Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: micromike who wrote (13617)	10/23/1997 10:40:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

TO ALL: This seems like a reasonable response from MSFT: SEATTLE, Oct 22 (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. Wednesday defended the way it licenses its Windows 95 operating system in the face of complaints it refused to allow a manufacturer to remove its Internet browser icon from the computer desktop. Microsoft spokesman Mark Murray acknowledged that the software giant had refused to allow Compaq Computer Corp from removing the Internet Explorer icon from the computer desktop. But he said Compaq and other computer manufacturers were free to include the desktop icon for the rival Netscape Communications Corp Navigator browser. "This demonstrates a real misunderstanding on the part of the Justice Department," Murray said. "We believe that Internet Explorer is an integrated feature of Windows," he said. "We do not believe that computer manufacturers can break apart Windows and choose to ship one part or another. We license Windows to be shipped in its entirety by all computer manufacturers so users have a consistent experience." He added that manufacturers were "completely free" to load competiting software onto new machines, and he noted that Navigator was preloaded onto computers from major manufacturers including Compaq, Toshiba Corp <6502.T> and International Business Machines Corp .

To: micromike who wrote (13617)	10/24/1997 7:17:00 AM
From: Reginald Middleton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

<How did Microsoft respond to Compaq removing the Internet Explorer icon from the desktop?> There is nothing wrong with this action from MSFT. If I were to ship/bundle an app OEM or through other channels of distribution, I would expect it to be delivered intact. If you want to tamper with someones intellectual property, do it to your own. Would you object if Gateway wanted to replace the Netscape icon in the corner of Navigator with an IE icon? If so, don't blame MSFT.

To: micromike who wrote (13617)	10/24/1997 2:17:00 PM
From: XiaoYao	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24154

>The DOJ should have charged them more than $1Mil/day. Did you cover you COSFF lost from SUNW yet? Maybe even wider? No matter how much money DOJ asked for will not cover yours. Why do you care? What Compaq did is trying to tear apart Win95, that's not allowed by license agreement. They are free to ADD Netscape Navigator but not allowed to REPLACE IE. Is that hard to understand? IE is a part of original Win95 since version 1.0. Someone said before that IE 1.0 was in Plus. But it was in Win95 OEM version, we are not talking about the retail version here.