Text 6488, 401 rader
Skriven 2005-08-07 00:15:58 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 6487 av Gary Britt (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Say GoodBye To Firefox??
====================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0372_01C59AE5.3056CB70
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Componentization and Integration started with IE 3.0. IE 4.0 just =
continued what was started previously.
Your claims are still bullshit. I think you are projecting.
Rich
"Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com> wrote in message =
news:42f57ab6$1@w3.nls.net...
GMAFB, IE didn't have to be the vehicle to integrate the GUI Shell =
changes
into the operating system. It was solely done so MS could claim the =
browser
was integrated into the operating system and couldn't be separated =
from the
operating system. It was done to skirt the anti-trust laws through =
the use
of the win95 consent decree language about integrated products being =
OK, as
I recall.
Now I'm sure you've got 46 videos 32 white papers and 105 experts to =
explain
how all this manipulation isn't really manipulation and leverage of =
the MS
monopoly at that time, but rather some wonderful great thing that the
marketplace wanted. It was horseshit then and its still horseshit =
now. How
about bringing out those great obviously doctored videos to show how =
IE
can't be separated from windows that David Boies made your attorneys =
eat in
Judge Jackson's court.
MS leveraged its monopoly and dos/windows licensing to kill Netscape's
market, and then as soon as you were successful and secure in this =
victory,
just like all monopolies you got lazy and fat, stopped developing IE, =
etc.,
etc. etc.
I'm not interested in an argument or flame war over this Rich, as an =
MS
employee your job is to sometimes say black is white. I can accept =
that.
Just don't try and piss on my head and tell me its raining. Let's =
just
agree to disagree, because there is nothing to be gained in arguing =
about
something that took place many years ago and no relevance to either of =
our
lives or the marketplace today, except in a historical context.
Gary
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42f57243@w3.nls.net...
Where do you get this bullshit? It was componentized with exposed =
with
stable public APIs like other platform components so that ISVs and =
other
Windows components can use the functionality. A great many do. It =
was so
clearly a good idea that many years latter the mozilla folks made an =
effort
to copy it.
Rich
"Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
news:42f5677c$1@w3.nls.net...
Yep, at the time MS thought they had to integrate it in order to =
skirt the
anti-trust laws and kill Netscape before they lost their advantage =
on the
internet and ultimately possibly control of the desktop PC. It was =
big
stakes to MS and little things like the good of their customers, the
product, or obeying the law just weren't important to MS.
Gary
"Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:42f53ef0@w3.nls.net...
> >I guess it took them one revision to get
> > it where it wasn't crashing everything.
>
> Exactly the problem, any major change carries that risk, but they =
put to
> much in the OS to fast.
>
> - Bob Comer
>
> "Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
> news:42f532e1@w3.nls.net...
> > OK, I'll take yours and George's word for it. I never used it, =
I just
> > assumed it was similar to 5. 4 was the beginning of the =
integration
of
IE
> > with operating system shell GUI. I guess it took them one =
revision
to
> > get
> > it where it wasn't crashing everything.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > "Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:42f5222c@w3.nls.net...
> >> IE4 was an abomination and nowhere near as well behaved as =
netscape4.
> >> IE5
> >> was where IE started to get decent.
> >>
> >> - Bob Comer
> >>
> >>
> >> "Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
> >> news:42f50cf6$1@w3.nls.net...
> >> > Yes, in general IE 4 was as good as Netscape 4 to the average
person.
> >> > I
> >> > was
> >> > on canopus back then, but really didn't get involved in using =
IE
much
> >> > until
> >> > IE 5. Didn't 5 follow onto 4 rather quickly? I used =
Netscape 3
until
> >> > moving finally to win95/98 from dos/win3.1. By the time I =
moved to
> >> > win95/98
> >> > IE 5 was out.
> >> >
> >> > Gary
> >> >
> >> > "Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message
news:42f4c45d$1@w3.nls.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Gary Britt" <zotu@nospamforme.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:42f475e9$1@w3.nls.net...
> >> >> > I agree Netscape went crappy, but not on the timing. =
Netscape
was
> >> > better
> >> >> > than IE through versions 3. At version 4 level IE and =
Netscape
were
> >> > tied,
> >> >> > IMO.
> >> >>
> >> >> Did you just say that abomination IE4 was as good as =
Netscape at
the
> >> >> time?
