It's Comdex week, which means hundreds of thousands of the computer-industry digerati are in Las Vegas, checking out all the hottest new technology. But not all the nerds were in Vegas. As the Microsoft antitrust trial entered its fifth week, the government plowed into dense new territory -- and away from the high drama of Microsoft's alleged strong-arm tactics against Intel, Apple, and Intel.

The first of three Justice Dept. technical experts, Glenn Weadock, testified about the merits of so-called bundling, the practice of including a new program with an existing product. Weadock, president of Independent Software Inc., a software consultancy based in Golden, Colo., was asked to give an expert view on whether Microsoft's bundling of its Internet Explorer browser with Windows -- a key issue in the government's case -- is beneficial or harmful to consumers. In written and direct testimony, Weadock said large corporations, including Boeing and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, had told him that they prefer a choice of browsers for computers on their corporate networks, but that once Internet Explorer was integrated with Windows, it was difficult to choose another product. Weadock said they told him they would have preferred the option of being able to easily choose a separate browser.

In cross-examination, Richard Pepperman, a lawyer with Microsoft's outside counsel, attempted to discredit both the quality of the evidence and the objectivity of the companies cited. For instance, Pepperman said Weadock hadn't personally spoken with executives at the airplane maker but relied on notes. Weadock began providing consulting services to Justice in October of 1997, and his testimony is based on research done for books he has written, including conversations and E-mails with software developers and computer professionals and research done for Justice.

INTERESTED OBSERVERS? Weadock acknowledged under questioning that most of the companies he contacted had been chosen by Justice and that many of them were longtime users of Microsoft archrival Netscape's browser. Sabre Group, he acknowledged, offered an online travel service that competed with Microsoft's Expedia and has been an "outspoken critic" of Microsoft. Another, Federal Express Corp., had once been headed by James Barksdale, now CEO of Netscape, the leadoff witness for the government.

Not that Weadock gave much ground. He repeatedly returned to his main point that integrating the browser and the operating system was not necessarily a net improvement for end users. Some corporations, Weadock said, indicated that they didn't need browsers installed on every computer or would like to have a choice of browsers but that the integration of Internet Explorer and Windows made it difficult to uninstall the Microsoft browser without disabling Windows.

In effect, he said, that left companies with little choice. American Airlines, for instance, has decided to move to Internet Explorer when it upgrades to Windows 98 because it fears that uninstalling IE will be too dangerous, Weadock says. Problems, he noted, included not being able to totally remove Internet Explorer, which could lead to problems with other software and higher administrative costs. Overall, Weadock argued that Microsoft did not have good technical reasons for making it so difficult to remove IE from Windows 98.

Pepperman's response was to restate the Microsoft position on bundling: Overall, he asserted, consumers benefit from having one easy-to-use package. Weadock admitted under cross-examination that the company didn't prohibit users from removing the browser software and provided them with different options for doing so. He also admitted that there were certain benefits in having a smaller amount of code when the browser and operating system are integrated, in looking at files on your own machine and on the Web using the same screen design, and in having a Web-based help service made possible by using Internet Explorer.

Today's courtroom-steps spin? Microsoft spokesman Mark Murray says the software giant is responding to overall consumer demand, rather than an idea of how things should work in software development for each unique consumer's needs.

Among the few light moments during this mostly technical discussion was some repartee over definitions, such as "co-mingling," which Weadock used to describe integration. Pepperman asked him, "Didn't you decide to use this term because it sounds more perditious?" Weadock replied: "No, I can think of some delightful examples of co-mingling." To which Pepperman responded: "I won't touch that."

By Heather Green and Susan Garland in Washington