FAQ Topic - How do I prompt a "Save As" dialog for an accepted mime type?

FAQ server

unread,

May 11, 2007, 7:00:01 PM5/11/07

to

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - How do I prompt a "Save As" dialog for an
accepted mime type?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not possible with client-side JavaScript.

Some browsers accept the Content-Disposition header, but this
must be added by the server. Taking the form:-
` Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=filename.ext `

http://aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2161

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q260/5/19.ASP

===
Postings such as this are automatically sent once a day. Their
goal is to answer repeated questions, and to offer the content to
the community for continuous evaluation/improvement. The complete
comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html.
The FAQ workers are a group of volunteers.

Evertjan.

unread,

May 12, 2007, 4:07:22 AM5/12/07

to

FAQ server wrote on 12 mei 2007 in comp.lang.javascript:

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> FAQ Topic - How do I prompt a "Save As" dialog for an
> accepted mime type?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It is not possible with client-side JavaScript.

Which is logical, my dear Watson Faq, as the below header line ASP-
insertion is "executed" in the browser BEFORE any clientside code runs.

From a clientside only webside point of view,
a view held by many clientside javascript programmers out of necessity,
the question realy is:

Is there anything in a clickable anchor, that forces such user response?

There is!

<a href='x.html'
onclick='alert("please rightclick, choose `save as...`");return false;'
>download me</a>

==================

> Some browsers accept the Content-Disposition header, but this
> must be added by the server. Taking the form:-
> ` Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=filename.ext `

> http://aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2161

[shows only ASP-vbscript]

>
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q260/5/19.ASP

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

shimmyshack

unread,

May 12, 2007, 5:57:13 AM5/12/07

to

<html>
<head></head>
<body>
<iframe frameborder="0" width="0" height="0" src="" id="file"
name="file"></iframe>
<a href="data:application/vnd.ms-excel;base64,MSwyLDMsNA=="
target="file">click here</a>
</body>
</html>

-Lost

unread,

May 12, 2007, 7:13:10 AM5/12/07

to

shimmyshack wrote:
> <html>
> <head></head>
> <body>
> <iframe frameborder="0" width="0" height="0" src="" id="file"
> name="file"></iframe>
> <a href="data:application/vnd.ms-excel;base64,MSwyLDMsNA=="
> target="file">click here</a>
> </body>
> </html>

I find it odd that only Opera gets it right.

Isn't this type of thing useless for all MIME types that the browser can
open natively?

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.

shimmyshack

unread,

May 12, 2007, 9:05:48 AM5/12/07

to

yes you are right.
but what if you dont set the correct mimetype for the file,
I haven't pushed at the edges on this one.

<html>
<body>
<iframe frameborder="0" width="100" height="100" src="" id="file"
name="file"></iframe>
<?php
$data = file_get_contents( 'http://groups.google.com/groups/img/gicons/
science_n_technology_42.gif' );
#$mime = 'image/gif'; #true mimetype
$mime = 'application/x-unknown'; #arbitrary one
?>
<a href="data:data:<?php echo $mime; ?>;base64,<?php echo
base64_encode($data);?>" target="file">click here</a>
</body>
</html>

The filename is the tough part, it's argueable whether a "save as"
dialog _is_ prompted for an accepted mime because we are setting an
unacceptable mime, for data which after all doesnt have an intrisic
mime. I just thought this was worth a mention, a curiosity for mozilla
based browsers, one wonders if it's a feature that might be removed
later - if it is never adopted by IE.

ASM

unread,

May 12, 2007, 9:16:43 AM5/12/07

to

shimmyshack a écrit :

>
> <html>
> <head></head>
> <body>
> <iframe frameborder="0" width="0" height="0" src="" id="file"
> name="file"></iframe>
> <a href="data:application/vnd.ms-excel;base64,MSwyLDMsNA=="
> target="file">click here</a>
> </body>
> </html>

Funny, on my Mac with FF in local, that opens Excel with in 1st cell
'1,2,3,4'
(after a dialog to 'open' or 'save' or 'cancel')
and ... nothing comes in the iframe.

the name of the sheat is : 5zfcwiy0-1.xls
- from where this name comes ?
- from where '1,2,3,4' comes ?

Where to find some more informations about this
href="data:application/vnd.ms-excel;base64,..." ?

Can we use it with other applications !MS ?
application/openoffice.org;
application/another-application;

--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé
Stephane Moriaux and his (less) old Mac already out of date

shimmyshack

unread,

May 12, 2007, 9:33:27 AM5/12/07

to

On May 12, 2:16 pm, ASM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>
wrote:

i've seen it used in ajax apps a bit, for small images, not sure why,
perhaps just because they could.

its not M$ compaitible - they never implemented this.
the name is randomly generated by your OS, and the source
MSwyLDMsNA==
is 1,2,3,4 base64 encoded
here's a start:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2397.txt
and you could use it with whatever application deals with the mimetype
you specify in the source.

cool huh, but limited in scope

ASM

unread,

May 12, 2007, 9:52:50 AM5/12/07

to

shimmyshack a écrit :

>
> <html>
> <body>
> <iframe frameborder="0" width="100" height="100" src="" id="file"
> name="file"></iframe>
> <?php
> $data = file_get_contents( 'http://groups.google.com/groups/img/gicons/
> science_n_technology_42.gif' );

How, with JS, could I get content of my image file ?
(gif image on same domain)

> #$mime = 'image/gif'; #true mimetype
> $mime = 'application/x-unknown'; #arbitrary one
> ?>
> <a href="data:data:<?php echo $mime; ?>;base64,<?php echo
> base64_encode($data);?>" target="file">click here</a>

is it : href="data:data: ... "
or : href="data: ... "
?

> </body>
> </html>
>
> The filename is the tough part, it's argueable whether a "save as"
> dialog _is_ prompted for an accepted mime because we are setting an
> unacceptable mime, for data which after all doesnt have an intrisic
> mime. I just thought this was worth a mention, a curiosity for mozilla
> based browsers, one wonders if it's a feature that might be removed
> later - if it is never adopted by IE.

Tried with FF followed code (*) :

onclick="parent.myfile.location.href='data:image/gif;base64,'+
encodeBase64(document.images[0].src); return false;"

but the iframe tells :
picture “”
can't be dispayed because of errors.

Think 'data' is the image's url (encoded in base 64)

(*) encodeBase64() is a JS encoding function found here :
<http://www.ioswebdesign.com/index.php/2006/12/06/>

shimmyshack

unread,

May 12, 2007, 10:13:17 AM5/12/07

to

On May 12, 2:52 pm, ASM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>
wrote:

I think it's the binary data.
What you would do is have an XHR call return base64 encoded data from
a serverside script, the string would then not have errors. Depending
on the browser, there might be a limit to the size of the image, this
method would be best for very small images.

-Lost

unread,

May 12, 2007, 10:45:06 AM5/12/07

to

ASM wrote:
> Where to find some more informations about this
> href="data:application/vnd.ms-excel;base64,..." ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data:_URI_scheme

-Lost

unread,

May 12, 2007, 10:50:07 AM5/12/07

to

Since we are a tad off topic anyway.

Here is code I use:

// PHP
$temp = 'image_name.x';
$temp_h = fopen($temp, 'rb');
$contents = fread($temp_h, filesize($temp));
fclose($temp_h);
$encoded = base64_encode($contents);
print '<img src="data:image/png;base64,' . $encoded . '" />';

You can see more at that Data URI article from Wikipedia.

Oh, and Internet Explorer 6 does not play Data URIs. I have no clue
about version 7.

ASM

unread,

May 12, 2007, 11:32:35 AM5/12/07

to

shimmyshack a écrit :

> On May 12, 2:52 pm, ASM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Think 'data' is the image's url (encoded in base 64)

> I think it's the binary data.
> What you would do is have an XHR call return base64 encoded data from
> a serverside script, the string would then not have errors.

I would prefer to do everything in JS.

> there might be a limit to the size of the image, this
> method would be best for very small images.

A small gif in pure html href="data: ..." :
http://stephane.moriaux.perso.orange.fr/truc/favicon.gif.html

Hope that works with IE ?

ASM

unread,

May 12, 2007, 11:35:57 AM5/12/07

to

-Lost a écrit :

>
> Oh, and Internet Explorer 6 does not play Data URIs. I have no clue
> about version 7.

Oh ! it seems my IE(Mac) doesn't more :-(

-Lost

unread,

May 12, 2007, 11:54:50 AM5/12/07

to

ASM wrote:
> shimmyshack a écrit :
>> On May 12, 2:52 pm, ASM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> Think 'data' is the image's url (encoded in base 64)
>
>
>> I think it's the binary data.
>> What you would do is have an XHR call return base64 encoded data from
>> a serverside script, the string would then not have errors.
>
> I would prefer to do everything in JS.

My friend, I seriously doubt this will happen. Even though I have seen
some neat image creation methods in JavaScript, I doubt very much binary
interaction can go on. I would love to be proved wrong on this one though.

>> there might be a limit to the size of the image, this
>> method would be best for very small images.
>
> A small gif in pure html href="data: ..." :
> http://stephane.moriaux.perso.orange.fr/truc/favicon.gif.html
>
> Hope that works with IE ?

