On 01-10-98, JUSTIN BAUSTERT declared to ROBERT PLETT:
JB> TE> What about Microsoft's little policy of *requiring* vendors to buy
JB> TE> Internet Explorer in order to be *allowed* to purchase Windows
JB> RP> Was that truly the situation, or was it rather that Win95 was simply
JB> RP> unavailable without it?
JB>There is a documented case with Compaq where they were getting ready to 
ship
JB>systems pre-loaded with Netscape instead of IE.  Microsoft found out, and
JB>threatened to end their contract w/respect to Windoze95 if IE was removed
JB>from these systems.. Compaq caved when they were pushed on the issue..
If MS could end the contract in such a way, then isn't it likely that
Compaq was in violation of that contract's provisions, said provisions
being things Compaq had agreed to abide by?
Whatever one might think of Bill Gates, I've never heard anyone call him
a dummy when it comes to contracts.  After all, it was the nature of the
contract he got IBM to sign that made him rich in the first place.
In any event, Gates has competition now that's making life increasingly
difficult for him.  The JAVA folks are really coming on strong, and not
simply in products for browsers and the internet, but the OS as well,
rapidly approaching the point of making Win95 unnecessary, if they're
not there already, and theirs runs on multiple platforms.  They've
already given Gates a taste of his own medicine too - he *has* to
provide JAVA support in IE in order to make it a viable product.  What
was that somebody said about a MS monopoly? |-)
Bob     /\-/\   - proud Ilk   homebody@galstar.com
C.A.T. ( o o ) Chapter Ilks
       == ^ ==
Green Country - Oklahoma      http://www.galstar.com/~homebody/
 * SLMR 2.1a * He who fails to learn from history is doomed to repeat it
---------------