DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. V. Microsoft Government Trial Exhibits

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. V. Microsoft Government Trial Exhibits U.S. v. Microsoft Government Trial Exhibits Ex. No. Suffix Description Date Entered Chart: Microsoft's Actual and Projected Share of the (Intel-based) PC Operating System 1 Market (According to IDC) 11/19/1998 2 Chart: Microsoft's Share of the Browser Market -- Microsoft's Share of New Browser Users 01/05/1999 Chart: Microsoft's Share of the Browser Market -- Three Month Moving Average of Usage by 3 ISP Category (According to AdKnowledge, Inc.) 01/05/1999 Chart: Microsoft's Share of the Browser Market -- Monthly Usage by ISP Category (According 4 to AdKnowledge, Inc.) 11/23/1998 Chart: Microsoft's Share of the Browser Market Compared to Netscape's Share -- Monthly 5 Browser Usage (According to AdKnowledge, Inc.) 11/23/1998 Chart: Microsoft's Share of the Browser Market -- Three Month Incremental Share of Browser 6 Usage (According to AdKnowledge, Inc.) 01/05/1999 Chart: Microsoft's Share of the Browser Market -- One Month Incremental Share of Browser 7 Usage (According to AdKnowledge, Inc.) 01/05/1999 Chart: Microsoft's Share of the Browser Market -- Incremental Share of Browser Users 8 (According to Microsoft) 01/05/1999 9 Chart: Netscape Quarterly Browser Revenues 01/05/1999 10 Chart: Netscape Quarterly Browser Revenues (without subscriptions for upgrades) 01/05/1999 Chart: Comparison of Microsoft's Share of ISP Browser Shipments and Usage Depending on Whether Microsoft's Internet Explorer was the ISP's Default Browser (According to Microsoft 11 FY98 Mid Year Review) 01/05/1999 Chart: Contractual Restrictions on the Top 80 ISPs as of December 1997 (According to 12 Microsoft) 01/05/1999 13 Chart: Examples of Operating Systems on Which Netscape's Browsers Run 01/05/1999 Chart: Microsoft's Actual and Projected Shares of Browser Market -- Share of Browser Users 14 (According to Microsoft) 11/23/1998 15 Chart: Actual and Projected Shares of Browser Market Held by Netscape and Microsoft 01/05/1999 16 P. Ferrel message to B. Gates, P. Maritz, and others re "Internet as a business tool" 01/13/1999 17 B. Gates message to C. Mundie, N. Myhrvold, and others re "Internet" 01/13/1999 18 D. Rosen message to N. Myhrvold, P. Maritz and others re "Netscape as merchant channel" 01/13/1999 20 B. Gates memo to Executive Staff re "The Internet Tidal Wave" 11/02/1998 21 B. Slivka memo re "The Web is the Next Platform" 11/02/1998 B. Gates message to P. Maritz, D. Rosen, and others re "Netscape Discussion" and D. Rosen 22 reply message to B. Gates, P. Maritz re "Netscape Discussions" 10/27/1998 23 T. Reardon message to B. Slivka, P. Maritz, D. Rosen, and others 11/02/1998 P. Maritz message to B. Gates and others forwarding summary of goals for "working with 24 Netscape" and Agenda attached for Microsoft/Netscape 6/21/95 meeting 10/27/1998 25 D. Rosen "Summary of meeting with Netscape on 6/2/95" 10/27/1998 26 J. Barksdale message to J. Clark and others re "MS visit" 10/27/1998 27 P. Maritz message to B. Gates and others re "NetScape Meeting" 01/13/1999 28 D. Rosen message to P. Maritz, Bill Gates, and others re "NetScape Meeting" 11/02/1998 29 D. Rosen message to P. Maritz, B. Gates, and others re "Netscape engagement" 11/02/1998 32 Agenda for 6/21/95 Microsoft/Netscape meeting 01/13/1999 33 M. Andreessen notes of Microsoft/Netscape meeting 10/27/1998 34 D. Kaiser (AOL) memo re