Windows 95 and Internet Explorer
Dave Goldsmith
I have an observation to make about Microsoft's position that Internet
Explorer is an integral component of Windows 95.
There are currently three versions of Windows 95 available.
The first is the original retail version of Windows 95 which did NOT include
Internet Explorer at all.
The second is Windows 95 with Service Pack 1 installed, also referred to as
Windows 95a or OSR1. This version included Internet Explorer 2.0 as an
OPTIONAL component
The third, and newest version of Windows 95 is the OEM Service Release 2,
also referred to as Windows 95b or OSR2. It includes Internet Explorer 3.0
as an OPTIONAL component.
Any versions of Internet Explorer prior to version 4.0 were simply web
browsers/e-mail readers/news readers. Only with version 4.0 does a user
have the option to use Internet Explorer as a replacement for the Desktop
and the Windows Explorer that comes with Windows 95. Use of Internet
Explorer 4.0 in this mode is once again OPTIONAL. Since all versions of
Windows 95 that have been released have either not contained Internet
Explorer or have contained Internet Explorer as an optional component to be
loaded, I fail to see how Microsoft can state that Internet Explorer is an
integral part of the operating system.
I welcome calm, rational comments.
David Goldsmith
dgol...@osec.com
Dave Goldsmith
Scott Freeland wrote in message <34a06...@blush.jps.net>...
>I don't recall them saying it is impossible with Win95, as the original 950
>build contained no Internet Explorer.
>
>-Scott Freeland
>MCPS - Windows 95, Internet Information Server
>Site Builder Level 2
But the later releases of Windows 95A/SP1/OSR1 and Windows 95B/OSR2
do not have Internet Explorer built-in either. IE 2.0 and IE 3.0 are
optional components that can be loaded if the user so desires.
Dave Goldsmith
dgol...@osec.com
Dave Goldsmith
d7dot wrote in message <34a06cad...@news.mindspring.com>...
<stuff deleted>
>+computers hard drive. I removed this application and all files
>+associated with this application (I performed a file seacrh to double
>+check this). My Win95 OS has worked for over 412 cosecutive days
>+without the MSIE installed. According to Microsoft this is
>+ "impossible".
>
>Must have been some kind of misunderstanding.. Win95 can and will
>operate for it's lifetime without MSIE installed....thats includes
>from the first beta thru OSR2....
Micheal did not misunderstand anything. According to Microsoft, it is
impossible for Windows 95 to run without IE. This is their stance with
regards to the current MS-DOJ battle that is occurring.
>+PS. I have, on occassion, removed Netscape form the hard drive (and
>+all applications associated with the application "Netscape") and
>+Win95 worked at this time as well.
>
>Ditto the above. Your operating system is not browser dependent,
>*yet*... course if Bill gets his way, that may all change but not now.
>
>Sorry, but you have not accomplished Mission Impossible at all..
We know that but according to Microsoft, he has. <grin>
Dave Goldsmith
dgol...@osec.com
Michael
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 19:47:09 -0500, "Dave Goldsmith"
<dgol...@osec.com> wrote:
I'm not a computer expert. That being said, this message is being
written on a Free Agent Newsreader. This newsreader is loaded on a
computer with Win95 OS. I am using a browser from Netscape. MS
Internet Explorer, at one time in the past, was loaded on this
computers hard drive. I removed this application and all files
associated with this application (I performed a file seacrh to double
check this). My Win95 OS has worked for over 412 cosecutive days
without the MSIE installed. According to Microsoft this is
"impossible".
PS. I have, on occassion, removed Netscape form the hard drive (and
all applications associated with the application "Netscape") and
Win95 worked at this time as well.
