On 1/3/2021 10:27 AM, poindexter FORTRAN wrote:
While IBM charged an arm and a leg for their SDKs, Microsoft would find a way to get them to people for a fraction of the cost or give them away. They knew better than IBM that developer momentum was key.
Developers... developers... developers...
Re: Re: what killed os/2
By: Tracker1 to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Jan 04 2021 03:34 pm
On 1/3/2021 10:27 AM, poindexter FORTRAN wrote:
While IBM charged an arm and a leg for their SDKs, Microsoft would
find a way to get them to people for a fraction of the cost or give
them away. They knew better than IBM that developer momentum was
key.
Developers... developers... developers...
He was so sweaty. Did no one have the gumption to tell him to chill out?
HusTler wrote to Nightfox <=-
That reminds me of how Microsoft tried to claim Internet Explorer was integr to the OS (Windows) during their anti-trust lawsuit in the late 90s..
I thought it was? Isn't that why it loaded so fast?
Re: Re: what killed os/2
By: Moondog to Nightfox on Wed Jan 06 2021 02:43 pm
That reminds me of how Microsoft tried to claim Internet Explorer was
integr
Nightfox
If it shipped with 95 in the first place, I would've believed them.
my windows 95 had it. i didnt have internet at the house.
it's possible i got it from some update on a cd. cant remember
If it shipped with 95 in the first place, I would've believed
them.
my windows 95 had it. i didnt have internet at the house.
it's possible i got it from some update on a cd. cant remember
My copy didn't have it
well i did a search online. britannica says july 1995 is when ie 1.0 was released as an addon to win 95.
then wikipedia sez win85 was released august 1995
now we should all know you can't trust what you read online. people post untruths and it gets spread around and it becames untruths.
i'm sure it's possible some people got win95 sans ie and some with.
i had the floppy version which was a weird version.
I remember Windows 95 coming out in August 1995. So I'm skeptical of that July 1995 date for IE 1.0 if it was an add-on for Windows 95. I remember there being a Plus Pack or something for Windows 95 that was released later (after Win95 was released) that may have included IE 1.0.
I used Windows 95 (floppy disk upgrade edition) when it was released and don't remember it including IE.
I used Windows 95 (floppy disk upgrade edition) when it was released
and
don't remember it including IE.
okay did you look at wikipedia and see that? because that's what it says pretty much. remember, the internet is not always right and anybody can edit wikipedia.
there's a lot of misinformation on the internet.
Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
No, I'm talking about my own personal experience. I was saying I had
an actual copy of Windows 95 that I used when it came out and saw
myself, and I don't remember it including Internet Explorer. I
remember there being a Windows 95 expansion that came out later
(Microsoft Plus, I think), which I think included Internet Explorer for Windows 95.
I remember Windows 95 coming out in August 1995. So I'm skeptical of that July 1995 date for IE 1.0 if it was an add-on for Windows 95. I remember there being a Plus Pack or something for Windows 95 that was released later (after Win95 was released) that may have included IE 1.0.Yep you right to be skeptical. 1995 it was still Mosiac. MS had just bought Mosaic. The Plus pack came out after 1995 release. I can't swear it didn't come out somewhere at the end of 95 or the beginning of 96. Too many years ago. But IE 1.0 was identical to Mosiac in 95 it just had extra crap in the about and I think they redid the loading animation when fetching a page. Netscape client and servers were a big thing at the time.
Nope. So Internet Exploder is made up of different elements. Many elements are part of the OS. Just like your program can say "pop a dialog to ask
the user for a file name" without having to define exactly what that dialog box looks like.
So, Microsoft (disingenuously) claimed that the browser was part of the OS. It was actually the other way around: IE used parts of the OS to do things. Obviously, you can't remove the "ask the user for a file name" dialog from the OS because that would break all the software that needs it.
Anyone who's developed Windows applications knows that Microsoft lied on
the stand about this.
Tracker1 wrote to Dr. What <=-
The fact that Outlook/Outlook express enabled the JS engine in "local/full" trust mode by default was a huge issue. Several
registered active-x components that allowed full disk access was
another. It was largely a shit-show. All of that said, I don't fault them for including the render engine in/with the OS. But I do find
them responsible for so many other stupid things surrounding it.
| Sysop: | deepend |
|---|---|
| Location: | Calgary, Alberta |
| Users: | 260 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 76:41:43 |
| Calls: | 1,834 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 4,202 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (6,142K bytes) |
| Messages: | 396,506 |