Free to develop on Linux? Um yeah. No matter how many companies you broke MS in to, none of them would develop desktop apps on Linux. Microsoft has shown willingness to develop on *viable* competing platforms already -- in fact, they're the largest software developer for the Mac, a little recognized fact. (Anyone see Office 2001 Mac? Very slick.) There's a reason Corel is trying to sell its Linux business...because it's a boondoggle and a distraction. See also 'Linux Games Not Selling' which appeared on/. on August 13.
Thanks for the response. I'm trying to understand your argument, not pick a fight, so calm down.
OK, a couple more questions: Do you believe the inclusion of the Windows Explorer (the file system browsing tool) in Windows 95 was unlawful? Note that a number of third parties were selling similar tools previously.
Also, with regard to your car analogy, is it unlawful for a car dealer to force you to buy tires with the car even though they're not integrated products by your reasoning?
Finally, would you consider your heart (the muscle) to be integrated with your circulatory system, considering that it can be swapped out for a similar component supplied by a third party?
Thanks for the note. I can understand your frustration/disgust that the Internet integration in Windows was part of some transparent attempt to destroy Netscape. I can assure you that it was not. The original idea to integrate the html viewer (then nameless) with the Windows Explorer was documented in an email from MS developer Ben Slivka on August 22, 1994 at 5:10 PM. Netscape was founded later that year. If you think about it in context, it's actually a very obvious thing to do, especially when one of your main competitors, IBM, is crowing about Warp's integrated web browsing: "We've bundled all the pieces together in a full suite", said IBM VP of communications John Patrick to Talila Baron of Communications Week. "there's automatic connection, so getting hooked in appears seamless to the user."
Netscape destroyed itself (this is another issue, but allow me the digression). As Cameron Myhrvold put it, "Netscape continued to change its corporate direction every six months, to the extent that nobody was quite sure what kind of company it was. Initially, Netscape was a Web browsing software company; then it was a Web server software company; then it was an intranet company; then it was an extranet company, then it was an enterprise messaging company; then it was an electronic commerce company; then it was a portal Web site company." Netscape lacked focus and by the time IE 4.0 came out, their product simply wasn't as good relative to the competition as it had been circa 1995.
With regard to your Word integration example, I believe that if Microsoft were to combine Word & Windows into an "interpenetrating design" (Judge Williams, Court of Appeals) a la Windows 95 and IE 4, then it would be lawful. If Office was simply included in the Windows box and you were charged the combined price of Windows & Office, then that would be an illegal tie.
Also, the fact that your employer forces you to use a particular system makes no comment on the inherent legality of that system ("My employer doesn't supply quality hard hats, therefore I blame the manufacturer of the inferior hard hats"...No, you blame your employer). If you're that upset about Windows, then you're free to complain to your employer; if they share your feelings, they're free to switch. MacOS is very slick and has quite a few applications (including MS Office).
Just to make sure I understand your argument: Do you believe that Windows 95 was lawful with regard to its combination of a GUI and DOS? Also what were the chief benefits of Windows 95 and were they 'tautological' under Hollaar's analysis?
That's not my point at all (obviously). You could apply your argument to any feature of any product that takes up HD space. The point is that's how they designed the operating system, the browser is integrated and that's that.
Take your argument and apply it to the GUI in Windows 95. You could say "Damn it, the GUI in Windows 95 takes up too much hard disk space, I just wanted DOS. Let me uninstall the GUI Microsoft!" Well you could say that; and if you were really upset you could go buy an old DOS somewhere. But that's no basis for a legal argument. The GUI is part of the product that you bought. If you are upset with the size of the product you're using, you're free to use another one.
