Microsoft: Browser Can't Be Removed

AP | 3/05/02 | D. IAN HOPPER

[kattracks]

WASHINGTON, Mar 05, 2002 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- Microsoft Corp.'s chief executive and the top executive involved with its Windows operating system are sticking with a position the company has held since the outset of the four-year antitrust case: They cannot pull the Internet Explorer Web browser out of Windows.

Nine states suing Microsoft for antitrust violations want to force the company to offer a version of Windows without the browser and other added features.

That would allow computer makers to install competitors' products, if they chose, without taking on the added cost of supporting both products. Currently, Microsoft's ubiquitous Windows has a leg up on competitors vying for the hearts of consumers and software designers.

In a videotaped deposition released Monday, Microsoft vice president and Windows chief Jim Allchin said Microsoft has "no way" to remove the browser from the company's flagship operating system.

"I couldn't do what you've got here," said Allchin, suffering from a severe cold. "Forget about any business thing. Technically I just couldn't do it."

Allchin said the company has done no studies to see if it could be done.

He referred to an especially embarrassing part of Microsoft's case, in which the company showed a videotape to make the argument that Windows would be damaged if a user attempted to remove the Internet Explorer Web browser. Microsoft later admitted the demonstration computer was rigged.

"Do you have any expectation as to whether or not you will be putting together a similar demonstration for this part of the case?" state lawyers asked.

"Not exactly like that one," Allchin said.

Steve Ballmer, a college friend of company founder Bill Gates and current chief executive officer, said Microsoft would be forced to offer an infinite number of Windows versions under the states' demands, all with or without extra features.

Ballmer said if the states should prevail with their demands, the decision would serve the interests of neither computer manufacturers nor users.

Instead, Ballmer said companies like Sun Microsystems, whose relationship with Microsoft is notoriously prickly, would dedicate themselves to frustrating Microsoft engineers.

"Sun Microsystems (can) go buy 10,000 copies, and they can have people just sit there and generate work requests to us every minute of every day," Ballmer said. "Somebody could say, 'Look, I want to make Microsoft's life miserable; so I'll tell you what, I'll pay you $10 million a year to torture Microsoft."'

The nine states revised their proposed penalties Monday. The new version reflects many complaints leveled by Ballmer and other executives.

For example, Microsoft would have to offer only one stripped-down version of Windows instead of many different ones.

Ballmer complained that it would be too expensive to build a version of the Java programming language to package with Windows, as requested by the states. The states clarified that Microsoft wouldn't have to bear those costs.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the modifications "clarify and sharpen our proposed remedies, without weakening them."

"The modified measures should deflate Microsoft's overblown rhetoric and apocalyptic predictions about the proposed remedies," Blumenthal said.

Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, would not comment on the changes.

"It appears to be a number of changes made very late," Smith said. The company is still reviewing the document, he said.

Allchin admitted to lawyers for the states that Microsoft violated the law but refused to specify the violations.

"I don't think that I can summarize those," Allchin said. "I'm not an attorney."

The company faces several allegations of violations that involve infringing on consumer choice and unfairly hurting competitors.

The states' lawyers, Stephen Houck and Mark Breckler, asked if it would be important for the head Windows executive to know what the violations were, so they wouldn't be repeated.

"Well, it's a very complicated area," Allchin said. "Very complicated,"

---

On the Net: Microsoft: http://www.microsoft.com

Connecticut Attorney General: http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/

By D. IAN HOPPER AP Technology Writer

Copyright 2002 Associated Press, All rights reserved

[Liberal Classic]

Please quote the entire context of the exchange:

You wrote:
Another lame, brain-dead metaphor.

To which I angrily replied:
"Don, why should I bother answering your posts when you're going to call me names? Screw you."

Your contrite reponse is:
Ah, screw me.

Pot, meet kettle.

Why should I bother even replying to your messages with I am called "brain-dead" and that what I write is "tripe?" Care to answer that?

[discostu]

Actually I do use Netscape. I'm typing this in 4.79, I've never liked the IE interface. But that's not the point. The point is many applications that have nothing to do with the internet show their UI through the browser control, for instance TurboTax has used the browser control for years. If the browser control dll goes away the OS is useless. That's the control that shows you the desktop, it shows files when you're using Windows explorer, and many apps use it. It's the center of the browser and it's the center of Windows.

[D-fendr]

Here's one article that covers parts of the internet reactivation, and the potential problem of turning off machines who have changed HW:

Microsoft's XP: Hardware changes a turnoff

I believe they backed off this before the release of XP, but I'm not sure of the current MS position for future especially in .Net.

That's why I'm asking you experts.

[js1138]

Since has agreed in principle to revela their source code, this debate will get real technical real soon.

[ez2muz]

Bad, lame analogy.
If you want to play the "like a car" game,...

Like I said before, it's not my analogy. Yours is just as lame by the way...

What it gets down to is this:

"He referred to an especially embarrassing part of Microsoft's case, in which the company showed a videotape to make the argument that Windows would be damaged if a user attempted to remove the Internet Explorer Web browser. Microsoft later admitted the demonstration computer was rigged..."

