Your complaint has some validity to it but isn't really that insightful for a bunch of reasons.
People who do as many OS installs as a typical/.er are a small minority of PC users.
False positives in the Activation process are small percentage of even these users.
Your simplistic reasoning (as to why removing activation will be beneficial to MS) does not hold water -- it's no substitute for real data, and you have none.
You threatening to use Linux is a senseless threat - you should use whatever tool meets your needs. If that's Linux, so be it. If that's Windows, so be it. In addition to your core requirements, factor in price and activation into that decision, sure. But threatening to rip the CSR a new one doesn't make your point valid, and doesn't make you a bigger person or anything like that.
And lastly - poeple still use windows because it works - period. I say this as an Ubuntu 8.10 and Vista user and Win7 dogfooder. Let me be clear about it -- from a quality perspective, Windows is light-years ahead of Linux. Open source development (orgs/projects) need to focus hard on the quality/testing aspect of software development before they are on a level playing field with apps from proprietary vendors (in general). There are numerous exceptions on both sides -- but that's precisely why you need to map out your core requirements first deciding on an OS.
Do you really think that all those unsold XP CDs just vanished into thin air
So MS should hand them out for free? The cost of an OS is related to the cost of printing a CD?
It makes absolutely no sense to me that people should be charged EXTRA to use something that to many people and organizations is still considered a valued piece of software.
Again, if it is considered a valued piece of software why would you expect it to be given away for free?
Then again, this is Microsoft we're talking about. It's not supposed to make any sense. Carry on.
Have you factored in the cost of maintenance for the OS such as releasing QFEs, security updates, maintaining KB articles, etc. etc.? While there is an entire team working on Windows 7, there will be another parallel organization within MS that continues to work on sustained engineering for Vista, and yet another that works on sustained engineering for XP. Do you think MS should continue to fund those teams without expecting to get any revenue for the product they support?
MS is going to install "Monetization opportunities for OEMs" on our computers? That isn't even FUD - that's mindless garbage.
We should tag these dumb FUD attempts from kdawson with the tag "kdawsonisaretard" or something like that. He's abusing his position as an editor to further his agenda, and he's seriously damaging the credibility of this site in the process. If this article isn't proof enough of that, look at these other recent fud-attempts of his:
Draconian DRM Revealed In Windows 7 The Broken Design of Microsoft's "Fix it" Tool
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How can we get rid of kdawson?
I'm not sure what to make of it, but my first reaction is that this article is FUD.
Have they not even explored the possibility that this DLL was failing an Authenticode signature check? Or are they actually saying that Application Signing is the same as DRM? If they are, then the state of FUD on slashdot (and from kdawson in particular) is fairly sinister.
Btw -- signing does not mean that no change can be made -- it merely means that if you change the dll, the new dll also needs to be signed into some root that is trusted. You yourself could potentially write the new DLL, sign it yourself (for a nominal fee -- from a provider other than MS -- they are not in the code signing business), and then replace the old DLL with your new one. The purpose behind this: a virus trying to alter your DLL will not succeed (in getting the DLL to load). A virus trying to alter your DLL with a signed version of the DLL is traceable to the owner of the signature. A malicious provider who tried to tamper with the DLL (insert trojan or something like that) before providing the software to you is also traceable to the signature they used.
Bottom line -- code signing is an important security mechanism. I couldn't get to TFA (because kdawson in his infinite wisdom did not link to it) and the site referenced was down. But if I was able to read the damn thing, I'm almost certain I'd find that it's just bitching about security mechanisms, deliberately re-interpreting them as draconian DRM (without offering so much as an explanation as to what MS would gain by controlling these DLLs and folders thusly), and probably uses the most alarmist language possible while doing so.
If MS sells XP and Vista currently, then it has to support XP and Vista. i.e. it needs to provide security patches, QFEs for bugs that affect customers, etc. for both OSes. The QFEs and security advisories for XP and Vista are not the same -- i.e. this is a doubling of maintenance effort and cost (at the very least). Also note that they need to support XP well into the future (way past the date at which they stopped selling it). So the longer they sell it, the longer they incur these maintenance costs. That's quite simply the reason that they need to get some revenue for every XP sale.
So they are justified in charging separately for each OS, and they are justified for trying to phase out the older OS. The lady filing the complaint -- she has a license for XP and a license for Vista. She got charged for each license. Plain and simple.
