omg what horsesh*t. NT was built nearly from scratch with the exception of the original network stack which was co-developed with 3com and some code used from netbsd.

NT was based on VMS, and was originally called OS/2.

And wasn't OS/2 developed by MS, then sold to IBM? I remember something like that being said before, but don't remember it exactly.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

It was a joint effort. The deal went sour, and they split it into two OS's. I believe IBM kept the kernel, and MS built a new one based on the knowledge obtained while working on the joint project.

The actual story goes as follows...I know I was there...

IBM and MS were jointly working on a 32-bit operating system that was truly multi-tasking. IBM was handling the core kernel and networking aspects, MS was handling interface (GUI) hardware integration and application development tools for the OS. IBM at that point in history was so bloated with White s***s and was dragging their heels in development over just internal IBM issues. MS decided to break off and go on their own. MS developed the NT kernel off a rip of a POSIX compile. Then took the NetBuei stack from Lan Manager and a rough beta of their non-routable TCP/IP stack for the Network interface.

Along the way, Bill G. got serious cash from our federal gov't because he promised a truly DOD Class C Security system for the OS and the Fileing System (hence the birth of NTFS as opposed to HPFS).

There is alot more ... it was a fun time in the industry

I would have liked to have been there, but I was fresh out of high school then. :-P

Thanks for the info. I wasn't as "in" to computers at that time beyond using apps to do business with :)
I used to use WordPerfect 6.0 for doing invoices, business cards, mailings, etc for an independant oilfield company in those days. Never could get the hang of customizing invoices and business cards in Word LOL!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

When did you graduate from high school?

The IBM/Microsoft split occured in the 1991-1993 time frame.

Apparently you are a LOT younger than I had thought.

Though it is cool that I can say that I have software that is older than fewt. :o) (Heck, apparently I WROTE software before he was born)

Now I feel old though (anyone need several boxes of punch cards containing a now horribly anitiquated circuit analysis program I wrote?)

I finished in 1992, though while I was there I managed a PDP11/33, a Tandy Model 16 (with 8 terminals), a small farm of Mac pluses, a small farm of TRaSh-80's, and a ton of PC's. lol I also repaired Amiga, PC, and C64 hardware as part of my coursework. :-) (I had started repairing systems before I finished middle school.) Yes, I'm sure I'm a lot younger than you thought lol. Jamwheat almost had a heart attack when he realized that I was 27 (jab).

I didn't "almost have a heart attack"; just was wondering why you always came across in your postings about being Old, when you are just a "wet behind the ears" kid LOL!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

LOL! I never claimed to be old, I have however been working with computers longer than most "old timers". :-P

I just installed the new SP3, but I cannot find anything in Add/Remove Programs.

If any of you readers work at or with Corel please feel free to contact me directly.

Thanks,

Dave Worthington (BetaNews/ Ziff Davis Freelancer)

this would help: dworthington@betanews.com

There are older versions of Quicken that will.

"Microsoft's support knowledge base reveals a listing of 200 identifiable issues that have been uncovered since the last service pack."

Does this have anything to do w/the contents of the SP3 folder on microsoft's hotfix site? There are 936 (last i checked) Q folders which are patches I suppose will be in sp3. 200 since the last sp seems low to me.

Oh hey, these "automatic updates." Im not seeing them. Any place to configure them at all? Ive looked around a bit for em, not seeing anything. Also, does this new Sp3 beta (and the final one for that matter) intend to include security rollup packages? (IIS cummulative and the security rollup package.)

So yeah, after installing this SP on 3 2000 boxes, one is totally dead now, and will not load the shell.. 2 are workging fine... hey thats a good MS ratio right? I never saw any configuration pane though... so yeah. I didnt really look all too hard but its not something that pops up apparently.

Lets see what the bug report response has to say.

and you guys actually installed it without a trail wait...

These 3 boxes being my test boxes. 2 Running 2000 Server 1 Running Professional... so I don't know what your point really was, aside from the fact that I have been beta testing microsoft products for years.

IE is the issue here, along with windows media player. having choice is great, but what is there to choose from? Netscape? they lost the browser war but no one wants to admit it. netscape 7 is looking a lot better than 4.7 and 6 was, but it's still no IE. as for media player, i use quicktime for MOV files, real for RAM/RM files, and media player 6.4 for everything else. change it's view mode to compact and it has a very minimal figerprint. there aren't any popups like the free Real and Quicktime programs have. it's not skinnable, which in my opinion is a waste of CPU cycles and more of an anoyance but if you like it, then go ahead and use it. it plays DivX and MPEG2 with a free codec. MS's WMA/WMV format is far superior to anything Real has ever produced, and in some situation it even rivals DivX. for everyone that installed the newer version of windows media player, you can still find the old one in the same folder under the name "mplayer2.exe".

i would definately have to say that it sucks that because 1% (5% is too high) of the population wants to use a custom browser that 99% of get screwed. and most of this is just ego sh!@ now. since the 9 states started this, they need to end it with pride.

Well isnt this just awesome.!More stuff to be added to the windows install so 2 users can choose no to IE.And i would be amazed if there were actually more than 2 Netscape users out there.I dont claim to know all about this BS going on but even if I was a netscape user(but im not) couldnt I still install it on my win2k or Xp platform? also in my opinion...it is MS's OS so why shouldnt it be intergrated,I mean be ral if it was your OS shouldnt you have the right to have whatever you want intergrated inside within reason?

read up on some of the older forums. theres some nice discussions on monopolistic influence over business and consumer. those should brighten your day.

http://www.wired.com/new...st/0,1551,52027,00.html

Makes him sound like he's the head video game nerd and someone just stole the cheat codes for his favorite game.

The BetaNews subject is SP3 for Windows 2000. Installing something into a current user's OS that asks whether or not they want to use what they already decided to use, has nothing to do with charges that Microsoft is a monopoly.

Oh, you don't like the topic so we need to stop discussing it? pfft..

Actually Fewt, I think Palomino is saying the "monopoly" accusations and junk have nothing to do with the topic of SP3.
I think MS is putting this service pack out with the hide function is a response to the anti-trust case, yes; but I do think it would have been welcome regardless (by the people that care, anyway).

James Wheat
http://belprecomputewizard.com

Neither discussions about broken html, yet he didn't seem to post anything there.

I'm sorry, but I've used Netsh*t 6.0 and above. It's NOT that impressive. Ever since AOL has taken over Netscape, they have ruined it. I used to use 4.5 and 4.7 years back, but you CAN'T expect the public to wait 4 years w/ NO UPDATES and still use that POS or upgrade to a "new and improved" version that takes LONGER to load than Netsh*t 4.5! If you've used Netscape Vs. IE 3.0, 4.0, or 5.0 you would TOTALLY agree with that last comment. Even on our POS systems at my out of date HIGH SCHOOL can run IE 5.0 and 5.5 with NO PROBLEM and open it almost instantly. This said, they use Netscape 4.7 which takes about 20 seconds to load. Let's see... 20 seconds vs. 4 or 5 seconds... HMM...

