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: Reginald Middleton who wrote (16075)	1/14/1998 6:51:00 AM
From: mike iles	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Reginald, MSFT's defence, in fact the bedrock on which its bad attitude rests, is that IE and Windows are one integrated product. Even more so with Win 98. Pray tell me why you and they find solace in that. I think it means that Win 98 is really Win 99 or Wind00ws as the court forces them to de-integrate. And they have no backup plan to take IE out of Win 98 ... we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. This is planning??? regards, Mike

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (16075)	1/14/1998 10:04:00 AM
From: Justin Banks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Reg - What other files should Microsoft give OEMs the option to remove?" asked Holley. "I don't feel comfortable saying," replied Weadock. "I couldn't draw a box around the files that constitute IE." Holley continued his questioning on what specific files Weadock thinks make up Internet Explorer, to no avail. "I can't cite specific C code or give you a list of files that make up IE. Some are shared," said Weadock. Judge Jackson eventually interjected Holley's questioning, saying "the witness has said several times that he cannot do that [say where IE ends and Windows 95 begins], and I think you have tested the limits." Ever seen a Makefile, Reg? Taking IE out of Windows would be easy at compile time, but not so easy at runtime. It would be easy for me to build Irix without, say, the fft library, but once it's built, it would be lots harder to take it out once it's built. The issue here is not what OS stuff IE uses, but what IE stuff the OS uses. The answer has to be little or none. Just look at IE for MacOS or the 'beta' for Solaris for the reason. -justinb

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (16075)	1/14/1998 2:18:00 PM
From: nommedeguerre	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Reg, >>"What other files should Microsoft give OEMs the option to remove?" asked Holley. "I don't feel comfortable saying," replied Weadock. "I couldn't draw a box around the files that constitute IE." >> Holley continued his questioning on what specific files Weadock thinks make up Internet Explorer, to no avail. "I can't cite specific C code or give you a list of files that make up IE. Some are shared," said Weadock. How could anybody know what's in the DLL's code itself without diassembling it first, an act which would violate the all-sacred license agreement? Of course, maybe Microsoft is having as much trouble reading their own source code as they have interpretting court orders. Personally I have this feeling that with an In-Circuit Emulator and a week to kill I could tell the judge exactly what IE uses at the system level. Why doesn't the court just order Microsoft to produce the source code and point out the "IE-specific code" in the DLL's? Microsoft has yet to display any proof that IE is "inextricably linked" into Win95. What next, are they going to show that Weadock is a racist and subscribes to MacWorld? Surely, Microsoft can hire more entertaining clowns to defend itself; where's that guy with the buckskin and flair for drama when you need him. Take it easy, Norm