A "few bytes change to activate it" means the error was disabled in the shipping version. This whole issue was "pulp fiction" generated by the Caldera spin machine. The real explanation (quoting Urowsky):
Microsoft considered having Windows test for the presence of MS-DOS, because Windows 3.1 had only been tested with MS-DOS. The notion was that Microsoft could warn consumers that they were using an untested configuration and that Microsoft could not guarantee the proper functioning of their machine. To preserve the option of including such a message in the final product, Microsoft included in the third beta release of Windows 3.1 certain code that looked for MS-DOS. If MS-DOS was not found, that code displayed a benign message asking beta users to call Microsoft support personnel. The goal of the message to beta testers was to determine whether the code that tested for the presence of MS-DOS was working properly. Importantly, Caldera fails to mention that the message to beta testers did not mention DR DOS or DRI by name or suggest that the reason why the message was being displayed had anything to do with the beta tester's operating system. In fact, the message provided beta testers with no indication of what was causing the message to appear. Caldera also fails to mention that no such message was ever displayed in any commercial release of Windows.
Not so fast.:-) The conclusion that integrating the browser into the OS forecloses on the market has been debunked. It's easy to forget that IE 1.0 was included with Windows 95 and had an icon on the desktop and that year Netscape's web browsing revenues *increased*. It wasn't until IE was better than Netscape that its market share began eroding. Most of IE's market share is based on its use in AOL's client; AOL has stated its intention to switch to Netscape, so we may see a reversal of fortunes in the new year.
Wow, talk about black and white. It's hard to see through all your rhetoric, but I think your main point is this: Regulation will not slow down product improvements because they're already slow now. That's simply not logical. If you think they're slow now, then regulation will make them *slower* and it will also force companies to make trade-offs to benefit competitors not consumers. And who would be on this "committee" you speak of? Microsoft competitors? Or bureaucrats?
Note also that your statement "when a certian share of the market is had, then some sort of regulation should kick in" would force regulation upon Intuit, AOL, Palm, and, ironically enough, Netscape circa 1995. So under your system, if Microsoft's superior product hadn't killed Netscape your burdensome regulation would have. Super.
Because consumers are what matter here. Not competitors. And playing nice isn't what capitalism is about -- it's about improving your products and then marketing + distributing those improvements broadly, often to the detriment of your competitors.
Hurting a competitor through "market power" is often indistinguishable from improving your product and then marketing and distributing those improvements broadly, which is encouraged (Areeda, Antitrust Law). To quote Urowsky:
The term "anticompetitive" has a "special meaning: it refers not to actions that merely injure individual competitors, but rather to actions that harm the competitive process, a process that aims to bring consumers the benefits of lower prices, better products, and more efficient production methods." Interface Group, Inc. v. Mass. Port Auth. (1st Cir. 1987) (Breyer, J.)
Imagine you and I are in business together -- let's call it MikeraSoft. We've built a successful GUI OS but now everyone's talking about this internet thing. Some school out west even built a free web browser and it's on fire. We decide that we want users to be able to navigate the Internet as if it were just part of the file system so we're going to integrate web browsing with our file browser (we decide this months before Netscape even exists and can prove it).
Six months into development, I come into your office. "Bad news, Mikera, the government is forcing us to allow OEMs to hide web browsing functionality from end-users."
"What? Why?" you say, shocked.
"Well, I guess they're worried that we'll put that company across the street out of business."
"What? Their business is servers not clients. They've said so repeatedly. And HTML/HTTP is part of our platform -- lots of companies are relying on it. Our help system relies on it. Our update system relies on it. How can we hide something just from end-users?"
"I don't know, but we have to. And we have to give OEMs a discount based on the ratio of bytes in the browsing functionality to the bytes in the OS, whatever that means." (True fact! Section 3.g of Jackson's decree!)
"Are you kidding? I guess this means that instead of doing all those accessibility improvements that the Guild for the Blind asked for, we'll have to do this. I thought antitrust laws were supposed to benefit consumers, not competitors."
"The government thinks that more choice will benefit consumers," I say.
"But consumers can still choose! They can install a different browser just like they could before -- we even made it easy for third parties to take over the HTML extension and user our dialer APIs. And if users don't have a browser, they can use our browser to go and download a different one!"
"I don't know Mikera. That's the government for ya."
That's not correct. All of the following OEMs preinstalled Navigator: Gateway 2000, IBM, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Sony, Packard Bell/NEC, Acer and Hewlett Packard.
To quote Urowsky: Documents prepared by AOL's investment bankers summarizing its due diligence investigation of Netscape reported that Navigator was present on "22% of OEM shipments with minimal promotion" and that Netscape paid "[n]o compensation to OEMs for distribution." Confronted with those documents, plaintiffs' economist, Fisher, acknowledged that Barksdale's earlier testimony that Netscape was "basically out" of the OEM channel had been an "exaggeration," 6/3/99 am.
You're free to, and so are OEMs. As I mentioned many OEMs took advantage of their right to preinstall additional browsing software on their computers -- in fact, Sony preinstalled *four* different browsers. And those weren't "my criteria", they were quotes from journalists charged with identifying the best product. Also, the fact that you were able to install a new browser highlights the absurdity of the govt.'s argument that MS somehow foreclosed on Netscape's distribution by including browser functionality -- IE actually improves their distribution because every Windows user can open up IE and download a new browser.
Thanks for the great ideas, Commissar Larry. Explain to me again how crippling regulation benefits *consumers*? Obviously it benefits AOL, Oracle, Sun and the rest of the Silicon 7 that lobbied for this sham case, but what about your grandma? She wanted Windows improved *yesterday*, not after the next committee meeting.
What if I'm installing IE in Korea on a 14.4 connection? Also, companies are under no obligation to help their competitors. Like if you and I were in business together, let's call it RichmanSoft, and we were building a browser, our goal might be something like "let's give consumers a great browsing experience" not "let's architect this so it's as convenient as possible for our competitors."
Just to amend my previous response, OEMs *were* able to preinstall Netscapae Navigator on their machines, and lots did including Gateway 2000, IBM, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Sony, Packard Bell/NEC, Acer and Hewlett Packard. Each preinstalled Netscape's web browsing software on certain of their machines and include an icon for that software on the Windows desktop.
Again, this is irrelevant since the appeals court unanimously overturned Judge Jackson's ruling. Oh, and Netscape "innovated circles around" Microsoft? Let me tell you what the press thought (summarized by Brad Chase):
PC Magazine awarded Internet Explorer 4.0 its Editor's Choice award, stating that "Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 surpasses Netscape Communicator in functionality and ease of use." In January 1998, PC Magazine followed up this review by stating: "The browser that provides the best Web experience today and promises the best for tomorrow is Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0."
PC Computing gave Internet Explorer its highest rating of five stars: "What we found was a browser that's easily a cut above the competition." The review continued: "IE4 is filled with usability improvements that make it far and away the most accessible and productive browser we've ever used." And it concluded: "All in all, IE 4 is a compelling upgrade to Windows 95 and NT 4.0."
PC Computing also recently awarded Internet Explorer 4.0 its 1998 MVP award in the Web browsing category, calling it the "best browser you can't buy" and noting that it is "also our usability champion, making fast, easy work of Web navigation."
Awarding Internet Explorer 4.0 its award for overall Software Product of the Year for the period May 1997 through April of 1998, Windows Magazine stated: "Of the thousands of software products introduced, upgraded or enhanced in the past year, none stands out as profoundly as Microsoft's Internet Explorer 4.0." The review also noted:
Despite the swirl of controversy, Internet Explorer 4.0 also represents a successful integration of the Windows Desktop with local networks and the Web. Should you choose to use the new "Active Desktop," the common interface has the familiar accoutrements of a browser with an enhanced taskbar that makes navigation easier than ever, and offers the convenience of opening a Web page directly on the Desktop.
PC World recommended Internet Explorer 4.0, stating that "[i]t's the better suite for two reasons: Its True Web Integration gives the Windows 95 desktop a welcome face-lift, and its Outlook Express e-mail program is far superior to Communicator's Messenger."
Mobile Computing & Communications added to the praise: "Still, when faced with a choice between IE 4 and Communicator, we must admit that we didn't have to think for very long: Communicator just doesn't have the polish, the ease of use nor the flexibility of Microsoft's Web suite."
InfoWorld commented: "[W]hen it comes to speed, ease of use, and downright fun, Explorer takes top honors." The review also noted: "Say what they will about Microsoft's marketing, but even the Justice Department can't alter the fact that the company's Internet Explorer 4.01 is the smoothest Web cruiser available now."