Netscape meeting 10/27/1998 35 D. Rosen message to B. Gates, N. Myhrvold, P. Maritz, and others re "Netscape meeting" 10/22/1998 36 Microsoft Internet Jumpstart Kit Announcement 11/02/1998 B. Gates message to P. Maritz, B. Silverberg, S. Ballmer, B. Chase, and others re "Internet 37 add-on" 11/02/1998 D. Cole (AOL) message re AOL meeting with B. Gates, B. Silverberg, J. Ludwig, B. Chase, C. 38 Jones, B. Slivka 10/28/1998 Page 1 of 31 U.S. v. Microsoft Government Trial Exhibits Ex. No. Suffix Description Date Entered 39 B. Chase "FY97 Planning Memo 'Winning the Internet platform battle'" 11/02/1998 40 IPTD Division Meeting Agenda 11/02/1998 41 B. Gates message to P. Maritz, J. Allchin, B. Chase, and others re Netscape" 11/02/1998 P. Maritz message to B. Silverberg, J. Allchin, B. Chase, and others re "windows & internet 42 issues" 11/02/1998 43 C. Stork message to B. Silverberg, J. Grey, and J. Kempin re "windows logo screen" 11/02/1998 C. Stork message to D. Wright (OEM), J. Kempin, and others with related earlier messages re 44 "OEMs shipping OSR-2?" 11/02/1998 P. Bogle message to L. Shaw, B. Schick, L. Sullivan, R. Welland, and J. Cordell re "why tie 45 IE4 browser to Nashville Desktop" and replies 07/28/1999 P. Bogle message to L. Shaw, B. Schick, L. Sullivan, R. Welland, and J. Cordell re "why tie 45 IE4 browser to Nashville Desktop" and replies 07/28/1999 D. Cole message to C. Guzak, K. Eckhardt, S. Nakajima, J. Belfiore, J. Larson, and the IE 4.0 46 Executive Team re "Browser and ActiveDesktop" 01/13/1999 47 J. Allchin message to P. Maritz re "concerns for our future" 11/02/1998 48 J. Allchin memo to P. Maritz re "IE and Windows" and P. Maritz reply 11/02/1998 49 P. Maritz message to J. Allchin re "IE and Windows" 11/02/1998 50 Messages to and from J. Allchin and P. Maritz re "IE and Windows" 11/02/1998 P. Maritz message to B. Gates, J. Allchin, B. Slivka, and B. Silverberg re "overview slides for 51 Billg/NC&Java session with 14+'s on Monday" together with a copy of such slides 12/10/1998 52 Microsoft Presentation: "NC & Java Challenge" 11/02/1998 P. Maritz message to D. Cole, J. Kempin, J. Allchin, and others re "ie4 and memphis" and D. 53 Cole message to P. Maritz, J. Kempin re "ie4 and memphis" 11/02/1998 B. Veghte message to M. Dunie, C. Stork, E. Stubbs, and O. Momoh re "Memphis Retail 54 Enhancements: The Costs" 07/28/1999 B. Veghte message to M. Dunie, C. Stork, E. Stubbs, and O. Momoh re "Memphis Retail 54 Enhancements: The Costs" 07/28/1999 M. Dunie message to B. Gates, P. Maritz, and J. Allchin re "Memphis IEU focus groups report," forwarding C. Wildfeuer message to A. Taylor, C. Stork, B. Chase, Y. Mehdi re 55 "Memphis IEU focus groups report" 11/02/1998 M. Bliss message to M. Dunie, C. Stork, J. Roberts, J. Allchin, and others re "closure on 56 Memphis action items from 3YO and Billg Memphis review" 01/05/1999 J. Allchin message to B. Gates, P. Maritz, and others re "thoughts on the Next Generation of 57 Windows" 01/13/1999 58 B. Slivka message to B. Gates re "java review with you" 11/02/1998 B. Chase message to J. Raikes, P. Maritz, Y. Mehdi, B. Chase, and others re "WWSMM IEU 59 session" 11/02/1998 60 D. Cole message re "Post IE4 thinking" 11/02/1998 B. Gates message to J. Kempin, S. Ballmer, P. Maritz, J. Allchin, N. Myhrvold re "As promised 61 OEM pricing thoughts" 11/02/1998 C. Jones message to J. Ludwig, T. Reardon, B. Slivka, D. Rosen, A. Bay re "Proposal for 63 OEM's of Internet Explorer" 11/02/1998 65 R. Shiram