Hi Erik,

>>The way I remember it, IE is *not* to be on the OS side.
>
>This is the way I remember it too.
>
>>I'm not so sure that we adequately understand either the law or the complete evidence. I've just gotta believe that the decision-makers didn't make the call and set the proposed penalty lightly.
>
>Do you seriously believe that a bunch of lawyers and bureaucrats who have only read about the way computers and software work, or had it abstractly told to them by a geek on a lawyer's payroll have a better understanding of the software market and software interactions than the average software developer? I have read a lot of informed public opinion on the subject, and yours is the first (coming from a technical person ) that thinks this.
>
Well JVP had only the highest praise for at least one of the "geek on a laywer's payroll" and I think it's fair to assume that there was more than just him working on this. And I may be the first you've heard with this opinion, but my guess is that there are more.

>>For instance, you know of my distaste for the quality of VFP documentation. It's clear that MS' documentation overall is generally of the same calibre.
>
>Jim, have you ever looked at documentation coming from another software company? Have you ever gone to Netscape's site looking for information on how to control the browser? Have you ever tried to programmatically control Adobe Acrobat? Have you ever looked for the online documentation for Oracle's Developer 2000?
>
I've looked at some and I basically agree BUT... can you blame them too much? If they see what MS gets away with, then why would they put any more into the job? MS basically 'sets the standard' and virtually all others follow.

>Do you subscribe to MSDN Library? (It's free you know).
>
Yes.

>I can tell you, as MS developers, we have it good. Whatever complaints that you have regarding the quality of MS docs would be multiplied 5 fold with the documenation for most other company's software. (There are exceptions, I'm sure)
>
Things like MSDN and other online stuff makes it much better than average, I will admit. But a lot of this is to supplement what should have been in the basic product documentation in the first place. All of the KB articles answered by "working as designed" or titled "How to..." are strong indications of failure in the original product documentation, else "the design" would be evident from the documentation and the "How to" also would be clear.

>>Now they have a MS Press entity that publishes much of the missing details (plus some, of course). Is this strategy *really* done to keep the base product's cost down or might it be to foster yet another profit centre?
>
>You resent the idea that MS press publishes books that give even more documentation than what comes for free? I am confused.
>
No, I am wondering out loud if the profit potential for MS Press publications might be one of the major reasons why basic product documentation is deficient in the first place. *If* in fact the software product *is* (said to be) cheaper because of the present situation, then I would say:
a) the trend toward CD-ROM/DVD documentation will kill this 'argument';
b) Maybe they could offer a higher quality integrated documentation for a higher price.

>>Or is using all the MS 'freebies' *really* good for your corporation when they may in fact lock you into the MS world?
>
>Lock??? Who says you can't use Netscape? Who says you can't pay for any other product that competes with a MS freebie? How does a free product lock you in to anything? If it was inferior, why wouldn't you look to an alternative? How in the world can something free be bad for a consumers? I am further confused.
>
I seem to read of many 'features' that "need" IE4 or IE5 installed to be employed successfully. Sure, you may not need to actually 'use' IE4 or IE5, but they have to be there. I have yet to do a WEB app of any kind, but from the bits I've read I get the feeling that there are lots of nifty things that only work with IE. Yes, I can have a less nifty app if I want/need to maintain all browsers compatibilities, but that not only requires a trade-off but also more detailed knowledge of what is/isn't compatible between them all. It has got to be awfully tempting (and I'd bet this is a big MS objective) to got an MS-only route.

>>Finally, I have read sufficient over the years to believe that MS *does* include code in its OS' to further its *own* application products and that this includes everything from performance to features/useability.
>
>And this is bad why? If you, as an Office products developer, needed an OS function that would make your life easier, or your program perform better, and you could possibly get it in the next version of the OS by calling someone in the next building, wouldn't you do it? And why would that be unscrupulous?
>
This is very very BAD. It is the REAL killer of innovation. If MS can make their apps run faster or be much easier to employ by coding hidden OS functionality (known (or understood) only by them then others cannot possibly compete with that. Let's say that someone comes up with the next "killer app" and it is so good that people want/use it in droves despite being a tad slow and marginally easy to use. If MS doesn't buy it then they can make a lookalike but overcome those deficiencies using OS internals to their exclusive benefit.

>Have you ever noticed that nearly all features that MS builds into its products, it makes available to other developers, writing apps in any language? Did you know you can use Agent, the little cartoon characters in MS Office, in your applications, even if your apps are written in Delphi? Nearly all of the ActiveX controls developed to make MS applications more user friendly or smoother looking show up in the next version of Visual Studio for anyone to use at no additional charge, even though MS probably spent countless costly man-hours developing them.
>
OK, but why are you so sure that they are releasing the WHOLE story to outside developers. I simply have to doubt that they do. And aren't these kinds of things the factors that might just 'lock' one in to MS?

>>One more thing - MS' recent commercials about stifling innovation. It seems to be commonly felt that MS hardly innovates *anything* but rather buys/licenses things and then embellishes them. So I truly have trouble believing that any split will stifle their "innovation-quotient".
>
>Ok, even if MS never developed anything in house, but purchased it and integrated the technology into their own products, what's the difference? Who cares? The end result is still an innovative feature in your app or OS. Making MS's OS and applications divisions legally unable to cooperate would be a travesty, because the level of integration that we hav now wouldn't be possible. How does an OS developer know what an applications developer needs if the applications developer is not allowed to tell him?

I only care in that the commercials sound like a bunch of lies to me, leading me to question the MS motives even more deeply. I don't expect Ballmer or Gates to say 'we stole the windows concept and the mouse idea from Xerox PARC (or wherever) and look what we did with them' but I don't expect them to take credit for them either. Nor for MS Word nor for EXCEL nor for .... But those commercials sure imply that MS invented the vast majority of the PC world's functionality.

It should be clear to anyone reading that these are strictly opinions and may be misinformed, informed or formed by whatever, however. In other words, I am declaring that I am no expert in these matters. I doubt that many of us are.

Regards,

Jim N