Microsoft Hacked
Cymro
they discovered on Wednesday that some naughty person has hacked into their
computer system. A Microsoft spokesman plinked, "this is a deplorable act of
industrial espionage." Police have pulled in about 4 billion suspects.
The possibility exists that the hacker has stolen the source code to
Microsoft's software - so if, in the future, a rival piece of software is
released which takes up 3Gb of hard drive space, crashes every ten minutes
and needs a 900 MHz processor just for the installer, you'll know where it
came from.
Bill Gates was unavailable for comment. It's believed he's on the phone to
President Clinton, saying "You will do my bidding! Mwahahaha!".
FBI investigations are being hampered, partly because the hacker did a good
job of covering his tracks, but mainly because they're using Microsoft
Outlook Express and it keeps throwing up "Illegal Operation" error messages.
Heh. Here in this Newsgroup, we don't have to worry about such
th452cdvskFnv\jDj344hrfwre;jgklrt;dbjmklgrj;lqew;kt;kwrle;khlyterul5#w[lt-45
iykgopekrh#tkhl;kyl;jku[r#uptrlu;'tyilukyi#rilurli;lu';rfil#u'#
Chris Ahlstrom
Of course we're hacked! Who wouldn't be, with our
family jewels dangling out 9 yards?
Of course, we caught the hacker. There is no
possibility that he/she left an easy target,
while burrowing deeper than our Microsoft software
can dig.
Bill G. (pronounced "bilge")
The Night Stalker
Stalker Steve, MCP
Get Certified
http://getcertified.20m.com
Cymro <cy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Qe2N5.3741$aT1.4...@news3.cableinet.net...
Bob Lyday
>
> MS is so evil but yet you still use their products. Why is that?
> Stalker Steve, MCP
> Get Certified
> http://getcertified.20m.com
He's forced to like all the rest of us, you worthless POS loser.
Figures a guy named stalker would love Microsoft. You're probably as
filthy as they are jerk.
--
Bob
"Nigeria is a continent." "Trade with Mexico is not foreign trade."
George Bush, Einsteinian genius and Presidential candidate,
demonstrating his remarkable geographic talents during the final
Presidential debate.
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
Jacques Guy
> MS is so evil but yet you still use their products. Why is that?
Probably because the PC he bought came pre-loaded with
M$ stuff. If he was unlucky enough to get it with Win98,
excising IE is a major surgical operation. It is only
during the past two years that alternative OS's have
become available for PC's. By "alternative" I mean
alternative for Windoze. Five years ago I remember saving
my data with a Linux diskette (look! no hard-disk installation!).
MS-DOS had decided I had no logical drive F:. I booted from
a Linux diskette and could read and edit the files on F:.
All command line stuff (having learnt a little Unix
helped a great deal). But five years ago the gamez
crowd was drooling all over the net because Win95 was
going to be the killer OS.
So he likely has Win98, and Win98 is a Jealous God.
Even Win95 is a Jealous God. I have it (I wanted to
play a game), but I relegated it to the _fourth_
primary partition of my first hard disk (I told the
BIOS I had no second hard disk when upgrading Win3.11,
didn't want the fucker to stick its nose there). It
doesn't seem to relish living anywhere but on a
first primary partition: the first primary partition
is shown as the very last logical partition, S:,
AFTER THE CD-ROM! Porca miseria! Porco Micromerda!
Taking the leap to an alternative OS (and what
alternatives are left after Microshit sabotaged
DR-DOS? Linux and BeOS, no more), taking the leap
is a major, terrifying, and hazardous-to-your-data
step, thanks to Timou as the French Canadians
call it (ti is slang for "petit," hence = micro,
mou = soft).
And even so I still use the shitheads' products. Why?
Because my printer, an otherwise fine laser
printer, is a Winprinter. When I want to make
photocopies, I just scan the document and
print it. But I must print it under Windoze. And
so it is easier for me to scan it under Windoze.
And the multilingual OCR software I have works
only under Windoze, preferably 95. So I'm fucked.
The only thing that cheers me a little is that
I paid for none of their crap. I stole it all.
(All the Microshit stuff, that is, I paid for
the OCR, etc.)
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> MS is so evil but yet you still use their products. Why is that?
Because the customer's use it. Because it is not easy to strip out
a legacy system, no matter how bad, and replace it with new code.
Rome wasn't destroyed in a day.
The Night Stalker
Jacques Guy <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:3A055BCC...@alphalink.com.au...
> The Night Stalker wrote:
>
> > MS is so evil but yet you still use their products. Why is that?
>
> M$ stuff. If he was unlucky enough to get it with Win98,
> excising IE is a major surgical operation.
Why get rid of it? Simply dont use it. Netscape is free ya know...so are other
browsers.
It is only
> during the past two years that alternative OS's have
> become available for PC's.
So in other words, the excuses for being "forced" to use MS are no longer valid.
By "alternative" I mean
> alternative for Windoze. Five years ago I remember saving
> my data with a Linux diskette (look! no hard-disk installation!).
Yep. Excellent alternative. Many others should discover it.
> MS-DOS had decided I had no logical drive F:. I booted from
> a Linux diskette and could read and edit the files on F:.
> All command line stuff (having learnt a little Unix
> helped a great deal). But five years ago the gamez
> crowd was drooling all over the net because Win95 was
> going to be the killer OS.
For games, Windows is. For real world applications, Unix or Linux may actually
serve you better.
>
> So he likely has Win98, and Win98 is a Jealous God.
Not really. A lot depends on what is installed on the system, its
configuration, what the user does etc. Very few of the problems experienced by
users are Windows related. They are usually instead, wetware (user induced).
> Even Win95 is a Jealous God. I have it (I wanted to
> play a game), but I relegated it to the _fourth_
> primary partition of my first hard disk (I told the
> BIOS I had no second hard disk when upgrading Win3.11,
> didn't want the fucker to stick its nose there). It
> doesn't seem to relish living anywhere but on a
> first primary partition: the first primary partition
> is shown as the very last logical partition, S:,
> AFTER THE CD-ROM! Porca miseria! Porco Micromerda!
>
> Taking the leap to an alternative OS (and what
> alternatives are left after Microshit sabotaged
> DR-DOS? Linux and BeOS, no more), taking the leap
> is a major, terrifying, and hazardous-to-your-data
> step, thanks to Timou as the French Canadians
> call it (ti is slang for "petit," hence = micro,
> mou = soft).
>
> And even so I still use the shitheads' products. Why?
> Because my printer, an otherwise fine laser
> printer, is a Winprinter. When I want to make
> photocopies, I just scan the document and
> print it. But I must print it under Windoze. And
> so it is easier for me to scan it under Windoze.
> And the multilingual OCR software I have works
> only under Windoze, preferably 95. So I'm fucked.
Not to be mean, but try making sure everything is set up correctly. It always
amazes me how many people operate with no real issues and others have nothing
but issues. Its the same OS, so there must be other factors. BTW, Im a serious
power user and my system runs almost 24/7 with Photoshop, Word, Micrographx,
Front Page 2K, Dreamweaver etc. Ive had 98 SE with only the security updates in
place. I do not, however, run ICQ, Yahoo chat, Gnutella (sp?) Napster etc. and
I dont download shitloads of unknown software to put on my system. I avoid
warez sites as a matter of principle and security. I dont deal with porn sites
or other places that could be dubious in their use of code on their page. Ive
had exactly one viral infection and it was because I had not updated the
security of IE. That was my fault..not Windows.
>
> The only thing that cheers me a little is that
> I paid for none of their crap. I stole it all.
> (All the Microshit stuff, that is, I paid for
> the OCR, etc.)
You probably are one of those that cries about software being so expensive. The
simple fact that you downloaded from a lot of warez sites or otherwise "stole"
it means you didnt get the code as intended and its really no wonder that you
are having problems. Its almost poetic justice..
.
> > M$ stuff. If he was unlucky enough to get it with Win98,
> > excising IE is a major surgical operation.
>
> Why get rid of it? Simply dont use it. Netscape is free ya know...so are other
> browsers.
It's huge, it's unnecessary, and it adds many unwanted features. I
wouldn't leave a bloaty POS like photoshop on my hard drive if I didn't
use it, why should I leave IE chewing up my valuable Mb?
> It is only
> > during the past two years that alternative OS's have
> > become available for PC's.
>
> So in other words, the excuses for being "forced" to use MS are no longer valid.
Actually, many of the reasons for being forced to use windoze are still
valid. Mainly the userbase. I have to use windows at work because we
develop for dos/windows, because that's what our clients use.
> You probably are one of those that cries about software being so
> expensive. The simple fact that you downloaded from a lot of warez
> sites or otherwise "stole" it means you didnt get the code as intended
> and its really no wonder that you are having problems. Its almost
> poetic justice..
Yet if he paid for a copy and installed that, would it work properly?
Can he tell? There's no guarantee of reliability should he purchase it,
and the copy he's been using has hardly been inspiring confidence, has
it?
Morally, I think there's nothing wrong with trying out commercial
software before you buy it, as long as you really ARE trying it out and
not just intending to keep it.
The Night Stalker
. <get.f...@go.to.hell.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1471e9cb5...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > > Probably because the PC he bought came pre-loaded with
> > > M$ stuff. If he was unlucky enough to get it with Win98,
> > > excising IE is a major surgical operation.
> >
> > Why get rid of it? Simply dont use it. Netscape is free ya know...so are
other
> > browsers.
>
> It's huge, it's unnecessary, and it adds many unwanted features. I
> wouldn't leave a bloaty POS like photoshop on my hard drive if I didn't
> use it, why should I leave IE chewing up my valuable Mb?
With the great big drives available, this hardly matters. If your HDD is still
using MB's, then you have a point :-))) Maybe 3 years ago this would have been a
concern....
>
> www.98lite.net
>
>
> > It is only
> > > during the past two years that alternative OS's have
> > > become available for PC's.
> >
> > So in other words, the excuses for being "forced" to use MS are no longer
valid.
>
> Actually, many of the reasons for being forced to use windoze are still
> valid. Mainly the userbase. I have to use windows at work because we
> develop for dos/windows, because that's what our clients use.
>
>
> > You probably are one of those that cries about software being so
> > expensive. The simple fact that you downloaded from a lot of warez
> > sites or otherwise "stole" it means you didnt get the code as intended
> > and its really no wonder that you are having problems. Its almost
> > poetic justice..
