Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA11556; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 02:48:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 02:48:02 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801150748.CAA11556@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #9 TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Jan 98 02:48:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 9 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Microsoft Suck-up in TELECOM Digest V18 #7 (Gene Gaines) Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? (Tim Hogard) Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? (James Bellaire) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bill Levant) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Fred Farzanegan) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Eric Florack) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bud Couch) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bob Lombard) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (David Wuertele) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Eric Ewanco) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Richard Shockey) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Al McLennan) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Christopher Wolf) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Steve Bagdon) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (James Bellaire) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Derek Balling) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Lee Winson) Re: Microsoft vs. Netscape (Ed Ellers) Last Laugh! Using Sound Files With Windows (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 06:10:39 -0500 From: Gene Gaines Subject: Microsoft suck-up in TELECOM Digest V18 #7 Patrick, Good lord, man. Don't you know the history of Microsoft? Aren't you aware of the dishonest pressure tactics which Microsoft employs? I simply do not understand how you can be so far removed from the software industry. You are wrong, repeatedly, in your statements in your editorial. Please do some research and start over. Gene Gaines ggaines@generation.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In this very large, double-size issue of the Digest, I have included *lots* of responses to the Microsoft commentary which appeared yesterday. In fact, this entire issue is devoted to responses. If someone's response is not included here, I'll try to include it in another issue in the next day or so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tim Hogard Subject: Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:46:14 CST TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Jim Bellaire: > I do not know what the trouble is with your 'on demand' panel, > which Windows refers to as the 'application launch' area. I took > the IE icon down from there and put a few others there which I > wanted to use instead. I tend to keep the most used stuff on the > desktop, and the tiny icons on the bottom of the screen for the > lesser-used stuff that I want from time to time. Why not just > edit yours to get rid of the IE thing if that is what you want? PAT] This is the root of the anti-Microsoft feeling. Those of us that make a living dealing with software are quite tired of wasting our time trying to undo Microsoft's features. Each new release they will remove things that we were counting on. Each new release will remove about as many features as it adds. The problem James had is that IE4 updated the DLL that draws the Internet control panel and the new one removed the "insecure" dial on demand click box. Now he can't have a simple command line program transfer files automagically as now the system requires a human to log in first. It has changed an automatic function to a manual one which I think is a step backwards. Keep in mind we should be using computers to do our work and they should not be creating more work for us to do. As for the millions of jobs Billy has created, keep in mind how productive those people would be if they didn't spend all day fighting stupid software. -tim http://web.abnormal.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:03:30 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? In TELECOM Digest Pat Townson replied to me: > I do not know what the trouble is with your 'on demand' panel, > which Windows refers to as the 'application launch' area. I'm not talking about anything on the taskbar panel. Dial up networking has a feature that will automatically connect you to the internet when that connection is needed by some piece of software. You will notice it (if active on your machine) when you start a program like Netscape or IE and ask it to connect to a web page. It is turned on (at home) through Control Panel - Internet on the tab that says 'AutoDial'. There is no on screen icon or anything to mess with. I can go straight to a command prompt, type 'ftp massis.lcs.mit.edu' and my machine will dial me in then make the FTP connection. At least at home it will. At work the machine that had IE installed has a completely different set of tabs on the Control Panel - Internet box. Most of them have to do with IE's settings and what to do with web-like objects. There is no AutoDial setting. Going to a command prompt and typing 'ftp' does nothing unless the user has wasted the time to connect to the net first. And connecting to the net cannot be automated through System Agent. (The win95 version of chron.) IE has disabled a function that I want on my computer, a function that works fine on a non-IE system. (Note that Win95 w/IE will still connect you to the net IF you are starting IE or some other large program, but not from command line programs such as ftp.) James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Telecom Indiana Webpage http://members.iquest.net/~bellaire/telecom/ * Note new server - old URL should still work * ------------------------------ From: Bill Levant Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:43:00 EST Subject: Re : The Microsoft Witchhunt Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) PAT, the issue with Win 95 and Internet Explorer *isn't* whether Microsoft does or doesn't write good software. It also makes no difference whether Microsoft would start giving away IE CD-Roms if forced to "decouple" IE from Win95. What the Justice Department is trying to do is prevent Microsoft from trampling all competition by using its sheer size to force others to play *its* game, or else no game at all. Once Microsoft drives Netscape and the other browser companies out of business, they could then charge a million dollars a copy for IE; there'd be no other alternative for the users. With total control, the concept of "open" anything goes right out the window; everything becomes proprietary, and subject to change on five minutes' notice, making it harder and harder (or impossible) for a new competitor to get even a toehold. Think back to the big oil trusts in the early part of this century. Once the competition was bought (or driven out of business), the trusts could charge literally anything they wanted; supply and demand become irrelevant when there is no alternative. Diamonds are a good present-day example ... the current pricing is related *only* to the artificial shortage that the diamond cartel strictly enforces; if diamonds were subject to true supply and demand, they'd cost a LOT less. Two months' salary, my butt. Imagine that Microsoft decided to purchase a very small peripheral manufacturer ... call 'em