rec.autos.simulators

I use Netscape Communicator and didnt pay anything for it.  Very few
people do.  I happen to be an IE convert.  I have nothing bad to say
about IE4 except the integrated desktop is a BIG OL DOG.  If you dont
select that option... IE4 is fine.  I just prefer Netscape Communicator.
It works flawlessly and I like the interfaces.  Its all about
preferences now =)

Scott

Netscape is not behind.  They still have the larger market share.  The
price is now the same. Netscape has a great image and the Quality IS
there.  It DOES all come down to marketing. The more IE gets press....
the more it will eat away at Netscapes lead.  There is so little
differentiation in the products now.  There are differences... but they
relate more to preferences than differentiation.  Netscape will always
have the Microsoft haters and Microsoft will continue to get a large
number of new computer users because of IE being loaded on so many
machines.  Microsoft Definately has the marketing edge big time.
However, I dont see it in the product being superior at all.

Scott

today?

Yes Walker I agree, it does seem like this is all the fruits of their
labors. If the DOJ came into every business sector and leveled the playing
field every time someone got ahead. Would there be any reason for companies
to strive to produce better products than their competitors? Probably not I
guess. Hey on a side note, someone who "should know" told me that last year
MSs total revenue didn't even add up to IBM profit. Could this be true?
Sounds impossible I wonder.

Yup, hmm
Mike

Hi Greg,
           Well I am not too sure Greg. Since an I.E. is probably running
within a MS operating system. Wouldn't it be more like me giving away a
trac light since I owned the electric company? Mike
P.s  Nope sorry I sure dont have the financial resources you mentioned. ;-)

I think the issue lies in the fact that IE4 is NOT part of Windows.  The
risk, as I see it, is where does it go or stop ??  Ok... IE4 is a
necessary part of Windows OS.  Whats next ??   Is MS Word a necessary
part of windows OS ???  Excel ??  Publisher ??  Money ??  When does the
line get drawn to what exactly IS the OS and what exactly is an
application??  Just my thoughts.  I like MS products and dont have a
problem with MS.  Ok.. maybe CPR should be enought to convict MS ;)

Seriously... I think there does need to be some clarification on this
issue and not just a witch hunt to "Get Microsoft".

Scott

Well Bill does and that is why everyone gets so e***d about his
'tactics'. I read he has dozens of people working on IE and is not
making a dime from it (basically).

--
Header intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

I didn't say they were, I said they were "arguably" behind - it being
an expression of opinion. I'm not daft enough to state my opinion as
fact in this group, especially on a subject people get so worked up
about :-)

Personally I much prefer IE4 and _do_ think it's a better product, not
purely preference.

Cheers!
John

John,

Understood.  Just as I think the same about Netscape as you do IE4.
Again... Im not an attacker of MS other than CPR =)   However, for many
of the new computer purchasers who no very little about the web if at
all, all they care about in general is 3 things.  Can I "see" the web??
Can I send and receive email??  Can I read and post newsgroups ??  All 3
are YES for both Netscape and Microsoft.  Now IF Microsoft forced all
retailers to carry IE as part of the Windows OS.. that is unfair
competition I think because a majority of new users will just use whats
there.  Now.. as they progress along the learning curve... each will
develop preferences and opinions based on experiences with one browser
or the other or both!  I then think it comes down to personal preference
for those individuals.

Just my .02 of thought =)

Scott

As we continue go to hellbent off topic <G>

of becoming very successful in a business climate?  <<

Benefit for whom?

any other way but, isn't this similar to what we see when say a Wal-Mart opens
in a town like where I live? They did and killed a bunch of long time retailers
who just couldn't compete for whatever reasons. >>

Its not quite the same situation.  The main difference is that computers &
software can't neatly be compared to many other industries.   The need for
interoperability and compatibility is so high that it places constraints on
anyone competing in that marketplace.  The same is not true of most other
commercial products.  It might be if other standards evolved as rapidly as
software does, but they don't.  Therefore, the company that drives the
standards and happens to play in competing spaces tends to get a jump on
everyone else in the industry.  Microsoft likes to say that laws shouldn't be
written to benefit its competitors, but rather its consumers.  That's all well
and good as long as consumers are perfectly happy with the software Microsoft
produces, but what if Microsoft drives companies like Netscape out of business
via its distribution mechanisms of competing products, then its own product
quality falls rapidly (Many CPR owners would doubtless say this already has
happened <G>).  Now you have no one out there to mount a challenge.  So in the
short term, the law appears to be benefitting the competitor, but in the long
run, it benefits the consumer as well.  In the case of Walmart, the problem
isn't so much that Walmart is losing money but that as part of a national chain
it can buy things in larger quantity and cheaper products, then pass along the
savings to its customers.   Its a sad situation for private retailers, but I
don't know what can really be done about that.  A more fitting comparison would
be if Walmart were losing money on all of its products in order to drive its
competitors out of business, but didn't have to worry because they also owned
another huge conglomerate which was supplying the funding for the losses
sustained by Walmart.  That's what you have at Microsoft.  The IE4 product line
doesn't make money by itself.

lowest bid. Of course I cant due it for free to knock off my competition, >>

But if you could, wouldn't that be wrong?

