Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (33671)	11/10/1999 6:04:00 PM
From: Kevin Hay	Respond to of 74651

If the IP stuff is at the system level then it becomes a part of the development environment, transparently. If it's NOT in the system, building in internet functionality to apps becomes way more complicated. -k

To: JBTFD who wrote (33671)	11/10/1999 6:15:00 PM
From: ericneu	Respond to of 74651

Can someone explain to me why Internet support has to be within the operating system? I am using Windows 95 with a separate stand alone browser and it works fine. Why does it have to be part of the operating system? --- I remember the following from years past: "Can someone explain to me why TCP/IP support has to be within the operating system? I am using Trumpet Winsock with Win 3.1..." I have a hard time imagining someone buying a computer today NOT wanting WWW support in the box. - Eric (all JMHO, of course)

To: JBTFD who wrote (33671)	11/10/1999 7:26:00 PM
From: Valley Girl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

The problem with that is you're only looking at the current state of affairs vis-a-vis the traditional PC. If MSFT is to continue to grow earnings at above-average rates, they need to be a player in lucrative handheld and TV-oriented devices, where complete integration including hardware specs will be critical.

To: JBTFD who wrote (33671)	11/10/1999 8:28:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Can someone explain to me why Internet support has to be within the operating system? I am using Windows 95 with a separate stand alone browser and it works fine. Why does it have to be part of the operating system? The browser really doesn't. Legally, the integration gave Microsoft a better position because of the consent decree they had signed in '95 to end the previous antitrust case. That decree gave them wide latitude in adding technologies to Windows. By making IE part of Windows rather than a separate product, they gained a stronger legal position against a suit of this kind. Other aspects of "Internet support" (TCP/IP, PPP and more) have always been long of various operating systems, as others have pointed out. There are some technical advantages to integrating the browser control as well. When you open the "My Computer" icon, you're actually looking at an IE window. The new help system also uses the browser control that is in the OS. Oh. And they did write a better browser in addition to all the other things they did.

To: JBTFD who wrote (33671)	11/10/1999 9:41:00 PM
From: Tom C	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

I can speak from a developers point of view, ahh, errr… my point of view as a developer. Let's say I want to build an application that allowed a user to connect to SI, choose a thread and search that thread for a word or phrase. I want the search to start at post no. 1 on the thread and search though every single post ever made on the thread. As the App finds posts with the matching phrase I want it to display the post within the application. I also want to sell this application so I'm going to build it on a OS that has the highest market share. All developers want a monopoly for whichever Operating System they prefer to use or know best. BTW, that in my opinion is part of the reason for the religious fervor. Developers have a favorite OS. If it is not the one that is dominant then they see their job opportunities diminished and may have to sell out and grudgingly using the dominant OS. When I'm developing an application I desire a consistent platform for my application. I want a consistent set of APIs (Application programming Interfaces) that I can count on to be on all machines where the application will be deployed. In this case, I need a set of Internet functions that I can use, and I'm reasonably sure a large portion of the populace will have on there computers ($$$). IE (Internet Explorer) is is a collection of components that anyone can use (anyone meaning programmers). When you launch IE you see a big program. I see a thin shell of an application that embeds various components that anyone can use. When I'm building this SI search application I can use these components (various OS services) in my app. If you choose to install and use a different browser fine but my app will still work because the Internet services are part of the base platform. You are not hindered in your choice of browser and I'm not required to write a ton of code to determine which browser is installed and another ton of code specific for each browser's Internet services if they make these services available at all. What does built into the OS mean? Windows is implemented as a bunch of DLLs. People write DLL's all the time. When MS provides a DLL it may or may not be part of the OS. If it is part of the OS (Win32 standard) then I take it to be an agreement that those services can be used and they will not go away in future versions of the OS. This means when I use them and reasonably assume that my application will work in the next version of the OS (not always true). When MS says that IE is part of the OS and can not be removed they are being too technical for lawyers and judges to understand. What they are saying is that the dlls that provide the services the browser uses are part of the OS. If these services (dlls) are removed then a lot of other applications will no longer work including ones written by MS. They made a big mistake in thinking that DOJ, Congress and the Judge could understand the technical issue involved. The judge is obviously technically ignorant. Tom