>
> Yet if he paid for a copy and installed that, would it work properly?
> Can he tell? There's no guarantee of reliability should he purchase it,
> and the copy he's been using has hardly been inspiring confidence, has
> it?
Thats the whole trick isnt it?? Gosh, you might actually have to LEARN how your
computer operates and what the software will and will not do. I use as many MS
products as I want and have yet to have an issue that *** I *** didnt cause
through not reading documentation, trying to force it to do something it wasnt
really designed for, overtaxing it etc. As with ANY software, there is no
guarantee of reliability.
Stalker Steve, MCP
Get Certified
http://getcertified.20m.com
>
Jacques Guy
> You probably are one of those that cries about software being so expensive. The
> simple fact that you downloaded from a lot of warez sites or otherwise "stole"
> it means you didnt get the code as intended and its really no wonder that you
> are having problems. Its almost poetic justice..
You are assuming a great deal. The Win95 CD is an unwanted original.
The Win3.11 disks are originals, here -- but Win3.11 was installed
from a copy of the those disks on a Syquest drive -- much faster
when you have to install, re-install, re-re...install. _I_ did
not pay for them, that's all. Neither did I for Delphi I, for Borland
Pascal, for (this is going a fair way back), for Zortech C++,
and whatnot. What _I_ paid for, on the other hand, includes Neopaint,
Partition Magic (piece of shit), Readiris Universal OCR, Caligari
Truespace, the archives of Le Monde Diplomatique 1987-97 (oops,
that was a gift -- I didn't pay for it), and Mandrake 7.0 (the
McMillan 6-CD edition). And also DR-DOS 6, and Novell DOS 7
(curiosity in the case of the latter). Twenty years ago I even
shelled out $180 for BDS-C, and that was a great deal of moolah
back then (BDS-C ran on Z80's under CPM).
It is so much easier, isn't it, ripping into others after
having misrepresented them What you are doing amounts to telling everyone
that I believe the Earth is flat and at the centre of the
universe and then you clamour: "Ha, no wonder he's got a problem
with the phases of Mercury!"
.
> > wouldn't leave a bloaty POS like photoshop on my hard drive if I didn't
> > use it, why should I leave IE chewing up my valuable Mb?
>
> With the great big drives available, this hardly matters. If your HDD is still
> using MB's, then you have a point :-))) Maybe 3 years ago this would have been a
> concern....
So your solution when I run out of space is always "buy a new drive"
rather than "clean up some of that shit you don't use"?
I don't think I need you (or anyone with that mentality) working anywhere
near my computers.
Anyway, in the end it's all about control. If I have IE on my drive, I
trust still more control to the benevolence of Microsoft. Without it, I
magically close so many security holes it's not funny. Even without the
benefit of extra drive space (and IE is not just a 'couple' of Mb either)
this benefit makes not installing it in the first place very much worth
the effort.
Ayende Rahien
> Anyway, in the end it's all about control. If I have IE on my drive, I
> trust still more control to the benevolence of Microsoft. Without it, I
> magically close so many security holes it's not funny. Even without the
> benefit of extra drive space (and IE is not just a 'couple' of Mb either)
> this benefit makes not installing it in the first place very much worth
> the effort.
To be fair, there are a lot of applications that require IE to be install in
order to work.
Dan
in
> order to work.
I wouldn't say 'a lot' of these exist. I know that $QL $erver does, but that
figures.
I think the main reason why apps require IE is not because IE has something
in particular that they need, but that IE is used my M$ as a vehicle to get
those pesky bugs fixed, without having to publicly announce a 'bug fix'
(like M$ software has bugs, come on...)
The browser is only around 8MB worth, like Mozilla. The other 50+ megs are
bug fixes.
Dan
.
> > trust still more control to the benevolence of Microsoft. Without it, I
> > magically close so many security holes it's not funny. Even without the
> > benefit of extra drive space (and IE is not just a 'couple' of Mb either)
> > this benefit makes not installing it in the first place very much worth
> > the effort.
>
> To be fair, there are a lot of applications that require IE to be install in
> order to work.
Do they actually require it, or do they require access to DLL's that just
happen to have some IE code mixed in with it?
I run 98lite, and although I can hardly say I run a large number of apps,
I haven't come across a single one that fails to run because it needs IE.
I do know some poor software dev companies making apps with VB and the
like were unpleasantly surprised to find that their apps would not run
without IE, even though they had nothing to do with it... but I haven't
had that problem so far with 98lite (I even have VB6 installed...)
Ayende Rahien
"Dan" <dank_the_an...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:cl1O5.17486$SF5.4...@ozemail.com.au...
The browser also update the system, that is correct.
Actually, I wasn't talking about MS programs, I was talking about other
people's programs which use it.
Neoplanet comes to mind (okay, not good example, basically a skinable IE)
My dailer need IE in order to work (it's a program dailer, not the windows
one)
Several HTML editors use IE as an internal way to view your code.
The list is not quite endless, but it's pretty long.
BTW, IE 5.5 install is only 6.5 MB for 2000.
Ayende Rahien
They require IE, the browser.
Try to d/l neoplanet and see if it would work.
The most common use of it that I've seen is in HTML viewers, I *think* the
CoffeCup HTML editor has it, haven't use an HTML editor other than CuteHTML
is a long time, I'm not sure.
Basically, you've a panel that use IE in order to view the code.
.
> people's programs which use it.
> Neoplanet comes to mind (okay, not good example, basically a skinable IE)
> My dailer need IE in order to work (it's a program dailer, not the windows
> one)
> Several HTML editors use IE as an internal way to view your code.
> The list is not quite endless, but it's pretty long.
> BTW, IE 5.5 install is only 6.5 MB for 2000.
Do you mean the full IE 5.5, the IE 5.5 upgrade, or perhaps the IE 5.5
installer you download which downloads the rest from windows update?
I guarantee if there were a win2k machine without IE5 on it the IE 5.5
install would be disgusting.
Also, in the projected scenario of using IE as a massive service pack,
let's not forget that win2k has its own 80Mb (?? not sure on the size)
service pack anyway.
.
> > like were unpleasantly surprised to find that their apps would not run
> > without IE, even though they had nothing to do with it... but I haven't
> > had that problem so far with 98lite (I even have VB6 installed...)
>
> They require IE, the browser.
> Try to d/l neoplanet and see if it would work.
> The most common use of it that I've seen is in HTML viewers, I *think* the
> CoffeCup HTML editor has it, haven't use an HTML editor other than CuteHTML
> is a long time, I'm not sure.
> Basically, you've a panel that use IE in order to view the code.
Haven't looked at Neoplanet, but I have all the browser I need in Opera.
As for HTML editors, I wouldn't bother using one that couldn't let me
choose which browser to launch for rendering... but I'm a text-editor
man myself, I don't see the need for an HTML editor.
Val or Dean
> To be fair, there are a lot of applications that require IE to be install in
> order to work.
so when we got a scanner and a few photo editing programs, she was in
her glory!!
She would prefer to use these programs on her laptop, but it does not
have a modem, and MOST of photo editors assume you are designing web
pages. So she is basically limited to my computer to do the photo
editing. If we have any need or desire to send pix over the net, we are
very happy to do so on our own. I just think there are a lot of
companies that make great software that SHOULD be able to function ON
IT'S OWN merits without pandering to MS protocols. I LIKE Netscape, and
I prefer my browser "on the side" and not "in my face" a la IE. Just
MHO -Dean Dancey
The Night Stalker
> > > It's huge, it's unnecessary, and it adds many unwanted features. I
> > > wouldn't leave a bloaty POS like photoshop on my hard drive if I didn't
> > > use it, why should I leave IE chewing up my valuable Mb?
> >
> > With the great big drives available, this hardly matters. If your HDD is
still
> > using MB's, then you have a point :-))) Maybe 3 years ago this would have
been a
> > concern....
>
> So your solution when I run out of space is always "buy a new drive"
> rather than "clean up some of that shit you don't use"?
No, thats not my solution nor was it implied. What I intended to point out with
my comment was that you cant really complain about what IE takes up when you
have a 45GB hdd. I mean comon.... Also, why would you want to "clean out" a
program designed not to be uninstalled? I understand wanting to have the
ability to do it, but you should look at the practicality of doing it. Im sure
there are other ways of finding space on the hdd. Try using the batch file I
have available on my downloads page (from my site in my sig). This is capable
of reclaiming sometimes hundreds of mb of used space. It was written by Fred
Langa, not me, so dont worry ;-)
>
> I don't think I need you (or anyone with that mentality) working anywhere
> near my computers.
LOL...gosh sure told me... Perhaps you should have those you disagree with,
clarify their points before you make yours?
>
>
> Anyway, in the end it's all about control. If I have IE on my drive, I
> trust still more control to the benevolence of Microsoft.
Its too bad that you cant see beyond the "Evil Empire" mentality of this...
Without it, I
> magically close so many security holes it's not funny.
Viruses, bugs, security issues...they are all going to be greater with Windows
than with other operating systems/core programs due to Windows having the vast
lions share of the computer/OS market..its called statistics. Even with IE
gone, you still have security holes. Also, IE is perfectly safe if you take
certain steps that you should take with *any* browser. Security should be a
concern of any user regardless of platform or installed software.
Even without the
> benefit of extra drive space (and IE is not just a 'couple' of Mb either)
> this benefit makes not installing it in the first place very much worth
> the effort.
Lets see, assuming that you do a full install with 5.5, ....
Full install:
Required for install: 111 MB
Required to run: 80 MB after restart
A whole 80mb...most games and purchased software are larger than that....better
watch that hdd space.
The Night Stalker
The only thing that cheers me a little is that
I paid for none of their crap. I stole it all.
By your own statement, you are a thief and you get what you pay for. Enjoy.
Either you lied before or you are lying now..either way...
Jacques Guy
> Im assuming nothing..You stated:
> The only thing that cheers me a little is that
> I paid for none of their crap. I stole it all.
> By your own statement, you are a thief and you get what you pay for. Enjoy.
> Either you lied before or you are lying now..either way...
"I paid for none of their crap" = "I just signed an order
form"
"I stole it all" = "I paid for none of their crap"
You savvy English? You t'ink I am stoopid furriner
because my name? You fall into da trap, ah?
Or, to come back to the subject: you buy XYZ software.
