.... long story short. He told vendors that anyone that
offered OS/2 as a optional install on their computers, he
would make them pay more per OEM license. Most of the
major computer companies caved. That's what killed OS/2.
OS/2 was a superior OS at the time (that Gates was the
one that made it FOR IBM). OS/2 Warp 2.0 and Windows NT
3.0 were pretty much the same...
anyways, os2 was good for a minute. but it had driver issues
and they sucked at marketting. -+-
anyways, os2 was good for a minute. but it had driver issues
and they sucked at marketting. -+-
The Warp advertising campagain was pretty good.
3.0 were pretty much the same...
anyways, os2 was good for a minute. but it had driver issues
and they sucked at marketting. -+-
The Warp advertising campagain was pretty good.
now windows had a pretty good advertising campaign. their windows 95 cd was like a time capsule. windows was being sold out like the hottest game. i dont think that ever happened with os2. i reserved a copy and electronics boutique said to get there in 2 hrs or they were selling my copy.
now windows had a pretty good advertising campaign. their windows 95I think Windows 95 was the only version of Windows that people lined up to buy. It was hyped up a lot, since it was a fairly significant change from Windows 3.1. I think its UI was much improved over Windows 3.1, but
cd was like a time capsule. windows was being sold out like the
On 11-26-20 10:38, Nightfox wrote to Ogg <=-
these days, I don't think people even care about the OS nearly as much
as people used to.
The Warp advertising campagain was pretty good.
Re: what killed os/2
By: Ogg to All on Thu Nov 26 2020 09:00 am
anyways, os2 was good for a minute. but it had driver issues
and they sucked at marketting. -+-
The Warp advertising campagain was pretty good.
I remember seeing OS/2 ads for a short time. I remember them being good, bu M PCs, etc.. There are a lot of people who would just use whatever is insta nk people even care about the OS nearly as much as people used to.
Nightfox
Moondog wrote to Nightfox <=-
The only time I saw OS/2 pitched, it was with IBM hardware.
Actually, In my opinion, The os/2 WARP advertising campaign was pretty good, They were just awful at choosing WHERE and WHEN to use it....
The Hitman wrote to Ogg <=-
Actually, In my opinion, The os/2 WARP advertising campaign was pretty good, They were just awful at choosing WHERE and WHEN to use it....
But by then, OS/2 had a bad rep (too expensive, needed too much resources, etc.)
and Windows had already taken over
with Win 3.1. People already had a big investment in their Windows software and since it wasn't compatible with OS/2,
would have to repurchase it (if it was even available for OS/2).
Then Win 95 came out that fixed many of the issues that people had with Win 3.1 - and maintained compatibility with
many of the Win 3.1 programs.
It was like IBM didn't learn anything from the previous 10 years in the PC business. Incompatible but "better" is not
necessairly perceived as "better".
It was like IBM didn't learn anything from the previous 10 years in the PC >> business. Incompatible but "better" is not
necessairly perceived as "better".
It was compatible and even better -- but they really sucked at advertising and pricing.
For a small timeframe they really had the lead -- as Win95 was late, IBM had a full-fledged 32 bit OS ready and could ship it.
But they lost as many people waited for the inferior Win95 instead of switching to OS/2, as they believed that they couldn't continue to use their software, which wasn't true.
acn wrote to Dr. What <=-
One of the biggest problems was indeed the need for more memory.
Here in Germany some PC dealers shipped their PCs with OS/2 as the
default OS and shipped the computers with 4MB of RAM - which was too little to really have fun with them...
So this contributed to the reputation.
That's not really true. OS/2 Warp 3 and Warp 4 shipped with Win-OS/2,
so you had a "Windows 3.1 VM" inside of OS/2 and there you could run
all your Win 3.1 applications seamlessly.
You had the option to start Win-OS/2 fullscreen or as a window -- the latter offered you the possibility to run Win3.1, OS/2 and DOS applications side by side on the same desktop.
That's because OS/2 was a real 32 bit OS with memory protection and preemptive multitasking.
It was compatible and even better -- but they really sucked at
advertising and pricing.
For a small timeframe they really had the lead -- as Win95 was late,
IBM had a full-fledged 32 bit OS ready and could ship it.
