Gates says Windows and IE can't be separated - How true is this?

[grrl]

Recently Bill Gates told Congress that the Windows OS and IE can't be separated. It just won't work. I'm not a programmer, but I find this almost impossible to believe. Anyone with more knowledge than I have any thoughts on this?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

of course it's possible, anything is possible. you could make netscape integrate with windows if you had enough people and time to do it. MS recently announced that there is a possibility of them releasing more stripped down versions of windows in the future...

the point is: they never tell the truth. they say whatever benefits them.

 

[grrl]

the point is: they never tell the truth. they say whatever benefits them.

That's been my belief for a long time. Related to my question though is also the claim that integrating the two parts is actually to the user's benefit. I fail to see how that is true either.

 

[FuManStan]

For me its a benefit because as soon as i install windows i can jump on the internet and download any programs that i dont have the installation files for. Its convenient, and i dont see how IE being integrated hurts consumers. Of course it can be seperated, but i dont see why it should

 

[N11]

That's been my belief for a long time. Related to my question though is also the claim that integrating the two parts is actually to the user's benefit. I fail to see how that is true either.

Because the average user doesn't build his/her own system, install their own operating system, or know how to perform tasks beyond the basics.

Ease of use benefits the average user, no? Providing an operating system without a web browser is like selling a car without any form of stereo. Do you need a stereo to drive a car? No. But it benefits the consumer to have a stereo otherwise they would most likely go out and have to purchase one themselves.

As I see it, it is absolutely in the users benefit to have the browser integrated. It certainly doesn't hurt them, does it?

 

[n0cmonkey]

"The Financial Times reports that Bill Gates admitted a stripped-down Windows is possible after all." This kinda contradicts a lot of other stuff he's been saying. There's a few bits in the article worth a read.

Oops.

Bundle it. Install it by default. Dont make me use it.

 

[singh]

As a Windows developer, let me tell you that there are a lot of GUI components that come along with IE. Without those components, developers would have to write their own versions of the common controls that come with IE. Right now, all we have to say to the users is install IE version xx or higher, and that's all. So, I would argue that IE is indeed part of the Operating System. By separating IE, many of the features we programmers take for granted would dissappear. Most of the old applications (using standard GUI controls) would not work (correctly) without IE. So if you wanted to make those programs run, you would have to install IE anyways. The bottom line is, the users and developers are much better off having IE than not.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< As a Windows developer, let me tell you that there are a lot of GUI components that come along with IE. Without those components, developers would have to write their own versions of the common controls that come with IE. Right now, all we have to say to the users is install IE version xx or higher, and that's all. So, I would argue that IE is indeed part of the Operating System. By separating IE, many of the features we programmers take for granted would dissappear. Most of the old applications (using standard GUI controls) would not work (correctly) without IE. So if you wanted to make those programs run, you would have to install IE anyways. The bottom line is, the users and developers are much better off having IE than not. >>



Sounds like lazy coding to me.

 

[singh]

<<

<< As a Windows developer, let me tell you that there are a lot of GUI components that come along with IE. Without those components, developers would have to write their own versions of the common controls that come with IE. Right now, all we have to say to the users is install IE version xx or higher, and that's all. So, I would argue that IE is indeed part of the Operating System. By separating IE, many of the features we programmers take for granted would dissappear. Most of the old applications (using standard GUI controls) would not work (correctly) without IE. So if you wanted to make those programs run, you would have to install IE anyways. The bottom line is, the users and developers are much better off having IE than not. >>



Sounds like lazy coding to me. >>




Ummm.. how much coding have you done lately

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<<

<< As a Windows developer, let me tell you that there are a lot of GUI components that come along with IE. Without those components, developers would have to write their own versions of the common controls that come with IE. Right now, all we have to say to the users is install IE version xx or higher, and that's all. So, I would argue that IE is indeed part of the Operating System. By separating IE, many of the features we programmers take for granted would dissappear. Most of the old applications (using standard GUI controls) would not work (correctly) without IE. So if you wanted to make those programs run, you would have to install IE anyways. The bottom line is, the users and developers are much better off having IE than not. >>



Sounds like lazy coding to me. >>




Ummm.. how much coding have you done lately >>



Just because Im a lazier coder than you doesnt make me wrong :&THORN;

 

[singh]

<< Just because Im a lazier coder than you doesnt make me wrong :&THORN; >>



I knew it!