Oh boy, the loading times debate again....
Sigh...

All those that don't have any objection with Microsoft integrating things into Windows, now have to jump through hoops so that a few (AND I MEAN A *VERY* FEW) can install Netscape without having to find the checkbox that removes the icon from the desktop. Microsoft can't remove ALL html support from the OS because 3rd party programs require it to work. Quicken would not function without 90% of what is built into Windows. Microsoft should make a version of Windows that's for the 'whinners' and leave the other 95% of us alone. -------------------------I'm glad to see that Microsoft is not abandoning Windows 2000 just because XP was released. It's an excellent and stable OS.

Just so I'm not attacked for my spelling: :0)

What about the other 95% *of* Win2K users? And it's 'whiners' not 'whinners'.

they're not removing the components. they're making them removable. and they may not even be removing them but merely hiding them. I suggest reading the remainder of posts on this topic

Thanks for your input, but I already read ALL the other posts. I know what MS is doing. It's like what they did with the IE4 shell. Again, the 'whiners' are in a small minority and will be ignored.

My a** they are a small minority. I'd like to see where you got your numbers. They will only be ignored because what we want doesn't suit MS's exec's pocketbooks.

Not just small but *EXTREMELY* small, but like I said, really noisy.

Prove it. I want you to go door to door to every home in america, and ask the real consumers what they want.

turkey and cheese on rye please with a splash of mericle whip.

truth be told, MS has no shortage of cash. dont make them out to be barely scraping ends together.(palimino) they can and will develop what they want until it hurts consumers and businesses. On the other hand they could just up and move everything to japan and say up yours US court system. that would be nifty eh? then they could be 3r33t. like sony and nintendo

YAaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy!! Finally the choice is ours- isn't that what this country is all about?

Personally, I don't know anyone in the real world that uses Linux. People I know uses only Windows and macs. I tried installing Redhat 7.1 once and it was a nightmare. Typing 20 commands just to install a software is just ridiculous. And the GUI is just confusing and ugly. If you are really anti-MS, just use macs. You can't get anymore anti-MS than mac users. Plus Mac OSX is based on unix.

Prove it? That's easy. Lets have a survey here in this forum, let see how many people uses Windows, Macs, or Linux.

I use windows and macs.

If you typed 20 commands to install anything then you haven't ever really tried to install anything.

I use Linux and Windows (In that order)

Why dont you prove it then?

You really go out of your way to defend linux. "20" is an exaggerated number, but thats not the point. The point is a typical user shouldn't have to run commands from the shell to install any softwares. I don't want to "config" or "make" or "tar zxvf" anything. I understand most linux softwares are written by individuals and distributed freely, therefore they don't come with friendly installers. But until linux is more user friendly, don't expect adoptation from the masses. If I'm really THAT anti-MS, I'd use macs before I touch Linux. Even BeOS sounds more appealing, too bad they are dead. Don't get me wrong, I do believe MS should be split up because they ARE a monopoly. And they are really killing the competitions. In the past, they may have used illegal business tactics to gain success with stolen ideas. But now its different. They actually have money to buy "talents" and "innovations." The X-box is a good example of their latest innovation. Anyway, MS needs to be divided to aid the competitors. I know it sounds unfair to MS, but that's the law: a monopolized company must be broken up.

MM

"Anyone who cares deeply for any cause is a f**kup." -adam corolla. :-)

I'm not the one making the claim, it's not my place to prove it.

Awww, afraid of your keyboard? It's ok we dumb down installs for newbies.

Typing 20 commands ? wow, you must not read anything before you use it, rpm -ivh rpmname.rpm, all done, app installed, that was a huge log command, i better go take a nap now. Say you have to conpile programs ? goto source dir type ./Configure && make && make install, that was too much...

Say you want to install App's from the GUI, most all distro's come with RPM managers, tell the app where to look, it will automaticaly install everything that app needs, along with the app.

Linux's GUI ugly ? look at http://www.kde-look.org, look at mandrake screen shots, hell, look at any linux screenshot, it will look alot cleaner then any windows craptop Machine you see, I think you are confusing ugly with yourself.

Real World ? Define real world ? Dreamworks ? How about College's ? I know one that uses all Netware/ Redhat boxes for all there servering needs.

I'm your average consumer who downloads 3.25 mp3s per month and buys 1 cd every 6 months. But I'm just one among many making up what's called the "average" consumers. And what I want is just the way windows xp is. I don't want crappy netscape. I've used it and I don't see any advantage over internet explorer. I don't know what's the big deal. I could install netscape if I want to and use it instead of IE. It's not hard.

Type "rpm -ivh rpmname.rpm"
Type "./Configure && make && make install"

You must be kidding. Or did I offend you penguin-loving geeks again? Obviously, you haven't seen how windows and macs installers work. Good luck selling linux to typical users with the above Installing method.

The BetaNews subject is Windows 2000 SP3, NOT the general subject of Microsoft's integration of IE into Windows. You changed the subject therefore you missed my point. Do you know of ANY Win2K users that want to be asked if they want to continue to use what they made a decision to use possibly 3 years ago? I said 'Win2K users' in my subject line. If Microsoft wants to do something different with a version of Win2K that will be on store shelves in the future, that's fine with me, but they're sticking something into CURRENT users, installed, OS. I said 95% wouldn't want to be asked; it's probably more like 99.9%.

You must not understand how computers work. You would not be effected if you chose not to be, however I would suddenly get the choices that I wanted. I'm sorry if your mind isn't open to that.

Typing those commands aren't necessary, most packages can be installed with a single click for those that are keyboard challenged.

we left the DOS era several years ago

Oh yes you are. You are making a claim that windows users want these things. Where do YOU get YOUR numbers from?

Once again, more elitist rant from Fewt and Co.

Fewt, I think you prove the "really noisy" part, LOL!!
Anyway, after dealing with the public on issues like this, I do believe I can state (non-scientifically that is) that only *one* customer wanted to be able to "rip everything out that MS stole". Of course, that person also claimed that Mr Gates "stole" DOS, even though it is on record that DOS was BOUGHT by Gates.
All other customers still think that the entire computer is the "modem" and mainly want to do email and web surf. Just asking my customers about the anti-trust trial gets a "I don't see what the big deal is" response. I imagine most users that put on the SP3 for Win2K won't bother looking at what can be "hidden" or "removed", but will hope the system works better after the system is rebooted.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

you're assuming the machine has all the required dependences already installed. if not, the average user is pretty much screwed. - never an issue with windows though.

Where? Oh I dunno, I've asked people.

Oh? You probably haven't heard of DLL HELL then. It's not a big deal, so you click 3 packages instead of two. You are really out of date, go look at ximian's installer, it does everything for you.

http://www.ximian.com/products/ximian_red_carpet/

You really should learn your facts, as it is now easier on a Linux system running Red Carpet than it is on the Windows platform.

What the hell do you expect? You people probably b**** that there's a custom install option in windows software too.

You can't compare dos with unix. If you do you may as well give up before you open your mouth. Anyone here will agree with that. It's as easy if not easier to install software on Linux machines than it is on Windows machines, see my link below to ximian's website if you don't believe me.

See, THIS is where I think the Linux users are missing the boat. Just because something is easier to use means that the user is a newb or unknowledgable.

Linux is easy to use, IF you know the commands. The OS is NOT very intuitive. Therefore it requires a lot of time to learn its subtle nuances. Unfortunately, I "grew up" on windows and I just don't have the time to invest in learning the command line of linux. Yes, there are man pages and I use them quite frequently. But even experienced linux users have come across the frustrated feeling of knowing WHAT you want to do, but not sure how to get there.

Great OS, but the condenscending attitude by its users really turns me off.

My wife doesn't seem to have any problem with it, neither do any of my kids. My friends come over and get on my computers all the time, they love them. My in-laws, and the rest of my family don't seem to have any problems with Linux either. I think it's all in your mind my friend, out here in the real world it's not all that bad. You really should try using your keyboard now and then though for things other than posting FUD maybe you'll learn something about your own computer. (For example, try setup /? sometime, you blast linux yet even windows users have to do it sometimes to get functions.) I've got one for you, lemme see you click setup.exe to install windows 98. OMG END USERS ARE GONNA PEE THEIR PANTS! A COMMAND LINE, OOOOH NOOOOO!

That’s hardly a scientific statistical analysis. In fact I'm pretty sure your statistics are laden with bias.

Maybe you need to learn your facts. DLL HELL hasnt been much of a problem since win2k.

oh yes and Im sure you've "dumbed it down" for them.

Yup, I suppose that's true. Most of the guys here hate linux. lol

Not really.

I didn't say that it had.

Awww poor baby, He's just pissed, because someone knows more then him, look at this really hard command for installing Webmin.
[root@localhost /]# rpm -ivh webmin*
Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
Operating system is Redhat Linux 7.1
1:webmin ########################################### [100%]
Webmin install complete. You can now login to http://localhost:10000/
as root with your root password.
[root@localhost /]#

I will say the same thing about anyone else who does not conduct a proper statistical analysis and passes hearsay as fact, regardless of favortism to linux or windows.

Actually, no I dont b**** about custom install options. What I "b****" about is the average Windows user doesnt know what they are doing, and struggle to use even simple things like the start menu. The elitist Linux crowd fails to take this into account, or even ackowledge that there is a problem. In fact, you generally belittle anyone who doesn't agree with your views, or doesnt posses your level of knowledge. Not everyone should have to be an engineer to run a damned computer.

Man, why don't ALL of you get off fewt's back? Seriously, he has a point. I use Windows 2000, and would have liked the option to get rid of a few things. Off the top of my head, WMP seems like a waste of space. So does Movie Maker. Some of the stuff is just crap. And it needs to go. And to the people who say that so much software is dependent on the HTML engine and IE being integrated into the Windows shell, this is so basically because the option exits. There is no reason to believe that Quicken (who was mentioned before) couldn't make a version of its software that isn't dependent on IE's integration to function properly. Things did work fine before IE integration. Remember the first version of Windows 95...

That's where I become an elitist in your eyes, you don't need to be an engineer, you just need to read the owner's manual. You don't learn how to drive a car just by starting the engine. If that were the case, we would have as many accidents as we do viruses.

Not trying to slam Fewt here, but he does have a tendency to come across as his opinions are fact, and things like that.
There are those that would like to be able to install and uninstall every little file, and there are (by orders of magnatude it seems!) those that operate "out of site, out of mind". How many common people even know what scandisk is? Very few ;)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Have you ever driven in Florida? Nevermind....
I am talking about the people who cant even understand the concepts in the manual. Let alone comprehend how to use Linux....

try *not* using IE. you'll find that it keep mystically making itself your default for everything.

it's that blue thing that runs everytime my computer goes on. ^_^

*note the appropriatly inserted tard face.

I remember once trying to do a full install with every option for linux. what a treat that was. Menus chocked (sp) full of kthis and kthats and i couldnt tell what a single one of them did from the shortcut name. i'm sure there are hundreds of docs i could have read in the man pages(sounds so homoerotic. yuk). I think linux needs a dist that streamlines down to one cd. now that would be a great start. Ditch the tardware, and focus on only the most lean applications that the average user would enjoy. that way when they DID click to install all they wouldnt need a reformat to correct there mistake. Who really wants to unclick 2000 packages anyway. YUK! On this note I think Suse has the right idea with its home version vs professional version but the home version needs more stripping down in my opinion.

theres my $.02

I use WinXP, Win2K, and my web server is now on RH Linux 7.2

please don't flame win users. there are a few lurking around here that know enough of both to make you blush.

*nulledge takes away fewt's mouse*

no mouse for you for at least a month. time for your keyboard efficiency training. ;)

slandering users who use quick installers as noobs? shame! installers are streamlined so people like me who dont have time to look up -ivxkl's params and try the install ten times to get it right. its for speed. its optimising the users experience and increasing his/her efficiency at the helm. fewt. your next step is im going to give you our new model keyboard with three keys. 0, 1, and enter.

;)

Yes.

As a matter of fact I do know Win2K users who would still like to be able to change the default associations for some of the apps that Win2K does not let you change easily (i.e. without editing the registry)

As to "sticking something into CURRENT users, installed, OS"...the answer is Yes. They are. IF you don't like it, then don't install SP3. The choice to include new functionality into Service Packs has always been a controversial one, but it is the course Microsoft has chosen.

As always, if you don't like it, then use someone else's product.

aww, whats the matter, I proved you wrong, and now you are saying you know more then me and fewt ?

mayamaniac says "The point is a typical user shouldn't have to run commands from the shell to install any softwares"

As for what a typical user should or should not have to do, that is purely a matter of personal opinion.

Linux is not a GUI based OS. Most distributions, however, ship a GUI along with the OS. Those same vendors pretty much all ship GUI package installation tools as well, so that the typical user does NOT have to use the command line to install software.

That's happening today with Lycoris, Mandrake (I think), and Lindows (Which yes is a real product though the $99 trial is a joke IMHO).

Uh, hate to say it but you're way off base with the "never an issue with windows though" comment.

Microsoft has been pushing vendors to use the new "Windows Installer" format, but bugs in the Windows Installer code have created a lot of nightmares for end users.

