Yes, I think the name is Felton. I e-mailed some of the court people including that professor/whatever. I mentioned Windows 98lite and he replied about it (but I've lost the reply). I think his was another such program.
Apparently it was a minor offense, but Microsoft got into some trouble trying to prove Windows could not function without Internet Explorer.
You're pretty close but I don't think anyone managed to remove every bit and piece of IE and if it there wasn't already some theory of what is not a 'part of the O.S.' then attempting to remove it would be moot. I mean, if it *is* a 'part' then what's the point?
The problem with these kinds of things, though, is they're nebulous, subject to opinion and interpretation, and you can 'prove' just about anything, to your own satisfaction at least, depending on your underlying assumptions and how you want it to come out.
Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it isn't 'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue they intentionally made it break the O.S. when removed so failing to remove it proves nothing. They 'could' do it 'right' if forced to, or so you'd argue (and believe).
On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser? Would most people? And, if not, doesn't that make it a rather 'necessary part' of the product whether one can remove it or not? And if you were making an O.S. would you depend on someone else to provide your critical update mechanism, hoping they make mods as you need them, on time, bug free, rather than whatever they might determine is 'more important' to their own product schedule? Or would you feel that important enough a feature to be 'a necessary part' of your O.S., written and maintained by your own people?
But then, back to the other side, if you believe it isn't necessary you just pooh pooh the notion and argue anyone's browser would work just fine if they didn't 'intentionally' make their dumb update mechanism odd ball (and you'd believe it).
And we could go on and on, back and forth, in the same manner because there's always "a way to do it," depending on your opinion of what an O.S. product "should be" and what's "just as good" or "acceptable."
But then browsers don't all work 'exactly' the same, do they? and when the user has a problem with your "Internet Ready" O.S., and automatic updates, who do they call for support? Who do they blame? What's broke? Who fixes it?
You're quite right that it's more complicated.
You have a strange idea of justice. Netscape wasn't on trial. Some people love to base their judgments on their feelings about the entity instead of the facts.
Besides being corrupt, that's false.
In fact, original equipment manufacturers OEMs wanted to sell Windows without Internet Explorer. Original Equipment Manufacturers were forced by Microsoft to include Internet Explorer and to keep the Internet Explorer icon on the Desktop. Original Equipment Manufacturers reluctantly did not include Netscape because Microsoft's requirement of having to Internet browser icons on the desktop would lead to consumer confusion, more calls for technical help, and therefore less if any profit on each PC sold.
The chief appeals court justice asked why Microsoft didn't put Internet explorer in the Add/Remove Programs area. Microsoft's attorneys began by making light of the judges lack of understanding. The judge made clear that he was dead serious. And he was right. We all know that the browser does not have to be an integral part of Windows (any more than Windows Media Player has to be an integral part of Windows). I've used Windows and Internet Explorer for years in such a way that Internet Explorer functions just like any other program.
Maybe Netscape Navigator was a monopoly, but it was Microsoft's monopoly power that was misused in order to force Netscape Navigator out of the personal computer Internet browser market. So is it wrong to use monopoly power to dislodge another monopoly? Yes. Holding monopoly power is not illegal. Using monopoly power to gain another market share is illegal.
The problem with the appeals court decision is that they don't understand the virtue of separating the operating system from the applications. Or maybe the prosecution didn't gear their case that way.
newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-09!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
sci.electronics.repair:427799 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:449117
>
You have a strange idea of justice. Netscape wasn't on trial. Some people love to base their judgments on their feelings about the entity instead of the facts.
Besides being corrupt, that's false.
In fact, original equipment manufacturers OEMs wanted to sell Windows without Internet Explorer. Original Equipment Manufacturers were forced by Microsoft to include Internet Explorer and to keep the Internet Explorer icon on the Desktop. Original Equipment Manufacturers reluctantly did not include Netscape because Microsoft's requirement of having to Internet browser icons on the desktop would lead to consumer confusion, more calls for technical help, and therefore less if any profit on each PC sold.
The chief appeals court justice asked why Microsoft didn't put Internet explorer in the Add/Remove Programs area. Microsoft's attorneys began by making light of the judges lack of understanding. The judge made clear that he was dead serious. And he was right. We all know that the browser does not have to be an integral part of Windows (any more than Windows Media Player has to be an integral part of Windows). I've used Windows and Internet Explorer for years in such a way that Internet Explorer functions just like any other program.
Maybe Netscape Navigator was a monopoly, but it was Microsoft's monopoly power that was misused in order to force Netscape Navigator out of the personal computer Internet browser market. So is it wrong to use monopoly power to dislodge another monopoly? Yes. Holding monopoly power is not illegal. Using monopoly power to gain another market share is illegal.