That only makes sense if you're using a 30-year old *nix flavor or if your *nix has evolved very little over the last 30 years. No desktop OS today can make that claim.
OS-X and Linux are the only credible desktop unixes (OS-X is arguably a *nix) and both of them come with their own unique and wonderful set of migraine-inducing issues.
Very true. I doubt any of the investors who are complaining (or MSR detractors on this thread) actually have any visibility into the things MSR is working on, or any idea what applications their research has, how they are going to morph into actual products, etc.
...I just bought a CF card reader/writer for my HP PDA (compare 15 minutes to transfer an mp3 with ActiveSync to 10 seconds directly)...
It sounds like you're mistaking the Desktop ActiveSync program (now called WMDC) with Exchange Server ActiveSync (the protocol) that Google licensed. The ActiveSync protocol is one of the few things about Windows Mobile that Just Works.
TFA measured time to download games. Bandwidth and latency are the factors that will affect your COD4 lagging experience -- this will differ depending on who is host, what connection each person has, geographical locations of players in the party, etc. There is no connection between TFA and you getting a shotty in the face.
Perhaps legitimate, but definitely pointless.. does anyone actually care about the download speed of games? Download speeds for movies is much more important -- and that's where testing the whole stack end to end would really mean something.
With CCCP, I'm able to play everything (including AAC, Div-X, indeo, quicktime, etc.) using just media player. I had to follow the FAQ to enable ffdshow or something like that for QuickTime -- I forget the details but it was pretty simple.
The good thing about the CCCP pack is that they are pretty paranoid about the quality of the codecs, and not bundling malware etc. (unlike K-Lite). Just getting rid of quicktime is a pretty big win.
...you cannot act on any foresight you might have that this market will naturally get absorbed into another one...
Except it hasn't happened. There is still a separate market for browsers as demonstrated by Opera, Safari, Firefox, etc.
Except that it did happen. All these browsers are aftermarket enhancements to OSes that already have bundled browsers. And while they're profitable, they're also still free -- you have MS to thank for that.
Desktop OS's don't sell by themselves either, they are almost always bundled with hardware for sale, including a video card.
I suggest you go to Best Buy and ask for Windows. You'll find it on a shelf. All by itself. No video card or BIOS in the box. You can actually buy Linux this way too. No BIOS or video card there either. Browser included in both cases.
Defining antitrust abuse in your terms...
I merely said that browsers are a necessary part of a desktop OS. I don't need antitrust law (or it's absence) to make that claim.
My point is you're making arbitrary inclusions to define what you call a complete OS
They were specific, customer-driven, commonplace, concrete scenarios detailing why one specific component belongs in an OS. Nothing arbitrary.
It happens all the time. The vast majority of OS's sold come ith a complete computer system including ROM and BIOS. Get it?
The BIOSes in these machines were not installed from the OS disk - ergo they were not bundled as part of the OS. So it's never happened. Get it? Sometimes you say the OEM is MS's customer, and then sometimes you treat the end user as the customer and then consider the whole package as one bundle. Be consistent. There are two points here -- nobody has ever provided a BIOS with their OS because that's plain dumb, and this whole thing about BIOSes is a waste of time. You used a bad analogy. It happens. Get over it. Stay on topic.
That doesn't excuse breaking laws they don't agree with. This isn't a civil rights issue, it's time tested antitrust law...
They didn't break the law. They added an essential component to their OS. You're in a serious state of delusion if you think this is time tested. Antitrust law itself has been around for a while -- but it's application always ends up being in some new area or new circumstance or previously unforeseen situation. For anything technology related it's usually a case of law not keeping up with technology, and antitrust law being used as patchwork. I can explain further, but I don't think you're inclined to listen.
What would you consider it if any other corporation was discovered to have discussed specific plans to stop research and progress in an area of technology for profit. Would you be so forgiving of drug companies that paid researchers working on cures to work on other things so their profits in selling treatments were not threatened? This is a company tht said they were going to cripple the Web, then did it, in order to profit. And you don't have a problem with that?
Those lenses are doing their thing again. This is a long and baseless rant that really exposes your bias, but let me try and address it point by point anyway:
1. MS cannot stop other entities from doing research.
2. MS cannot stop other entities from making progress.
3. The drug company stuff you mention -- unrelated BS. Equating IE-bundling with not developing cures -- trolling.
4. This company said they were going to cripple the web? Reference please.
5. Me having a problem with MS is immaterial -- my 'problem' won't change the fact that they correctly anticipated the need to include a browser 'component' into desktop OSes.