> >> >>
> >> >> Geo. (maybe you didn't know me then?)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
------=_NextPart_000_0372_01C59AE5.3056CB70
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Componentization and Integration =
started=20
with IE 3.0. IE 4.0 just continued what was started=20
previously.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Your claims are still =
bullshit. I=20
think you are projecting.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Gary Britt" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:zotu@nospamforme.com">zotu@nospamforme.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42f57ab6$1@w3.nls.net">news:42f57ab6$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>GMAFB,=20
IE didn't have to be the vehicle to integrate the GUI Shell =
changes<BR>into=20
the operating system. It was solely done so MS could claim the=20
browser<BR>was integrated into the operating system and couldn't be =
separated=20
from the<BR>operating system. It was done to skirt the =
anti-trust laws=20
through the use<BR>of the win95 consent decree language about =
integrated=20
products being OK, as<BR>I recall.<BR><BR>Now I'm sure you've got 46 =
videos 32=20
white papers and 105 experts to explain<BR>how all this manipulation =
isn't=20
really manipulation and leverage of the MS<BR>monopoly at that time, =
but=20
rather some wonderful great thing that the<BR>marketplace =
wanted. It was=20
horseshit then and its still horseshit now. How<BR>about =
bringing out=20
those great obviously doctored videos to show how IE<BR>can't be =
separated=20
from windows that David Boies made your attorneys eat in<BR>Judge =
Jackson's=20
court.<BR><BR>MS leveraged its monopoly and dos/windows licensing to =
kill=20
Netscape's<BR>market, and then as soon as you were successful and =
secure in=20
this victory,<BR>just like all monopolies you got lazy and fat, =
stopped=20
developing IE, etc.,<BR>etc. etc.<BR><BR>I'm not interested in an =
argument or=20
flame war over this Rich, as an MS<BR>employee your job is to =
sometimes say=20
black is white. I can accept that.<BR>Just don't try and piss on =
my head=20
and tell me its raining. Let's just<BR>agree to disagree, =
because there=20
is nothing to be gained in arguing about<BR>something that took place =
many=20
years ago and no relevance to either of our<BR>lives or the =
marketplace today,=20
except in a historical context.<BR><BR>Gary<BR><BR><BR>"Rich" =
<@> wrote=20
in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42f57243@w3.nls.net">news:42f57243@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; =20
Where do you get this bullshit? It was componentized with =
exposed=20
with<BR>stable public APIs like other platform components so that ISVs =
and=20
other<BR>Windows components can use the functionality. A great =
many=20
do. It was so<BR>clearly a good idea that many years latter the =
mozilla=20
folks made an effort<BR>to copy it.<BR><BR>Rich<BR><BR> "Gary =
Britt"=20
<<A =
href=3D"mailto:zotu@nospamforme.com">zotu@nospamforme.com</A>> wrote=20
in message<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"news:42f5677c$1@w3.nls.net">news:42f5677c$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
Yep, at the time MS thought they had to integrate it in order to skirt =
the<BR> anti-trust laws and kill Netscape before they lost their =
advantage on the<BR> internet and ultimately possibly control of =
the=20
desktop PC. It was big<BR> stakes to MS and little things =
like the=20
good of their customers, the<BR> product, or obeying the law =
just=20
weren't important to MS.<BR><BR> Gary<BR><BR> "Robert =
Comer"=20
<<A =
href=3D"mailto:bobcomer@mindspring.com">bobcomer@mindspring.com</A>>=20
wrote in message<BR> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42f53ef0@w3.nls.net">news:42f53ef0@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; >=20
>I guess it took them one revision to get<BR> > > it =
where it=20
wasn't crashing everything.<BR> ><BR> > Exactly the =
problem,=20
any major change carries that risk, but they put to<BR> > =
much in the=20
OS to fast.<BR> ><BR> > - Bob Comer<BR> =
><BR> =20
> "Gary Britt" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:zotu@nospamforme.com">zotu@nospamforme.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message<BR> > <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42f532e1@w3.nls.net">news:42f532e1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; >=20
> OK, I'll take yours and George's word for it. I never used =
it, I=20
just<BR> > > assumed it was similar to 5. 4 was the=20
beginning of the integration<BR>of<BR> IE<BR> > > =
with=20
operating system shell GUI. I guess it took them one=20
revision<BR>to<BR> > > get<BR> > > it where it =
wasn't=20
crashing everything.<BR> > ><BR> > > =
Gary<BR> =20
> ><BR> > > "Robert Comer" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:bobcomer@mindspring.com">bobcomer@mindspring.com</A>> = wrote
in=20
message<BR> > > <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42f5222c@w3.nls.net">news:42f5222c@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; >=20
>> IE4 was an abomination and nowhere near as well behaved as=20
netscape4.<BR> > >> IE5<BR> > >> was =
where IE=20
started to get decent.<BR> > >><BR> > >> =
- Bob=20
Comer<BR> > >><BR> > >><BR> > =
>>=20
"Gary Britt" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:zotu@nospamforme.com">zotu@nospamforme.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message<BR> > >> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42f50cf6$1@w3.nls.net">news:42f50cf6$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
> >> > Yes, in general IE 4 was as good as Netscape 4 to =
the=20
average<BR>person.<BR> > >> > I<BR> > =
>> >=20
was<BR> > >> > on canopus back then, but really =
didn't get=20
involved in using IE<BR>much<BR> > >> > =
until<BR> >=20
>> > IE 5. Didn't 5 follow onto 4 rather quickly? =
I used=20
Netscape 3<BR> until<BR> > >> > moving finally =
to=20
win95/98 from dos/win3.1. By the time I moved to<BR> > =
>>=20
> win95/98<BR> > >> > IE 5 was out.<BR> =
>=20
>> ><BR> > >> > Gary<BR> > =
>>=20
><BR> > >> > "Geo" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> wrote in=20
message<BR> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42f4c45d$1@w3.nls.net">news:42f4c45d$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
> >> >><BR> > >> >> "Gary Britt" =
<<A=20
href=3D"mailto:zotu@nospamforme.com">zotu@nospamforme.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message<BR> > >> >> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42f475e9$1@w3.nls.net">news:42f475e9$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
> >> >> > I agree Netscape went crappy, but not on =
the=20
timing. Netscape<BR>was<BR> > >> > =
better<BR> =20
> >> >> > than IE through versions 3. At =
version 4=20
level IE and Netscape<BR> were<BR> > >> >=20
tied,<BR> > >> >> > IMO.<BR> > =
>>=20
>><BR> > >> >> Did you just say that =
abomination=20
IE4 was as good as Netscape at<BR>the<BR> > >> >> =
time?<BR> > >> >><BR> > >> =
>> Geo.=20
(maybe you didn't know me then?)<BR> > >> =
>><BR> =20
> >> >><BR> > >> ><BR> > =
>>=20
><BR> > >><BR> > ><BR> > =
><BR> =20
><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0372_01C59AE5.3056CB70--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|