|
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 ????
|
|
|
|
|
notepad is os part too (i know well not so integrated) but i like to replace it by something more usable and surely not buy new os after something new in file format will appear
t!
|
|
|
|
|
Well one simple answer to that is choice.
IE is undoubtedly a very good browser, but I use Mozilla Firebird because it gives me something that IE doesn't, something that greatly enhances my browsing experience : Tabbed windows.
It's also slightly faster to load, even though IE uses tricks to try to speed itself up, and it's skinnable, extendable and it seems to me to render pages slightly faster.
|
|
|
|
|
In case of tabbed windows you can use Avanta or NetCaptor.
It is an IEs, but with improved user interface. Skinnable and all other
stuff ... Or even here you can find some IE-based browsers with extended
user interface.
|
|
|
|
|
OK Anton, there are solutions that I have never heard of, that use IE to do some of the features that I want. There are plenty of other features in other browsers that IE doesn't implement, too many to list.
I won't be drawn into a silly tit-for-tat discussion of individual features, point is IE itself is not the nirvana of browsers in the same way that notepad is not the best editor by far (another tool that I never use). I also don't use the windows calculator as I prefer the features of the one in my desk drawer, I don't use the windows clock as I use the one on my wall, and I don't use the MS-DOS based command prompt as I prefer to use Cygwin.
I have no problem with MS distributing a vanilla browser with the OS, but there is no other tool that they push you towards so much, with the explicit intention of destroying the competition. I would probably be happier if I thought IE was standards compliant, but as we all know Microsoft like to run rough-shod over standards and websites that use non-standard IE features are shutting the door on something like 40% of users.
|
|
|
|
|
AntonS wrote:
In the same time Internet became part of our routinely life - so why it could not be part of OS ????
I noticed you said the Internet became part of our routinely life, not Internet Explorer became part of of your routinely life.
Deep integration into the OS is bad because IE is not an Operating System. IE is a program that runs within an operating system
Matt Newman
|
|
|
|
|
I think the TechNet Chat discussion illustrates the problem of basing your app on the IE component. Your app can cease to function if Microsoft decide to change the behaviour in the next version of Windows and you have no control over that. That's seems to have happened... Windows 2003 has different security settings. There is a solution to this... if you just need HTML rendering use Mozilla, you can distribute your application as you wish, with no dependancy on anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
Problem is that mshtml.dll is very buggy. A lot of tags combination
crashes/hung it. At least in IE they put try-catch blocks, but in Outlook Express forgot  ( And millions exploits arise .......
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
