Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Revenge of Mozilla

By John Milton in MLP
Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 10:25:03 AM EST
Tags: Software (all tags)
Software

If you want Windows without the painful integration, Revenge of Mozilla will do the trick. Revenge of Mozilla is a utility which will uninstall Internet Explorer from a Win98 machine.


Revenge of Mozilla will remove all of the following.

1. Internet Explorer 4.0
2. Outlook Express
3. Microsoft NetMeeting
4. Microsoft Chat
5. Internet Connection Wizard
6. HTML Help
7. Online Services
8. Windows Scripting Host
9. Outlook Stationary
10. Web Publishing Wizard
11. ActiveDesktop Items
12. HTML Help Data
13. Win98 Welcome Applet
14. WBEM
15. WebFind
16. CleanUp Manager
17. TuneUp Wizard
18. TroubleShooting Wizards
19. Macromedia Flash for IE
20. Macromedia Director for IE
21. Microsoft Wallet
22. Registration Wizard
23. Other Misc. IE Components
24. Redundant Log Files
25. Microsoft NetShow
26. ActiveMovie
27. FrontPage Express
28. IE Channels
29. Task Scheduler
30. Bitmap Tiles
31. Readme Files
32. Dr. Watson

I'm sure some of you have already heard of this, but I think it is worth noting. I've used it before and it leaves the system amazingly stable. The downside is that you are left with the 95 explorer.exe. No frills. You can reinstall IE later.

CAUTION: If you use this on your system, remember to backup your My Documents folder. ROM erases it. You can recreate it later.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Revenge of Mozilla
o Also by John Milton


Display: Sort:
Revenge of Mozilla | 80 comments (76 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden)
As long as... (4.22 / 9) (#1)
by stuartf on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 08:30:00 PM EST

...you don't want to run Office 2000, or any of the other MS products that depend on IE.

Fine (3.00 / 5) (#2)
by Devil Ducky on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 08:33:17 PM EST

I have no problem giving up those buggy bloatware programs that I never use anyway.

Of course I only use Windows for Photoshop, as long as it doesn't require IE (that would be a sad day) I'm fine.

Devil Ducky

Immune to the Forces of Duct Tape
Day trading at it's Funnest
[ Parent ]
Windows for Photoshop? (4.20 / 5) (#6)
by fluffy grue on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 08:41:01 PM EST

That implies that you use a different OS for your other, non-Photoshop things. Have you considered learning GIMP? It can read .psd files, and although it has a sharper learning curve, it's also (IMO) more powerful than Photoshop, as long as you're using the RGB colorspace anyway. (The currently vaporous GIMP 2 will have pluggable colorspace support, FWIW.) Also, GIMP has an incredible number of free plugins available, and it has both a very simple plugin API and several scripting interfaces so that you can write quick plugin-esque jobbies in Scheme, Python or PERL.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Or a Mac (3.40 / 5) (#7)
by weirdling on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 08:54:17 PM EST

Hmm, insert standard proselytic text concering vast superiority of Macintosh graphics capability...

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
*sigh* (4.00 / 4) (#8)
by regeya on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 09:09:08 PM EST

No, I won't even say anything about Photoshop relying mostly on the processor and copious amounts of RAM rather than some "graphics capability" and quite frankly, I work with Macs for a living and I've spent a fair amount of time cursing when some plugin or other causes a major lockup. Hooray for MacOS stability.

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

Bologna (3.66 / 3) (#41)
by locke baron on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 02:55:14 AM EST

That's crap these days and you know it... Macs have long been a favorite for graphic arts, but nowadays, there's no reason, hardwarily speaking, that Macs are better.
The argument held water back in the day when the PC had VGA or some pissant 640x480x8bpp framebuffer compared to the 16 or 24-bit stuff on Macs, but since they both use the same damn graphics chipsets (Radeon, Rage 128, GeForce2, right?), x86 and Mac systems are even in raw graphical capability.
Of course, add in Altivec optimizations on Mac, and some ops do just plain go faster.
Micro$oft uses Quake clannies to wage war on Iraq! - explodingheadboy
[ Parent ]
It's not hardware... (3.50 / 2) (#72)
by alder on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 08:29:29 PM EST

AFAIK OS 9 and OS X still have the best color matching capabilities and therefore still superior to all for computer graphics.

DISCLAIMER: I never worked with Macs, so this third hand "insight" could be entirely incorrect

[ Parent ]

No mac for me (3.33 / 3) (#52)
by Devil Ducky on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 09:21:57 AM EST

The office won't buy me a mac. They won't even buy me the latest version of Photoshop (but oh they will...)

Plus the after the gealm of a new computer wears off, I would just try out mkLinux and then I'm no better off then I am now Photoshop-wise. :)

Devil Ducky

Immune to the Forces of Duct Tape
Day trading at it's Funnest
[ Parent ]
are you kidding? (2.71 / 7) (#9)
by rebelcool on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 09:20:18 PM EST

comparing GIMP to photoshop is like comparing a moped to a ducati.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

The facts, ma'am, just the facts. (3.00 / 2) (#42)
by Scribe on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 03:12:47 AM EST

I keep hearing that PS is so much better than the GIMP, but never any specifics.