TechWeb added: "Although these are both great products that easily surpass their ancestors, Internet Explorer does nearly everything at least a little bit better."
HomePC gave its Editors' Choice award to Internet Explorer 4.0: "Sorry, Netscape. The latest version of Microsoft's Browser boasts some spiffy enhancements -- such as the Search Bar and Outlook Express e-mail program--that make the Web friendlier than ever."
ZDNet also chose Internet Explorer 4.0 as the clear winner over Netscape Navigator: "If you're a Windows user, you can't beat IE 4.0's HTML-based integration with the Windows desktop. It has a welcome variety of install options, a versatile email client, CDF push technology, strong Dynamic HTML support and a clear migration path that supports open standards."
The Wall Street Journal's Walt Mossberg stated: "Microsoft's new Internet Explorer browser and its companion Outlook Express mail package are decisively superior to the latest version of Netscape's Navigator browser and Messenger e-mail software." He summed up his extremely favorable review with the following comment: "I heartily recommend Internet Explorer 4.0 and Outlook Express. They are among the best programs Microsoft has ever published."
The Houston Chronicle declared Internet Explorer the clear winner: "Simply put, Microsoft has kicked Netscape's butt. Internet Explorer 4.0 is a better browser than Navigator. On top of that, it's free."
The Boston Globe joined in the plaudits: "[I]f you're addicted to the best of the best, clear some space on your hard drive and load up IE4. For now, it's untouchable." The review continued: "Netscape still has a strong business in Internet server software. But with the release of IE4, Netscape's position in the browser wars resembles the Confederate army after Gettysburg. From here on, it's just a matter of time."
Kim Komando of The Los Angeles Times concluded: "I know I'm going to get flamed by e-mails and accused of working for Microsoft when I say this, but I do like Internet Explorer better."
And Fortune magazine stated: "The browser is fast, efficient, and so chock full of improvements that it beats Navigator hands down."
This is irrelevant since Judge Jackson's preliminary injunction was unanimously overturned by the appeals court. You have yet to explain the consumer benefit of removing web browsing functionality from Windows.
Trying to hurt your competitors is not illegal; it's capitalism:
"[A]ggressive pricing, higher output, improved product quality, energetic market penetration, successful research and development, cost-reducing innovations, and the like are welcomed by the Sherman Act. They are therefore not to be considered 'exclusionary' for 2 purposes even though they tend to exclude rivals and may even create a monopoly." -- Phillip E. Areeda et al., Antitrust Law
"Even an act of pure malice by one business competitor against another does not state a claim under the federal antitrust laws." -- Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan
"Product superiority and the ensuing market position, flowing from a company's research, talents, commercial efforts, and financial commitments, do not convert the successful enterprise into an illegal monopolist under the Sherman Act." Intergraph vs. Intel
And with regard to the examples you cite, the file format for Word at least has stayed the same since Word 97, when it switched to HTML (the next version of Office will use the same format). And the DR-DOS "error message" to which you refer was in a beta version of the software and was later removed.
From Microsoft's response to motions for leave to participate as Amici Curiae:
Mr. Hollaar--who has made something of a career of testifying against Microsoft--claims to have "unique insight" (Hollaar Mot. at 2) into the design of Microsoft's operating systems by virtue of having examined their source code. First, the record is not open to supplementation with Mr. Hollaar's personal views about the design of Windows 95 and Windows 98. Second, Mr. Hollaar's claimed insight is not unique because Edward Felten, one of appellees' three technical experts, studied the source code for Windows 98 and testified at trial based on the results of that study. One of Microsoft's witnesses, Dr. James Allchin, also testified about Windows 95 and 98 based on his knowledge of their source code. Third, Mr. Hollaar has apparently forgotten that he became acquainted with the source code of Microsoft's operating systems in the Caldera and Bristol cases pursuant to protective orders that strictly prohibit him from using that knowledge for any purpose other than preparing his testimony in those cases. The source code for Microsoft's operating systems is extremely valuable intellectual property, and Mr. Hollaar's willingness to breach obligations imposed on him by other federal courts to preserve its confidentiality should not be countenanced.
The integration of web browsing functionality with Windows Explorer actually began before the Netscape corporation existed. Check out 'How the Web Was Won' for a very interesting insider's account.
