Re: Boycott Microsoft

[roger@. (Roger )]

On Tue, 19 May 1998 01:20:25 -0500, someone claiming to be Dennis
wrote:

>bobsun wrote:
>> 
>> Rick wrote:
>> >
>> > Douglas J. Romero <dromero@roanoke.infi.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I see nothing wrong with Microsoft wanting to make more money. That's what
>> > > a free market economy is all about. But I can see certain future dangers that
>> > > should be a dressed how before it's too late.
>> >
>> > Can you see something wrong with:
>> >
>> > Vendors not being allowed to pre-install a non-MS browser?
>> 
>> Not true.
>> 
>> > Vendors not being allowed to replace the IE icon with another one?
>> 
>> Was true, but no longer. Vendors always had the option of installing
>> their own choices of applications/icons.
>> 
>> > Web sites only allowing access to IE browsers on W95?
>> 
>> Never saw one. But isn't that the choice of the web site? What do
>> propose/ a web gestapo going around puttting a stop to this "antisocial"
>> behavior?
>> >
>> > --
>> > ***   To reply remove nospam from my return address.   ***
>> 
>> Now that your misunderstandings about the situation have been clarified,
>> I'm certain that you will modify your position on the topic. right??
>> 
>> I suspected as much.
>> 
>> bobsun, speaking for me only.
>
>You are yourself incorrect in the article "Smoking Gun In Microsoft's
>Memos?" http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,22227,00.html There is a quote
>from that article:
>
>"Internal documents make clear that Microsoft tied
>                 [IE] to its Windows operating system and refused to
>                 give original equipment manufacturers an unbundled
>                 option," the complaint stated. For example, a
>                 Gateway representative allegedly said: "On several
>                 occasions, Gateway asked [Microsoft] to remove
>                 the icon for IE from the desktop, but [Microsoft]
>                 representatives have refused each request, saying
>                 that the browser cannot be removed or sold
>                 separately." 
>
>So you yourself are incorrect posting that "Vendors always had the
>option of installing their own choices of applications/icons." Read the
>articles and get facts yourself. Now you as you said

And where above does it say that a vendor cannot install what ever
they want?  It only says that IE could not be removed.  Which was a
function of the OEM contract.

>>Now that your misunderstandings about the situation have been >clarified,I'm certain that you will modify your position on the topic. >right??
>
>You better read more before you try to spank posters. All your not true
>responses contradict the articles, are you in possession of insiders
>info? I doubt it. Remove X to reply.