Re: Re: what killed os/2
By: MRO to Moondog on Sat Jan 09 2021 02:29 pm

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.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: what killed os/2
By: Nightfox to MRO on Sat Jan 09 2021 04:01 pm

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.

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.

i'm looking at a copy of the lawsuit online and they dont mention that ie was added in an update. that very thing would have helped their case greatly.

there's a lot of misinformation on the internet.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: what killed os/2
By: MRO to Nightfox on Sat Jan 09 2021 06:50 pm

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.

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.

there's a lot of misinformation on the internet.

Yes, I know. Even Abraham Lincoln was quoted as saying you can't trust everything you see on the internet just because there's a quote next to someone's face. ;)

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

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.

Yeah, if I recall, Windows 95 OSR2 came out later and included some crude
USB support and had Internet Explorer "built-in".




... Wait, this is a *scene*?
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
þ Synchronet þ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

Re: Re: what killed os/2
By: Nightfox to MRO on Sat Jan 09 2021 04:01 pm

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.
I was not a big fan of the web because all the applications for the web at the time was a huge money grab and crappy trade secrets. What am I saying? It's still a cesspool. A few areas have gotten better though.

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

On 1/7/2021 8:24 AM, Dr. What wrote:

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.

I think the biggest point of integration is that the MS-HTML engine was integrated with the new Help format that they came up with... Of course
that leave the actual IE and Outlook Express executables relatively thin
at that point.

Of course by the time the actual anti-trust suit took place, every other
OS came with a browser in the box. They did a lot of cringy things with
some of the integrations with the browser (Active-X in particular) that
were far worse than having a browser in the box.

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.

--
Michael J. Ryan
tracker1 +o Roughneck BBS

---
­ Synchronet ­ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

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.

The problem with Microsoft "security" was that they constantly focused on the business market
where companies could afford to put up firewalls and email virus scanners.

So Microsoft naively thought that they would be running in a trusted environment - just as the Internet
picked up speed.


... The earth is 98% full. Please delete anyone you can.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net:24 - Fredericksburg, VA USA