Think "Microsoft"

Post #76,384 by Brandioch 1/23/03 1:55:00 PM Reply	Think "Microsoft" Where portions of IE are stuck into .dll's that would otherwise have nothing to do with IE. As was shown at the trial. And the reason for this was simply to ensure that removing IE could not be accomplished.
Post #76,392 by deSitter 1/23/03 2:03:40 PM Reply	Bad development, not a master plan The idiocies of the execs at the trial had little to do with actual Windows development. Windows was/is two OSes - one stemming from Win3x, the other from WinNT. IE was an afterthought. To get it to work the same way on both systems required merging the concept of browsing into the OS - in the same way that the Windows device context required merging the WM inextricably into the OS. -drl
Post #76,404 by inthane-chan 1/23/03 2:21:53 PM Reply	There was a cultural attitude there. Remember, I was there during the rush to get 2k out the door - before it was called Win2k. There WAS very much an attitude of "let's tie everything together before they make us tear it apart" - along with the associated idea that the more difficult they made it to dissassemble things, the less likely it is that they would make Microsoft do it. This philosophy was very evident in the way bugs were handled - a lot of bugs that were caused by IE integration were closed as "won't fix" without any discussion of the merits (usually .dll version dependancy errors) when the solution presented was to remove the integration. Any deity worthy of a graven image can cobble up a working universe complete with fake fossils in under a week - hey, if you're not omnipotent, there's no real point in being a god. But to start with a big ball of elementary particles and end up with the duckbill platypus without constant twiddling requires a degree of subtlety and the ability to Think Things Through: exactly the qualities I'm looking for when I'm shopping for a Supreme Being.
Post #76,422 by Another Scott 1/23/03 2:52:40 PM Reply	"DOS isn't done 'til Lotus won't run." It's cultural. QED.
Post #76,605 by mmoffitt 1/24/03 12:54:52 AM Reply	Re: merging browsing into the OS. You seem to be suggesting that merging browser code (application code, that is) into the OS had no ulterior motive. I surmise that you're now working on an MCSE, an MCSD.Net or are employed with a Microsoft Partner. That is the only thing I can think of to explain what is, imo, your weakest post ever (at least back to 1995). bcnu, Mikem
Post #76,674 by deSitter 1/24/03 11:09:29 AM Reply	Re: merging browsing into the OS. Not at all, in fact I'm hoping I can move everyone to desktop Linux eventually. I will not buy XP machines. If I'm forced to buy Windows it will be Windows 2000. The truth is, the only decent UI to date technically is WPS, and that has usage issues for the hoi polloi. MS is too dumb to have a master plan. Have you ever seen anyone actually USE Active Desktop? For all practical purposes, IE is used like any other application - in spite of it really being welded to the OS. Windows is a stupid as ever, with no well-defined line between the hardware and the UI - it's just more stable now, after 8 years of the same thing. (It amazes me that in all this time, a decent competitor has not emerged.) -drl
Post #76,711 by mmoffitt 1/24/03 1:04:28 PM 1/24/03 1:06:36 PM Reply	Re: A decent competitor. To take on the beast would require money that only Gates/Balmer/Allen/etc. has. That means that one would require "venture capital". But as Stewart Alsop testified before a Senate hearing, before Win2K shipped iirc, there is no way, even in the heyday of the late 1990's that anyone with a plan for an OS could possibly get funding. It is no coincidence that Linux emerged as the singleton competitor: if you had a better idea for an OS and you tried to play by conventional capitalist rules, your air supply was cut off before you could draw your first breath. It had to be a grass-roots, community effort outside conventional bizness. And don't underestimate MS's intellect. There are some very smart people working for them. Misguided, yes; Greedy, yes; Hell bent on world domination and equipped with a "take no prisoners" attitude, yes; ethically and morally challenged, yes; but stupid, no. Edit: Actually I have seen quite a few people using "Active Desktop." When I visited a friend working in the Charlotte office of Microsoft, nearly everyone there was using it. bcnu, Mikem Edited by mmoffitt Jan. 24, 2003, 01:06:36 PM EST Expand All History
Post #76,720 by deSitter 1/24/03 1:13:54 PM Reply	There is one way Make a VM oriented OS that can run "personalities". -drl
Post #76,762 by mmoffitt 1/24/03 3:44:59 PM Reply	Perhaps, but... you better do it in your spare time. Because no one, and I mean no one is going to float you enough money to get it off the ground. But, I repeat myself. ;-)
Post #76,629 by Brandioch 1/24/03 7:43:18 AM Reply	Say that again. Windows was/is two OSes - one stemming from Win3x, the other from WinNT. With you so far. IE was an afterthought. Still with you. To get it to work the same way on both systems required merging the concept of browsing into the OS - in the same way that the Windows device context required merging the WM inextricably into the OS. But Mozilla works on both platforms (and more) and works in exactly the same way. Yet Mozilla isn't welded into the OS. And Mozilla offers the same functionality as IE. The same with Opera. I think you're wrong on this.
Post #76,673 by deSitter 1/24/03 11:03:06 AM Reply	Mozilla is just an application IE is not clearly identifiable as an application in itself - because the entire UI is built around browsing now - it has to be for Active Desktop to work. -drl
Post #76,732 by Brandioch 1/24/03 1:54:26 PM Reply	Ummm, incorrect. They could have done that and still not have built it into the system .dll's.

Welcome to IWETHEY!