Modems-is-us. Fine. Now, all of a sudden, if you want to buy Win95, you gotta buy a modem from Modems-is-us. Then, after everyone has one, the standards start to change. Slowly at first, but before too long, only an M-I-U modem will do the latest compression thing; if M-I-U refuses to license its new (call it 4Q ;-) technology, presto, all of the other modem manufacturers are unemployed. That's called "tying", and it's been illegal as long as we've had antitrust laws. Surely, PAT, you aren't against antitrust laws generally ? Bill Levant [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, generally I *am* against the antitrust laws. I think we would all be much better off if we looked out for ourselves instead of asking the government to do it for us. And regards the oil trusts of the nineteenth century, perhaps you will consider me biased, but it seems to me we have many good and wonderful organizations, universities, churches and other things in this country today which were established -- and continue in operation even now a century later -- as a direct result of the largesse of John Rockefeller. Much of my childhood was spent in a community largely controlled by Standard Oil -- Whiting, Indiana. I saw time and again the generosity of the Whiting Refinery Corp- oration and the Rockefeller family. The residents of Whiting pay no municipal taxes, you know. The refinery pays it all. Every year at high school graduation time the superintendant of the refinery would come around and hand out five thousand dollars to the class valadictorian. My grandfather worked for Whiting Refinery for about forty years, and it was on account of his inquiry to someone on the Board of Directors there that I got employed at the University of Chicago while I was in high school, working in the UC telecom department. The fellow on the board at Refinery was also a trustee at UC. I seem to recall in dim memory a time when I was about eight years old and a neighbor's house burning down. The next morning a very prim lady with a briefcase showed up at the place where the (burned out) family was staying and introduced herself as 'in charge of the refinery welfare fund.' She gave them a check from the refinery for a thousand dollars and then reached in her briefcase a second time and said, "oh, Mr. Rockefeller (not the original John obviously, but one of his descendants at that time who operated the refinery) was quite disturbed to hear about this, and felt a personal responsibility to help you rebuild ..." and handed them a letter of credit drawn on his personal account for ten thousand dollars. That would have been in 1940-50's money. "Just give this to whomever you choose to make the repairs; Whiting State Bank will handle the payments." JDR endowed the University of Chicago, Riverside Church in New York City, a few other schools, and a museum or two. His gifts put any number of deserving high school students completely through college. He, along with Clifford Barnes endowed the Chicago Sunday Evening Club. What else do you think he should have done? No ... I see no problem with the oil trusts at all. And Gates gives lots of money to deserving institutions as well. He gave a million dollars last year to the Chicago Public Library to insure complete internet connectivity in all branches. And for those of you who came in late, he also gave me ten thousand dollars a couple years ago for the benefit of this Digest. The money was not to preach his gospel, nor was it intended as an inducement to shut my trap and keep it shut. There were no strings attached at all. I have no problems with his methodology at all in business matters. And God speed to anyone who wants to work on a new OS or other software to get away from using his. We will all benefit from the competition. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1998 13:17 EST From: Fred Farzanegan Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt In article , Telecom Digest Editor writes: Even being so off-topic, I feel compelled to respond to PAT's troll. > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser AOL and Compuserve are optional. Every (99%) PC you buy has MS Windows pre-installed on it. For most vendors, you don't get a choice not to have it installed, and are charged the same price. So, MS has a captive audience: it is not optional. > as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my > AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my > eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, > but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when > I am about to explore the web. I suspect other services may do the > same thing; ie. provide a browser as part of the software on line > made available in common to all their subscribers. Why doesn't > the 'justice' department go after those guys with the same zeal > and vigor they are using against Gates? Why not require them to You have dozens of ISP choices, some offering Brand I, others Brand J. As part of a value-added package, you can decide which ISP to choose from. You cannot do this with your PC. This is the difference. > doing nothing more than enhancing and encouraging the sale of > Windows 95 by including lots of neat software for free including > Internet Explorer. MS need not do anything to enhance sales of Win95. Every PC has it. > Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from > Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? Because the majority of the public cannot do this. MS has a captive audience and is _admittedly_ using its monopoly position in the OPERATING SYSTEM arena to take over the internet browser arena. > sitting side by side on the desktop and use them as I wish. That's impressive. Most users are not as knowledgable. They just want a PC that's like a toaster. Plug it in, and click a few colorful icons. That is the market being fought over. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? I fully expect that. That's only fair. People can then decide to get the 'free' one from MS or the free one from brand x. If Brand A's broswer is already on their PC, most users will just stick with it, as they don't have to go through the trouble of installing a new program. You already said the two programs are similar in function -- why would Joe User bother? > I think Netscape should wise up to the fact that there > are lots of places to get for free what *they* are trying to sell, > and that a lot of folks won't know the difference in browsers, so > they might as well take the one that is free. Well, we agree. When the free one is already on their PC, brand X doesn't have a chance -- especially when the entire OS is 'designed' around it. > re-think *their marketing strategy* and include lots of free > goodies as part of the package. What is to prevent Netscape, for > example, from devising a new operating system which is far superior > to Windows (and many believe *anything* is superior to Windows) I cannot believe you are serious throwing this out. If 'mighty' IBM and Apple can't compete, why do you think a one-product company can suddenly develop an OPERATING SYSTEM and ink distribution agreements with the PC vendors and software vendors. What makes you think that Brand A wouldn't give the OS away for free until Brand X buckles under? Your suggestion is ridiculous. However, I do believe that in the long run, OS's will not be as important as long as they can run a browser. An OS provides an interface between applications and system resources -- applications are the important part of the puzzle. Software vendors (and everyone) would