You agree thereby to this condition: "if it doesn't
work, tough titties, get fucked". (I am translating
here legalese into plain English). You usually
further agree to this condition: "Wanna run it
on a another PC? Fuck you! Buy another copy!".
Borland, to their credit, even before Borland
was called Borland, let you use their compilers on
however many machines you owned. Now when I
buy a car I expect better than "Can't start it?
Fuck you. Won't shift into first gear? Fuck you.
Wanna switch to another brand of petrol? Buy
another car." Under British law, which applies in
the country where I live, that is "not merchantable
goods". I cannot understand for the life of me
why the notion does not apply to software. One
example: Tiramisu. You pays your $300 or so, and
if it doesn't work, all you get is a $300 credit
towards hiring them to restore your data. A
$300 credit towards a bill likely to be in the
$2000+ range. Fuck them.
Ayende Rahien
> > Actually, I wasn't talking about MS programs, I was talking about other
> > people's programs which use it.
> > Neoplanet comes to mind (okay, not good example, basically a skinable
IE)
> > My dailer need IE in order to work (it's a program dailer, not the
windows
> > one)
> > Several HTML editors use IE as an internal way to view your code.
> > The list is not quite endless, but it's pretty long.
> > BTW, IE 5.5 install is only 6.5 MB for 2000.
>
> Do you mean the full IE 5.5, the IE 5.5 upgrade, or perhaps the IE 5.5
> installer you download which downloads the rest from windows update?
> I guarantee if there were a win2k machine without IE5 on it the IE 5.5
> install would be disgusting.
IE 5.5 upgrade (you can't install 2000 without ie5) :)
>
> Also, in the projected scenario of using IE as a massive service pack,
> let's not forget that win2k has its own 80Mb (?? not sure on the size)
> service pack anyway.
83 MB
Ayende Rahien
"Val or Dean" <dt...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3A090986...@sympatico.ca...
What does having a modem has to do with using photo editing programs?
I can udnerstand them requiring it (what for, I can't tell), but I can't
understand what prevent you from installing it.
Val or Dean
> What does having a modem has to do with using photo editing programs?
> I can udnerstand them requiring it (what for, I can't tell), but I can't
> understand what prevent you from installing it.
This was my question to the makers of the photo editors. As they
REQUIRE IE to be on the machine, it seems sorta silly to do so without a
modem, IMHO.
So, I have to waste the limited space on the laptop to install IE so the
photo editor will work. And when the photo editor randomly decides to
access the net through the modem that is not there.... I would just be
happy if we had more CHOICES of what we install on OUR computers, no
matter how many kickbacks the software makers get from MS. They have to
be getting SOMETHING to want to send customers away. Even if the
requirement were for "internet access", or "A browser", it would be less
offensive, IMO. -Dean
Ayende Rahien
What programs do you use?
I don't understand what IE has to do with pictures.
I do understand that you don't precious disk space to go away.
However, IE has very little to do with graphics, doesn't make sense at all
to me.
Bob Lyday
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > To be fair, there are a lot of applications that require IE to be
> install in
> > > order to work.
This is a rather inaccurate assessment of the whole thing.
Throughout the antitrust trial it repeatedly came to light that
Microsoft was forcing many ISV's who design software for Windows to
include the use of I.E. in their products for even mundane things
like help. There was no way around this. This was another way of
preserving the illegal desktop monopoly by using I.E. as a club to
hammer down the Netscape threat.
Ayende Rahien
"Bob Lyday" <lydayfamilyd...@sierratel.com> wrote in message
news:3A09B978...@sierratel.com...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Val or Dean" <dt...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3A090986...@sympatico.ca...
> > >
> > > > To be fair, there are a lot of applications that require IE to be
> > install in
> > > > order to work.
>
> Throughout the antitrust trial it repeatedly came to light that
> Microsoft was forcing many ISV's who design software for Windows to
> include the use of I.E. in their products for even mundane things
> like help. There was no way around this. This was another way of
> preserving the illegal desktop monopoly by using I.E. as a club to
> hammer down the Netscape threat.
Did you ever tried to design a web page so it would display properly in
netscape?
If you did, you know that in order to do this, you need to forget about
things such as standards, Netscape see them as an evil thing and ignored
them completely.
All too many people noticed this, Webstandards.org being one of them.
IE, OTOH, is one of the best standards complicant browsers out there (IE5
for Mac is the best in this regard, IE 5.5 for win is a step backward but
still on the lead compare to everything else)
I don't know about you, but I know what I like to develop on.
About Help, are you talking about HTMLHelp, by any chance?
IMO, it's one of the best help systems around, the best for the user &
deveoper. (I've expresed this opinion many times before, btw)
It's free for anyone who wants it and require IE 3+
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/tools/htmlhelp/wkshp/download.htm
You see many application today that has a part in them that acts like a web
browser (examples (of web browsers in applications, not of IE in
applicaiton) are winamp minibrowser & napster start page, also a lot of html
editors) most of the times, it's IE. Thus saving the poor programmer the
trouble of designing his own web browser from the start up.
BTW, ISTR that an ISP wanting to do a personalized version of IE has to pay
0$, for netscape, it was like 1000$
Bob Lyday
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > What programs do you use?
> > I don't understand what IE has to do with pictures.
> > I do understand that you don't precious disk space to go away.
> > However, IE has very little to do with graphics, doesn't make sense at all
> > to me.
>
> required an active install of IE. Period. I do not KNOW why, and THAT
> puzzles me too.
> WHY must it be assumed by the makers of such software that I have any
> need or desire to distribute my photos on the internet. On the other
> hand, since most of these suites seem to have areas for web page
> creating, I can see a LIMITED need for A BROWSER, but not necessarily
> IE. Let ME choose MY browser.
The answer is very simple. M$ has forced, coerced, etc. every
single one of these ISV's into including I.E. in their programs as a
condition of writing the program for Windows. That was one of the
issues at the trial.
.
> > rather than "clean up some of that shit you don't use"?
>
> No, thats not my solution nor was it implied. What I intended to point out with
> my comment was that you cant really complain about what IE takes up when you
> have a 45GB hdd.
Well, I don't have a 45Gb HD. I have a 13Gb HD, and I find it runs out
of space far too quickly as it is.
> I mean comon.... Also, why would you want to "clean out" a
> program designed not to be uninstalled?
I want to 'clean it out' because I don't fuckin want it there in the
first place. The day I just start accepting that IE is there on my
machine and there's nothing I can do about it is the day I start using a
power drill on my skull.
> > Anyway, in the end it's all about control. If I have IE on my drive, I
> > trust still more control to the benevolence of Microsoft.
>
> Its too bad that you cant see beyond the "Evil Empire" mentality of this...
It's too bad you can't see what is actually happening with tying IE to
the OS in the way they have.
> Viruses, bugs, security issues...they are all going to be greater with Windows
> than with other operating systems/core programs due to Windows having the vast
> lions share of the computer/OS market..its called statistics.
Actually, I'd say it's called bad design. Dos and Win95 and friends will
always have virii because they support virii so well. It has very little
to do with how many people use it.
> Even with IE
> gone, you still have security holes. Also, IE is perfectly safe if you take
> certain steps that you should take with *any* browser. Security should be a
> concern of any user regardless of platform or installed software.
Of course I still have security holes, but they are much fewer, and much
easier to deal with. With IE and OE I run the risk of having an email
destroy my machine simply by opening it in the default configuration.
What's the alternative? Exactly what I do on machines I'm forced to keep
IE on.... disable EVERYTHING. Once you do this, IE is a lot safer, but
whaddya know? It's almost unusable.
> Lets see, assuming that you do a full install with 5.5, ....
>
> Full install:
> Required for install: 111 MB
> Required to run: 80 MB after restart
>
> A whole 80mb...most games and purchased software are larger than that....better
> watch that hdd space.
Most games I run run primarily from CD, and I have VERY few apps
approaching 80Mb. It's a shame that you just sit back and politely
accept the shit the MS shovels to you.
Val or Dean
> What programs do you use?
> I don't understand what IE has to do with pictures.
> I do understand that you don't precious disk space to go away.
> However, IE has very little to do with graphics, doesn't make sense at all
> to me.
Photo Express, Photo Studio, Photo Shop, and on and on.... They ALL
required an active install of IE. Period. I do not KNOW why, and THAT
puzzles me too.
WHY must it be assumed by the makers of such software that I have any
need or desire to distribute my photos on the internet. On the other
hand, since most of these suites seem to have areas for web page
creating, I can see a LIMITED need for A BROWSER, but not necessarily
IE. Let ME choose MY browser.
Maybe we should have an election to determine the REQUIRED browser
for, say a four year term?? <ROTFLMAO> -Dean
Val or Dean
like they set in WORD where they can't even import documents from
previous versions of their own software???
How does that joke go... How many MS technicians does it take to
change a light bulb?? None. Bill Gates just decrees that darkness is
the new standard!!
I, for one would NEVER trust MS to handle standards for anything.
When they prove that they can be trusted in the marketplace, we MIGHT
believe them again.
-Dean Dancey
Ayende Rahien
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > What programs do you use?
> > I don't understand what IE has to do with pictures.
> > I do understand that you don't precious disk space to go away.
> > However, IE has very little to do with graphics, doesn't make sense at
all
> > to me.
>
> Photo Express, Photo Studio, Photo Shop, and on and on.... They ALL
> required an active install of IE. Period. I do not KNOW why, and THAT
> puzzles me too.
Photoshop?
Very strange.
Could it be that the help system require it? HTML Help require Ie 3 or
higher.
> WHY must it be assumed by the makers of such software that I have any
> need or desire to distribute my photos on the internet. On the other
> hand, since most of these suites seem to have areas for web page
> creating, I can see a LIMITED need for A BROWSER, but not necessarily
> IE. Let ME choose MY browser.
In all fairness, it's much easier for programmers to do stuff with IE than
with netscape.
> Maybe we should have an election to determine the REQUIRED browser
> for, say a four year term?? <ROTFLMAO> -Dean
Why?
4 years ago, Netscape was in the lead, undoubtly the best browser in
existance, today... well, I need not tell you, do I?
Ayende Rahien
> Microsoft and STANDARDS??? PULLLEEEEZEEE don't go there!!! Standards
> like they set in WORD where they can't even import documents from
> previous versions of their own software???
Do you've examples of that? MS is *realy* mean about backward compatability.
It is the cause for the entire win9x branch, with all its problems.
