�yvind Berg wrote: > From the Register [http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/20327.html] > > "Microsoft hooked the rotting corpse of Netscape to a drip feed today > by almost - shock, horror - agreeing with a court that said it had > done Bad Things. The company statement simply repeats what the appeals > court said rather than saying the appeals court was right, but a whole > bunch of stuff it had previously insisted was non-negotiable and > technically impossible is now going to roll with XP. > > And it'll apply to previous operating systems, not that previous > operating systems will survive much beyond December, if Redmond has > its way. Today's statement essentially (and cynically) splits Internet > Explorer out from Windows again. Exquisitely, you'll recall, the very > appeals court that Microsoft is now doing obeisance to is the one that > ruled that Microsoft did have the right to integrate IE with Windows. > If Microsoft hadn't insisted that it could do this very thing, the DoJ > antitrust action might very well not have hit it with quite the > enraged velocity it did. This is a very, very weird legal action, and > it's getting weirder." > > It's not split. TheRegister got it wrong with a pro-ms spin yet again. IE is still there, it just can be disabled or the icons can be removed by the OEM. And, if you remove IE icons, an MSN icon takes its place. Is that really that much of a surrender? Don't forget their continuing insistence on integrating further products and not giving the *user* the option to remove it. I'm pretty sure Dell will not be taking the hidden-IE road, as they seem pretty addicted to Wintel. -- Albert "We must have a better word than 'prefabricated'. Why not 'ready-made'?" --Winston Churchill If sending email, remove the obvious spam-preventer from my email address.