Nope, not in Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP SP2.

Try this one in a browser that reads it:

(I hope all this comes across, I am not entirely sure how to clip this
at a reasonable length.)

shimmyshack

unread,

May 12, 2007, 12:34:58 PM5/12/07

to

tee hee! it does i am afriad. but hey parallels doesnt suck, (if it
updated without a hitch it would be nice)

ASM

unread,

May 12, 2007, 1:32:43 PM5/12/07

to

-Lost a écrit :

> ASM wrote:
>>
>> I would prefer to do everything in JS.
>
> My friend, I seriously doubt this will happen. Even though I have seen
> some neat image creation methods in JavaScript, I doubt very much binary
> interaction can go on. I would love to be proved wrong on this one though.

OK.

I've played with this data:type-mine :
http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.moriaux/truc/html_to_xls.shtml
tested successfully in FF,
Opera has a secutity or sthg to abort,
iCab wants to download the data ...
Safari donwloaded an Excel file, this file opens correctly in Excel.

Don't know if that could be very usefull ... :-/

> Try this one in a browser that reads it:

TOO COOL ! ! !
works fine with my FF 2, Safari 1.3, Opera 9, iCab 3,
and *even with my old NC 4.5* ! ! !

No french translation with mouseover ? :-)

-Lost

unread,

May 12, 2007, 4:32:21 PM5/12/07

to

ASM wrote:
> -Lost a écrit :
>> ASM wrote:
>>>
>>> I would prefer to do everything in JS.
>>
>> My friend, I seriously doubt this will happen. Even though I have
>> seen some neat image creation methods in JavaScript, I doubt very much
>> binary interaction can go on. I would love to be proved wrong on this
>> one though.
>
> OK.
>
> I've played with this data:type-mine :
> http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.moriaux/truc/html_to_xls.shtml
> tested successfully in FF,
> Opera has a secutity or sthg to abort,
> iCab wants to download the data ...
> Safari donwloaded an Excel file, this file opens correctly in Excel.
>
> Don't know if that could be very usefull ... :-/

In Opera 9.10 on Windows XP SP2, all I get is your error about it being
Internet Explorer.

You test this way:

if(document.getElementById && !document.all)
// your error

But Opera supports document.getElementById and document.all.

Was that on purpose?

>> Try this one in a browser that reads it:
>
> TOO COOL ! ! !
> works fine with my FF 2, Safari 1.3, Opera 9, iCab 3,
> and *even with my old NC 4.5* ! ! !
>
> No french translation with mouseover ? :-)

Sorry, no! I don't know how to say "it sucks" in French.

if (Mac.Internet_Explorer == 'merdeux') { alert('Oui!'); }

Randy Webb

unread,

May 12, 2007, 4:56:08 PM5/12/07

to

-Lost said the following on 5/12/2007 4:32 PM:

> ASM wrote:
>> -Lost a écrit :
>>> ASM wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would prefer to do everything in JS.
>>>
>>> My friend, I seriously doubt this will happen. Even though I have
>>> seen some neat image creation methods in JavaScript, I doubt very
>>> much binary interaction can go on. I would love to be proved wrong
>>> on this one though.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> I've played with this data:type-mine :
>> http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.moriaux/truc/html_to_xls.shtml
>> tested successfully in FF,
>> Opera has a secutity or sthg to abort,
>> iCab wants to download the data ...
>> Safari donwloaded an Excel file, this file opens correctly in Excel.
>>
>> Don't know if that could be very usefull ... :-/
>
> In Opera 9.10 on Windows XP SP2, all I get is your error about it being
> Internet Explorer.
>
> You test this way:
>
> if(document.getElementById && !document.all)
> // your error
>
> But Opera supports document.getElementById and document.all.
>
> Was that on purpose?

Doubtfully. It probably comes from the belief that the only browser that
supports both is IE and that is wrong. A better test, in that code,
would be if(!IE) as, right now, IE is the only one that supports the
conditional compilation code.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

ASM

unread,

May 12, 2007, 6:31:17 PM5/12/07

to

-Lost a écrit :
> ASM wrote:
>> -Lost a écrit :
>>> ASM wrote:
>>
>> I've played with this data:type-mine :
>> http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.moriaux/truc/html_to_xls.shtml

> In Opera 9.10 on Windows XP SP2, all I get is your error about it being

> Internet Explorer.
>
> You test this way:
>
> if(document.getElementById && !document.all)
> // your error
>
> But Opera supports document.getElementById and document.all.

I know.

> Was that on purpose?

because Opera did cry about I don't know what
and because anyway I don't like Opera
hop! outside !
but you can see here what he does with my script :
http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.moriaux/truc/html_to_xls_op

Tiens ?
is was not simple to fix, but this time that works with my Opera 9
(easiest if Excel is opened first)

> if (Mac.Internet_Explorer == 'merdeux') { alert('Oui!'); }

:-)

if(any.Internet_Explorer) { alert('garbage');

ASM

unread,

May 12, 2007, 6:41:22 PM5/12/07

to

Randy Webb a écrit :

> -Lost said the following on 5/12/2007 4:32 PM:
>>

>> You test this way:
>>
>> if(document.getElementById && !document.all)
>> // your error
>>
>> But Opera supports document.getElementById and document.all.
>>
>> Was that on purpose?
>
> Doubtfully. It probably comes from the belief that the only browser that
> supports both is IE and that is wrong.

Not at all ! I know Opera as iCab accept document.all

> A better test, in that code would be if(!IE)

Yes I did test it (1st line in demo's JS) but my Opera played me a "tour
de cochon" so I left it.

-Lost

unread,

May 12, 2007, 7:47:25 PM5/12/07

to

ASM wrote:
> -Lost a écrit :
>> ASM wrote:
>>> -Lost a écrit :
>>>> ASM wrote:
>>>
>>> I've played with this data:type-mine :
>>> http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.moriaux/truc/html_to_xls.shtml
>
>> In Opera 9.10 on Windows XP SP2, all I get is your error about it
>> being Internet Explorer.
>>
>> You test this way:
>>
>> if(document.getElementById && !document.all)
>> // your error
>>
>> But Opera supports document.getElementById and document.all.
>
> I know.
>
>> Was that on purpose?
>
> because Opera did cry about I don't know what
> and because anyway I don't like Opera
> hop! outside !
> but you can see here what he does with my script :
> http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.moriaux/truc/html_to_xls_op
>
> Tiens ?
> is was not simple to fix, but this time that works with my Opera 9
> (easiest if Excel is opened first)

I don't even have Excel on this machine and it works just fine
(OpenOffice.org).

>> if (Mac.Internet_Explorer == 'merdeux') { alert('Oui!'); }
>
> :-)
>
> if(any.Internet_Explorer) { alert('garbage');

I would agree with that, except Randy would beat me (maybe Jim too?).
And quite frankly, I don't have any good answer as to why I think all
Internet Explorer related stuff is crud. ;)

Randy Webb

unread,

May 12, 2007, 10:08:11 PM5/12/07

to

-Lost said the following on 5/12/2007 7:47 PM:

> ASM wrote:
>> -Lost a écrit :

>>> if (Mac.Internet_Explorer == 'merdeux') { alert('Oui!'); }
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> if(any.Internet_Explorer) { alert('garbage');
>
> I would agree with that, except Randy would beat me (maybe Jim too?).

Why would I beat you for your opinion? I happen to think *all* browsers
are "garbage". Try viewing how much memory Opera and Firefox consume on
a PC.

-Lost

unread,

May 12, 2007, 11:33:33 PM5/12/07

to

Randy Webb wrote:
> -Lost said the following on 5/12/2007 7:47 PM:
>> ASM wrote:
>>> -Lost a écrit :
>>>> if (Mac.Internet_Explorer == 'merdeux') { alert('Oui!'); }
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> if(any.Internet_Explorer) { alert('garbage');
>>
>> I would agree with that, except Randy would beat me (maybe Jim too?).
>
> Why would I beat you for your opinion? I happen to think *all* browsers
> are "garbage". Try viewing how much memory Opera and Firefox consume on
> a PC.

Well, I knew you were particularly knowledgeable in the Internet
Explorer/WSH/CScript area. So I thought it wise not to say something I
could not rightly justify.

And oh yeah, I *totally* feel you on the memory thing. Opera loads like
its dying; Firefox (even with Firefox Preloader) loads after a few seconds.

To be honest... I load Opera long enough to view a JavaScript or CSS
example and then I kill it.

I remember when my Firefox install was totally fresh and clean (and
every time I test new plug ins in a clean profile), it loaded and ran
like lightning. Add a few extensions and that goes out the window.

I must say, that is the primary thing I miss most about Internet
Explorer and Outlook Express. They load damn fast and always have.

ASM

unread,

May 13, 2007, 4:57:14 AM5/13/07

to

-Lost a écrit :
> ASM wrote:

>> you can see here what does Opera with my script :
>> http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.moriaux/truc/html_to_xls_op

>> that works with my Opera 9
>> (easiest if Excel is opened first)
>
> I don't even have Excel on this machine and it works just fine
> (OpenOffice.org).

