[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IE bundling

  Jeff Wasel wrote:
  > If M$' intent was to purport that I.E. was, and always has been,
  > integral to the OS, why the need for the inclusion of I.E. 1.0/2.0 in
  > the Plus! widget set? How could M$ "forget" to include in the original
  > build such a supposedly "critical" component of a product release whose
  > hype was unheard of to date? It staggers me that the Redmonites think us
  > all that stupid or that their release control and QA is so
  > poor...Furthermore, having built many computers over the last few years,
  > why does the M$ OEM Win '95 disk set, consisting of 12 install disks and
  > one boot disk, have the I.E. package of 4 disks separate (in its own
  > shrinkwrap)  in the box? I can't believe no one has recognized the
  > hypocrisy of that move... To me, this is as simple and lucid an example
  > of M$' culpability as was Richard Feyneman's "O" ring in a glass of cold
  > water example relative to NASA's role in the "Challenger" accident. It's
  > seems pretty clear to this old hack that M$ never intended an
  > integration, was left at the gate regarding the net, and is now trying
  > to capture market share with its typical bombast and half truths... If
  > you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with ....
  Apparently, they *are* trying to fool a lot of people. As you point out,
  IE ships separately, and is available on multiple platforms. The "Active
  Desktop" bit adds very little to Windows 95 itself, and nothing that
  could not be done by someone with a knowledge of the Win32 Shell API, a
  new DLL, and a change from SHELL=EXPLORER.EXE in SYSTEM.INI to
  SHELL=<something else>. (Note: this reference to EXPLORER.EXE in
  SYSTEM.INI is the default Win95 explorer, not IE4) This was done two
  years ago by Symantec with their Norton Desktop, which in fact had FTP
  capabilities built in to its "Explorer", and by both Norton and Central
  Point years before that for Win16. They were all shell replacements with
  various capabilities, but none were "integral" to the OS -- they all
  (including IE4) work by accessing the *actual* OS, which lies underneath
  these applications. The single-click business is, while long overdue,
  hardly undoable outside of IE, and it doesn't work in applications, so
  it isn't "integrated". The ability to write HTML to customize the look
  of individual folders is, IMHO, simply a copy of what OS/2 has had for a
  long time (although OS/2 didn't do it with HTML) -- nothing illegal
  about that, of course, but if it weren't done in HTML, it wouldn't
  "require" IE <g>. The HTML is stored in a DESKTOP.INI file hidden within
  each folder that has been "customized". The ability is show thumbnails
  of various file types in folders was also done by HiJaack when Win95 was
  first released, and *it* wasn't integral to the OS -- it talked to the
  underlying OS to do its job.
  And it could all be done with a new shell. Same for the "Channel"
  business. I think MS is relying on the idea that most people won't know,
  technically, how shallow their argument is. That, and the idea that if
  you say it loud enough and long enough...
  I read yesterday (darn, forget the source) of an MS exec saying they
  couldn't easily dis-integrate IE (hey, cool idea! <g>) from Windows 95
  because there are so many complexities and interactions, they'd have to
  test every app from scratch. What a crock -- it ships separately! Also,
  they have said they could integrate Office 97 IF THEY WANTED TO, but
  that (lucky for us), they don't see the need to do so.
  > Also, I've picked up a copy of Red Hat Linux, and I'm wondering what...
  Try http://www.linux.org/ for starters. There are quite a few Linux
  groups on UseNet as well. Run Netscape Collabra, highlight your news
  server, and choose File | Subscribe to Discussion Groups. Switch to the
  second tab, "Search for a Group", type in "linux" and click on "Search
  Dave Sieber