Re: Definitions vs. designs.

If it is "modular" but it is required to be loaded all the time, what is the difference (to the end user) of that design over a monolithic design?

Very few. I'd say that most of the advantages of modular design benefit programmers rather than the end user. Better maintainability for Microsoft, and a more compelling platform for ISVs.

Now, MS's past "defense" has been that they're doing these things for the end user.

One potential end user benefit is that modular systems are more easily reused, and deeper reuse leads to greater efficiency, which leads to a better overall user experience, at least in theory.

But this is the core of the issue. Components that are NOT needed ARE loaded.

But they are needed. The standard shell (EXPLORER.EXE) uses IE's HTML parsing and display engines to render many of its views.

Therefore, MS did illegally tie IE to Windows.

Whoa, could you go over that proof again?

I'd say that most of the advantages of modular design benefit programmers rather than the end user. Better maintainability for Microsoft, and a more compelling platform for ISVs.

Ahhh, but the benefit to programmers SHOULD be seen as a more stable product (yes/no), a more secure product (yes/no), and so on.

Yet Windows is well known for its instability and non-existant immune system (loveletter and so on).

So, if it were "modular", we >STILL< aren't seeing any of the benefits.

Check out the >SIZE< of the service packs MS has. Compare that to the patches for Linux (Debian in particular).

And before you ask, no, size by itself does NOT determine modularity. But when when the service pack is larger than the applications, you cannot argue "modularity".

One potential end user benefit is that modular systems are more easily reused, and deeper reuse leads to greater efficiency, which leads to a better overall user experience, at least in theory.

But in MS's history we haven't seen this. We've seen each release being MORE buggy than the release before it. Win98 was less stable than Win95c. If it were modular, the modules would have been stabilized over the 3 years between Win95 and Win98. Code re-use of stable modules would have the core system rock solid by then.

But that wasn't what happened.

But they are needed. The standard shell (EXPLORER.EXE) uses IE's HTML parsing and display engines to render many of its views.

No. That's "monolithic". If I'm not displaying HTML and don't have a background and I'm not browsing anything, then I shouldn't have anything that reads HTML loaded. But it is loaded.

Whoa, could you go over that proof again?

Simple. Since all your arguments as to why MS might design their system with modularity don't result in real-world improvements (Win98 was more buggy than Win95 at the time) then there must have been another reason for them doing so.

Which gets back to the internal emails about cutting off Netscape's air supply and making the use of any other browser a "jolting" experience.

Welcome to IWETHEY!