HM-> 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.
HM->In the process, this sub-$1,000 PC has brought about a greater 
fragmentatio
  ->the market, much, much sooner than anyone had anticipated.  For some, 
t's
  ->games machine, for others a business system, but for a considerable chunk 
o
  ->the 40% marketshare, it's..... a simple internet access tool.
HM->Now, should an internet access tool come with internet access tools?
HM->Should a car come with wheels? 
That's not the issue the DOJ was addressing at all. If MS wants to put a
web browser in Win95 it's free to do so... always has been. What it's
not free to do is not allow Win95/98 to be sold **w/o** IE. They were
telling retailers that they could not sell Win95 at all unless they sold
it with IE included. MS was then going to incororate IE so tightly into
Win98 that it could not be removed. I guess the DOJ had seen enough of
this practice (remember Windows 3.1 and preinstalls?) that they finally
choose to do something about it. Also, lets face it, MS has enough
power to easily work "around" any settlement.
Personally I think it's about time someone told MS that unless they make
a better product people don't *have* to buy it. Bill has this great
ability to force products down the consumers throats. Let him design a
product that will sell on it's merits.
 * OLX 2.1 * Todd Copeland  -  TEAM OS/2
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100
---------------