As for following standards, there is no standard (that I'm aware of) to word
proccessors docuements. There is XML, and the next version of office would
use it, so it would be standard.
In following standards, especially in IE, MS is second to none. Very simple.
IE 5 for Mac is the best standard-follower (as set by w3c) browser in the
world.
IE 5.5 for windows is the close to that.
Opera is also somewhere high in the least.
Netscape? Netscape isn't even on the list!
> How does that joke go... How many MS technicians does it take to
> change a light bulb?? None. Bill Gates just decrees that darkness is
> the new standard!!
:)
> I, for one would NEVER trust MS to handle standards for anything.
> When they prove that they can be trusted in the marketplace, we MIGHT
> believe them again.
Who said anything about handling standards? I was talking about following
standards, which they do try to do.
.
> for, say a four year term?? <ROTFLMAO> -Dean
Even though you're kidding, you should bite your tongue!!
Leave the choice of browser to the masses?? They're already getting it
wrong! ;)
.
> standards, which they do try to do.
Except when it doesn't suit them.
One word: Kerberos
Ayende Rahien
One changed, within the accepted parameters.
Any other system would simply ignore this change, but windows systems need
it.
Keldon Warlord, Power of the Ancients!
"Cymro" <cy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Qe2N5.3741$aT1.4...@news3.cableinet.net...
> Goodness gracious me! Microsoft security staff are all in a tizzy, after
> they discovered on Wednesday that some naughty person has hacked into
their
> computer system. A Microsoft spokesman plinked, "this is a deplorable act
of
> industrial espionage." Police have pulled in about 4 billion suspects.
>
> The possibility exists that the hacker has stolen the source code to
> Microsoft's software - so if, in the future, a rival piece of software is
> released which takes up 3Gb of hard drive space, crashes every ten minutes
> and needs a 900 MHz processor just for the installer, you'll know where it
> came from.
>
> Bill Gates was unavailable for comment. It's believed he's on the phone to
> President Clinton, saying "You will do my bidding! Mwahahaha!".
>
> FBI investigations are being hampered, partly because the hacker did a
good
> job of covering his tracks, but mainly because they're using Microsoft
> Outlook Express and it keeps throwing up "Illegal Operation" error
messages.
>
> Heh. Here in this Newsgroup, we don't have to worry about such
>
th452cdvskFnv\jDj344hrfwre;jgklrt;dbjmklgrj;lqew;kt;kwrle;khlyterul5#w[lt-45
> iykgopekrh#tkhl;kyl;jku[r#uptrlu;'tyilukyi#rilurli;lu';rfil#u'#
>
>
>
ROFL!
*
> > Goodness gracious me! Microsoft security staff are all in a tizzy, after
> > they discovered on Wednesday that some naughty person has hacked into
>
> ROFL!
ROFL! at you!
y'r pal -kK
Giuliano Colla
No, you don't need to say a word. Today we have a crappy
company making crappy software which pushed Netscape browser
out of market by forcing OEM's not to pre-install it, in
order to replace crappy Netscape with a even crappier
browser (I didn't think it was possible until I tested it),
adding stability and security problems.
A company which stuffs an OS with useless applications and
doesn't provide decent administration tools, so that in my
company we have a PC station which is only used to program
Eprom's which tries to connect to the Internet from time to
time, when there's no Internet connection, thanks to the all
automatic idiotic OS. Before you mention it there is no HTML
help system. There are just helpless customers.
Giuliano Colla
>
> "Val or Dean" <dt...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3A0A1AE5...@sympatico.ca...
> > Microsoft and STANDARDS??? PULLLEEEEZEEE don't go there!!! Standards
> > like they set in WORD where they can't even import documents from
> > previous versions of their own software???
>
> Do you've examples of that?
Are you jesting?
> MS is *realy* mean about backward compatability.
ROTFLMAO!
> It is the cause for the entire win9x branch, with all its problems.
You mean that all the problems of Windows 9x come from
trying to keep compatibility with the poorly stripped down
version of CP/M they started with? I there weren't available
compatibility tools I'd agree with you. All x86 based system
may provide DOS compatibility just by using VM86 processor
mode. The problem is that MS choose not to keep
compatibility, but just to keep the poorly stripped down
version of CP/M as a base for subsequent developments.
>
> As for following standards, there is no standard (that I'm aware of) to word
> proccessors docuements.
As far as MS is concerned it's true. They didn't follow any.
Each new version of Word is a new world.
> There is XML, and the next version of office would
> use it, so it would be standard.
As far as MS is concerned. And as long as they don't change
in next release.
> In following standards, especially in IE, MS is second to none.
Like Java IE compatibility? LOL!
[snipped subsequent raving about IE standards]
Ayende Rahien
"Giuliano Colla" <copecaREMOVE_...@iol.it> wrote in message
news:3A0A6E1A...@iol.it...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> No, you don't need to say a word. Today we have a crappy
> company making crappy software which pushed Netscape browser
> out of market by forcing OEM's not to pre-install it, in
> order to replace crappy Netscape with a even crappier
> browser (I didn't think it was possible until I tested it),
You are talking about IE? What did you judged it on? (speed/comfort/etc)
> adding stability and security problems.
Netscape 4.03 - 4.73 would execute code found in jpeg, I wouldn't think
twice about opening a JPEG.
Now I've learned that even JPEG is unsafe, if you use netscape.
> A company which stuffs an OS with useless applications and
> doesn't provide decent administration tools, so that in my
> company we have a PC station which is only used to program
> Eprom's which tries to connect to the Internet from time to
> time, when there's no Internet connection, thanks to the all
> automatic idiotic OS.
Thanks to the idiotic admins, I would assume, it's *easy* to turn this off.
Assuming it uses a modem, and it's a win98 machine, you go to control
panel>internet options>connections, and choose the default dial up, and
choose "Never dial a connection"
> Before you mention it there is no HTML
> help system. There are just helpless customers.
Check web standards before you talk.
Netscape's browser is not even on the same *scale* as browser such as IE or
Opera. When asked to test netscape on common things such as CSS/DHTML, the
webstandards refused to do it, because netscape is so lousy in handling
those things.
BTW, I routinely keep installing new releases of Netscape to test them. 4.X
is *bad*. 6.pr# is nice looking fella, if only they fix the known bugs
(which already have fixes) in it...
Both version sticks in stability on *linux*.
I had several occasions when the machine hard locked (not responding to
ctrl+alt+backspace/ctrl+alt+F# and so on) forcing me to reboot a linux
machine because of netscape.
It reached the point where I'm using lynx as my main web browser in linux.
Practicaly nothing can beat it when it comes to raw speed.
Ayende Rahien
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Val or Dean" <dt...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3A0A1AE5...@sympatico.ca...
> > > Microsoft and STANDARDS??? PULLLEEEEZEEE don't go there!!! Standards
> > > like they set in WORD where they can't even import documents from
> > > previous versions of their own software???
> >
> > Do you've examples of that?
>
No.
> > As for following standards, there is no standard (that I'm aware of) to
word
> > proccessors docuements.
>
> As far as MS is concerned it's true. They didn't follow any.
> Each new version of Word is a new world.
Answer my question, is there a standard for word proccessing files?
I've opened many docs from previous versions on my computer, I'd exactly one
problem among the thousands of documents that I've tried.
(Turned out that the file wasn't transfered quite right.)
Do you've a Word X file that can't be open by a Word of higher number?
My word 2000 backward compability goes back to saving files in word 2.x for
windows.
> > There is XML, and the next version of office would
> > use it, so it would be standard.
>
> As far as MS is concerned. And as long as they don't change
> in next release.
Get real, MS is *not* all mighty, despite what you seems to think.
It's about as real as MS inventing MS-HTTP, supported only by IIS & IE.
> > In following standards, especially in IE, MS is second to none.
>
> Like Java IE compatibility? LOL!
I'm talking more on HTML/CSS/DHTML style of thing.
But do tell me about Java,
Giuliano Colla
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > No, you don't need to say a word. Today we have a crappy
> > company making crappy software which pushed Netscape browser
> > out of market by forcing OEM's not to pre-install it, in
> > order to replace crappy Netscape with a even crappier
> > browser (I didn't think it was possible until I tested it),
>
> You are talking about IE? What did you judged it on? (speed/comfort/etc)
Frequency of crashing. Installation of an unstable
"connection manager".
>
> > adding stability and security problems.
>
> Netscape 4.03 - 4.73 would execute code found in jpeg, I wouldn't think
> twice about opening a JPEG.
> Now I've learned that even JPEG is unsafe, if you use netscape.
I know that Netscape is crappy. But as I'm a customer I have
the right to select the crappy software I want, and not be
obliged have my system hampered by an even crappier browser
which also tampers with other things, such as connection
manager.
>
> > A company which stuffs an OS with useless applications and
> > doesn't provide decent administration tools, so that in my
> > company we have a PC station which is only used to program
> > Eprom's which tries to connect to the Internet from time to
> > time, when there's no Internet connection, thanks to the all
> > automatic idiotic OS.
>
> Thanks to the idiotic admins, I would assume, it's *easy* to turn this off.
>
> Assuming it uses a modem, and it's a win98 machine, you go to control
> panel>internet options>connections, and choose the default dial up, and
> choose "Never dial a connection"
>
You assume wrongly. It's a win98 machine but there's no
modem connected, (it's useless as I told you) and therefore
it tries to connect to the internet via LAN, and of course
it fails. Unfortunately we must keep TCP/IP enabled because
it is used by Pervasive SQL, so it finds a TCP/IP socket.
> > Before you mention it there is no HTML
> > help system. There are just helpless customers.
>
> Check web standards before you talk.
> Netscape's browser is not even on the same *scale* as browser such as IE or
> Opera. When asked to test netscape on common things such as CSS/DHTML, the
> webstandards refused to do it, because netscape is so lousy in handling
> those things.
>
> BTW, I routinely keep installing new releases of Netscape to test them. 4.X
> is *bad*. 6.pr# is nice looking fella, if only they fix the known bugs
> (which already have fixes) in it...
> Both version sticks in stability on *linux*.
> I had several occasions when the machine hard locked (not responding to
> ctrl+alt+backspace/ctrl+alt+F# and so on) forcing me to reboot a linux
> machine because of netscape.
> It reached the point where I'm using lynx as my main web browser in linux.
> Practicaly nothing can beat it when it comes to raw speed.
