Removing IE: Reckless remedy
The nine dissenting states and District of Columbia in the Microsoft antitrust case look at Windows XP Embedded and they see evidence that Microsoft can easily allow OEMs to remove Microsoft "middleware" from the operating system. Is there anything to this?
There are two versions of Windows designed for embedded systems, <="" span="">ef="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/default.asp" target="_blank">Windows XP Embedded and Windows CE .Net. XP Embedded, the version that caught the plaintiffs' eye, is based on the XP code base, but not exactly the same thing. It's not designed to be used in desktop computers, but rather in devices like automatic teller machines. Windows CE .Net is even more divergent, a different operating system on a different code base.
OS design, like any engineering job, is a series of trade-offs. Componentizing Windows Embedded, as opposed to the big blob that is conventional Windows, allows OEMs to make smaller installations, but each component is almost certainly larger than it would have been in regular Windows. The speed of an operating system of this architecture is almost certainly less than the conventional Windows. I know this from my own development experience, and it's basic to the notion of componentization. You trade off performance for flexibility.
But let's address the point the way the states want to address it: Would it be possible for Microsoft to design a version of Windows without Internet Explorer? Of course it would. You don't need to see Windows Embedded to know that. But that would be a different product. How different it would be depends on what you mean by "without Internet Explorer." For example, the help system in Windows (and many, many other standard programs in Windows) uses the browser for its display. If the code that supports that is to be removed then Microsoft has to rewrite large parts of the operating system in order for it to work in the new, non-IE environment. This was also true during the trial when the main issue was Windows 98, but it's even truer today.
But if all that the states are looking for is to remove the browser application--the ability to surf the Web using Internet Explorer--that at first appears easier. You remove iexplore.exe, you remove the icons that point to it, and maybe there's some more cleanup code. But imagine that we have done this, and go into Windows Explorer, the one you use to navigate the file system. Then in the address bar type www.zdnet.com and you'll see that iexplore.exe is not the only web browser application on the system. And there are good reasons for this. It's a good thing for users to be able to move between the Web and local file system with a minimum of disturbance. What's the answer? Remove Windows Explorer?
End user support is also a problem in the world envisioned by the dissenting attorneys general. It's not uncommon nowadays to run into programs that rely on Internet Explorer, and lucky for them it's on every Windows system. Even if they were only designed to rely on having some browser on the system, not necessarily Internet Explorer, knowing that IE is on the system allows ISVs the freedom to write Web apps and not have to supply a browser. Incidentally, none of this prevents anyone from running other browsers if they wish.
Of course, it's true today of Windows XP that OEMs can include some other browser and make it the default, the one that shows up on the Start Menu. What the states are asking is not only that OEMs be able to add new software, such as Netscape's browser, but that they have the option not to install certain Microsoft "middleware," such as IE, even if those programs are not user-accessible.
For a long time in the previous trial we heard from everyone that we didn't want to have the government designing operating systems. But by raising the example of XP Embedded, a product designed for a different market with different hardware priorities and very different applications, the states are asking the judge to do just that. We're at a dangerous juncture right now: the challenge facing the Judge Kollar-Kotelly is to design a remedy that satisfies the law without putting herself in charge of operating system design for the PC industry. Nothing could be further from a free and competitive market than that.
Do you think Microsoft should be forced to remove IE and other "middleware" from XP? Share your thoughts in our Talkback forum, or send an e-mail to Larry.