Better check those lenses..
They took IE, which was competing in what was then a free market. They bundled it with Windows, in order to artificially give it a large market share, even if it was not significantly better than competitors
You're still missing lots of detail. Why so vague -- afraid the details won't hold up to scrutiny?
I guess I should stop discussing it with you. You have your mind made up and are never going to change it, because you don't want to have to alter your preconceived opinions.
Cut the psychobabble. Nobody has 'preconceived opinions' about browser bundling. Lots of people have 'preconceived opinions' about MS being guilty about everything including third world poverty, and you're just one such example out of millions.
By your logic it would not be a problem if MS required an MS branded video card to be purchased with every copy of Windows?
How did you get that from what I said?
Because none of those scenarios you mention have anything to do with the market and this is a law about undermining markets. That's its purpose and how its defined.
They have nothing to do with the market? See what I mean about colored lenses?
I could explain how to flash ROM, but why?
And I could show you a ROM chip I designed. Now, do you want to bundle ROM flashing hardware with the OS disk, or are you ready to admit that your analogy simply proves my point. Bundling a ROM with an OS doesn't make sense -- so it never happened. Customers didn't care for it, companies didn't see the need for it, it never happened. Browsers and OSes are natural allies. Bundling it made sense. Customers expect their OSes with a dash of browser. Bundling it simply made sense.
Make up your mind. Earlier you said your argument was that browsers weren't a seperate market. Now that I've shown that argument to be flawed you're changing your argument to a belief that antitrust laws in general are wrong, or is it that you think MS's case is an exception in some specific way aside from your failed argument?
??? I still say they are not a separate market. You did not find any flaw in my argument. I was merely pointing out the abundance of grey areas in your assertion that "In terms of the law, they are clearly in violation." -- it's a really tall claim you're making there -- you shouldn't need to argue semantics to back it up if it were true.
I live in the US where we have this fundamental value of "rule by law" instead of rule by man. The same laws apply to everyone.
I live in the US where we believe that the "rule of law" should never silent dissent. The law applies equally to everyone -- but we should never fall into the trap of thinking that it's perfect, and cannot be improved upon -- it was made by us, and is as imperfect as we are.
You may note the ruling hasn't happened yet but I'm speaking with confidence that MS will be convicted.
I share your confidence regarding the outcome -- but that's because of my faith in human imperfection -- and the EU commissioners are only human.
It's a crime against humanity
Watch those colored lenses..
angers me to know end that one greedy company clearly broke the law for so long
There you go again. Be very specific. Break it down into tiny parts. By bundling IE - how did MS break the law? Once you're done breaking it down, I'll show you the flaw based on which your argument crumbles.
OEM CEOs feel Windows is the only real choice they have to stay in business and there is plenty of lock-in and reason for that. As a result, the separate market for Web browsers is undermined.
How did you come to that conclusion?? Windows is the only real choice for OEMS -- ok, agreed. Plenty of lock-in (ensuring that windows is the only real choice), well, yes and no -- but let's stick to the main point -- so agreed.
From there how did you get to the web browser market being undermined??
But then I'll argue what is the boundary to an operating system? Is it the kernel? Is it the basic drivers...
It doesn't matter. The law doesn't care what the boundary of an operating system is. Economically, it doesn't matter. What matters is the boundary of the market, when the bundling first occurs.
Now you're coming up with some fairly arbitrary stuff. How is the market boundary defined? By consumer expectations? By the EU? By someone simply charging for a product? Why is it right to take a snapshot of a market at a point in time and say "this, here, now, is what the market looks like -- and you cannot act on any foresight you might have that this market will naturally get absorbed into another one. Worse -- you, as a monopolist have to artificially prolong the existance of this market by refusing to follow the market trend -- by refusing to bundle a browser with your OS no matter how many of your competitors do that. Of course, once you lose the power to prop up the market artificially, feel free to again act as you please."
In today's environment all desktop OS competitors bundle browsers, and common everyday consumer scenarios (applications) require this framework (browser) to be present -- a browser belongs in the OS. Given that, how does it matter what the boundary of the market was when the bundling first occurred? What are you going to find MS guilty of -- having great foresight??