You are off mark. I don't want IE, I don't want Netscape on
this station. I don't want a browser. I don't want HTML
rendering. I don't want Internet connection, I don't want
what isn't needed, which only confuses operators, and
produces security and stability problems.
I only need a station where EPROM's can be programmed, and
stock level can be monitored (that's why we need Pervasive).
I can't get rid of the useless extra crap and that makes me
mad. That's all.
Now, if you want to speak about browser merits, it's a
different topic.
I agree with you that Netscape 4.x (currently 4.75) is, to
be mild, far from being perfect (I'd say rather crappy). Its
main problem is with java scripts, partly because of
incompatible MS Java, but that's hardly an excuse: if it's
well implemented, java discrepancies should just produce
error messages. A more serious issue (i.e. design flaw) is
that if freezes also if it encounters net problems. I'd say
that Netscape crashes under Windows and under linux are
roughly the same. But on Linux I never experienced system
crash because of that, while I had a lot under Windows 9x
and NT. I just kill the application and restart it. I like
listening stream music while working, so I have Netscape and
Real Player running while editing and compiling. I never
dared to do it under Windows, because of frequent crashes
forcing to reboot, while I currently do it with linux. Up to
now (one year of usage) I've never been forced to reboot and
I haven't lost a single minute of my work.
For fast browsing I agree with you that lynx is the best.
When I'm browsing (mainly technical sites to get
documentation and technical news), I usually keep both
Netscape and lynx open, lynx to locate what I need, and read
the text part, Netscape to see the pictures, when needed. On
Kde desktop I also use the HTML rendering capabilities of
kfm, which for a lot of sites are more than enough. By the
way KFM is less than 1 Mb and gives you both the file
management and html rendering/web browsing capabilities.
Netscape 6.pr3 seems to me not to be so bad. A number of
things are not implemented, but those that are appear to
work. A number of sites which used to lock 4.75 are seen
fine by 6. Also speed appears to be improved.
What I don't like of Netscape is the same I don't like with
MS, i.e. having stuff I don't want and I don't need, such as
AOL instant Messenger, forced on me.
Ayende Rahien
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Giuliano Colla" <copecaREMOVE_...@iol.it> wrote in message
> > news:3A0A6E1A...@iol.it...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > No, you don't need to say a word. Today we have a crappy
> > > company making crappy software which pushed Netscape browser
> > > out of market by forcing OEM's not to pre-install it, in
> > > order to replace crappy Netscape with a even crappier
> > > browser (I didn't think it was possible until I tested it),
> >
> > You are talking about IE? What did you judged it on? (speed/comfort/etc)
>
> Frequency of crashing. Installation of an unstable
> "connection manager".
What IE do you've? In my experiance, IE is more stable than netscape.
> > > adding stability and security problems.
> >
> > Netscape 4.03 - 4.73 would execute code found in jpeg, I wouldn't think
> > twice about opening a JPEG.
> > Now I've learned that even JPEG is unsafe, if you use netscape.
>
> I know that Netscape is crappy. But as I'm a customer I have
> the right to select the crappy software I want, and not be
> obliged have my system hampered by an even crappier browser
> which also tampers with other things, such as connection
> manager.
Sigh. I must agree with you on this one.
> > > A company which stuffs an OS with useless applications and
> > > doesn't provide decent administration tools, so that in my
> > > company we have a PC station which is only used to program
> > > Eprom's which tries to connect to the Internet from time to
> > > time, when there's no Internet connection, thanks to the all
> > > automatic idiotic OS.
> >
> > Thanks to the idiotic admins, I would assume, it's *easy* to turn this
off.
> >
> > Assuming it uses a modem, and it's a win98 machine, you go to control
> > panel>internet options>connections, and choose the default dial up, and
> > choose "Never dial a connection"
> >
>
> You assume wrongly. It's a win98 machine but there's no
> modem connected, (it's useless as I told you) and therefore
> it tries to connect to the internet via LAN, and of course
> it fails. Unfortunately we must keep TCP/IP enabled because
> it is used by Pervasive SQL, so it finds a TCP/IP socket.
Check the LAN settings, to see if there is something there.
Did you try to post a question in win98's newsgroups?
The connection manager would fire up when some program tries to access the
internet.
Something tries that, make it stop, and the connection manager would go
away.
I would also suggest 98lite, in order to get read of the "extra crap".
NN 6 is a hell to design pages to, because it doesn't support things that
worked on NN 4.X
It sucks in that regard.
Because now, when I do a webpage, I've to do it for IE, NN4, NN6.
IE is the easiest, NN4 hardest.
Stream music... ha, what a nice day-dream in a DUN country.
About frequent crashes in win98, did you apply the neccecary patches? (There
are probably a lot, I don't follow them because I don't consider win9x
machines valuable in any regard whatsoever).
It might help.
Giuliano Colla
[snip]
> > >
> > > You are talking about IE? What did you judged it on? (speed/comfort/etc)
> >
> > Frequency of crashing. Installation of an unstable
> > "connection manager".
>
> What IE do you've? In my experiance, IE is more stable than netscape.
I tested from IE 4.0 to 5.5. Honestly I can't tell if
instability was coming out from IE itself or from the added
extra crap coming with the installation. My reason of
testing (I'm not a heavy user of Internet) was because I
didn't like the way Netscape was forcing useless stuff on
me. When it turned out that IE was forcing much more useless
stuff and moreover the number of crashes was increased I
went back to crappy Netscape.
[snip]
>
> The connection manager would fire up when some program tries to access the
> internet.
Yes, I know, but the program trying to access the Internet
is something which comes with the original OEM installation
and doesn't appear in the startup folder, from which it
could be easily removed. One should painfully track it in
the registry, and maybe cause other problems.
> Something tries that, make it stop, and the connection manager would go
> away.
> I would also suggest 98lite, in order to get read of the "extra crap".
That's what I'll try as soon as I have some time. But it's
frustrating to spend time to uninstall what you don't need.
[snip]
> About frequent crashes in win98, did you apply the neccecary patches? (There
> are probably a lot, I don't follow them because I don't consider win9x
> machines valuable in any regard whatsoever).
In general I agree with you, but unfortunately they have
been valuable for our business. We are using Windows
machines as workstations for cross compiling software which
goes into our dedicated systems. All development tools are
DOS tools (from Intel) very good indeed. Only, as they are
multi-OS, they use a lot of software interrupts to link to
the run-time functions of the selected OS. Well Windows 9x
implements DOS in a native mode, (more exactly Windows 9x IS
DOS with a GUI) and execution speed is good. Under NT, for
some unfathomable reason, DOS implementation is very poor by
this point of view, and it appears that software interrupts
(which actually link something within DOS with something
else within DOS) are emulated. In that way performance drops
so dramatically that you'd believe the computer has frozen.
That's the explanation I have worked out, trying to give a
reason to something hard to explain.
For that reason we're stuck with Windows 9x, and we still
stick mainly to 95 because it offers a better choice of what
NOT to install. Dosemu offers a good alternative, execution
of our DOS tools is fully supported with very good
performance, so we've started migrating toward linux. We
have patched win 95 with all available patches, I look
forward not to need win 98 patches. However thank you for
your suggestion.
Ayende Rahien
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > The connection manager would fire up when some program tries to access
the
> > internet.
>
> Yes, I know, but the program trying to access the Internet
> is something which comes with the original OEM installation
> and doesn't appear in the startup folder, from which it
> could be easily removed. One should painfully track it in
> the registry, and maybe cause other problems.
Painfully?
Go to start menu>run, type msconfig.
You'll have the startup list of all the programs that you run upon startup.
You deselect those you want.
If there are problems, you go to this menu again, and select them again.
All of this without even seeing the registery.
> > Something tries that, make it stop, and the connection manager would go
> > away.
> > I would also suggest 98lite, in order to get read of the "extra crap".
>
> That's what I'll try as soon as I have some time. But it's
> frustrating to spend time to uninstall what you don't need.
One of the reason that as soon as I get a computer, I erase and reinstall,
much more control this way. (luckily, restore disks hadn't reached this
place yet)
> > About frequent crashes in win98, did you apply the neccecary patches?
(There
> > are probably a lot, I don't follow them because I don't consider win9x
> > machines valuable in any regard whatsoever).
>
> In general I agree with you, but unfortunately they have
> been valuable for our business. We are using Windows
> machines as workstations for cross compiling software which
> goes into our dedicated systems. All development tools are
> DOS tools (from Intel) very good indeed. Only, as they are
> multi-OS, they use a lot of software interrupts to link to
> the run-time functions of the selected OS. Well Windows 9x
> implements DOS in a native mode, (more exactly Windows 9x IS
> DOS with a GUI)
No, you are thinkging about win 3.X here.
> and execution speed is good. Under NT, for
> some unfathomable reason, DOS implementation is very poor by
> this point of view, and it appears that software interrupts
> (which actually link something within DOS with something
> else within DOS) are emulated.
Yes, NT isn't very good for dos applications, which is why you've the 9x
line.
NT is also more stable because there isn't 16 bit code in it.
> In that way performance drops
> so dramatically that you'd believe the computer has frozen.
> That's the explanation I have worked out, trying to give a
> reason to something hard to explain.
> For that reason we're stuck with Windows 9x, and we still
> stick mainly to 95 because it offers a better choice of what
> NOT to install.
It's a trend with the 9x OS, giving you less & less choice of what you can
do.
ME neutered all the good tools to restore a system. Maybe it turns out that
you don't need it, but I know that I like to be able to sys, format/s and
other things without limitation.
Giuliano Colla
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > > The connection manager would fire up when some program tries to access
> the
> > > internet.
> >
> > is something which comes with the original OEM installation
> > and doesn't appear in the startup folder, from which it
> > could be easily removed. One should painfully track it in
> > the registry, and maybe cause other problems.
>
> Painfully?
> Go to start menu>run, type msconfig.
> You'll have the startup list of all the programs that you run upon startup.
> You deselect those you want.
> If there are problems, you go to this menu again, and select them again.
> All of this without even seeing the registery.
I wasn't aware. Thanks a lot.
>
> > > Something tries that, make it stop, and the connection manager would go
> > > away.
> > > I would also suggest 98lite, in order to get read of the "extra crap".
> >
> > That's what I'll try as soon as I have some time. But it's
> > frustrating to spend time to uninstall what you don't need.
