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: Milan Shah who wrote (33704)	11/10/1999 9:25:00 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Respond to of 74651

Finally a post by someone who can discuss file structure without alluding to Satre, Camus, Madam Curie and Oliver Wendell Holmes. Thanks for the post. Duke

To: Milan Shah who wrote (33704)	11/10/1999 9:32:00 PM
From: J. P.	Respond to of 74651

you're letting things like logic and facts and technical knowhow get in the way of this Microsoft bash-a-thon. The judge is way out of his league when it comes to understanding technology. I am in complete amazement that he's getting away with this.

To: Milan Shah who wrote (33704)	11/11/1999 10:44:00 AM
From: PMS Witch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

A bit off topic -- HTML stuff ... Please help me understand Windows. Does Explorer code display HTML stuff on the screen? Do other applications generate HTML text which explorer displays? If so, what happens when there's no explorer code to display what applications produce? Does Windows flop? If the above guesses are accurate, application programmers only need generate HTML code. This seems like a step forward. Thanks, PW.

To: Milan Shah who wrote (33704)	11/11/1999 3:10:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

This is the same confusion that Judge [Jackson] had. Do this experiment - take a look at the size of iexplore.exe - its less than 80K for IE5. That's because the bulk of the implementation of IE (interpreting/displaying HTML in an arbitrary window) is part of the OS. There's no confusion there on Jackson's part. The melding of the browser into the OS was dealt with by both sides for days on end. Jackson found that the integration does present some consumer benefit. It's useful to have the html rendering engine in the OS, but not at all necessary. You mentioned Outlook. When it's installed, it will check to see if the proper files are included in the OS. It must do that if it's to run on all varieties of systems out there. If the files are not there, it will install them. For Outlook, there's no need or great advantage to having the necessary technologies included in the OS. In fact, I would guess that it causes them more problems than advantages. But none of that requires the kind of tight melding into the OS that IE has achieved. Consider the toolbars on Excel. Those don't use standard Windows calls. Instead, they use custom routines. If you install only Excel, the necessary files will be installed on your system. If you later install Word, it will use the same Office-system files for its toolbars. Many other shared technologies in Office do the same thing without needing to have the files in the OS. Another example could come from Netscape's Messenger email client. Like the Outlook siblings, it will display HTML-formatted mail. It doesn't need any of those OS routines to do that since it uses a different rendering engine. (Their implementation is less sophisticated than Microsoft's, but the notion is there, at least.) I'm not denying that there aren't good reasons to include most of the html componenets as systems-level services. But it's odd that in this one case, the technologies were treated far differently than similar technologies at Microsoft are treated.