Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA19858; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:13:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:13:23 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801190513.AAA19858@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #13 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Jan 98 00:13:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 13 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Michael P. Deignan) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Jason Lindquist) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Daniel Seyb) Re: (Alleged) Microsoft Witchhunt (Bill Levant) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (J.F. Mezei) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Jeff Colbert) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Robert Wiegand) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (pastark@cloud9.net) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (David Wuertele) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Jeremy Parsons) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Steve Hayes) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Tim Gorman) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Adam Atkinson) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Gail M. Hall) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (mord@rum.org) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (rtcy@bigfoot.com) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Anthony Argyriou) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Barry Adair) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (J.D. Baldwin) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kh6hz@anomaly.ideamation.com.NO-SPAM (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 17:47:57 -0500 Organization: The Ace Tomato Company In article , Steve Bagdon wrote: > 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. Years ago, Norton had a dos shell called "NDOS". Using the logic behind the DOJ action, Microsoft should have been forced to unbundle COMMAND.COM from their operating system, so users could be free to install NDOS.COM or COMMAND.COM, whichever they purchased separately. MD (microsoft butt-boy) ------------------------------ From: linky@see.figure1.net (Jason Lindquist) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 23:31:41 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign An infinite number of monkeys masquerading as David Wuertele wrote: > [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] Many people have installed Linux, and other free UNIXes on laptops. You might find this URL a good starting point for Linux: Jason Lindquist <*> "Holograms don't lie, Danny boy..." linky@see.figure1.net -- Michael Garibaldi, January 2762 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:34:27 -0500 From: Daniel Seyb Reply-To: danseyb@snip.net Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt A couple months ago there was a thread complaining about 'sleazy' pay phone operators. Someone pointed out that the customers were not the people using the phones, but the people who owned the bus stations, airports, malls and the like. There was a great cry that "something MUST be done" and then the thread faded away. Now we have a very similar thread, only for some reason TELECOM Digest is on the other side of the argument. There may be a few people out there who went out, bought Windows 95, and installed it, but 90% (probably more like 99.99%) bought a machine that already had Windows 95 installed. Microsoft's customers are not the people using the computers. Microsoft's customers are companies like Dell and Gateway and CompUSA. If it is immoral to make people walk across the street to save ten cents on a phone call, how much worse is it to make them spend hundreds of dollars on "free" software? ------------------------------ From: Bill Levant Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:14:27 EST Subject: Re: (Alleged) Microsoft witchhunt Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) PAT said : > ...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. > ... > What else do you think he should have done? Not to be an ingrate, but you should call it what it is ... bribery, pure and simple. If you make ungodly amounts of money, and spend some here and there for "good" causes, the usual rules don't apply to you? Baloney. Besides, who says that a Rockefeller (or a Gates, for that matter) has *my* best interests at heart? Admittedly, it's all very nice that Rockefeller spent all that money in and around Chicago (as did Andrew Carnegie on libraries across Pennsylvania), but at what cost? Monopolies cause artificially high prices, so it's only fair that Rockefeller spent some of his bucks money on the po' folks; if he hadn't run one of the most blatantly anticompetitive business organizations in American history, then the po' folks mightn't have been so poor. Be not fooled ... the ends DO NOT justify the means. Fred Goldstein's post hit it right on the head. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the concept of antitrust law generally, several years ago, Microsoft >specifically< agreed to abide by certain provisions of those laws. It's a basic principle of law (yes, I'm a lawyer) that you can't bellyache about the terms of a consent decree (non-technically, a settlement agreement) after you sign it. If Microsoft didn't like the antitrust laws, or the terms of the deal offered, they shouldn't have settled the case. No one forced them to do so, but they did; now they've been caught cheating, and badmouthing the cops doesn't change anything. Bill Levant ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:32:31 -0500 Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Any company who is aware that they are in danger of being anti-trusted would thread very lightly to avoid attracting attention of the feds. Microsoft, instead of downplaying its near monopoly, is flaunting it and trying to extend its monopoly beyond the operating system. WAY BEYOND. It is that arrogance which is making authorities very curious about MS. Just how far do you allow Microsoft to go before you wake up and have to force it to dismantle itself ? Bill Gates is making no excuses about its plans to control the world. Its intentions are good: by controlling the world, they can move it forwards faster. (No need to wait for committees to set standards etc). By controlling many areas of life from microwave ovens to computers to television distribution, Bill Gates will be able to integrate everything into "information appliances". (And your toaster won't operate unless IE is installed in it :-) I think that IE is just a small issue. The bigger issue is: just how far can you allow MS to go, and once you do force MS to disband, just what will the computer industry look like. Perhaps the governments have decided what the long term direction will be and are using IE to start to set a direction. MS has proven that it has no intention to self control its monopoly. So who will? ------------------------------ From: AntiSpam.Jeff.Colbert@mci.com (Jeff Colbert) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Organization: Aqua Knights of Atlantis Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:36:50 GMT James Bellaire wrote: > 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. Just a minor point ... IE is the browser in AOL, but it is IE 3 not 4 with a desktop ... etc. If I remember correctly, Microsoft purchased Mosaic, which was languishing in Netscape's shadow. They slapped their name on it and sent it out. Since then they have been improving and adding on to it. I believe that the founders of Netscape were involved in the initial design of Mosiac before before leaving the National Center for Supercomputing at Champaign-Urbana to start Netscape. Jeff ------------------------------ From: Robert Wiegand Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 98 22:47:05 GMT Organization: Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group Eric Ewanco writes: > 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. Actually, I believe it's worse then that. My undrstanding is that Microsoft not only required computer vendors to include IE but they also required them to NOT install Netscape. Bob Wiegand | Remove the "$" from my e-mail address before replying. "Bill, I don't do Windows" - Ray Bradbury to Bill Gates ------------------------------ From: pastark@cloud9.net Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 16 Jan 1998 04:46:02 GMT Organization: Cloud 9 Internet, White Plains, NY, USA TELECOM Digest Editor said: > 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. To paraphrase a famous quote - "Bill Gates ain't no Rockefeller." Look at some of the other current philanthropists. Ted Turner gave how much to the UN -- was it a billion bucks?? George Soros has donated tremendous amounts to all sorts of causes. So Bill Gates is an order of magnitude richer, and what has he done for charity lately? December 13, 1976 (or perhaps 1975 - don't remember any more), Bill Gates wrote a letter to the editor of the {Wall Street Journal}. It was in response to a fairly mild comment about Microsoft that had been earlier made by Manzi of Lotus. I would suggest that you make an effort to get and read it, because it shows the true nature of the man. It is a vicious personal attack on Manzi, totally out of proportion to Manzi's comments, which were in no way personal, but merely stated that, as a huge monopoly, Microsoft should be held to a higher standard of conduct than the ordinary corporation. Gates ended with something to the effect that "while they talk, we innovate." That's ridiculous -- name one Microsoft product which is truly original. Basic? Existed before Gates wrote his Altair code. MS-DOS? Microsoft bought that from another company. Excel? Visicalc and 123 were much earlier. Windows? Xerox and Apple were there first. Access? Lots of other DB programs existed before. Internet Explorer? Mosaic and Netscape were there first. Go ahead -- try to find something they did first. The closest might be Visual Basic, but even in that case there was at least one outfit that had some addon functions for Quick Basic that did a lot of the functions first. The truth is that Microsoft has a tremendous marketing savvy. They can recognize other companies' products that would make a hit, write a knock-off copy (if they can't buy the company), and then market the hell out of it. The result is that they pounce onto a market, and by sheer marketing muscle, product tie-ins (and huge amounts of cash) drive the previous companies out of it. Look how neatly they killed off DrDOS just by bundling DOS 7 with Windows 95. By bundling network software with Windows, they are killing off Novell. By bundling in disk compression, they got rid of Stac. By copying the look-and-feel of the Mac, they are killing Apple. People used to joke about the "domino theory" of communism. What is different about Microsoft's approach to software domination? Most software companies have come to realize that once you hook a customer onto a product, you can then nickel-and-dime him to death by selling him upgrades. Only Microsoft is rich enough at this point to hook the customer by giving him a free product like Internet Explorer. I think people would be a lot less likely to pounce on Microsoft