Hello Richard!
22 Feb 98 16:08, Richard Perry wrote to Hans Mangold:
 HM>> What a bunch of baloney!!!  Who forces you - or anyone else - to
 HM>> use Windows
 >> (any flavor), Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator?
 RP> No one forces me at all.  However, with the marketing might that
 RP> Microsoft has, it must be careful not to leave the impression of
 RP> limiting consumer choice or leading down a path of exclusivity.
 RP> That is exactly what the DOJ calls "unfair" practices.  That's
 RP> what the Sherman AntiTrust Act was all about my friend.
Yes, to a degree, but I absolutely hate it when civil servants and lawyers, 
who don't know the difference between a browser and Edlin, try to decide 
what's good for me.  I'm too old for this nonsense!!!
Compare: can you buy a Ford with a GM engine?  Does the Government insist 
that Chrysler give you the option to specify a Ford transmission?
Our anti-trust legislation is ill prepared to deal with today's high-tech 
issues, be it software or hardware.  Some areas are pretty clear-cut, such as 
the question of MS being allowed to buy Intuit, and there I agreed it would 
perhaps not be in the consumer's best interest.
Other areas are a bit more difficult: should MS be allowed to include the 
browser with the operating system?  My answer: absolutely yes!!! Looking at 
the evolution of the internet, I dare say that internet access =must= become 
a very integral part of the operating system.  It's like asking: should the 
tuner be included in a TV or should we have legislation to force Sony to 
manufacture TV sets without tuners, in order to open up competition in the TV 
tuner business???  Of course not, just like the steering wheel on a car, a 
tuner is an integral part of the TV.  Don't like it?  Buy a Hitachi, RCA, 
Toshiba or whatever TV, or a monitor and add/make your own tuner..... :-)
Richard, to me, the bottom line should be: what's best for the =consumer=?  
The consumer, in general, doesn't know which end is up; example: I've heard 
many people complain about the primitive terminal comm. apps in Win 3.1 (e.g. 
Terminal.exe), saying that MS should have included something better and the 
consumer shouldn't be forced to spend an extra $100 just for a better 
terminal program.  Now, if MS includes a better app. at no extra charge, all 
hell breaks lose about MS monopolizing the market, etc., etc., etc. -- can't 
win!!!
So, should the operating system be broken down into individual components and 
should consumers then be forced to purchase all of these extra items they now 
take for granted at perhaps $50 or $100 a piece, adding perhaps $1,000 to the 
cost of a simple computer???  That would, in the end, actually end up being 
-anti- competitive (effects of higher prices = lower volume).
What worries me the most is our society in general and the mental midgets in 
Washington in particular, are taking a moving target with a mind of it's own, 
i.e. the internet, and think for a second that they can govern it's access 
via legislation.  The speed of evolution and public embrace of the internet 
caught everyone by surprise, even the biggest movers and shakers of the PC 
industry. Important to observe is the fact that companies (incl. MS) had to 
make =dramatic= adjustments to =respond= to the internet, rather than vice 
versa, as is usually the case.  Governments hate it when that happens; they 
prefer something that they can exercise control over and the internet is 
teaching them a valuable and long overdue lesson. :-)
Be that as it may, browser were traditionally free.  Netscape took such a 
free utility, made minor changes and started charging $$$ for the product.  
In the process, Netscape achieved a market penetration of close to 100% = 
monopoly, with plans to wrestle control of the PC operating system away from 
MS via Java, etc., and in cooperation with companies that have an agenda of 
their own, e.g. Sun Microsystems.  All was quiet in Washington while this 
went on.  But once Bill Gates gave away his newly created browser and 
achieved a 40% marketshare, in the process forcing Netscape to return the 
browser to it's traditional "freeware" status, the politicians saw a way to 
play another game.  Want to take an educated guess as to who will be the 
winners and losers in this political game?
Someone once said: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence 
of the American buyer."  How true!  Richard, I still have a very bitter taste 
in my mouth last time Washington decided the "cheap" RAM chips from Korea 
were hurting American business and imposed huge anti-dumping tariffs.  
Result?  I could buy a =complete= motherboard, with CPU, for $200, while a 
lousy 8 MB of mass-produced RAM sold for $400.  Amazing, just a few short 
years later, memory is dirt-cheap and American manufacturers (e.g. Micron) 
are doing just fine and still make good money!  I wish the government would 
concentrate on running the country and stay the heck away from my hobbies!  
:-)
In MS's case, I'm amazed at our abilities to reward losers and punish 
success. :-(
Cheers, Hans
--- GoldED/386 2.50+ / Binkley32 / Maximus / Squish / WINDOWS 95 / V34+
---------------