-M
d7dot
On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 01:28:16 GMT, mi...@earthblink.net (Michael)
wrote:
+On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 19:47:09 -0500, "Dave Goldsmith"
+<dgol...@osec.com> wrote:
+
+I'm not a computer expert. That being said, this message is being
+written on a Free Agent Newsreader. This newsreader is loaded on a
+computer with Win95 OS. I am using a browser from Netscape. MS
+Internet Explorer, at one time in the past, was loaded on this
+computers hard drive. I removed this application and all files
+associated with this application (I performed a file seacrh to double
+check this). My Win95 OS has worked for over 412 cosecutive days
+without the MSIE installed. According to Microsoft this is
+ "impossible".
Must have been some kind of misunderstanding.. Win95 can and will
operate for it's lifetime without MSIE installed....thats includes
from the first beta thru OSR2....
+PS. I have, on occassion, removed Netscape form the hard drive (and
+all applications associated with the application "Netscape") and
+Win95 worked at this time as well.
Ditto the above. Your operating system is not browser dependent,
*yet*... course if Bill gets his way, that may all change but not now.
Sorry, but you have not accomplished Mission Impossible at all..
--
|| Brad - d7...@mindspring.com
|| Brad's Internet Help Resources
|| http://d7dot.home.mindspring.com
|| For FAQ's see mindspring.answers
Michael
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 17:46:13 -0800, "Scott Freeland"
<sco...@jps.net.no.spam.please> wrote:
>
>Michael wrote in message <34a06021...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 19:47:09 -0500, "Dave Goldsmith"
>>I'm not a computer expert. That being said, this message is being
>>written on a Free Agent Newsreader. This newsreader is loaded on a
>>computer with Win95 OS. I am using a browser from Netscape. MS
>>Internet Explorer, at one time in the past, was loaded on this
>>computers hard drive. I removed this application and all files
>>associated with this application (I performed a file seacrh to double
>>check this). My Win95 OS has worked for over 412 cosecutive days
>>without the MSIE installed. According to Microsoft this is
>> "impossible".
>>PS. I have, on occassion, removed Netscape form the hard drive (and
>>all applications associated with the application "Netscape") and
>>Win95 worked at this time as well.
>I don't recall them saying it is impossible with Win95, as the original 950
>build contained no Internet Explorer. -- Exactly
The Microsft legal team has been saying thisis impossible over and
over again the past week. Go to nytimes.com, yahoo.com or any MS
press release to see for yourself.
-M
Dave Goldsmith
If Internet Explorer is an integral part of Windows 95, then ...
Why is it licensed seperately?????
Someone responded to my previous post in which I was talking about IE being
an optional component and their response was that elements such as FreeCell
and Notepad are optional installation components as well and yet are part of
the OS.
The difference between FreeCell/Notepad/etc and IE is that you do not have
to agree to another EULA to install FreeCell/NotePad/etc. You do have to
agree to a seperate EULA to install IE 4.
Dave Goldsmith
dgol...@osec.com
Walt
Dave Goldsmith wrote:
>
> But the later releases of Windows 95A/SP1/OSR1 and Windows 95B/OSR2
> do not have Internet Explorer built-in either. IE 2.0 and IE 3.0 are
> optional components that can be loaded if the user so desires.
>
optional if the PC manufacturer or retailer pre-installs Win 95B
for you, and picks IE to be installed. The key then is that the
end user (purchaser) does NOT have the choice.
From what I understand from the media (which may or may not be
accurate), is the that Microsoft is *requiring* PC manufacturers
and retailers to select IE when installing Win 95B. In other
words, Microsoft would not be in trouble if it was truly left
up to the user to install IE or not.
Mark Thorn
I think everyone is missing the point here. Microsoft is talking about
their new OS - Windows 98, or whatever it will be called. They have tried
to make Windows 98 and IE more intragrated so they can ship IE4 with all
new computers, thus forcing Netscape out of business.
Micro
On 24 Dec 1997 15:53:37 GMT, "Mark Thorn" <cthorn@***.parametrix.com>
wrote:
No, Mark Win98 does not enter the picture. Justice's case is
based on OSR 2.0 - 2.5. Win98 can not be used as it is not a released
product. That is why defending their position is so hard for MS. We
all know the integration of Win98-IE4 and what it means to MS, but
since it is still in it's unreleased form, it's kinda like thinking
about offing your mother-in- law, unless something happens , no one
can legally use it aginst you.
