Coming clean...
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: How do I display full paths instead of the truncated (tilde) forma
Next: Windows 7 Update broke my code
From: Schmidt on 5 Feb 2010 14:59 "Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)exmvps.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:OgHKLYppKHA.5840(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > Here's the Download-Link to a small VB-Demo > > (including the needed olelib.tlb from EdanMo for the IDE). > > www.datenhaus.de/Downloads/MozillaRegfree.zip > > > > The included VB-Binary ("Mozilla.exe") should > > work directly from the App.Path, which contains > > all the mozilla-xulrunner-libs and the mozilla > > "base-environment-folders". > > Which amounts to a fairly hefty "framework" (sorry <g>) > to distribute, but still. Yep, though not to interchange with "my other stuff" - this folder really only contains "pure mozilla libs" - and only "pure VB-Code" - other than the two needed typelibs there's nothing else involved, not even the DirectCOM.dll, which normally provides the "regfree instancing APIs" - in this Demo I've included the regfree instancing routine as plain VB-source, since it can rely on a "stable ClassID". But you're right, Browsers contain a whole lot of stuff nowadays and 8MB of libs is not that small - but if you bite the bullet, you can then rely on, that your "Browsing-Component" will just work - no dependencies which could "act strange" on your target-system. Probably not for each and everyone, but there are usecases for sure (CD-Catalogs, running without install, depending on a HTML-"presentation-layer" - maybe Help-(Desk-)Systems ... USB-stick-Apps, which need to run "everywhere" - this kind of stuff... Olaf
From: Karl E. Peterson on 5 Feb 2010 15:57 Tom Shelton wrote: > On 2010-02-05, Karl E Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: >> Bob Butler wrote: >>> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote in message >>> news:ONg2l9gpKHA.3776(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> Bob Butler wrote: >>> <cut> >>>>> That works, thanks. From my perspective I don't want an "experience" >>>>> when using the web. I want to get the information I need as quickly and >>>>> as directly as possible. Most of the last 8 years of innovation that >>>>> they're pushing is pointless IMO. Not that I don't think IE sucks, just >>>>> that the reason they want to kill it doesn't resonate at all. >>>> >>>> It certainly seems to be the "recreational" sites that are leading the >>>> charge. The raw info is going to be out there, regardless, unless it's >>>> coming from MSFT. >>> >>> LOL. I love it when they try to get me to install silverfish just to get >>> some basic info. I haven't found anything yet that I need that badly from >>> them. >> >> Ditto that. Not a single thing. >> >> What a waste it is, to lose one's empire. How true that is. > > I use it all the time - netflix, watch it now :) The player uses > silverlight. Of course, now that they have the plugin to windows media player > - I actually use that more... Huh. Netflix, eh? Well, there's another "recreational" thing I don't do with computers. (Last time I bought a TV was 1983, so it seems to be lacking a VGA input port.) Pretty sure I'd have to reject it on the silverfish grounds though, were I to care. -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Karl E. Peterson on 5 Feb 2010 15:59 Tom Shelton wrote: > On 2010-02-05, Karl E Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: >> Ralph wrote: >>> Karl E. Peterson wrote: >>>> >>>> There *is* an easy answer for that, though! >>>> >>>> http://www.getfirefox.com ;-) >>> >>> Not too long ago I would have said - "will never happen" ... >>> but then I said the same about leaving Win2000 for my personal PC. (Hmmm is >>> that a double adjective or something?) >>> >>> I truly believed that they would have to pull this ancient O/S from my cold >>> dead fingers. BUT I've run completely out of options. Nothing is supported >>> any more. >> >> I only gave up W2K about 2 or 3 years ago, myself. Now I'm on Win7x64. >> Go figure, huh? >> >> I read a piece the other day saying Chrome is going to overtake both >> Firefox and IE in the next year or two. (Not until the provide a >> highly capable AdBlock extension, IMO!) > > I completely don't understand that. Chrome, while it is fast - I personally > don't like it. I don't really like it, either. But the author had some good points, particularly about bloat and speed. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2358686,00.asp > And if there is one company on this planet that I would trust > less the MS - it's Google. I agree with Steve Job's on Google's "don't be > evil"... "It's Bullshxt". Not me. I'd far rather Google inherit the Earth, than either Jobs or Ballmer, myself. They "get" it. <shrug> -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Karl E. Peterson on 5 Feb 2010 16:01 Schmidt wrote: > But you're right, Browsers contain a whole lot of stuff > nowadays and 8MB of libs is not that small - but > if you bite the bullet, you can then rely on, that > your "Browsing-Component" will just work - no > dependencies which could "act strange" on your > target-system. That *is* just really cool, yeah. And that's totally independent of any version(s) of Firefox that may be installed on the same machine, too, right? Yeah, totally cool. :-) > Probably not for each and everyone, but there > are usecases for sure (CD-Catalogs, running without > install, depending on a HTML-"presentation-layer" - > maybe Help-(Desk-)Systems ... USB-stick-Apps, > which need to run "everywhere" - this kind of stuff... Oh yeah! -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: C. Kevin Provance on 5 Feb 2010 16:08
| Not me. I'd far rather Google inherit the Earth, than either Jobs or | Ballmer, myself. They "get" it. <shrug> I think I heard someplace the meek shall inherit the Earth. That probably means .Nxtters. <g> |