To expand on Denys fine post on this subject...

> The judge defined Internet Explorer as the shrink-wrap
edition of IE 3.0
> which contains 228 files. (Many of these files are OS
files which have been
> updated to incorporate support for IE 3.0).  The order
does not cover IE
> 4.0 and later versions.  Windows 98 is not covered by this
order and
> Windows 98 will begin to ship 2Q98 (3-4 months from now).

And the integration of IE to Windows in Win98 is transparent
to the end user.  Yes, there is an icon for "The Internet" -
but one can get to the internet, given the fact that there
*is* a connection to the internet, or an intranet, from any
open window.  This includes Control Panel, any window from
My Computer, Network Neighborhood and even Explorer (which
is really Internet Explorer).  The integration is SO tight,
that it's a damn good thing that IE4 and Win98 are not
covered, or there would be no Win98 - it would be Win99 -
and guess what - what's being done in Win98, is also being
done in NT - which are evermore becoming one in the same as
the two operating systems continue their convergence into
one, scalable operating system.  In a short amount of time
(a couple of years at the most), there will be one operating
system - Windows - which is scalable for the home, small
office, notebook, power user and server.  I, for one, think
that this is a good thing.

> Micke$oft, following the judge's orders, is forced to
offer one of the
> following for OEM installation:  a) Windows 95 (the
original version w/o
> IE), b) Windows 95B (OSR2, the currently shipping version
MINUS the 228
> files the judge specified) ((this version will not boot)),
or c) Windows
> 95B (OSR2 w/ IE 3.02 as currently shipping).

Windows 95 has three distinct versions running out there.
The first, denoted as "build 950" - a/k/a "Win 95 Gold" -
was the August 1995 release and referred to as "a)" in Denys
post above.  This does not have an integrated IE.  There is
"build 950a" which is basically Service Pack 1 and corrects
some errors plus adds additional driver support.  It also
contains some integration to IE3.0.  The last is "build
950b" (denoted as "c)" above) which is the latest OEM
release as well - this gets loaded to all new PCs from the
OEMs, and as Denys specified, taking all of the files out
renders 950b unbootable.  This also renders 950a unbootable
as well.  This then leaves build 950 - the original Windows
95 - the only viable option.

(This is also why Microsoft stated that judges, lawyers, and
the DOJ in general haven't a clue [in general] about
software design.  Had the "DOJ Experts" really checked out
documents, and the operating system itself, I think they
would have advised Ms. Reno to not "go to the mat" with
Microsoft.)

> OEM's do not want to ship Windows 95 w/o IE installed,
their customers want
> all the software on the systems they buy.

And more and more software being developed by ISVs are
utilizing the new Explorer integration.  There are at least
75 applications in beta now, which provide both local and
internet functionality.  The most commonly used function is
the ability to secure updates via the internet. You will be
able to get updates via the internet to Windows too.  All of
this cannot be done, without the INET*.DLL modules (and some
others) that are part of IE and Windows itself.  The OEMs
are placing their own apps in there so they can diagnose a
system remotely via the internet.  Again - IE modules are
needed for this.  Is this bad?  No!

(Also, why is it bad for Microsoft to include internet
functionality, but not bad for Unix, which has included a
browser, server, e-mail client and other utilities for quite
some time?  Just a thought).

> Netscape has setup applets at its website and others, that
will remove
> IEXPLORE.EXE and the icon and install Netscape's own
products.  It's very
> easy to do this.
>
> Netscape has revealed recently that revenue from browser
sales is no longer
> an important segment of revenue for them.  They do lots of
consulting, and
> server software sales and support.  They are now
considering giving their
> browser away!

Notably here, Netscape is one of the biggest crybabies
around in this action.  IE4 started nipping at their market
share.  Netscape SOLD their browser.  (Yes, I know, you can
download it for free, then not pay for it, but that's
illegal in its current licensing form).  Netscape has
enjoyed significant market share for some time now - and now
that the competition has heated up, it crys "foul" (as did
Sun with HotJava, but to a much lesser extent).  I says, "if
ya can't take the heat, stays out of the kitchen".  If
you're going to take Microsoft on, be prepared to wage a
Jihad, because Microsoft will, if the case is there to do
so - and there is quite a developer base to back 'em up.

Netscape should have started giving their browser and client
suite software away a long time ago.  If it did - I'm rather
sure that this would not be an issue today.

Everything else Denys said, I agree with.  Let market forces
prevail and if IE is the superior browser, then people will
download it and use it.  I personally have all three running
here (IE 3.02, IE 4.01 and Netscape Communicator 4.0)
because any web-centric projects we do require testing on
all three.  (We don't mess with IE 2.0 anymore and encourage
upgrade).  I'm partial to IE 4.0 myself, but a coworker is
partial to Netscape.  Is either of us wrong?  Nope - we just
have our preferences - just like all of you do.

So - let's hope that the judge sees the DOJ action for what
it is.  Smoke being blown.  The government has been out to
get certain companies, Microsoft included, for some time -
and will find any excuse to do it.  If the judge had any
guts (not my preferred word, but this is a family list), he
would look at this, see it for what it is, get some
technical expert advice from outside, and let market forces
prevail.

And as for Netscape - give your browser away, and see what
happens!

Happy New Year all --- 1998's gonna be an interesting year.

Best,
Joe