Aside from some patented pre-press stuff that requires a very carefully calibrated system, just what exactly does PS do that the GIMP doesn't? Let's have some specifics please?




--
Someday I may have a .sig :)
[ Parent ]
Only thing I can think of (3.33 / 3) (#43)
by fluffy grue on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 03:22:45 AM EST

The only non-colorspace thing I can think of which PS has and GIMP doesn't is "effects layers," where you have a layer which simply applies an effect to all the lower layers, and IMO that's of somewhat dubious merit, since the only ways I can think of to implement such a thing would be a HUGE waste of CPU (since it'd have to recompute the plugins every time lower layers changed). If you really want to do such a thing, it's not that hard to merge visible layers, copy, undo merge, paste into a new layer, and then apply the filter. (Yeah, it sounds like a long set of operations, but it takes just a few seconds.)
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Some facts (4.25 / 4) (#49)
by Skippy on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 09:01:27 AM EST

In addition to the pre-press stuff here's some things PS does better:
  • Text - creates a new layer and text stays editable until layer is "rendered"
  • Colorspaces - mentioned before. PS does CMYK, and lab color
  • Alpha channels - Yes GIMP does this but the interface blows goats
  • Anti-aliasing - GIMP's anti-aliasing routines suck. Compare AA text or imported vector graphics and PS wins hands down.
  • Previews - PS pretty much previews anything you do. In addition if you are on a Mac there are some sweet undocumented tool preview functions.
I'm sure there's more but I'm not in front of my home machine so I don't have PS or GIMP available. Plus I don't use PS very much anymore as I spend most of my time in FreeBSD and hence use GIMP. BTW, there are things GIMP does better. For instance I've never seen a better interface for creating animated gifs. GIMP rules at that.

# I am now finished talking out my ass about things that I am not qualified to discuss. #
[ Parent ]
And then let's see how GIMP does (4.50 / 2) (#59)
by fluffy grue on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 01:28:55 PM EST

  • text - creates a new layer, and GIMP 1.2 has dynamic text layers which stays editable even after the layer is rendered
  • Colorspaces - known issue; being addressed in GIMP 2; also, this is rolled in with the "pre-press stuff" (since that's all that non-RGB colorspaces are useful for, AFAIK)
  • Alpha channels - I've never seen Photoshop's interface, but GIMP's seems perfectly reasonable to me, aside from having no clear way to change the alpha without changing the color (you can easily change the color without changing the alpha though)
  • Anti-aliasing - Care to show an example? I've always thought GIMP's AA was pretty good, though I'm always open to seeing whether something else is better.
  • Previews - Unfortunately, GIMP's plugins are somewhat inconsistent in that regard, but that's a plugin coding standards issue, and not an issue with GIMP itself. Most of the packed-in plugins and color-mangling tools have previews.

--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Photoshop for Linux? (3.75 / 4) (#18)
by DrEvil on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 10:35:59 PM EST

I would like to know why Photoshop (and other Adobe products) haven't appeared for Linux yet. IRIX (and I assume OS-X?) versions exist so it's not like UNIX systems are foriegn to Adobe. I'm sure porting would be difficult but I'm sure they they could do it. I would hope the majority of thier codebase would be portable! If not maybe it's time for a re-write. Looking at Photoshop 5.5 and 6 it looks like Adobe has hit the feature saturation point so an entire re-write might be what they need to make sales on newer versions. Yeah I know this will never happen, but one can dream right?

For me, Photoshop is about the only thing keeping me on the Windows platform also, yes I know GIMP exists and I have tried it, but personally I don't like it. While it does have some nice features that rival Photoshop, the way you interact with it just isn't as clean as Photoshop.

[ Parent ]
Interface (3.75 / 4) (#27)
by fluffy grue on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 11:50:55 PM EST

Yeah, GIMP's interface isn't nearly as intuitive as Photoshop's. Unfortunately, Adobe has some evil patents on some of their interface elements (such as the tabbed palettes) so those can't be directly cloned. However, once you do get familiar with the GIMP interface, it's quite a bit more powerful than Photoshop - it's like the difference between Explorer and BASH. Explorer is a lot friendlier, but BASH is scriptily delicious. :)

I'm sure that Photoshop could be ported to Linux fairly simply (after all, they maintain versions for MacOS and Windows which are completely different architectures in both hardware and API), but they just don't see a market for it or something. I mean, isn't the last version they released for IRIX 4.0 or something?
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Tabbed Palettes? (2.66 / 3) (#50)
by tzanger on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 09:16:33 AM EST

Unfortunately, Adobe has some evil patents on some of their interface elements (such as the tabbed palettes) so those can't be directly cloned.

I'm pretty sure JASC software's Paint Shop Pro has tabbed palettes... Not sure if they are perhaps paying the licensing fee or not but there are other companies doing it...



[ Parent ]
It's an interesting question... (4.00 / 1) (#63)
by analog on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 02:13:47 PM EST

I use Gimp for the vast majority of my image editing/creation chores, but occasionally find myself on my wife's NT machine using Photoshop. It sometimes drives me crazy.