The problem with the appeals court decision is that they don't understand the virtue of separating the operating system from the applications. Or maybe the prosecution didn't gear their case that way.
newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-09!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
sci.electronics.repair:427799 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:449117
>
That makes sense, coming from someone who plainly states that Microsoft Office is a single application. Methinks someone has been reading too much Steve Ballmer.
The rest of the world knows better.
Market share by itself does not indicate monopoly power.
Nothing prevents me from buying an AMD processor which will run all of the applications and Intel processor runs. And that's what I do.
There is no barrier to entry. Advanced Micro Devices is making a profit competing with Intel.
We've agreed that multiple operating system makers would be unacceptable (assuming they could not run the same programs). The fact that multiple CPU makers is perfectly acceptable to consumers should give you a clue about another reason why Intel does not hold monopoly power.
That makes sense, coming from someone who plainly states that Microsoft Office is a single application. Methinks someone has been reading too much Steve Ballmer.
The rest of the world knows better.
Market share by itself does not indicate monopoly power.
Nothing prevents me from buying an AMD processor which will run all of the applications and Intel processor runs. And that's what I do.
There is no barrier to entry. Advanced Micro Devices is making a profit competing with Intel.
We've agreed that multiple operating system makers would be unacceptable (assuming they could not run the same programs). The fact that multiple CPU makers is perfectly acceptable to consumers should give you a clue about another reason why Intel does not hold monopoly power.
Do you always speak loudly as possible? That makes about as much sense.
Mental capacity has something to do with your ability/inability to adapt.
You were, like in this message. Message-ID: You suggested Gary H has a limited vocabulary.
I wasn't referring to USENET as a novel. The same practice applies to all different forums.
If they are skilled or going by their instincts, they do so automatically. At leastr people where I come from do.
Have you ever had kids?
Do you always speak loudly as possible? That makes about as much sense.
Mental capacity has something to do with your ability/inability to adapt.
You were, like in this message. Message-ID: You suggested Gary H has a limited vocabulary.
I wasn't referring to USENET as a novel. The same practice applies to all different forums.
If they are skilled or going by their instincts, they do so automatically. At leastr people where I come from do.
Have you ever had kids?
Not quite. Maybe you need to scroll up and reread your questions.
Not quite. Maybe you need to scroll up and reread your questions.
newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
sv3-8mGswK8iSLQiiUeXj1HB9yMbZ+ys8vTGDAl7ErzNirXXZ3TLUld1RzAtR9S49zOlcoghrCgdyAdktR4!amaIdreLabnG1pS9GCsa6RBixAvZlIo2dvpmEcyPk7jsw3DgwZKFKEYrnPgLVjGoMko1aGM=
properly
sci.electronics.repair:432931 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452596
>
newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
sv3-8mGswK8iSLQiiUeXj1HB9yMbZ+ys8vTGDAl7ErzNirXXZ3TLUld1RzAtR9S49zOlcoghrCgdyAdktR4!amaIdreLabnG1pS9GCsa6RBixAvZlIo2dvpmEcyPk7jsw3DgwZKFKEYrnPgLVjGoMko1aGM=
properly
sci.electronics.repair:432931 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452596
>
I speak with words I understand, as I obviously cannot speak with words I do not understand. There is no connection between my mental capacity and the vocabularies of others.
No, I was not.
USENET is not a novel. People express themselves as they naturally do, without deliberately adjusting their levels for specific individuals.
I speak with words I understand, as I obviously cannot speak with words I do not understand. There is no connection between my mental capacity and the vocabularies of others.
No, I was not.
USENET is not a novel. People express themselves as they naturally do, without deliberately adjusting their levels for specific individuals.
Fifteen years after the events under discussion, you mean?
Fifteen years after the events under discussion, you mean?
If that is the real reason, then it cannot be a result of anything that Microsoft has done. You've contradicted yourself.
The operating system maker cannot kill off anyone, or would it want to. The greater the number of applications that run under its OS, the better.
If that is the real reason, then it cannot be a result of anything that Microsoft has done. You've contradicted yourself.
The operating system maker cannot kill off anyone, or would it want to. The greater the number of applications that run under its OS, the better.
Understanding English and understanding your writing are two different things.
You've been defending Microsoft throughout this long thread.
Whether or not I can understand English, I sure can speak it and I don't miss typing one little bit. Amen brother.
Understanding English and understanding your writing are two different things.
You've been defending Microsoft throughout this long thread.
Whether or not I can understand English, I sure can speak it and I don't miss typing one little bit. Amen brother.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required