[eep!]

If Windows won't work without Internet Explorer, how did it work before ie?

Bill Gates Takes The Stand (wired)

"This shows that if you remove this block of code, other functions are degraded in the most extreme way. They no longer work," Gates said, referring to the removal of the Explorer software.

erm, bill... MS is one of (if not THE) biggest Software Shops, FIX THE DAMN THING YOU CHEATING MONOPOLISTIC SCUMBAG.

Gates showed in another demonstration Microsoft's fear that the states' requirements that the company translate its Office business software and give away Internet Explorer would let companies create Windows clones.

don't they already give IE away? why would anyone clone windows? what does 'translate office' mean?

To show the companies that could create clones, Gates named five companies that have helped the states' suit: AOL Time Warner, Sun, Gateway, Novell and Oracle.

the thing is, if AOL made a windows clone we'd get it in the mail every morning with 700 hours internet access for 14.99 a month. Sun already have Solaris why would they make another (inferior OS)? Gateway don't even make software. Novell would probably rather kill windows than clone it and Don't oracle just make databases?

"They're one of the people who would change Windows ... if they had the ability to do so," Gates said.

yeah, them and the rest of the windows users.

In written testimony submitted after he was sworn in, Gates argued the penalties the states have proposed would give Microsoft's competitors an unfair advantage.

what? like spying on AOL, putting Netscape out of business, threatening to withdraw it's products from the Mac and restrictive licensing to OEM PC builders preventing them from selling dual boot systems, from putting non-ms apps on the machines (realplayer, netscape) isn't an unfair advantage?

The penalties include requiring Microsoft to divulge blueprints and technical information about how some of company's products work.

Such penalties would cause a "a massive transfer of Microsoft's intellectual property rights" to competitors, Gates said.

isn't it far more likely that they'd just be embarrased by the poor code? or would it reveal all the ms spyware and backdoors?

i'm bored now, do i have ADD?

when did MS 'innovate'?

[�]

What happened with the stolen Windows Source-code????

I expected it to be publicly released right after it's "aquiry".

[Mac Zealot]

It all is obviously garbage, but money talks.

Watch, I guarantee microsoft will say about how they're trying to be good to schools, taxpayers children, etc, then how the taxpayers are trying to turn around and backstab MS.

There should be a law about how many billions you can make as a CEO in a company, after that you have to resign!

(problem with that I can see is most of the time, 90% of their net worth is locked away)

Frankly, it'd be nice if the government redid the clause "if you can not make windows without your proprietary crap within 30 days, we will order you to cease development of ANY operating system."

A note: One of the main problems with the windows situation is that Microsoft is finally realizing the key to a stable OS is a limited variety of hardware, thus they're trying to boost only certain companies, and limit the market. With only a few companies developing hardware, and under the deal, microsoft could make that hardware incompatible with other operating systems, yet only able to run a very small amount of third party code.

While it'd be more stable, it'd be in the backend, starting up a monopoly. microsoft's suppliers get underpowered and sucked into MS, get bought out by MS, and within a year, you have the Mac equilvilent to a windows machine (windows only) but with much worse cause.

This reminds me very much of the SSSCA.

[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: Mac Zealot ]

[Mac Zealot]

Another thing: Wired is very biased to MS vs other companies (they love Wintel!!!)

[omac]

maybe they should start a retrial with steve jobs as the judge & larry ellison as the prosecution.. they could have a mentally retarded donkey as their defense..

and brodcast worldwide live via sattelite..

nice...

get outta that one mr billy boy !

[Cipher13]

Why should anyone be allowed to see MS's code? They own it. I'd be pissed if I were MS too.

[Ozmodiar]

By explorer did he mean Internet Explorer, or just the windoze file navigation system? In win95 they were separate things, but i think now they've grown together. it would be like if we used Finder to surf.

[jcadam]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
<STRONG>By explorer did he mean Internet Explorer, or just the windoze file navigation system? In win95 they were separate things, but i think now they've grown together. it would be like if we used Finder to surf.</STRONG>

They are the same. This works out great for some PCs in public places where much of the normal routes to accessing the file system are locked (like 'My Computer').

Just open an Internet explorer window and in the Address field enter 'C'

This is one of the reasons why an internet explorer crash can bring down the whole OS.