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< Just because Im a lazier coder than you doesnt make me wrong :&THORN; >>



I knew it! >>



I never claimed to be a coder, Im a noc monkey. I watch blinky lights

Anyhow, couldnt microsoft extract these functions and create and API or something for them instead of requiring their browser? You would think that would simplify things a lot, I think.*



*notice how I kept all hatred for Microsoft from showing up in this post, until here of course

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

they cant just put the same components available in libraries and whatnot? i doubt the stuff you're talking about requires the actual browser itself. and if it does, well, thats lame.

 

[singh]

<<
I never claimed to be a coder, Im a noc monkey. I watch blinky lights

Anyhow, couldnt microsoft extract these functions and create and API or something for them instead of requiring their browser? You would think that would simplify things a lot, I think.*



*notice how I kept all hatred for Microsoft from showing up in this post, until here of course >>



Quit watching the lights! Those things will make your head spin!

IE installs a set of system-wide DLL's that expose functionality to any program. First, any solution that separates IE would break compatibility. So any "old" programs using any IE specific functionality (which most programs use) would not function correctly. Second, IE, regardless of what some people might say, is a highly complex "product". It is not a (just a)"browser" in any traditional sense. It's a bunch of components that are available to all programs running in the OS. We developers accept it as a given that those components are available on any Windows machine (simply by running some version of IE).

The real question is, why is IE even a problem for any user? Specifically, what "bad" effect does IE have on a system? And would the OS (and most of the users) really be better off without IE?

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<<
I never claimed to be a coder, Im a noc monkey. I watch blinky lights

Anyhow, couldnt microsoft extract these functions and create and API or something for them instead of requiring their browser? You would think that would simplify things a lot, I think.*



*notice how I kept all hatred for Microsoft from showing up in this post, until here of course >>



Quit watching the lights! Those things will make your head spin! >>



Its my job. I dont have much of a choice. Except tonight since Im not working.



<< IE installs a set of system-wide DLL's that expose functionality to any program. >>



Ok, so grab the DLLs and leave IE behind.



<< First, any solution that separates IE would break compatibility. >>



How? My solution, or BBWF's solutions could both work. They would take some time and talent, but they would definitely be viable.



<< So any "old" programs using any IE specific functionality (which most programs use) would not function correctly. Second, IE, regardless of what some people might say, is a highly complex "product". It is not a (just a)"browser" in any traditional sense. It's a bunch of components that are available to all programs running in the OS. We developers accept it as a given that those components are available on any Windows machine (simply by running some version of IE). >>



There you go. IE is too big for its own good. Im a UNIX type of guy. I like smal components doing their job, working together to solve the larger problems. I dont want an all in one solution. Programs like that get too big to handle well. When they dont get handled well, security violations happen. When security violations happy, my lights blink a lot more (and in a mean sorta way) and I get angry and start flinging sh- stuff.



<< The real question is, why is IE even a problem for any user? >>



Not all users, just the picky SOBs like me.



<< Specifically, what "bad" effect does IE have on a system? >>



Since it is part of the OS it has the potential to *REALLY* affect the stability and security of a computer.



<< And would the OS (and most of the users) really be better off without IE? >>



I dont think they should be without it. I just think I should have the choice to uninstall it if I want without everything breaking. Install it by default. I dont care. I just want to be able to download Mozilla, uninstall IE, reboot, and be on my merry way. Its all about choice and control, and right now, with a Windows solution, I dont have either.

 

[singh]

Why exactly does it matter that you be able to "un-install" IE? You can set any browser of choice to handle web content. How does having IE on the system prevent your ability to intall (and use) other browsers? And as far as removing IE goes, you can simple delete the IE (web-browser) executable and it won't run anymore.