Great !
On a Mac ? Version ?
Did you launch Oo.o before ?

On my Mac (MDD/1.25Mhz) this appli needs a very long time to open
(think it works with X11)
and I don't know how to get it "by default".

--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé

ASM

unread,

May 13, 2007, 5:05:40 AM5/13/07

to

Randy Webb a écrit :

>
> I happen to think *all* browsers are "garbage".
> Try viewing how much memory Opera and Firefox consume on a PC.

Personally I hate Windows (and he hates me too !).

On my Mac FF love to use all CPU, specially when some JS is called.
About memory ... seems a space is attributed and FF does with that.

--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé

ASM

unread,

May 13, 2007, 5:25:11 AM5/13/07

to

-Lost a écrit :

>
> I must say, that is the primary thing I miss most about Internet
> Explorer and Outlook Express. They load damn fast and always have.

We can do a parallel with Mac OS X : Safari and Mail load quickly
during FF as Th takes their time to appear.

The first are built to really work with the system, the others are made
by a crowd of independent programmers and to run everywhere, I suppose
they can meet some difficulties.

About IE I've heard of memory lacks ... no ?

--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé

Randy Webb

unread,

May 13, 2007, 12:15:34 PM5/13/07

to

ASM said the following on 5/13/2007 5:25 AM:

> -Lost a écrit :
>>
>> I must say, that is the primary thing I miss most about Internet
>> Explorer and Outlook Express. They load damn fast and always have.
>
> We can do a parallel with Mac OS X : Safari and Mail load quickly
> during FF as Th takes their time to appear.
>
> The first are built to really work with the system, the others are made
> by a crowd of independent programmers and to run everywhere, I suppose
> they can meet some difficulties.

That is precisely the difference. With one small difference. IE isn't
built to work "with the system", it is part of the system (OS).

> About IE I've heard of memory lacks ... no ?

Yes, IE has memory leaks when it comes to closures. I assume lacks was a
typo?

Randy Webb

unread,

May 13, 2007, 12:21:24 PM5/13/07

to

-Lost said the following on 5/12/2007 11:33 PM:

> Randy Webb wrote:
>> -Lost said the following on 5/12/2007 7:47 PM:
>>> ASM wrote:
>>>> -Lost a écrit :
>>>>> if (Mac.Internet_Explorer == 'merdeux') { alert('Oui!'); }
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> if(any.Internet_Explorer) { alert('garbage');
>>>
>>> I would agree with that, except Randy would beat me (maybe Jim too?).
>>
>> Why would I beat you for your opinion? I happen to think *all*
>> browsers are "garbage". Try viewing how much memory Opera and Firefox
>> consume on a PC.
>
> Well, I knew you were particularly knowledgeable in the Internet
> Explorer/WSH/CScript area. So I thought it wise not to say something I
> could not rightly justify.

Whether it is IE, Firefox, Opera or any other browser, it is typically
the unjustified "I Hate browserX" that gets me going. It is also
typically the "I hate M$" and the likes where the main reason people say
it is to be "part of the crowd" or "to be cool" that gets me. If people
don't like a browser, and have a reason, then so be it. I have a list as
long as my arm of problems with IE. The list is about the same length
with FF though.

> And oh yeah, I *totally* feel you on the memory thing. Opera loads like
> its dying; Firefox (even with Firefox Preloader) loads after a few seconds.

I don't use the Preloader as I don't care to have it half loaded (or
more) every time I boot the PC if I have no plans to use it. It is a
trade off in load time I choose to suffer with :)

> I remember when my Firefox install was totally fresh and clean (and
> every time I test new plug ins in a clean profile), it loaded and ran
> like lightning. Add a few extensions and that goes out the window.

Load FF clean, then open IE and FF and view the Task Manager on them
both. There is a reason why FF uses more memory in that view and it can
never be made to operate as low as IE. And it is simply because IE is
part of the OS and uses other components whereas FF has to be stand
alone. IE has its own built in preloader - the OS.

Sidenote: If anybody wants to prove me wrong about IE, they are welcome
to explain to me how to uninstall IE on Windows, have Windows continue
to work, without re-installing IE :-)

> I must say, that is the primary thing I miss most about Internet
> Explorer and Outlook Express. They load damn fast and always have.

See above :)

ASM

unread,

May 13, 2007, 2:10:01 PM5/13/07

to

Randy Webb a écrit :

> ASM said the following on 5/13/2007 5:25 AM:

>> The first are built to really work with the system, the others are

>> made by a crowd of independent programmers and to run everywhere, I
>> suppose they can meet some difficulties.
>
> That is precisely the difference. With one small difference. IE isn't
> built to work "with the system", it is part of the system (OS).

Yeap, one more reason for me to hate Windows.

>> About IE I've heard of memory lacks ... no ?
>
> Yes, IE has memory leaks when it comes to closures. I assume lacks was a
> typo?

Oui :-)

-Lost

unread,

May 14, 2007, 12:42:48 AM5/14/07

to

ASM wrote:
> -Lost a écrit :
>> ASM wrote:
>>> you can see here what does Opera with my script :
>>> http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.moriaux/truc/html_to_xls_op
>>> that works with my Opera 9
>>> (easiest if Excel is opened first)
>>
>> I don't even have Excel on this machine and it works just fine
>> (OpenOffice.org).
>
> Great !
> On a Mac ? Version ?

No sir. I barely use my iMac anymore. I use it mainly to stay somewhat
familiarized with FreeBSD.

> Did you launch Oo.o before ?

But no, I did not open it first. I saved it as "default.xls" in Opera
and "random garbage.xls" in Firefox.

Then opened it with OO.o.

If you would like me to check on my very, VERY old iMac, I will though.

-Lost

unread,

May 14, 2007, 12:50:34 AM5/14/07

to

Dear God. That was ridiculous!

Internet Explorer 6: 13.5 Megabytes of Physical Memory.
Firefox 1.5.0.11: 189.5 Megabytes of Physical Memory.
Opera 9.10 build 8679: 16.7 Megabytes of Physical Memory.

Opera surprised the hell out of me!

I did actually know that Internet Explorer was integrated into the
Operating System. I believe I learned this in my Visual Basic days.
Come to think of it, I still have Visual Basic 6 Enterprise installed.

I haven't VB'd in aaaaaages.

> Sidenote: If anybody wants to prove me wrong about IE, they are welcome
> to explain to me how to uninstall IE on Windows, have Windows continue
> to work, without re-installing IE :-)

Um... I can remove Internet Explorer safely. As long as you allow that
to mean revert to an older version. ;)

Seriously though, it can't be done. (Which you already knew. ;))

>> I must say, that is the primary thing I miss most about Internet
>> Explorer and Outlook Express. They load damn fast and always have.
>
> See above :)

--

VK

unread,

May 14, 2007, 4:37:31 AM5/14/07

to

On May 13, 8:21 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
> Whether it is IE, Firefox, Opera or any other browser, it is typically
> the unjustified "I Hate browserX" that gets me going. It is also
> typically the "I hate M$" and the likes where the main reason people say
> it is to be "part of the crowd" or "to be cool" that gets me. If people
> don't like a browser, and have a reason, then so be it. I have a list as
> long as my arm of problems with IE. The list is about the same length
> with FF though.

"I hate Micro$oft IE" gave raise to Firefox and it also preserved
Opera on the bare minimum existence level in the after Browser Wars
era. With fully practical approach we would have Windows XP / M
Office / IE 7 right now and nothing else at all - with minor updates
released by Microsoft once in 6-8 years. All OS, office packages and
browsers have their defaults, so what the point then to fight for
alternative failures? ;-)

A bit of semi-unexplainable "hate" is crucial for innovations. In
marketing it is called more nicely though: "a brand wearing" . Even if
the old stuff is still pretty good, people want an update - any update
- a few years later. I do fully agree that Microsoft is not a
"residence evil" of any kind. People just don't like reach winners;
also defeating or at least insulting someone big and strong makes you
feel big and strong yourself. From the other side if the Battle of the
4th versions would go other way, we might be discussing right now the
"ugliness of Net$cape solutions and Microsoft fight for
standards". :-)

> > And oh yeah, I *totally* feel you on the memory thing. Opera loads like
> > its dying; Firefox (even with Firefox Preloader) loads after a few seconds.
>
> I don't use the Preloader as I don't care to have it half loaded (or
> more) every time I boot the PC if I have no plans to use it. It is a
> trade off in load time I choose to suffer with :)
>
> > I remember when my Firefox install was totally fresh and clean (and
> > every time I test new plug ins in a clean profile), it loaded and ran
> > like lightning. Add a few extensions and that goes out the window.
>
> Load FF clean, then open IE and FF and view the Task Manager on them
> both. There is a reason why FF uses more memory in that view and it can
> never be made to operate as low as IE. And it is simply because IE is
> part of the OS and uses other components whereas FF has to be stand
> alone. IE has its own built in preloader - the OS.
>
> Sidenote: If anybody wants to prove me wrong about IE, they are welcome
> to explain to me how to uninstall IE on Windows, have Windows continue
> to work, without re-installing IE :-)

There is a number of "IE removal" programs. The main pitfall is that
the Microsoft site is specially crafted for IE. The biggest catch is
that Windows Update pages are working with IE _only_ Any other browser
- even with User-Agent string spooffed - gets banned. This is the
primary problem to resolve by alternative browser producers by any
mean: either by legal enforcement (preferable) or by plugin+spoofing
means (if the first fails).