message to P. Thorp re Microsoft pricing to PSI 10/27/1998 66 A. Bern message to ISPs re "Microsoft Offer to ISP" 10/27/1998 67 F. Giordano message re "BA Proposal from MS" 10/27/1998 69 F. Giordano message re Microsoft offer to AT&T 10/27/1998 70 E. Woods (Quarterdeck) message to R. Shriram re "Navigator Licensing" 10/27/1998 71 Financial Times article: "Comment & Analysis: Fightback at the seat of power" 11/12/1998 72 A. Kuen message to M. Andreessen 10/27/1998 73 K. Brecheisen message (GTI) to Netscape re "NSP Program" 10/27/1998 74 E. Walther message re "Microsoft Competitive Practices" 10/27/1998 75 P. Ayres message re "Quick Overview from N. Europe" 10/27/1998 76 Message from Autodesk to Netscape re "IE Support for WHIP" 10/27/1998 Page 2 of 31 U.S. v. Microsoft Government Trial Exhibits Ex. No. Suffix Description Date Entered 77 M. Prats message to L. Bender re Microsoft 10/27/1998 78 M. Tyler message re "Pressuring" 10/27/1998 79 J. Logan message re "Microsoft Deal" 10/27/1998 80 Pacific Bell "Mercury Browser and Referral Phonebook: Opportunity Assessment" 01/13/1999 81 B. Snyder message to C. Myhrvold, S. Wells, and M. Schmiedl re "ISP Referral mtg summary" 11/02/1998 82 Q. Gallivan message re "Microsoft predatory tactics" 10/27/1998 83 Financial Times article: "Survey - FT IT: A rush for market dominance" 11/12/1998 84 BusinessWeek article: "Netscape: Sitting Pretty--Or Sitting Duck?" 01/05/1999 85 D. Sokolsky message re "Microsoft Anti-Competitive behavior" 10/27/1998 C. Daligault message to B. Chase re "A few (radical?) ideas to move IE share all over the 86 world" 07/28/1999 87 J. Menkart message re "Microsoft Questionable Practices" 10/27/1998 88 R. Katz message re "Earthlink" 10/27/1998 90 A. Gunshor message re "Microsoft's Anti-Competitive Practices" 10/27/1998 91 R. Katz message re "X-Attachments" 10/27/1998 B. Hovstadius message to C. Myhrvold, M.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Independent Look at the Arc of .NET
    Past, present and future of C# and .NET Kathleen Dollard Director of Engineering, ROICode [email protected] Coding: 2 Advanced: 2 “In the beginning there was…” Take a look back at over 15 years of .NET and C# evolution and look into the future driven by enormous underlying changes. Those changes are driven by a shift in perception of how .NET fits into the Microsoft ecosystem. You’ll leave understanding how to leverage the .NET Full Framework, .NET Core 1.0, .NET Standard at the right time. Changes in .NET paralleled changes in the languages we’ll reflect on how far C# and Visual Basic have come and how they’ve weathered major changes in how we think about code. Looking to the future, you’ll see both the impact of functional approaches and areas where C# probably won’t go. The story would not be complete without cruising through adjacent libraries – the venerable ASP.NET and rock-star Entity Framework that’s recovered so well from its troubled childhood. You’ll leave this talk with a better understanding of the tool you’re using today, and how it’s changing to keep you relevant in a constantly morphing world. Coding: 2 Advanced: 2 “In the beginning there was…” Take a look back at over 15 years of .NET and C# evolution and look into the future driven by enormous underlying changes. Those changes are driven by a shift in perception of how .NET fits into the Microsoft ecosystem. You’ll leave understanding how to leverage the .NET Full Framework, .NET Core 1.0, .NET Standard at the right time.