[pdjr]

To answer your question, Windows was a lot different back in the past. For instance, in Windows 95, one couldn't get IE to morph into Word by opening a DOC file. Now you can. Now you can also get IE to morph into Excel by opening a spreadsheet.

eep!, are you jealous of Microsoft's profitability or market penetration? This argument is tired and does nothing to promote Apple's hardware or software.

[voodoo]

Ugh, the 'morphing' ability of IE is so bad it's offensive!

[maxelson]

Originally posted by jcadam:
<STRONG>

They are the same. This works out great for some PCs in public places where much of the normal routes to accessing the file system are locked (like 'My Computer').

Just open an Internet explorer window and in the Address field enter 'C'

This is one of the reasons why an internet explorer crash can bring down the whole OS.</STRONG>

You can do that with any web browser running under Windows. THeir entire argument is based on the idea that they can snow folks with technobabble. It is BS. They did wrong. They have been found to have done wrong. Pony up, take the punishment and deal. THis whole matter is insulting.
We all know damned well that the removal of IE will be an inconvenience for coders and that's it. Kill IE and you kill windoews? Oh, come on. It is such BS and we all know it. Hell, they tied it in there to HAVE an argument. Regardless of a given opinion on the case, do we REALLY think MS will be hurt by this? C'mon. Get real. It is a spitball to the forehead.

[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: maxelson ]

[Oneota]

Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
<STRONG>Another thing: Wired is very biased to MS vs other companies (they love Wintel!!!)</STRONG>

Except, if you read the bck of the magazine, the entire thing is made with Macs, almost exclusively.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by pdjr:
<STRONG>To answer your question, Windows was a lot different back in the past. For instance, in Windows 95, one couldn't get IE to morph into Word by opening a DOC file. Now you can. Now you can also get IE to morph into Excel by opening a spreadsheet.

eep!, are you jealous of Microsoft's profitability or market penetration? This argument is tired and does nothing to promote Apple's hardware or software.</STRONG>

Again, can be done with any good browser.

[eep!]

Originally posted by pdjr:
<STRONG>eep!, are you jealous of Microsoft's profitability or market penetration? This argument is tired and does nothing to promote Apple's hardware or software.</STRONG>

erm... let me think... nope.
i never liked bullies, MS push people around and get away with it. i don't care if windows crashes, not my problem since i bought a mac. i don't care how much money ms has. i don't care how many people use windows. i don't care that microsoft want to get into every market they can. i just don't like how they do it.
want the most used web browser? stop the OEMs from installing other browsers.
want the most used media player? stop the OEMs from installing other media players.
want to keep windows as the most installed OS on new computers? stop the OEMs from selling dualboot systems.
so far they tried to kill netscape, realplayer, java, palm now they're going for the consoles and 'rubbishing' Unix (when once over NT was "more UNIX than UNIX" great logic huh?)
if they played by the rules from the start, they wouldn't be in this mess, and they deserve everything they get.
so what if this doesn't promote Apples harware or software? it's in the lounge, and if this argument is tired, why'd ya join it? huh? huh? answer THAT fancy pants.

[olePigeon]

Nothing's gonna happen. If they're found guilty, George Bush will pardon them.

[eep!]

They even threatened Intel! couldn't intel release their own OS and stop giving MS technical info on new chips? would MS like it if the shoe was on the other foot and everyone held them to ransom?

them? god, i'm starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist or some other garden variety nutcase.

[cpt kangarooski]

Cipher--
Well, there's a few different reasons why it's good for MS source code to be viewed by others outside of MS.

1) Copyright. Copyright is the granting of an exclusive monopoly over certain distribution and performance rights, in order to stimulate the creation of new works and to continually increase the number of works that are in the public domain (because the terms expire after a certain amount of time). Thus it would be beneficial if in order to be granted a copyright on a computer program, either in binary or source form, that the source, with sufficient documentation to permit it to be modified and viewed, be stored at the Library of Congress, open to public inspection. Copying it would still be illegal insofar as it was illegal before, but it would not be secret... thus promoting the public good.

2) Discovery. It is an accepted rule in civil ajudication, that all parties are entitled to discovery of relevant evidence. If MS is sued, it has to permit the opposing party inspect its code (provided it's germane to the suit), ask questions about it, etc. At most it can argue that trade secrets might be revealed, but then a proxy would be appointed to inspect the code, determine whether trade secrets were in jeopardy, and whether whatever it was that was being looked for was present or not.