>
> One of the reason that as soon as I get a computer, I erase and reinstall,
> much more control this way. (luckily, restore disks hadn't reached this
> place yet)
>
From the time of your posting I'd say you're posting from
Europe. I strongly hope that restore disks will NEVER reach
here, because I have some feeling that here, if you don't
deliver a full fledged product you don't benefit copyright
protection.
> > > About frequent crashes in win98, did you apply the neccecary patches?
> (There
> > > are probably a lot, I don't follow them because I don't consider win9x
> > > machines valuable in any regard whatsoever).
> >
> > In general I agree with you, but unfortunately they have
> > been valuable for our business. We are using Windows
> > machines as workstations for cross compiling software which
> > goes into our dedicated systems. All development tools are
> > DOS tools (from Intel) very good indeed. Only, as they are
> > multi-OS, they use a lot of software interrupts to link to
> > the run-time functions of the selected OS. Well Windows 9x
> > implements DOS in a native mode, (more exactly Windows 9x IS
> > DOS with a GUI)
>
> No, you are thinkging about win 3.X here.
>
Win 9x isn't so different. Dos 7 can run in protected mode,
but the relation between DOS and Windows is the same. Only
it's been hidden to avoid a court order. You just start in
DOS mode, then type Win, and it behaves like old Win 3.x.
Bob Lyday
>
>
> In general I agree with you, but unfortunately they have
> been valuable for our business. We are using Windows
> machines as workstations for cross compiling software which
> goes into our dedicated systems. All development tools are
> DOS tools (from Intel) very good indeed. Only, as they are
> multi-OS, they use a lot of software interrupts to link to
> the run-time functions of the selected OS. Well Windows 9x
> implements DOS in a native mode, (more exactly Windows 9x IS
> some unfathomable reason, DOS implementation is very poor by
> this point of view, and it appears that software interrupts
> (which actually link something within DOS with something
> so dramatically that you'd believe the computer has frozen.
> That's the explanation I have worked out, trying to give a
> reason to something hard to explain.
> For that reason we're stuck with Windows 9x, and we still
> stick mainly to 95 because it offers a better choice of what
> of our DOS tools is fully supported with very good
> performance, so we've started migrating toward linux.
You should look into OS/2 Warp, Giuliano. Nothing runs DOS apps
better or faster than OS/2, nothing at all. In fact, you can even
multitask on DOS, because you can run each DOS app in a separate
session. I know people that run up to 50-60 DOS sessions at once
easily on even a P200. And it doesn't even slow down all that much.
You may disagree but I think OS/2 is the best OS on Intel. A little
expensive but you can pick up used copies pretty cheap. Nothing on
Intel multitasks or multithreads like OS/2, except maybe QNX, and even
there, I don't think it can thread the same. I believe there are some
other advantages to running DOS on OS/2 instead of Win9x but I cannot
remember them.
Ayende Rahien
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> I wasn't aware. Thanks a lot.
Happy that I could help.
> From the time of your posting I'd say you're posting from
> Europe. I strongly hope that restore disks will NEVER reach
> here, because I have some feeling that here, if you don't
> deliver a full fledged product you don't benefit copyright
> protection.
Middle East, actually, but it's close enough. (One hour difference from here
to london, I believe).
I don't know much about the law, but I do know that when I buy a computer I
fully expect to be able to get a non-crippled CDROM.
One of the many reasons that I dislike OEMs so very much. But I can still go
to a computer store, buy a hand-tailored computer, and get OEM prices for
the most part.
> > No, you are thinkging about win 3.X here.
> >
>
> Win 9x isn't so different. Dos 7 can run in protected mode,
> but the relation between DOS and Windows is the same. Only
> it's been hidden to avoid a court order. You just start in
> DOS mode, then type Win, and it behaves like old Win 3.x.
Not quite, but it's a mute arguement.
Win95/98 needed Dos to boot, then they didn't need it, they did support it
for the most part, though.
ME lack of dos (and the crippling of many of my favoraite dos tools) is one
of the main reasons that I try to avoid it.
ME should be AOL's, AOL's clueless users are those who need it desperately.
Moron Edition.
(Sys doesn't work, format/s doesn't work, I'm surprised that they left the
del command.)
Nigel Feltham
>ME lack of dos (and the crippling of many of my favoraite dos tools) is one
>of the main reasons that I try to avoid it.
>ME should be AOL's, AOL's clueless users are those who need it desperately.
>Moron Edition.
>(Sys doesn't work, format/s doesn't work, I'm surprised that they left the
>del command.)
>
ME doesn't actually remove DOS it just does more to hide it - someone I know
has hacked
it and found that there is still a version of DOS underneath (dos 8 to be
exact).
.
> instability was coming out from IE itself or from the added
> extra crap coming with the installation. My reason of
> testing (I'm not a heavy user of Internet) was because I
> didn't like the way Netscape was forcing useless stuff on
> me. When it turned out that IE was forcing much more useless
> stuff and moreover the number of crashes was increased I
> went back to crappy Netscape.
Have you tried Opera? Small, no useless compulsory mini-apps, and pretty
fast.
It has it's stability issues as well, but they don't appear to be
reproducible (ie: if it crashes loading a page, I can load it up again
and view that page without problems). Also, it uses the Sun java
runtime, and it runs all the examples from the JDK properly (IE barfs on
the animated picture applet here!).
The Javascript is a little crap, but javascript is crap everywhere (never
seems to work properly on any two JS-capable browsers).
Here at work I use Opera all day, falling back on IE only when its
required (badly designed page, work-related, or uses flash).
.
THEY appear to think it!
> It's about as real as MS inventing MS-HTTP, supported only by IIS & IE.
Trust me, if the world had just quietly accepted the IE tying, this would
only have been a few steps away on the plan...
Ayende Rahien
> > I tested from IE 4.0 to 5.5. Honestly I can't tell if
> > instability was coming out from IE itself or from the added
> > extra crap coming with the installation. My reason of
> > testing (I'm not a heavy user of Internet) was because I
> > didn't like the way Netscape was forcing useless stuff on
> > me. When it turned out that IE was forcing much more useless
> > stuff and moreover the number of crashes was increased I
> > went back to crappy Netscape.
>
> Have you tried Opera? Small, no useless compulsory mini-apps, and pretty
> fast.
> It has it's stability issues as well, but they don't appear to be
> reproducible (ie: if it crashes loading a page, I can load it up again
> and view that page without problems). Also, it uses the Sun java
> runtime, and it runs all the examples from the JDK properly (IE barfs on
> the animated picture applet here!).
Opera is a very good web browser. It's my second best browser on both
windows & linux. (nestcape don't being on the list at all, btw).
(what animated picture applet?)
> The Javascript is a little crap, but javascript is crap everywhere (never
> seems to work properly on any two JS-capable browsers).
You can bet your money on *that*.
I see web pages using complex JS and I think *why*?
The moment you try to get complicated, you've to build different things for
different browsers, and for different versions of those browsers.
Do things simple (ie, don't do anything that you can possibly avoid doing)
and you just might get a cross browser javascript.
> Here at work I use Opera all day, falling back on IE only when its
> required (badly designed page, work-related, or uses flash).
IE's greatest fault, it allows bad designers to butcher HTML with a blunt
axe
Ayende Rahien
> > Get real, MS is *not* all mighty, despite what you seems to think.
>
> THEY appear to think it!
Sign, check out the crippling of TCP/IP in NT, and the result of that.
> > It's about as real as MS inventing MS-HTTP, supported only by IIS & IE.
>
> Trust me, if the world had just quietly accepted the IE tying, this would
> only have been a few steps away on the plan...
You are naive, check the TCP/IP scandal, then think how much noise a simple
addition (within design parameters) to Kerebos did.
BTW, you do understand that currently MS has 31 of the 100 most popular
sites, want to bet how many places it will have in this list if she would
try doing something like this?
Exactly one, if things goes *really* well, and I'm not so sure that
microsoft.com would be swayed into this.
The moment I'm looked out of 70% of the web, it's opera's time to become
default browser again.
MS-HTTP may be the best thing that can happen to the OSS.
Ayende Rahien
"Nigel Feltham" <nigel....@libertysurf.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8uf8pa$1n89m$1...@ID-35459.news.dfncis.de...
Details? Would like to hear more about it.
.
> windows & linux. (nestcape don't being on the list at all, btw).
Netscape hasn't been on my list for a while either, although I will check
out Mozilla when it reaches a release state, because I have confidence
that it will shape up into a good app (the way to make sure an app is
developed properly is to make sure the developers use it almost
exclusively...)
> (what animated picture applet?)
With the latest JDK (and I assume previous ones) there is an example
applet in ...\DEMO\APPLETS\ANIMATOR. It doesn't work with my install of
IE5 (5.00.2314.1003IS should that number be of any use to you..).
Java is enabled, and even set to low safety... (am I MAD? ;)
To be fair, of the other few applets I've tried, they have worked. I
just find it amusing that the animator didn't, considering:
a) all it does is a simple image animation (display frames in sequence)
b) it was the first applet I'd ever tried, and it failed off the bat with
IE
.
> addition (within design parameters) to Kerebos did.
This was an addition to kerberos which broke existing implementations,
the only reason there was such an uproar.
I don't believe I am naive, I said that if the world had accepted the
tying scenario,MS-HTTP would be a possibility. As it is, if MS were to
do this, you're right, there would be worldwide flaming of MS =P
> BTW, you do understand that currently MS has 31 of the 100 most popular
> sites, want to bet how many places it will have in this list if she would
> try doing something like this?
> Exactly one, if things goes *really* well, and I'm not so sure that
> microsoft.com would be swayed into this.
> The moment I'm looked out of 70% of the web, it's opera's time to become
> default browser again.
> MS-HTTP may be the best thing that can happen to the OSS.
Good points, but these apply to the world currently, and my original
remarks applied to an alternative reality in which everyone just runs
IE...
Giuliano Colla
I'm quite convinced that OS/2 Warp is very good, because opinions of
reliable developers and users appear all to agree.
Only I didn't tell the whole picture, not to be boring. I'm not working
alone, we're a company, so we must keep compatibility with the
informative system, with our customers, with our suppliers, with guru's
we must address to when we need, etc. etc. This restricts our choices,
and unfortunately rules OS/2 out. But it's a pity, because I'd love to
play with it.
--------
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
40139 Bologna (Italy)
Giuliano Colla
>
>
> Middle East, actually, but it's close enough. (One hour difference from here
> to london, I believe).
Two hours I'd say, but still close.
