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: Reginald Middleton who wrote (18575)	4/17/1998 8:15:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Respond to of 24154

Come on now Dan. The reason why NSCP has to give away source code is because they didn't pursue a truly modular design in the first place. Notice how IE is simply a bunch of objects which programmers can customize at will. I even have a browser integrated deeply within my valuation software. Large corporations don't want to dig through source code and they don't want their tech types wasting corporate resources doing it either. The componentized approach was the way to go. Honestly, I don't think NSCP had the resources to componentize thier browser the way MSFT did considering the pressure they were under. Of course NSCP's browser is componentized. However we did not provide a set of externalized OCX controls to get access to the components. I agree that this was a mistake... one that MSFT has made in the past and has learned how to get right, as it should after 20+ years of trying. Although I am not familiar with the details here, I suspect that part of the reason for a failure to externalize the components had as much to do with the time-to-market pressures as well as the lack of understanding the importance of doing so. Another reason is that we have been focusing on developing a cross-platform product, and since cross-platform equivalents of OCX did not exist at the time of building the product initially, this MSFT-specific extension was (unfortunately) avoided. But this is only a small part of the reason for IE's success. Without this componentization, I doubt that the picture would be that different. It is much more due to leveraging their monopoly in OSes, in several ways: some of which are legal and some which I (and many others) believe to be illegal. The one area that I do agree with you (at least partially) is that we should have given away the browser earlier than we did and focus more on eyeballs. We should have gotten contracts from tier-1 computer vendors and ISPs earlier on to bundle Netscape's browser with their computers/services for free. If we had done this, perhaps we would have more like a 70% marketshare today instead of 55-60+%. However, I do not agree that we should have always given it away, as you once asserted. We wouldn't have been able to make payroll and hire lots of people to build our product line. It takes money to make money.

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (18575)	4/17/1998 8:17:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

The reason why NSCP has to give away source code is because they didn't pursue a truly modular design in the first place. Oh yeah, Reggie. IE, so modular, it's integrated! Or is it, so integrated, it's modular? Depends on context, right? IE is a bunch of objects. That programmers can customize at will? Is there some new Microsoftese definition of customize I'm unaware of? IE stuff can be linked into arbitrary places, sure. That's not customization. You're delivering (reliably as usual) the Microsoft company line on the reason for Netscape giving away source. We read it from Berlind too, and of course from the marketing peers when it was announced. If that was the only reason, nobody much would care, or be interested in the source at all. But it's always good to hear the company line reiterated, helps keep track of where people are coming from. Cheers, Dan.

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (18575)	4/18/1998 12:22:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

How much Netscape source code do you think will end up in the next generation of Microsoft's browser?

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (18575)	4/18/1998 1:49:00 AM
From: Norman Hwu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Componentize ? What you mean componentize. Using ShellExecute() or something similar in you VB and you call componentization. If you have the ability to debug the exe file, you will find Excel (at least 5.0) is still C language ( a non- componentized language) based but not C++ based. Sorry, but you can not hide your foolish in the front of techics.

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (18575)	4/18/1998 2:36:00 PM
From: nommedeguerre	Respond to of 24154

Reggie, >>Honestly, I don't think NSCP had the resources to componentize thier browser the way MSFT did considering the pressure they were under. Netscape did not have the OS resources right? Still waiting for the IE version to replace the 2 year-old UNIX version of Netscape we use on the corporate network. If IE was truly as componetized as Netscape it would be fairly simple to port the code over to a SOCKET connection on any platform. The only reason you can include IE in your app is because you have access to the 228 Windows DLL's that IE needs in order to be "modular" with Office97. Which 'component' is easier to remove entirely from the desktop: IE or Navigator? Cheers, Norm