Explain to the me the *consumer* benefit of hiding the IE "frontend". Clearly, it would have benefitted Netscape Inc. but how would your grandma have benefitted?
You said the 2.4 kernel can't be vapor since you've been running on it for thirty days. Well, the same could be said for almost any product on that list: OSX, Itanium, etc. (and I'm sure the games on the list have been played internally for months). If you're going to nod your head when others shout "Vaporware!" then you should be prepared to accept criticism when the products near to your heart slip as well i.e. those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
This is absolute nonsense. In the past fiscal year, Microsoft's attrition rate was 9.6 percent of its work force, while the industry average was 18.1 percent.
I have worked at Microsoft and it is an amazing place to be. Brilliant and passionate people, laid back environment (spontaneous watergun fights would occasionally break out in the middle of the work day), and very competitive compensation -- exactly the opposite of what/. dittoheads purport it to be.
Shame on you for your ill-informed rumor-mongering.
Slashdot Mirror
Free to develop on Linux? Um yeah. No matter how many companies you broke MS in to, none of them would develop desktop apps on Linux. Microsoft has shown willingness to develop on *viable* competing platforms already -- in fact, they're the largest software developer for the Mac, a little recognized fact. (Anyone see Office 2001 Mac? Very slick.) There's a reason Corel is trying to sell its Linux business...because it's a boondoggle and a distraction. See also 'Linux Games Not Selling' which appeared on /. on August 13.
OK, a couple more questions: Do you believe the inclusion of the Windows Explorer (the file system browsing tool) in Windows 95 was unlawful? Note that a number of third parties were selling similar tools previously.
Also, with regard to your car analogy, is it unlawful for a car dealer to force you to buy tires with the car even though they're not integrated products by your reasoning?
Finally, would you consider your heart (the muscle) to be integrated with your circulatory system, considering that it can be swapped out for a similar component supplied by a third party?
Netscape destroyed itself (this is another issue, but allow me the digression). As Cameron Myhrvold put it, "Netscape continued to change its corporate direction every six months, to the extent that nobody was quite sure what kind of company it was. Initially, Netscape was a Web browsing software company; then it was a Web server software company; then it was an intranet company; then it was an extranet company, then it was an enterprise messaging company; then it was an electronic commerce company; then it was a portal Web site company." Netscape lacked focus and by the time IE 4.0 came out, their product simply wasn't as good relative to the competition as it had been circa 1995.
With regard to your Word integration example, I believe that if Microsoft were to combine Word & Windows into an "interpenetrating design" (Judge Williams, Court of Appeals) a la Windows 95 and IE 4, then it would be lawful. If Office was simply included in the Windows box and you were charged the combined price of Windows & Office, then that would be an illegal tie.
Also, the fact that your employer forces you to use a particular system makes no comment on the inherent legality of that system ("My employer doesn't supply quality hard hats, therefore I blame the manufacturer of the inferior hard hats"...No, you blame your employer). If you're that upset about Windows, then you're free to complain to your employer; if they share your feelings, they're free to switch. MacOS is very slick and has quite a few applications (including MS Office).
Such is capitalism.
Just to make sure I understand your argument: Do you believe that Windows 95 was lawful with regard to its combination of a GUI and DOS? Also what were the chief benefits of Windows 95 and were they 'tautological' under Hollaar's analysis?
Take your argument and apply it to the GUI in Windows 95. You could say "Damn it, the GUI in Windows 95 takes up too much hard disk space, I just wanted DOS. Let me uninstall the GUI Microsoft!" Well you could say that; and if you were really upset you could go buy an old DOS somewhere. But that's no basis for a legal argument. The GUI is part of the product that you bought. If you are upset with the size of the product you're using, you're free to use another one.
I'm sorry, that's simply not the case. Check out Brad Chase's direct testimony, specifically paragraph 136. OSR2 contained IE 2.0.