Slashdot Mirror
Your complaint has some validity to it but isn't really that insightful for a bunch of reasons.
Do you really think that all those unsold XP CDs just vanished into thin air
So MS should hand them out for free? The cost of an OS is related to the cost of printing a CD?
It makes absolutely no sense to me that people should be charged EXTRA to use something that to many people and organizations is still considered a valued piece of software.
Again, if it is considered a valued piece of software why would you expect it to be given away for free?
Then again, this is Microsoft we're talking about. It's not supposed to make any sense. Carry on.
Have you factored in the cost of maintenance for the OS such as releasing QFEs, security updates, maintaining KB articles, etc. etc.? While there is an entire team working on Windows 7, there will be another parallel organization within MS that continues to work on sustained engineering for Vista, and yet another that works on sustained engineering for XP. Do you think MS should continue to fund those teams without expecting to get any revenue for the product they support?
MS is going to install "Monetization opportunities for OEMs" on our computers? That isn't even FUD - that's mindless garbage.
We should tag these dumb FUD attempts from kdawson with the tag "kdawsonisaretard" or something like that. He's abusing his position as an editor to further his agenda, and he's seriously damaging the credibility of this site in the process. If this article isn't proof enough of that, look at these other recent fud-attempts of his:
Draconian DRM Revealed In Windows 7
The Broken Design of Microsoft's "Fix it" Tool Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How can we get rid of kdawson?
I'm not sure what to make of it, but my first reaction is that this article is FUD.
Have they not even explored the possibility that this DLL was failing an Authenticode signature check? Or are they actually saying that Application Signing is the same as DRM? If they are, then the state of FUD on slashdot (and from kdawson in particular) is fairly sinister.
Btw -- signing does not mean that no change can be made -- it merely means that if you change the dll, the new dll also needs to be signed into some root that is trusted. You yourself could potentially write the new DLL, sign it yourself (for a nominal fee -- from a provider other than MS -- they are not in the code signing business), and then replace the old DLL with your new one. The purpose behind this: a virus trying to alter your DLL will not succeed (in getting the DLL to load). A virus trying to alter your DLL with a signed version of the DLL is traceable to the owner of the signature. A malicious provider who tried to tamper with the DLL (insert trojan or something like that) before providing the software to you is also traceable to the signature they used.
Bottom line -- code signing is an important security mechanism. I couldn't get to TFA (because kdawson in his infinite wisdom did not link to it) and the site referenced was down. But if I was able to read the damn thing, I'm almost certain I'd find that it's just bitching about security mechanisms, deliberately re-interpreting them as draconian DRM (without offering so much as an explanation as to what MS would gain by controlling these DLLs and folders thusly), and probably uses the most alarmist language possible while doing so.
If MS sells XP and Vista currently, then it has to support XP and Vista. i.e. it needs to provide security patches, QFEs for bugs that affect customers, etc. for both OSes. The QFEs and security advisories for XP and Vista are not the same -- i.e. this is a doubling of maintenance effort and cost (at the very least). Also note that they need to support XP well into the future (way past the date at which they stopped selling it). So the longer they sell it, the longer they incur these maintenance costs. That's quite simply the reason that they need to get some revenue for every XP sale. So they are justified in charging separately for each OS, and they are justified for trying to phase out the older OS. The lady filing the complaint -- she has a license for XP and a license for Vista. She got charged for each license. Plain and simple.
She's got no case -- she paid for a particular product with full knowledge of what it's specs were. If she didn't want it, she didn't have to buy it.
That only makes sense if you're using a 30-year old *nix flavor or if your *nix has evolved very little over the last 30 years. No desktop OS today can make that claim.
OS-X and Linux are the only credible desktop unixes (OS-X is arguably a *nix) and both of them come with their own unique and wonderful set of migraine-inducing issues.
I doubt kdawson has actually ever read a complete EULA either -- he simply needed something to bitch about..
Very true. I doubt any of the investors who are complaining (or MSR detractors on this thread) actually have any visibility into the things MSR is working on, or any idea what applications their research has, how they are going to morph into actual products, etc.
Actually, it is the same thing. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Mobile_Device_Center
...It often has to be reinstalled...
...I just bought a CF card reader/writer for my HP PDA (compare 15 minutes to transfer an mp3 with ActiveSync to 10 seconds directly)...
