Hi George,

>Hi Jimbo,
>
>>>
>>The way I remember it, IE is *not* to be on the OS side.
>
>See my response to David. Whether it is not doesn't effect the premise.
>
>>>This has got to be the stupidist idea I've ever heard and makes me believe that the DOJ and the 19 states don't have idea one as to what they're doing or the implications of it.
>>>
>>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.
>
>I'm sure they didn't. It's obivious, however, that they're clueless about software from what's been published.
>
>>>Traditionally, software has been grouped into two types: Systems and Applications. In the latter you have your word processors, spreadsheets, and so on. In the former you have your operating systems and development tools. So what the DOJ seeks to, in essence is not only break MS into two pieces, but two pieces that are not even logically defined. The "Wisdom of Solomon" this ain't.
>
>>Well I could easily put "development tools" on the applications side, though I'd be more inclined to put them into a completely separate category.
>>Restricting themselves to only two pieces I feel that OS' (only) in one part and all else in the other is a good split. Personally I would have guessed more splitting myself.
>
>Yeah, given the opportunity, I could also say that using a chainsaw to do surgery was also a good idea. The point is that the OS developer uses a tool that they've developed to create the OS. In turn, they sell the tool. This brings down the cost of the OS. However, since they can't market the tool, what happens? Yep, the cost of the OS goes up. This is good for the consumer? That's why this is boneheaded.
>
Not really true though, in that VB/VBA/VBS, FP/VFP, WSH and who knows what else are "development tools" that have very little bearing on the delivery of an OS. Yes, C/C++ do, but MS even has competition for that specific language. So I cannot really see that selling C/C++ lowers the cost of an OS to the consumer.

>>>Initially, I had the feeling that such a breakup would be bad for the consumer. Now I'm convinced of it. These people having zero idea what they're doing. The judge's middle name should be "Pinhead" and the rest of this group must be on life support because they're brain dead. Would someone please rent these people a clue?
>>>
>>Firstly, there is serious doubt as to whether this will ever come to pass (I'm sure the lawyers for MS are fully reviewing all of the tactics employed by IBM 20+ years ago) and even if it does it looks to be a few years away anyway.
>>Secondly, I'm not convinced that the consumer will 'suffer' if it does happen. Sure, things will change and some freebies may well disappear. It could be that we're already suffering today even beyond what the DOJ suspects. 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. 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?
>
>Have you ever looked at, say, the Lotus documentation? By comparison we're talking about you're common romance novel found in the checkout line of a grocery store versus "War and Peace". No comparision. It could be better, but what couldn't?
>
Funny but in a reply to Erik I said I remembered the 1-2-3 EARLY documentation to be damned good and very thorough. But my real point is that they themselves know full well the deficiencies of the docs (refer to the KB articles, and not just the DOCERR ones) and yet the docs hardly change.

>>Or is using all the MS 'freebies' *really* good for your corporation when they may in fact lock you into the MS world? Godd for MS for sure, but good for 'the consumer'?
>
>Forget the freebies. I'm talking about driving up development cost for the independent. He'll have to not only buy the OS at a greater cost, but the tools to develop against the OS. Currently, as I mentioned elsewheres, this is between $2,000-$2,500. I think that double that isn't beyond the realm of possibilty. This drives up the cost for the independent to do business. This is passed on to the customer. This is in their best interest? I think not.
>
I can only say that I think that this is not likely. I truly think that costs could come down simply by virtue of there being more competing products out there from which to choose.

>>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. I really have to believe that we've missed out on significant innovation by *other* parties because of this.
>
>See my response to Doug Dodge. This is purely apochraphal.
>
I'll look for it.

>>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".
>
>The inability for the developer to "innovate" is the problem. Under the current proposal, the comes into question. Again, this was the reason behind my post.

Well let me use a couple of 'examples' of things that presently bug me...
1) I positively hate disappearing MENUs and POPUPs and would much rather 'dismiss' them by methods other than simply clicking on an item. I think this would be a TREMENDOUS "innovation", though it lies not really in the application developer's arena but in the OS arena. Given the internals I'd bet that more than one bright light out there would quickly solve this problem.
2) Much of the stuff in "About Face" is stuff that I'd like to do but simply cannot because nothing in WIN or my product of choice (VFP) gives me ability to do so. Again, I'd bet that some bright lights out there would add substantial functionality for the benefit of the "user" (via the developer).

Cheers,

Jim N