Since the software they want to install depends on Windows Insttaller, mnay of them have had to go through the hassle of having to go separately to www.microsoft.com, find and download an update to Windows Installer, then try to reinstall their software.

(tab)(tab)(enter)(tab)(tab)(tab)(tab)(tab)(tab)(tab)(tab)(tab)(tab)(tab)You can take away my mouse, and I will be just as effective as I was without. People are amazed by the fact that I rarely if ever actually pick one up haha.(tab)(enter)

Actually Lycoris (formerly Redmond Linux) *IS* taking that very fact into account.

They've put together a pretty darn good Linux distribution for Windows users.

(Of course, they've trashed security and messed up quite a bit of Linux capability, but that was their choice. Sacrificing some of those in order to make it a more "Windows-like" system)

So I wouldn't say that no one is acknowledging or addressing the problem.

Have I ever driven to FL? I live 20 minutes from Madera Beach. (google time heh heh)

I have never had a problem with IE becoming the default browser?! I use Opera and have done for about 1 year now and IE only ever loads when i do a windows update, this is because Opera does not have the ability to use Windows Update, hardly something anyone can complain about, if you dont want to use windows update you can download the updates manually using Microsoft Download Centre. It is the same with Outlook Express, it never opens as my email client it just sits on my harddrive taking up very little space (you can argue that it takes up 50MB if you want but in todays world you can get 110GB+ harddrive so 50MB aint much). Thing about it this way, if there was only 1 company that made Linux and it wasnt open source it would install with the companies homemade browser etc. Look at Sun (Solaris) and Apple Mac. It is a good thing you dont need to by a Microsoft made PC also like you do with Sun and Apple!

I should have worded it better, I ment for newbie linux users. Once you've used it a while you'll start rolling apps yourself for performance.

Youve got to be kidding me... Im in clearwater. Isnt this cute. Fewt's my neighbor.... god help me.

Uh huh.. I'm on the other side of the bridge though. (Tampa)

Did you have anything to do with the City of Largo's conversion to Linux?

No, I wish that I had though.

Me too... 800 thin clients running Red Hat 7.2 and KDE. All Centrally managed. (real management, no running back and forth to desktop machines) Initial outlay down from $400,000 to $96,000. TCO dropped signifigantly and upgrades included in the support maintanence contract.

Now if only MS did this.......

The thing is from what I understand of the design, it's a single server solution. There are 800 X clients to one X server. I had to have 12 Metaframe servers to support that kind of load at my last gig.

http://dot.kde.org/995949998/

I have seen "Lindows:, and I don't consider it "real" yet LOL! Core Linux was better at version 1.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

LOL!

Interesting... the math doesn't add up very well does it? Is it even possible for even 200 or so concurent users to get any kind of normal performance out of what his server specs are?

The memory numbers looked like they would be a little off, but I could see 200 users on a box of that class. I averaged 75 active metaframe users ~ 50% across 4 Xeon 450's, and KDE apps seem to be pretty light weight once they are open. (KDE apps aren't as bloated as they appear, they have long load times due to a linking problem between gcc and the kernel.) With shared memory, and other features I'd guess their CPU's are more ~50% than 30% though. I'd love to have the opportunity to see the design, I've done some similar work in the past so it would be a mutually beneficial experience.

I didn't notice this paragraph when I read it before..

"From the user perspective, it looks like one big machine, but each icon choice is calling a different machine. The rsh sends the signals over to that machine to initiate a session and check to make sure that user has permissions to run that software."

There is more than just one server. There is one server controlling the desktops, others control applications via rsh. I do this at home now with some of my older computers.

While I'm at it, can I do something to Real Networks and Apple for changing my associations with Media Player? I'd rather watch my movies and listen to audio files through MP, however for those sites that only stream RA, or only show QT movies, I'm forced to install bloated software that I otherwise wouldn't use. How many CD/MP3/MPG players do I need on one computer?

It'd be great if someone could wrap just the rendering parts of both QT and RA in an ActiveX OCX so that I could register it with Media Player and be done with that whole mess.

oh yeah lol im sure all those developers would be only too pleased to re-write all the gui code that they have put in place over the last 4 or so years.

The html engine isnt used for a couple of optional things in apps, in many cases the whole gui is based around it - which would mean a huge amount of re-writing and backwards step if the html engine was removed.

"...why don't ALL of you get off fewt's back? Seriously, he has a point..."

I'm not going to dispute that he has a point -- I just don't agree with him. Apperantly, I'm not the only one to disagree.

"...WMP seems like a waste of space. So does Movie Maker. Some of the stuff is just crap..."

There is a wonderful new feature with Windows 95 that you should check out, Add/Remove Programs. With that, you can remove the offending programs that you just mentioned, and more.

"...to the people who say that so much software is dependent on the HTML engine and IE being integrated into the Windows shell ... There is no reason to believe that Quicken ... couldn't make a version of its software that isn't dependent on IE's integration..."

Your absolutly right, but your also wrong. Quicken could reinvent the wheel, and create non-standard ways, or even mimic current behavior of these internal APIs, but they aren't going to. Why would I design my own HTML rendering engine when Microsoft provides me one to use for free? Why would I go back to the older style help pages, when the newer html base help file system in more engaging, and offers more to my customers? Why would I even consider upgrading my version of Windows from Windows for Workgroups 3.11, when I can still access all the pr0n sites I want through NCSA Mosaic?

Because as a user, I want the ability to easily create video clips for my friends, downloaded from my IEEE 1394 enabled DV camera. Because as a developer, I want the advanced API and user interfaces that simplify my life, make my product better than my competitor's, and intices new customers to buy, and older customers to upgrade. This is the same driving force that has caused me to upgrade from my 4.77MHz XT clone to the Athlon XP 1800+ system I use today.

my facts are perfectly straight. I had mandrake 8 installed a few months ago, decided KDE was just plain ugly (which it is), so decided to get all the ximian stuff. unfortionately I was using a modem connection (nothing else would work out the box with mandrake), which kept dropping the connection every few hours so that was a whole day wasted just downloading the ximian stuff (which didnt resume after the connection died so i was tempted to give up after a few hours but didnt). Anyway, got it downloaded, oh big surprise a few required libraries were missing plus it didnt give me any clue where to find them or how to install them. another few hours wasted. finally got all the libraries, installed the ximian stuff - had to restart X (which linux users dont like admitting is basicly the same as and needed as often as restarting windows is). oh big surprise X refused to start.

So a day and a half wasted wondering blindly (due to it being impossible to find help easily) through the mine field of life as a linux user.

45 minutes later I had the disk formated and XP reinstalled with everything working just as I wanted it and needed it.

oh yeah red carpet... thats where you pay a subscription to get free software isnt it?! kinda like windows update, but windows update is free and red carpet isnt! (how ironic linux users PAYING for something that is free on windows!)