P.S. For MacOS users there is Camino (www.caminobrowser.org) - this is
Gecko natively integrated with MacOS. This way their complains of slow
loading Firefox or Opera do not reach my heart; as well as any
complains on "my Safary doesn't work here or there". Sadomasochistic
intentions are too personal IMO to keep sharing it with the
public. :-)

P.P.S. Having an awesome stay in Europe this year.

Randy Webb

unread,

May 16, 2007, 9:43:16 PM5/16/07

to

VK said the following on 5/14/2007 4:37 AM:

> On May 13, 8:21 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Whether it is IE, Firefox, Opera or any other browser, it is typically
>> the unjustified "I Hate browserX" that gets me going. It is also
>> typically the "I hate M$" and the likes where the main reason people say
>> it is to be "part of the crowd" or "to be cool" that gets me. If people
>> don't like a browser, and have a reason, then so be it. I have a list as
>> long as my arm of problems with IE. The list is about the same length
>> with FF though.
>
> "I hate Micro$oft IE"

If anything you said was worth replying to I would. But, as usual, it isn't.

VK

unread,

May 17, 2007, 1:01:29 PM5/17/07

to

> > "I hate Micro$oft IE"
>
> If anything you said was worth replying to I would. But, as usual, it isn't.

You did reply though - otherwise what am I replying to? ;-)

P.S. As the person directly connected with the FAQ maintenance process
- I would expect more of care in working with quotes. The part you
have quoted is - in full -

"I hate Micro$oft IE" gave raise to Firefox and it also preserved
Opera on the bare minimum existence level in the after Browser Wars
era.

<snip>

The quotes around and the context imply that I am not stating my (like
" I ") personal opinion but using an old and rather known slogan
summarizing a set of trends touched in this thread.

>From the "worthiness" point of view you might express - at least - our
personal opinion of the practice when the security and up-to-date
state of a fully paid OS is being set by OS producer into a strict
dependence of a particular browser installed on the said OS. You might
at least say like "it sucks" or "it is OS producer's holly right" or
anything. In front of the approaching fight Episode Three each opinion
- especially yours - is worthy.

Randy Webb

unread,

May 17, 2007, 8:20:17 PM5/17/07

to

VK said the following on 5/17/2007 1:01 PM:

>>> "I hate Micro$oft IE"
>> If anything you said was worth replying to I would. But, as usual, it isn't.
>
> You did reply though - otherwise what am I replying to? ;-)

I replied to your post, not anything you wrote/said. There is a difference.

> P.S. As the person directly connected with the FAQ maintenance process
> - I would expect more of care in working with quotes. The part you
> have quoted is - in full -

I am well aware of the "FAQ maintenance process" but what that has to do
with quoting or not quoting eludes me. Especially since it didn't matter
what I quoted. I could have snipped everything you wrote and simply put:

And it would have had the same effect for me.

> "I hate Micro$oft IE" gave raise to Firefox and it also preserved
> Opera on the bare minimum existence level in the after Browser Wars
> era.

The "I hate Microsoft" is not what gave rise to Firefox. What gave rise
to Mozilla was the direct result of the collapse of Netscape (partially
at the hands of AOL) and the resulting lack of a choice for a browser.
Nothing to do with whether you hated MS or not, but a lack of choice and
people want a choice, even if they have to create themselves.

> <snip>
>
> The quotes around and the context imply that I am not stating my (like
> " I ") personal opinion but using an old and rather known slogan
> summarizing a set of trends touched in this thread.

You are, incorrectly, assuming that I even thought that was an original
idea of yours.

> From the "worthiness" point of view you might express - at least - our
> personal opinion of the practice when the security and up-to-date
> state of a fully paid OS is being set by OS producer into a strict
> dependence of a particular browser installed on the said OS. You might
> at least say like "it sucks" or "it is OS producer's holly right" or
> anything. In front of the approaching fight Episode Three each opinion
> - especially yours - is worthy.

Why MS decided to make the Windows Updates IE specific is anybody's
guess - short of a declaration from MS - but an educated guess would be
simple. The Update verifies that you are running an authenticate version
of Windows and not a pirated version. To do that it uses an ActiveX
component that is IE specific. So, in order to accomplish the
authentication then it had to be made to be IE specific. Besides, if you
ran a software company would you endeavor to ensure that your update
procedure to update your own software would be compatible with someone
elses software? I think not.

VK

unread,

May 19, 2007, 4:04:04 AM5/19/07

to

On May 18, 4:20 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:

> I could have snipped everything you wrote and simply put:
>
> <snipped what VK rambled>
>
> And it would have had the same effect for me.

Yeah... Nothing new under these skies.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/32fa73a854d310fa

> Why MS decided to make the Windows Updates IE specific is anybody's
> guess - short of a declaration from MS - but an educated guess would be
> simple. The Update verifies that you are running an authenticate version
> of Windows and not a pirated version. To do that it uses an ActiveX
> component that is IE specific. So, in order to accomplish the
> authentication then it had to be made to be IE specific. Besides, if you
> ran a software company would you endeavor to ensure that your update
> procedure to update your own software would be compatible with someone
> elses software? I think not.

Windows Update doesn't operate with JScript neither it depends on some
particular IE HTML/DOM/JScript features. It is a C++ program with full
system access. IE is used only to trig the execution of this program
over ActiveX mechanics. It is by - all means - an equivalent of
InstantShield Update Manager. The only difference is that the ability
to launch this manager is artificially attached to the presence of a
particular browser.

IMO the impact of this marketing cheat code is still severely under-
counted. It is very simple to make say Firefox your default browser
during the installation. But on the first attempt to visit Windows
Update one will get the message that could be translated from the
corporate to the conventional English as "get off whatever crap you
dared to install, sucka, and use what you've been told to use". For
non-Windows users here is the exact screenshot:
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif

Given the amount of Windows Update links filling different Windows and
Windows applications menu the desired effect will be reached very
soon:
1) User will realize that she needs IE shortcut handy around
2) She will get an impression that her Windows became semi-brocken /
malfunctioning after having installed any other browser than IE
3) IE will be brought back as the default browser.

Simple, nasty, effective - Microsoft marketing managers always were
among the best money can buy.

Randy Webb

unread,

May 19, 2007, 5:15:01 AM5/19/07

to

VK said the following on 5/19/2007 4:04 AM:

> On May 18, 4:20 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I could have snipped everything you wrote and simply put:
>>
>> <snipped what VK rambled>
>>
>> And it would have had the same effect for me.
>
> Yeah... Nothing new under these skies.
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/32fa73a854d310fa

Not sure what you think that has to do with this thread but it is your
choice.

>> Why MS decided to make the Windows Updates IE specific is anybody's
>> guess - short of a declaration from MS - but an educated guess would be
>> simple. The Update verifies that you are running an authenticate version
>> of Windows and not a pirated version. To do that it uses an ActiveX
>> component that is IE specific. So, in order to accomplish the
>> authentication then it had to be made to be IE specific. Besides, if you
>> ran a software company would you endeavor to ensure that your update
>> procedure to update your own software would be compatible with someone
>> elses software? I think not.
>
> Windows Update doesn't operate with JScript neither it depends on some
> particular IE HTML/DOM/JScript features.

Try testing it with JScript disabled and you will soon discover that
JScript enabled is *mandatory* for a manual update session (never tested
it with Auto Updates though).

> IMO the impact of this marketing cheat code is still severely under-
> counted. It is very simple to make say Firefox your default browser
> during the installation. But on the first attempt to visit Windows
> Update one will get the message that could be translated from the
> corporate to the conventional English as "get off whatever crap you
> dared to install, sucka, and use what you've been told to use". For
> non-Windows users here is the exact screenshot:
> http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif

That pictures shows how to Update Windows without using a browser so it
only blows a hole in the theory that MS is trying to force IE down your
throat when you can update Windows without using IE.

> Given the amount of Windows Update links filling different Windows and
> Windows applications menu the desired effect will be reached very
> soon:
> 1) User will realize that she needs IE shortcut handy around

Or use the Automatic Updates.

> 2) She will get an impression that her Windows became semi-brocken /
> malfunctioning after having installed any other browser than IE

Or use the Automatic Updates.

> 3) IE will be brought back as the default browser.

Or use the Automatic Updates.

> Simple, nasty, effective - Microsoft marketing managers always were
> among the best money can buy.

Only in your mind VK, only in your mind.

See? I *can* be nice sometimes.

VK

unread,

May 19, 2007, 6:14:15 AM5/19/07

to

On May 19, 1:15 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Windows Update doesn't operate with JScript neither it depends on some
> > particular IE HTML/DOM/JScript features.
>
> Try testing it with JScript disabled and you will soon discover that
> JScript enabled is *mandatory* for a manual update session (never tested
> it with Auto Updates though).