But I do agree the point is being missed. It IS MS's product
and they should be able to sell and market it as they wish. If you
don't like it , don't buy it. If Honda's market share is down, I don't
see anyone telling Toyota they have to use Honda engines or A/C units
in their cars. I think this all goes to the root of free enterprise.
Netscape has been bragging about an integrated OS they are
developing for their Browser for some time. Seems like it's time to
put up or shut up. I really wonder what would happen if Bill Gates &
company pulled a Howard Hughes and took all the rights to the Windows
operating system with them ? It would make a lot of people happy------
For about a week, until reality hit home.
Micro
Twin-2
Doesn't the user have the option of uninstalling the browser? Microsoft is
performing a clever marketing tactic. If the browser is already there
<most> people will leave it there. However they do have the option of
removing it and using a browser of their choice. I don't see anything
illegal in Microsoft's practice, but then again I don't have <all> the
facts.
Walt wrote in message <34A106...@Early.com>...
DeeJ Price
First of all, it has long been Uncle Bills intention to develope a browser
based OS. IE, IE3, IE4, and Win98 are just the natural progression toward
this end. This intention has been publisized by Gates for years.
Anyway this is my feeling about this crap from the Government. Miscrosoft
includes IE with Win95 and this is apparently "unfair" to other browser
companies like Netscape. What about WordPad? Or Paint? There are other
companies that write programs of that nature. Is microsoft driving them out
of the market also? Netscape is a good product, I use both IE and
Navigator(see I DO have a choice) but I think they are whiners. Business is
business. Instead of blaiming Microsoft for thier inability to sell thier
product, why don't they actually "sell" it. Tell me(and every other user)
why I should use Netscape.
And let's not forget that OS/2 warp comes with IBMs web browser. What is the
difference here? I beleive the government and Netscape, as well as half the
planet, are suffering from "Gates envy". Microsft is striving to create the
best over all OS/Internet solution. I don't see why thats wrong.
Comments?
de...@ppsf.com
kra...@feist.com
> >build contained no Internet Explorer.
> >
> >MCPS - Windows 95, Internet Information Server
> >Site Builder Level 2
>
> do not have Internet Explorer built-in either. IE 2.0 and IE 3.0 are
> optional components that can be loaded if the user so desires.
>
> dgol...@osec.com
actually, I have a win85b disk, and whenever I have to re-install win95
I am not given the option to choose whether or not IE 3.0 is installed,
it is an automatically installed component.
Micro
On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:10:18 -0800, "DeeJ Price" <de...@ppsf.com>
wrote:
Well said and even better, it makes perfect sense!
Micro
Pedro B. Morales
>actually, I have a win85b disk, and whenever I have to re-install win95
>I am not given the option to choose whether or not IE 3.0 is installed,
>it is an automatically installed component.
The only way to halt an IE3.0 installation in Windows 95 B is to stand all
the way during the installation. Once the Windows 95 Setup is on its reboot
and final stage (Setup Control Panel, Printers, etc) you have the option of
halting the IE install. When it gets to the Internet Explorer part, you
must click "Cancel" on the dialog box that extracts the IE files. Even
then, you will have an IE-free 95, but the install files will remain in
C:\Windows\Temp
Jonathan Hassell
Exactly the point.
I'm sure if we all walked in Father Bill's shoes, we would have a different
opinion of him. I can remember way back a couple of years ago in an issue
of PC/Computing, Paul Somerson was talking about browsing the web and your
computer from the same window, before Windows 95 even came out. Obviously
Bill's intentions have been made public before.
Since these posts have all obviously stated ways to either stifle the
installation of IE3 during installation, or remove it, I don't see why
Netscape and other complainers are saying that IE can't be removed, or they
don't have a choice. Agreed, Microsoft continues to "push" (for lack of a
better word) IE on users of its OS's, but as long as people always have the
uninstallation option, it's not that big of a deal.
