[thelist] IE Service Pack Updates v Full Browsers

[Ken Schaefer]

: -----Original Message-----
: From: thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org
[mailto:thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org] On
: Behalf Of Rosalie Sennett
: Sent: Monday, 3 January 2005 2:07 AM
: To: 'Ken Schaefer'; thelist at lists.evolt.org
: Subject: RE: [thelist] IE Service Pack Updates v Full Browsers
: 
: IE and Windows Explorer are integrated in that they listen for each other
: (Try entering c:\ into Firefox and you'll note that Windows Explorer
doesn't
: automatically open) in that if you make a reference to the file system in
: the location bar in IE, Windows Explorer will open.


If you enter c:\ in Firefox you get a directory listing, obtained from
Windows

If you enter c:\ in Internet Explorer you also get a directory listing. The
"shim" changes, because you're now in a different IE security zone. However
the process displaying this listing is *still* iexplorer.exe. It's just that
showdoc.dll or urlmon.dll (or whatever dll is responsible for working out
which sec zone you're in) has determined that your now in the "my computer"
zone rather than say the 'internet' zone. Explorer hasn't "opened" - you're
still using iexplore.exe

As for the "listening" thing - how is this any different to any other app?
Word doesn't "listen" to see if you've double-clicked a Word document.
Instead there is invocation process whereby handlers for certain file
extensions are registered with Windows, and the handler can be invoked when
you attempt to use a certain file. This doesn't mean that "word is integrated
with Explorer" or similar, and so I don't understand what's special about the
explorer/iexplore integration. What *is* common is certain underlying .dlls
that provide functionality like HTML rendered (mshtml.dll) and zone security
(urlmon.dll). These .dlls can be loaded into many processes (eg outlook,
explorer, iexplore) rather than having separate dlls for each applications

Cheers
Ken

 
: But they're not integrated in the sense that one requires the other.
: 
: Explorer.exe is responsible for more than just file browsing... the icons
: and any interface that isn't shown in a Microsoft Management Console is
: going to use some form of the explorer.exe functions.

Explorer itself doesn't do much. Much of this functionality is implemented in
other dlls which can be loaded by the Explorer process (or loaded by other
processes as well). Explorer itself is only about 1MB in size. IExplorer is
even smaller (about 90kb).

Cheers
Ken


: 
: rose
: 
: -----------------
: c:/dos
: c:/dos/run
: run/dos/run
: >>
: -----------------
: 
: > -----Original Message-----
: > From: thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org [mailto:thelist-
: > bounces at lists.evolt.org] On Behalf Of Ken Schaefer
: > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 7:37 AM
: > To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
: > Subject: Re: [thelist] IE Service Pack Updates v Full Browsers
: >
: > www.mozilla.org <- get Firefox mentioned
: >
: > That said, explorer.exe shouldn't "get corrupt". What do you mean by
: > that exactly?
: >
: > Also explorer.exe is not "integrated" with iexplore.exe (well, not in
: > any sense of the word integrated that I'm aware of). What do you mean
: > by that.
: >
: > Cheers
: > Ken
: >
: >
: > On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 04:03:37 -0800, MedStarWriter
: > <medstarwriter at prodigy.net> wrote:
: > > Thank you for the suggestion. I had not considered alternative
browsers.
: > > Please indicate a TRUSTED source where I could find more information
: > about
: > > these browsers and download them (without worrying about getting
: > nasties).
: > > Are these browsers freeware or shareware?
: > >
: > > Also, I'd be interested in learning about a good shell replacement
: > utility
: > > for Windows Me. Windows Explorer (EXPLORER.EXE) gets corrupted far too
: > > easily, and it is integrated with Internet Explorer (IEXPLORE.EXE). A
: > > freeware option would be preferred, but let me know if there are any
: > good
: > > shareware replacements as well. Thanks.