    [Show full text]
  • Stanford-PACS-Raikes-Foundation
    Stanford University Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society DRAFT - Design Thinking and Strategic Philanthropy Case Study Raikes Foundation Nadia Roumani, Paul Brest, and Olivia Vagelos August 2015 Contents Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 2 BACKGROUND OF THE RAIKES FOUNDATION ENGAGEMENT ......................................... 4 The Raikes Team’s Starting Hypotheses and Plans ...................................................................... 4 Earlier Research (June - August 2014) .............................................................................................. 6 THE HUMAN CENTERED DESIGN PROCESS (January - June 2015) ................................. 6 Identifying Beneficiaries and Stakeholders .................................................................................... 6 Ethnography, or Empathy ...................................................................................................................... 7 Interviews with donors ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Interviews with experts and stakeholders ................................................................................................... 9 Interviews with Jeff Raikes .................................................................................................................................. 9 Synthesis .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DELL EMC VMAX ALL FLASH STORAGE for MICROSOFT HYPER-V DEPLOYMENT July 2017
    DELL EMC VMAX ALL FLASH STORAGE FOR MICROSOFT HYPER-V DEPLOYMENT July 2017 Abstract This white paper examines deployment of the Microsoft Windows Server Hyper-V virtualization solution on Dell EMC VMAX All Flash arrays, with focus on storage efficiency, availability, scalability, and best practices. H16434R This document is not intended for audiences in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macao. WHITE PAPER Copyright The information in this publication is provided as is. Dell Inc. makes no representations or warranties of any kind with respect to the information in this publication, and specifically disclaims implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Use, copying, and distribution of any software described in this publication requires an applicable software license. Copyright © 2017 Dell Inc. or its subsidiaries. All Rights Reserved. Dell, EMC, Dell EMC and other trademarks are trademarks of Dell Inc. or its subsidiaries. Intel, the Intel logo, the Intel Inside logo and Xeon are trademarks of Intel Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries. Other trademarks may be the property of their respective owners. Published in the USA 07/17 White Paper H16434R. Dell Inc. believes the information in this document is accurate as of its publication date. The information is subject to change without notice. 2 Dell EMC VMAX All Flash Storage for Microsoft Hyper-V Deployment White Paper Contents Contents Chapter 1 Executive Summary 5 Summary .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Scala Infochannel Player Setup Guide
    SETUP GUIDE P/N: D40E04-01 Copyright © 1993-2002 Scala, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication, nor any parts of this package, may be copied or distributed, transmitted, transcribed, recorded, photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, or translated into any human or computer language, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, magnetic, manual, or otherwise, or disclosed to third parties without the prior written permission of Scala Incorporated. TRADEMARKS Scala, the exclamation point logo, and InfoChannel are registered trademarks of Scala, Inc. All other trademarks or registered trademarks are the sole property of their respective companies. The following are trademarks or registered trademarks of the companies listed, in the United States and other countries: Microsoft, MS-DOS, Windows, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, DirectX, DirectDraw, DirectSound, ActiveX, ActiveMovie, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express: Microsoft Corporation IBM, IBM-PC: International Business Machines Corporation Intel, Pentium, Indeo: Intel Corporation Adobe, the Adobe logo, Adobe Type Manager, Acrobat, ATM, PostScript: Adobe Systems Incorporated TrueType, QuickTime, Macintosh: Apple Computer, Incorporated Agfa: Agfa-Gevaert AG, Agfa Division, Bayer Corporation “Segoe” is a trademark of Agfa Monotype Corporation. “Flash” and “Folio” are trademarks of Bauer Types S.A. Some parts are derived from the RSA Data Security, Inc. MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm. JPEG file handling is based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group. Lexsaurus Speller Technology Copyright © 1992, 1997 by Lexsaurus Software Inc. All rights reserved. TIFF-LZW and/or GIF-LZW: Licensed under Unisys Corporation US Patent No. 4,558,302; End-User use restricted to use on only a single personal computer or workstation which is not used as a server.