Now, for what Microsoft can do: They should stop insisting IE is integrated
into Windows (the released versions, mind you) and tell the truth.
Obviously we have all proved OSR2 is stable without IE installed, and
Windows Magazine's John Woram has proven. Just check out their web site.
This was a MAJOR mistake on MS's part. However, Microsoft should make
public an official procedure for removing IE from any system. INCLUDING
IE4. But ends, the Dept. of Justice and Microsoft, should cut the crap.
That's just my opinion. I'll go back into my soap box now, though comments
are welcome. :-)
---Jon
j...@hassell.com
DeeJ Price wrote in message <67rivr$h...@q.seanet.com>...
Just-a-guy
Twin-2 <rm...@polarnet.com> wrote in article <c187cd$8337.2c8@PolarNet>...
> Doesn't the user have the option of uninstalling the browser? Microsoft
is
> performing a clever marketing tactic. If the browser is already there
> <most> people will leave it there. However they do have the option of
> removing it and using a browser of their choice. I don't see anything
> illegal in Microsoft's practice, but then again I don't have <all> the
> facts.
>
History will give you the facts. Anti-trust history that is.
The issue is whether Microsoft, with its position as the pre-eminent
distributor of OPERATING SYSTEMS is subsequently using such position to
edge in the browser market and edge out the competition. Lest we forget
that during the Web's nascent period, Mr. Gates was recorded as not giving
it much credance. He did an abrupt about face starting a couple years ago.
What I find difficult to understand in all the frantic attempts at
definition of "operation system" is a loss of sight at what O/S used to
mean (and to my mind still does). An operating system gets the naked bare
computer to work. It is the background that prepares the canvas for
applications to work. Now certainly both operating system and applications
can be classified as "tools", but in terms of day to day work, we don't
"use" and operating system (other than its utilities) in the same way that
a computer uses an operating system. I.e. we let the computer use the
operating system so that the tools (applications) we need can function.
If we see the Internet as a vast operating system, then I suppose I could
see that a browser is part of the "background" o/s. But I don't. I use the
internet like most, as just another tool/resource. The reality that
Gates/Microsoft is trying to paint is a vision, not a working reality. And,
for me I reject that reality, as others have, as a throwback to mainframe
computing.
On a desktop, with it's own set of software and hardrive, a browser is just
another application tool.
andy voda
avoda at together dot net
written as i download Netscape. :o)
Ed Ellers
Dave Goldsmith wrote:
The problem with your argument is that it's too broad. What Microsoft is
arguing in court is that Internet Explorer is an integrated part of OEM
Service Release 2 of Windows 95, not that it's integrated with *all*
releases of Windows 95. When "OSR2" is installed Internet Explorer 3 goes
in automatically, without a separate license agreement dialog box. The
present court case refers only to OSR2 and later releases, *not* to previous
releases of Windows 95 that were no longer being shipped at the time the
complaint was filed.
The only time you have to agree to a separate EULA to install Internet
Explorer is when you're *upgrading* -- as is the case with certain systems
that are being shipped with both OSR2 (including IE 3.0) and a separate IE
4.0 CD. This is also the case with retail CD upgrades which (since some
time in 1996) have included a separate copy of IE 3.0 or, very recently, IE
4.0 along with the original (7/11/95) release of the Windows 95 retail
upgrade. (That's fortunate, since some of the older systems for which
Windows 95 is intended don't have enough memory to run IE 3.0, and many will
take 3.0 but can't handle 4.0.)
Now PC Week is running a story claiming that OSR2 can be forced to leave out
Internet Explorer by modifying four lines in one of the INF files, but they
don't say how to do this. I've already posted a request for any information
to confirm this, and if it does turn out to be true the judge might give
Microsoft a load of grief.
Gary & Suan gillespie
I have 95 on disc & CD! they both have ie2.0 on them!
I don't see in custom setup where one can say hey don't
install it on my machine!
If you see a box to uncheck, please tell me where it's at?
