John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


John Doe wrote:


David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:



Peter wrote:



In article Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102,
jdoe usenet.love.invalid says...


An operating system should not have applications as it's
components if you want to promote competition among software
developers. And if you pretend to not know the difference
between an operating system and an application, you are just a
liar. There is a gray area but it's not that difficult to
generally separate an operating system from applications.



But wasn't a major part of the court process centred around
determining whether IE was or was not a necessary part of the
O/S? Weren't Microsoft claiming that it was and, if removed,
then the O/S would not work as 'advertised'? Isn't that one of
the major reasons why the case dragged on for so long? One set
of experts trying to prove that IE was NOT a necessary
component.

Didn't some group or groups actually manage to remove IE
completely and still have Windows work? Wasn't that a major
factor in disproving M$'s claims? In other words, it wasn't
just a simple case of showing that and O/S should not have
applications as it's components, it was far more complicated
than that at the time.

It was some time ago so may 'facts' may be somewhat of the mark.




Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it
isn't 'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue


David Maynard simply argues. The rest of us simply jog our memory
to a time when Internet Explorer was an add-on component to
Windows.

David Maynard is old enough and technically inclined enough to
know better.

To imagine that an Internet browser is a necessary part of a
personal computer operating system is to suggest that a personal
computer cannot run the myriad of extremely valuable programs it
in fact ran before Microsoft bound Internet explorer to Windows.

John Doe is apparently unable to comprehend that the world changes
and what were acceptable products in the past no longer are, just
as the previously popular cars with hand crank starters no longer
are.


The main reason Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into Windows
was to crush the Navigator/Java threat.

That's certainly your opinion but what makes you think your mind reading
skills work any better on Bill Gates than they do on me?


On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser?


Corporations or any entity that wants its subordinate(s) to use
the computer but not use an Internet browser would buy an
operating system with no browser.

Now show me any significant number who actually practice that
novel theory.


Step out of your closet and take off your blinders.

In other words you can't support the theory.


A really good example IMO would be a parent who wants their kid
to have access to the ever increasing universe of information on
the Internet but wants a browser specifically programmed/tailored
to help keep the kid from stumbling on all of the garbage.

Which is still an O.S. with a browser.


Which could better be included by OEMs

I've already explained why an O.S. supplier would want to control things
like critical updates and other O.S. functions.

or installed by those of us
who don't need everything preinstalled.

Feel free to install anything you like, just as you've always been able to.

The rest of us might buy an operating system preinstalled with a
browser of choice.

It has always been possible to get any browser at all
preinstalled, or add one.


I guess you've never experienced the problems an integrated Internet
Explorer can cause in Windows. Some of us enjoy having only the
programs we need.

You're right, I haven't experienced any problems.

Long gone are the days I tried to keep up with the ever increasing
garbage Microsoft dumped onto my hard drive with each new version of
Windows. It's like living on a landfill.

Then don't use Windows.