> I don't know much about the law, but I do know that when I buy a computer I
> fully expect to be able to get a non-crippled CDROM.
> One of the many reasons that I dislike OEMs so very much. But I can still go
> to a computer store, buy a hand-tailored computer, and get OEM prices for
> the most part.
Well, that's mostly the same reason I dislike MS. When I get a new
version of a browser I don't want neither a new connection manager, nor
a new ActiveX, etc.
>
> ME lack of dos (and the crippling of many of my favoraite dos tools) is one
> of the main reasons that I try to avoid it.
> ME should be AOL's, AOL's clueless users are those who need it desperately.
> Moron Edition.
> (Sys doesn't work, format/s doesn't work, I'm surprised that they left the
> del command.)
Another reason of my dislike of MS. They aim so much to the MM (Moron
Market) that they forget about anything else.
However trying to make something absolutely foolproof so that you don't
need to think in order to use it is a hopeless task, and they end up
with a mess. Do you know why it's impossible? Because:
1) the fool is always smarter than you.
2) There is a limit to human intelligence, but there's no limit to human
stupidity.
Giuliano Colla
I gave it a try some time ago (perhaps one year, one year and a half),
and it was nice, but it still lacked java support completely, which
sometimes is really necessary. I'll try it again. Thank you.
--
Ayende Rahien
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >
> > Middle East, actually, but it's close enough. (One hour difference from
here
> > to london, I believe).
>
> Two hours I'd say, but still close.
>
> > I don't know much about the law, but I do know that when I buy a
computer I
> > fully expect to be able to get a non-crippled CDROM.
> > One of the many reasons that I dislike OEMs so very much. But I can
still go
> > to a computer store, buy a hand-tailored computer, and get OEM prices
for
> > the most part.
>
> Well, that's mostly the same reason I dislike MS. When I get a new
> version of a browser I don't want neither a new connection manager, nor
> a new ActiveX, etc.
Neither IE or Netscape are merely browser right now.
For browser only package, I would look into Opera.
> > ME lack of dos (and the crippling of many of my favoraite dos tools) is
one
> > of the main reasons that I try to avoid it.
> > ME should be AOL's, AOL's clueless users are those who need it
desperately.
> > Moron Edition.
> > (Sys doesn't work, format/s doesn't work, I'm surprised that they left
the
> > del command.)
>
> Another reason of my dislike of MS. They aim so much to the MM (Moron
> Market) that they forget about anything else.
Not really, for the MM, it's really good prodcut, for someone who isn't a
moron, it's horrible.
I take win2k any time of day, that is not a system for morons.
> 2) There is a limit to human intelligence, but there's no limit to human
> stupidity.
LOL!
Ayende Rahien
> > You are naive, check the TCP/IP scandal, then think how much noise a
simple
> > addition (within design parameters) to Kerebos did.
>
> This was an addition to kerberos which broke existing implementations,
> the only reason there was such an uproar.
AFAIK, that addition is ignored by other system.
I didn't look at Kerebos, though.
> > BTW, you do understand that currently MS has 31 of the 100 most popular
> > sites, want to bet how many places it will have in this list if she
would
> > try doing something like this?
> > Exactly one, if things goes *really* well, and I'm not so sure that
> > microsoft.com would be swayed into this.
> > The moment I'm looked out of 70% of the web, it's opera's time to become
> > default browser again.
> > MS-HTTP may be the best thing that can happen to the OSS.
>
> Good points, but these apply to the world currently, and my original
> remarks applied to an alternative reality in which everyone just runs
> IE...
I know a whole lot of web developers that would step into this world gladly
even if they would've to leave in china for this. :)
Keldon Warlord, Power of the Ancients!
"*" <ke...@ulster.net> wrote in message news:3A0A702C...@ulster.net...
I didn't write that....learn how to properly quote, you retard!
> y'r pal -kK
>
Keldon Warlord, Power of the Ancients!
"Groober" <fu...@wobbly.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8uikvn$17q$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> It is!
>
>
oh yeah? try pissing off some (former) Playstation2 customers... ;-)
--
"One by one the Penguins steal my sanity." (found printed on a T-shirt)
My Website(s):
http://kwarlord.tripod.com/index.html
Groober
It is!
The Night Stalker
> > > So your solution when I run out of space is always "buy a new drive"
> > > rather than "clean up some of that shit you don't use"?
> >
> > No, thats not my solution nor was it implied. What I intended to point out
with
> > my comment was that you cant really complain about what IE takes up when you
> > have a 45GB hdd.
>
> Well, I don't have a 45Gb HD. I have a 13Gb HD, and I find it runs out
> of space far too quickly as it is.
Me too.. Now that Im on cable, Im downloading lots of things that are eating up
space...only have 7GB left.
>
>
> > I mean comon.... Also, why would you want to "clean out" a
> > program designed not to be uninstalled?
>
> I want to 'clean it out' because I don't fuckin want it there in the
> first place. The day I just start accepting that IE is there on my
> machine and there's nothing I can do about it is the day I start using a
> power drill on my skull.
If Im not mistaken, when installing the OS, you can choose custom install and
choose not to install it. But once its there, its not supposed to be removed.
>
>
> > > Anyway, in the end it's all about control. If I have IE on my drive, I
> > > trust still more control to the benevolence of Microsoft.
> >
> > Its too bad that you cant see beyond the "Evil Empire" mentality of this...
>
> It's too bad you can't see what is actually happening with tying IE to
> the OS in the way they have.
Oh I see it. I see that everything is integrated and one click lets the
programs work together. At least on my machine thats what happens.
>
>
> > Viruses, bugs, security issues...they are all going to be greater with
Windows
> > than with other operating systems/core programs due to Windows having the
vast
> > lions share of the computer/OS market..its called statistics.
>
> Actually, I'd say it's called bad design. Dos and Win95 and friends will
> always have virii because they support virii so well. It has very little
> to do with how many people use it.
Are you serious? The statistical fact that 90% of the world is on Windows means
a lot...why write a virus for OS2 when you can do it for windows and affect
millions of user rather than a few hundred? (not really, but I hope you see my
point) Its not bad design. Also toss in the variable of millions of users and
their systems and their configurations, and their software thats NOT compatible
and the other variables like user intelligence and about a million other
reasons.
>
>
> > Even with IE
> > gone, you still have security holes. Also, IE is perfectly safe if you take
> > certain steps that you should take with *any* browser. Security should be a
> > concern of any user regardless of platform or installed software.
>
> Of course I still have security holes, but they are much fewer, and much
> easier to deal with. With IE and OE I run the risk of having an email
> destroy my machine simply by opening it in the default configuration.
Ok, I agree with the default security settings being too lax...Set them higher.
>
> What's the alternative? Exactly what I do on machines I'm forced to keep
> IE on.... disable EVERYTHING. Once you do this, IE is a lot safer, but
> whaddya know? It's almost unusable.
Not everything...just the active scripting and make sure you have the latest
critical updates. Have it prompt you if you prefer (be forewarned though that
some viruses change the way the script is run and will still run with the system
being set to prompt as it overwrites that command) You should be fine. I would
also recommend using a great little program called eTrust content inspector.
Its on my site in the downloads page. It will prevent email based scripts, java
and html from executing when you read email or newsgroups. Its made by the same
folks that make InoculateIT antivirus which is also excellent.
http://www.stormpages.com/getcertified/downloads.htm My browser is perfectly
usable and Ive set it to prompt me in the event of a script being found. You
can also either delete or rename your Windows Scripting Host (wsh.exe) which
will prevent the issue as well. You have it installed with 98 by default and if
you have gotten rid of it but installed almost any Windows development software,
you likely got it re-installed so check.
>
>
> > Lets see, assuming that you do a full install with 5.5, ....
> >
> > Full install:
> > Required for install: 111 MB
> > Required to run: 80 MB after restart
> >
> > A whole 80mb...most games and purchased software are larger than
that....better
> > watch that hdd space.
>
> Most games I run run primarily from CD, and I have VERY few apps
> approaching 80Mb. It's a shame that you just sit back and politely
> accept the shit the MS shovels to you.
Not all games let you run from the CD..it would be nice if we could. Depending
on what you use for software, 80mb could be a very conservative number.
Photoshop, Micrographx, some of my games like Myth 2 and Soulbringer are
HUGE...these are all programs I use, but If I stop using one or the other for
any real length of time, I uninstall it. I also perform regular disk
maintenance and dumping of files regularly is also highly recommended.
Stalker Steve, MCP
Get Certified
http://www.stormpages.com/getcertified
Ayende Rahien
"The Night Stalker" <seeking...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Nz5P5.4005$PI5.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>
> . <get.f...@go.to.hell.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.14748e1a2...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > > > So your solution when I run out of space is always "buy a new drive"
> > > > rather than "clean up some of that shit you don't use"?
> > >
> > > No, thats not my solution nor was it implied. What I intended to
point out
> with
> > > my comment was that you cant really complain about what IE takes up
when you
> > > have a 45GB hdd.
> >
> > Well, I don't have a 45Gb HD. I have a 13Gb HD, and I find it runs out
> > of space far too quickly as it is.
>
> Me too.. Now that Im on cable, Im downloading lots of things that are
eating up
> space...only have 7GB left.
*Only* 7 GB? :)
Not too long ago, HD were 1.6 Gb and cost thouasands of dollars.
> If Im not mistaken, when installing the OS, you can choose custom install
and
> choose not to install it. But once its there, its not supposed to be
removed.
Yes, you've this option.
> > > A whole 80mb...most games and purchased software are larger than
> that....better
> > > watch that hdd space.
> >
> > Most games I run run primarily from CD, and I have VERY few apps
> > approaching 80Mb. It's a shame that you just sit back and politely
> > accept the shit the MS shovels to you.
>
> Not all games let you run from the CD..it would be nice if we could.
Depending
> on what you use for software, 80mb could be a very conservative number.
> Photoshop, Micrographx, some of my games like Myth 2 and Soulbringer are
> HUGE...these are all programs I use, but If I stop using one or the other
for
> any real length of time, I uninstall it. I also perform regular disk
> maintenance and dumping of files regularly is also highly recommended.
Diablo II takes 1.5 Gb to play it well.
I stopped worrying about HD space afterward.
Adam Knisely
. wrote in message ...
>> > I want to 'clean it out' because I don't fuckin want it there in the
>> > first place. The day I just start accepting that IE is there on my
>> > machine and there's nothing I can do about it is the day I start using
a
>> > power drill on my skull.