3) Antitrust. MS is in a unique position, with unusual amounts of power in this industry. Therefore, special rules must be applied to prevent great harms to the industry and consumers; rules that aren't normally needed, because normal market participants are not as powerful as MS is.

There are probably more reasons why it would be a good idea for MS's code to be available; being able to look at it doesn't give people the right to use it, you know. Only to look, as with sheet music or a novel.

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
<STRONG>it would be like if we used Finder to surf.</STRONG>

thats exactly what it is.

IE is merely a differnt gui of the same explorer functions. if you wanted you can make a whole new web browser calling the explorer Internet API's and it will work, all you really code is the gui itself. i did it in my 1st semister VB class. its also why Ative desktop and Web object on the desktop work. with windows 95 IE & explorer may have been seperate, but from 98 on, IE is explorer and explorer is IE. at this point in the game ripping out all the IE related bits in the windows kernel would not only be a pain in the ass, but will make some features imposiible ( Active desktop/ web objects) and will probably cause additional bloat as now any internet program has to bring its own code to the table instead of using the underlying code in windows.

Sorry guys, Gates is right here

[itai195]

Originally posted by Nimisys:
<STRONG>Sorry guys, Gates is right here</STRONG>

All I have to say to Nimisys is, did you ever take an OS course? And I always thought that more features and more bugs/security issues went hand in hand.... Taking out explorer may be a pain, but that's Microsoft's problem. They built the browser into the OS in the first place. Not that removing IE from Windows is going to kill off IE, it's probably too late for that. But at least it will finally be an admission of some wrong doing! I think people are willing to give up "features" like surfing the web and traversing the file system all from one window in order to have some choice.

Is anyone else amused by the fact that Microsoft is now trying to prove that it's impossible to remove IE from Windows, the complete opposite of what they were trying to prove several years ago (that it's possible for users to remove IE from Windows).... they're failing just as miserably this time.

[ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: itai195 ]

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>Cipher--
Well, there's a few different reasons why it's good for MS source code to be viewed by others outside of MS.

1) Copyright. Copyright is the granting of an exclusive monopoly over certain distribution and performance rights, in order to stimulate the creation of new works and to continually increase the number of works that are in the public domain (because the terms expire after a certain amount of time). Thus it would be beneficial if in order to be granted a copyright on a computer program, either in binary or source form, that the source, with sufficient documentation to permit it to be modified and viewed, be stored at the Library of Congress, open to public inspection. Copying it would still be illegal insofar as it was illegal before, but it would not be secret... thus promoting the public good.

2) Discovery. It is an accepted rule in civil ajudication, that all parties are entitled to discovery of relevant evidence. If MS is sued, it has to permit the opposing party inspect its code (provided it's germane to the suit), ask questions about it, etc. At most it can argue that trade secrets might be revealed, but then a proxy would be appointed to inspect the code, determine whether trade secrets were in jeopardy, and whether whatever it was that was being looked for was present or not.

3) Antitrust. MS is in a unique position, with unusual amounts of power in this industry. Therefore, special rules must be applied to prevent great harms to the industry and consumers; rules that aren't normally needed, because normal market participants are not as powerful as MS is.

There are probably more reasons why it would be a good idea for MS's code to be available; being able to look at it doesn't give people the right to use it, you know. Only to look, as with sheet music or a novel.</STRONG>

I agree with Nimisys, when he says Gates is in the right.

I know the deal, but the fact of the matter is that MS owns it!

I don't think a lot matters after that.

MS OWNS it. And NOBODY forces you to use it.

[scaught]

Originally posted by Oneota:
<STRONG>

Except, if you read the bck of the magazine, the entire thing is made with Macs, almost exclusively.</STRONG>

and wired seems to have an interesting and sometimes downright complimentary mac article almost every day posted on their site.

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by itai195:
<STRONG>All I have to say to Nimisys is, did you ever take an OS course? And I always thought that more features and more bugs/security issues went hand in hand.... Taking out explorer may be a pain, but that's Microsoft's problem. They built the browser into the OS in the first place. Not that removing IE from Windows is going to kill off IE, it's probably too late for that. But at least it will finally be an admission of some wrong doing! I think people are willing to give up "features" like surfing the web and traversing the file system all from one window in order to have some choice.