Right, Windows Update page requires JScript enabled atop of
everything. I meant to say that the Windows Update functionality
doesn't depend on some particular Javascript / DOM / HTML capability
that would be missing and not replaceable in other UAs. There is no
ActiveX to launch system applications - but there are other ways do to
it. It is still the main question why anyone would need to visit an
HTML page just to launch an application from your own hard drive?
Windows validation and updates check is being made by that
application, not by some code on the said HTML page.

> > For
> > non-Windows users here is the exact screenshot:
> > http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif

> That pictures shows how to Update Windows without using a browser so it
> only blows a hole in the theory that MS is trying to force IE down your
> throat when you can update Windows without using IE.

You forget a small but nasty fact that Auto Update will check for only
high priority system updates. For instance right now my Auto Update is
all green and happy. But visiting the update page shows a number of
categories for my system which I will be missing without IE:
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu2.gif
The list is not as impressive as I possibly wanted because I have
already installed the majority of proposed updates - but you've got
the catch I guess.

Also "Windows Update", "Check for updates" and similar provided in
many if not all of Microsoft products. It is very natural for users to
click something like
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu3.gif
so to get the infamous
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif
and I remain on my opinion from the first post in this branch of the
thread.

Randy Webb

unread,

May 19, 2007, 7:47:50 PM5/19/07

to

VK said the following on 5/19/2007 6:14 AM:

> On May 19, 1:15 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Windows Update doesn't operate with JScript neither it depends on some
>>> particular IE HTML/DOM/JScript features.
>> Try testing it with JScript disabled and you will soon discover that
>> JScript enabled is *mandatory* for a manual update session (never tested
>> it with Auto Updates though).
>
> Right, Windows Update page requires JScript enabled atop of
> everything. I meant to say that the Windows Update functionality
> doesn't depend on some particular Javascript / DOM / HTML capability
> that would be missing and not replaceable in other UAs. There is no
> ActiveX to launch system applications - but there are other ways do to
> it. It is still the main question why anyone would need to visit an
> HTML page just to launch an application from your own hard drive?
> Windows validation and updates check is being made by that
> application, not by some code on the said HTML page.

Until today, doing an experiment, I might have agreed with you. The
reason I don't? I just did a Windows Update, manually, using Firefox2.0
and it went off without a hitch. Not a one. It simply asked me if I
wanted to download the files, I said yes, then it let me install them.

>>> For
>>> non-Windows users here is the exact screenshot:
>>> http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif
>
>> That pictures shows how to Update Windows without using a browser so it
>> only blows a hole in the theory that MS is trying to force IE down your
>> throat when you can update Windows without using IE.
>
> You forget a small but nasty fact that Auto Update will check for only
> high priority system updates. For instance right now my Auto Update is
> all green and happy. But visiting the update page shows a number of
> categories for my system which I will be missing without IE:
> http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu2.gif

That is what prompted me to do a manual Update. I honestly wasn't aware
that there was a difference but there is. So I used FF thinking I could
confirm your image but I didn't get that result, I got the Updates.

> The list is not as impressive as I possibly wanted because I have
> already installed the majority of proposed updates - but you've got
> the catch I guess.

Yes, and one I wasn't aware of. Thanks.

> Also "Windows Update", "Check for updates" and similar provided in
> many if not all of Microsoft products. It is very natural for users to
> click something like
> http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu3.gif
> so to get the infamous
> http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif
> and I remain on my opinion from the first post in this branch of the
> thread.

The "Check for Updates" is not unique to MS products though.

Firefox has one in the Help Menu.
Thunderbird has one in the Help Menu.
Opera 9 has one in the Help Menu.

I think you get the picture :)

To blame MS for doing what most other software manufacturers are doing
is hypocritical. "Firefox and Opera can do it, it is ok, but if MS does
it then it is wrong".

-Lost

unread,

May 19, 2007, 9:18:39 PM5/19/07

to

Randy Webb wrote:

> Until today, doing an experiment, I might have agreed with you. The
> reason I don't? I just did a Windows Update, manually, using Firefox2.0
> and it went off without a hitch. Not a one. It simply asked me if I
> wanted to download the files, I said yes, then it let me install them.

By which URL did you get to the manual updates?

I remember I used to use:

http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog/en/default.asp

Which now leads me back to the, "Sorry, you must use Internet Explorer"
page. OK, so I click http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=10678 to go
to the "use another browser, visit here" link.

That leads to the *entire* Microsoft Download Center. So anyway, I got
a wee bit overwhelmed/-Lost. ;)

Thanks.

Randy Webb

unread,

May 20, 2007, 1:32:08 AM5/20/07

to

-Lost said the following on 5/19/2007 9:18 PM:

> Randy Webb wrote:
>
>> Until today, doing an experiment, I might have agreed with you. The
>> reason I don't? I just did a Windows Update, manually, using
>> Firefox2.0 and it went off without a hitch. Not a one. It simply asked
>> me if I wanted to download the files, I said yes, then it let me
>> install them.
>
> By which URL did you get to the manual updates?
>
> I remember I used to use:
>
> http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog/en/default.asp
>

http://update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate/v6/default.aspx?ln=en-us

VK

unread,

May 20, 2007, 4:49:25 AM5/20/07

to

> > By which URL did you get to the manual updates?

> http://update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate/v6/default.aspx?ln=en-us

That auto-forwards you to
http://www.update.microsoft.com/windowsupdate/v6/thanks.aspx?ln=en&&thankspage=5
which is all the same screen as
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif

As I said, one cannot use any other browser but IE for Windows Update.

Just in case my system is:
Windows XP SP2
Firefox 2.0.3
User-Agent string left default as:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/
20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.3

Randy Webb

unread,

May 20, 2007, 12:22:24 PM5/20/07

to

VK said the following on 5/20/2007 4:49 AM:

>>> By which URL did you get to the manual updates?
>
>> http://update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate/v6/default.aspx?ln=en-us
>
> That auto-forwards you to

It may auto-forward you but it did not auto forward me.

> http://www.update.microsoft.com/windowsupdate/v6/thanks.aspx?ln=en&&thankspage=5
> which is all the same screen as
> http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif

Not for me.

> As I said, one cannot use any other browser but IE for Windows Update.

And, as usual, you are wrong as I personally updated my Windows with
Firefox.

Just let me know what kind of screenshot you want of Firefox.

VK

unread,

May 20, 2007, 1:17:24 PM5/20/07

to

On May 20, 8:22 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>http://update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate/v6/default.aspx?ln=en-us
>
> > That auto-forwards you to
>
> It may auto-forward you but it did not auto forward me.

Your Windows version and Firefox version please? Also the chosen mode
for Auto Update in the Control Panel? Given that the auto-forward is
made sever side and secured by client-side scripting, either you are
wrong in your observations or you've found by occasion some way to use
Firefox for Windows Update.

> Just let me know what kind of screenshot you want of Firefox.

The one like at http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu2.gif but
for Firefox.

Randy Webb

unread,

May 20, 2007, 2:01:18 PM5/20/07

to

VK said the following on 5/20/2007 1:17 PM:

> On May 20, 8:22 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> http://update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate/v6/default.aspx?ln=en-us
>>> That auto-forwards you to
>> It may auto-forward you but it did not auto forward me.
>
> Your Windows version and Firefox version please?

XP Version5.1 Build 2600.xpsp_sp2_gdr.070227-2254: Service Pack 2
As reported by the Help>About Windows in the Control Panel.
FF 2.0.0.3

> Also the chosen mode for Auto Update in the Control Panel?

Not that I see where it matters if it you say it is all done server
side, but it is set to Auto Update.

> Given that the auto-forward is made sever side and secured by
> client-side scripting, either you are wrong in your observations

Given that I tested it three times, successfully, I will leave it to you
to determine who is right or wrong in the observations.

> or you've found by occasion some way to use Firefox for Windows Update.

You are finally realizing that?

>> Just let me know what kind of screenshot you want of Firefox.
>
> The one like at http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu2.gif but
> for Firefox.

I emailed the image to you. The AOL server isn't letting me upload
anything and I don't want it on my live server. If you get it, upload it
for me and post a URL.

P.S. I figured out how it worked with Firefox. Can anybody else?

VK

unread,

May 20, 2007, 2:32:29 PM5/20/07

to

On May 20, 10:01 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
> I emailed the image to you. The AOL server isn't letting me upload
> anything and I don't want it on my live server. If you get it, upload it
> for me and post a URL.

Thanks. Well, the fact of the phenomenon must be accepted I guess:

http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu4.jpg

> P.S. I figured out how it worked with Firefox. Can anybody else?

Humbly but impatiently awaiting for some enlightening.

