[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Moderately improved map of Microsoft tying evidence
David E. Y. Sarna wrote:
> >> there
> appears to be no *legitimate* reason that Developer Studio
> requires a
> complete installation of IE. Do you know of one?
> It's simple; Microsoft developed an application (IE) that has an
> embedded object model. Installing the application properly registers the
> components (ActiveX controls) and once registered, anyone can use them,
> including the applications you mention. Microsoft has not developed a
> separate application that has just the IE controls, and they want to
> ensure that anyone who installs IE has a good experience, so they permit
> others to ship the IE app only on an all or nothing basis. In fact, if
> you had enough knowledge of which components are actually needed by the
> two applications mentioned, then you could [legally] delete from your
> system what you don't want.
First, as far as I know I can delete anything I like from my computer
without Microsoft's approval -- and it's legal. Are you implying there
are cases where it isn't? If so, you had better publish them here for
the benefit of all, as we wouldn't want to be in violation of anything
by deleting Microsoft software from our machines.
Second, I really cannot let this statement stand uncorrected. Your
explanation that installing IE is necessary to make sure the ActiveX
controls work is both misleading and technically incorrect. Installing
components into the registry is very simple and does not require a
complete installation of IE, or a desktop icon, or anything else. I'm
surprised you don't know this. Can you give one example of how
installing IE ensures that the ActiveX components work, while installing
only the components along with Visual Studio will fail to reveal a
problem? Please be technically explicit.
> The reason a fully version of IE is installed is legitimate indeed, to
> ensure that it works. Microsoft cannot test every possible combination
> of subcomponents that individual developers might need, and they want to
> ensure that what is shipped with their name on it will install and work.
I'm not a reporter, David. "IE is fully installed so that we know that
IE fully works." But we are talking about installing Visual Studio and
its ActiveX components, not IE. You are tying the two together
artificially, just as MS is doing with IE and Windows 95. The ActiveX
components are just that -- components. And there are no "combinations"
-- what on earth are you talking about?
It's as if MS had a spell checker component, but insisted that they had
to install all of Microsoft Word in order to "ensure that it works".
Sounds pretty silly, doesn't it? If one didn't know any better
technically, one might buy into this. Unfortunately, I do know better,
and it is hogwash. The ActiveX components that Visual Studio uses do not
need IE at all. If you uninstall IE after being tricked into installing
it, guess what happens? It does not uninstall the ActiveX components,
and the Visual Studio help files can still be displayed. IOW, the
ActiveX components that should have been installed in the first place
remain. Ignoring for the moment that I didn't want IE anyway, I fail to
see what value a separate installation of IE adds to Visual Studio. I
*do* understand that MS may see an advantage in doing so, however.
> No mystery and no intrigue, just a vendor trying to give users a good