> I hope people are not under the impression that this sort
> of practice by MS is new. It long predates Win 3.x.
>
> If my memory serves me correctly, this type of practice,
> then aimed at utilities and other applications that had to
> work with DOS, goes back as far as DOS2.
I think a little more exactitude is required, as the two
cases are different from a competition regulation point of
view.
In the instance of Explorer, Microsoft is using its market
power to attempt to insist that vendors purchasing its
operating system also purchase its browser application (a
seperate product -- that is, Microsoft are *not*
incorporating the browser into the operating system).
The increasing incorporation of MS-DOS utilities into MS-DOS
is different. Microsoft were responding to competition, not
dampening it. As far as the regulators are concerned, if
that drives people out of business, well that the hard facts
of a competitive capitalist market.
-----------------------
The IBM MVS operating system is a prime example of what
happens when a vendor *doesn't* incorporate utilities
developed during the life of the operating system into the
OS.
It is basically impossible to run and manage MVS without
purchasing products from Computer Associates and others.
The cost of the utilities basically doubles the cost of an
already stiff leasing charge.
And of course, the cost of installation and maintenance is
higher. Then there is the joy of upgrading the operating
system. Anyone that was involved in a MVS/XA to MVS/ESA
upgrade will recall that most of the work was verifying that
version X of utility Y would or would not work under ESA and
then arranging for the necessary utilities to be upgraded at
the same time as the OS. And it gets worse, as some
utilities depend on other utilities working, so you must
upgrade the OS and utilties in the correct order. All of
which is not something I want to inflict on my parents, who
own a computer just to do word processing.
Imagine a world where third-party utilities couldn't be
incorporated into an OS. No operating system; MVS, VMS,
MS-DOS, or UNIX; would have a full-screen editor for a
start. As it is, ISPF, EDT, EDIT and VI may all be
less-than-perfect editors, but the operating system is ten
times more useable than if the OSs used EDIT, EDIT, EDLIN
and ED respectively.
I'm not defending the morality of Microsoft's actions
against the utility manufacturers, but I am pointing out
that its actions weren't undesirable from a consumers' point
of view.
It is not clear that this is so in the Explorer instance.
-- glen.turner@itd.adelaide.edu.au Network Support Specialist Tel: (08) 8303 3936 Information Technology Division Fax: (08) 8303 4400 University of Adelaide SA 5005