Corel was by far the best Linux Distro I've ever had the pleasure of using... I wish Corel had stuck with that, but I suppose it wasn't as profitable for them.

I thought about asking for a show of hands when fewt said prove it ealier, but I couldn't figure out how to draw one in ASCII art...

I use Windows XP daily on 2 computers at home, I have a 486 router based on a linux kernel (not a disto in the sense of Mandrake or RH), I use Windows Me at work (cough, cough... at least it's better than Windows 98). I have used but currently don't, Solaris 7, BeOS 4.52, RH, Mandrake, Corel, and every version of Windows from 3.0 to now. I had been using DOS since 3.21. Am I preconditioned with a bias to Windows, probibly, but not because it is the only OS that I have used. Because I found it provides me with the best overall user experience.

* I don't need the choice of which browser etc. to use *

Posted from Mozilla {Build ID: 2002051006} although IE is still my prefered browser.

I forgot to mention Win2K server as my Web Server....

(click)(click)

http://www.xandros.com/

No, you can if you want too but it's not necessary.

What part of lynx --source http://go-gnome.com | sh didn't you understand? If you built XP in 45 minutes then you didn't patch it, or install any other apps on it. Obviously nothing more than uneducated FUD.

Well that explains it.... just had to dig for it since it wasnt obvious from the article. but heres a question... why RSH?

I hope that's intranet, not internet. I wouldn't put an IIS box on the net for any amount of money.

Empty comment huh?

It's easy to set up, and is proven to be an effective solution. I'd prefer ssh, but in a secure LAN environment you don't need to encrypt the data. rsh is very low overhead.

Aww you poor baby, I don't see how it compares.

If quicken wants the rendering engine, it can install it just like software did pre Win98. I really don't see what the problem is, unless you are a developer it's good for you. If you are a developer then it still shouldn't be a problem, I really don't care if it takes you an extra day to bring your product to market because you actually have to test it.

Uh, no actually. You can't get rid of Windows Media Player on Windows 2000 or XP. Maybe by hacking the s*** out of the registry. And you can't get rid of Windows Movie maker, and you can't get rid of IE, and you can't (right off the box) get rid of Windows Messenger, or Netmeeting, or a million other things. Maybe you ought to check your facts.

But to say that Microsoft shouldn't change its software patterns because other software companies have already adjusted to them is ludicrous. You're basically saying that it's ok to break the law if it becomes common place. You're saying that companies would rather Windows stay as it is than for them to have to rework their code for a newer, better version of Windows. That is insane. I'll reemphasize. I love Windows. But a change in practice would be a good thing.

They took over Corel right? I'll have to try that out. I'm still awaiting what Lindows has to offer... Screenshots look impresive so far.

I'm posting from work right now, Windows Me, so I couldn't confirm that before I posted, but that suprises me... I'll have to go home and check that out. If so, I'll retract my statement about removing them, but the rest of what I said I believe to hold true.

Accept that as a developer, you don't own it. You can not redistribute those Dll's without permission (sounds like a reoccuring theme here). You do not want to install multiple versions of a shared resource if you can avoid it.

Linux has a similar situation with Libraries. Installing those libraries, may or may not be so simple for the average computer user, but even in Linux, you have programs dependent on other core peices of software to be there.

As a hobbist, I like Linux. It's fun to use, fun to modify, but a nightmare for others to use. It is also less forgiving of a new user. As a developer, it doesn't have a userbase substantial enough to warrant coding applications for. The profit margin on Windows is greater because of the sheer number of users.

(click)I didn't want to clutter up the simplicity of it. They work best together though.(tab)(enter)

That's why you're so poor you have to use Linux. You just can't afford anything else. And you're trying to make your arrogance a good thing.

"As a developer, it doesn't have a userbase substantial enough to warrant coding applications for. The profit margin on Windows is greater because of the sheer number of users."

Which is a vicious circle isn't it? LOL

Yes, Xandros took over development of Corel Linux.

(click)I agree.(tab)(enter)(click)rpm -ivh *rpm(enter)(control-d)(click)

I made more last year than you have in the last 5. Don't go there, I'll make you hurt. ;-)

I dont see how windows would be "better". In my opinion, Microsoft has proven (by the number of apps that make use of the html/xml engines) that they WERE RIGHT by saying integrating IE into windows was the right thing to do. Suddenly ripping out - or even allowing the average user to easily rip out several now core features of windows wouldnt make windows better at all, it would just make it incompatible with maybe 75% of software out there.

You would end up with the linux dependences problem on windows - which is one of the main reasons I dont use linux because being given a list of libraries needed and no help where to get them is just too much hassle.

" You would end up with the linux dependences problem on windows - which is one of the main reasons I dont use linux because being given a list of libraries needed and no help where to get them is just too much hassle."

This is all in your mind, it's really not that bad.

fool. read my post again. THAT was the bit that didnt like resuming. That was the annoying time consuming bit. It was AFTER that that the fun really began.

You always have the option of purchasing it on CDROM. I believe cheapbytes even offers it for half the price that Ximian sells it for. You really can't blame the installation when the problem was your internet connection. You can download the packages and the installer at work, and roll your own cd as well if connectivity is a problem. Don't complain about dependency problems when they wouldn't happen if you had the proper connectivity. That's like blaming my car when I'm late for work because I had to drive through a detour.

No sweat, my friend...but I was surprised you didn't know that. After all, it's what the monopoly case hinges on. If you could get rid of all that stuff, then a case againt Microsoft wouldn't exist.

It is all in your head, and it doesn't change the fact that computers and operating systems existed before HTML/XML integration. We had a more secure desktop, less bloat, all sorts of nice things. And it ran just fine. The fact remains that Microsoft didn't integrate IE to make things easier, they did it to squash Netscape.

Yes, it is... but you can't entirely blame the market situation on Microsoft.

That's right, so they could sell even more copies of IE at a marked up price. :)

agreed

*shocked!* 31/5/2002 will go down in history as the day fewt had (limited!) sympathy for microsoft!

I wasn't really complaining, I just think it would be a good idea... not that Real or Apple would agree.

I'm new to the discussion here, but not new to OSs, having
used both Linux and Windows, I've seen both sides of the debate. Allow me to make 2 points here:

1) The OS Wars can never be won by debate--as you all should know--people go with the OS that they like and you can NEVER convince someone that MS/Mac/Linux/BeOs/UNIX (take your pick) is not the greatest thing since sliced bread. So, stop trying. It's a religion thing, don't ya know? And, we all know where religious wars get us, don't we?

2) Linux and Windows each have their good points and bad points, but I have to say that I found the condescending
attitude of Linux 'gurus' to be rather insufferable. Their
motto is (you guessed it) RTFM and if you don't know what
that means, stay away from Linux.