if they were to promise that IE will forever be free. But we all know that that will not be -- once people get hooked on it, and once the competition is gone, IE will suddenly become yet another cash cow for Microsoft. Before WIndows 95, at least DOS came with a programming language - GWBasic. At the very least, that meant that a sufficiently astute user could write his own programs to do things. But note that WIndows 95 no longer comes with Basic. That means that today's user is totally dependent on purchasing additional software to do anything with the machine at all. You MUST buy more software to use the computer. And Microsoft's aim is to dominate that application market. That is not a healthy state of events. Take another example: Suppose that one oil company - say Mobil - were to become so dominant that it drove all other oil companies out of business. Once that was done, suppose it modified the gasoline so that a certain engine modification were absolutely necessary to allow an engine to use it -- and only Mobil made the modification kit. The fact that every car manufacturer would now have to purchase that mod kit from Mobil, and every car owner would have to buy all his gas from Mobil, would be a national disaster. The government would be forced to step in to prevent Mobil from taking advantage of the situation. Well, the current dominance of Windows is also a potential disaster, for it is no different. Every business needs a computer; regardless of who you buy a computer from, you must get certain modifications to it to get it to run Windows, you must buy Windows to get it to run, and in some application areas, you almost cannot get software from anyone else besides Microsoft. If computers were merely a luxury, that sort of situation could be tolerated. But they are not a luxury any more -- they are a necessity. As such, a monopoly cannot be tolerated any more than a monopoly in transportation, or communications, or food, or medical care, any other necessity. If Microsoft were a "beneficent monopoly" which was content to make a "reasonable" profit, then perhaps an exception could be made. But Microsoft is in no way beneficent - they are a cut-throat company which does not hesitate to kill off competition in attempts to maximize its own profit. Total dominance - or even 80 or 90% dominance - by such a company of any market - especially of a market for a necessity - is a menace. Pete ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt From: David Wuertele Date: 15 Jan 1998 14:48:02 -0800 TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > And Gates gives lots of money to deserving institutions as well. > 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. Heh. I'm sure you don't now. > 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. Too bad this isn't true. Working on a new OS (or old OS, for that matter) in no way provides competition with MS. If you want to compete with MS, you must use marketing, the law, and every sneaky trick you can slip by the law in order to create the *perception* of "benefit." If you want all to "benefit," you will find a way to expose and halt MS's manipulation of the market, so that the market will be free again to choose. David Wuertele ------------------------------ From: Jeremy.Parsons@iname.com (Jeremy Parsons) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:53:08 GMT blw1540@aol.com (BLW1540) wrote in : > In article , Telecom Digest Editor > writes: >> 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. > What was it, Pat? Was this a Microsoft press release? Are you > worried about the value of your Microsoft stock? > The simple fact is that applications, of which IE is one, are NOT part > of an operating system any more than are word processing programs and > spreadsheets, essential as either may be to someone's actual use of a > computer. I don't especially mean to be an apologist for Microsoft, but I think there's a real case that a browser is exactly the sort of thing you put in a modern operating system. After all, without one, you don't have an Intranet solution, and that's the current sharp edge of competition. As far as I can see, it only becomes anti-competitive if the intention is specifically to knock out the competition unfairly. Given Microsoft's supremacy in operating systems, I think that if they ever charge for the browser (which would indicate that it wasn't really part of the o/s after all), or hike the price of the operating system unreasonably (which is the commercial equivalent), that would be very suggestive. If you compare this situation to Microsoft's strategy with DOS to Windows, there is only really one difference - timescale. Way back when there were a number of viable competitors in DOS family PC operating systems, extensions and GUIs. By the time you reach Windows 95 that door is firmly shut - which took several years. With Internet Explorer the whole process is happening in a period of months. Curiously, with 20/20 hindsight I think that over-commitment to the standards process is what has stopped Netscape from leveraging its early dominance. It needed to keep itself, and the market with it, far enough ahead of Microsoft that the latter would have been forced to build open interfaces into the operating system. As it is, Microsoft put its formidable resources into overtaking Netscape in key areas, and has then been able to exploit the fact that DOS/Windows isn't subject to standardisation. I think of (and admire!) Microsoft as the 'odd-shaped cog' company. They have recognised the power of being different, while trying hard to force everyone else to be standard ... Jeremy Parsons ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:37:47 -0500 