>>Aw c'mon Doug. You can do better than this.:-)
>>
>>You really think that there are a bunch of "magic, hidden API calls"? Naw, there aren't and I'll tell you why for a couple of reasons.
>>
>>First, on the software side, a DLL must publish its exposed functions in the export table. Otherwise, they can only be called internally by function that is in the export table or is similarly called by an unexposed function.
>>
>>Second, all it would take is one disgrutled MS programmer to go running to the competition or on guy with a disassembler to find it out, which would lead to...
>>
>>Third, if they did exist, don't you think that Lotus and Corel, and who knows else, would've joined in on this suit.
>>
>>Bottom line is that the Platform SDK publishes everything that should be used. I've heard of, at least, admonishments from MS saying, "Don't do it. There's no guarantee that it'll be supported in the future." I've seen MS software fail because of this.
>>
>>The Win64 SDK has been out for at least a year. Longer if you include the docs published for NT 5.0. And, anyone can buy an MS Universal for $2,500 ($2,000 for a renewal). That may seem like a lot to some folks, but when you sit down and look at what you get, it's a pitance.
>
>George,
>
><g>
>
>Well, now I've gone and done it.
>
>Sure, there *are* hidden codes in Microsoft's software. Easter eggs remember? Now, to what extent there is business related code that gives Microsoft a leg up I wouldn't really know for sure since I don't have that code. Nor do I think you do but I will absolutely agree with you that this would seem highly unlikely.

< s >The Easter Eggs have been around for awhile and they're pretty well known. I personally think that they're kind of neat. My favorite was the credits in Win 3.1. But, yeah, it's hardly a reason for purchasing a product.

>Essentially I do not think MSFT would do this
>
>Everything I've seen would lead me to believe that Microsoft would never do this. Didn't they just recently fire three programmers for putting some 'extra' code in a product? They are too smart to do that as they are in no way going to take the chance.

I don't recall, but I think I mentioned MS software failing because it used an undocumented feature in a DLL. I'm not 100% certain that it's the case, but I can't think of anything else that would cause. Remember Microsoft Fax? It came with Win 95. It won't run properly under Win 98. The fix is to replace the MAPI32.DLL in Win 98 with the one that came with Win 95. It's even documented in the MS KB.

>Then, what's the government's case? I still think that a lot of this is political.

>*shrug*

To sum up the government's case (and probably badly< g >) it basically revolves around MS supposedly using its position in the marketplace to gain dominance for a particular product. In this case it's the browser. The contention being that by tying it to the OS, they sought an unfair advantage. If this is true, then wouldn't you agree that the remedy is extreme? Certainly, I may be being simplistic in my summation, but my recollection is along these lines. I certainly don't recall any indication that any other products were involved.

Political? You bet.