<soapbox>

OK, there seems to be some problem with the statement "MS has IE integrated
into Windows95" (and the variants on this message)...so in the spirit of the
holidays, allow me, in my role of a Founding ClubWin member (who happens to
have access to internals of the OS itself), to enlighten all on this, to the
extent I can without violating any Non-Disclosure Agreements...

1.  The original release of Windows 95 had a web browser called Internet
Explorer.  It was not extremely integrated, but did have some "like code"
between Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer.  The plan was then, and
always was, to integrate the two into one "Explorer"

2.  Subsequent releases (builds 950a and 950b), further integrated IE (3.01
and 3.02).  These plans were on the drawing board as long ago as 1994, and
probably earlier.  (<fact> DOJ, by the way, has these documents, and has had
these documents since the last fracas with Microsoft, so there has been no
surprise to DOJ... if they had a problem with it, they should have brought
it up before other vendors starting crying to DOJ, that their browsers could
not complete).

3.  With the release of IE 4 - the final integration was made available for
Windows 95, the same functionality which will be found in Windows 98 as the
base operating system.  DOJ has known of these plans for years and should
have taken action much earlier.

Now - all that being said - and all of this was public knowledge as long as
18 months ago, why didn't Netscape, Sun and the others cry foul then?  Why?
They thought they could retain their market share of the browser market.
When IE4 was releaed, IE's share started soaring, Netscape started
shrinking, at a rate not seen before.  This caused the lastest fracas... and
if you don't want to believe that - look at the chonology - it's all there.

Now, as for what can and cannot be removed without killing Windows 95 (build
950b, which is the current release), I could list the files which will
render Windows 95 inoperative.  If the consensus is that this list be
released, I'll post the files (from Windows 95) - these are public domain,
however, they are also posted on the MS site.  My list is almost identical
to theirs, except my list is derived from my own tests (which also crashed
the machine here - Windows would not boot at all).  Only IE files which were
not removed using the deinstall of IE4 were removed manually.

As for the judge removing IE - sure, anyone can "remove IE" - hell, go to
the Control Panel/Add-Remove Programs, and kill it off, then make Netscape
your default browser - and use it as your browser, there's nothing to keep
you from doing so.  Even in Windows 98 (public knowledge) - this can be
done.  The functionality you lose "from the operating system" is the use of
the shell extensions.  Windows Explorer will revert back to the old Windows
Explorer, other windows will show just as they always have, and options for
direct web access, channels, showing the desktop as HTML and scripting
within the shell are all disabled.  These enhancements are extremely useful,
but can be disabled by deinstalling IE4.

The fact is - that the plan for Windows all along, was to integrate the
Internet, Intranet and Extranet into the operating system, which is the next
logical extension to the OS.  Remember folks, the computer is no longer "the
box on the desktop" or "the notebook system" or the HP3000 in the glass room
(or closet, as the case may be) - but the network.  To take a page from
Clinton's book (and yes, I'm a Republicrat) - "It's The Network, Stupid!
Not the Box!"  This integration enables that more than "Slow-S/2" or the Mac
could ever do so at this point.

Microsoft is being accused of running a monopoly.  I say Bull.  They market
extremely well, which is more than I can say for a few other companies.
They also find what is needed, and are very quick to get it in there.  The
more nimble the company, the more functionality you are going to find.  IBM
is not nimble, hence the demise of Slow-S/2.  Even HP is not as quick with
new technology as Microsoft is.  If one is not nimble, one is not going to
get the functionality in there.

Lastly - one last thought on this.  People are not tied to Microsoft either,
and it's a farce to think so.  On the Intel platform, there's various
flavours of Un*x, as well as other obsure operating systems - all of which
offer a Graphic User Interface, Network Protocols and almost everything else
that Windows offers.  Why do people flock to Microsoft?  The APPLICATIONS
are there (and there will be a post on this subject related to the 3000
really soon).  If anyone tells you that the Win32 API spec is not public,
they're (as a company owner I know once said) "smoking dutch cleanser".  I
have the full Win32 API available (and not because of my ClubWin connection
either - but acquired on my own)... App developers can develop to Windows
quite easily in Visual Basic, Visual C++ --- and most importantly --- to
Java (using the JDK 1.1) - real Java, not the stuff that uses the
Windows-centric classes.

I know this is going to draw a few flames... there are people who dislike
(being nice here) Microsoft - and that's their right - so go use Linux, OS/2
or MacOS.  For those who find that Windows 95 does the job, you will find
that Windows 98 will decrease those GPFs - even eliminate them in most
cases, support more devices than Linux will and offer more
interoperatibility with other platforms.  It will do the job better and
faster than Windows 95.

Sure, Microsoft is crass, is a bully sometimes... and who in their position
wouldn't?  Hell, if I were in Gates shoes, I would be trying to do whatever
possible to dominate, and if that means that I plow more money into R&D to
do whatever is necessary to get the job done, so be it.  If I told you how
much Windows 98 has cost Microsoft so far in R&D dollars, it would blow the
minds of almost everyone on this list.  What business owner is NOT trying to
trounce the competition?!?

</soapbox>

Now --- it's 5 minutes to Christmas Day...  a day where I plan to relax,
take the day off (like most of you), and I wish all of you and yours, the
best of Holiday Seasons, and the Happiest of New Years!

Best Regards,
Joe