From: Steve Hayes Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Recently, we've all had a chance to have a good moan about Microsoft. Personally, I can think of plenty of things to moan about too: the bloatware, the bugs, the incomplete documentation. Some of Microsoft's business ethics and practices are pretty dubious too. However, most of the moaning seems to be from the viewpoint of frustrated programmers complaining about how impossible it is to compete with Microsoft. As a sometime programmer but mainly a user of computer systems , my viewpoint is a bit different. The harsh fact is as follows: Suppose that it costs one million dollars to write (or buy in) some utility. If Microsoft is expecting to ship 10 million copies of some software, they can buy 10 such utilities, mark them up 100% and stick them on the CDROM for a price increase of $2 per copy. As a user, I might only want one of the 10 utilities, but to go out and buy it elsewhere is bound to cost me $20 or more plus my time to investigate and purchase. It'll cost that much for another manufacturer to duplicate, package and distribute the program, let alone recoup the million dollars from a much smaller number of buyers. Even in the shareware channel, there are per registration costs and lots of people who won't register. This is a fundamental fact of the software market, as unavoidable as the sun setting at night. If it wasn't Microsoft in that position, someone else would be and they might be even more rapacious. At least Microsoft does seem to have some sort of vision for the computer industry beyond mere short term profits. As a user, I'm also glad to know that everyone who has installed Windows is going to have access to a standard set of utilities. They might not be "best of breed" but they will work, so I can send them files or programs or give them instructions over the phone to carry out some task at hand. The Internet browser is just a particularly visible utility. Before we attack ordinary computer users for technical illiteracy, we should remember that most people use computers because they have to in order to do their jobs. They don't want to learn lots of technical details or evaluate various bits of software (any more than they want to check the tariffs of a dozen phone companies before they make a call -- to get a telecom related bit in). They just want to turn the damn thing on and get on with what they have to do. If they can buy a single CDROM from Microsoft or whoever, insert it, click INSTALL and have a working system set up for them, they'll be happy. If only Microsoft would ditch the animated paperclips and work on the bugs, I'm sure most of us would be happy to sup with them. And yes, the Mac was closer to the ideal. If only Apple hadn't been so greedy ... Steve Hayes South Wales, UK ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Tim Gorman Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:55:00 -0600 An operating system today typically has an integrated user interface. What is integrated is determined by the designer of the user interface, not by government lawyers. Lotus SmartSuite provides integrated Web access to all kinds of things such as dictionaries, news headlines, and weather. Why shouldn't the user interface provided with Windows do the same thing? Saying that it shouldn't simply because Microsoft is a monopoly is not sufficient. That isn't a reason, it is an excuse. As usual, what it appears is really happening is that the government is expanding its sphere of influence. This time they are trying to become de facto experts at user interface design. I think they have adequately shown their inability to even understand the simplest software design issues. I certainly wouldn't want them designing any user interface I am going to use. Why can't Microsoft include anything they want in the operating system? As long as they don't prevent optional programs from being used, they have not limited any customers choice in any way. Customers being stupid or unable to make choices is NOT a reason for the government to become the product designers for Microsoft products. That, in itself, limits the choices available for knowledgeable customers. Since when was the Constitution amended to provide the government the power to design software products? Where were they given the power to define MY choices? > 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. This is going to sound nasty and I mean it to. It amazes me to see such a knowledgeable group of people unable to even fully define the issue here. This is NOT just a question of bundling a stand-alone product into an operating system. IE is being integrated into Windows to ENHANCE the capabilities of Windows by providing seamless access to Web resources. This isn't a battle of standalone products. The mere fact that it is being framed that way stands as evidence to the ability of Netscape and DOJ lawyers to spin the issue into a narrowly defined sphere. I mentioned Lotus Smartsuite above. It is a prime example of the concept being developed by Microsoft. Smartsuite's integrated, synergistic access to word processor, spreadsheet, graphics, time mgmt tools, and web resources is the reason I purchased it and use it every day. THAT is where I want my operating system to go as well. I want it to be an integrated, synergistic tool for my use, not just a grouping of standalone products being run by a piece of software interfacing a hard disk. If that was all I wanted I would have stayed with DOS and Lotus 123. Netscape is being left behind in the advancement of software usability. It developed a good product and made a lot of money off of it. Rather than continue to develop their vision, however, they