Because it sucks? No; because I'm not used to it. Most people I have seen who cap on Gimp's interface spend most (or all) of their time in Photoshop, have either only spent a few minutes with Gimp or only seen screenshots, and based on this pronounce the Gimp interface broken and useless. If I used the same criteria they do (it doesn't work like I'm used to and it slows me down, therefore it's no good) I could just as easily (and accurately) pronounce Photoshop's interface broken and useless.

I will say that trying to allow for familiarity, I tend to find that it's easier to get what I'm doing done in Gimp. Of course, I realize that's probably because I don't actually do any *real work* in Gimp (after all, I'm constantly being told by self professed experts that it's not possible), while near as I can tell most people here are using PS for print layouts for top Madison Avenue agencies, but I can only speak to what I know. BTW, I set up my wife's PS hotkeys in Gimp once so she could play around with it; once she got used to the fact that it *looked* different, she had very little trouble using it.

[ Parent ]

I agree (4.00 / 1) (#75)
by fluffy grue on Thu Jun 28, 2001 at 03:23:32 PM EST

I can't get jack done in Photoshop, for the same reason. :) Back in high school (before GIMP existed) I was fairly proficient in Photoshop 3, but the interface has changed a lot since then and I spend all my time in GIMP.

I take issue when people claim that GIMP can't be used for "real work." I suppose it's true if by "real work" you mean "print work," but just because something isn't directly tangible doesn't mean it's not real. The one argument I'm always seeing pounded into the ground by Photoshop advocates is that Photoshop can do print work - and GIMP advocates freely admit that GIMP doesn't have the requried colorspace support, but it's getting it in the next version. Then the Photoshop camp goes, "But you can't do print work!" Then the GIMP people say, "We know! It's being worked on!" Then the Photoshop people say, "But you can't do print work!" ad infinitum.

Basically, the only reasonable argument I've seen for PS over GIMP is that PS has alternate colorspace support (which is the basis for print work), and since that's the only real shortcoming in GIMP compared to PS, the PS advocates keep on hammering on that single point and talking about it in different terms which all mean the same thing ("print work," "real work," "colorspace management," "process color," etc.). It's pretty annoying; it's like when a Linux zealot can only talk about the difference between Linux and Windows in terms of stability (though that's hardly the only reason why Linux is superior).
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Money vs. Porting (4.50 / 2) (#53)
by Devil Ducky on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 09:33:53 AM EST

How much money would it cost to port Photoshop to Linux? Lots.

How much did it cost to port it to Irix (a better graphics capable system)? Lots. How much did they make on that? Little.

How many programs that cost money are flourishing in Linux? None. Would Adobe lose money? Certainly.

Linux/XFree's graphic capabilities are just now getting to the point to consider Photoshop.

I know what you're about to say Photoshop has lots of loyal customers who would continued to buy it even when they didn't include good internet support, so surely they would buy it on Linux too. But you are forgetting that most of Adobe's customers are mac users. Do you think that they are still using Mac because they are waiting for a better OS that runs Photoshop? No, they are still using Mac becuse they will always use Mac, and nothign is going to change that. Now for the windows Photoshop users, many of them are dual-booting now, but how many of them are only dual-booting for Photoshop?

Devil Ducky

Immune to the Forces of Duct Tape
Day trading at it's Funnest
[ Parent ]
Re: Money vs. Porting (3.00 / 1) (#61)
by analog on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 01:54:08 PM EST

How much money would it cost to port Photoshop to Linux? Lots.

I'm not so sure about this. I saw a post to a mailing list once by someone who claimed to be an Adobe employee who said it would basically require them to type 'make'. I doubt it would really be that easy, but AFAIK Adobe writes their own widgets instead of using the Windows API (haven't you ever noticed how stable it is compared to most Windows apps?), so it probably wouldn't be as hard as you think.

He said the reason they wouldn't do it was size of market/support issues. Maintaining a separate version takes resources completely separate from the code itself, and if they release it they want to support it as well, as not doing so could cause harm to their reputation. Given what they perceive to be the size of the Linux market for Photoshop (minimal), they'd never make back the money it would cost to do it.

[ Parent ]

Always use Mac? (none / 0) (#67)
by ichimunki on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 03:16:14 PM EST

I don't know about this "always use Mac" assertion. I've used Macintosh since 1987, and it was always my favorite desktop OS, until I found Linux. The most expensive software I've ever bought was Adobe's Illustrator (and it is still one of the reasons I boot into Mac OS on occasion), but if I could run applications like Illustrator on Linux, I would. There is already the GIMP, which is fine for a lot of photoshop-like stuff, but it ain't no Illustrator.

[ Parent ]
Minority (none / 0) (#71)
by Devil Ducky on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 08:08:45 PM EST

You are in the minority. Most people who use Mac are going to stick with it. People tend to be elitists about their OS. I try not to be. I am an equal OS opprotunity user; as long as it is not Windows. :)

Devil Ducky

Immune to the Forces of Duct Tape
Day trading at it's Funnest
[ Parent ]
GIMP (4.00 / 3) (#51)
by Devil Ducky on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 09:18:24 AM EST

I use GIMP for my personal image editing, I'm not as good at it yet but I'm getting there.