    [Show full text]
  • Billg the Manager
    BillG the Manager “Intelli…what?”–Bill Gates The breadth of the Microsoft product line and the rapid turnover of core technologies all but precluded BillG from micro-managing the company in spite of the perceptions and lore around that topic. In less than 10 years the technology base of the business changed from the 8-bit BASIC era to the 16-bit MS-DOS era and to now the tail end of the 16-bit Windows era, on the verge of the Win32 decade. How did Bill manage this — where and how did he engage? This post introduces the topic and along with the next several posts we will explore some specific projects. At 38, having grown Microsoft as CEO from the start, Bill was leading Microsoft at a global scale that in 1993 was comparable to an industrial-era CEO. Even the legendary Thomas Watson Jr., son of the IBM founder, did not lead IBM until his 40s. Microsoft could never have scaled the way it did had BillG managed via a centralized hub-and-spoke system, with everything bottlenecked through him. In many ways, this was BillG’s product leadership gift to Microsoft—a deeply empowered organization that also had deep product conversations at the top and across the whole organization. This video from the early 1980’s is a great introduction to the breadth of Microsoft’s product offerings, even at a very early stage of the company. It also features some vintage BillG voiceover and early sales executive Vern Raburn. (Source: Microsoft videotape) Bill honed a set of undocumented principles that defined interactions with product groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Netscape 6.2.3 Software for Solaris Operating Environment
    What’s New in Netscape 6.2 Netscape 6.2 builds on the successful release of Netscape 6.1 and allows you to do more online with power, efficiency and safety. New is this release are: Support for the latest operating systems ¨ BETTER INTEGRATION WITH WINDOWS XP q Netscape 6.2 is now only one click away within the Windows XP Start menu if you choose Netscape as your default browser and mail applications. Also, you can view the number of incoming email messages you have from your Windows XP login screen. ¨ FULL SUPPORT FOR MACINTOSH OS X Other enhancements Netscape 6.2 offers a more seamless experience between Netscape Mail and other applications on the Windows platform. For example, you can now easily send documents from within Microsoft Word, Excel or Power Point without leaving that application. Simply choose File, “Send To” to invoke the Netscape Mail client to send the document. What follows is a more comprehensive list of the enhancements delivered in Netscape 6.1 CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL AUGUST 8, 2001 Netscape 6.1 Highlights PR Contact: Catherine Corre – (650) 937-4046 CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL AUGUST 8, 2001 Netscape Communications Corporation ("Netscape") and its licensors retain all ownership rights to this document (the "Document"). Use of the Document is governed by applicable copyright law. Netscape may revise this Document from time to time without notice. THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. IN NO EVENT SHALL NETSCAPE BE LIABLE FOR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND ARISING FROM ANY ERROR IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY LOSS OR INTERRUPTION OF BUSINESS, PROFITS, USE OR DATA.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislators of Cyberspace: an Analysis of the Role Of
    SHAPING CODE Jay P. Kesan* & Rajiv C. Shah** I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 4 II. THE CASE STUDIES: THE DEVELOPMENT OF CODE WITHIN INSTITUTIONS.............................. 13 A. World Wide Web......................................................................................................... 14 1. Libwww............................................................................................................ 14 2. NCSA Mosaic .................................................................................................. 16 B. Cookies ........................................................................................................................ 21 1. Netscape’s Cookies .......................................................................................... 21 2. The IETF’s Standard for Cookies .................................................................... 24 C. Platform for Internet Content Selection....................................................................... 28 D. Apache......................................................................................................................... 34 III. LEGISLATIVE BODIES: SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS THAT DEVELOP CODE ................................. 37 A. Universities.................................................................................................................. 38 B. Firms...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • OPEN SOURCE the Future of Tech and Telecom 2 Open Source: the Future of Tech and Telecom
