[CLUE-Talk] Big Oops

[Dave Anselmi]

Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:

> Looks like Microsoft has shot itself in the foot --
> The states asked the judge to require M$ to provide a version
> of Windows without Exploder and other features, Microsoft
> says it can't, so the states ask the judge to force M$ to
> hand over the code so they can prove their point.

I guess it all depends on how you define "can't".

It seems reasonable to me that Windows can function without IE.  It's been
since NT4 SP3 that I looked at the Windows internals, but dropping IE (even
if just hiding it so users can't run it) seems eminently doable.

But, MS isn't an OS company, they're an application company.  The value of
Windows is $0 - because there are viable alternatives for that price.  What
MS does well is applications.  (See "In the Beginning was the Command Line"
by Stephenson - it's his idea).

So, can MS remove IE and still provide their apps?  No.  I recently
installed some MS development stuff.  First I had to upgrade to IE 6.
Although the OS is relatively independent of the apps, all the apps hang
together.  So, perhaps the app that depends on IE is explorer (the shell).
Perhaps it's the Office suite.  Perhaps it's just tech support needing to
tell users how to find knowledge base articles.

Most likely what MS means isn't "can't technically" but "can't while
maintaining our projected profits".

Just my opinion.  Usually I have better manners ;-)

Dave