Tom,

>>>>> The more MS gets away with this crap, the more stupid we allow ourselves to become.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, because it's not like it had to do with a legal settlement or anything.
>>>
>>>Just like Java was a "security" concern too, right?
>>>
>>>Come'on Mike... The implications of this are enormous.
>>
>>Jeff,
>>
>>If I understand the Java 2 specifications correctly (from the "Java 2 Bible" by Walsh, Couch and Steinberg), Java applets can only communicate with the server and not the host. If so, and I'll admit to being a rank newbie on this, it would seem to me that any "security" concerns would have to be connected with the VM and its implementation and not the underlying OS.
>>
>>Further, AFAIK, neither the Netscape nor IE browsers fully support the specification. Again, this is according to the above mentioned book.
>>
>>Given the recent legal wranglings, much of which centered around the integration of the browser technologies into Windows, it would seem to me to be a prudent thing to do to exclude the VM from Windows XP. Further, it would seem far more appropriate, if Microsoft were to bundle the VM with anything, that it would be the browser.
>>
>>Just my take.
>
>George;
>
>My first personal computer - Summer of 1975 IMSAI - S-100 Bus - write your own drivers - CP/M - MP/M - and here we are today!
>
>Americans elect public officials to represent them, and judges are appointed at higher levels to make decisions for the entire nation to enjoy. Now I suggest there is a world of reality that neither of these two groups understands or cares about except for selfish reasons. Let us carry this Microsoft legal battle to another level. Microsoft is not perfect but where would the industry and users be without them? The word chaos comes to mind!
>
>There are terms like cross platform and others that we understand but have not been fully realized. One of the major problems with advancing technology is the legal system. It is not adequate for today’s world. I would like to suggest the following to make the politicians and judges happy as well as others that are just as ignorant about technology. The offerings below will help spur competition in the computer industry. This will allow everyone to know that politicians and judges “have done their job”.
>
>1. Each computer will have a unique BIOS.
>2. Each computer will have a unique operating system.
>3. Each computer will have unique applications software.
>4. No two network protocols shall be the same.
>5. All file formats will be unique.
>6. All drivers will be unique.
>7. The Internet Explorer will not allow any Java or Java like code to be rendered!
>8. Netscape will meet it’s own specifications! (Impossible!)
>
>The above will truly open up competition between hardware and software vendors. I am sure that for only a few hundred million dollars each home will be able to afford a truly “personal computer". Then again – a main frame starts looking pretty good – cost wise!
>
>
>Tom

While I think there would be more chaos initially I think that driven by the need to more efficiently compete that you'd start to see a new standard emerge or maybe even the same existing standards but with no one company 'owning' that standard. The reason? So businesses could exchange business data. Same for emails formats I'd think. Essentially it would take the ability to set a standard from one company and place it into the public domain. Either way I'd think you'll have a standard.

Remember, when you started in 1975 and I in 1978 or so there were no real standards just as you're suggesting we'd revert back to. I don't think that this is what would happen - based on what has already happened.

Two observations:

1) Linux is today an example of what I'm thinking about.

2) There would eventually be a dominant standard and I'd think it would end up being right where we're going today TCP/IP & XML.

IOW, who cares who's at the top of the proverbial heap today? The market is bigger than Microsoft.