Is anyone else amused by the fact that Microsoft is now trying to prove that it's impossible to remove IE from Windows, the complete opposite of what they were trying to prove several years ago (that it's possible for users to remove IE from Windows).... they're failing just as miserably this time.

[ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: itai195 ]</STRONG>

and have you ever taken a windows cource??? IE is not a seprate entity, thats the problem. is merely a gui for the underlying system level componets of explorer as a whole. yes they can remove the IE Shell/gui, but thats not what people want, they want all of IE removed, which means all the system level Internet API's get thrown out. and given that Explorer and windows works off the fact that a system level component is accisiblt by anythiong above it.

Microsofts decison to include internet API's into explorer it self was a very smart one. they know the internet isn;t going anywhere, and the os has to be able to take advantage of the fact. so with winows98 they took the IE internet API's that use to be seperate and puth them all into explorer ( the main shell of windows ) now any pogram that needs internet abilities, doesn't need to bring their own internet code into the machine, but can tap thew underlying code base that flows in windows. PUll those out and ou get a lot of 3rdparty programs no longer functioning, additionlly now you get to deal with differnet levels of programming quality from program to program in reagrds to something they can and shouldall be on a level field for.

I think people are willing to give up "features" like surfing the web and traversing the file system all from one window in order to have some choice.

i disagree, people don;t choose to have netscape anymore, why cause it sucks. 30% of all internet veiwing is done on AOL. their choice is there. Opera is used by alot of techy's because it offers a more robust and flexible GUI, but still uses some of the underlying Explorer API's.

oh and being able to switch directly from file strucutre to INternet is a powerful feature, especially for FTP.

People have choice, people chosse not exersice choise, so AOL andf the geoverment decides to exercise it for them

[Millennium]

Originally posted by pdjr:
<STRONG>To answer your question, Windows was a lot different back in the past. For instance, in Windows 95, one couldn't get IE to morph into Word by opening a DOC file. Now you can. Now you can also get IE to morph into Excel by opening a spreadsheet.</STRONG>

And no one is saying this is bad. But that system can be designed so that IE could morph into any other spreadsheet, or any other word processor, or whatever product the user wanted to use, and it would not afffect the user experience of Microsoft's own products at all. I know exactly what I am talking about here, also; the frameworks are already there to make it possible. All it would take would be for Microsoft to use its own stuff the way it tells everyone else to. And that's what the settlement is all about: making Microsoft eat its own dogfood.

eep!, are you jealous of Microsoft's profitability or market penetration? This argument is tired and does nothing to promote Apple's hardware or software.

Indeed, it doesn't. But this is about justice, not Macs. Certainly Microsoft has gained great market penetration, but they did it by lying to consumers, stealing from other companies, and verious other practices which would land a human being in jail, but since they're a corporation they get off scot-free. They're long overdue for a rude judicial awakening. And we just might get it, at long last. This isn't about jealousy, it's about doing the right thing.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Nimisys:
<STRONG>People have choice, people chosse not exersice choise, so AOL andf the geoverment decides to exercise it for them</STRONG>

There's no choice because the integration of IE into Windows killed off most of the good alternatives long ago. Most people who use AOL use IE to browse the net from what I've seen.

Just because IE is so tightly integrated with Windows doesn't mean it can't be removed. Will it be a lot of work for Microsoft? You bet, but they dug themselves into a hole in the first place. If it's not removed it's just the gateway for a whole slew of new attempts by Microsoft to take over the internet (eg .NET and those "smart tags" they were going to put into XP).

Personally I don't see being able to use explorer to do ftp as a powerful feature. For one thing, it's dog slow. There are alternative third party apps that are much faster and much more powerful. Plus it also provides yet another security hole in IE and thus by extension in Windows. For another thing, shouldn't everybody be using sftp or scp by now?

[Montezuma58]

IE reminds me of science fiction films in which a human is impregnated by an alien. The doctors would like to perform an abortion but the alien fetus has attached itself to the mother's vital organ thus making impossible to kill it without killing the mother.

Of course on this board there are many people who would not object to the killing of mother Windows in order to abort IE.