On Tue, 09 May 2006 17:06:10 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> I can recall stories about how Microsoft threatened** Compaq when they
> decided to bundle Netscape with their Windows-based workstations.
You really should just stop trying to reiterate stories you "remember"
because you always seem to get them wrong. Of course, you really don't
seem to care about accuracy, so i'm sure you'll continue.
The facts in the case you're referring to is that Microsoft threatened to
pull Compaq's license because they decided to remove access to IE and
replace it with Netscape. Had Compaq just shipped Netscape, things would
have been find (and indeed, several OEM's, such as Toshiba had been doing
that for quite some time).
It was not the bundling of Netscape that was the problem, but the removal
of the access to IE.
> Besides,
> why should anyone be forced to /download/*** Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox,
> Opera, Netscape or one of the other Web browsers while one is already
> planted in the distribution? Worst of all, it is highly insecure for its
> very existence and cannot be uninstalled. Even Dell in the UK**** cannot
> get rid of that grabage, which Microsoft recently admitted could be
> separated and dropped. This in itself was evidence that they lied in
> court. Outrageous.
Once again, you have the facts wrong. First, existing IE cannot be fully
removed from Windows. Microsoft hasn't changed anything there. In Vista,
IE will non longer be integrated into Explorer, but it will still be an
integrated part of the OS.
|
|