>>
>> If Im not mistaken, when installing the OS, you can choose custom install
and
>> choose not to install it. But once its there, its not supposed to be
removed.
>
>
>It appears to me you're saying I can choose not to install IE with Win98
>by selecting a custom install. This is definitely not the case, or there
>would be no product called 98lite (what on earth would it DO?).
98lite, among other things, can remove IE. This is not possible without
third-party software. What The Night Stalker is trying to say is that you
have the option to install it when you are installing Windows 98. After
that, it cannot be installed or removed.
.
> > first place. The day I just start accepting that IE is there on my
> > machine and there's nothing I can do about it is the day I start using a
> > power drill on my skull.
>
> If Im not mistaken, when installing the OS, you can choose custom install and
> choose not to install it. But once its there, its not supposed to be removed.
I think you are mistaken... unless I'm misreading what you're saying.
.
> >by selecting a custom install. This is definitely not the case, or there
> >would be no product called 98lite (what on earth would it DO?).
>
> third-party software. What The Night Stalker is trying to say is that you
> have the option to install it when you are installing Windows 98. After
> that, it cannot be installed or removed.
On installation of 98, I am never confronted with the option to install
or not install IE4. This is what 98lite (the freely downloadable
trial) DOES. It provides the option, during setup, to not install IE in
the first place. However, noone is ever right all the time... where
have you seen this option? How does it present itself? Is it an
isolated question during setup, or part of add/remove programs? If it
was part of add/remove, it would still be in there after installation.
The commercial version is also able to remove IE once 98 has already been
installed, and I understand that this can't be done without third party
tools...
Ayende Rahien
It's part of the add/remove program during custom install.
.
> > or not install IE4. This is what 98lite (the freely downloadable
> > trial) DOES. It provides the option, during setup, to not install IE in
> > the first place. However, noone is ever right all the time... where
> > have you seen this option? How does it present itself? Is it an
> > isolated question during setup, or part of add/remove programs? If it
> > was part of add/remove, it would still be in there after installation.
> >
> > The commercial version is also able to remove IE once 98 has already been
> > installed, and I understand that this can't be done without third party
> > tools...
>
> It's part of the add/remove program during custom install.
For crying out loud!!
What is the point of the freely downloadable 98lite demo if it does
something already built into win98?
Simple answer: Win98 DOES NOT give you the option to not install IE. Are
you talking about another version of windows perhaps? I've never
installed ME, but until you can show me a screenshot of 98 without 98lite
showing the tickbox for the IE browser, I'm just going to have to assume
you're mistaken.
T. Max Devlin
[...]
>> Yet if he paid for a copy and installed that, would it work properly?
>> Can he tell? There's no guarantee of reliability should he purchase it,
>> and the copy he's been using has hardly been inspiring confidence, has
>> it?
>
>Thats the whole trick isnt it?? Gosh, you might actually have to LEARN how your
>computer operates and what the software will and will not do. I use as many MS
>products as I want and have yet to have an issue that *** I *** didnt cause
>through not reading documentation, trying to force it to do something it wasnt
>really designed for, overtaxing it etc. As with ANY software, there is no
>guarantee of reliability.
>
>Stalker Steve, MCP
>Get Certified
That's precious, Steve. Really precious.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
T. Max Devlin
>
>> Anyway, in the end it's all about control. If I have IE on my drive, I
>> magically close so many security holes it's not funny. Even without the
>> benefit of extra drive space (and IE is not just a 'couple' of Mb either)
>> this benefit makes not installing it in the first place very much worth
>> the effort.
>
>To be fair, there are a lot of applications that require IE to be install in
>order to work.
And just how exactly is this "to be fair"?
T. Max Devlin
>news:3A099D06...@sympatico.ca...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> > What does having a modem has to do with using photo editing programs?
>> > I can udnerstand them requiring it (what for, I can't tell), but I can't
>> > understand what prevent you from installing it.
>>
>> This was my question to the makers of the photo editors. As they
>> REQUIRE IE to be on the machine, it seems sorta silly to do so without a
>> modem, IMHO.
>> So, I have to waste the limited space on the laptop to install IE so the
>> photo editor will work. And when the photo editor randomly decides to
>> access the net through the modem that is not there.... I would just be
>> happy if we had more CHOICES of what we install on OUR computers, no
>> matter how many kickbacks the software makers get from MS. They have to
>> be getting SOMETHING to want to send customers away. Even if the
>> requirement were for "internet access", or "A browser", it would be less
>> offensive, IMO. -Dean
>
>What programs do you use?
>I don't understand what IE has to do with pictures.
>I do understand that you don't precious disk space to go away.
>However, IE has very little to do with graphics, doesn't make sense at all
>to me.
That's because, I would guess, you're still under the delusion that
Microsoft has been developing software competitively. It doesn't matter
what anything has to do with anything; what matters is whether
Microsoft's OS monopoly is threatened. So in order to bind applications
as closely as possible to MS's crapware OS, they deliver the "browser
integration" that some ISVs ask for, some want, and some have crammed
down their throat by bundling the "componentized browser" only with the
OS.
Microsoft has been "strongly encouraging" (threatening) application
developers who don't bind themselves to IE, in just the way which seems
to have you so bemused.
T. Max Devlin
>> I strongly hope that restore disks will NEVER reach
>> here, because I have some feeling that here, if you don't
>> deliver a full fledged product you don't benefit copyright
>> protection.
>
>I don't know much about the law, but I do know that when I buy a computer I
>fully expect to be able to get a non-crippled CDROM.
>One of the many reasons that I dislike OEMs so very much. But I can still go
>to a computer store, buy a hand-tailored computer, and get OEM prices for
>the most part.
All except for the Microsoft part, probably. It isn't the computer
manufacturers who want, benefit from, or desire restore disks, though
I'm sure they'd say correct things about lessening "their" tech support
burden. There's no doubt that Microsoft "encourages" (threatens) OEMs
to use restore disks. They tell the press its to prevent piracy; they
don't explain quite what is meant. They've built "piracy" into a
bogeyman they can wave around, while slowly and surely convincing the
market that they need a license from Microsoft to build a PC.
[...]
>> Win 9x isn't so different. Dos 7 can run in protected mode,
>> but the relation between DOS and Windows is the same. Only
>> it's been hidden to avoid a court order. You just start in
>> DOS mode, then type Win, and it behaves like old Win 3.x.
>
>Not quite, but it's a mute arguement.
>Win95/98 needed Dos to boot, then they didn't need it, they did support it
>for the most part, though.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Giuliano is correct; Win95 is just like
Win3.x in its fundamental relationship to DOS; likewise Win98.
>ME lack of dos (and the crippling of many of my favoraite dos tools) is one
>of the main reasons that I try to avoid it.
Lack of access to DOS, maybe, but the issue is not the command line DOS
part, but the underlying APIs. ME doesn't lack DOS any more than Win386
did.
>ME should be AOL's, AOL's clueless users are those who need it desperately.
>Moron Edition.
>(Sys doesn't work, format/s doesn't work, I'm surprised that they left the
>del command.)
I predict you're going to become less and less satisfied as time (and
version) roll on. Perhaps you'll get lucky, and the move to Linux will
save you before you come to realize how truly crappy MS software is, and
has been for years.
T. Max Devlin
>> > Who said anything about handling standards? I was talking about
>following
>> > standards, which they do try to do.
>>
>> Except when it doesn't suit them.
>>
>> One word: Kerberos
>
>One changed, within the accepted parameters.
>Any other system would simply ignore this change, but windows systems need
>it.
So 90% of computer systems need it, and while within "accepted
parameters", Microsoft sought to entirely hide or at least greatly
obscure the information necessary to be interoperable.
But who cares about being interoperable with 10%, when you can support
Microsoft's de-commoditized standard? I mean, the only people who could
possibly be inconvenienced by this at all are those who threaten
Microsoft's OS monopoly, and who care's about them, anyway?
T. Max Devlin
>> The commercial version is also able to remove IE once 98 has already been
>> installed, and I understand that this can't be done without third party
>> tools...
>
>It's part of the add/remove program during custom install.
No its _not_. What have you been smoking?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
Average Torvaldsian
> (curiosity in the case of the latter). Twenty years ago I even
> shelled out $180 for BDS-C, and that was a great deal of moolah
> back then (BDS-C ran on Z80's under CPM).
Damn! You paid that much then, but if you had waited twenty years you could
have bought it for only $25...
<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/CPM-faq/> Question 8
M.
--
All parts should go together without forcing...
By all means, do not use a hammer.
-- IBM maintenance manual, 1925.
Average Torvaldsian
> Do you've a Word X file that can't be open by a Word of higher number?
> My word 2000 backward compability goes back to saving files in word 2.x for
> windows.
For fun, save a Word2K document in an earlier format, like the Word2 you
suggested. Then try (-try!-) to open that document with an actual version of
Word2. That's assuming you have exactly the same fonts on both systems. Let the
fun begin...
Excel is worse. XCL spreadsheets saved in earlier format types in a higher
version of Excel will simply be unreadable in earlier versions of Excel.
Microsoft can't keeps its own formats standard and readable from lower to
higher versions of their own software.
.
> >> installed, and I understand that this can't be done without third party
> >> tools...
> >
> >It's part of the add/remove program during custom install.
>
Fuckin THANK YOU Max =)
Giuliano Colla
[snip]
> --
> All parts should go together without forcing...
> By all means, do not use a hammer.
> -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925.
This sentence is missing from MS manuals. Maybe because a
hammer is the only device capable to make different pieces
of their software fit together!
Giuliano Colla
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > Do you've a Word X file that can't be open by a Word of higher number?
> > My word 2000 backward compability goes back to saving files in word 2.x for
> > windows.
>
> For fun, save a Word2K document in an earlier format, like the Word2 you
> suggested. Then try (-try!-) to open that document with an actual version of
> Word2. That's assuming you have exactly the same fonts on both systems. Let the
> fun begin...
> Excel is worse. XCL spreadsheets saved in earlier format types in a higher
> version of Excel will simply be unreadable in earlier versions of Excel.
> Microsoft can't keeps its own formats standard and readable from lower to
> higher versions of their own software.
>
If your sentence assumes that they're capable of making
theyr own format readable without errors from the same
version of software who produced it, it means that you've
been incredibly lucky up to now!