love to be able to write application software that would run on any OS through standard interfaces. Just as telcos demand industry standards (TR303, TR08, etc.) the same thing will eventually happen for consumers so that their MAC, Unix, or PC, or XXX will be able to run the same application. The question on purchasing software will not be 'will it run on my OS?', but 'which is the better choice?' > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than Well, there is such thing as a level playing field. And industry standards, and uncompetitive practices. I agree though, that the marketplace will decide, but in the browser war, Brand A is trying to take away the choice for the consumer. Let's face it, until Brand X made this new softare there wasn't a market for it. Almost overnight the market changed from being PC-centric to being 'internet enabled'. Brand A has been playing catch-up and is trying to do anything to stop the competitors. Do some reading at the CNET site (listed later) and see some of the memos that the justice department obtained relating to why they felt compelled to step in. > adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some > cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and > forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus > arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the > unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) > at Bill Gates' head. > And when is the Professor going to quit the charade of impartiality > and disinterest, and resign as special master? If he were to resign > now, it would be to his credit, and that of his principal employer, > Harvard University. Or does he plan to just brazenly stick around, > getting a laugh out of the mock-proceedings as he has done up to this > point? Oddly enough, most informed users feel the same way. It would be darn hard to find someone completely impartial. Most of them haven't received grants from Brand A to 'pay their heating bill', but instead look at the market and agree that the Justice Department investigation is legitimate. For example, here is a quote from MS's attorney: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,18049,00.html He said that "removing the Internet Explorer retail product from the operating system would seriously degrade the operating system." If anyone believe that REMOVAL of a software application seriously degrades an OS ... > "From each according to his abilty; to each according to his need." > The new motto at the 'justice' department I guess. The solution is for MS's OS and software areas to be separate entities. Lucent is a good example of thriving, once the umbilical cord was cut. The editor has in the past tried to put down the breakup of the Bell monopoly, but the great majority of consumers have benefitted. Most of the readers of the Digest have benefitted. I expect we will see the same gains if other players are able to get into the software market. Regards, Frederick Farzanegan (not speaking for my employer, brand X or brand A) ------------------------------ From: Eric Florack Organization: FreeFIleFarm Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 19:11:29 -0500 Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Neither AOL or Compuserve force you to use ONLY their browsers. Nor do they force companies to use their browser exclusivly, under threat of losing the operating system. And both of these are the issue. Microsoft does both. They had nowhere near the scope of use Netscape did until such time as they started to employ these thugish tactics. Far be it from me to agree with much of anything the Clinton Justice Dept does, Pat, but I have to back someone when they are correct in their actions. And in this rare instance, Reno is right on the beam. ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:05:04 -0800 TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > As has been demonstrated in recent days, it is possible and quite > easy to install both browsers in your machine if you want, and to > remove either one you don't want. Is it? Look at First Aid 98. See anything on the outside of the box about IE? As it installs, a message appears: Installing Internet Explorer. Whoa! Wait a minute, I have Nav 3 (don't like Communicator) don't want IE. Stop, I tell it. "Are you sure you don't want to install IE?" it asks. "Yes". Finish installation. *Try* to start FA98. IT WON'T RUN WITHOUT IE! (mentioned in passing deep within the instuction booklet). There is no reason to require that a browser of any sort be ensconced on my hard drive in order to run an internal system monitor program. This is here simply to FORCE IE onto my machine. There is where Microsoft has crossed the line. Give IE away? I have no problem with that, AS A DISTINCT PROGRAM. When it gets "integrated" with unrelated programs is where Bill has moved from smart marketing to economic coercision, expecially with respect to Windows, which is the de facto standard. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? Fine. Do it. Just don't make the operation of OTHER programs contingent on it's presence. > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than > adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some > cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and > forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus > arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the > unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) > at Bill Gates' head. Pat, you grew up in Chicago. You know as well as I do that this is the way it's *always* done. You aren't naive enough to think that Bill doesn't have his own set of "fixers" working the Justice Department, Commerce, the White House and every member of Congress, do you? > And when is the Professor going to quit the charade of impartiality > and disinterest, and resign as special master? If he were to resign > now, it would be to his credit, and that of his principal employer, > Harvard University. Or does he plan to just brazenly stick around, > getting a laugh out of the mock-proceedings as he has done up to this > point? I don't particulary care *who* does it. I'm getting paid off by neither side, and I still think that Microsoft has crossed the line and deserves to have it's collective ass kicked. Bud Couch - ADC Kentrox |When correctly viewed, everything is lewd.| bud@kentrox.com (work) | -Tom Lehrer | budc@hevanet.com (just me) | ... - me | |insert legalistic bs disclaimer here | ------------------------------ From: Bob Lombard Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Organization: SPAWR Systems Center San Diego Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 21:53:49 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser > as part of your online experience with them. However, and this is *the* key point ... neither AOL nor Compuserve, nor Prodigy *REQUIRE* that I accept their software to as a condition of using a computer or operating system, and further, none of them even requires that I use their software to use their service. They mail out bazillions of floppies and CD's as a pure marketing move. get an account, toss their software, use netscape, ie, even telnet. > ... Why doesn't the 'justice' department go after those guys with > the same zeal and vigor they are using against Gates? Because its simply not a comparable situation. > Someone should make sure Netscape understands something: browsers > are a dime a dozen. They are all over the place, free for the down- > loading. Precisely. So How can Microsoft claim that IE "is an integral part of Windows" (One of their main arguements) if there are dozens of other browsers that do the same things ? > Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from > Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? I have both icons > sitting side by side on the desktop and use them as I wish. Both > browsers use some of the same software in common anyway, including > Real Player. Good for you. So do I. So do many *techies*. So what. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? I think Netscape should wise up to the fact that there > are lots of places to get for free what *they* are trying to sell, > and that a lot of folks won't know the difference in browsers, so > they might as well take the one that is free. Maybe they need to > re-think *their marketing strategy* and include lots of free > goodies as part of the package. The free stuff is marketing strategy. Give a lesser version free, sell the bells and whistles. All of the vendors do it. The issue is forcing a product with leverage not available to your competitor, then claiming its legit because "windows isn't windows' with out it. > What is to prevent Netscape, for example, from devising a new > operating system which is far superior to Windows (and many believe > *anything* is superior to Windows) and selling it, tossing in their > browser stuff as part of the deal? The incredibly large investment it would take? Restrictive licensing deals MS already has in place with PC manufacturers (Ie if you want to sell our Office products, one of our operating systems must be licensed for each PC you sell which automatically inflates the price of any competing operating system Did you ever see OS2 included for free on a PC. No, and it was because that manufacturer had to buy DOS/WIN anyway, so that's he sold.) > Do you suppose Gates would then go to court and try to get them to > stop doing it? In a heartbeat. > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers... Yes, exactly right. And that can't happen if the inclusion of IE is a requirement of licensing MS operating systems. > "From each according to his abilty; to each according to his need." > The new motto at the 'justice' department I guess. While I have great respect for this Digest and your efforts here, insulting the Justice Department because you don't agree with them is beneath you. Get some air, ok ? /r Bob [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Listen, with or without the Microsoft matter, the United States Department of Justice is *so corrupt* that I could start an entirely new Digest just dealing with the topic. One small example: which software company was it that specializes in software for attornies which found *hundreds of pirated copies* of its main product on computers at Justice? It proceeded to sue the government to force Justice to pay for all the copies it had illegally copied and it is still waiting to get paid. The name Westlaw rings a bell ... don't quote me on the name. Another small example: About three dozen members of a vicious street gang in Chicago were put on trial in federal court here, and were all found guilty and given long prison terms. Then, quite after the fact, comes word that one of the federal prosecutors had used perjured testimony obtained from an inmate at the Metropolitan Correctional Center *which he knew was false* and which was conjured up in an all-night booze, sex and drugs party at the federal building here with the inmate in particular as the star of the show. In addition, the prosecutor had smuggled some drugs into the prison as a favor to the inmate who wove the little story together. None of this of course was known to the court or the defense attornies prior to the trial, and as you might expect, the government was reversed on appeal in *every single conviction* in that case. In the well-publicized 'Operation Greylord' matter here in which about thirty of the judges in Cook County were sent to prison, the {Chicago Tribune}, while applauding the job done noted that Justice would do well to clean its own house sometime soon. Oh, there are some very rotten people in that agency, let me tell you. I do not need Gates as an example. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1998 21:59:07 -0000 From: David Wuertele Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than > adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some > cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and > forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus > arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the > unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) > at Bill Gates' head. You could look at this process as Netscape "going in a back room," crying to momma, but you could also look at it as a whole lot of pissed-off people using any weapon they can to protect their industry from a marketing machine so successful that technical superiority is actually a disadvantage. You quote Ayn Rand, but do you think one of Ayn Rand's heroes would have built Windows? What was that architect's name, Rourke? If he would build anything, it would be UNIX. And he would take a stick of dynamite to anything that MS built, damn the legality. UNIX is actually in great danger from MS. I am an engineer and I have seen the effect that Microsoft has on a mature industry, namely EDA tools. All the tools for designing chips were developed on UNIX, and engineers built an incredible infrastructure in UNIX to use these tools. The engineers have invested many many years of their carreers and lives to learn effective design on UNIX. So you would expect the EDA tool makers to want to continue developing on UNIX? Unfortunately, management doesn't understand UNIX, and they hold the purse strings. So when EDA toolmakers propose ditching UNIX in favor of NT, engineers cringe and managers drool. Engineers are apparently not good enough communicators to show their managers why such a move would actually cost more than keeping the UNIX option open. And now, there is very little development being done for UNIX. Microsoft has bullied a previously strong industry into fearing the demise of UNIX and the rise of NT as a standard. It's sad and frustrating, and I for one support any attempts to hinder the marketing machine's progress. David Wuertele [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My personal preference is for Unix; and I am going to see if I can put it, or something close to it like Linux on my laptop in a partioned area. I may not be successful; I won't know until I try. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eric Ewanco Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 14 Jan 1998 17:25:42 -0500 Organization: 3Com [this post represents strictly my own opinions] Telecom Digest Editor writes: > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser > as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my > AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my > eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, > but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when > I am about to explore the web. I suspect other services may do the > same thing; ie. provide a browser as part of the software on line > made available in common to all their subscribers. Why doesn't > the 'justice' department go after those guys with the same zeal > and vigor they are using against Gates? Because first of all, these companies are not monopolies. Second of all, what these companies provide is relevant to browsers: you have a choice of which online service to use, and, for your convenience, they include a free browser guaranteed to work well with their system. Most of all, no company is compelled against its will to supply these wares to their customers: anyone who bundles AOL or CompuServe does so because they have negotiated a deal with AOL or CompuServe and consent freely to what is being done. What stinks to high heaven about the Microsoft action is that they are compelling -- threatening even -- vendors to include MS software with all their PCs. They are using their virtual monopoly on operating system software to strong-arm vendors into biasing their systems against MS's competition. It would be as if AT&T resorted to extortion to compel the RBOCs to make AT&T the default long distance carrier for all new customers, prejudicing them against their competitors. > I see Gates doing nothing more than enhancing and encouraging the sale of > Windows 95 by including lots of neat software for free including Internet > Explorer. I don't see that, strictly speaking, as the issue. The issue is that vendors have no choice: they are obliged to include the IE software, even if they do not want to, and some vendors have been threatened by MS for not following their demands. MS issues an ultimatum: Include the software, or we cancel your license. > I have both icons sitting side by side on the desktop and use them > as I wish. Both browsers use some of the same software in common > anyway, including Real Player. But your average user is going to get his computer with IE installed, and he's going to be too lazy or uninformed to make an alternate browser choice. MS wins by default. That's their tactic: gain marketshare by leveraging their monopoly to ensure that the first browser every PC user sees is IE, and taking advantage of human laziness to deprive the competition of a market. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? Doesn't matter; that issue is irrelevant, because if that was the situation, it would be a lot different: then every competitor would be on a level playing field, and MS would not have a default victory on every system. > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than > adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some > cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and > forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus > arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the > unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) > at Bill Gates' head. How do you propose we let the marketplace "do its own thing" when MS compels all PC vendors to serve up IE on a silver platter preinstalled, regardless of whether the user has requested it? And do you not suppose that having done this, MS will claim a number of IE users equivalent to the number of Windows 95 systems shipped with IE installed, so they can promote IE as gaining market share and eclipsing Netscape, regardless of whether people actually use IE, care about IE, or even deinstall IE? If the DOJ lets this go on, the only thing that the market will do is MS's thing. Where do you want the market to go today? Where does MS want the market to go today? > And when is the Professor going to quit the charade of impartiality > and disinterest, and resign as special master? If he were to resign > now, it would be to his credit, and that of his principal employer, > Harvard University. Or does he plan to just brazenly stick around, > getting a laugh out of the mock-proceedings as he has done up to this > point? Whence this gratuitous swipe? If you have an objective and justified complaint to make about this man, present it. I will not be swayed by empty rhetoric. I am quite surprised, and not a little perplexed, at the fervor with which you make your contentions. Perhaps you might more clearly articulate the principles by which you make your argument: Exactly what common good or virtuous end is being compromised by the DoJ action? Do you see this as a matter of prejudice against laissez-faire economics? Do you affirm certain intrinsic virtues or benevolences of monopolies that are endangered here? I cannot help but suspect (please correct me if I have drawn the wrong inferences) that you are basing your conclusions by way of analogy with the negative effects of telecom deregulation (which you have expressed on several occasions). I would suggest that the metric by which we judge this action is the metric of what is most beneficial to the industry, in general, and to customers, in particular. My reply, to express it briefly, is that the actions of Microsoft are inimicable to innovation and threaten to stifle creativity, by rendering utterly barren and infertile the the competitive ground so necessary for innovation to grow and bear fruit. Call it the kudzu threat, I guess. I suppose your rejoinder might be to offer as a counterexample the bitter weeds of the telecom world, the toxic IXCs and seedy CLECS that have marred the telecom economy. If I may anticipate, such a line of reasoning may, arguably, not be apropos to what is in fact an entirely different industry and an entirely different question. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:15:44 -0800 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt The error in your logic, Pat, is that neither AOL or CompuServe developed the browser that ships with their product. AOL ships Microsoft Internet Explorer (a customized version), and CompuServe has shipped both browsers, depending on whether you're dealing with them directly or their Sprynet division. Usually, ISPs which ship Microsoft Internet Explorer are permitted by Microsoft to do so for free provided that they optimize their web page for MSIE and display a "This page best viewed with MSIE" banner. Those ISPs which use Netscape Navigator pay Netscape for each copy of Navigator used by one of their customers. The real problem with Microsoft giving away their product for free in order to put out competition is fundamental. I'm not sure why the Justice Department doesn't go after Microsoft for that, rather than the fact that they ship MSIE with Windows 95 OSR2. ------------------------------ From: rshockey@ix.netcom.com (Richard Shockey) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:33:16 GMT Organization: Netcom TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > So, they had Microsoft in court today, trying to get the judge -- > who seems more confused than ever as each day goes by -- to hold > Microsoft in contempt for the great job the company is doing in > supplying software to the masses. > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? AOL and Compuserve are not monopolies, Microsoft is and must be held to higher standards. The issue is not about the browser. The issue is whether Microsoft is "acting" like a monopoly by "bundling" the browser in the OS, thus requiring consumers to accept a product as a condition of sale of Windows in violation of the Sherman anti-trust act. The law and court decisions are quite clear here. You can be a monopoly by merit of your product and service, its just that you cannot act like one. Intel is a similar monopoly, however they take great pains NOT to act like one and have been cleared by the Justice department and the FTC several times. The precedent in this case that should be well known to readers of the Digest is the Carterphone decision which held that phone companies [the monopoly] cannot require consumers to purchase specific equipment or services [ phones ] on their network. The enforcement of Sherman here opened the market for 3rd parties to produce telephone equipment and services that enhanced competition and lowered costs for consumers. IBM was sued over this very issue, and though Justice ultimately dismissed the larger case, IBM unbundeled its pricing schemes for mainframes to conform, creating the "plug compatiable" markets and ultimately growing the market for IBM mainframes in general. It is still under consent decrees in many areas of its marketing. For an intelligent discussion of the theory of anti-trust as it applies to this case I would suggest a article in the latest issue of {The New Yorker} Jan 12, 1998 by John Cassidy > Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from > Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? Because capitalist markets do not always work as they should, which is why we have anti-trust laws, meat inspection,the SEC, FTC, FDA, EPA and FAA. Democratic Capitalism requires sensible regulation of markets to allow them to function efficiently. IMHO Justice is being quite conservative here in its demands. You can properly argue what is and what is not "sensible regulation" but regulation is essential. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? They could and probably should. This would probably pass muster under Sherman. Microsoft is being particularly stupid in its behavior in this case. Its just not very smart to poke a sharp stick in the eye of the Federal courts. They are getting really bad advice. > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than > adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some > cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and > forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus > arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the > unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) > at Bill Gates' head. Oh and Steve Balmer and his merry little band of cutthroats dont sit in back rooms and scheme on which markets they are going take over next?? I respectfully suggest that we let the Justice Department do its job. Contary to popular opinion, the goverment can, once and a while, act in the public interest. Richard Shockey 8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110 St. Louis, MO 63119 Voice 314.918.9020 FAX 314.918.9015 Internet rshockey@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ From: ljm3@lehigh.edu (Al McLennan) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 14 Jan 1998 09:25:55 -0500 PAT: I always enjoy and respect your commentary, but can't let this one go by without a rejoinder. First of all, the complaint is not that the browser is included for free, it is that Microsoft wants to require that the OEM include the browser as part of the package. This is possible only because of the non-competitive environment. With competition, Microsoft would be unable to dictate terms to its largest customers, but would instead adjust to their wishes. Microsoft actually has a very poor record for innovation. Such big killer apps as the spreadsheet, word processor, data base, GUI, HTML, browsers, were all invented elsewhere. One is hard put to think of a major innovation due to Microsoft. It is also the case that Microsoft's product is sometimes rather shoddy. One notorious example is the 640K memory limit, which could have been eliminated when the 80286 (or was it the 80386?) appeared, but stayed through MS-DOS and Windows until Windows95. Has everyone forgotten the days of the boot disk, needed for some large programs even though the machine had ample memory and a memory manager? Other OS's had 32 bit memory access years before Microsoft's. The other, superior, OS's lost out because of Microsoft's clout and anti-competitive practices. {The New York Times} had an article a few days ago on the user-unfriendly nature of the PC, which is unquestionably a barrier to a wider market. One must be somewhat a techie to deal with this forbidding product, and the OS is a big part of the problem. Windows95 is more stable than Windows 3.1, but less so than DOS and far more inscrutable. Every DOS and far more inscrutable. Every few months I must reinstall the OS to solve some mysterious problem, but re-installation of application programs is rarely necessary. The online help is frequently useless. This is not a satisfactory OS, and the prospect for improvement is not helped by the absence of competition. Al McLennan ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:42:22 GMT In article , ptownson@telecom-digest.org says... > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser > as part of your online experience with them. No, that's not the complaint. Since you're arguing against something that Microsoft isn't charged with, you can make a strong argument, but it's only knocking over a straw horse. Microsoft was accused of some pretty nasty stuff a few years ago, and then entered into some antitrust agreements. Without rehashing history, suffice to say that they promised to stop "tying" sales of Windows OS products to other products. With IE, they're requiring OEMs who sell PCs with Win95 licenses to *pre-install* IE as a condition of selling IE. This sounds *exactly* like "tying", except that MS simply defined IE as part of Windows, and therefore it's not "tying". They also said they could include a ham sandwich (their example) in Windows if they so desired, and it wouldn't be tying. The Justice Dept., who enforces antitrust, says that that isn't kosher. Licensing is a funny thing. As a non-lawyer, I'd assume that if I buy a license for software, I get the right to use it, and if I want to use *part* of a product, I may have to pay for the whole thing, but I can use whatever part I want. MS feels otherwise. They don't allow Win95 OEMs to install "part" of it. Either it all goes on the hard drive as shipped to the end user, or no deal. The OEM can't "uninstall" IE or simply leave it out, even if they pay the full price. MS calls this preserving the integrity of the OS. Others call it tying. It is unreasonable for a PC vendor to try to go to market without access to Win95; while some of us don't use it, the non-Windows market is tiny and users often include it anyway, just for those cases when no alternative is workable. Therefore MS has extreme market control. This is not the case with AOL or CIS -- you can sell a PC without either, use the Internet from a PC without either, etc. Neither has market control. Had MS merely given IE away for free, at the taker's or OEM's option, this probably wouldn't have occurred. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:15:27 CST From: "Christopher Wolf"@micro.ti.com (Christopher Wolf) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > So, they had Microsoft in court today, trying to get the judge -- > who seems more confused than ever as each day goes by -- to hold > Microsoft in contempt for the great job the company is doing in > supplying software to the masses. > When Ayn Rand commented on how often one might hear the phrase, 'From > each according to his ability and to each according to his need ...' I > thought she was exaggerating. This however certainly seems to be the > case in the Microsoft matter. Gates is doing a great job and operating > a very prosperous company? He is meeting the computational needs of > millions of Americans you say? Well then, let's fine him a million He's not, though. They may have had a joke at his expense in "Tomorrow Never Dies", but it's more true than joke. The software is bad. The software loses data (see the "big red X" fix for graphics). The software gets included for free or for very little extra with the OS. Why? So you'll use the free product instead of buying a competitor. But why should it? > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser > as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my > AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my > eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, Because they are in the same group as Netscape, not with Microsoft. They too will be out the door when the day of the fully integrated desktop comes. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone And do you think it will still be free when they force Netscape out of the market? When they're the only one left, will you be happy with your only choice? If they want to give it away free, fine, but allow others to enter the same niche. Don't give it away only because it has a competitor you wish to squash. > who asks? I think Netscape should wise up to the fact that there > are lots of places to get for free what *they* are trying to sell, > and that a lot of folks won't know the difference in browsers, so > they might as well take the one that is free. Maybe they need to > re-think *their marketing strategy* and include lots of free > goodies as part of the package. What is to prevent Netscape, for > example, from devising a new operating system which is far superior > to Windows (and many believe *anything* is superior to Windows) > and selling it, tossing in their browser stuff as part of the > deal? Do you suppose Gates would then go to court and try to get > them to stop doing it? The point is that Microsoft cannot include anything they want in the OS and say it must be there. What if they started including MS Office in the "OS" and started charging more. What if they started including Microsoft Money in the "OS". Well, they'd put Corel and Quicken out of business quickly, and then start charging for it. Yes, this is directly linked to the stupid consumer too lazy to look at other options and pay a few bucks, but instead take what they're given for free. But in the process, the non-stupid consumers also lose the ability to make choices as Microsoft shuts down the alternatives by giving away similar (less stable) products. There's no reason they have to include IE buried in the OS. They can set a series of hooks for linking into other browsers and editors, and it will work just as fine with IE, but be extensible to other interfaces. Well, considering your previous espousings on the Unabomber, I doubt you'll spend much time on this letter, but what the heck. -W [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regarding Ted K., have they finished searching his little hut yet, or are they still looking for more typewriters and bomb-making materials? I wonder if he will be allowed his constitutional right to represent himself (no matter how foolish that course of action may be) or if they will insist on keeping the government-paid attornies on the case to insure that the 'proper' things are said and done? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 07:25:29 -0400 From: bagdon@rust.net (Steve Bagdon) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > Someone should make sure Netscape understands something: browsers > are a dime a dozen. Browsers might be a dime a dozen to people like you and me, but to the 'average' computer purchaser they take what's on their computer when they buy it, and that's what they use. I don't have many answers, and I don't know all the questions, but I do know this -- after spending ten years supporting end-users (mainfraime, PC, Mac, etc) I've discovered that the 'average' person has the computer literacy of a lamp post. OK, so the world is filled with 25+ and younger people who are computer literate, have grown up with computers all their lives, and can make their own decisions. But the majority of computer buyers are people who have fallen for the hype that if they don't own a computer they are missing out on something in life. They go to CompUSA, they buy a computer with Win95 (and hence IE?), Microsoft Office and AOL, and they never figure out how to do anything but turn it on, click a few buttons, and complain when their tech support period has ended. I'm not picking sides, but I am also not over-estimating the intelligence of the 'average' computer buyer. They will use what's on their computer when they buy it, and that's about the limit of their computer experience. I'm not going to pick sides with the DOJ, but either unbundle IE from Win95 and make the buyer acquire it and install it on their own (so figure it won't get installed, or they'll have to pay the ten-year-old next door to do it), or else bundle a 'similar' version of IE and Netscape. Steve B. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Obviously you would agree then that because most people are computer illiterates, the court should punish Bill Gates. Am I right on that? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:56:37 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt In TELECOM Digest V18 #7, Pat wrote about Netscape: > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL IIRC Netscape designed the improved browser for AOL. In any case, AOL/Compuserve sell the web as a small part of their 'information services'. Their integrated user interface includes a web browser, and so do many 'packages' that ISPs sell when they hook you to the net, but the consumer is paying for internet access. To not provide a browser would be illogical. Microsoft is providing a popular operating system. It is the pre-installing of the optional web browser that is getting them in trouble. Users like me who have had problems with IE don't want it pre-installed on our machines, taking up space and affecting the operation of other programs. But under Microsoft's rules every new machine would be 'infected' by their browser. Supplying the browser on a separate CD would be appropriate. Making it a stand alone product instead of integrating it into the 'Internet' portion of the operating system would help. But the current requirement to have IE pre-installed by the manufacturer or lose Win95 is inappropriate. > "From each according to his abilty; to each according to his need." > The new motto at the 'justice' department I guess. "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. ... From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Luke 12:47-48 I'm not sure the Justice Department will like the source. James ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 06:08:39 -0600 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser > as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my > AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my > eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, > but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when The difference is that AOL and Compuserve don't have a monopoly on the operating system. They can't dictate to Packard Bell, Micron, Dell, etc. "You MUST put our service, and our service alone, on your machines, otherwise you can't use this operating system that 94% of your customer base demands installed". > As has been demonstrated in recent days, it is possible and quite > easy to install both browsers in your machine if you want, and to > remove either one you don't want. Except that IE4 is VERY ugly in its uninstall procedures. Try it some time, and if you're not completely hosed, call Microsoft and rejoice, for you are among the few. IE4 (and up) seem to be designed strictly from the "yeah, you can uninstall me, but god have mercy on your soul if you do" perspective. Also, many users, who are not "savvy" will not even realize that other browsers exist, and thus because Microsoft has taken unfair advantage of its monopoly position, those companies will never even see a CHANCE at revenue. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? That's fine. That's a very acceptable answer. As long as when it gets to the end user, it is NOT installed as a mandatory part of the OS load. Derek J. Balling | J: "You ARE Aware Elvis is dead, right?" dredd@megacity.org | K: "Elvis isn't dead, son he just went http://www.megacity.org/ | home!" - Men In Black [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would *never* run Uninstall with IE. Never ... there is a great risk of trouble as you point out. I would instead resort to manually removing it, by going into DOS and the proper directories, then one by one removing the files which were used just by IE, while leaving alone the files which although used by IE were common to other aspects of Windows 95. And I would be rather conservative at that, preferring to err in favor of leaving a file around that I was unsure of rather than removing it if I was not sure. I could live with a little unidentified/unused trash on the hard drive if I was not certain of its purpose. And obviously before I began any removal action, I would have a complete backup of the whole thing. But I really cannot see myself removing it; there are some things I've found that IE is better at while in other situations, Netscape is superior. By now as you might have guessed, I have gone through the telecom web pages with a fine tooth comb, looking at them both via IE and Netscape in great detail. I've made a few minor adjustments to improve the appearance of my web pages. I'm lucky to have both installed, as well as Lynx. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 03:16:39 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on personal computer operating system. You buy a new PC, it's gonna come with Windows 95 whether you want it or not, and the cost of that is included in the price. You have no choice. Including an internet browser with this, especially under the false guise of claiming it is a component of the operating system, will prevent competitors like Netscape from selling their system. IMHO, this is not in the best interests of the marketplace. I see nothing unreasonable with Microsoft being asked to sell its Internet browser as a separate product, rather than bundle it with its operating system. Years ago, IBM had a virtual monopoly in computers. Through government pressure (and fear of anti-trust action), IBM ceased "bundling" software and support with the hardware. This opened the opportunity for third party suppliers to supply hardware and software products. Not all products were successful, and it wasn't easy for the competitors. However, this did create competitive pressure for IBM to offer improved products sooner, which was good for the marketplace. And independent software houses developed many valuable systems and application products. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Microsoft vs. Netscape Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:16:37 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Babu Mengelepouti wrote: > I think trying to put your competition out of business by giving your > product away for free is antitrust. Do you really honestly believe that > once Netscape is out of business and Microsoft owns the market MSIE will > still be free?" You're assuming that Microsoft *intends* to put Netscape out of business. Microsoft's position seems to be that their giving IE away will drive the market for other Microsoft products using Web protocols -- not just on the Internet, but (perhaps more importantly) on corporate intranets as well. What I fear here is that, if Microsoft's detractors are successful in forcing them to remove IE from Windows (which goes beyond the present case), the precedent will be set to also force them to remove all sorts of other capabilities that are included with Windows that formerly were sold separately -- networking features, fax software, a backup program, a defragmenter, a disk error testing program, a file finder, and on and on. We could end up with a situation where OS makers can only sell bare-bones products, in order to "preserve" the market for add-ons, or -- perhaps even worse -- a situation where just one company is prevented from enhancing its product, which would remove a lot of incentive for other OS vendors like IBM to try to beat the basic Microsoft OS (since they could just throw in a bundle of goodies). ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Last Laugh! Using Sound Files With Windows Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:40:00 EST Purely for entertainment, I've been experimenting with the use of various .wav files to open and close not only Windows 95, but also various programs therein. I picked up an interesting CD-ROM the other day of sound effects for this purpose, and these include segments ranging from just one or two seconds in length to much longer (thirty to forty second) items. You can install this in a directory which Windows will look for and you can either have them play once or repeat as desired. You can add various affects like reverberation and echoes. If you wish, add your own .wav files of speech or singing or whatever. Some of the items I tested were: For opening Windows 95, a crazy witch who cackles insanely and shouts 'come on in!' When a browser closes, a nice lady with a very British accent who questions me, 'Going so soon?' I have a clock synch program which goes to tick.usno.navy.mil 37 and I stuck a sound effect in there when it returns with the correct time to set my system clock the same lady mentioned above says, 'at the signal tone, the time will be ...' and the crazy witch cackles about it. When a file cannot located by Windows or some other error condition occurs, a man's voice angrily says 'not so fast! NOT SO FAST!' When Windows is closing, a man's voice says, "Don't be gone long dear, I'll miss you until you get back." Other .wav files included with it are: bird calls, animal noises, an approaching train with a whistle blowing, a storm with thunder and rain, an audience in a theatre applauding noisily and the same audience laughing very hysterically. I suppose you could send this latter one over the wire to someone else's Real Player for a joke. Also, a 35 second very grandiose one stanza version of 'America the Beautiful' sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir; a file of about the same length of the opening passage of 'Toccata and Fugue in D Minor' of J.S. Bach, and a couple others. Oh, and I got my very first obscene 'Net Meeting' call the other night. Does *anyone* use 'Net Meeting' for anything but hot chat type calls? I had logged in, I guess it was to ils3.microsoft.com and was just looking at the directory of users when I got a signal that a call was coming in. I accepted the call; the little side- window opened, and a man's -- ummm -- 'thing' was on display. And in the written chat box next to it he had typed, 'are you m or f? how old? how do you like what you see?' I should have reported him to the management ... and ... had I been thinking quickly I would have played back one of the sound effects to him; probably the one of the audience laughing hysterically or perhaps the one of the crazy witch cackling before disconnecting him. Bye for now! PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #9 *****************************