End of rant.

Thanks for letting me put in my 2 cents.

That would be something else now that Mozilla's at RC3. It's nearly tolerable to use now even though they said they didnt need an RC3 to get to a 1.0 release ;)

P.S. I found the javascript debugging tool. Much more intuitive than IE but I still want a built in XML parser :\

"wonder when they'll push this for xp. any word?"

Which part?

WinXP SP1 will go into beta soon. The "late summer" release target they gave Nate above would surprise me though (I'm betting it gets pushed back another couple of months at least)

The configuration piece was actually added to WinXP SP1 internally before it was added to W2K SP3. (saw a demo of it, the UI needed work and was not real intuitive then)

The Automaic Updates piece is already in XP, but should be given added capabilities in SP1.

One interesting change in WinXP SP1 (which has delayed it already) is that instead of completely disabling the installation of WinXP if it detects any of the known stolen MVL license numbers, they have chosen to have it abort the SP1 installation and lock things so that no further updates can be applied anymore. (Which would mean that you couldn't apply post-SP1 security hotfixes to pirated copies of WinXP. Guess thieves will have to live with less security)
Personally, I disagree with this course and think that they are asking for more of a nightmare than if they had stuck with completely disabling the OS. But maybe they'll change it yet again. And, as always, it'll only affect the dumb thieves

As for Mozilla:

Still an interesting behavior in Mozilla 1.0 RC3 (Windows build at least).

When you are posting to betanews notice that it treats the "Please Note:" warning, the entire form for your post, and the "Post Response!" and "Clear Form" buttons below all as one big link (and underlines them when you mouse over)

Apparently it is taking the "a name="#talkback"" (angle brackets removed for posting) tag as the beginning of a link anchor.

Anyone know if this is bug in Mozilla or in the HTML for Betanews? (not sure which way the HTML spec actually defines it)

sad fact is i'd actually pay for XP or 2000 now. both are stable enough and secure enough that they do exactly what they are suppose to without crashing every ten minutes. I'd love to see what they have instore for longhorn, and windows.net. 64 bit processors, motherboards tweaked for windows with on board usb and firewire, super fast ram, yesir yesir, its finally looking like we have a workstation that acutally functions AS a workstation. mmmmmm.. comments? death threats?

Thanks.

I don't do enough HTML anymore to keep track of exactly what is and what is not 100% spec.

Guss that means I send the bug report to Microsoft instead of Mozilla (becuase Microsoft accepted it without a close)

Microsoft says summer, but I agree. I would be surprised if XP SP1 makes it out before mid to late September.

I think this will always be one of the big issues holding Mozilla back. Even Web developers don't really know or follow the spec 100%. This means browsers that don't account for imperfect HTML will have problems displaying many Web sites.

Albiet to Netscape/Mozilla's credit they do have "Technology Evangelists" who contact Web sites to correct common spec errors. But for the end user, it doesn't really matter who is at fault for an incorrectly displayed Web site.

I think you're right. Windows 2000 was an amazing piece of software (although it took them over 5 years to complete it) and Windows XP was a great next step. It seems that Microsoft is headed in the right direction and I think pressure from Open Source and MacOS X is contributing to that.

i'd say its more of "drifting" in the right direction than "heading" in the right direction. and i doubt they're feeling any "preasure" from open source as they are now including it in their dot net propoganda. open source isnt exactly a threat to their livelyhood. It's merely a mosquito that keeps biting you when you're sleeping; annoying and hard to swat.

http://www.thecounter.co.../2002/April/browser.php

in stats, if netscape holds 5% of the market or whatever it is now and IE holds 90% or close to that last time i checked linux users werent downloading internet explorer. if a 5 to 10 % share of the operating systems online arent windows, its hard to see any so called preasure. ;)

I didn't say that Open Source or Apple was driving Microsoft's business moves, but obviously from the big brouhaha surrounding Craig Mundie and Shared Source - Microsoft has taken note of Open Source. As for Apple, spend a bit using OSX and you'll notice quite a few similarities with XP (this of course goes both ways). And on the server side of things, you better believe Microsoft has been influenced when it comes to how it handles secuirty flaws these days. Overall, these are all good things for us, the consumers.

Warning: General rant follows and is not targeted at any site or person in particular.
---

This is one of the areas where I'll take fewt's side.

I'm very glad to see Opera gaining more acceptance and Mozilla ready to reach 1.0.

The lack of any serious alternatives to IE has left us with far too many sites that have coded not to spec, but to IE's quirks.

I have no problem with browsers extending the spec (Netscape and IE have both done it and it's given us many of the features that eventually made it into the spec), but in this case we've almost ended up with REDUCTIONS to the spec.

It's a sad state of affairs when "Technology Evangelists" are even needed to enourage correct display in other browsers.

Whatever happened to web developers testign in multiple browsers? or taking the extra bit of effort and doing browser detectionwhen they want to use features that are not 100% compatible across browsers.

It bothered me but I accepted it when tons of web sites started requiring version 4.0 or higher browsers to display properly, but at least they still worked in both Netscape and IE.

The last straw (that triggered this rant) for me was when a copmany I work closely with recently allowed their web team to decide that not only was IE a REQUIREMENT to view their web page, but that they were going to require IE 5.5 or 6.0 ONLY. They do browser detction, but only so tat they can refuse to display at all if the broswer is anything other than IE 5.5/6.0.

Admittedly it is a member's only site, but I still don't agree with forcing over 400,000 members of the site into that restrictive of a browser choice.
---

End of rant.

I saw that too... fixed now though... :)

MZRC3

You should blame the tools of those designers as much... DreamWeaver, Frontpage, etc. They may code 94% compliant code, but you need to manually edit it by hand if you want it to be 100%. Something most people won't or don't know how to do. IE worked back from that, relaxing on the specs to make those pages display how the user ment it to be seen. Even though MS has tried to make a more compliant engine, they are still left to figure out a way to prevent what may be considered a regression bug.

Why don't people use notepad anymore. Then the only mistakes were made by the user.

Interesting.

I would have thought that the tools designers were following the quirks of IE.

You really think that it was IE following the quirks of the design tools?

I guess I can see that as a possibility too. It makes more logical sense that way.

I can see someone in the IE development group saying "We know that this tool generates buggy HTML, but since it's so widespread, lets just treak the browser to work around all the buggy web pages".

It was harder to picture someone in the Frontpage group saying "Well, IE doesn't require us to close this tag, so lets stop doing so. We can save a whole 4 bytes every time that way" Well, we all know that the Frontpage team's main strong point and focus has always been on generating lean tight HTML code? Right? :o)

I couldn't find the original source where I learned that statistic, it was a table several years ago that was doing a comparison on various WYSIWYG editors. In support of that statement though, I found this interview on ibizInterviews (http://www.ibizinterviews.com/doris1.htm).