I think that the main problem people have with IE is that they think a standard GUI should not be part of the Operating System. I personally regard the user-interface/GUI as very much a part of the OS.

The thing is, you can make Windows as 'secure' as you want to, but you need lots of time. I (as a developer) am willing to sacrifice some 'security' for more functionality/better services from the OS.

edit: sp

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

you sure can't use windows update without IE can you?

 

[singh]

<< you sure can't use windows update without IE can you? >>



That is because other web-browsers don't provide the capabilities required. You could just install patches manually by downloading them. Since it's a Microsoft web-site, they have the right to design it as they wish. And this issue has nothing to do with separating IE. If it was separate, MS could ask you to download IE before coming to their web-site. Doesn't change the situation.

edit: damn spelling!

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

<<

<< you sure can't use windows update without IE can you? >>



That is because other web-browsers don't provide the capabilities required. You could just install patches manually by downloading them. Since it's a Microsoft web-site, they have the right to design it as they wise. And this issue has nothing to do with separating IE. If it was separate, MS could ask you to download IE before coming to their web-site. Doesn't change the situation. >>


i'm just supporting my claim that they make excuses, and they lie. they dont tell the truth.

they could make activeX stuff for other browsers, but they dont, and it would be a cold day in hell before they did. i guess you can shrug it off and just say "they have the right to design it as they wise(sic)", but you know damn well they do it because they are mean and dirty and are out for the consumer's dollar, not the consumer's best interest.

i suppose its not much different than most any other large company, but hey, i'm a geek, this stuff is more important to me

 

[manly]

You have to remember that MS' defense all along is "we're a rich American corporation and we didn't do anything too bad, so let us go home". Ultimately the Bush administration felt that's a strong-enough defense.

You have to separate the IE browser from the IE infrastructure. At this point, it would not be trivial to remove the IE infrastructure from WXP; like others said, I believe that it's totally possible but would take some time.

On the other hand, removing (or hiding) the IE browser would be completely easy.

Even singh's defense of IE refutes the official MS line. My reading of his statements is that the IE infrastructure is a compelling application platform for Windows. However, as complex as the picture may be, the IE infrastructure is not a fundamental part of the OS as MS insists.

If it were, IE for the Mac wouldn't exist, nor would any other 3rd party browser for *any* operating system.

Finally, many IE/MS supporters miss the point completely. The bundling of IE isn't necessarily a problem or bad for consumers; it was MS' chokehold on OEMs preventing them from bundling any other browser (namely Netscape) that was (among a lost list of) anti-competitive abuse of their OS monopoly.

Here's my problem with singh's argument. He almost says because IE has become so popular, its myriad DLLs are widely popular as MFC (a Windows library is). Hence, these libraries have achieved significance on par with the core OS. But for one, they are not (in my technical opinion) part of the core OS. Secondly, the popularity largely stemmed from illegal actions of the company.

An admittedly absurd analogy would be "well you killed your neighbor and stole his wife, but since you're successfully running his farm now, we'll let you go back to your business". Admittedly, the guilt of MS' actions are strongly debated within the industry, but politics aside I (and many others) feel The Findings of Fact speak for themselves.

 

[singh]

<<

<<

<< you sure can't use windows update without IE can you? >>



That is because other web-browsers don't provide the capabilities required. You could just install patches manually by downloading them. Since it's a Microsoft web-site, they have the right to design it as they wise. And this issue has nothing to do with separating IE. If it was separate, MS could ask you to download IE before coming to their web-site. Doesn't change the situation. >>


i'm just supporting my claim that they make excuses, and they lie. they dont tell the truth.

they could make activeX stuff for other browsers, but they dont, and it would be a cold day in hell before they did. i guess you can shrug it off and just say "they have the right to design it as they wise(sic)", but you know damn well they do it because they are mean and dirty and are out for the consumer's dollar, not the consumer's best interest.

i suppose its not much different than most any other large company, but hey, i'm a geek, this stuff is more important to me >>



Oh man... sounds like you really hate MS

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

<< Here's my problem with singh's argument. He almost says because IE has become so popular, its myriad DLLs are widely popular as MFC (a Windows library is). Hence, these libraries have achieved significance on par with the core OS. But for one, they are not (in my technical opinion) part of the core OS. Secondly, the popularity largely stemmed from illegal actions of the company.