But they lost as many people waited for the inferior Win95 instead of switching to OS/2, as they believed that they couldn't continue to use their software, which wasn't true.
acn wrote to Dr. What <=-
You had the option to start Win-OS/2 fullscreen or as a window -- the latter offered you the possibility to run Win3.1, OS/2 and DOS applications side by side on the same desktop.
Then Win 95 came out that fixed many of the issues that people had with Win 3.1 - and maintained compatibility with
many of the Win 3.1 programs.
It was like IBM didn't learn anything from the previous 10 years in the PC business. Incompatible but "better" is not
necessairly perceived as "better".
That's not really true. OS/2 Warp 3 and Warp 4 shipped with Win-OS/2, so you had a "Windows 3.1 VM" inside of OS/2 and there you could run all your Win 3.1 applications seamlessly.
You had the option to start Win-OS/2 fullscreen or as a window -- the latter offered you the possibility to run Win3.1, OS/2 and DOS applications side by side on the same desktop.
And the best thing was: You could even run several Win-OS/2 sessions which did not interfere with each other, so if one Windows session crashed, the other Windows session would still run.
OS and shipped the computers with 4MB of RAM - which was too little to really have fun with them...
For a small timeframe they really had the lead -- as Win95 was late, IBM had a full-fledged 32 bit OS ready and could ship it.
But they lost as many people waited for the inferior Win95 instead of switching to OS/2, as they believed that they couldn't continue to use their software, which wasn't true.
Perhaps, they should have come up with an introductory pricepoint
that the met Win3.1 or go lower - long enough to capture the
win3.1 to w95 holdouts.
I remember when OS/2 first came out. No software. It had the DOS "penalty box" for running DOS programs.
Actually, In my opinion, The os/2 WARP advertising campaign was pretty good, They were just awful at choosing WHERE and WHEN to use it....
On 12-28-20 16:18, poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Dr. What <=-
I wouldn't have characterised the DOS support as a "pentalty box", as I mentioned earlier you could create custom VDMs if you wanted, and I
recall running apps pretty well in it. I ran Maximus for DOS in a DOS window until I was ready to move from Frontdoor to BinkleyTerm/2, then moved to the OS/2 native Max.
Vk3jed wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
IIRC, OS/2 1.x was only 16 bit and couldn't multitask DOS applications.
Making it 286 compatible limited what it could do. When OS/2 went 32 bit, that's when it became the awesome OS that many sysops remember fondly.
True. When I was running OS/2 1.3 Windows was still on 3.0, I
believe. We were an all-IBM shop at the time. While it wasn't a
"better DOS than DOS, a better Windows than Windiws" yet, it could certainly multitask its own. I remember connecting to a MS Lan
Manager network to do file shares, connecting over thicknet to an
AS/400, dialing up my BBS over a modem and using Microsoft office
apps and thinking the multitasking was impressive. On a 386 with 8 mb
of RAM and a 70MB disk.
In the 90s, I was curious about alternative operating systems, and I had dual-booted Windows 9x and OS/2 for a bit. I liked OS/2. I had also heard about GeoWorks Ensemble (AKA GEOS), and it seemed like an interesting GUI environment and alternative to Windows.
On 12-29-20 07:15, poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Vk3jed <=-
True. When I was running OS/2 1.3 Windows was still on 3.0, I
believe. We were an all-IBM shop at the time. While it wasn't a
"better DOS than DOS, a better Windows than Windiws" yet, it could
certainly multitask its own. I remember connecting to a MS Lan
Manager network to do file shares, connecting over thicknet to an
AS/400, dialing up my BBS over a modem and using Microsoft office
apps and thinking the multitasking was impressive. On a 386 with 8 mb
of RAM and a 70MB disk.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Dr. What <=-
I wouldn't have characterised the DOS support as a "pentalty box", as I mentioned earlier you could create custom VDMs if you wanted, and I
recall running apps pretty well in it. I ran Maximus for DOS in a DOS window until I was ready to move from Frontdoor to BinkleyTerm/2, then moved to the OS/2 native Max.
MRO wrote to acn <=-
did you ever use os2?
True. When I was running OS/2 1.3 Windows was still on 3.0, I
believe. We were an all-IBM shop at the time. While it wasn't a
"better DOS than DOS, a better Windows than Windiws" yet, it could
certainly multitask its own. I remember connecting to a MS Lan
Manager network to do file shares, connecting over thicknet to an
AS/400, dialing up my BBS over a modem and using Microsoft office
apps and thinking the multitasking was impressive. On a 386 with 8 mb
of RAM and a 70MB disk.
promoting OS/2. As IBM corrected these issues, and the 386 gained traction (which didn't have the 286's issues), OS/2 did become better - but few people knew or cared.