focused on making a fancier and fancier standalone product (kind of like American auto manufacturers in the 70's). What you are seeing now is a last gasp effort to keep its standalone product viable in the face of advancing user interface/cyberspace resource paradigms by playing on the dreams of government bureaucrats looking for a high profile issue on which to build careers. The resemblance this whole situation has to Chrysler/GM/Ford versus Toyota more than two decades ago is hilarious. Chrysler/GM/Ford didn't really make any headway against Toyota until they finally revamped their vision and their product paradigm, regardless of the penalties they convinced the government to apply against the imports of Toyota. The same thing is going to apply to Netscape. Tim Gorman SWBT ( I speak only for myself) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:43:19 +0000 From: Adam Atkinson Reply-To: etlaman@etlxdmx.ericsson.se Organization: Ericsson Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt I don't see the problem with the bundling myself. After all, with Windows you get Write (free crap word processor) and Paint (free crap paint package). What I do object to, though, is e.g. telling ISPs they can distribute IE to users free as long as they promise not to admit any other browser even exists. Plus e.g. PCs coming with Windows whether you like it or not. Adam Atkinson (etlaman@etlxdmx.ericsson.se) Man is a giddy thing, and this is my conclusion ------------------------------ From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 03:08:33 GMT Organization: APK Net, Ltd. On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 06:08:39 -0600, Derek Balling posted to comp.dcom.telecom about "Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt": > 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". I have no problem with Microsoft shipping applications such as a browser with Windows. I think, though, that installing Microsoft products should not mess with my use of other software that I want on my system whether I install those MS products before or after I install products from other companies. >> 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. But if you install one after the other, the last one will try to associate itself as THE browser. Only later will you be asked, "Hey, which one do you want?" Windows should allow us to associate more than one software with extensions. Because of Microsoft's refusal to realize that more than one application can do things, we have to figure workarounds or buy yet more software to get around the Microsoft trickery. > 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. This is what the judge should be looking at, not whether it shows up on your Desktop! You should be able to uninstall any Microsoft product without hurting your other applications. > 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. Personally, I didn't like Hyperterminal, so I went and got another comm program. If the product is really good, then we will be happy to use what comes with the system. If not, we go buy one that works better for us. >> 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. _And_ that it will not interfere with other software that we want to use! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would *never* run Uninstall with > IE. Never ... there is a great risk of trouble as you point out. That is exactly why the judge needs to look into this issue. If Windows comes with an uninstaller, then the uninstaller should not do harm to my system if I choose to uninstall any application, especially from a competing company! > 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] This is what a good uninstaller should do. The "average" PC user does not generally have the knowledge and time to be this careful. Windows supposedly comes with an uninstaller. It is fraud to the consumer if that doesn't work properly and leave the machine in good working order when the uninstall is done. Maybe someone should put Microsoft in court for defrauding the consumers by saying they have an uninstaller when it doesn't do what they promised. Their uninstaller might be looked on by a clever lawyer as a Trojan horse. ;-) Gail M. Hall gmhall@apk.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:30:51 -0500 From: Mord Organization: Rum Consortium Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > 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?" It's not a "free" product now. The use of said product requires you to have already purchased (well ignoring the piracy issue) a MafiaSoft product. I think calling IE free muddies the issue greatly. If there was versions available for as much of a variety of OS's as netscape currently supports all freely downloadable, then I would say yes its free. But as it stands now it's either Mafiasoft OS, MacOS, or Solaris (not a very good implementation either.) I did notice that Microsoft released NetShow for quite a few different OS's however this product is hobbled on platforms other than the "selected" platforms by missing codecs. The strange thing about the whole DOJ deal is all the DOJ is asking is for them to unbundle the browser from the OS (on new installs done by companies, not consumers.) I think it's important to remember here that the DOJ isn't asking M$ to quit giving it away, merely to unbundle it. And yes this could give rise to companies building bundles out of m$ and other products as a single entity, and I'm not sure legally how that would work if m$ is not allowed to do something that other companies are allowed to do (but I'm not a lawyer thankfully.) Anyway just a few thoughts ... ------------------------------ From: rtcy@bigfoot.com Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 05:31:57 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:30:00 EST, Telecom Digest Editor wrote: [lots of ASS kissing snipped from the brown nose of PAT] What a blow hard you are PAT, IE NEVER has been or will be part of the OS and to download a 20 MEG demo from EUDORA only to find that 2/3's of the file is IE$(this is not a typo MS paid them $)ie4 something I have three dozen copies of in my cd's that come in evry month and then to see EVERY piece of software out there CRAM this stuff down my throat angers me to no END. GOD kill MS into bankruptcy please! I never have or ever will use ie4! NETSCAPE FOR EVER! AMEN. ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 06:04:47 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:56:37 -0500, James Bellaire wrote: > IIRC Netscape designed the improved browser for AOL. James remembers incorrectly. The browser which comes with AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 is MSIE 3, partially crippled. In particular, the mail and news are not available, and the controls on the top of the browser window are the same as the old AOL browser. Netscape offers an AOL version of its browser, since an AOL connection is a regular internet connection. When I got it (about ten months ago) it did not come with the page-editing that 3.01 Gold offered, and it came with a special set of bookmarks. A list of browsers used by AOL in its various incarnations can be found at: http://webmaster.info.aol.com/BrowTablePrint.html Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ From: Barry Adair Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 10:54:50 -0600 Pat, I have been reading about the Microsoft IE4 and Windows 95, I really don't think Win95 is what they are complaining about. Windows 95 the browser can be changed fairly easy, but in Win98 it is a part of the OS, but it has not been released yet so if Netscape and Janet Reno have it, it is stolen and they cannot say that, so they are complaining about 95. I was running IE4 and Netscape both, but after the silly, court thing started, I deleted Netscape, and it will never be on my computer again, I have always been told if you want to sell your product, DO NOT put the other product down, but to sell the good points on yours. This to me looks as if Netscape can not make a product as good so they want the other to be down on there level. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How do you know Justice does not have a pirated copy of '98? Hey, they have pirated copies of lots of software at Justice. They tend to buy one copy then mass-produce it in-house for every attorney in the place. They've been sued for it, and the one company finally had to go out of business when Justice refused to pay them for the several hundred copies the department ripped off of the product the company was making. PAT] ------------------------------ From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Organization: Revealed on a need-to-know basis. Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 17:55:14 GMT In article , Eric Ewanco wrote: >> 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. My Microsoft-hating credentials are in pretty good order, but it's worth noting that if even a tenth of what's been alleged (and not denied, I note) about the professor's strongly and repeatedly expressed anti-Microsoft sentiments, as well as his direct personal and professional ties to Microsoft's major (only?) competitor in the field under review, then justice demands that he step aside, and immediately. Even Ted Bundy deserved a fair trial, and Microsoft has legitimate cause for complaint if this guy is allowed to go forward. From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _,_ Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to _|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The latest word on this from late last week is that not only has he refused to step aside, the court has told Microsoft to shut up and deal with Lessig running the show. In fact, the court told Microsoft that if they dared to complain about Lessig at all they would be severely punished for doing so. Isn't that marvelous? Apparently there is not going to be even a pretense of a fair trial. You'd have thought between the Justice lawyers and the court they would have taken Lessig aside and told him to cool it just a little; to not allow his hatred and bias toward Microsoft to be quite so apparent, lest Microsoft get them reversed on an appeal. But no, Lessig will be allowed to let it all spill out; to froth at the mouth to his heart's content and the court has warned Microsoft to not speak up about it. My advice to Microsoft at this point in time -- not that they asked me anything -- that ten thousand did not purchase legal advice or consulting services -- would be to bail out as soon as they can. Find the cheapest way out and run for their corporate lives. There isn't going to be a fair, unbiased proceeding. Decisions have already been reached and the current mockery is just to make it all 'look right' and make the government look good in the eyes of consumers. But you want to know the truth? The consumers be damned! At this point it is just a question of whether they hold a gun to Gates' head and pick a few million dollars out of his pocket or if they follow him to the bank and clean him out completely. Police always tell folks to never argue with someone who is pointing a gun at you in a holdup; just give them what they asked for and hope they remain somewhat rational. I have to suggest the same course of action to Microsoft at this point. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #13 *****************************