-Lost

unread,

May 20, 2007, 4:27:49 PM5/20/07

to

Randy Webb wrote:
> -Lost said the following on 5/19/2007 9:18 PM:
>> Randy Webb wrote:
>>
>>> Until today, doing an experiment, I might have agreed with you. The
>>> reason I don't? I just did a Windows Update, manually, using
>>> Firefox2.0 and it went off without a hitch. Not a one. It simply
>>> asked me if I wanted to download the files, I said yes, then it let
>>> me install them.
>>
>> By which URL did you get to the manual updates?
>>
>> I remember I used to use:
>>
>> http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog/en/default.asp
>>
>
> http://update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate/v6/default.aspx?ln=en-us

I was not totally sure if I should respond below you and VK, so I will
post the length of my post here.

1. In Firefox 1.5.0.11, Windows XP SP2, using the above link takes me
to the wu4.gif (your screen shot Randy). However, it says I have to add
a site to my trusted blah blah. So, I allowed JavaScript... *this* then
forwards me to the URL
http://www.update.microsoft.com/windowsupdate/v6/thanks.aspx?ln=en&&thankspage=5

2. I tried turning Windows Update to Auto and trying again. Aside from
locking Firefox up a few times, nothing changed. I can see the Catalog
at first, but get a message that I need to add microsoft to trusted
zones. If I allow JavaScript anywhere, I get "need Internet Explorer."

Any other relevant information I should include?

Randy Webb

unread,

May 20, 2007, 4:44:50 PM5/20/07

to

VK said the following on 5/20/2007 2:32 PM:

It took me awhile to figure it out. About half the night in fact. The
reason it works, for me, in Firefox is because I have an extension for
Firefox called IETab and within the Filter settings for it is has the MS
Update sites listed. When it encounters one of those sites it
automatically invokes the IETab. What the IETab does is allow you to
invoke the IE Engine while running Firefox. It's main use is to be able
to test in IE without having to open IE. So, while it is technically
"running in Firefox", it isn't using the Firefox engine.

Testing just now, when I disable the filters it goes the same route
everybody else gets which confirmed my beliefs.

I would guess it would also work in Netscape 8 since it also can use the
IE Engine.

-Lost

unread,

May 20, 2007, 4:47:31 PM5/20/07

to

VK wrote:
>>> By which URL did you get to the manual updates?
>
>> http://update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate/v6/default.aspx?ln=en-us
>
> That auto-forwards you to
> http://www.update.microsoft.com/windowsupdate/v6/thanks.aspx?ln=en&&thankspage=5
> which is all the same screen as
> http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif
>
> As I said, one cannot use any other browser but IE for Windows Update.

Granted, I cannot seem to get it to work with a standalone version of
Firefox, but the phenomenon remains intact nonetheless. In fact, a
simple Google search shows us that it is possible to update Windows
without ActiveX and without bothering with the actual Windows Update
service as well.

So, yes, it is possible to update with browsers other than Internet
Explorer.

Offhand, I know of only one way to update Windows without technically
needing to go to Windows Update. I believe the process still requires
Windows Update intrinsically though.

-Lost

unread,

May 20, 2007, 4:58:09 PM5/20/07

to

Randy Webb wrote:
> VK said the following on 5/20/2007 2:32 PM:
>> On May 20, 10:01 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> I emailed the image to you. The AOL server isn't letting me upload
>>> anything and I don't want it on my live server. If you get it, upload it
>>> for me and post a URL.
>>
>> Thanks. Well, the fact of the phenomenon must be accepted I guess:
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu4.jpg
>>
>>> P.S. I figured out how it worked with Firefox. Can anybody else?
>>
>> Humbly but impatiently awaiting for some enlightening.
>
> It took me awhile to figure it out. About half the night in fact. The
> reason it works, for me, in Firefox is because I have an extension for
> Firefox called IETab and within the Filter settings for it is has the MS
> Update sites listed. When it encounters one of those sites it
> automatically invokes the IETab. What the IETab does is allow you to
> invoke the IE Engine while running Firefox. It's main use is to be able
> to test in IE without having to open IE. So, while it is technically
> "running in Firefox", it isn't using the Firefox engine.
>
> Testing just now, when I disable the filters it goes the same route
> everybody else gets which confirmed my beliefs.
>
> I would guess it would also work in Netscape 8 since it also can use the
> IE Engine.

Ah hah! I thought about it after I said I knew of only one method,
because actually I knew of several.

1. IETab
2. WindizUpdate
3. MBSA
4. Belarc

Also, you need 2 services running for it to work in Internet Explorer.

1. BITS
2. Automatic Updates (Suprising! Not...)

VK

unread,

May 21, 2007, 5:30:20 AM5/21/07

to

On May 21, 12:44 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
> It took me awhile to figure it out. About half the night in fact. The
> reason it works, for me, in Firefox is because I have an extension for
> Firefox called IETab and within the Filter settings for it is has the MS
> Update sites listed. When it encounters one of those sites it
> automatically invokes the IETab.

Good job, Mr.Webb! :-) :-|

I was not aware of IETab addon. On the loading page it is introduced
in a semi-shamed foggy way as
"This is a great tool for web developers, since you can easily see
how your web page displayed in IE with just one click and then
switch back to Firefox."
( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1419 )

But by visiting the main addon page we can see that the author was
going in the same direction as in this thread:
"Believe it or not, we really ran Windows Update from Mozilla/
Firefox."
( http://ietab.mozdev.org/ )
We can also see that that was the original aim of the plugin from the
very beginning in 2005:
"Can you believe it? We really run Windows update from Firefox."
( http://web.archive.org/web/20051105060937/http://ietab.mozdev.org/ )

I like to see that I'm not the only one seeing the negative impact of
the current Microsoft's Windows Update cheat code. Still coming back
to my original posts
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/e3bc192763d5a9e5
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/70144a20bb67130f
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/ec9a81af83ff4ca6

we should agree that the discussion went in a bit parallel direction.
I mean that I was questioning _first_ the situation withstanding as
such: and technical hacks and workarounds _after_ that if no other
means are available. As I said in
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/e3bc192763d5a9e5
<q>This is the primary problem to resolve by alternative browser

producers
by any mean: either by legal enforcement (preferable) or by plugin
+spoofing

means (if the first fails).</q>

Obviously IETab-like solution is the second path. What bothers me is
that I don't see the first path ever touched by other producers. That
is wrong: first one has to try to adjust the environment for one's
needs and only if failed then adjust oneself for the environment. That
is the main difference between humans and animals after all :-)
I believe the existing regulations in US and EU about OS producers who
are also UA producers provide enough of legal hooks to try at least.
Yet I'm not a business lawyer so I may be missing something.

If the Microsoft's trick with Windows Update is legally clean: then is
IETab-like workaround legally clean itself to suggest to include it
into the default distribution? Formally here it is a shell application
(Firefox) used to launch a 3rd party core application (IE) for further
use of the latter. Is it fine? Netscape browser with its dual Gecko/IE
mode exists for years without any Microsoft actions: but maybe
Microsoft just did not bother to react due to the minor status of this
browser; so gained benefits would not cover the efforts spent? In such
case the situation will change immediately for Gecko.

P.S. btw you guess about Netscape browser is correct. It comes with
Windows Update pages pre-programmed as requiring IE-mode, so on
visiting these pages Netscape automatically switches the mode from the
default Gecko to IE one. No extra setup is needed.
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu5.jpg

Randy Webb

unread,

May 22, 2007, 12:30:41 AM5/22/07

to

VK said the following on 5/21/2007 5:30 AM:

> On May 21, 12:44 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
>> It took me awhile to figure it out. About half the night in fact. The
>> reason it works, for me, in Firefox is because I have an extension for
>> Firefox called IETab and within the Filter settings for it is has the MS
>> Update sites listed. When it encounters one of those sites it
>> automatically invokes the IETab.
>
> Good job, Mr.Webb! :-) :-|
>
> I was not aware of IETab addon. On the loading page it is introduced
> in a semi-shamed foggy way as
> "This is a great tool for web developers, since you can easily see
> how your web page displayed in IE with just one click and then
> switch back to Firefox."
> ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1419 )

I have never read in depth about it, I have it for testing so I can
switch, not for Windows Updates.

> But by visiting the main addon page we can see that the author was
> going in the same direction as in this thread:
> "Believe it or not, we really ran Windows Update from Mozilla/
> Firefox."
> ( http://ietab.mozdev.org/ )
> We can also see that that was the original aim of the plugin from the
> very beginning in 2005:
> "Can you believe it? We really run Windows update from Firefox."
> ( http://web.archive.org/web/20051105060937/http://ietab.mozdev.org/ )

Does it say anywhere in any of those sites that you can disable the
ability to do Windows Updates by disabling the Filter though?

<snip>

> I mean that I was questioning _first_ the situation withstanding as
> such: and technical hacks and workarounds _after_ that if no other
> means are available. As I said in
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/e3bc192763d5a9e5
> <q>This is the primary problem to resolve by alternative browser
> producers
> by any mean: either by legal enforcement (preferable) or by plugin
> +spoofing
> means (if the first fails).</q>

I doubt you will ever see any legal action to try to prevent a
manufacturer, any manufacturer, from trying to force people to use there
own software to update there own software. It would get you laughed out
of court.

> Obviously IETab-like solution is the second path. What bothers me is
> that I don't see the first path ever touched by other producers.