When I'm using Photoshop I am usually starting files for other people to finish/review. I need these images to be opened perfectly by Photoshop, the only way I know to write good quality files that can be opened by Photopshop is in Photoshop. GIMP can read psd, and Photoshop can read xcf but neither can write the other.

Devil Ducky

Immune to the Forces of Duct Tape
Day trading at it's Funnest
[ Parent ]
PSD and XCF (3.00 / 1) (#58)
by fluffy grue on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 01:24:15 PM EST

If Photoshop can read XCF, then it sounds like the interoperability problem is solved - Photoshop people read your XCF, and you read the other peoples' PSD.

I'm surprised to hear that Photoshop can read XCF though.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

IIRC (3.00 / 1) (#60)
by Devil Ducky on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 01:39:46 PM EST

That's only if I'm right, which is rare anymore. :)

The problem comes from when I start a file they have to work on the same file, conversions between formats are rarely perfect.

Devil Ducky

Immune to the Forces of Duct Tape
Day trading at it's Funnest
[ Parent ]
Image formats (3.00 / 1) (#66)
by fluffy grue on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 03:02:55 PM EST

Image formats tend to be fairly perfect to convert between though. Except for colorspace and effect layer stuff, there shouldn't be anything GIMP can't read, and except for dynamic text layers, there shouldn't be anything Photoshop can't read.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

IE is now infrastructure (3.55 / 9) (#3)
by sigwinch on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 08:37:35 PM EST

Yeah, for better or worse, IE is a standard tool for HTML-related things. Take it out and watch your system explode.

And Revenge of Mozilla deletes My Documents. That's just INSANE! Everything that does HTML blows up AND your documents go poof. At that point, why even bother using Windows.

--
I don't want the world, I just want your half.
[ Parent ]

Really (4.00 / 3) (#30)
by Inoshiro on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 12:06:28 AM EST

My Documents and IE always being mem present (vs. being unloaded mhen the refcnt drops to 0, and NOT being the good Mac IE core, which lacks all the ActiveHex proprietary extensions) -- "At that point, why even bother using Windows." covers (some of) why I don't use Windows :)



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Yes, possibly (4.16 / 6) (#4)
by John Milton on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 08:37:41 PM EST

I don't use Office 2000, so I don't know about that. I do know that you can reinstall IE. You'll have IE without the shell integration. Does Office require just IE or does it require an integrated IE?


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
I think (4.33 / 3) (#22)
by stuartf on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 11:07:41 PM EST

I think it's just IE, not necessarily the shell. But then you haven't really gained a lot, you've removed all those components, just to replace them all without the shell integration. Is it really that bad?

[ Parent ]
Not for me, but..... (4.00 / 4) (#25)
by John Milton on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 11:45:58 PM EST

It can be useful for those running older machines. I wasn't recommending that everyone at K5 uninstall IE as some sort of protest. It's just what I consider a cool link. The hors d'oeuvres of K5.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
yah (3.83 / 6) (#5)
by regeya on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 08:37:49 PM EST

I wonder...the FAQ points out that one can re-install IE...not long after I got 98 (hrm, in '98) I took Win98 Explorer off and put on Win95 explorer, which, when one put on the necessary files (a handy-dandy .inf file was floating around) mostly killed IE integration. I tried a couple of apps then that claimed to depend on IE, and they worked.

So yeah, if you want lam0r software that depends on IE (Why, oh why, would an office suite use a web browser as a dependency) install IE.

Can anyone think of any issues that makes this simple fix not work?

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

Hmmm... (4.25 / 4) (#24)
by stuartf on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 11:15:46 PM EST

Also any software that happens to use the MMC is out, as that uses IE (I believe it's used for rendering). I also believe Office uses IE for it's HTML viewing and conversion, correct me if I'm wrong.

Basically it seems like a long way to go around removing the shell integration of IE. (remove IE, reinstall IE without shell integration). What have you really gained - a few MB of memory?

[ Parent ]

Similiar Product (3.85 / 7) (#11)
by Tachys on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 09:53:28 PM EST

I found a Similiar Product 98Lite which allows you to turn many Windows features into components so you can turn them on and off when you want.

It's supposed to work with Windows 95,98 and Me



Very similar (4.20 / 5) (#13)
by John Milton on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 10:09:55 PM EST

As I understand, Jensen designed Revenge of Mozilla to do a more complete gutting than 98lite. It cleans all integration from the registry. It can have a pretty effect on performance. Windows is built like a house of cards. One piece falls, and everything messes up. It's nice to seperate things out.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
98lite (4.00 / 4) (#21)
by Scooby on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 11:01:32 PM EST

IIRC, 98lite basically works by modifying the install files, so you can install a windows with no IE or with IE de-intregrated (which I did btw, and although I never really tested it, it does seem a bit stabler), where as ROM does it post-install.

[ Parent ]
98lite is ***** (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by urgan on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 06:47:10 PM EST

Great stability,very well tested and allmost bug free since it's an rather old project, free for personal use, done to prove that it could be done. There's also a post install IE removal tool, which now works in w95 too.

