Microsoft Keeps Beating a Dead Browser

Lordbob75 said:

I did not say they were the same. I said in this case, that is what we meant.
Integrated is NOT the same as included. I agree.
In this case, when the EU says "integrated", they mean included.
I think at a certain point IE really WAS integrated, and unremovable. It is not now, but the point stands.

~Lordbob

IE was always removable, but mshtml.dll was not. However, mshtml.dll has been part of Windows since Win95. As fseal states, the rendering engine was used on different parts, and is still used in different parts, of the Windows GUI. Apple does the samething with Safari. You can uninstall Safari, but you can't uninstall Webkit without screwing up OSX. The rendering engine is used by the OS for many GUI components.

Part of the problem was that MS did not/would not clarify this during the trial. This was part of their arrogance in believing they were right. This should not have been that difficult to explain, but Gates was so sure he was in the right, that he assumed the judge would never figure it out. MS really played the whole trial wrong.

BTW, for the record, I prefer IE (in it's current form) over Safari and FF. I like Chrome, but it is still missing some key functionality which holds me to IE. Safari just sucks, and FF has always felt "unfinished" to me. I also find it incredibly sluggish compared to the latest IE.

Edit: In keeping with the OP's request, instead of comparing browsers, I will simply state that IE is most certainly not a dead browser.

PhreePhly

petrossa said:

How would you know who's 'technical' or not? I retired at 45 because i sold my software company after 4 years for a good price.

Taking such an attitude is really a parlor trick which predates the neanderthalers. 'You just don't understand' works maybe with young co-eds but doesn't impress me much.

Having been around when MS put encrypted code in Windows 3 so it would arbitrary crash on dr-dos makes me a very wary person when MS starts to move blocks of code around AFTER the antitrust agreement.

While I agree with much of what you say, the DR-DOS thing is over blown. They put the code in BETA software, which is their right in testing. DOS was a requirement for installation and they wanted a controlled environment. The encrypted section was still in the final code, but commented out. This is typical when rushing to get out a product.

PhreePhly

PhreePhly said:

While I agree with much of what you say, the DR-DOS thing is over blown. They put the code in BETA software, which is their right in testing. DOS was a requirement for installation and they wanted a controlled environment. The encrypted section was still in the final code, but commented out. This is typical when rushing to get out a product.

PhreePhly

If they commented it, why couldn't they have just deleted it?

~Lordbob

PhreePhly said:

IE was always removable, but mshtml.dll was not. However, mshtml.dll has been part of Windows since Win95. As fseal states, the rendering engine was used on different parts, and is still used in different parts, of the Windows GUI. Apple does the samething with Safari. You can uninstall Safari, but you can't uninstall Webkit without screwing up OSX. The rendering engine is used by the OS for many GUI components.

I did not know that. Thanks!
Anyways, I remember trying to uninstall IE, on.... I think it was 98, and it would not let me. I could not get rid of it!
And I tried on XP as well with the same problem. So maybe it was supposed to be able to, but I never could.

~Lordbob

PhreePhly said:

While I agree with much of what you say, the DR-DOS thing is over blown. They put the code in BETA software, which is their right in testing. DOS was a requirement for installation and they wanted a controlled environment. The encrypted section was still in the final code, but commented out. This is typical when rushing to get out a product.

PhreePhly

No it was in full release, it got retracted after people at DRDOS couldn't figure out why Win 3 performed so irrationally on DRDOS (it just bluescreened whenever, not at a specific action which rose the suspicion) started to dissect the winloader and found some weird bytes which didn't add up to real code.



They had to make a memorydump to find the decoded code in another memory location which definitely checked for a string which only MS-DOS contained. If this string wasn't found Win 3 went into selfdestruct mode.

Sure they can check, give a warning, but making it bluescreen?

PS
Win 3.1 ran fine on old dr-dos btw.
PPS
hacking the widows loader so it couldn't be a 80286 extended memory client anymore and couldn't run in OS/2 anymore?
PPPS
loads of other examples where MS used 'less then honest' software tricks?

Lordbob75 said:

If they commented it, why couldn't they have just deleted it?

~Lordbob

Unfortunately for larger software companies, the marketing group often decides on a release date without discussing it with engineering. The final days of project completion are a mad scramble, and it is not unheard of for certain functions to be simply commented out. The source code isn't being released and commented code is ignored by the compiler.

PhreePhly

PhreePhly said:

Unfortunately for larger software companies, the marketing group often decides on a release date without discussing it with engineering. The final days of project completion are a mad scramble, and it is not unheard of for certain functions to be simply commented out. The source code isn't being released and commented code is ignored by the compiler.

PhreePhly

I know it ignores it (I know some java..... want to learn C++), but it just seemed to make more sense to just delete it. Ah well, the explanation makes sense.

~Lordbob

petrossa said:

No it was in full release, it got retracted after people at DRDOS couldn't figure out why Win 3 performed so irrationally on DRDOS (it just bluescreened whenever, not at a specific action which rose the suspicion) started to dissect the winloader and found some weird bytes which didn't add up to real code.



They had to make a memorydump to find the decoded code in another memory location which definitely checked for a string which only MS-DOS contained. If this string wasn't found Win 3 went into selfdestruct mode.

Sure they can check, give a warning, but making it bluescreen?

PS
Win 3.1 ran fine on old dr-dos btw.
PPS
hacking the widows loader so it couldn't be a 80286 extended memory client anymore and couldn't run in OS/2 anymore?
PPPS
loads of other examples where MS used 'less then honest' software tricks?

I can't find anything that shows Windows bluescreening. It was a non-fatal error message that only appeared in two beta releases. The retail ran fine. Do you have some support to show this.

EDIT: Apparently the code ran the check, even in retail, but didn't do anything.

According to Andrew Schulman, from Dr. Dobbs Journal, while the practice was questionable, it didn't affect the retail release.

Dr. Dobb's | Examining the Windows AARD Detection Code | September 1, 1993

PhreePhly