And it is trivial as to why you won't ever see it.

> That is wrong: first one has to try to adjust the environment for one's
> needs and only if failed then adjust oneself for the environment.

In a public environment, yes. But, Windows Update is not a public
environment. It is a very specific task that MS, or anybody else, can
force you to use there product to update with.

But, answer this. Do you think Mozilla should be sued to force them to
allow people to update Mozilla Thunderbird from within Microsoft
Outlook? The principle is the same.

Besides, this thread shows that the Windows Update is not limited to IE,
it is limited to the IE Engine, whether it is executed in IE, FF, or NS.

> That is the main difference between humans and animals after all :-)
> I believe the existing regulations in US and EU about OS producers who
> are also UA producers provide enough of legal hooks to try at least.
> Yet I'm not a business lawyer so I may be missing something.
>
> If the Microsoft's trick with Windows Update is legally clean: then is
> IETab-like workaround legally clean itself to suggest to include it
> into the default distribution?

Why wouldn't it be?

> Formally here it is a shell application
> (Firefox) used to launch a 3rd party core application (IE) for further
> use of the latter.

No, it is a browser/UA with a plugin designed to allow the launching of
a third core application.

> P.S. btw you guess about Netscape browser is correct. It comes with
> Windows Update pages pre-programmed as requiring IE-mode, so on
> visiting these pages Netscape automatically switches the mode from the
> default Gecko to IE one. No extra setup is needed.
> http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu5.jpg

I figured as much because it is the IE Engine it is looking for, not IE
itself as a browser.

VK

unread,

May 22, 2007, 4:09:11 AM5/22/07

to

On May 22, 8:30 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
> In a public environment, yes. But, Windows Update is not a public
> environment. It is a very specific task that MS, or anybody else, can
> force you to use there product to update with.

Here you are wrong IMO. In case of
Windows Update - "get IE or get lost"
we have a legally defined (at least in the US) schema of OS producer
enforcing a particular middleware (browser) onto OS users by means of
limiting the functionality of the said OS if an alternate middleware
is used.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
...
As the foregoing discussion illustrates, Microsoft's campaign to
protect the applications barrier from erosion by network-centric
middleware can be broken down into discrete categories of activity,
several of which on their own independently satisfy the second element
of a § 2 monopoly maintenance claim. But only when the separate
categories of conduct are viewed, as they should be, as a single, well-
coordinated course of action does the full extent of the violence that
Microsoft has done to the competitive process reveal itself. See
Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 699
(1962) (counseling that in Sherman Act cases "plaintiffs should be
given the full benefit of their proof without tightly
compartmentalizing the various factual components and wiping the slate
clean after scrutiny of each"). In essence, Microsoft mounted a
deliberate assault upon entrepreneurial efforts that, left to rise or
fall on their own merits, could well have enabled the introduction of
competition into the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems.
Id.
While the evidence does not prove that they would have succeeded
absent Microsoft's actions, it does reveal that Microsoft placed an
oppressive thumb on the scale of competitive fortune, thereby
effectively guaranteeing its continued dominance in the relevant
market. More broadly, Microsoft's anticompetitive actions trammeled
the competitive process through which the computer software industry
generally stimulates innovation and conduces to the optimum benefit of
consumers.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ)
FINAL JUDGMENT
06 June, 2000

...

3.c.
Knowing Interference with Performance. Microsoft shall not take any
action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of
any non-Microsoft Middleware when interoperating with any Windows
Operating System Product without notifying the supplier of such non-
Microsoft Middleware in writing that Microsoft intends to take such
action, Microsoft's reasons for taking the action, and any ways known
to Microsoft for the supplier to avoid or reduce interference with, or
the degrading of, the performance of the supplier's Middleware.

...

3.g. Restriction on Binding Middleware Products to Operating System
Products. Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System Product
distributed six or more months after the effective date of this Final
Judgment, Bind any Middleware Product to a Windows Operating System
unless:
i. Microsoft also offers an otherwise identical version of
that Operating System Product in which all means of End-User Access to
that Middleware Product can readily be removed (a) by OEMs as part of
standard OEM preinstallation kits and (b) by end users using add-
remove utilities readily accessible in the initial boot process and
from the Windows desktop; and
ii. when an OEM removes End-User Access to a Middleware
Product from any Personal Computer on which Windows is preinstalled,
the royalty paid by that OEM for that copy of Windows is reduced in an
amount not less than the product of the otherwise applicable royalty
and the ratio of the number of amount in bytes of binary code of (a)
the Middleware Product as distributed separately from a Windows
Operating System Product to (b) the applicable version of Windows.

...

7. Definitions
...
d. "Bind" means to include a product in an Operating System Product
in such a way that either an OEM or an end user cannot readily remove
or uninstall the product.
...
i. "Default Middleware" means Middleware configured to launch
automatically (that is, by "default") to provide particular
functionality when other Middleware has not been selected for this
purpose. For example, a default browser is Middleware configured to
launch automatically to display Web pages transmitted over the
Internet or an intranet that bear the .htm extension, when other
software has not been selected for this purpose.
...
q. "Middleware" means software that operates, directly or through
other software, between an Operating System and another type of
software (such as an application, a server Operating System, or a
database management system) by offering services via APIs or
Communications Interfaces to such other software, and could, if ported
to or interoperable with multiple Operating Systems, enable software
products written for that Middleware to be run on multiple Operating
System Products. Examples of Middleware within the meaning of this
Final Judgment include Internet browsers, e-mail client software,
multimedia viewing software, Office, and the Java Virtual Machine.
Examples of software that are not Middleware within the meaning of
this Final Judgment are disk compression and memory management.
...

And yes, I am well aware that the Civil Action No. 98-1232 was
contested by Microsoft, revised and put on hold in many of its parts.
So the current Microsoft position is if it was some temporary mind
blinding of judges or some plot led by some technically clueless hard-
coded democrats and commies :-) In fact AFAICT Microsoft was just left
on probation, like a guy first time caught driving without license.

> But, answer this. Do you think Mozilla should be sued to force them to
> allow people to update Mozilla Thunderbird from within Microsoft
> Outlook? The principle is the same.

You are making it sound as if I'm staying _for_ Firefox and Mozilla
Foundation against Microsoft. It is not true. What about say Opera?
What about other UAs - lesser known but still existing? For it even
IETab workaround doesn't work, as it is Gecko-specific plugin. Also
despite IETab remains the main reserve option, it still sucks. Such a
great way to "not using IE": by running it in chrome mode and by
inserting it output area into Firefox interface :-) :-(

Randy Webb

unread,

May 23, 2007, 12:56:45 AM5/23/07

to

VK said the following on 5/22/2007 4:09 AM:

> On May 22, 8:30 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
>> In a public environment, yes. But, Windows Update is not a public
>> environment. It is a very specific task that MS, or anybody else, can
>> force you to use there product to update with.
>
> Here you are wrong IMO.

<snip>

There is no point in continuing this thread.

VK

unread,

May 23, 2007, 7:47:49 AM5/23/07

to

On May 23, 8:56 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
> There is no point in continuing this thread.

It's a shame for me - but anyone is can accept or do not accept
whatever one wants. People are changing with years.

Randy Webb

unread,

May 24, 2007, 10:59:22 PM5/24/07

to

VK said the following on 5/23/2007 7:47 AM:

True, but some things don't change in a week. I asked for anybody to
tell me how to completely remove IE from a Windows based system and have
the OS still function properly. If you can, then IE isn't part of the
OS. If you can't, then IE is part of the OS. If IE is part of the OS
then you have to try to reason why a software company shouldn't be
allowed to require you to use a product to update that product.

Since then, it has been a big circle to right back where we started.

VK

unread,

May 27, 2007, 9:19:45 AM5/27/07

to

On May 25, 6:59 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
> I asked for anybody to
> tell me how to completely remove IE from a Windows based system and have
> the OS still function properly.

And I said that there is a number of tools to do that because IE is
not a part of OS _and_ it is not allowed to be a part of OS by court
decision.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/293907
<quote>Internet Explorer 6 is preinstalled by default in all versions
of Windows XP. To provide computer manufacturers greater flexibility
in configuring desktop versions of Windows XP, Microsoft has made it
possible for OEMs, administrators, and users to remove user access to
Internet Explorer while leaving the Internet Explorer code intact and
fully functional to ensure the functionality of programs and operating
system functions that rely on it. For example, Windows XP supports an
"IEAccess=off" switch in the Unattend.txt file, and Internet Explorer
has been added to the Add/Remove Windows Components section of the Add/
Remove Programs tool in Control Panel.</quote>

By leaving out Windows distributions with IE removed in advance (so no
need to uninstall it later) and by taking the most known tools I can
name for instance:

Windows 95 / 98 / 98 SE
IEradicator
http://www.litepc.com/ieradicator.html

Windows 2000 / XP / Vista
XPlite
http://www.litepc.com/

> If you can, then IE isn't part of the
> OS. If you can't, then IE is part of the OS. If IE is part of the OS
> then you have to try to reason why a software company shouldn't be
> allowed to require you to use a product to update that product.
> Since then, it has been a big circle to right back where we started.