Microsoft considered having Windows test for the presence of MS-DOS, because Windows 3.1 had only been tested with MS-DOS. The notion was that Microsoft could warn consumers that they were using an untested configuration and that Microsoft could not guarantee the proper functioning of their machine. To preserve the option of including such a message in the final product, Microsoft included in the third beta release of Windows 3.1 certain code that looked for MS-DOS. If MS-DOS was not found, that code displayed a benign message asking beta users to call Microsoft support personnel. The goal of the message to beta testers was to determine whether the code that tested for the presence of MS-DOS was working properly. Importantly, Caldera fails to mention that the message to beta testers did not mention DR DOS or DRI by name or suggest that the reason why the message was being displayed had anything to do with the beta tester's operating system. In fact, the message provided beta testers with no indication of what was causing the message to appear. Caldera also fails to mention that no such message was ever displayed in any commercial release of Windows.
Not so fast. :-) The conclusion that integrating the browser into the OS forecloses on the market has been debunked. It's easy to forget that IE 1.0 was included with Windows 95 and had an icon on the desktop and that year Netscape's web browsing revenues *increased*. It wasn't until IE was better than Netscape that its market share began eroding. Most of IE's market share is based on its use in AOL's client; AOL has stated its intention to switch to Netscape, so we may see a reversal of fortunes in the new year.
Note also that your statement "when a certian share of the market is had, then some sort of regulation should kick in" would force regulation upon Intuit, AOL, Palm, and, ironically enough, Netscape circa 1995. So under your system, if Microsoft's superior product hadn't killed Netscape your burdensome regulation would have. Super.
Because consumers are what matter here. Not competitors. And playing nice isn't what capitalism is about -- it's about improving your products and then marketing + distributing those improvements broadly, often to the detriment of your competitors.
The term "anticompetitive" has a "special meaning: it refers not to actions that merely injure individual competitors, but rather to actions that harm the competitive process, a process that aims to bring consumers the benefits of lower prices, better products, and more efficient production methods." Interface Group, Inc. v. Mass. Port Auth. (1st Cir. 1987) (Breyer, J.)
Imagine you and I are in business together -- let's call it MikeraSoft. We've built a successful GUI OS but now everyone's talking about this internet thing. Some school out west even built a free web browser and it's on fire. We decide that we want users to be able to navigate the Internet as if it were just part of the file system so we're going to integrate web browsing with our file browser (we decide this months before Netscape even exists and can prove it).
Six months into development, I come into your office. "Bad news, Mikera, the government is forcing us to allow OEMs to hide web browsing functionality from end-users."
"What? Why?" you say, shocked.
"Well, I guess they're worried that we'll put that company across the street out of business."
"What? Their business is servers not clients. They've said so repeatedly. And HTML/HTTP is part of our platform -- lots of companies are relying on it. Our help system relies on it. Our update system relies on it. How can we hide something just from end-users?"
"I don't know, but we have to. And we have to give OEMs a discount based on the ratio of bytes in the browsing functionality to the bytes in the OS, whatever that means." (True fact! Section 3.g of Jackson's decree!)
"Are you kidding? I guess this means that instead of doing all those accessibility improvements that the Guild for the Blind asked for, we'll have to do this. I thought antitrust laws were supposed to benefit consumers, not competitors."
"The government thinks that more choice will benefit consumers," I say.
"But consumers can still choose! They can install a different browser just like they could before -- we even made it easy for third parties to take over the HTML extension and user our dialer APIs. And if users don't have a browser, they can use our browser to go and download a different one!"
"I don't know Mikera. That's the government for ya."
To quote Urowsky: Documents prepared by AOL's investment bankers summarizing its due diligence investigation of Netscape reported that Navigator was present on "22% of OEM shipments with minimal promotion" and that Netscape paid "[n]o compensation to OEMs for distribution." Confronted with those documents, plaintiffs' economist, Fisher, acknowledged that Barksdale's earlier testimony that Netscape was "basically out" of the OEM channel had been an "exaggeration," 6/3/99 am.
You're free to, and so are OEMs. As I mentioned many OEMs took advantage of their right to preinstall additional browsing software on their computers -- in fact, Sony preinstalled *four* different browsers. And those weren't "my criteria", they were quotes from journalists charged with identifying the best product. Also, the fact that you were able to install a new browser highlights the absurdity of the govt.'s argument that MS somehow foreclosed on Netscape's distribution by including browser functionality -- IE actually improves their distribution because every Windows user can open up IE and download a new browser.
