• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I don't want to keep going around in circles. It appears to me that either I have failed to clarify exactly how advantageous having IE as a set of components is, or you simply do not have enough background on how Windows works internally to understand what I am saying.

The thread was created to discuss whether IE could be removed from Windows systems. I pointed out that IE is not "simply" a browser, but rather brings along a VERY rich set of controls that makes the programmer's job much easier. That, in turn, results in users being presented with consistent GUI controls, and programs being developed faster.

I have also admitted that yes, IE (components) could be removed from the system (even though it is not a simple matter). The main point I was trying to make was that doing so would NOT be in the best interests of the (majority of) users.

I also questioned as to why IE should be removed from the system. Reasons sited were "bloating" and security concerns. What exactly does "bloating" mean? Does it really lead to degraded system performance? I say no; if you think that it does, show me some proof, some hard evidence such as profiling. As for the security concerns, there are no serious "system" level exploits that can be run if you stop running IE (browser) . So if that is your concern, stop running IE and run another browser. That will eliminate problems with ActiveX and the like. Got problems with Outlook Express? Don't run it.

Finally, I will again say that I can see no clear advantages from removing IE for the majority of the users.

edit: sp
 
And one more thing, please keep the discussion on topic. I don't want to discuss the legal issues MS is having. Nor do I care about MS's dealings with OEM's. Create a separate thread if you wish to discuss those issues.
 


<< http://www.98lite.net/ >>



If I remember correctly, 98lite does not actually remove IE fully. Rather, it removes some things, and edits other registry entries to remove the rest. With the upshot that it isn't all gone, some parts are still there just hidden.
 


<< I don't want to keep going around in circles. It appears to me that either I have failed to clarify exactly how advantageous having IE as a set of components is, or you simply do not have enough background on how Windows works internally to understand what I am saying.

The thread was created to discuss whether IE could be removed from Windows systems. I pointed out that IE is not "simply" a browser, but rather brings along a VERY rich set of controls that makes the programmer's job much easier. That, in turn, results in users being presented with consistent GUI controls, and programs being developed faster.

I have also admitted that yes, IE (components) could be removed from the system (even though it is not a simple matter). The main point I was trying to make was that doing so would NOT be in the best interests of the (majority of) users.

I also questioned as to why IE should be removed from the system. Reasons sited were "bloating" and security concerns. What exactly does "bloating" mean? Does it really lead to degraded system performance? I say no; if you think that it does, show me some proof, some hard evidence such as profiling. As for the security concerns, there are no serious "system" level exploits that can be run if you stop running IE (browser) . So if that is your concern, stop running IE and run another browser. That will eliminate problems with ActiveX and the like. Got problems with Outlook Express? Don't run it.

Finally, I will again say that I can see no clear advantages from removing IE for the majority of the users.

edit: sp >>



The point is, that it was _NEVER_ required to integrate IE so much with Windows to put us in this position in the first place. In other words, Microsoft forced this issue on us. Microsoft chose not to have a seperate way for you to program with the very same rich features that you claim.

And according to how _you_ program and how _you_ assume that others program, someday it may be required that _I_ install IE 6.x or whatever the latest version of IE is at the time, to be able to use _your_ program correctly. Does this situation really make sense to you as a programmer? Why should I be required to download/install a 35+MB update to run your newest/greatest program? Why not just have a set of API/DLL's that I could download that would be say 2MB?

Food for thought, huh?
 


<< The point is, that it was _NEVER_ required to integrate IE so much with Windows to put us in this position in the first place. >>



What position is that? Most users like the way Windows works, and we developers like it too. If certain people don't like it, they do have other choices.



<< In other words, Microsoft forced this issue on us. Microsoft chose not to have a seperate way for you to program with the very same rich features that you claim. >>



In any paradigm, there is a standard way of doing things. It may not be the best, but it works. In Microsoft Windows, the "standard" approach is that applications re-use components from system libraries. In this case, some of those components come in libraries that are included with IE. Microsoft doesn't "force" you to do anything. If you don't like the way they do things, then don't use their OS.



<< And according to how _you_ program and how _you_ assume that others program, someday it may be required that _I_ install IE 6.x or whatever the latest version of IE is at the time, to be able to use _your_ program correctly. Does this situation really make sense to you as a programmer? Why should I be required to download/install a 35+MB update to run your newest/greatest program? Why not just have a set of API/DLL's that I could download that would be say 2MB? >>



Would you rather that each program that you download re-invent the wheel and do things its own way? Is it not better to install things one time rather than downloading the same libraries bundled with every program you download? Anyway, those components have to come from somewhere. If they did not come bundled with IE, you would have to download them separately.

 


<<


<< In other words, Microsoft forced this issue on us. Microsoft chose not to have a seperate way for you to program with the very same rich features that you claim. >>



In any paradigm, there is a standard way of doing things. It may not be the best, but it works. In Microsoft Windows, the "standard" approach is that applications re-use components from system libraries. In this case, some of those components come in libraries that are included with IE. Microsoft doesn't "force" you to do anything. If you don't like the way they do things, then don't use their OS.
 >>



I agree to reusing compents from _system_ libraries. I do not agree that IE libraries ARE _system_ libraries.



<<


<< And according to how _you_ program and how _you_ assume that others program, someday it may be required that _I_ install IE 6.x or whatever the latest version of IE is at the time, to be able to use _your_ program correctly. Does this situation really make sense to you as a programmer? Why should I be required to download/install a 35+MB update to run your newest/greatest program? Why not just have a set of API/DLL's that I could download that would be say 2MB? >>



Would you rather that each program that you download re-invent the wheel and do things its own way? Is it not better to install things one time rather than downloading the same libraries bundled with every program you download? Anyway, those components have to come from somewhere. If they did not come bundled with IE, you would have to download them separately. >>



No, I think that the _system_ libraries should be linked to the OS and not an application. Therefore they would be a standard download for the OS and not ANY application.

Think DirectX here. I upgrade my DirectX for new/better/more features, etc. I DO NOT upgrade my Microsoft Age of Empires so that my newest game works correctly. HAHA.. I can see it now... Download Age of Empires update so that you can run Black and White. Cute.

I honestly DO NOT see what is so hard to understand about this. It all has to do with NOT linking _system_ libraries to applications, but to the OS where it belongs.
 
That is really what we are discussing, isn't it? What is the definition of an OS?

ANY application can take advantage of the components that come with IE. The bottom line is, I view the components come that along with IE to be "system" components. They are available throughout the system to any application. Further, they are created by MS. I view the components as extending the services the OS provides. So, to me, for all intents and purposes, they ARE system components.

Lets not argue on this point. If MS wanted, they could offer the components as a separate Installation while defining the download to be "enhancing" the system. But they would still be the same components. Practically, there would be no difference. It would only "appear" that they are part of the OS.
 


<< That is really what we are discussing, isn't it? What is the definition of an OS?

ANY application can take advantage of the components that come with IE. The bottom line is, I view the components come that along with IE to be "system" components. They are available throughout the system to any application. Further, they are created by MS. I view the components as extending the services the OS provides. So, to me, for all intents and purposes, they ARE system components.

Lets not argue on this point. If MS wanted, they could offer the components as a separate Installation while defining the download to be "enhancing" the system. But they would still be the same components. Practically, there would be no difference. It would only "appear" that they are part of the OS. >>




"The most important program that runs on a computer. Every general-purpose computer must have an operating system to run other programs. Operating systems perform basic tasks, such as recognizing input from the keyboard, sending output to the display screen, keeping track of files and directories on the disk, and controlling peripheral devices such as disk drives and printers.

For large systems, the operating system has even greater responsibilities and powers. It is like a traffic cop -- it makes sure that different programs and users running at the same time do not interfere with each other. The operating system is also responsible for security, ensuring that unauthorized users do not access the system.

...

Operating systems provide a software platform on top of which other programs, called application programs, can run. The application programs must be written to run on top of a particular operating system. Your choice of operating system, therefore, determines to a great extent the applications you can run. For PCs, the most popular operating systems are DOS, OS/2, and Windows, but others are available, such as Linux. "


From:
Definition of Operating System

"An operating system (sometimes abbreviated as "OS") is the program that, after being initially loaded into the computer by a boot program, manages all the other programs in a computer. The other programs are called applications or application programs. The application programs make use of the operating system by making requests for services through a defined application program interface (API). In addition, users can interact directly with the operating system through a user interface such as a command language or a graphical user interface (GUI).

An operating system performs these services for applications:

In a multitasking operating system where multiple programs can be running at the same time, the operating system determines which applications should run in what order and how much time should be allowed for each application before giving another application a turn.
It manages the sharing of internal memory among multiple applications.
It handles input and output to and from attached hardware devices, such as hard disks, printers, and dial-up ports.
It sends messages to each application or interactive user (or to a system operator) about the status of operation and any errors that may have occurred.
It can offload the management of what are called batch jobs (for example, printing) so that the initiating application is freed from this work.
On computers that can provide parallel processing, an operating system can manage how to divide the program so that it runs on more than one processor at a time.

All major computer platforms (hardware and software) require and sometimes include an operating system. Linux, Windows 2000, VMS, OS/400, AIX, and z/OS are all examples of operating systems."

From: Another definition of an OS

I guess that pretty much is _my_ definition of an OS. Guess the only thing we'll ever agree to is that we disagree on this point.
 
Indeed, we don't have to agree on it. We are all entitled to our opinions. And there are always exceptions to any defintion. Not only that, but Software is continuously evolving. So the definition keeps changing.

I simply think that anything that extends the services of the base OS uniformly to any and all applications, can be for all intents and purposes considered part of the OS 🙂

On another note, I am tired of this thread. Don't be surprised if I don't come back to it.
 
If you think that IE is "just a browser" then I really have nothing more to say. If you think that it is just a browser, why can't you simply stop using it. No one is making you use it. Download other browsers and use them. After all, as you say, IE is just a browser.

In case you do come back Singh, there is not need to get defensive or make petulent remarks. I never complained about using IE, in fact I use it, nor did I refer to it as merely a browser. In fact it's obvious from the libraries MS includes in it, that it is not because they have chosen to make it more. I simply asked about Gate's specious claim that it can't be removed from Windows. Unfortunately, as one of their programmers, you haven't been able to justify (to me at least) the need for such total IE integration.
 
First off, loser = old MIT term for user on one of their undergrad computing clusters. Considering MIT has one of the best engineering departments in the world, it's not an insult as it may initially seem.

I'm sure that the reference on the average Joe really meant this.

Secondly, it's complete FUD to suggest that IE's integration with Windows lowers consumer costs. As a basic example, a (consumer) Windows retail upgrade has cost $90 - $100 since at least Win95. So don't make up your own pricing theories to support your personal biases. In those 7 years alone, the average cost of a PC has gone down by half, if not more. The short of it is that monopoly pricing is very different from competitive pricing (basic Econ 101).

Who are you talking to? What is being suggested is that further advancement in the development of the windows operating system, which does include segregating certain aspects and perhaps reframing the most used functionality of the platform, requires additional investment into R&D. Basic micro econ 101 - nobody works for free. Man animals do not work for free.

And I think you are confused. What we have here is a monopolistically competitive pricing structure.

Third, N11 is confused on what Internet standards mean. It doesn't mean market share; it means compliance with published standards. Standards in general are neither good or bad, but they largely led to the popularity of the Internet (namely TCP/IP and HTTP). Calling IE the most standard browser is like calling AOL the most standard ISP/Internet client. It's simply not true.

If the interoperability of internet explorer is not a standard then would you please explain why it is that when you visit any site on the internet, IE5.5 and above will 99.9% of the time support it. 85-99% of internet users use AOL? Clever analogy but try again.

Again, this isn't about removing IE because consumers would benefit. Most people would concur that a desktop OS should ship with some default browser and ready-to-go Internet connectivity. What it is about is the states' belief that MS must be compelled by the courts to not use its Windows monopoly to strongarm PC OEMs and to peddle its other products (WXP is a glaring example of this strategy). Look at the big picture, not one detail.

What this is about is a group of technically oriented individuals who at best have taken a single course in economics and automagically derive the conclusion that they are an economist and therefore are fully capable of engaging in comotion.

I am an economist. You're socialistically prescribed solution to current issues facing the software industry are flawed. The courts will not compel Microsoft in any regard because it is not their position to do so when a monopoly does not exist. If this had gone to the supreme court it would have been in Microsoft's favor 7-2.
 
All is asked of Microsoft is to have a remove IE from my computer option in the control panel and on a new setup installation, have a check box to cancel out the IE package from the setup. Its not hard to do. This has nothing to do with whether IE is a good or bad product for the consumer.
 
singh... and others!
Nice arguments, too bad no one read my previous post....

NT is a lot faster without IE! And yes I can run all the programs that you want, I just need to install those libraries...not that
hard...In fact they aren't in windows 95 and it works great... DCOM is very easy to install!

NT Embedded and XP Embedded are best proof that IE isn't part of the OS. I have an NTE installation just under 20MB that
boots in less then 5seconds on a Mobile Pentium166MMX, a new NT install takes around 9/10 seconds and as soon as you put
IE in that the time boosts away....

And I can't understand the argument that libraries can't be installed by the application in fact I can't understand why can't only
the libs be installed with the standard windows installation... heck I can't understand what the hell happened to the custom
install option in windows!

Bottom line is that IE can be removed from windows. But I can understand the argument that asks why?!
 


<< Secondly, it's complete FUD to suggest that IE's integration with Windows lowers consumer costs. As a basic example, a (consumer) Windows retail upgrade has cost $90 - $100 since at least Win95. So don't make up your own pricing theories to support your personal biases. In those 7 years alone, the average cost of a PC has gone down by half, if not more. The short of it is that monopoly pricing is very different from competitive pricing (basic Econ 101).

Who are you talking to? What is being suggested is that further advancement in the development of the windows operating system, which does include segregating certain aspects and perhaps reframing the most used functionality of the platform, requires additional investment into R&D. Basic micro econ 101 - nobody works for free. Man animals do not work for free.

And I think you are confused. What we have here is a monopolistically competitive pricing structure. >>


I'm not confused at all. You're the one who espoused the idea that reworking Windows' dependence on IE would raise consumer costs. I'm arguing that idea is patently false, and refuted by actual history. First off, Windows pricing hasn't changed one bit even though PC pricing has plummeted and units shipped grew substantially (until last year). Like I said, monopoly pricing simply isn't affected as you hypothesize. Feel free to explain "monopolistically competitive" to me; it sounds like an oxymoron.

I recall a PC Magazine opinion piece that labeled IE a $500 million gift to users. That was the ballpark figure for the lifetime cost of IE development and marketing. Nobody denies that IE, the product, has benefited consumers in this regard. I would seriously dispute the $500 million as a gift, but that's a different issue I won't argue. The point is this is that according to you, Windows should cost consumers even more due to IE's development costs. Obviously, that isn't reality. MS "gave it away" primarily to destroy Netscape's main product/business at the time.



<< Third, N11 is confused on what Internet standards mean. It doesn't mean market share; it means compliance with published standards. Standards in general are neither good or bad, but they largely led to the popularity of the Internet (namely TCP/IP and HTTP). Calling IE the most standard browser is like calling AOL the most standard ISP/Internet client. It's simply not true.

If the interoperability of internet explorer is not a standard then would you please explain why it is that when you visit any site on the internet, IE5.5 and above will 99.9% of the time support it. 85-99% of internet users use AOL? Clever analogy but try again. >>


And again, I assert you simply don't understand what an Internet or Web standard is. It has nothing to do with market share. My analogy is perfectly valid. AOL may not have 90% market share, but amongst the mainstream ISPs, it has maybe half the market.

The browser I use (not IE) works just fine for the sites I visit because it is very standards-compliant, and it works fine for the vast majority of web sites, even though it has a puny market share number.



<< Again, this isn't about removing IE because consumers would benefit. Most people would concur that a desktop OS should ship with some default browser and ready-to-go Internet connectivity. What it is about is the states' belief that MS must be compelled by the courts to not use its Windows monopoly to strongarm PC OEMs and to peddle its other products (WXP is a glaring example of this strategy). Look at the big picture, not one detail.

What this is about is a group of technically oriented individuals who at best have taken a single course in economics and automagically derive the conclusion that they are an economist and therefore are fully capable of engaging in comotion.

I am an economist. You're socialistically prescribed solution to current issues facing the software industry are flawed. The courts will not compel Microsoft in any regard because it is not their position to do so when a monopoly does not exist. If this had gone to the supreme court it would have been in Microsoft's favor 7-2. >>


Nice to see you making up your own history. The federal appeals court has already upheld the Findings of Fact ruling MS abused its OS monopoly. I'd love to see you actually argue they don't hold a monopoly, because I haven't seen that one successfully laid out by anyone yet.

If you feel they haven't operated illegally, you're entitled to that opinion. Thank you for politicizing the discussion, and labeling some geeks as unable to join this debate. As for the federal Supreme Court, I'm not going to hypothesize on what they'd do on appeal, but we already saw how they handled the presidential election in a partisan manner.
 


<< Windows doesn't prevent you from downloading and using netscape. >>



Does anyone honestly believe that IE became the dominant browser because it's better than the alternative(s)? The average user -- and yes, this includes the vast majority of computer owners -- doesn't know how to download or install new software of any kind. They use the browser that comes preinstalled on their computer, and in most cases that is IE.

Would the Netscape vs IE vs ??? outcome have been different if Microsoft hadn't blackmailed the OEMs into shipping only IE? I don't know, but it might have been. We'll never know now.
 


<< I've yet to see anyone establish a credible argument which says that consumers are being 'screwed' over by having Internet Explorer integrated >>



My complaint is not that Internet Explorer is "integrated" into the operating system, but rather that Microsoft deliberatly prevented the inclusion of any browser other than their own.
 
I'm not confused at all. You're the one who espoused the idea that reworking Windows' dependence on IE would lower consumer costs.

Really, that's interesting. Where did I espouse this? If you go back and read what I actually said you will find that you are confusing several issues.

And again, I assert you simply don't understand what an Internet or Web standard is. It has nothing to do with market share. My analogy is perfectly valid. AOL may not have 90% market share, but amongst the mainstream ISPs, it has maybe half the market.


Redefine the term standard until your heart is content. Websites are designed on the Internet Explorer platform and then modified and reworked to support the lesser used browsers. If you do not believe this supposition then you are going to have to provide some sort of credible evidence to refute this.

If you are in search for an understanding of this particular industry then I suggest some reading on the differences between monopoly and monopolistic competition.

These are my final words on the subject.
 


<< And again, I assert you simply don't understand what an Internet or Web standard is. It has nothing to do with market share. My analogy is perfectly valid. AOL may not have 90% market share, but amongst the mainstream ISPs, it has maybe half the market.


Redefine the term standard until your heart is content. Websites are designed on the Internet Explorer platform and then modified and reworked to support the lesser used browsers. If you do not believe this supposition then you are going to have to provide some sort of credible evidence to refute this.
 >>



This is ever so easy...
WWW Consortum

I think that will definately answer your question on "standard", which has nothing to do with market share.

Next thing to consider, most WWW servers run off of some variant of Unix, therefore, I highly doubt your assumption that most websites are designed for MSIE. If you look around, you will find that most websites conform to HTML 3.0/4.0 not to specific extentions that any browser may implement. And just because a sight says "Best viewed in MSIE" doesn't mean that it will not correctly render on any standards based browser, with the expection of certain MS websites and their affiliates out there that work with Microsoft to require MSIE.

Here is a good example for you... Load up Netscape 4.x and goto hotmail.com, they'll give you all kinds of warnings, but hotmail works just fine, thank you. 🙂

 


<< Websites are designed on the Internet Explorer platform and then modified and reworked to support the lesser used browsers. If you do not believe this supposition then you are going to have to provide some sort of credible evidence to refute this.
 >>



Hey N11, just wondering if that is the "official" stance of network eleven?

What is Network Eleven running?

The site www.networkeleven.com is running Apache/1.3.23 (Unix) mod_bwlimited/1.0 PHP/4.1.2 mod_log_bytes/0.3 FrontPage/ 5.0.2.2510 mod_ssl/2.8.7 OpenSSL/0.9.6b on Linux

So, you say that you run Linux, to design websites for MSIE? (Not saying it can be done, just a question)

🙂
 


<<

<< Websites are designed on the Internet Explorer platform and then modified and reworked to support the lesser used browsers. If you do not believe this supposition then you are going to have to provide some sort of credible evidence to refute this.
 >>



Hey N11, just wondering if that is the "official" stance of network eleven?

What is Network Eleven running?

The site www.networkeleven.com is running Apache/1.3.23 (Unix) mod_bwlimited/1.0 PHP/4.1.2 mod_log_bytes/0.3 FrontPage/ 5.0.2.2510 mod_ssl/2.8.7 OpenSSL/0.9.6b on Linux

So, you say that you run Linux, to design websites for MSIE? (Not saying it can be done, just a question) >>


what is your point? serving webpages and surfing the web are two entirely different tasks. so what if they use linux for their web server?
 


<<

<<

<< Websites are designed on the Internet Explorer platform and then modified and reworked to support the lesser used browsers. If you do not believe this supposition then you are going to have to provide some sort of credible evidence to refute this.
 >>



Hey N11, just wondering if that is the "official" stance of network eleven?

What is Network Eleven running?

The site www.networkeleven.com is running Apache/1.3.23 (Unix) mod_bwlimited/1.0 PHP/4.1.2 mod_log_bytes/0.3 FrontPage/ 5.0.2.2510 mod_ssl/2.8.7 OpenSSL/0.9.6b on Linux

So, you say that you run Linux, to design websites for MSIE? (Not saying it can be done, just a question) >>


what is your point? serving webpages and surfing the web are two entirely different tasks. so what if they use linux for their web server? >>




No point.. just curious. I know that you _can_ run FrontPage with Apache... but I won't even go there 🙂 🙂 🙂

Didn't mean any harm, was just a question (which is why it was seperate from my previous post)
 


<<

<< Websites are designed on the Internet Explorer platform and then modified and reworked to support the lesser used browsers. If you do not believe this supposition then you are going to have to provide some sort of credible evidence to refute this.
 >>



Hey N11, just wondering if that is the "official" stance of network eleven?

What is Network Eleven running?

The site www.networkeleven.com is running Apache/1.3.23 (Unix) mod_bwlimited/1.0 PHP/4.1.2 mod_log_bytes/0.3 FrontPage/ 5.0.2.2510 mod_ssl/2.8.7 OpenSSL/0.9.6b on Linux

So, you say that you run Linux, to design websites for MSIE? (Not saying it can be done, just a question)

🙂 >>



To directly answer your question, we do not house a single website on anything but linux servers.

We demand reliability and security, because anything less would be uncivilized.
 


<<

<<

<< Websites are designed on the Internet Explorer platform and then modified and reworked to support the lesser used browsers. If you do not believe this supposition then you are going to have to provide some sort of credible evidence to refute this.
 >>



Hey N11, just wondering if that is the "official" stance of network eleven?

What is Network Eleven running?

The site www.networkeleven.com is running Apache/1.3.23 (Unix) mod_bwlimited/1.0 PHP/4.1.2 mod_log_bytes/0.3 FrontPage/ 5.0.2.2510 mod_ssl/2.8.7 OpenSSL/0.9.6b on Linux

So, you say that you run Linux, to design websites for MSIE? (Not saying it can be done, just a question)

🙂 >>



To directly answer your question, we do not house a single website on anything but linux servers.

We demand reliability and security, because anything less would be uncivilized. >>



I know that this is even more OT, but how much have they fixed the security issues with the Front Page extensions?? Just wondering, used to own a small ISP, and back then ~95-98 Front Page extensions sucked big time security wise.

Thanks 🙂
 


<<

<<

<<

<< Websites are designed on the Internet Explorer platform and then modified and reworked to support the lesser used browsers. If you do not believe this supposition then you are going to have to provide some sort of credible evidence to refute this.
 >>



Hey N11, just wondering if that is the "official" stance of network eleven?

What is Network Eleven running?

The site www.networkeleven.com is running Apache/1.3.23 (Unix) mod_bwlimited/1.0 PHP/4.1.2 mod_log_bytes/0.3 FrontPage/ 5.0.2.2510 mod_ssl/2.8.7 OpenSSL/0.9.6b on Linux

So, you say that you run Linux, to design websites for MSIE? (Not saying it can be done, just a question)

🙂 >>



To directly answer your question, we do not house a single website on anything but linux servers.

We demand reliability and security, because anything less would be uncivilized. >>



I know that this is even more OT, but how much have they fixed the security issues with the Front Page extensions?? Just wondering, used to own a small ISP, and back then ~95-98 Front Page extensions sucked big time security wise.

Thanks 🙂 >>



I'll private message a reply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top