Thanks for playing.

>IF< the states are going to be that stupid
-AND-
>IF< the court doesn't realize how stupid it is.......

Sorry, you're getting too far off on what-may-happen-if.......
We can sit and discuss fairy tales all day. Well, you can. I won't. I'm going to limit myself to ONE "if" per subject.

As a professional software developer though, I get a pretty horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach when I picture a lawyer telling a judge, and then the judge telling Microsoft, what steps they must take in redesigning their products.
They don't have to be told what steps to take. All that has to be shown is that what MS was "impossible" is not only possible, but has been done.

And for what purpose?
Ummm, because MS is on trial for anti-competitive activities?

Does anyone really think it would be a good idea to allow third parties to replace Windows components?
You mean like allowing Netscape to have the same access as IE?

Shouldn't Microsoft have the right to dictate at least the initial end-user configuration of their products?
If MS is going to SELL to the end-users, then "yes". But MS doesn't sell to end-users in that manner. MS sells to Dell and then tells Dell that Dell cannot setup the ssytem the way the end-user wants that system setup.

Again, since MS's original "defense" was based upon doing what the end-user wanted......

How do you get that to mesh with the end-user having to accept what MS wants them to have?

I mean, if I'm a PC vendor, should I have the right to preinstall Red Hat, remove a bunch of stuff and generally mess up the system, and still advertise my PCs as having Red Hat preinstalled?
You're damn straight you should have that right. And, with Red Hat, you DO!