    OPEN SOURCE The Future of Tech and Telecom 2 Open Source: The Future of Tech and Telecom OPEN SOURCE The Future of Tech and Telecom The open source philosophy and methodology has made a considerable impact on the history of computing. It has steadily entered and gained traction in almost every area and industry. For reasons of protecting intellectual property and keeping development focused, proprietary software was, for decades, the only way for organizations to achieve specific goals within budget. Because proprietary software or hardware is developed by businesses whose sole aim is to achieve or maintain profitability, these products could more effectively be designed ‘in-house’, often in a shorter span of time. But the draw and appeal of computers and programming has always attracted countless hobbyists and amateurs. And this community of talent has been hard at work since the first computer, building and modifying software, to provide useful new features or just to have some fun. What was seen as hobbyist fun for decades is now a mature community of developers that industry takes very seriously. Major businesses and organizations are now utilizing the open source method of development to build software that is more responsive to user needs and often less expensive. The telecommunications industry is certainly no stranger to open source. This whitepaper explores the open source philosophy and its impact on the telecom sector. 3 Open Source: The Future of Tech and Telecom WHAT IS OPEN SOURCE? The open source method leverages the power of the Internet to develop software. It does this by organizing a project around building a specific tool or program, then making the source code, design documents, and content publicly available under various open source licenses.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FUTURE of IDEAS This Work Is Licensed Under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License (US/V3.0)
    less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page i THE FUTURE OF IDEAS This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License (US/v3.0). Noncommercial uses are thus permitted without any further permission from the copyright owner. Permissions beyond the scope of this license are administered by Random House. Information on how to request permission may be found at: http://www.randomhouse.com/about/ permissions.html The book maybe downloaded in electronic form (freely) at: http://the-future-of-ideas.com For more permission about Creative Commons licenses, go to: http://creativecommons.org less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page iii the future of ideas THE FATE OF THE COMMONS IN A CONNECTED WORLD /// Lawrence Lessig f RANDOM HOUSE New York less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page iv Copyright © 2001 Lawrence Lessig All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States by Random House, Inc., New York, and simultaneously in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. Random House and colophon are registered trademarks of Random House, Inc. library of congress cataloging-in-publication data Lessig, Lawrence. The future of ideas : the fate of the commons in a connected world / Lawrence Lessig. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 0-375-50578-4 1. Intellectual property. 2. Copyright and electronic data processing. 3. Internet—Law and legislation. 4. Information society. I. Title. K1401 .L47 2001 346.04'8'0285—dc21 2001031968 Random House website address: www.atrandom.com Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 24689753 First Edition Book design by Jo Anne Metsch less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page v To Bettina, my teacher of the most important lesson.
    [Show full text]
  • CSE 127 Computer Security Stefan Savage, Spring 2018, Lecture 16
    CSE 127 Computer Security Stefan Savage, Spring 2018, Lecture 16 Network Security I Objectives ▪ Understand – Architecture of the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) ▪ CSE123 in 20mins – Common weaknesses in networking protocols – Available mitigations and their limitations Review: Internet Protocol Suite ▪ Application Layer – Examples: SMTP, FTP, SSH, HTTP, etc. ▪ Transport Layer: Port-addressed host-to-host communications (on LAN or WAN). – User Datagram Protocol (UDP): single packet transmission with no reliability or ordering mechanisms. – Transmission Control Protocol (TCP): connection establishment, reliable transmission, and flow-control. ▪ Internet Layer (IP): Fragmentation, reassembly, and end-to-end (across network boundaries) routing of data packets. – Provides a uniform interface that hides the underlying network topology. ▪ Link Layer: Transmission of data frames within a local network (without intervening routers). – Example: Ethernet ▪ Physical Layer: Transmission of raw bits (rather than logical data packets) over a physical data link connecting network nodes. – Example: 100BASE-T – [Technically not part of the Internet Protocol Model, but is still there] Review: Internet Protocol Suite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite Review: Internet Protocol Suite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite TCP/IP Protocol Stack by Example ▪ ROUGHLY, what happens when I click on a URL while UCSD’s network? My computer www.yahoo.com Application Layer (HTTP) ▪ Turn click into HTTP GET request GET http://www.yahoo.com/r/mp HTTP/1.1 Host: www.yahoo.com Connection:keep-alive … Application Layer (Name Resolution) ▪ Where is www.yahoo.com? What’s the address for www.yahoo.com My computer Oh, you can find it at 64.58.76.177 132.239.9.64 Local DNS server 132.239.51.18 Transport Layer (TCP) ▪ Break message into packets (TCP segments) ▪ Should be delivered reliably & in-order GET http://www.yahoo.com/r/mp HTTP/1.1 Host: www.yahoo.com Connection:keep-alive … 3 yahoo.c 2 p://www.