[ Parent ]
What would be cooler (3.83 / 6) (#14)
by delmoi on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 10:11:20 PM EST

Is if the program ripped out the HTML render com object's interface and replaced it with the mozilla one.

Anyway, I don't really see much of a need for a program that removes a ton of windows functionality....
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
That interface ain't pretty... (4.00 / 2) (#54)
by nstenz on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 10:19:45 AM EST

It looks like IE went through quite a few rewrites, and every time they did something a little differently. There are methods and properties that have a '2' on the end that are basically copies of the same method/property name that doesn't have the 2 on it. Reason? They changed the interface enough from 1.0 that they had to keep the old ones for compatibility and add new ones on. I was trying to figure out how the hell to get the page title so I could change a window's caption (which, by the way, only works over HTTP- it refuses to tell you what's in the <title> tag if you're just reading the file normally)... There's at least 9 different properties that contain the URL of the web page. Kinda reminds me of Linux... *grin*

[ Parent ]
Wow!!! (3.43 / 16) (#15)
by DeadBaby on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 10:12:42 PM EST

You can get rid of that "slow, bloated and buggy" IE and replace it with the "slower, more bloated, buggier" mozilla! Praise the gods.

- "Stay up late, smoke cigars, and break windows" - Tom Waits
More bloated? (4.20 / 5) (#38)
by pwhysall on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 02:42:33 AM EST

Then pray tell why a binary download of IE5.5 is some 80MB while a binary download of Mozilla 0.9.1 is about 10MB.

Funny definition of "more", if you ask me.
--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown
[ Parent ]

becasue.. (3.00 / 3) (#48)
by DeadBaby on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 07:57:06 AM EST

It includes IE for Win9x and NT, including the IEAK.

Mozilla takes 40MB of ram for 3 windows on my system.. Yea, that's not bloat.
- "Stay up late, smoke cigars, and break windows" - Tom Waits
[ Parent ]
Memory usage is a tradeoff (4.00 / 2) (#55)
by nstenz on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 10:25:26 AM EST

Mozilla takes 40MB of ram for 3 windows on my system..
And IE crashes on those K5 pages with 300+ comments because all of the form elements take up system resources until there ain't no more. Mozilla keeps happily chugging along because the XPCOM junk is all seperate from Windows and draws its own junk- and uses its own memory to store all of the graphical elements instead of Windows system resources.

It's sort of nice to have Mozilla around for times like that. Oh, and I browse in nested mode with ratings turned on. Switching to threaded mode or turning off ratings will generally cause IE to not throw a fit.

However, I agree- Mozilla is a memory hog. Definitely not recommended for older systems...

[ Parent ]

There are a couple of CAB files (4.50 / 2) (#65)
by pwhysall on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 02:52:20 PM EST

that deal with the different operating systems.

They're about a megabyte apiece.

And the IEAK is NOT distributed with the regular download of IE - it's a separate thing that you have to install, and register for.

Even so, you've still got some 70MB of "stuff".
--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown
[ Parent ]

Yes! Let's... (2.41 / 17) (#16)
by caine on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 10:13:30 PM EST

Yes! Let's uninstall the best browser, and one of the slickest programs out there, losing half of the operating systems functions, so we instead can browse the web with a piece of bloated, non-functional cr*p. Yes that make sense. No really, it truley makes sense.

(Yes, yes rate me down, I'm aware that this isn't the most interesting comment ever, but this is so stupid there's no end to it.)

--

Missing the point (none / 0) (#79)
by AndyL on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 11:11:53 PM EST

It doesn't matter which browser you prefer if you like the stuff on you system, there's no problem.

If I want to use other stuff, for whatever reason, Why should I have to keep both sets of crap?

I want to be able to easily, uninstall the crap I don't want and keep only the crap I do want.

Why is this so hard to understand?

-Andy

[ Parent ]

An easier method (3.41 / 12) (#17)
by shoeboy on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 10:19:10 PM EST

You can accomplish much the same thing by booting into dos and typing format c:

Considering the vast numbers of applications that now depend on IE (it's not just a browser, it's an OLE container and collecton of COM objects) reformatting the hard drive will have the exact same effect on the usefullness of your machine.

As an added bonus, you get improved stability. Your box will sit there with a "Bad system disk or disk error" message and never, ever crash.

If you don't want to put up with the instability of Windows 98, your best bet is to not run it. Either move to Windows 2000, Linux or FreeBSD. Not using the functionality of your operating system is a poor substitue for the stability of a real operating system.

--Shoeboy
No more trolls!

Not very useful then, is it? (3.00 / 4) (#19)
by kumquat on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 10:40:54 PM EST

Removes programs from Win98 that are associated with Internet Explorer 4.0?

How many win98 machines are running 4.0? A few, no doubt, but how many people who would run this sort of program haven't upgraded to 5.0 or 5.5 already? What a hare-brained idea. I hope whoever wrote it didn't spend too much time on it.