---gary
--
Gary & Susan Gillespie
48118-9504
ga...@chelsea-mi.net
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy,sometime I let her sleep.
kra...@feist.com wrote in article
<34A168...@feist.com>...
> Dave Goldsmith wrote:
> >
> > Scott Freeland wrote in message
<34a06...@blush.jps.net>...
> > >I don't recall them saying it is impossible with
Win95, as the original 950
> > >build contained no Internet Explorer.
> > >
> > >-Scott Freeland
> > >MCPS - Windows 95, Internet Information Server
> > >Site Builder Level 2
> >
> > But the later releases of Windows 95A/SP1/OSR1 and
Windows 95B/OSR2
> > do not have Internet Explorer built-in either. IE 2.0
and IE 3.0 are
> > optional components that can be loaded if the user so
desires.
> >
> > Dave Goldsmith
> > dgol...@osec.com
>
>
Mike Pisio
Ed Ellers wrote in message <67ut5d$p...@snews3.zippo.com>...
>Dave Goldsmith wrote:
>
>"If Internet Explorer is an integral part of Windows 95, then ...
>
>"Why is it licensed seperately?????
>
>"Someone responded to my previous post in which I was talking about IE
being
>an optional component and their response was that elements such as FreeCell
>and Notepad are optional installation components as well and yet are part
of
>the OS.
>
>"The difference between FreeCell/Notepad/etc and IE is that you do not have
>to agree to another EULA to install FreeCell/NotePad/etc. You do have to
>agree to a seperate EULA to install IE 4."
>
ONLY if you download IE4 seperately. If you get one of the newer versions on
WIndows, IE4 is included AS PART OF WINDOWS!! I was at a friends place when
he installed win98 beta (might not really be relevent in this case), and
there was nothing about IE4 being seperate. Actually, the ONLY thing about
IE4 in Win98 was the option to make the desktop active. Other than that, IE4
is always installed, because it is part of the operating system. Sorta like
not installing the registry. If you don't install it, you don't have a
workable operating system.
Micro
On Fri, 26 Dec 1997 15:59:34 GMT, kra...@my.email.address (krakan)
wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Dec 1997 00:22:09 -0500, "Mike Pisio" <mi...@nrtco.net>
>wrote:
>They can set the default to be classic display and if there isnt an
>icon on the desktop for ie, 90 % of the users (at least) will not
>realise there is an iee but you have to make your own shortcut...
True, BUT,
IE4 is a whole new "ball of wax" totally unrelated to IE2 and
IE3.(well of course there's some relation)
There is no IE4 as a browser only, the kernel is replaced with
a new kernel that has browser functions integrated into it, the IE4
shortcut activates "hooks" into the kernel for the use of browsing the
'net. It is no longer an "overlay" of the existing kernel, it is
totally integrated. This is why MS MUST defend its position so
aggressively as this is the heart of the next version of Windows. It
is also the reason the position is so hard to defend and for many to
understand.
Win98 has not been released and doesn't enter into the Justice
Dept investigation, only the IE4 add-on for existing Win95 versions.
(the original release thru OSR2.5) Of these only the latest OSR2.5
goes to OEMs (and only the largest OEMs so far) with IE4. The add-on
and OSR2.5 are the basis for the Netscape cries of foul, even though
Netscape replaces the browser functions with out problem.(though not
without adding bugs of its own, but that's another story) OEMs have
long been capable of choosing not to install IE2 or 3 without problems
with a simple modification of the setup information files. (Well at
least the halfway intelligent ones that learned how to read the info
MS supplies or even reading the "inf " files themselves.) Most were
just too lazy.( Most of the "hometown OEMs" that assemble systems
don't even license the Win95 product, just buy or "acquire" one copy
and install it on many machines.) ( NO personal flame intended, only
generic) And of couse the default was to install it, as it should be.