    [Show full text]
  • Solution Snapshot
    Solution Snapshot Mainsoft and the System z Business Benefits of Porting .NET Apps to the Mainframe By Tony Lock The Sageza Group, Inc. August 2006 The Sageza Group, Inc. 32108 Alvarado Blvd #354 Union City, CA 94587 510·675·0700 fax 650·649·2302 sageza.com London +44 (0) 20·7900·2819 [email protected] Milan +39 02·9544·1646 Mainsoft and the System z ABSTRACT There are two major platforms that today dominate the development of enterprise applications, namely J2EE and Microsoft .NET. Both of these application development environments have attracted large numbers of organizations, and each has its own attractions and limitations. For organizations that have selected Microsoft .NET for application development, the choice of server platform has, until recently, been limited to Microsoft's Windows Server. However, many organizations are now looking to consolidate their server infrastructures to a limited set of platforms, primarily in order to enhance operational security and to minimize the cost of service delivery. The software solutions provided by Mainsoft Corporation now offer enterprise customers the choice of running applications developed using Microsoft .NET on the most secure and highly available server platform available, namely IBM's System z, known to one and all as the mainframe. Mainsoft’s software enables Microsoft .NET applications to run as 100% Java bytecode on a mainframe server. The benefits for organizations deploying applications in this way are many and increasingly desirable. The benefits provided include the ability for experienced .NET developers to continue building and maintaining enterprise applications in the existing environment using the tools with which they are familiar but allowing the organization to deploy said applications in the most robust and secure server platform available, the mainframe.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study: Internet Explorer 1994..1997
    Case Study: Internet Explorer 1994..1997 Ben Slivka General Manager Windows UI [email protected] Internet Explorer Chronology 8/94 IE effort begins 12/94 License Spyglass Mosaic source code 7/95 IE 1.0 ships as Windows 95 feature 11/95 IE 2.0 ships 3/96 MS Professional Developer’s Conference AOL deal, Java license announced 8/96 IE 3.0 ships, wins all but PC Mag review 9/97 IE 4.0 ships, wins all the reviews IE Feature Chronology IE 1.0 (7/14/95) IE 2.0 (11/17/95) HTML 2.0 HTML Tables, other NS enhancements HTML <font face=> Cell background colors & images Progressive Rendering HTTP cookies (arthurbi) Windows Integration SSL Start.Run HTML (MS enhancements) Internet Shortcuts <marquee> Password Caching background sounds Auto Connect, in-line AVIs Disconnect Active VRML 1.0 Navigator parity MS innovation Feature Chronology - continued IE 3.0 (8/12/96) IE 3.0 - continued... IE 4.0 (9/12/97) Java Accessibility Dynamic HTML (W3C) HTML Frames PICS (W3C) Data Binding Floating frames HTML CSS (W3C) 2D positioning Componentized HTML <object> (W3C) Java JDK 1.1 ActiveX Scripting ActiveX Controls Explorer Bars JavaScript Code Download Active Setup VBScript Code Signing Active Channels MSHTML, SHDOCVW IEAK (corporations) CDF (XML) WININET, URLMON Internet Setup Wizard Security Zones DocObj hosting Referral Server Windows Integration Single Explorer ActiveDesktop™ Navigator parity MS innovation Quick Launch, … Wins for IE • Quality • CoolBar, Explorer Bars • Componetization • Great Mail/News Client • ActiveX Controls – Outlook Express – vs. Nav plug-ins
    [Show full text]