98SE version (3.00 / 3) (#20)
by Scooby on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 10:58:16 PM EST

Last time I checked, and that was a while ago, there was a 98SE version released also, so that'd work with IE 5.0 too. I'm not sure about 5.5 though.
Personally, I just stick to 98lite.

[ Parent ]
Yea (none / 0) (#80)
by AndyL on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 03:22:31 AM EST

Personaly, I always upgrade my software before I delete it.

[ Parent ]
IE is unavoidable (3.25 / 8) (#23)
by Eloquence on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 11:14:04 PM EST

In my experience, if you want to use Windows, you must have IE installed. You don't have to use it, and if you have some sanity left, you should sure as heck turn off the shell extensions, but you need to have it installed. Far too many programs depend on the IE browser control -- not necessarily for rendering web pages, often simply for displaying a built-in banner or a help file (Microsoft's new help file standard also depends on IE). If you don't have IE installed, you will often get obscure error messages with new programs, which will fail to work at all or which will lack certain features. Of course, Microsoft's own programs are especially prone to this.

You may say that you have never encountered a program that you need that depended on IE, but it's obvious that if you want to keep using up-to-date Windows software, you will eventually have to let it onto your system. There is no way out. I've tried it. Then I needed to install Office to exchange and edit Word files reliably. There it was. At least it doesn't do much unless I run it. For web browsing, I use Netscape 4.7 and Opera.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!

Actually.. (3.25 / 4) (#26)
by Inoshiro on Tue Jun 26, 2001 at 11:47:02 PM EST

If you are forced to use Windows, you can avoid IE if you just use older versions. What has been added post WinZip 6.3 SR1 that you need? (A: nothing exceph tweaks to the icons..) What's been added post Office 97 (which has all the Y2K fixed and standard dialog boxes Office 95 lacks)? And what do you gain with all the other "new, improved" versions of stuff?

Mozilla on Win98 with the new turbo stuff installed really is awesome :)



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Yeah, but... (4.00 / 1) (#62)
by Nurgled on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 02:06:11 PM EST

Running Opera on Win95 is even better.



[ Parent ]
<sigh> (4.00 / 1) (#69)
by oDDmON oUT on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 06:12:53 PM EST

been using this program since it came out shortly after Win98 hit the scene. it has *always* given me the most stable, error free, systems...period.

of course before using you should *read*all*instructions*, including the caveat that it be used _only_on_fresh_installations_ of 98/98se. ;^)

my point (and gripe) is that users have simply been rolling over and getting shafted by mediocrity that winds up being a standard due to superior marketing and consumer inertia. *any* program that, freely, gives some element of control back to us should receive accolades and laurel wreaths (as well as encouragement to be futher developed or GPL'd).

--

that's my 2 worth
~ oDDmON oUT

[ Parent ]
One Usefulness (3.66 / 6) (#28)
by Dolohov on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 12:00:30 AM EST

For those of us who only use Windows to play games, this is an aid to stripping out as much of the unused functionality as possible. I haven't tried it yet (And won't, since I actually use IE on the Windows machine here), but I would imagine that it's pretty useful in squeezing out some of that overhead while playing Counterstrike.
So, don't be so quick to label this thing as useless.

If I can make a recommendation (4.42 / 7) (#32)
by John Milton on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 12:17:44 AM EST

Shell City is the best resource for Windows shell replacements. There is one specifically designed for gamers. It is made to have low memory demand.

If you just want a low memory shell replacement, I would recommend Aston Shell. It has themes and a very nice interface. It's $28 to register, but you don't have to if you only have 10 icons on your desktop.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
This is absolutely ridiculous. (2.57 / 7) (#29)
by kevsan on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 12:00:50 AM EST

I shall preempt this post by proclaiming that I, in no way, support Microsoft's monopolistic rule over the PC software industry. In fact, frankly, I believe that the current antitrust case against them is just and necessary in order to keep the free market system thriving throughout the world.

However, I do not believe in what is, in essence, the justification by open source zealots of the existence of a trojan horse which destroys Microsoft applications on PCs running Windows.

Imagine the backlash if pro-Microsoft fanatics coded a program which would annihilate all traces of Netscape, a browser which is not integral to the Windows OS, from a PC. Absolute hell would be raised. Petitions would spring up around the globe, criticizing the unjust actions of a corrupt corporation.

I understand that this application is not designed to be forced on end users, but the existence of it is a bit frightening all the same. Because Internet Explorer is so necessary to Windows 98, creating an application to eradicate all remains of it is not the best way for open source/free software groups to compete in the market.

-K
Why? (4.71 / 7) (#31)
by J'raxis on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 12:13:03 AM EST

No, this is just a bug fix -- these programs seem to be suspiciously absent from the "Add/Remove Software" Control panel. Think of it as a Service Pack. ;)

-- The Macintosh Raxis

[ J’raxis·Com | Liberty in your lifetime ]
[ Parent ]

Heh, heh. (3.80 / 5) (#34)
by kevsan on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 01:35:49 AM EST

Touch! I consider myself bested. :)

I agree, of course, that these programs are inferior to those which open source can provide. *cough*Mozilla*cough* That doesn't mean, though, that user's documents should be endangered simply because a programmer disagrees with the ideology of an operating system.