sited similar to the I.E4 or am I missing something? >>

Again, the problem is the operating system connection.  With marketshare at
about 90% (I've heard different #'s, but its really close), Microsoft
effectively has a monopoly on operating systems.  Antitrust law is designed to
benefit customers by ensuring that they have choices, and that means by
promoting competition.  To be a devil's advocate on this one, how can Netscape
possibly make money in the long term when everything they do gets done by
Microsoft and then bundled free with an operating system that has a virtual
monopoly on the desktop?  Microsoft memos obtained by the DOJ refer to
neutralizing Java and Netscape, and they do that with "embrace and extend"
strategies (their term).  They grab Java, tie it to Windows, so that its no
longer "write once, run anywhere", and then boom - Java is neutralized as a
PLATFORM, regardless of how successful it becomes as a language, and is no
longer a threat to Microsoft.  Netscape tried putting everything in a browser,
making it a virtual desktop environment where Java could run, and on any
platform.  Microsoft then ships a very Windows-tied IE4, makes it free, and
then boom .. Netscape neutralized.  So Netscape is forced to give away the
browser (since they obviously can't SELL it anymore), lay off a bunch of
employees, and try to find other ways to sell software, since they do not have
a huge operating system cash cow to write off their browser expenditures.

The legality of this is best decided by lawyers.  However, from a simple common
sense standpoint of what is right and what is wrong, I believe its just wrong,
and really unnecessary if IE4 is so darn wonderful that people would buy it and
use it anyway.

Randy
Randy Magruder
Staff Writer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com/

I dont mean to sound like a wisecracker but<ggg> well I kind of have to say
the consumer to some extent as they get both Netscape and IE4 free now. But
I also see many of you points.

 This is the main point you make that I didn't consider. Seems valid.

  I guess your right  but this is the most scary Doh Lawyers <ggg>

Thanks for your views, Mike

If Microsoft is supposedly trying to give the customer such a better operating
system, how come their caring attitude doesn't extend to including free
Office '95 built in to Windows '95? How come I have to pay extra for a
spreadsheet and database?

I'll tell you why, the only reason IE4.0 is free it to drive Netscape out
of business. Once Netscape is dead and buried all the people who now
don't see what is wrong with Microsoft's tactics will be complaining when
it is no longer free and they have to shell out $79 for MS Internet
Explorer'99, just like all other Microsoft software like Money, Word, Excel,
and Access.

I recently downloaded Microsoft Money 98 trial, about 10 megs download.
I go to install and it refuses to install unless I have IE installed on
my system, yes - no choice to use Netscape or even to install without the
Web features. Deleted it despite being a happy user of Money '95, what the
hell should my choice in Web Browser have to do with what Financial Software
I use? Microsoft will not be getting my money for financial software, I am
instead using Quicken which lets me utilize it without forcing use of IE.

One other thing that people don't realize, some of us use UNIX workstations
at work, Netscape makes available every version of Netscape in UNIX versions
for linux, AIX, OSF etc. does Microsoft extend it's so called "concern" for
giving users a better browser to UNIX operating systems? nope, once Netscape
is dead, Microsoft will also have killed the provider of modern Web
Browsers for the Operating Systems that compete with it's own windows OS.

Anyhow, didn't mean to go on so long about this issue here on R.A.S. but
I think a lot of people are missing some of the different points of view
on this, I have, by the way tried out IE4.0 , was forced to install it to
try online racing with CPR on Microsoft's Internet GameZone which also
refuses to allow access with Netscape last time I tried, yet another symptom
of Microsoft's cheezy tactics with regards to IE.

Cheers.
--John
--
*kludger AT zipcon DOT com*  | ICQ #7522564  contact me at:
  Seattle, Washington USA.   | http://wwp.mirabilis.com/7522564

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

Mmmmm, but where you draw the line? Adobe sue Microsoft because
Paintbrush migh stop people buying Photoshop? All the anti-virus
stuff, disk-backup, compression, DUN, whatever. I don't see why a
browser shouldn't be part of an OS - I'd quite like to be able to buy
a new system and POW there's everything I need to use the internet.
Not having to download another browser, e-mail prog, news prog any
time I have to reinstall from my Win95 CD.

Perhaps DOJ should insist that both are put on the Win95 distribution
CD, and the user offered a choice during installation :)

Cheers!
John

% Looking at this from a different perspective how many of you are using
% the MS TCP/IP stack to use the Internet? If the courts say that IE4 is
% not an integrated product what is going to stop NetManage and other IP
% software firms from sueing MS to unbundle the IP protocol, or what about
% Symantic for including Defrag?        This case could have serious
% ramifications that the DOJ and consumers have not completely thought out.

The problem arises when certain software (so far mostly Microsoft based)
will only run when you have Microsoft's IE 4.0 installed.  

However, most software I know doesn't care whether I am using MS's TCP/IP
stacks or their Defrag utilities.  What concerns me (and others) is that
Microsoft is slowly building an OS so that their software will only run
with when other "software" is now a vital part of that OS.  Microsoft
software engineers are talented enough to build an OS that fulfills the
end result without requiring IE 4.0, but that is not Microsoft's total
goal.  

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned Paintbrush, the arguement
doesn't hold water.  Paintbrush is a utility and is not a "required"
component of the OS.  The DOJ and the courts view IE 4.0 as an
application or utility and Microsoft's insistance of it becoming a vital
part of the OS to be preditory.  The same would be true if Microsoft
made the Defrag, Paintbrush, Wordpad, etc. an intergrated component of
their OS.  

I see nothing wrong with Microsoft attempting to build a "better
mousetrap" (i.e., IE).  What I find offensive is that all new houses
built, will only work when this mousetrap is a vital component in its
construction.  It really ticks my cats off when their aren't any mice to
play with! ;-)

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=