 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmail isthebestcom> wrote in message
news:475f676a$1@news.povray.org...
> > "Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> > news:475f19d0$1@news.povray.org...
> >> John VanSickle wrote:
> >>
> >>> Disabling half of the functionality in IE would be a pretty good idea.
> >> Or perhaps... you know... providing a way to uninstall IE? ;-)
> >
> > Add/remove programs -> Add/Remove Windows Components. Uncheck Internet
> > Explorer.
>
> Did you read the description of that "component" carefully? The only
> thing that will remove is the SHORTCUT.
Ah, no. That would explain the 0k.
I know there is a way, did it some time back on a previous install. Can't
remember now. Left it on this one cause there's too many sites still that
won't work with firefox.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> I know there is a way, did it some time back on a previous install.
IE itself is a thin layer on top of a whole bunch of libraries that a
whole lot of other things depend on. Like the help system, for example,
as well as a bunch of download mechanisms. I don't think you ever
actually managed to pull the tentacles of IE out of Windows. It would be
like that scene from 20,000 Leagues with the giant squid, except it also
has its tentacles plugged into Auntie Em, who yelps every time you tug.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Or perhaps... you know... providing a way to uninstall IE? ;-)
As Warp said, you'll have to uninstall Windows to do that. If somehow you
actually managed to remove IE completely, then a whole load of other stuff
would break. WinPOV Help would be one thing, explorer would probably break
too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> IE itself is a thin layer on top of a whole bunch of libraries that a
> whole lot of other things depend on.
I think it started with Win98 and went only downhill from there.
With Win98 MS had this braindead idea that they should make the desktop
and most applications to look&feel like webpages (or at least support making
them so). This, of course, is exactly the wrong direction to go.
Webpages are very limited in functionality because HTML is very limited
in functionality. There are many, many things you can't implement in a
webpage because HTML was and still is purposefully simple. In a desktop GUI
trying to emulate a webpage is exactly the wrong direction to go, and it
should be the other way around: Webpages should aim to work like desktops,
not the other way around.
What I really hate about Microsoft's braindead ideas is that most people
seem happy to blindly copy them. Windows 3 had several good design and
behavior decisions which were dropped from subsequent Windowses just for
the sake of change, just for the sake of making it look&feel *different*,
in many cases at the cost of reduced usability.
Just as an example is the behavior of menus and sub-menus: In Win3 it was
standard practice that if you opened a menu and it had a sub-menu, you had
to click on the name of the sub-menu to open it, and then it stayed open
for as long as you clicked something else.
Well, MS had this "great" idea to change this behavior from clicking to
hovering instead: Sub-menus open by hovering the sub-menu name and they
close when you unhover. Opening it with hovering is not completely bad
(although it becomes irritating when the sub-menu has something which takes
time to build, such as some of the sub-menus of the context menu of windows
explorer), but closing the sub-menu by unhovering is the most braindead
idea ever. You hover the name of the sub-menu, then start moving the mouse
to the right (or in some cases to the left...) to get to it, accidentally
unhover the name of the sub-menu by accident, and it closes. How this could
ever be a good idea is beyond by comprehension. You have to be really
proficient at aiming with the mouse in order to keep the sub-menu open. Not
all people are.
Speaking of context menus, that's another step backwards MS took:
Previously you could open a context menu by right-clicking and then,
while keeping the mouse button down, select the item you wanted and then
release the mouse button and it would select it. This was a nice power-user
feature. For example selecting "Back" in a web browser was fast and easy
this way. Just press, move a bit down, release.
But no, they had to change this. Now you can't do that. You have to press,
then release, then move down, then press, then release. Not a big deal, but
very irritating when you got used to the old behavior. The new behavior is
awkward.
The biggest problem with this is that everyone is blindly copying these
braindead design decisions everywhere, often even in non-windows software.
For example KDE has the hover-to-open-and-close-submenus idea implemented,
which is irritating.
Fortunately other systems have yet to copy the most braindead GUI ideas
from MS. For example menus which change contents every time you use them.
(I can't even begin to imagine how anyone could think that's a good idea.
When MS wants to make changes just for the sake of changes, just to make
a new Windows look different than the previous one, they will stop at
nothing.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Or perhaps... you know... providing a way to uninstall IE? ;-)
>
> There is: Uninstall Windows.
Mmm. That's not an inherantly bad idea...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:475f6e3b$1@news.povray.org...
> IE itself is a thin layer on top of a whole bunch of libraries that a
> whole lot of other things depend on.
Yeah, I know. I don't think the whole mess was missing. I know I've had
machines where internet explorer wasn't there.
Is all fine til some braindead installer decides to invoke IE directly,
rather than calling for the app that reads htm pages
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> the sake of change, just for the sake of making it look&feel *different*,
> in many cases at the cost of reduced usability.
Well, they *are* trying to make a profit. It's understandable, even if
suboptimal. :-)
> Well, MS had this "great" idea to change this behavior from clicking to
> hovering instead:
Yah, I hate that too. Actually, I think there's a switch you can set to
say don't do that, but I don't know if it disappears the menu if you
move away after you click. I'll have to try that.
> Speaking of context menus, that's another step backwards MS took:
Smalltalk did one better years earlier. Context menus not only open
under the mouse, but position themself so that the previously chosen
menu selection is under the cursor. If you're pasting the same thing
into a dozen windows (because, say, you haven't yet automated
broadcasting restarts to your server farm), you don't wind up with the
mouse down in your lap before you're done.
> Fortunately other systems have yet to copy the most braindead GUI ideas
> from MS. For example menus which change contents every time you use them.
> (I can't even begin to imagine how anyone could think that's a good idea.
> When MS wants to make changes just for the sake of changes, just to make
> a new Windows look different than the previous one, they will stop at
> nothing.)
Yah, well, that's for-fee software for ya. Gotta get people to buy the
newer version, ya know.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Or perhaps... you know... providing a way to uninstall IE? ;-)
>
> As Warp said, you'll have to uninstall Windows to do that. If somehow
> you actually managed to remove IE completely, then a whole load of other
> stuff would break. WinPOV Help would be one thing, explorer would
> probably break too.
What, you mean like if you turned RPC off? :-}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> scott wrote:
>>> Or perhaps... you know... providing a way to uninstall IE? ;-)
>>
>> As Warp said, you'll have to uninstall Windows to do that. If somehow
>> you actually managed to remove IE completely, then a whole load of
>> other stuff would break. WinPOV Help would be one thing, explorer
>> would probably break too.
>
> What, you mean like if you turned RPC off? :-}
Huh?
WinPOV Help is a .chm file. HTML Help. The viewer uses the IE rendering
engine to show pages. Uninstall IE completely, including its rendering
engine, and no more HTML help for you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What, you mean like if you turned RPC off? :-}
>
> Huh?
Turning RPC off reputedly causes Windoze-based PCs to malfunction to the
point of being unuseable. Great if you want to close this large security
hole...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
