Microsoft: Browser Can't Be Removed

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

[Bush2000]

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. :)

I don't believe that Microsoft is saying that it is technically impossible to remove IE from Windows; Rather, they're saying that it would be practically impossible within a reasonable timeframe and cost. In other words, it wouldn't be worth selling the product given the costs of undertaking the necessary effort to remove the browser.

[usconservative]

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

LOL!!! The poor grammer and demonstrated lack of reading comprehension skills should've been a tip-off.

Is it me, or is FR becoming infested with more and more idiots every day?

[usconservative]

I don't believe that Microsoft is saying that it is technically impossible to remove IE from Windows; Rather, they're saying that it would be practically impossible within a reasonable timeframe and cost.

The core of the problem is that IE5SETUP is used to install/uninstall EVERYTHING on the Win2k - WinXP desktops. In order to totally eliminate IE from Windows, Microsoft is looking at a major re-design of it's install/uninstall routines and the new smart install/windows file protection schema built into it's Win2K Adv. Server and .NET Services.

Therein lies the problem, methinks. The browser itself is just window-dressing to the larger issue, IMO.

[Bush2000]

LOL!!! The poor grammer ... Is it me, or is FR becoming infested with more and more idiots every day?

Hmmmmmm.... ;-)

[usconservative]

LOL!!! The poor grammer ...

That's a spelling error, totally different! LOL! Nice catch. I don't believe I did that.....

[FreePaul]

I was going to reply that your post #53 was pretty silly, even for you. But, I guess you either didn't pay attention to my previous post or didn't understand it. Before you go off to do Microsoft's apologies please go back to my post and the one to which I replied and try to understand what I said. If the word "offer" confuses you please let me know. Just a hint. It is not a synonym for "bundle". Otherwise good bye.

[DrDavid]

"'Consumer Advocate' Scott McNeally immediately filed suit in federal court, demanding that Microsoft be dismantled, because the required base system -- available off the shelf for $275 from every known vendor except for a company called 'Sun' -- is an unfair hardship on the consumers."

However the operating system would cost $425 for the full version keeping the price of PC's virtually constant.

[DrDavid]

The car analogy doesn't work very well as stated. It is more like Microsoft sells engines to car manufactures. There is an odd manufacturer that makes their own car and engines which can't be exchanged the the Microsoft engines (Apple). The problem is that other engine manufacturers (Linux, BeOS, QNX, BSD, etc) give away engines compatable with Microsoft compatable cars.

The problem is that Microsoft has negotiated contracts with the car manufacturers prohibitting them from pre-installing non-MS engines. Or making the manufacturer purchase an MS engine for cars that will never use them. This is the choice made by the manufacturers.

Most people do not realize the Microsofts real customers are companies like HP, Compaq, Gateway, Dell, and IBM. The people who use the software aren't Microsofts customers. Microsoft has used its market dominance to force hardware manufactures to exclude other competing software not for end users but for hardware manufacturers.

I wish this was where the government's case had gone and the remedies focused. Instead it focused on the stupid red herring Internet Browsers.

[Bush2000]

That's a spelling error, totally different! LOL! Nice catch. I don't believe I did that.....

Heh heh. It's all in good fun, dude. ;-)

[Don Joe]

"I'm asking you experts about what you've heard of future plans for Windows Product Activation, and re-authentication, etc.

"Is this news to you?"

You originally presented it as a statement of fact. I asked you to substantiate it. You have not.

[Don Joe]

I think you may be trying to blur the definition of "operating system" and "user environment."

Stop nitpicking. No one is gonna buy an OS without a shell.

[Don Joe]

"Windows is nothing more than a graphical interface for dos."

Do you really believe that lie, or you just repeating something you heard some muttonhead blubber out on some leet bord?

Windows has never been "nothing more than a graphical interface for dos". From inception, it was a cooperative multitasker (you know, like the notorious Crapentosh used for lo those many years, up until just recently). The early versions did indeed run on top of DOS, and used DOS interrupts to handle various I/O tasks.

Beginning with Win95, Windows was a preemptive multitasker (like unix). It used DOS as nothing more than a bootstrap loader, unless you needed to use "legacy" drivers (16 bit).

NT has been entirely "DOSless" from day one.

[Don Joe]

You're once again chafing for a fight.

Please stop.

[usconservative]

Heh heh. It's all in good fun, dude. ;-)

I know. Thus my "LOL!" in my reply. Damn, I'm still kicking myself.

And hey, what's with the Admin Moderator(s) "locking" the other Microsoft thread at post #270 telling people to "play nice?"

I sent a private reply to the Admin Moderator who did it and sarcastically asked if this had suddenly become lucianne.com. Boy, a few people get abusive on a thread and rather then THEY get scolded for it, the thread gets shut down and none of us can participate anymore.

What's next, the thought police around here?

(tapping foot, waiting for some thin-skinned Admin Moderator to yank my posting privledges after that comment)

[Don Joe]

First you talk about "regular, and automatic, re-authentication and updating over the Internet", which you then clarify as "MS's proposed/planned license-authentication structure for XP", and now you point to an article where, "Dallas Office user Jagielski is concerned that Microsoft could use the activation technology to police subscriptions."

Please, if you have a point, please make it. I don't enjoy ballroom dancing, and you're wearing me out.

[Don Joe]

As I recall the only "rigging" they did was to edit a few sessions together to demonstrate what would happen if you performed certain actions. I am not aware of anyone accusing them of falsifying any of their assertions presented in the video.

Once again, the MS-haters nitpick to beat the band.

[No!]

"It can be done on any pre-Windows XP Operating System with Win98lite software?

NOT if you call their file viewing window explorer, too...

Which..... it is!

[Don Joe]

Your replies are utterly incoherent, bearing no connection whatsoever to the posts they follow.

[Don Joe]

"I haven't seen Word directly render HTML"

I have. Presuming, that is, that navigating to a URL from within Word, and then viewing its content in the word document panel qualifies.

[ez2muz]

"Once again, the MS-haters nitpick to beat the band."

I simply asked a question.

"Hate" is your word, sir.

It drips from your replies.