These objections were written before he filed his brief. They were based on Mr. Hollaar's request to file a brief.
Thanks for the great ideas, Commissar Larry. Explain to me again how crippling regulation benefits *consumers*? Obviously it benefits AOL, Oracle, Sun and the rest of the Silicon 7 that lobbied for this sham case, but what about your grandma? She wanted Windows improved *yesterday*, not after the next committee meeting.
What if I'm installing IE in Korea on a 14.4 connection? Also, companies are under no obligation to help their competitors. Like if you and I were in business together, let's call it RichmanSoft, and we were building a browser, our goal might be something like "let's give consumers a great browsing experience" not "let's architect this so it's as convenient as possible for our competitors."
Just to amend my previous response, OEMs *were* able to preinstall Netscapae Navigator on their machines, and lots did including Gateway 2000, IBM, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Sony, Packard Bell/NEC, Acer and Hewlett Packard. Each preinstalled Netscape's web browsing software on certain of their machines and include an icon for that software on the Windows desktop.
PC Magazine awarded Internet Explorer 4.0 its Editor's Choice award, stating that "Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 surpasses Netscape Communicator in functionality and ease of use." In January 1998, PC Magazine followed up this review by stating: "The browser that provides the best Web experience today and promises the best for tomorrow is Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0."
PC Computing gave Internet Explorer its highest rating of five stars: "What we found was a browser that's easily a cut above the competition." The review continued: "IE4 is filled with usability improvements that make it far and away the most accessible and productive browser we've ever used." And it concluded: "All in all, IE 4 is a compelling upgrade to Windows 95 and NT 4.0."
PC Computing also recently awarded Internet Explorer 4.0 its 1998 MVP award in the Web browsing category, calling it the "best browser you can't buy" and noting that it is "also our usability champion, making fast, easy work of Web navigation." Awarding Internet Explorer 4.0 its award for overall Software Product of the Year for the period May 1997 through April of 1998, Windows Magazine stated: "Of the thousands of software products introduced, upgraded or enhanced in the past year, none stands out as profoundly as Microsoft's Internet Explorer 4.0." The review also noted: Despite the swirl of controversy, Internet Explorer 4.0 also represents a successful integration of the Windows Desktop with local networks and the Web. Should you choose to use the new "Active Desktop," the common interface has the familiar accoutrements of a browser with an enhanced taskbar that makes navigation easier than ever, and offers the convenience of opening a Web page directly on the Desktop.
PC World recommended Internet Explorer 4.0, stating that "[i]t's the better suite for two reasons: Its True Web Integration gives the Windows 95 desktop a welcome face-lift, and its Outlook Express e-mail program is far superior to Communicator's Messenger."
Mobile Computing & Communications added to the praise: "Still, when faced with a choice between IE 4 and Communicator, we must admit that we didn't have to think for very long: Communicator just doesn't have the polish, the ease of use nor the flexibility of Microsoft's Web suite."
InfoWorld commented: "[W]hen it comes to speed, ease of use, and downright fun, Explorer takes top honors." The review also noted: "Say what they will about Microsoft's marketing, but even the Justice Department can't alter the fact that the company's Internet Explorer 4.01 is the smoothest Web cruiser available now."
TechWeb added: "Although these are both great products that easily surpass their ancestors, Internet Explorer does nearly everything at least a little bit better."
HomePC gave its Editors' Choice award to Internet Explorer 4.0: "Sorry, Netscape. The latest version of Microsoft's Browser boasts some spiffy enhancements -- such as the Search Bar and Outlook Express e-mail program--that make the Web friendlier than ever."
ZDNet also chose Internet Explorer 4.0 as the clear winner over Netscape Navigator: "If you're a Windows user, you can't beat IE 4.0's HTML-based integration with the Windows desktop. It has a welcome variety of install options, a versatile email client, CDF push technology, strong Dynamic HTML support and a clear migration path that supports open standards."
