Text 10255, 65 rader
Skriven 2005-08-06 10:21:12 av Alan Zisman (1:106/2000.0)
   Kommentar till text 9871 av August Abolins (1:229/2000)
Ärende: Re: MS could very well ta
=================================
-=> August Abolins wrote to TOM WALKER <=-

 AA> "TOM WALKER -> AUGUST ABOLINS" <1:123/140> wrote..

 TW>   As time goes on and the Version numbers advance MicroSoft is
 TW>   Intergerating OE and IE tighter and tighter into the operating System.
 TW>   Expect any version released with the Next ver of Windows whatever to be
 TW>   Solidly Integerated part of the OS.
 TW> I believe it has already been announced that any Future versions of
 TW> IE/OE will NOT be Backward Compatable at all.Just like them made 6
 TW> Incompatable with Win95 7 will be incmpatabl;e also. Adn even move
 TW> things up a notch like dropping NT/98/2000?"?

 AA> I thought the whole point of the law suit against MS a few years ago
 AA> was about the very fact that IE was tightly integrated into the OS.  MS
 AA> lost the case and ended up paying a pile of money.  Someone correct me
 AA> if that IE/OS integration (making IE hard to disable or uninstall
 AA> without compromising the integrity of the OS) was not an issue in the
 AA> case.  The whole point was to allow the option to use other browser
 AA> products if the customer wished.

IE-integration WAS brought up at the trial but was not the central point, which
was far more focused on moves that MS made to pressure various OEMs to make
sure that they only sold systems with Windows pre-installed. As a result, most
of the remedies ordered by the court focused on MS's interaction with the OEMs,
including (in an article (http://www.zisman.ca/Articles/BIV/2000/BIV556.htm) I
published in 2000):

* Microsoft must create uniform, public pricing and conditions for 
supplying Windows to 
computer manufacturers, putting an end to practices that let Microsoft play
favourites. 

* Microsoft cannot use 
the availability of a Windows licence as a threat. This gives manufacturers
more freedom to bundle non-Microsoft products with their computers. As well,
manufacturers can freely produce systems set up with non-Microsoft operating
systems. 

* Computer manufacturers can configure Windows the way they want. (In my
opinion, this can be problematic. In the mid-1990s, many companies offered
highly customized versions of Windows 3.1, resulting in confusion for consumers
and technical support. We need a balance between manufacturers' desire to
differentiate their products or respond to customers and the benefits of a
common platform.) 

* Microsoft must publish any "secret stuff" in Windows that may impact software
companies' ability to produce applications. If Microsoft wants to make changes
to its operating system that impact other companies' hardware or software
products, it must notify those companies in advance. 

 AA> If MS wants to present a "new OS model" that specifically integrates a
 AA> browser to the OS, then I believe it is possible that there will be a
 AA> general migration away from Windows product to something that allows
 AA> more flexibility to the customer.   Other alternative OS's have matured
 AA> in the last few years (w.r.t. easy installation) to make them viable
 AA> choices.

While I'd like to think otherwise, I'm pessimistic that other OSs will make
much of a dent in the MS quasi-monopoly over desktop OSs, at least not in the
next few years. Look over my list of the 2000 court orders and think about to
what extent they have made any real difference.
... -- az (co-moderator: Win95) email to: alan at zisman dot ca
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.46
 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000)