[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Can we truly prove MSIE sabotages downloads?
May I ask that you attempt the download from two computers at the same time, one MSIE, one Netscape doing the downloading?
Why do I ask this? Because I have personally had troubles with Netscape's site without using MSIE, and if I had been using MSIE, I
would have been really paranoid about it, because the errors were really weird. Also, make sure it isn't a powersaving problem
(powersaving when activated turns off serial ports (without noticing how busy they are) when you don't hit a key for X minutes, which
can affect modems.) If Netscape downloads but MSIE does not, while attempting both downloads simultaneously, then investigating more
becomes of interest I think.
Note that if this is truly provable in court, it becomes a very nicely literal restraint of trade, which makes it rhetorically
attractive to me for use in indicating a pattern of conduct in my case even if the issue of standing prevents my collecting direct
damages for it.
Skeptical but wanting to know more,
All persons with evidence of MS tying or restraint of trade are encouraged to send it to me for inclusion on
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Topic No. 2
> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:26:10 -0500
> From: Chuck Swiger <email@example.com>
> To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
> Subject: A-M$: Recent Microsoft Behavior
> Message-ID: <01BCFFD5.E4A3ACA0@SERV_BDC>
> From: MachCU@aol.com[SMTP:MachCU@aol.com]
> >spoken of (Microsoft being the only browser which
> > consistently had problems downloading Netscape products from
> > involved, yet not at any other site), or had evidence to relate
> >regarding previous rumors of Microsoft's IIS server giving
> > clear preference to its own MSIE browser over all others.
> Now this, I first thought, was just another case of people w/ lousy modems or bad
> phone lines blaming the most visible scapegoat for their frustrations. So, instead of
> emotionally charged accusations (i.e., a 'witchhunt') I decided to try some
> experiments, to collect some facts. I really beleive that the Holy Grail "Head of Gates on a
> stick" award goes to the first person who can get evidence to actually prove to a judge and jury that
> actual non-competitive practice is going on (like trying to kick your opponent in a foot
> race). So I'm trying to be 'scientific' and objective and so far have two results:
> 1) Running MSIE 3.02 (msie302mnt.exe) on NT4SP3, on a LAN, connecting to Internet
> thru 'WinGate' (wg2ntr.exe) also running on another NT4SP3, attempted D/L of Netscape
> Navigator 4.04, stand alone, English, for Win95/NT - got about 1.2Mb and abruptly
> lost the d/l box, file corrput.
> 2) Ok, that proves nothing, I regularly have problems running a dos ftp getting FreeBSD
> files from ftp.cdrom.com [connection closed]. So went home and installed the same
> msie302mnt.exe on Win95, this time directly dialed into the same ISP w/ a local modem,
> and it was worse: appears to have completely d/l the same Netscape 4.04 file, but at
> the end got something like "unable to copy program xxxxxx", d/l failed.
> Now if someone can come up with a reverse engineered code fragment that can be
> described like:
> if ( website = "netscape" )
> and if ( user != "ms_employee" )
> then call random_error();
> which can be independantly verified by recognized computer scientists, then we've got
> something. Of course, it's not outside the bounds of conjecture to speculate that it's
> the other partner, Netscape, that's casting aspersions and throwing the dance with their CGI scrip:
> if ( browser = "msie" )
> then call random_error();
> "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltair
fn: Hans Reiser
org: The Naming System Venture
adr: 6979 Exeter Dr.;;;Oakland;CA;94611;USA
note: Phone: +1 (510) 459-4681