The Wall Street Journal's Walt Mossberg stated: "Microsoft's new Internet Explorer browser and its companion Outlook Express mail package are decisively superior to the latest version of Netscape's Navigator browser and Messenger e-mail software." He summed up his extremely favorable review with the following comment: "I heartily recommend Internet Explorer 4.0 and Outlook Express. They are among the best programs Microsoft has ever published."
The Houston Chronicle declared Internet Explorer the clear winner: "Simply put, Microsoft has kicked Netscape's butt. Internet Explorer 4.0 is a better browser than Navigator. On top of that, it's free."
The Boston Globe joined in the plaudits: "[I]f you're addicted to the best of the best, clear some space on your hard drive and load up IE4. For now, it's untouchable." The review continued: "Netscape still has a strong business in Internet server software. But with the release of IE4, Netscape's position in the browser wars resembles the Confederate army after Gettysburg. From here on, it's just a matter of time."
Kim Komando of The Los Angeles Times concluded: "I know I'm going to get flamed by e-mails and accused of working for Microsoft when I say this, but I do like Internet Explorer better."
And Fortune magazine stated: "The browser is fast, efficient, and so chock full of improvements that it beats Navigator hands down."
This is irrelevant since Judge Jackson's preliminary injunction was unanimously overturned by the appeals court. You have yet to explain the consumer benefit of removing web browsing functionality from Windows.
"[A]ggressive pricing, higher output, improved product quality, energetic market penetration, successful research and development, cost-reducing innovations, and the like are welcomed by the Sherman Act. They are therefore not to be considered 'exclusionary' for 2 purposes even though they tend to exclude rivals and may even create a monopoly." -- Phillip E. Areeda et al., Antitrust Law
"Even an act of pure malice by one business competitor against another does not state a claim under the federal antitrust laws." -- Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan
"Product superiority and the ensuing market position, flowing from a company's research, talents, commercial efforts, and financial commitments, do not convert the successful enterprise into an illegal monopolist under the Sherman Act." Intergraph vs. Intel
And with regard to the examples you cite, the file format for Word at least has stayed the same since Word 97, when it switched to HTML (the next version of Office will use the same format). And the DR-DOS "error message" to which you refer was in a beta version of the software and was later removed.
Mr. Hollaar--who has made something of a career of testifying against Microsoft--claims to have "unique insight" (Hollaar Mot. at 2) into the design of Microsoft's operating systems by virtue of having examined their source code. First, the record is not open to supplementation with Mr. Hollaar's personal views about the design of Windows 95 and Windows 98. Second, Mr. Hollaar's claimed insight is not unique because Edward Felten, one of appellees' three technical experts, studied the source code for Windows 98 and testified at trial based on the results of that study. One of Microsoft's witnesses, Dr. James Allchin, also testified about Windows 95 and 98 based on his knowledge of their source code. Third, Mr. Hollaar has apparently forgotten that he became acquainted with the source code of Microsoft's operating systems in the Caldera and Bristol cases pursuant to protective orders that strictly prohibit him from using that knowledge for any purpose other than preparing his testimony in those cases. The source code for Microsoft's operating systems is extremely valuable intellectual property, and Mr. Hollaar's willingness to breach obligations imposed on him by other federal courts to preserve its confidentiality should not be countenanced.
The integration of web browsing functionality with Windows Explorer actually began before the Netscape corporation existed. Check out 'How the Web Was Won' for a very interesting insider's account.
Explain to the me the *consumer* benefit of hiding the IE "frontend". Clearly, it would have benefitted Netscape Inc. but how would your grandma have benefitted?
You said the 2.4 kernel can't be vapor since you've been running on it for thirty days. Well, the same could be said for almost any product on that list: OSX, Itanium, etc. (and I'm sure the games on the list have been played internally for months). If you're going to nod your head when others shout "Vaporware!" then you should be prepared to accept criticism when the products near to your heart slip as well i.e. those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
I have worked at Microsoft and it is an amazing place to be. Brilliant and passionate people, laid back environment (spontaneous watergun fights would occasionally break out in the middle of the work day), and very competitive compensation -- exactly the opposite of what /. dittoheads purport it to be.
Shame on you for your ill-informed rumor-mongering.