...The third leg in the stool is the tools used to build websites. Many web page designers would like to support standards on their pages, but they use WYSIWYG tools that don't create standards-compliant code. To the best of my knowledge, it is not possible to create a standards-compliant site with any of the currently shipping WYSIWYG editors (or at least not without touching the code, which wrecks the entire point of using WYSIWYG editors.)...

The interview is dated June 2001, but I doubt that this statement is any less true today.

That is not to say that Netscaoe and IE are perfect in their implementation of W3C specifications, but they do relax those standards sometimes to properly render some pages.

For what it is worth, IE also has a team that contacts some web designers when they find websites with unusual design flaws that render differently under new builds, in effort to correct their page and bring them up to compliance. Microsoft IE team has tools that allow them to test different websites overnight, and discover a regression bug that causes an image to move a single pixel.

"...The third leg in the stool is the tools used to build websites. Many web page designers would like to support standards on their pages, but they use WYSIWYG tools that don't create standards-compliant code. To the best of my knowledge, it is not possible to create a standards-compliant site with any of the currently shipping WYSIWYG editors (or at least not without touching the code, which wrecks the entire point of using WYSIWYG editors.)... "

They didn't look very hard. http://www.w3.org/Amaya/

Because I'm sure that is what everyone has used to make their websites for the past 7 years.

I know that your point is that the person being interviewed didn't mention this tool developed by w3c, but my point is that there is a surplus of non validated sites that either are displayed correctly, but look really bad, so they blame the developer of the browser; aren't displayed, instead showing a message that says this site is incorrectly written, again blamming the browser; or show the website the way it was supposed to be written, and perpetuate these bugs, with the blame focused on the browser designers, but with only those who know that the browsers aren't compliant.

I'm very interested to see exactly how they define "hidden", I suspect that they simply hide icons which is a slap in every consumer that has requested a complete uninstall's face. It's still a step in the right direction though I guess. I like the idea of having a convenient location to change default application settings, it's been a needed function for a long time (Reg hacking isn't for mom or dad). The auto update function bugs me though, it really is a joke being that you can go to windows update and completely patch your box yet the baseline security analyzer will still tell you that you need more patches lol.

Fewt, I know you have been keeping up on the MS case, so you may agree that just "hiding the icons" may not be as far as it goes- they may have the same type of "hide icons AND exe". That would be the good way, correct?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

No, I want complete removal, all the way down to shell= becoming progman.exe if I remove IE. ;-)

I suppose I should say "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon\Shell=progman.exe" before I get blasted. lol

The auto-update feature will be integrated with Microsoft's Corporate Update website in the near future. From a business perspective, this is a great time saver, not having to package hotfixes and deploy them out to client computers.

Yes, on desktops perhaps. I suppose I'll take the wait and see approach. It's not going to work. The first time a computer running a big batch reboots, someone will be walked out the following morning. LOL! It's also never going to go anywhere on servers. Even in a cluster environment with schedules patches will have to be installed manually. It's just part of the job.

haha!

i agree though, while this i a step in the right directon, it doesnt totally solve the problem.

They couldn't possibly really "remove" IE, as that would cripple probably most of the programs on your system (as nearly all programs these days use the rendering engine).

I don't believe that for a second, if that was the case none of these same programs would run on Windows NT 4.0. I can't think of a single program that wouldn't run on NT 4.0. (Exceptions being OS specific utilities like disk defragmentation tools.)

AutoUpdate won't reboot without user interaction. It only downloads the update and then places an icon in the system tray to alert the user that new updates are ready to install. The user must accept the update in order to have it fully install, and then rebooting (if necessary, which it usually is) requires another confirmation. AutoUpdate is a good thing for most people, as it brings those needed security patches to the user's attention when the user may have been the "update once a year" type otherwise. Too many are still vulnerable to the "attachment runs in OE by merely previewing the message" vulnerability. AutoUpdate makes it easier for the typical user to get a fix so that this sort of thing won't keep happening for a year or two after the patch has been available.

YOU can want it all you like.

Unfortunately for you, however, that is not what the court has ordered. (Technically, they haven't ordered this either, but one of the agreements as part of the original settlement was that Microsoft would go ahead and implement portions of it even before the court has approved it)

Maybe they will in the future, but until then this will have to do.

I definately agree that it's a necessary tool for end users.

Agreed, however I'm not the only one that wants it as you implied.

Correct. A lot of people (including 9 of the states) want, and have asked for, the same thing as you.

In this case it looks like it will boil down to what one particular user wants being the only deciding factor. And she won't tell us what she wants until she issues her ruling.

Agreed, it's unfortunate because if MS just listened to their users they wouldn't have half the problems they have today. (Very likely including the whole antitrust trial.)

Sure, if they listened to their users (we want it to do everything, have no bugs, and cost nothing) they'd be out of business. :P

oh yay! lets have the "what is IE" argument again!

Fact is, if you say the html rendering engine is part of IE, then most microsoft programs/features would break. Most mmc snapins would break to start with.

If you say the xml engine is also part of IE, then that takes out another load of programs.

if you want progman, no IE, no auto update, blah, blah, blah, then just go and install NT 3.51 and shut up moaning!

That's not all that would break...just to name a few more, the explorer (windows explorer) would lose alot of features, active desktop would be gone (along with support for none-.bmp backgrounds), several of the standards controls available to programmers would be gone. As has already been mentioned, many non-MS programs would break as well. You could say good-bye to nearly all of your help files; most of them would stop working. I could go on and on, but I have better things to do....

There is no problem. If there is ANY problem, it's with an extremely small minority of Windows users. They're a tiny group, but BOY are they noisy.

That's actually my point in many cases things like active desktop, even the help system are not necessary. So what if mmc breaks, so what if help doesn't work. Who cares if html isn't in the OS? I want to rip the stuff out. I want *PROGMAN* not explorer, I want 100MB server OS install. I want the HTML component GONE on my SQL server. What the hell does my SQL server have outlook express on it for! ;-)

Why don't you just bend on over so I can shove my foot up your rear end. If I wanted WinNT 3.51 I would install it. I want 2K *MY WAY* not yours.

Huh? So you are claiming that listening to your users will put you out of business? I'd like to see your business model. LOL :-P

Oh? The vast majority of windows users don't post in forums. You are pulling numbers out of your rear end. Everyone I know, IT and end user wants their computer their way, not Redmond's.

how else can you skew the numbers so you're the dominant party. install it everywhere and they'll have to use it. DUH! geeze fewt. you're so slow. ;) j/k

thats why i dont let fewt go car shopping for me. i know he wants me to get the convertable because he's old and bald and needs a pedicure, but i have long fabio like hair and muscles and i need the roof and windows to be there incase i get mobbed by an army of playmates with rubber band guns

incase? sucks to be you. :-P j/k

reading an old discussion. nice link. ;)
http://www.win2000mag.co...D=97&ArticleID=4494

Ok for once Fewt has a point.
Linux does shine in its ability to pick and choose individual components. It would be nice if windows had the same functionality.