An admittedly absurd analogy would be "well you killed your neighbor and stole his wife, but since you're successfully running his farm now, we'll let you go back to your business". Admittedly, the guilt of MS' actions are strongly debated within the industry, but politics aside I (and many others) feel The Findings of Fact speak for themselves. >>


good analysis.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

<< Oh man... sounds like you really hate MS >>


how can one not hate them? wait, no winkie. :|

 

[singh]

<< You have to separate the IE browser from the IE infrastructure. At this point, it would not be trivial to remove the IE infrastructure from WXP; like others said, I believe that it's totally possible but would take some time. >>



Yes, indeed it is very possible. But my question was why? I can see no justifiable advantage in doing that, but I can see lots of disadvantages (some mentioned above).



<<
On the other hand, removing (or hiding) the IE browser would be completely easy. >>



Like I said, just delete the executable. Even in this case, why do it? You can set the default browser to what-ever application you choose, so where is the need?



<< Even singh's defense of IE refutes the official MS line. My reading of his statements is that the IE infrastructure is a compelling application platform for Windows. However, as complex as the picture may be, the IE infrastructure is not a fundamental part of the OS as MS insists. >>



Personally, I regard IE as extending the OS's functionality, and I have no problems considering it as a part of the OS. That is a personal viewpoint in what my definition of an "OS" is.



<< If it were, IE for the Mac wouldn't exist, nor would any other 3rd party browser for *any* operating system. >>



At the core level, it is not the components that are non-portable (without significant modification), but rather their interoperation and the ability to "expose" the components to any application. Only the IE "browser" was ported to Mac; the components are not (to my knowledge) re-usable as they are in Windows.



<< Finally, many IE/MS supporters miss the point completely. The bundling of IE isn't necessarily a problem or bad for consumers; it was MS' chokehold on OEMs preventing them from bundling any other browser (namely Netscape) that was (among a lost list of) anti-competitive abuse of their OS monopoly. >>



That may be, but what does this have to do with removing IE from the OS? Do you seriously think Netscape lost the "browser wars" only because MS was preventing OEM's from installing it? What prevented the users from downloading and installing it?



<< Here's my problem with singh's argument. He almost says because IE has become so popular, its myriad DLLs are widely popular as MFC (a Windows library is). Hence, these libraries have achieved significance on par with the core OS. But for one, they are not (in my technical opinion) part of the core OS. Secondly, the popularity largely stemmed from illegal actions of the company. >>



Same point as mentioned above: really depends on your definition of an Operating System. I consider the GUI services a part of the OS. If that requires IE, so be it.



<< An admittedly absurd analogy would be "well you killed your neighbor and stole his wife, but since you're successfully running his farm now, we'll let you go back to your business". Admittedly, the guilt of MS' actions are strongly debated within the industry, but politics aside I (and many others) feel The Findings of Fact speak for themselves. >>



No clue what you are talking about there.

 

[N11]

I fail to see how anyone is in a position to be dictating what a company does with its own line of products.

I am perfectly free to download netscape and use it. I choose to use Internet Explorer because it is the best web browser currently on the market. It is the most visually appealing and attractive, and is the most widely supported. Why on earth would I want to limit myself in my web surfing experience? Why would anyone?

If you have a personal preference then it is your right to exercise it. Windows doesn't prevent you from downloading and using netscape. It is not microsoft' responsibility to make netscape more versatile on their platform.

The bottom line is that it's their product and their decision. Whether or not they never tell the truth. they say whatever benefits them is really a matter of subjective opinion and has more political consequence than it does in regards to operating systems.