I remember when OS/2 first came out. No software. It had the DOS "penalty box" for running DOS programs.
So when the salesman tried to sell you OS/2, you needed a bigger hard drive, more RAM, faster CPU - do to the same thing that you could do with DOS
with a far cheaper machine.
MRO wrote to acn <=-
did you ever use os2?
I think many of us never really used OS/2. We were exposed to it, but
On 12-30-20 21:39, Digital Man wrote to Dr. What <=-
But you could run multiple DOS programs concurrently. And much more reliably than you could with DESQview. That's one reason why it was popular with sysops of the time. --
Perhaps, they should have come up with an introductory
pricepoint that the met Win3.1 or go lower - long enough to
capture the win3.1 to w95 holdouts.
They had a problem because Microsoft already had bundling deals
for DOS in place. I'm pretty sure they exerted the same
pressure on VARs to bundle Windows with all systems - meaning
that customers already paid for a Windows license whether they
needed to or not.
And the best thing was: You could even run several Win-OS/2 sessions which
did not interfere with each other, so if one Windows session crashed, the
other Windows session would still run.
I've heard people say the Windows 3.1 compatibility in OS/2 actually
helped contribute to OS/2's demise, because developers figured they
could just write their software for Windows 3.1 and it would run in
both Windows and OS/2. They avoided writing native OS/2 apps because
they didn't want to spend time developing an application for a
potentially small user base.
IBM's plan to get software developers on board was, frankly, stupid.
Making them pay $$$ for just the development system for an OS that
had no market share did not get people to develop for it.
You had the option to start Win-OS/2 fullscreen or as a window -- the latter offered you the possibility to run Win3.1, OS/2 and DOS applications side by side on the same desktop.
But that had the same issue as before: you needed to get a bigger
machine that effectively did the same thing. There was little demand
to run multiple apps on Windows at that time.
did you ever use os2?
It is easy to say "potentially small user base" when anything new is announced. Even IBM got it wrong when they didn't think there as a market for personal computers - that is of course until the likes of Apple, and other startups produced computers specifically for the market that IBM said was "potentially small".
The cool factor and versatility of Win-OS/2 was simply not reaching the eyes and ears of the market. Part of the problem was probably because IBM was still thinking "corporate" market where they thought that Wordperfect, some spreadsheet programs, and existing CAD software was all that anyone would ever want and need for a computer.
Personally, I never really needed any games for my computer use (the suite of bbs programs, usenet, Lotus 1-2-3, and Compuserve, was all I really needed) ..but Myst intrigued me. OS/2 had no trouble with the earlier episodes of that game at all.
On 12-31-20 19:02, acn wrote to MRO <=-
@VIA: VERT/IMZADI
Hi,
did you ever use os2?
Yes, I've used OS/2 in the 90s.
I've first seen it (Warp 3) on the PC of a BBS sysop and was impressed
by the multitasking capabilities and decided to try it for myself.
So I've installed it on my 486 DX/2-66 and learned how to use it.
Thanks to Win-OS/2, I could use some programs from my Windows time like CorelDRAW! or Paint Shop Pro (the last 16 bit version).
I also was able to use CrossPoint (a DOS application) for FidoNet communications, and thanks to OS/2, I could use it with (at that
time...) high speed communication via modem while still being able to
do something else, a thing that wasn't possible on Windows for a long time.
So yes, I've used OS/2. Not as a developer. Not as a "high profile"
user or for "business", as I went to school in the 90s, but I've used
it and loved it.
MRO wrote to Dr. What <=-
i had a 386 and i put os2 on it and it really was a lot faster than windows 3.11. it was almost comparable to my 486sx with more memory
than most people had.
they marketed badly and pulled out.
Digital Man wrote to Dr. What <=-
But you could run multiple DOS programs concurrently. And much more reliably than you could with DESQview. That's one reason why it was popular with sysops of the time.
Ogg wrote to Dr. What <=-
I remember that too. I was an OS/2 2.x beta tester. With that came
the offer to acquire a developer's kit. The price tag was ridiculous
for just the curious programmer.
If IBM had:
1. Marketed OS/2 realistically at the start.
2. Created a plan to get software development tools into the hands of developers at no/low cost (IBM initially charged a huge price to get those tools).
I think OS/2 would have been better received. Maybe it would have pushed Microsoft to make Win95/Win2000 earlier.
But you could run multiple DOS programs concurrently. And much more
reliably than you could with DESQview. That's one reason why it was
popular with sysops of the time.
But you don't make money selling a product to a niche market. You want everyone to use it.
And IBM did everything they could to make sure that didn't happen.
I remember that too. I was an OS/2 2.x beta tester. With that came
the offer to acquire a developer's kit. The price tag was
ridiculous for just the curious programmer.
That's what I remember seeing. All IBM needed to do was sell the developer kit at a much lower cost, or better yet,
offer an agreement to a developer: We'll give you the developer kit for free, if you create and sell an OS/2 app in 6 months.
Make it easy, and make the software development kit cheap or
free. The more people who could start using it easily, the
more chances people will develop software for it.
Why couldn't the highly paid executives see the logic to make the
kit cheap or free? It's as if IBM lacked individuals with true
vision.
What kind of developer's kit and pricing model did MS have? Based
on some of the very basic GUI-based apps for early Windows at the
time, many seemed to be built by 8 year olds.
Dream Master wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
My favorite computer I owned was an IBM PS/2 Model 30 which was a
80286. It was rock solid and ran like a champ. I ran my BBS on it for some time until I started moving over to home builds and flipped to
386s and 486s.
Ogg wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
But from my experience, I learned that OS/2 lacked drivers for
many printers. Only a handful of printer makes and models were
supported during the early years.
Nightfox wrote to Dr. What <=-
their own GUI OS. I heard Microsoft was able to keep a copy of the
OS/2 source code at the time, which Microsoft eventually turned into Windows NT. I heard that due to that, Windows NT 3.1 was able to read HPFS-formatted partitions from OS/2.
In the late 90s and early 2000s, I remember the full-fledged Microsoft Visual Studio for Windows costing a good chunk of money[...]
Windows had an OS/2 subsystem for some time. Windows XP could run OS/2 console apps out of the box from a command prompt. I ran an offline reader
At the IBM shop I worked at (my first job out of college!) my first
work computer was a PS/2 model 80 - 386DX25, 8 MB of RAM, 70 MB ESDI
disk, VGA graphics, and a 15 inch monitor. I loved that system.
I still have the keyboard.
Nightfox wrote to Dr. What <=-
I think the history of OS/2 and the relationship between IBM and
Microsoft was interesting. Initially, Microsoft and IBM worked
together on OS/2 (and I believe early versions of OS/2 were labeled "Microsoft OS/2"). I saw a short video clip of Bill Gates at Comdex in the late 80s where he said something like "We believe OS/2 is the
platform for the 90s." Then (I think after the release of OS/2 1.3), Microsoft and IBM had some disagreements, and Microsoft split to make their own GUI OS. I heard Microsoft was able to keep a copy of the
OS/2 source code at the time, which Microsoft eventually turned into Windows NT. I heard that due to that, Windows NT 3.1 was able to read HPFS-formatted partitions from OS/2.
Nightfox wrote to Dr. What <=-
I'm sure IBM didn't do that on purpose. It seems to me there was a failure on the part of IBM to market OS/2 well and foresee the best
things to do to make it popular.
acn wrote to Nightfox <=-
On DOS and Windows, the MS tools have never been for free (except for GW-Basic and QBasic, but these only were interpreters, no compilers).
Only with Borland creating Turbo Pascal & Co., developing software for these platforms got cheaper.
So it is understandable (but nevertheless not wise!) for IBM to charge money for the SDK and the languages for OS/2.
Make it easy, and make the software development kit cheap or
free. The more people who could start using it easily, the
more chances people will develop software for it.
I was gung ho to give it a whirl and develop for it. By then, I
was already into 3 years of operating my own independent BBS (but
not a member of Fido yet) ..and the notion of building a bbs,
making changes, recompiling, etc.. was a lot of fun. The idea of
being part of the growth of OS/2 sounded exciting.
But the price for the kit seemed unreasonable, even for a well-
paid engineer like myself.
Why couldn't the highly paid executives see the logic to make the
kit cheap or free? It's as if IBM lacked individuals with true
vision.
What kind of developer's kit and pricing model did MS have? Based
on some of the very basic GUI-based apps for early Windows at the
time, many seemed to be built by 8 year olds.
I do remember the disagreement between Microsoft and IBM with OS/2, but since I wasn't really interested in OS/2
at the time, I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to it.
Theory: I think that the disagreement was in the way OS/2 would be sold. Microsoft's model was bundle it with
the PC at a low cost and control the market. IBM's model was sell it for lots of money and make people pay for support.
Bill was right. It took decades for IBM to come around to that idea.
Theory: I think that the disagreement was in the way OS/2 would be sold. Microsoft's model was bundle it with
the PC at a low cost and control the market. IBM's model was sell it for lots of money and make people pay for support.
Bill was right. It took decades for IBM to come around to that idea.
well microsoft was sneaky and ibm was controlling.
so i think MS pulled out and developed their shit and ibm finished os2
If I recall, IBM developed OS/2 as a direct competitior to Microsoft Windows NT. You're correct, IBM has always been about SWMA and the
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.
Re: Re: what killed os/2
By: Dr. What to Nightfox on Sun Jan 03 2021 08:00 am
I do remember the disagreement between Microsoft and IBM with OS/2, but since I wasn't really interested in OS/2
at the time, I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to it.
Theory: I think that the disagreement was in the way OS/2 would be sold Microsoft's model was bundle it with
the PC at a low cost and control the market. IBM's model was sell it fo lots of money and make people pay for support.
Bill was right. It took decades for IBM to come around to that idea.
well microsoft was sneaky and ibm was controlling.
so i think MS pulled out and developed their shit and ibm finished os2
(quoting both)
If I recall, IBM developed OS/2 as a direct competitior to Microsoft Windows ey didn't have the legacy shops where Big Blue already existed. As companie
they ever did.
(now I'm tired and going to sleep)
Dream Master
In some ways Apple was clever in selling a packaged system where the OS and cor e apps were considered integral to the hardware package
Moondog wrote to Dream Master <=-
Didn't IBM contract Microsoft to create OS/2, but this time fixed the contract so IBM would be the sole distributor of their OS?
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..
If I recall, IBM developed OS/2 as a direct competitior to Microsoft Windows NT. You're correct, IBM has always been about SWMA and the
OS/2 came before Windows NT. Microsoft was originally working with IBM on OS/2, then they parted ways. Microsoft took some of the OS/2 source code and developed it into Windows NT.
Re: Re: what killed os/2
By: Moondog to MRO on Tue Jan 05 2021 12:31 am
In some ways Apple was clever in selling a packaged system where the OS and cor e apps were considered integral to the hardware package
That reminds me of how Microsoft tried to claim Internet Explorer was integr
Nightfox
Moondog wrote to Dream Master <=-
Didn't IBM contract Microsoft to create OS/2, but this time fixed the contract so IBM would be the sole distributor of their OS?
Microsoft did the opposite with DOS; IBM paid Microsoft to develop DOS, and Microsoft got a clause in the contract to allow them to sell the product as MS-DOS. IBM had been keenly aware of anti-trust issues, and their attorneys allowed the clause. It would end up being a huge windfall for Microsoft and put them in a position to dominate the desktop space.
(Ironically, Microsoft licensed the guts of DOS from another company for a fixed cost instead of a per-unit licensing fee, got rights to the code and didn't tell them that they were licensing it to sell millions of units to IBM.)
OS/2 was developed jointly between Microsoft and IBM, and they had different philosophies. IBM wanted to tie OS/2 to IBM hardware to drive hardware sales, Microsoft wanted to support a variety of hardware - which made sense, as IBM had been in the business of selling hardware and Microsoft not.
Windows 3.0, designed to run on more third-party hardware, and thanks to Microsoft's marketing and DOS bundles with OEMs had a huge advantage over OS/2 on non-IBM hardware.
While OS/2 lives on as ArcaOS, and old OS/2 installations running on overlooked embedded systems like cash registers, voicemail systems and ATMs that took advantage of OS/2s superior multitasking, OS/2 and IBM desktop hardware are a chapter in the history books.
... Eval Day 1005
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.
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: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 719 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 109:39:43 |
| Calls: | 9,254 |
| Calls today: | 33 |
| Files: | 5,288 |
| D/L today: |
18 files (13,804K bytes) |
| Messages: | 466,690 |