tech options

Bad Logic
No matter what they say, a Windows world is not "inevitable"

By Theo Gantos

A big surprise came this week in the Department of Justice's case against Microsoft. The DOJ brought out a Denver-based computer consultant who demonstrated how to remove the Internet Explorer browser, which Microsoft contends is necessary to the proper functioning of their OS. Microsoft asked irrelevant questions like, "Can you program in C?" and "Do you have any experience in operating system design?", to attempt to discredit the consultant.

They even brought out a chart showing some 200-odd files that were part of Internet Explorer. Microsoft contends these are important pieces of Windows 95. Their argument is: it is difficult to tell where IE ends and Windows 95 begins.

But that's not a valid argument and no judge or jury should accept it!

It's just a clever strategy to confuse things by CHOOSING to tightly link the browser with Windows 95. There is no inherent advantage to this type of integration, except to fend off antitrust allegations. If there is a real advantage to this practice, then Windows 95 is in a state far worse than Microsoft has admitted previously. This is the equivalent of welding seats into a car, and then claiming that they are designed as part of the car and not replaceable.

This is pure hokum and Microsoft knows it. Bill Gates wouldn't even show up in court for the cross-examination of the Denver computer consultant. Perhaps he might betray the fact that he knows that Microsoft's line of reasoning is a bunch of hogwash.

The Japanese Fair Trade Commission raided Microsoft's Japanese headquarters early Tuesday. The raid was prompted by complaints regarding Microsoft's practices in bundling internet and other software with its operating system. Japanese officials inquired as to the policies related to bundling.

I wonder how far Gates will let events go before he flips and tries to cut a deal with the government. Microsoft could get into serious hot water if it allowed a detailed examination of its design and market strategy in linking the browser with the OS. Once it becomes apparent for all to see that Microsoft had the evil intent to deceive all along, they could irreparably harm their public perception, which is mainly positive currently. More importantly, if people ever found out how quirky and autocratic Bill Gates really is, they would lose respect quickly. Gates is like the scrawny kid, once bullied, by treachery and cunning, became a bully himself and snatched an OS monopoly away from IBM, then proceeded to exert stronger and stronger control over the marketplace.

Microsoft sales presentations aren't so concerned with superior products as in "crushing the competition."

Many people ask why I am such an avid proponent of the MacOS as opposed to Windows. I often hear the argument that I should give up my PowerMac because "Windows is inevitable."

That's not even good logic. I don't believe in a "One World Operating System" any more than I believe in a "One World Religion". It makes no difference whether it is Windows or MacOS that dominates. Software competition breeds innovation and survival of the fittest.

By that argument, Saddam Hussein conquering Kuwait was "inevitable," Hitler's domination of the world was "inevitable," Japan controlling the auto market is "inevitable," and World War Three is "inevitable." T. E. Lawrence said "Nothing is written." 'Nuff said.

I support the MacOS where it makes the most sense, in office automation and publishing environments. Trying to use Windows 95 computers in these environments just keeps computer consultants happy. Studies have proven that it takes nearly four times the support resources to deploy Windows 95 in these environments than MacOS. Four TIMES! I support both platforms and can honestly say that most problems are at least an order of magnitude easier to resolve on the MacOS platform. I have spent countless hours chasing Windows problems and bugs. And if you ply your service vendor with a few drinks, I'm sure they would agree, too.

I suspect that only a masochist would try to use Windows for publishing. I've seen a few try with mixed results. Many of my clients are printers and service bureaus, and I often hear horror stories about Windows users coming to them trying desperately to output their jobs to film recorders and offset presses, contending with font problems, graphic problems, printing problems and bugs.

I wouldn't profess to tell someone that they can't use whatever computing environment they choose. I support freedom of choice. I use and support many environments, including Windows NT, Windows 95, Windows 3.11, Novell, MacOS, and Unix. For some tasks, like numerical control or CNC, Intel/Windows is the only solution, and only a fool would advise someone otherwise. For internet service providers, Unix makes the most sense. But I will speak from my 20-plus years of experience and my conscience and continue to recommend PowerPCs and MacOS for the office automation and general computing functions. And in the same breath, I'll tell them that I (or any other service provider) will not make as much supporting them on that platform, but I know they will be happier and more productive. I would only ask from those who proclaim the "inevitable" to let me tell my clients the honest truth of what's best for them. Then the "inevitable" facts of the support costs can speak for themselves.

Theo Gantos is president of TEKA, a technology consulting firm. Contact him: