|
You have no idea where IE is heading, so how can anyone say what they're doing is wrong?
I can imagine that it's going to have better support for .Net components and .Net language client-side scripting (C# on the client), and security supported (or at least tightly integrated with) .Net.
DHTML is obviously a complimentary interface to Windows Forms, and IE is obviously the primary host for DHTML. Make the host transparently support WinForms & DHTML and you have a user interface sub-system that is perfectly suited to being a fundamental component of the operating system, just like the windows sub-system is today.
I really don't see why people think that integrating the browser is such a foreign idea. It makes perfect sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
jmw wrote:
You have no idea where IE is heading
No comment 
jmw wrote:
I really don't see why people think that integrating the browser is such a foreign idea
Like I said, read the posts. They are saying what they think... now you must listen to them 
|
|
|
|
|
You present such a convincing argument. You should be a lawyer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice one lol 
|
|
|
|
|
how Netscape and Opera can improve themselves without changing the underlying OS?
Where's the justice dept. when you need them? 
Jason Henderson My articles
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I can't believe that parsing of HTML and visualizing it requires
any real dependencies onto OS.
BTW Opera is very good example when browser can be very "tasty" without
access to source code of underlying OS
And don't appeal to justice department 'cause in IE vs. Netscape war, IE
won not because "access to underlying OS", but because that from
version 4.0 it was definitely better than Netscape in all positions.
Of course with preinstalling of IE Microsoft overtake a lot of users who
too lazy to install something else (e.g: Opera) when they already has
web-browser.
|
|
|
|
|
imho (apart from being pretty much cross-platform and os-independent) opera already improved to a level IE won't reach for a long time 
|
|
|
|
|
"Further improvements to IE will require enhancements to the underlying OS." Yeah right.
First he denies that there aren't any plans for improving IE beyond the current released version (IE6SP1). Second he claims that enhancements to IE will require OS changes. This is a roundabout way of telling the interviewer "I ain't telling you what we've got planned."
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you. Clearly programmers are not fooled. However, you can see how non-programmers see the 'logic' of 'integration'.
|
|
|
|
|
This means that applications, web sites, etc. can't really take advantage of any new IE features that might come up. With IE as a stand-alone version, it was not impossible to require a certain version of IE be on a system for the application to run. If it wasn't, it could always be downloaded and installed. But this will no longer be the case. So for all practical purposes, IE will be frozen at version 6 for a long, long time.
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Navin wrote:
IE will be frozen at version 6 for a long, long time
Exactly. I agree with you totally on this point. It is not often you can predict what will happen in the world of computing, but this is one of those rare times that you can
|
|
|
|
|
Navin wrote:
IE will be frozen at version 6 for a long, long time
hey, hey, hey ... Internet Explorer it is not one solid exe file ))
A lot of very interesting and useful components ships with it.
For example personally for me IE - it is quite enough as browser.
But I want to have new versions of Urlmon.dll, mshtml.dll and a lot
of other updates which IE usually brings.
So if Microsoft will not stop making updates for IE and will include
them at least into ServicePacks it will be OK.
I don't need new features of IE - I want just support in case of war
against the bugs.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the long post--
The definition on dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=operating%20system[^]
while not necessarily either accurate, complete, or good, is at least a starting point:
<operating system=""> (OS) The low-level software which handles
the interface to peripheral hardware, schedules tasks,
allocates storage, and presents a default interface to the
user when no application program is running.
Key phrases here are "low level", "interface to hardware", "a default interface when no application program is running".
The OS may be split into a kernel which is always present
and various system programs which use facilities provided by
the kernel to perform higher-level house-keeping tasks, often
acting as servers in a client-server relationship.
"kernel", "system programs" and "house keeping"
Some would include a graphical user interface and window
system as part of the OS, others would not. The operating
system loader, BIOS, or other firmware required at boot
time or when installing the operating system would generally
not be considered part of the operating system, though this
distinction is unclear in the case of a rommable operating
system such as RISC OS.
"...others would not" I fall into the this camp. Why is the UI/windowing system part of the OS? Performance? Security? Intimate coupling with the hardware layer?
The facilities an operating system provides and its general
design philosophy exert an extremely strong influence on
programming style and on the technical cultures that grow up
around the machines on which it runs.
Now there's the rub. What facilities does the OS provide that exert an influence over the design of the browser? Multi-threading and security are obvious choices (I think!), but what else? I like this last paragraph because it recognizes the holistic nature of the OS and application elements.
If you consider UI/windowing to be integral with the OS, and you want to implement your UI so that the features of a browser are seemlessly integrated with the UI (are we all going to be programming UI's using some common HTML-like derivative in the future? Is that where we're all heading?) then it seems to me that the "browser" would be integrated with the OS.
But I personally think that the core OS should have nothing to do with the UI. You should be able to attach to the OS whatever UI you want, constrained only by the services provided by the OS. Of course, this is the antithesis of trying to monopolize a market, even if it's the right solution from an engineering point of view.
Another consideration is the difference in hardware platforms. I think we'll see a continuing growth in hand-held devices, and hopefully growth in smart appliances (like refrigerators, ovens, toasters, houses, cars, etc.) What a PITA if each of these has a different OS and we're a company trying to write some system-wide intrahome (note first possible use of that term!) management software. I mean really different OS's, not just pared down from a common OS. Each of those devices/appliances pretty much demands a UI tailored to the functionality of the specific device. If you buy into the argument that the OS influences the programming style/technology, then the way each device interacts with us will be different. Subtely different, and therefore the more aggravating in its differences.
So you have two opposing forces--the OS influences the UI via the programming style/technology, and the use-model influences the UI. I don't see a need for my oven to have browser capability. What, you think my oven needs an RSS feed for recipes or my garbage can needs a BLOG for the latest in recycling? (Maybe you do).
Because these two opposing forces exist, the UI needs to be decoupled from the OS, and the browser should be built as a separate entity.
Marc
Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka
Microsoft deliberately adds arbitrary layers of complexity to make it difficult to deliver Windows features on non-Windows platforms--Microsoft's "Halloween files"
|
|
|
|
|
I could not agree more with the points you make!
Marc Clifton wrote:
the core OS should have nothing to do with the UI
Although what you say is obvious and is in the dictionary, many people simply do not understand modularity.
As an example, think of an everyday office. If you said to the database guy 'please replace the Access database with MySQL', he would reply 'I cannot find the ui designer'. Madness But this is the way people think unless they have some sort of formal training or have a lot of experience.
|
|
|
|
|
The hooks should be exposed so that different browsing components can be plugged in. An operating system shouldn't be a monolithic application, but a series of components that can be replaced by any developer.
It's a dream, I know but one day somebody will build an OS like this.
Michael
'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
I know but one day somebody will build an OS like this
Unix? Linux?
Alas, I fear the herd mentality precludes this event from ever transpiring.
Marc
Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka
Microsoft deliberately adds arbitrary layers of complexity to make it difficult to deliver Windows features on non-Windows platforms--Microsoft's "Halloween files"
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking more along the lines of an Object oriented OS. Unix and Linux don't really have that.
Michael
'War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.' - General William Sherman, 1879
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of an Object oriented OS. Unix and Linux don't really have that.
In the programming sense of "object oriented", you're right. But in a componentized sense - well, Unix and Linux *do* have that. Most pieces of the OS are fairly independent, and can be changed, modified, started and restopped without having to reboot the whole system, etc.
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
What about HAL, PNP, UPNP
I remember in the olg good days that windows was famous in favor to its quasi unlimited number of recognized hardware. still right and more and more forgotten. ingratitude.
the problem is not only to activate and reboot is also to install and recognize. and i don't thing a lot of user like to compile the kernel
http://msntv.com
|
|
|
|
|
Navin wrote:
Most pieces of the OS are fairly independent, and can be changed, modified, started and restopped without having to reboot the whole system, etc.
Oh I wouldn't say that...most software packages for Linux say something like: "Requires XLib 1.5.2252.8956, MySQL 0.9.4452.6799, KDE 1.8.4092.6742, etc.." Yes, it's an exaggeration...but you get my point.
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer.
People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage...
-Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard rumours that the next os(longhorn) is highly componentized, but I think its from the OEM perspective rather than developer perspective.
I think this is already done for Win CE.
Kannan
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
The hooks should be exposed so that different browsing components can be plugged in. An operating system shouldn't be a monolithic application, but a series of components that can be replaced by any developer.
It's a dream, I know but one day somebody will build an OS like this.
They are building it[^]
Kant wrote:
Actually she replied back to me "You shouldn't fix the bug. You should kill it"
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
but a series of components that can be replaced by any developer.
Rumor has it Longhorn is going to be way more componentized than anything so far.
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer.
People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage...
-Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
It's a dream, I know but one day somebody will build an OS like this.
M$ back in '94 mentioned Cairo, "A true OO O/S" - it never happened with stuck with a mish-mash of NT/2000 and XP with a sub standard gui slapped on top, bits of DLL's, bits of COM and now version(s) of .net - what more could you ask for? 
To iterate is human, to recurse is devine.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what was exact the reason to make such deep integration between
IE and OS, but since they did it - it was some of them.
In the same time Internet became part of our routinely life - so why it could not be part of OS ????
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
