To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (15266 ) 12/20/1997 4:54:00 PM From: Daniel Schuh Respond to of 24154
Uninstalling IE in eye of user news.com Fortuitously for the Judge and DOJ, and unfortunately for Microsoft, there seem to be plenty of people digging into the install/uninstall issue. Microsoft's expert is going to have a lot of explaining to do, if anybody on the other side is keeping up on this stuff. Explaining the Microsoftese definition of uninstall looks to be the least of their worries.He may also consider Microsoft's assertion that stripping out IE 3 makes Windows impossible to boot. That claim appears to be wrong. CNET tested a workaround and found that Windows worked fine without the functionality that IE adds to the system. When Microsoft sent original equipment makers a letter listing the files to delete to completely remove IE 3.0 from the system, they included certain files--"mcf40.dll" and "rundll.32.exe," for example--that are independent of the browser. When CNET deleted IE 3.0, then "rundll.32.exe," then reinstalled IE 3.0, "rundll.32.exe" was not reinstalled. If the company deliberately offered an extreme position this week, only at the January 13 hearing will it become clear if the strategy backfired and ultimately results in contempt of court, or if it is ultimately effective in focusing the scope of the government investigation. Well, if Microsoft choses to treat the Judge with contempt, I think it'd be appropriate if the Judge issued a contempt citation, but that's not a legal opinion. Unfortunately for Microsoft, though Windows is pretty obscure and opaque, it's not quite obscure and opaque enough for people outside of the holy inner circle to get a pretty good idea what's going on, just yet anyway. Cheers, Dan.