It sounds like you're mistaking the Desktop ActiveSync program (now called WMDC) with Exchange Server ActiveSync (the protocol) that Google licensed. The ActiveSync protocol is one of the few things about Windows Mobile that Just Works.
But TFA wasn't measuring that.
TFA measured time to download games. Bandwidth and latency are the factors that will affect your COD4 lagging experience -- this will differ depending on who is host, what connection each person has, geographical locations of players in the party, etc. There is no connection between TFA and you getting a shotty in the face.
Perhaps legitimate, but definitely pointless.. does anyone actually care about the download speed of games? Download speeds for movies is much more important -- and that's where testing the whole stack end to end would really mean something.
Try the CCCP codec pack - http://cccp-project.net/
With CCCP, I'm able to play everything (including AAC, Div-X, indeo, quicktime, etc.) using just media player. I had to follow the FAQ to enable ffdshow or something like that for QuickTime -- I forget the details but it was pretty simple.
The good thing about the CCCP pack is that they are pretty paranoid about the quality of the codecs, and not bundling malware etc. (unlike K-Lite). Just getting rid of quicktime is a pretty big win.
http://skydrive.live.com/
It's sad. Get a new hobby.
Can't deal with someone disagreeing with you?
That's a separate market in every way that matters to antitrust issues.
And you can repeat that line as many times as you want -- but you still need references to back up that claim.
That was never a point of contention. Non sequitur response as usual.
The refutation isn't valid, if the logic behind it is faulty -- you still haven't explained how you made that leap of logic.
...you cannot act on any foresight you might have that this market will naturally get absorbed into another one...
Except it hasn't happened. There is still a separate market for browsers as demonstrated by Opera, Safari, Firefox, etc.
Except that it did happen. All these browsers are aftermarket enhancements to OSes that already have bundled browsers. And while they're profitable, they're also still free -- you have MS to thank for that.
Desktop OS's don't sell by themselves either, they are almost always bundled with hardware for sale, including a video card.
I suggest you go to Best Buy and ask for Windows. You'll find it on a shelf. All by itself. No video card or BIOS in the box. You can actually buy Linux this way too. No BIOS or video card there either. Browser included in both cases.
Defining antitrust abuse in your terms...
I merely said that browsers are a necessary part of a desktop OS. I don't need antitrust law (or it's absence) to make that claim.
My point is you're making arbitrary inclusions to define what you call a complete OS
They were specific, customer-driven, commonplace, concrete scenarios detailing why one specific component belongs in an OS. Nothing arbitrary.
It happens all the time. The vast majority of OS's sold come ith a complete computer system including ROM and BIOS. Get it?
The BIOSes in these machines were not installed from the OS disk - ergo they were not bundled as part of the OS. So it's never happened. Get it? Sometimes you say the OEM is MS's customer, and then sometimes you treat the end user as the customer and then consider the whole package as one bundle. Be consistent. There are two points here -- nobody has ever provided a BIOS with their OS because that's plain dumb, and this whole thing about BIOSes is a waste of time. You used a bad analogy. It happens. Get over it. Stay on topic.
That doesn't excuse breaking laws they don't agree with. This isn't a civil rights issue, it's time tested antitrust law...
They didn't break the law. They added an essential component to their OS. You're in a serious state of delusion if you think this is time tested. Antitrust law itself has been around for a while -- but it's application always ends up being in some new area or new circumstance or previously unforeseen situation. For anything technology related it's usually a case of law not keeping up with technology, and antitrust law being used as patchwork. I can explain further, but I don't think you're inclined to listen.
What would you consider it if any other corporation was discovered to have discussed specific plans to stop research and progress in an area of technology for profit. Would you be so forgiving of drug companies that paid researchers working on cures to work on other things so their profits in selling treatments were not threatened? This is a company tht said they were going to cripple the Web, then did it, in order to profit. And you don't have a problem with that?
Those lenses are doing their thing again. This is a long and baseless rant that really exposes your bias, but let me try and address it point by point anyway:
1. MS cannot stop other entities from doing research.
2. MS cannot stop other entities from making progress.
3. The drug company stuff you mention -- unrelated BS. Equating IE-bundling with not developing cures -- trolling.
4. This company said they were going to cripple the web? Reference please.
5. Me having a problem with MS is immaterial -- my 'problem' won't change the fact that they correctly anticipated the need to include a browser 'component' into desktop OSes.