(Wouldn't we all want our own product rather than a competitors
installed, if we had a say in the matter)
"Inf " files are nothing but text files used as scripts and
contain a wealth of information, make interesting reading and are
easily modified. (but don't unless you know what you are doing
(and IMHO anyone who builds and sells systems should know how ! Why do
you think MS makes the info available in resource kits and other
documents ? ))
Well enough pot stirring, and yes, the address is real.
Micro
Christopher Estep
Mark Thorn wrote in message
<01bd1084$3af1e220$5c60...@magic1.markt.serv.net>...
>I think everyone is missing the point here. Microsoft is talking about
>their new OS - Windows 98, or whatever it will be called. They have tried
>to make Windows 98 and IE more intragrated so they can ship IE4 with all
>new computers, thus forcing Netscape out of business.
In what way is Windows 98 (or IE 4, for that matter) a threat to Netscape,
whether it is integrated or not? If IE were a horrible browser (or simply
worse than Netscape), there wouldn't be as many people using (and continuing
to use) it every day! In what way does ANY version of Internet Explorer
prevent you from using Netscape (ANY version of Netscape)?
Answer: IT DOESN'T! If you still want to use Netscape (with any version of
Windows 95, or even with Windows 98, or any version of NT), YOU STILL CAN. I
have run Netscape and IE side-by-side almost from the beginning of the
Browser Wars. I prefer IE (and have since back at version 3.0), but I still
use Netscape as well (and have the current version of Communicator, 4.04
Professional Edition, installed in Windows 98).
If all this fuss is over that "The Internet" icon (as Justice now says),
then simply send it to the Recycle Bin (a rather simple procedure..which ANY
user with a mouse can do).
Microsoft is offering system builders (like myself) a choice of what version
of Windows 95 to bundle with my PCs...and they are going to be HOUNDED for
this?
Last I heard...there IS still "freedom of choice" in the United States Of
America...or is Justice going to go after us system builders who CHOOSE to
include the full version of Windows 95 (complete with Internet Explorer) for
"aiding and abetting" Microsoft for "comtempt of court"?
What a load of bull-dookey!
Bill Funk
In article <684bv1$1mq$1...@news2.cais.com>, jcc...@olg.com says...
>
> Mark Thorn wrote in message
> <01bd1084$3af1e220$5c60...@magic1.markt.serv.net>...
> >I think everyone is missing the point here. Microsoft is talking about
> >their new OS - Windows 98, or whatever it will be called. They have tried
> >to make Windows 98 and IE more intragrated so they can ship IE4 with all
> >new computers, thus forcing Netscape out of business.
>
>
> In what way is Windows 98 (or IE 4, for that matter) a threat to Netscape,
> whether it is integrated or not? If IE were a horrible browser (or simply
> worse than Netscape), there wouldn't be as many people using (and continuing
> to use) it every day! In what way does ANY version of Internet Explorer
> prevent you from using Netscape (ANY version of Netscape)?
>
> Answer: IT DOESN'T! If you still want to use Netscape (with any version of
> Windows 95, or even with Windows 98, or any version of NT), YOU STILL CAN. I
> have run Netscape and IE side-by-side almost from the beginning of the
> Browser Wars. I prefer IE (and have since back at version 3.0), but I still
> use Netscape as well (and have the current version of Communicator, 4.04
> Professional Edition, installed in Windows 98).
>
New users are buying computers all the time. They simply don't *know* a
good browser from a bad one. Or, Internet Explorer from Netscape.
Microsoft is well aware of the fact (and that's what it is) that the
majority of users will use what came on the machine.
> If all this fuss is over that "The Internet" icon (as Justice now says),
> then simply send it to the Recycle Bin (a rather simple procedure..which ANY
> user with a mouse can do).
>
> Microsoft is offering system builders (like myself) a choice of what version
> of Windows 95 to bundle with my PCs...and they are going to be HOUNDED for
> this?
>
Easy to say.
However, the version being offered without IE4 is an older one, and won't
support newer hardware, and Microsoft knows this.
