Mr. Squidley asks:

Do they just want to needlessly waste the user's disk space?

Why yes, as a matter of record, MS does intend to waste user's disk space and their CPU cycles. They want to shorten the time that a PC is a viable tool so that users must buy new machines frequently and thus buy a new Windows license.

I guess you haven't read the [link|http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_exhibits.htm|exhibits] in the antitrust trial.

You might find file 384.pdf interesting. It's a memo by Tandy Trower about the problems with IE4 and the reasons why it shouldn't be used to "integrate" web and desktop functions. It's from April 1997.

I see no reason to force the proposed dramatic UI changes to the desktop, particularly when so much more work is needed. As a result, I strongly recommend that you consider redefining IE4, focusing only on the browser's enhancements and its associated applications and deferring the web integration until Memphis. This will allow the IE team to do a better job on both aspects and provide a better rationale for the relationship between IE and Memphis.


A big NO in the margin gives the reaction to those comments. It apparently was more important to crush Netscape quickly via IE's ties to Windows than improve the software.

You also might find 365.pdf interesting. It's Kempin's memo to Gates about their OEM pricing strategy. It's from December 1997.

OEM division revenue growth over the last 8 years has depended heavily on volume increases and a trend to higher priced OS. During that time ASPs have stayed stable or gone up which made it easier to ride the wave and get the value we deserve. We have shown larger then [sic] 40% growth rates annually and expect in the future that OEMs will take a very hard look in [sic] how to avoid paying us more $$ per system in order to hit most aggressive price points. Will this lead to significant higher volumes and thus allow us to relax some prices while gaining share where we need it? The danger does exist that more PCs might get shipped without an OS and we should not take this lightly!

While reasons for volume increases are too early to analyze (US data still sketchy and ASIA.LATIN data really convoluted) we expect the following to happen:

1. Moderately more volume by finding new buyers who can now afford to buy PCs (This should be true for consumers as well as small biz)

2. Accaleration [sic] of replacement cycles (Knowing that 80M PCs cannot run NTW or WIN98)

3. Shortening of PC "life time" in general

The only counter argument to make here is that current PC technology is totally sufficient for most office tasks and consumer desires and that any performance bottleneck is not in today's PCs but in today's COM pipes. This in itself might slow down replacement cycles and life time shortening until we find true MIPS eating applications - a priority not only INTEL should subscribe to. Other side effects of the <1k PCs are less need for NCs, NetPCs and WIN terminals as long as we deliver on the well managed aspect of the PC environment within 12 months. If not customers might not wait for us and pilot more alternative solutions. I do not have to say what this means for NT 5.0 delivery.

[...]


Emphasis added.

Kempin wants to find MIPS-eating applications to force people to buy new machines and new licenses. He admits that 1997-vintage machines were adequate. Does this sound to you like the comments of of an officer of a software firm that's worried about programming efficiency?

You might find Kempin's discussion on the next page of "Pricing options" to be interesting in light of XP.

In short, while you say you disagree with MS's illegal conduct WRT to Netscape, you seem to take at face value MS's explanation of its reasons for making IE so difficult to remove without, apparently, having understood MS's motivations. MS's motivations for its actions are clear if you read the evidence from the antitrust trial. IE was deeply tied to Windows to kill Netscape, among other anti-competitive reasons.

I hope this helps.

Cheers,
Scott.