FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
- Messages
- 26,259 (4.46/day)
- Location
- IA, USA
System Name | BY-2021 |
---|---|
Processor | AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile) |
Motherboard | MSI B550 Gaming Plus |
Cooling | Scythe Mugen (rev 5) |
Memory | 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB |
Video Card(s) | AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT |
Storage | Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM |
Display(s) | Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI) |
Case | Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay |
Audio Device(s) | Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+ |
Power Supply | Enermax Platimax 850w |
Mouse | Nixeus REVEL-X |
Keyboard | Tesoro Excalibur |
Software | Windows 10 Home 64-bit |
Benchmark Scores | Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare. |
Windows 95 was released on the dawn of the Internet for consumer use. The purpose it served then is the same purpose served now...Another point, Bundling IE with Win95 was the downfall of netscape nav, back then everyone was "against" MS, funny how now they are "with" ms.
Look at it from Microsoft's perspective: They need code in order to obtain and install updates for the operating system. That means a whole lot of protocol code behind the scenes. Now, why not use HTTP and use the same code base for more than one application? That's exactly what they did: Make an update client and slap a browser on to it.Today IE is hard-coded in the OS which sucks because forces people to keep two browsers if they want alternative. It is also hard-linked, meaning that a lot of functionality doesn't look for the default browser but for IE directly. This sucks a lot but here in EU we like to unsucker ourselves.
What Microsoft is having to do now is completely hide that underlying code base and only access it for update routines; however, for quality control purposes (spoofing browsers, spoofing websites, etc.), Microsoft cannot expect a third-party browser to allow updating because that puts the entire operating system at risk.
So what it comes down to is this:
a) A high security clearance browser with strict access controls.
b) A high security clearance update application with strict access controls and an unenforceable security clearance browser with application derived access.
"a" fulfills two roles securely; "b" fulfills the same two roles but at the same time producing a potentially massive security hole.
Internet Explorer made sense back then and it still does today: it's update role is required for safe operation of the computer and expanding upon it merely makes life on a freshly formatted computer a little easier. It's a win-win situation.
Simply put, if you can't stand Internet Explorer, you shouldn't be using Windows. They are one in the same--at least until the EU raped Microsoft and forced them to change their programming model in Internet Explorer 7 (IE6 could do FTP, local, and HTTP without changing executables, IE7 can only do HTTP). EU has done a whole lot of absolutely no good in this case.