> Last I heard...there IS still "freedom of choice" in the United States Of
> America...or is Justice going to go after us system builders who CHOOSE to
> include the full version of Windows 95 (complete with Internet Explorer) for
> "aiding and abetting" Microsoft for "comtempt of court"?
>
Rediculous question.
> What a load of bull-dookey!
>
Exactly.
Although, not the way you meant it.
>
>
>
--
Bill Funk
http://www.starlink.com/~ascii
"All I ask is an opportunity to prove that money doesn't buy
happiness."
Ed Redondo
>In what way is Windows 98 (or IE 4, for that matter) a threat to Netscape,
>whether it is integrated or not? If IE were a horrible browser (or simply
>worse than Netscape), there wouldn't be as many people using (and continuing
>to use) it every day! In what way does ANY version of Internet Explorer
>prevent you from using Netscape (ANY version of Netscape)?
>
>Answer: IT DOESN'T! If you still want to use Netscape (with any version of
>Windows 95, or even with Windows 98, or any version of NT), YOU STILL CAN. I
>have run Netscape and IE side-by-side almost from the beginning of the
>Browser Wars. I prefer IE (and have since back at version 3.0), but I still
>use Netscape as well (and have the current version of Communicator, 4.04
>Professional Edition, installed in Windows 98).
>
This may be true. But you are still forced (under current MS policy) to
install IE. This takes up space and resources. When installed, DDL's
specific to IE are loaded that are not required for the shell (Explorer).
I, like many, don't want things loaded on my system that I will never use
or be forced to remove them. I want to have an OS and it's utilities
*installed* to my taste.
>Microsoft is offering system builders (like myself) a choice of what version
>of Windows 95 to bundle with my PCs...and they are going to be HOUNDED for
>this?
>
>Last I heard...there IS still "freedom of choice" in the United States Of
>America...or is Justice going to go after us system builders who CHOOSE to
>include the full version of Windows 95 (complete with Internet Explorer) for
>"aiding and abetting" Microsoft for "comtempt of court"?
>
Ah! So you really do understand the problem. MS is *not* giving the
*user* a choice. Buy a PC from you (as implied by your attitude) and the
user gets IE, like it or not. That's not freedom of choice. An OS does
not need a Web browser. It is not part of its basic function, it's an
add-on and should be optional at installation and at the desecration of the
*user*.
=== Ed Redondo =====
The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility.
And vice versa.
8-ft-7
From the Microsoft press release, there are two possible courses of action:
1) Install Windows with Internet Explorer, but hide customer access to the
files. In this way, "fewer operating system features are impaired," but the
customer will still be able to access the internet using browser software of
their choice.
2) Choose not to install some files from Internet Explorer, thereby removing
some features from the OS relating to internet access. They say this is the
worst option of the two, since the customer will not be obtaining the "total
Win95 experience."
The beta group for Win98 still refrains from commenting on the issue, and
they continue to post weekly builds.
8'7"
Micro wrote in message <34ce8280...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 02:54:54 GMT, kra...@my.email.address (krakan)
>wrote:
>
>>If I understand what they ended up doing the ie4 will not be there
>>when setting up 98..
>>Does this mean they cannot make a big button saying press me to put
>>the shortcut back on the desttop.....
>>If all thats missing is a shortcut, nothing can prevent MS to make it
>>easy for the buyer to stick that shortcut back if he wants to....
>The agreement was to let the OEMs have the option of removing the IE
>icon from the desktop, plain and simple. Most are choosing not to
>because of the fact IE4 works better than Netscape with Win95. (NOT an
>opinion, but the majority reason given by Dell and other large OEMs)
>Nothing except the desktop icon has been removed and then that choice
>is up to the OEMs. IBM continues to install IE4 and Netscape both on
>their new home PCs. Seems like DoJ was either hot air or misstated to
>the public and MS what they wanted. Their objection was to the IE4
>icon on the desktop, being required by MS to be installed by the OEMs.
>They settled for letting the OEMs having the option to leave or remove
>the icon from the desktop.
>
> Micro