[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Moderately improved map of Microsoft tying evidence

  1. You may delete IE or anything else that you like.
  2. Making software work and install takes work and money. Microsoft
  developed a product call IE. It contains ActiveX components. When you
  install IE, these are correctly installed, also, and can be used
  separately (by others).
  3. Although someone (perhaps you) could write components that are
  stand-alone and do the same job, and perhaps you could find people who
  would want to buy them that way, the designers of Visual Studio chose to
  rely on components already available in IE.  If you don't have IE on
  your system, it tells you, and installs IE at no charge. There never was
  any problem. Just admit it, instead of spilling so many words, say
  "you're right, there's nothing at all wrong with that. It's other things
  about Microsoft that I don't like" Then we can take this non-issue off
  the table.
  David E. Y. Sarna       davids@objectsoftcorp.com
  ObjectSoft Corp. (NASDAQ:OSFT)    http://www.objectsoftcorp.com
  433 Hackensack Ave., Hackensack, NJ 07601
  Tel.: (201) 343-9100    Fax: (201) 343-0056
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From:	Dave Sieber [SMTP:dsieber@terminal-impact.com]
  > Sent:	Sunday, November 09, 1997 5:06 PM
  > To:	Multiple recipients of list
  > Subject:	Re: Moderately improved map of Microsoft tying evidence
  > David E. Y. Sarna wrote:
  > > 
  > >         >> there
  > >         appears to be no *legitimate* reason that Developer Studio
  > > requires a
  > >         complete installation of IE. Do you know of one?
  > > 
  > > It's simple; Microsoft developed an application (IE) that has an
  > > embedded object model. Installing the application properly registers
  > the
  > > components (ActiveX controls) and once registered, anyone can use
  > them,
  > > including the applications you mention. Microsoft has not developed
  > a
  > > separate application that has just the IE controls, and they want to
  > > ensure that anyone who installs IE has a good experience, so they
  > permit
  > > others to ship the IE app only on an all or nothing basis. In fact,
  > if
  > > you had enough knowledge of which components are actually needed by
  > the
  > > two applications mentioned, then you could [legally] delete from
  > your
  > > system what you don't want.
  > First, as far as I know I can delete anything I like from my computer
  > without Microsoft's approval -- and it's legal. Are you implying there
  > are cases where it isn't? If so, you had better publish them here for
  > the benefit of all, as we wouldn't want to be in violation of anything
  > by deleting Microsoft software from our machines.
  > Second, I really cannot let this statement stand uncorrected. Your
  > explanation that installing IE is necessary to make sure the ActiveX
  > controls work is both misleading and technically incorrect. Installing
  > components into the registry is very simple and does not require a
  > complete installation of IE, or a desktop icon, or anything else. I'm
  > surprised you don't know this. Can you give one example of how
  > installing IE ensures that the ActiveX components work, while
  > installing
  > only the components along with Visual Studio will fail to reveal a
  > problem? Please be technically explicit.
  > > The reason a fully version of IE is installed is legitimate indeed,
  > to
  > > ensure that it works. Microsoft cannot test every possible
  > combination
  > > of subcomponents that individual developers might need, and they
  > want to
  > > ensure that what is shipped with their name on it will install and
  > work.
  > I'm not a reporter, David. "IE is fully installed so that we know that
  > IE fully works." But we are talking about installing Visual Studio and
  > its ActiveX components, not IE. You are tying the two together
  > artificially, just as MS is doing with IE and Windows 95. The ActiveX
  > components are just that -- components. And there are no
  > "combinations"
  > -- what on earth are you talking about?
  > It's as if MS had a spell checker component, but insisted that they
  > had
  > to install all of Microsoft Word in order to "ensure that it works".
  > Sounds pretty silly, doesn't it? If one didn't know any better
  > technically, one might buy into this. Unfortunately, I do know better,
  > and it is hogwash. The ActiveX components that Visual Studio uses do
  > not
  > need IE at all. If you uninstall IE after being tricked into
  > installing
  > it, guess what happens? It does not uninstall the ActiveX components,
  > and the Visual Studio help files can still be displayed. IOW, the
  > ActiveX components that should have been installed in the first place
  > remain. Ignoring for the moment that I didn't want IE anyway, I fail
  > to
  > see what value a separate installation of IE adds to Visual Studio. I
  > *do* understand that MS may see an advantage in doing so, however.
  > > No mystery and no intrigue, just a vendor trying to give users a
  > good
  > > experience.
  > How noble.
  > --
  > Dave Sieber
  > dsieber@terminal-impact.com
  > http://www.terminal-impact.com