Better check those lenses..
They took IE, which was competing in what was then a free market. They bundled it with Windows, in order to artificially give it a large market share, even if it was not significantly better than competitors
You're still missing lots of detail. Why so vague -- afraid the details won't hold up to scrutiny?
I guess I should stop discussing it with you. You have your mind made up and are never going to change it, because you don't want to have to alter your preconceived opinions.
Cut the psychobabble. Nobody has 'preconceived opinions' about browser bundling. Lots of people have 'preconceived opinions' about MS being guilty about everything including third world poverty, and you're just one such example out of millions.
That was supposed to read "bundling a BIOS with an OS".
By your logic it would not be a problem if MS required an MS branded video card to be purchased with every copy of Windows?
How did you get that from what I said?
Because none of those scenarios you mention have anything to do with the market and this is a law about undermining markets. That's its purpose and how its defined.
They have nothing to do with the market? See what I mean about colored lenses?
I could explain how to flash ROM, but why?
And I could show you a ROM chip I designed. Now, do you want to bundle ROM flashing hardware with the OS disk, or are you ready to admit that your analogy simply proves my point. Bundling a ROM with an OS doesn't make sense -- so it never happened. Customers didn't care for it, companies didn't see the need for it, it never happened. Browsers and OSes are natural allies. Bundling it made sense. Customers expect their OSes with a dash of browser. Bundling it simply made sense.
Make up your mind. Earlier you said your argument was that browsers weren't a seperate market. Now that I've shown that argument to be flawed you're changing your argument to a belief that antitrust laws in general are wrong, or is it that you think MS's case is an exception in some specific way aside from your failed argument?
??? I still say they are not a separate market. You did not find any flaw in my argument. I was merely pointing out the abundance of grey areas in your assertion that "In terms of the law, they are clearly in violation." -- it's a really tall claim you're making there -- you shouldn't need to argue semantics to back it up if it were true.
I live in the US where we have this fundamental value of "rule by law" instead of rule by man. The same laws apply to everyone.
I live in the US where we believe that the "rule of law" should never silent dissent. The law applies equally to everyone -- but we should never fall into the trap of thinking that it's perfect, and cannot be improved upon -- it was made by us, and is as imperfect as we are.
You may note the ruling hasn't happened yet but I'm speaking with confidence that MS will be convicted.
I share your confidence regarding the outcome -- but that's because of my faith in human imperfection -- and the EU commissioners are only human.
It's a crime against humanity
Watch those colored lenses..
angers me to know end that one greedy company clearly broke the law for so long
There you go again. Be very specific. Break it down into tiny parts. By bundling IE - how did MS break the law? Once you're done breaking it down, I'll show you the flaw based on which your argument crumbles.
OEM CEOs feel Windows is the only real choice they have to stay in business and there is plenty of lock-in and reason for that. As a result, the separate market for Web browsers is undermined.
How did you come to that conclusion?? Windows is the only real choice for OEMS -- ok, agreed.
Plenty of lock-in (ensuring that windows is the only real choice), well, yes and no -- but let's stick to the main point -- so agreed.
From there how did you get to the web browser market being undermined??
But then I'll argue what is the boundary to an operating system? Is it the kernel? Is it the basic drivers...
It doesn't matter. The law doesn't care what the boundary of an operating system is. Economically, it doesn't matter. What matters is the boundary of the market, when the bundling first occurs.
Now you're coming up with some fairly arbitrary stuff. How is the market boundary defined? By consumer expectations? By the EU? By someone simply charging for a product? Why is it right to take a snapshot of a market at a point in time and say "this, here, now, is what the market looks like -- and you cannot act on any foresight you might have that this market will naturally get absorbed into another one. Worse -- you, as a monopolist have to artificially prolong the existance of this market by refusing to follow the market trend -- by refusing to bundle a browser with your OS no matter how many of your competitors do that. Of course, once you lose the power to prop up the market artificially, feel free to again act as you please."
In today's environment all desktop OS competitors bundle browsers, and common everyday consumer scenarios (applications) require this framework (browser) to be present -- a browser belongs in the OS. Given that, how does it matter what the boundary of the market was when the bundling first occurred? What are you going to find MS guilty of -- having great foresight??