No offense intended; just my two cents.

-K
[ Parent ]
Beware of geeks bearing rhetoric (3.80 / 5) (#35)
by afeldspar on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 01:54:37 AM EST

However, I do not believe in what is, in essence, the justification by open source zealots of the existence of a trojan horse which destroys Microsoft applications on PCs running Windows.

A Trojan horse is something that pretends to do useful things and instead does destructive things behind your back.

Whether you agree or not that removing IE and all traces of it is a useful thing, I fail to see what it does behind your back. If the answer is "nothing" then where is your Trojan horse?


-- For those concerned about the "virality" of the GPL, a suggestion: Write Your Own Damn Code.
[ Parent ]

Excellent question. (3.00 / 4) (#37)
by kevsan on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 02:32:41 AM EST

I feel that this program does, in fact, posess the nature of a Trojan horse.

In your own words, the "Revenge of Mozilla" application does pretend to do useful things. Some may even argue that it *does* useful things by getting rid of MSIE, made by a company who disagrees with the philosophy behind open source software.

However, the destructive powers of this program abound. Firstly, it destroys the C:\My Documents directory for no particularly good reason, other than the fact that the directory was created by Windows in order to attract customers who were not as familiar with computers as their more able users. Secondly, one of the cornerstones of the Windows 98 operating system is utterly destroyed. As many other critics of this program have noted, an instant deletion of the Microsoft Internet Explorer browser would, in all actuality, cause many problems within the operating system itself.

This application, while it may be sent by well-meaning Athenians, remains a threat to the security of the city of Troy.

-K
[ Parent ]
A little explanation (4.50 / 4) (#45)
by John Milton on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 03:56:08 AM EST

First, the program was designed to be used on a fresh install of Windows 98 or Windows 98 SE. A fresh install would not have any documents in My Documents. My Documents is a special folder in Win98. The author of the program only endorses its use on fresh installs, but he notes that there are no problems as long as you back up your documents ahead of time.

Second, Win98 has very bad integration between it's components. Internet Explorer is not the cornerstone of the operating system. I have used this on my computer. I was perfectly able to use Netscape and my other applications. I could also have reinstalled IE and enjoyed using it in a more stable environment. I noticed no problems. I'm not advocating that everyone does this, but it doesn't break anything as far as I've seen. The auto-dialing switched off, but there was an app on ROM's web page for that. That said I'm not using it now, because I haven't bothered too. However, I thought that it was an interesting link and that some would be interested.

Third, it is not a trojan. There is no trick. Not regular user is going to deinstall IE. Those who use this either oppose Microsoft on moral grounds or are running older computers and desire more stability. The site explicitly explains the deletion of My Documents.

I don't know how anyone could have confused this.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
Annihilate Netscape? (3.75 / 4) (#36)
by Trepalium on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 02:25:21 AM EST

Imagine the backlash if pro-Microsoft fanatics coded a program which would annihilate all traces of Netscape, a browser which is not integral to the Windows OS, from a PC. Absolute hell would be raised.

Well, it wouldn't even really take a program, per se. A four line batch file would pretty much do it. You'd be left with icons and associations that wouldn't work, but that's pretty minor.

DELTREE /Y C:\PROGRA~1\NETSCAPE
DELTREE /Y C:\NETSCAPE
DELTREE /Y C:\PROGRA~1\MOZILLA.ORG
DELTREE /Y C:\PROGRA~1\MOZILLA

Unlike IE, Netscape is pretty much very well behaved for a Windows program -- it pretty much solely exists in it's application directory, and eradicating it is about as difficult as removing the directory it's in. Then again, those are pretty much Microsoft's guidelines for installing applications. Microsoft's own applications rarely follow them, but then again, most of Microsoft's own applications don't follow MS's UI guidelines, either.

[ Parent ]

I agree fully. (3.50 / 4) (#39)
by kevsan on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 02:43:36 AM EST

However, I ask you... what if this batch file also performed this simple, one-line task?

DELTREE /Y C:\MYDOCU~1\

The My Documents directory which TRoM deletes is completely unnecessary to deleting and installing Mozilla.

Additionally, I completely concur that Netscape is a well-behaved Windows program. The primary reason why this is still true is that Netscape has not become a necessary part of the Microsoft Windows operating system. Internet Explorer, for better or for worse, has. Therefore, this must be considered in the equation.

Again, I state that I disagree with Microsoft not following their own application standards, but this does not mean that eliminating the offending application will be an innocuous process.

-K
[ Parent ]
I'm not so sure about that (3.75 / 4) (#44)
by fluffy grue on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 03:26:51 AM EST

Win'98 seems to treat My Documents specially. Have you ever noticed the fact that it has its own icon, and more importantly, the fact that the common Open and Save dialogs always default to going to My Documents? (That's one of the most ANNOYING behaviors in Win98 and later, IMO.) I have a feeling that deleting the directory and recreating it as a normal one is simply some mechanism of getting around that funkiness.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Shell Extensions, man. (none / 0) (#64)
by Nurgled on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 02:15:02 PM EST

It's reasonably likely that the directory references some shell extension which is inside IE. Lots of directories seem to do this in Win98 and above...

