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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: damniseedemons who wrote (15617)	12/26/1997 7:13:00 AM
From: Doug Fowler	Respond to of 24154

Sal: I didn't mean to imply that a single API would be sufficient for browser capabities. I expect that dozens would be required. When you say the necessary APIs have already been published, do you mean that the ones for the latest IE4.x have been published? The point I was trying to make is that I do not expect Microsoft to publish a set of APIs for the browser. They should, if one follows that IE is simply part of an integrated Windows. But Microsoft's real reasons go far deeper than the belief that the browser should simply be a part of the OS. Their real agenda here is to annihilate anything that provides any threat to a Microsoft software world. Netscape provided that threat, and by the time Microsoft realized that, it was too late to simply create a browser competitor. Instead, they used every ounce of their OS supremacy (who could blame them for trying?) to counteract the popularity of Netscape. And it has worked, due in part to a good product, which I give Microsoft a TON of credit for, but due in a larger part to their shoving un-integrated product down our throats in the guise of an OS enhancement. That is the biggest bunch of bovine manure I've seen in a long time. Microsoft could have licensed Navigator from Netscape and delivered an OS with integrate browsing a long time ago, but they didn't want to see Netscape as the conduit to the Internet. What if Microsoft changed its license agreement to add the following statement: "Installtion of Netscape Navigator under Windows will null and void your license fo Windows 95. That is what the DOJ is si concerned about, that they leveraged a monopoly to enter a new field.

To: damniseedemons who wrote (15617)	12/26/1997 10:40:00 AM
From: Justin Banks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Sal - (I'm disregarding the rumored "secret" APIs)--Microsoft had to use them to write the code to integrate IE. Netscape can do the same (and a long time ago, they said that they would--but I've heard nothing on that front since). Wake up and smell the coffee, Sal. NSCP can't 'integrate' their browser to the same extent as MSFT because they don't have access to the internals of the OS. For relevant examples, see osr.com winntmag.com Here's some more. I'm sure others that are more familiar with Win32 programming can shed some light on these. QS_SMRESULT QS_SMPARAMSFREE WF_WIN32WOW Win16:- USER.500 SWP_NOCLIENTSIZE SWP_NOCLIENTMOVE Windows 95:- KERNEL.1 KERNEL.2 KERNEL.3 KERNEL.4 KERNEL.5 KERNEL.6 KERNEL.7 KERNEL.8 KERNEL.9 (In fact most of them up to KERNEL.100) Messages used by Windows:- 0xc0 0xc3 0xca WM_USER + 0x1B WM_USER + 15 WM_USER + 16 WM_USER + 19 RtlUnwind() IsValidMetaFile() Much of the SHELL32.* exported-by-ordinal functions Return value for GetTempDrive() -justinb

To: damniseedemons who wrote (15617)	12/26/1997 1:31:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

>>>There is no "magic" API that someone can use to easily integrate a browser with the Windows OS, so it's not easy. It will take lots of man hours and lots of code (look how long IE(4) took to develop).<<< I'm sorry Sal, but this kind of comment just reveals your development inexperience. This is not a slam. Understanding how software needs to be put together requires a lot of experience. That's why some companies doing critical systems won't hire anybody with less than ten years experience: they have no big-picture judgement. Chaz

To: damniseedemons who wrote (15617)	12/27/1997 2:05:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

>>>The necessary APIs are already published MS will now have a second set of APIs. Those APIs necessarily exist - they have a very big team working in various cubes, offices, buildings and facilities, people are writing DLLs that are being linked to by other parts of their system, and Microsoft will have documented them for internal consumption. These are the DLLs and their APIs that allegedly cause problems when removed from the system. These are the DLLs and APIs that allow you to click on a URL line in Exchange client, VC++ doc display, or Word, and launch the networking and browser to connect to that URL. These are the DLLs and APIs that allow you to install your browser and substitute its GUI for the generic Windows GUI. These DLLs will have been broken down into separately installed modules (what a Dynamically Loadable Library is, actually), each with a function call list and parameter documentation for those calls for that library that makes it possible to use inside Microsoft. They can simply publish the subset of those that makes it possible for another browser to function on an equal footing inside Windows. If they wish, they can split the calls into a set of DLLs that needs to be public, and a set that they will call part of IE, and will re-segregate from the OS. This is not brain surgery. DLLs and similar schemes were in fact invented to make this kind of modularization easier to do. What they put into the Word or console or fileio DLLs to 'integrate' this function set can be extracted function call by function call if necessary. But I don't think that is needed. Because this stuff at this moment in time (Win95/IE4) gets installed when you install IE. So obviously they know what the parts list is. Chaz P.S. The 'alleged' secret APIs are not just alleged. I suggest you do the following experiment as part of your CS education. Buy one of the books on 'Windows secrets' and make the function calls documented in the book. If your program links and runs that function, and that function is not found in the appropriate documentation from Microsoft, then you have 'discovered' a secret API. Then go to the program the book claims uses it, look at it's assembly, and find out if it uses the same call. If it does, you have proven that Microsoft used a 'secret' API.