to imply they should just incorporate those programs in their Windows install, obviously then they'd have to pay royalties or such. I mean more like, we have Notepad, Paint, WordPad, a Defragger, why aren't there more inherent utilities by now?

Updated OP to be a little more clear, I hope.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

i still think they'd face additional Monopoly scrutinization from the DoJ by adding too many features as you describe, whether they buy the existing software or write it themself

isn't that what the whole 'bundling IE' thing was about?

It was and I agree with your reasoning, but it would probably take large competitors lodging loud complaints to get the DoJ to investigate, right?

 

[Deeko]

A few things....

1) Regarding your DropBox comment, they DID think of that, and it exists. Its called SkyDrive, and its not new.

2) Some of your tools listed have equivalents, either as a part of Windows or the Live Essentials packs. They might not work exactly the same or do quite as much, but they're there. For example - you can resize images using Office image viewer. You can compress files to/from zip files with Windows itself. Same with burning DVDs/CDs. PDF is a proprietary format, but they do have their own eDoc format that's included, XPS.

3) As others have mentioned, you've got to remember the antitrust suits from the 90s. Including more things with Windows - notable at the time, IE - drew the ire of the regulators. For many things, Microsoft does have software for it, its just not included in Windows, like Live Essentials.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I still use a lot of the software on that list. And I'm glad that Microsoft doesn't try to incorporate it into Windows, because I should have the freedom to use whatever software I want, not just software incorporated by Microsoft.

Sorry, I think you got the same idea Fobot got. I don't think I made my OP clear enough.

I didn't mean to imply they should just incorporate those programs in their Windows install, obviously then they'd have to pay royalties or such. I mean more like, we have Notepad, Paint, WordPad, a Defragger, why aren't there more inherent utilities by now?

Updated OP to be a little more clear, I hope.

Seriously? We already have Microsoft's take on a lot of these programs. For example, 7-zip is analogous to the windows default zip functionality, iTunes to WMP, Paint.NET to Paint, etc. In case you hadn't noticed, Microsoft coding them tends to make them worse.

 

[reallyscrued]

i still think they'd face additional Monopoly scrutinization from the DoJ by adding too many features as you describe, whether they buy the existing software or write it themself

isn't that what the whole 'bundling IE' thing was about?

That doesn't make much sense to me. Thinking back to my car example, that'd be like saying car manufacturers would be killing the thermometer competition by including a thermostat needle in their cars.

I can see a can of worms being opened if Microsoft didn't ALLOW third party applications at all and forced you to use their solution, but that's not what they are doing with IE anymore, or any other application.

And something as simple as resizing or image to a certain resolution or converting it to another format you'd think would be part of an OS'es functionality by now that we've had over 15 years of graphical user interfaces for the average home user, no?

 

[darkewaffle]

I still use a lot of the software on that list. And I'm glad that Microsoft doesn't try to incorporate it into Windows, because I should have the freedom to use whatever software I want, not just software incorporated by Microsoft.



Seriously? We already have Microsoft's take on a lot of these programs. For example, 7-zip is analogous to the windows default zip functionality, iTunes to WMP, Paint.NET to Paint, etc. In case you hadn't noticed, Microsoft coding them tends to make them worse.

It's extremely difficult to make program worse than iTunes. Never have I used a more bloated, lethargic piece of software.

But re-iterating what everyone else said. Whether or not you agree with the anti-trust suits brought against MS with regards to IE a few years back, it essentially set a precedent that I imagine forces MS to be a bit more conservative about 'integration'.

Not to mention making these tools is going to cost money that won't exactly make them money as well as possibly leaving them exposed to lawsuits from the already existing tools.

 

[Exterous]

3) As others have mentioned, you've got to remember the antitrust suits from the 90s. Including more things with Windows - notable at the time, IE - drew the ire of the regulators. For many things, Microsoft does have software for it, its just not included in Windows, like Live Essentials.

Not to mention the constant issues with including software outside the country too. They already have/had a 'N', 'K', 'KN' version of Windows 7 because of stupid software inclusion rules

 

[AstroManLuca]

OP, there is one company that did basically what you're proposing. Any time a nice piece of third party software came along they stole the idea and incorporated it into their OS (except they usually did a much worse job of it). That company is called Apple.

 

[reallyscrued]

Not to mention the constant issues with including software outside the country too. They already have/had a 'N', 'K', 'KN' version of Windows 7 because of stupid software inclusion rules

I had to google these to figure out what they were. I had no idea they existed.

Thanks for pointing that out, that's an interesting view.

 

[reallyscrued]

OP, there is one company that did basically what you're proposing. Any time a nice piece of third party software came along they stole the idea and incorporated it into their OS (except they usually did a much worse job of it). That company is called Apple.

Yeah. And that idea really backfired on them.

Ask the average Mac user how much space they have on their hard drives and I bet more than the average-joe PC user, they'd be able to figure out how to tell you the answer. Everything Mac is not inherently dumb or stupid, it's still incredibly intuitive, even if it does look like it was designed by a 5 year old.

Incorporating software is not what made Apple suck, it was them shutting out unsigned software AFAIK.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

It's extremely difficult to make program worse than iTunes. Never have I used a more bloated, lethargic piece of software.

But re-iterating what everyone else said. Whether or not you agree with the anti-trust suits brought against MS with regards to IE a few years back, it essentially set a precedent that I imagine forces MS to be a bit more conservative about 'integration'.

Not to mention making these tools is going to cost money that won't exactly make them money as well as possibly leaving them exposed to lawsuits from the already existing tools.

Then you have never used Samsung Kies, or basically every single piece of commercial medical software. Trust me. In the grand scheme of things, iTunes is pretty good.

But that's beside the point.

 

[serpretetsky]

I like only having the software i need and not more.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Incorporating software is not what made Apple suck, it was them shutting out unsigned software AFAIK.

You mean I can't download a compatible binary or package installer from any site on the internet and install it on my Macbook? Wow, I had no idea. Guess I'd better uninstall all my freeware and warez.

(For the iPhone, you're dead on the money, btw. But don't get the two confused.)

 

[Pardus]

WinDirStat
Adobe PDF ReaderFraps
GPU-Z/CPU-Z / Speccy
iTunes/ Winamp / VLC / MPCBurnaware, Nero, etc
Keepass
Speedfan
uTorrent
ImgResizer
Audacity
7-Zip
Gimp / Paint.Net
All of PiriForms offerings
Dropbox


Why the hell do these programs still exist? My confusion stems from this:

I use the ones in bold almost every day.