HOWEVER, that’s ideal for servers and control freaks who cant stand their desktop machine having even a dll that they didn’t "authorize"

Most end users have trouble even grasping the concept of shells, browsers, etc. I dont even want to think of the nightmare that would ensue if they had to make a choice for everything!

Complete control is great.... for people who know what they are doing. My thought is that all Windows home OS's should ship with all parts intact, but have uninstallers to remove everything you don’t want.

On the other hand I feel that Windows server OS's should come stripped down to the bare kernel and ALL components should have to be chosen.

I think he was pointing out that users would like Windows to be free. If Windows was free, Microsoft would make no money from it and could not continue development.

I'm pretty sure I was just trying to make a joke (note the tongue sticking out smiley at the end of the post)

Perhaps fewt was too in his response. (Maybe I'm too tired, I honestly can't tell if he was serious or joking)

I was.

"Ok for once Fewt has a point."

Perhaps I should choose my words more carefuly, you will probably almost always agree with me if I did. ;-)

Ha! If you think thats bad... A certain programmer working on the orignal Microosft Excel team once told me that a huge percentage of the code from excel was simply dragged and dropped from source for Loutus 123.

Doesnt suprise me a bit that NT was pilfered...

It should have been called Windows RT, for Repackaged Technology.

yeah who needs mmc, who needs to be able to manage the server at all!!!! LMAO!

The fact is IE will NEVER be removed totally from windows because it IS NEEDED now by at least 75% of apps out there, and no mozilla wont do as a replacement because as far as im aware it doesnt do activex controls.

why? sounds to me like 3.51 would fit your requirements a lot better. Either way, you arent going to get 2k exactly how you want it so shut up and deal with it already!

Idiot, read my post it depends on what you need the system to do. MMC is not necessary in many cases.

So true, but don't say that out loud or you may get blasted like I would if I said it.

I think he wants a stripped kernal of win2k.... and the options to add anything else... which is not a bad idea.

Hey man truth is truth, no matter who says it.

That is exactly what I want. What it would boil down to I believe would be XP embedded, but I don't feel like licensing that for desktops and servers.

Unless you are me, I'm a great target for hated. LOL!

Well, if Microsoft got the point about this... they would open up Windows to run on multiple hardware platforms, in multiple configurations.

Wouldnt it be nice to have an SQL server thats nothing but a kernal and SQL. All MMC managment functions, event logging, and configuration could be done via a remote shell.

Come to think of it, why doesnt Microsoft include this fuctionality by default. I do not want to pay for Systems Management Server.... Im starting to think this has less to do with what is good for technology and more about whats good for Microsoft's revenues.

"Wouldnt it be nice to have an SQL server thats nothing but a kernal and SQL. "

Yes, and it would likely beat the crap out of every other SQL server out there. They already do a great job with it, f they would open their eyes they would realize that that is the key to the data center.

I agree, to much overhead is used in simply booting the thing. You dont even need a GUI for this application.

whos the idiot? if you say "So what if mmc breaks" I assume you mean that it really doesnt matter if mmc doesnt work on the average windows pc. Well umm considering that would kill all the disk management, device manager, pretty much everything to manage the computer, I think it DOES matter to the average windows pc. You are aware of all the things that run in mmc arent you fewt?!?

yeah, mmc is an interface, it can be replaced very easily.

I'm just another idiot that's never used a windows box, I have no idea what MMC is, yet I can cough reg keys off the top of my head that would make you hard. MMC is nothing more than convenience factor. Minor changes and a recompile and the apps would be just as they were in NT 4.0, or have you forgotten that there was life before MMC? Sure it's a convenient interface that I've never used to manage my domain, my sql servers, my IIS farm, etc. I've used it so little infact that I don't realize that it's just another one of those components that is a nice idea, and great tool but it hasn't always been there and can be done without with minimal rework. I don't even know where MMC came from, whoever said that it relied on the rendering engine was a frigging idiot.

It is nice if the only thing that runs on it EVER is a server component that never relies on any other component or API. If you start removing things like that, then that service may not have what it needs to function.

For the typical user, this non-conformant standard is far from aceptable, and from a designer prospective it is a step back into the good old days where you had to design for specific video cards and hardware. You will have to account for every case scenario where some user may have removed a critical component...

You surely aren't advocating this practice, are you?

"If you start removing things like that, then that service may not have what it needs to function."

Which is not much different from turning services off, then back on if a component breaks. Instead of turning it back on, one would just need to reinstall it. That's one of the benefits of RPM based Linux that Windows lacks. If it's going to break something it warns you and won't uninstall it unless you --force it.

For the desktop? No way.
Servers, absolutely! If you didnt have all this other crap running things would be much more simple.

LESS STUFF = LESS TO GO WRONG & LESS OVERHEAD

I think for things like SQL ( and any other SERVER based product. ) there is no reason why we can't just put a box out there that you can shell into and use all the nice GUI goodies from your managment machine...

fewt, go find an XP box and do del /S mmc.exe (and dont let file protection replace the files obviously) and try and use the box for a few weeks. You might (for once) impress me if you can manage to install do day to day admin stuff on that box without mmc - manage an exchange/sql/isa server without mmc (all those services use html based mmc snapins) and I'd be really impressed.

errr framework would be a better word for mmc than interface. Generally mmc snapins are designed to be mmc snapins, not just a bit of code wrapped up in the mmc interface code - I wish it was that easy!

That wasn't the point, and you still ignored most of the comment.

Even still, you can leave MMC if you rip out the HTML component.

Perhaps, but are administrators going to know what component is missing? None of the legacy software out there supports the notion of a modular installation. This is not possible with the existing architecture. When the application breaks it is not going to convey any meaningful information.

For example, the original blueprints for Windows 95, "Chicago," called for a complete removeal of real-mode DOS. Unfortuanely, there was legacy software written for Windows that still required MSDOS.SYS and IO.SYS to be present on the computer before they would even install. This is also why since Windows 95, MSDOS.SYS has filler to make it large enough to fool these applications. Only with Windows Me were they able to completely move away from real-mode DOS, and by integrating Consumer Windows Division with the Windows NT architecture, they have finally phased out DOS. This is a process that took almost 10 years though.

Making NT as modular as you are suggesting could take at least that long since business sectors don't upgrade their platforms as often as consumers. I wouldn't count on this happening anytime soon, even if this is what MS intends to do.