4 ms·
> Which is hilarious, because where else is your core HTTP fetching DLL, your core HTML parsing DLL, etc, going to go otherwise? Microsoft insisted that the O
by josefx 4y ago
> Which is hilarious, because where else is your core HTTP fetching DLL, your core HTML parsing DLL, etc, going to go otherwise?
Microsoft insisted that the OS needed the internet explorer executable, not only the rendering engine components. You couldn't even run windows update without it opening IE - in order to load a native ActiveX component that then performed the work. They where desperate to make everything depend on IE without a plan of how to make good use of it, which shouldn't be surprising, back then any complex use of IE would have blue screened the entire system.
> vindicating Microsoft's technical decision.
Imagine a ChromeOS based on IE5 and tell me why I shouldn't break down in hysterical laughter just thinking about it.
- dekhn 4y agoIt makes perfect sense to me that if MSFT made IE a necessary component to upgrade the operating system, then insisting the OS needs that executable is an absolutely (technically) correct thing to say. I said it vindicating their decision- not that IE was a good foundation to build a presentation layer on.
- josefx 4y ago> if MSFT made IE a necessary component to upgrade the operating system, > then insisting the OS Arguing that a change that had no technical merit made IE necessary, when you are under scrunity for abusing your market position to push IE, seems kinda counterproductive. > I said it vindicating their decision- not that IE was a good foundation to build a presentation layer on. Then how does chrome OS vindicate them? You obviously agree that IE was not fit for that purpose.