The circle is formed only because you are swapping the facts and
consequences. There is not question if IE is part of Windows OS: it is
_not_ because it is explicitly not allowed to be - and following the
court decision Microsoft never spelled the opposite. The amount of
obstacles (if any) to remove IE is not an argument of any kind in this
question. So your suggestion to determine the "OSness" of IE is an
attempt to put things up side down.

The question is then only to eliminate artificially and illegally
added Windows/IE dependencies where the first and the most important
is Windows Update.

VK

unread,

May 27, 2007, 9:59:29 AM5/27/07

to

On May 27, 5:19 pm, VK <schools_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> By leaving out Windows distributions with IE removed in advance (so no
> need to uninstall it later) and by taking the most known tools I can
> name for instance:
>
> Windows 95 / 98 / 98 SE

> IEradicatorhttp://www.litepc.com/ieradicator.html

>
> Windows 2000 / XP / Vista
> XPlitehttp://www.litepc.com/

There is also a well known service WindizUpdate http://windowsupdate.62nds.com
but there are some legal issues with it to suggest - though it works
with any browser including Firefox and Opera. As I said it is really a
service, not a program. After having installed the client part one
gets download access to updates from WindizUpdate server. So first
they get updates from the Microsoft server and store them on their own
server, then using WindizUpdate one gets informed of updates available
and she can download them on her computer: w/o being "bothered" with
UA type and Validation. However attempting such simplicity would be,
it should be not suggested to fight with illegal actions by using semi-
illegal tools: at least until other alternatives are left.

Randy Webb

unread,

May 27, 2007, 6:17:29 PM5/27/07

to

VK said the following on 5/27/2007 9:19 AM:

> On May 25, 6:59 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I asked for anybody to
>> tell me how to completely remove IE from a Windows based system and have
>> the OS still function properly.
>
> And I said that there is a number of tools to do that because IE is
> not a part of OS _and_ it is not allowed to be a part of OS by court
> decision.

Are you that naive? To believe that MS is going to follow a court order
and undo what they intentionally did?

> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/293907
> <quote>Internet Explorer 6 is preinstalled by default in all versions
> of Windows XP. To provide computer manufacturers greater flexibility
> in configuring desktop versions of Windows XP, Microsoft has made it
> possible for OEMs, administrators, and users to remove user access to
> Internet Explorer while leaving the Internet Explorer code intact and
> fully functional to ensure the functionality of programs and operating
> system functions that rely on it. For example, Windows XP supports an
> "IEAccess=off" switch in the Unattend.txt file, and Internet Explorer
> has been added to the Add/Remove Windows Components section of the Add/
> Remove Programs tool in Control Panel.</quote>

That doesn't tell how to remove IE, it tells that you can make IE
inaccessible *to the user*. I didn't ask how to do that, I know how. I
want to know how to *completely* *remove* *IE* from the Windows OS and
the OS still operate.

> By leaving out Windows distributions with IE removed in advance (so no
> need to uninstall it later) and by taking the most known tools I can
> name for instance:
>
> Windows 95 / 98 / 98 SE
> IEradicator
> http://www.litepc.com/ieradicator.html
>
> Windows 2000 / XP / Vista
> XPlite
> http://www.litepc.com/
>
> See also:
> http://kb.mozillazine.org/Uninstalling_Internet_Explorer#Remove_Internet_Explorer_from_Windows

Nothing in that article tells how to *completely* remove IE. It covers
uninstalling IE7 and repairing IE6 but nowhere in it, that I saw, shows
how to completely remove IE.

>> If you can, then IE isn't part of the
>> OS. If you can't, then IE is part of the OS. If IE is part of the OS
>> then you have to try to reason why a software company shouldn't be
>> allowed to require you to use a product to update that product.
>> Since then, it has been a big circle to right back where we started.
>
> The circle is formed only because you are swapping the facts and
> consequences.

No, the circle is formed because you still haven't answered my question.

> There is not question if IE is part of Windows OS: it is
> _not_ because it is explicitly not allowed to be - and following the
> court decision Microsoft never spelled the opposite. The amount of
> obstacles (if any) to remove IE is not an argument of any kind in this
> question. So your suggestion to determine the "OSness" of IE is an
> attempt to put things up side down.

By your reasoning, then nobody gets killed, raped, robbed, tortured or
any other of a list of things done because a court said you aren't
allowed to do it. It doesn't hold water VK.

> The question is then only to eliminate artificially and illegally
> added Windows/IE dependencies where the first and the most important
> is Windows Update.

No, it is still a question of whether IE is part of the OS. And the
answer to that question won't be rooted in whether a court said it is
allowed to or not. If you can show me how to completely remove IE from a
Windows based system (after WinME) then I will agree with you. Until
then, if you can't completely remove IE and the OS still operate then it
is, indeed, a component of the OS. And that will remain true even if
10,000 courts say "You aren't allowed to do that".

P.S. The "courts" have also said you aren't allowed to have a monopoly.
Does that also mean that MS doesn't have on on the OS level because a
"court says you can't"? (Even though MS doesn't have a true monopoly, it
qualifies as one due to it's overwhelming dominance, don't split hairs
on the word monopoly here, it isn't the point).

Dr J R Stockton

unread,

May 28, 2007, 10:57:28 AM5/28/07

to

In comp.lang.javascript message <1180271985.3...@q66g2000hsg.go
oglegroups.com>, Sun, 27 May 2007 06:19:45, VK <school...@yahoo.com>
posted:

>On May 25, 6:59 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I asked for anybody to
>> tell me how to completely remove IE from a Windows based system and have
>> the OS still function properly.
>
>And I said that there is a number of tools to do that because IE is
>not a part of OS _and_ it is not allowed to be a part of OS by court
>decision.

What you have in effect said, which is likely to be true, is that the
general functionality of IE is now a part of the OS and is used for
tasks other than Web Browsing; but the specific "front end" (which is
now what is called IE) can be removed, removing only Web Browsing.

Obviously one could never remove IE plus ALL THAT IT USES from Windows,
since it uses keyboard, screen, mouse, and disc drivers, etc.

It may well be true that functionality developed for IE - HTML-to-
characters, for example - was first developed by MS for IE browsing; but
when it was found useful for non-browsing tasks it ceased to belong to
IE but became part of the general system.

That means that IE can be removed, removing Web Browsing; but the system
does not become much smaller thereby.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/clpb-faq.txt> RAH Prins : c.l.p.b mFAQ;
<URL:ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/link/tsfaqp.zip> Timo Salmi's Turbo Pascal FAQ.

VK

unread,

May 30, 2007, 11:46:07 AM5/30/07

to

On May 28, 6:57 pm, Dr J R Stockton <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> What you have in effect said, which is likely to be true, is that the
> general functionality of IE is now a part of the OS and is used for
> tasks other than Web Browsing; but the specific "front end" (which is
> now what is called IE) can be removed, removing only Web Browsing.

Sorry, but for some reason this thread stuck in some time warp on
local ISP I'm using: it was marked as "no current updates" until
today.

Right. There is almost no left - if left at all - self-contained DOS-
like programs. Any modern software depends on a number of pre-
installed reusable libraries, drivers etc. Let's take some really
primitive WSH script like that (in order to run on Windows you may
save it as jsrulez.wsf and double-click on it):

<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<job id="Sample">
<runtime>
<description>JSRulez 0.0001 kappa</description>
</runtime>
<script type="text/jscript">
//WScript.Arguments.ShowUsage();
WScript.Sleep(5000);
WScript.Echo("Javascript rulez!");
</script>
</job>

All it does is displaying "Javascript rulez!" prompt in 5sec after you
run it. But now let's see: in order to function it requires:
1) wscript.exe file (Windows Script Host dispatcher)
2) jscript.dll (as the dispatcher needs to use JScript engine to run
the script)
3) jscript.dll by itself is an extension library. In order to handle
memory allocation, automation, system query (say for current date) it
uses many modules from kernel.dll and system.dll. Requests for both
libraries are in the jscript.dll header.
All of the will become parts of the above program - in the sence that
the process will get run-time licenses for these libraries. It is easy
to predict that by completely removing wscript.exe and jscript.dll
you'll damage some of your system capabilities. And by removing
kernel.dll and system.dll you most probably will bring it into FUBAR
state. Now me using exactly the same arguments Microsoft is trashing
out on our heads for years, we have to admit that JSRulez script -
once installed - is a vital part of Windows OS. Its removal will
seriously decrease OS capabilities and - in case of complete removal
of all used components - will lead to system crash.
As it is an obvious nonsense, we have then a classical "find the
cheat" puzzle of a kind
2+2 = ... long sequence of math transformations ... = 5
Where is the cheat in our case? It is very simple yet brilliant: we
are taking a normal and obvious sentence "In order to function
properly Internet Explorer needs certain Windows OS system-level
modules". Now a bit of lexical swapping and voila: "In order to
function properly Windows OS needs Internet Explorer". Despite both
sentences are looking very different, now we know that both are saying
the same: the first in normal way, the second in a twisted way.