Why did Microsoft need a "rigged" computer?

[discostu]

Yeah but in this case it's actually helpful. Browser controls do one thing really well: elasticity. That's the fancy word for handling window resizes and still keep all your controls on screen and nicely dispersed and sized. Before browser controls that was some really annoying code to write. By a coincidence of how the internet works that's the majority of what a browser control does, but unlike previous elastic code it's not tied to a specific set of UI components, it's universal. So when you write an app and shoot your UI through a browser you get the elasticity for free (still tends to need a little tweaking, it's not perfect, but it's a lot easier). This is why people use it.

[Liberal Classic]

Going somewhat out on a limb, because I don't know all the facts: Most Microsoft apps are now internet enabled -- they can display internet content directly in the application window without launching a separate browser. I believe this is what MS means when it says the alien has its hooks right in the nervous system of the OS.

For example, even if you don't purchase Office the Windows Help has hooks to the intenet and will retrieve and display intenet content.

I have no substantial complaint with what you've said here. There are many applications that do this now. They'll automatically check patch servers to see that they're up-to-date. Their documentation is all available for perusal online, etc. There's many applications these days that are "internet aware." I see this as a good thing, because it's now possible to get help 24x7 for your programs. It saves publishers the cost of printing, etc.

I haven't seen Word directly render HTML, I've only used its import filter. That's reading HTML, but it's actually displaying MS-Word data on the screen.

I don't object to these things, I really don't. I do think that these are positive developments in application software and the computer industry.

It's just that most of these tasks can be done with your default browser, which ever that might be. I don't have a problem with Microsoft Word having additional features if Internet Explorer is installed. Word could use features of Explorer if needed, sure. The operating system can send the internet content to any application. Explorer isn't special really.

For me, it boils down to some distrust of Microsoft's business practices. I think they've made some whopping good products in the past, and some of their present offerings are good, too. But on occasion they've done some things that I felt were outside the law, such as stealing STAC Electronic's compression routines, Apple's early Quicktime video encoding, and announced phantom products to keep customers from looking at compeditors. I don't believe these things could have happened without assent from the highest levels of management, and don't think they were accidential. These incidents tend to give me pause, desipite the quality of some of their products.

For the record, I do not think Microsoft is a monopoly. I do think if they had been properly sanctioned for some of their earlier misdeeds that there would not be talk of them being a monopoly in the first place.

[ez2muz]

Why are we discussing paint? Can a car run without paint? Yes. Can a computer run without an operating system? No.

Follow the thread, I didn't bring up the paint thing; I was only pointing out the paint analogy doesn't fly. Sounds like you agree.

...and sorry but I'm not talking about operating systems either - I'm talking about web-browsers.

[Will_Kansas]

Uh, actually no, what I said wasn't nonsense. ANY CODE CAN BE MODIFIED, IF THERE IS A WILL TO DO SO. I'm not saying that it can be done easily, but it can be done.

[js1138]

Theft of intellectual property is an issue aside from anti-trust. FUD is an old marketing prctice that probably goes back to the Babylonians. I don't object to app developers going after Microsoft for fraud, intimidation, whatever. I just don't believe in the feds making things better for the consumer.

Long time ago I was watching my kid play in a soccer match. All the parents on our team were yelling that the ref was biased and was actually a parent of an opposing player.

Our coach turned to us and said "The way to overcome bad refereeing is to score more points."

[pjd]

I too am using 2K. I never use Internet Explorer (or Outlook express, for that matter.) In my folder options, I have selected 'Use Windows Classic Desktop' and 'Use Windows Classic folders'.

I have considered deleting IE entirely from the system, (I did this when I was using Win95), but don't know if the OS would continue to operate if IE was completely eliminated because MS probably pipes some things through it that they really don't have to do.

[usconservative]

There is a new version 3.4.1 of a beautiful little free application (26kB to download) called XPAntiSpy3-English.zip designed to disable all the XP-"ET call home" features in one click.

Just did a google search and found the file. Thanks for posting that info. I've been going NUTS turning all that crap off in XP!

For those interested in the XP Anti-Spy utility, click HERE to get it. Look for the file named XPAntiSpy3-English.zip

[usconservative]

I don't have XP in front of me at the moment, so I can't say what it is you're "removing", but I think it's fairly obvious that you're not removing IE, because if you did, you'd no long have a shell to launch whatever browser you used to type that message.

If you bothered to READ the message I typed first, then the follow-up, you'd see that I in fact un-installed IE 6.0 using the exact directions I typed in the second. And if you read the second message, you'd see I re-created the steps SHORT OF un-installing IE the second time.

Sheeeeesh.....

[Will_Kansas]

I use Win98, and have left IE installed for the same reason you listed. In addition, I've discovered some web sites that don't look right in Netscape, but look much better in IE.

[Liberal Classic]

I believe this bit about "Internet Explorer is required part of the Windows OS" to be less than accurate, but I do not support anti-trust against Microsoft. They're not a monopoly because they cannot raise their prices forever; people will turn to compeditors.

I do believe in caveat emptor. :)

[Will_Kansas]

I think Don Joe's mommy picked him up at the day-care and took him home.