However, on my Win95 box, Word 97 (which I had to install for my damned useless family) created an entirely normal My Documents directory.



[ Parent ]
Has it's own DLL (none / 0) (#76)
by Scooby on Fri Jun 29, 2001 at 07:03:49 PM EST

there's a mydocs.dll in the windows\system dir. I think that it uses that for most of the special functions windows gives it.

[ Parent ]
While you're at it... (2.66 / 6) (#33)
by orestes on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 01:24:05 AM EST

Why not uninstall DirectX, explorer.exe, and control.exe?

I hope the guy who made this thing realizes that after Win95, IE is Windows. Get rid of all these components and you might as well get rid of Windows altogether and install something else.

[ You Sad Bastard ]
Not quite correct (4.00 / 4) (#46)
by gcmillwood on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 07:40:28 AM EST

Prof. Edward Felten gave evidence (pdf) in the Microsoft antitrust trial. He states that it is quite possible to remove IE from a win98 box without harmful effects.

Relevant quote from the bottom of page 2:
First, I have been asked to study the structure and function of Windows 98, Windows 95, and Internet Explorer ("IE"), and the relations among them, and determine whether IE Web browsing can be removed from Windows 95, and whether IE Web browsing can be removed from Windows 98. As I will discuss below, my answer to both questions is yes.

[ Parent ]
Re: While you're at it... (none / 0) (#77)
by WWWWolf on Sat Jun 30, 2001 at 01:55:20 PM EST

Why not uninstall DirectX, explorer.exe, and control.exe?

I hope the guy who made this thing realizes that after Win95, IE is Windows.

There are alternative shells for Win9x too, you know. It's possible to change the shell, not as obvious and popular activity as in *NIX though... =)

And if you change the window manager in *NIX/X11, does the operating system change? No. Saying "Explorer is Windows" would make as much sense as saying "Enlightenment is Linux". =) I guess the kernel and OS services matter more than the shell...

-- Weyfour WWWWolf, a lupine technomancer from the cold north...


[ Parent ]
Project annoucnements? -1 (1.25 / 4) (#40)
by FattMattP on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 02:46:21 AM EST

What is this? Freshmeat.net? I don't think kuro5hin is the appropriate place to be annoucing projects such as this.

-1

this IS useful (3.60 / 5) (#56)
by Ender Ryan on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 10:53:41 AM EST

This program is very useful for people who just want a stripped down version of windows for a small number of applications, especially games.

My friend used this program, and he said it worked great. All he was doing with his windows machine was playing games and videos, and this allowed him to reboot to windows much faster.

If you're not personally interested in this application, then try a little STFU, it's useful for other people.

Also, supposedly this improved the performance in a few games, but I haven't seen this myself so I'm not sure.

What is also interesting is that removing all this stuff significantly reduces windows' boot time. If IE wasn't loaded into memory at boot time(like some people claim) then why would removing it cause windows to boot faster?


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


Bad Choices (3.00 / 2) (#57)
by guinsu on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 11:23:08 AM EST

Some of these are pretty bad (or dumb) choices to remove. Isn't Dr. Watson a diagnostics program? And some of the HTMl help and troubleshooting wizards may actually come in useful some day. Plus I am personally offended that the Windows Scripting Host is included in this. Its one of the most useful features in windows. I find it funny that people used to rail on Windows b/c of the crappy built in scripting compared to Linux then when MS finally includes it everyone recommends that you uninstall it.

Scripting Host (3.00 / 1) (#74)
by FyreFiend on Thu Jun 28, 2001 at 02:28:15 AM EST

(Disclamer: I could very well be talking out of my ass)

Isn't Windows Scripting Host the reason that those foo.jpg.vbs viruses are so bad. I thought that without that .vbs files wouldn't run.



-- Working with Unix is like wrestling with a worthy opponent. Working with Windows is like attacking a small whiney child who's carrying a .38


[ Parent ]
Having just tried this.... (4.00 / 1) (#68)
by Zukov on Wed Jun 27, 2001 at 04:57:45 PM EST

I suggest people _do_ follow the instructions.

I installed it on a not_fresh system of W98se, which I use for expendable purposes, and managed to completely bork the system. I get a endlessly repeating error window named "stub 1". Having managed to cancel that task, I get w98 with no desktop.

I'm NOT blaming the author of this software. The instructions are quite specific, and I knowingly did not follow them.

When I do this again, I will use the "deluxe" version which contains the extra files you need from a W95 cd. I think my problem was the result of my not being able to find _all_ the needed files on a W95 cd, and not being able to figure out how to cancel the process.

Again, It's my doing, and I'm not blaming anyone other than me.

But do follow those directions.

ȶ H (^

Yes, I have just bumbled upon Gnome Character Map. Please ! me.

Same problem (none / 0) (#78)
by John Milton on Sat Jun 30, 2001 at 05:31:33 PM EST

I had the same problem the first time. The deluxe version is almost mandatory. I've never been able to make the other one work.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
Revenge of Mozilla | 80 comments (76 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!