IE 11....What a Mess!

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

VanguardLH WROTE:

really think it is due to them moving to a multi-process web browser

Will that run on single-core computers?

Multi-processing is not dependent on multi-processors or multi-core.
Alas, multi-processing is often linked to multi-processors.
Multi-processing can be viewed as multiple processors or multiple
processes. In the later case, we've been running multiple processes on
microcomputers for as long as I can remember. Not even old DOS was
single process since the OS had to keep running while its dispatcher
handling loading and context switching for the loaded program. In
Firefox's case, and Google Chrome, multi-processing means multiple
processes (one for chrome and one, or more, for tabs).

A program can load more than one process. For example, I had a game
(forget the name) that would load using one .exe that then loaded
another .exe. Trying to change permissions on first .exe did not affect
the 2nd .exe. There was no 2nd .exe on which to change permissions
because it was unrolled from a data block in the 1st .exe, stored in a
file, and the first .exe loaded the 2nd one. Both .exe processes were
running, the 1st provided a front end UI to the 2nd. If you killed one,
the other died, too (something like a bouncing-ball scheme where each
process checks the other process is present and, if not, takes some
action, like itself unloading or restarting the other process).

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

VanguardLH WROTE:

really think it is due to them moving to a multi-process web browser

Will that run on single-core computers?

Multi-processing is not dependent on multi-processors or multi-core.
Alas, multi-processing is often linked to multi-processors.

Thanks, Vanguard and Mayayana - I realised as soon as I'd posted that
that it wasn't the same thing - as you say, we've been running
multiprocesses on a single processor for ever (at least, since Windows -
and even in DOS if you consider interrupts).
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"On the whole, I'm in favour of the state getting out of people's lives, but I
would not have a problem with voting being made compulsory. But if you did
that, you'd have to have a box for 'None of the above'."
Jeremy Paxman, quoted in RT 2015/5/2-8

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 14:21:29 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:


I have a sister who uses Internet Explorer. She refers to it as "The
Internet".

One of the first times that I was helping her over the phone, somewhere
around 2003-4, I asked her to launch her browser and go to a specific
site.
Her reply, "Launch my what?"
"Internet Explorer"
"I don't think I have that."
"OK, launch whichever browser you normally use."
"I don't have one of those, either."
"Well, how do you access the Internet?"
"I just click on it!"
"You click on what?"
"The Internet!"
"What does the icon look like?"
"It's a lower case E with a halo."
Me: smack my head

To be fair to your sister, I'm sure I've seen desktops where the IE icon
_is_ labelled "The Internet", or similar. I think some OEMs set it up
like that - and, though it offends we purists, it's a reasonable
simplification.

When I'm setting up a system for a not-very-computer-savvy person, I go
for a middle ground - I label the icons "Firefox (the web)" and
"Thunderbird (email)", or similar.

LOL! I was about to reply that all she had to do was look at the title
bar of "the internet" to see that it was called "Internet Explorer."
But then I started up IE11 and saw that it didn't say anything on the
title bar. I thought it did, at least in older versions, but now I'm
not sure if my memory is correct.

It sometimes said "Internet Explorer provided by xxx", if you go far
enough back that ISPs used to provide a setup CD; they usually
personalised IE to at least that extent (I think they may have sometimes
made it appear with a different icon [such as their own logo], too.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"On the whole, I'm in favour of the state getting out of people's lives, but I
would not have a problem with voting being made compulsory. But if you did
that, you'd have to have a box for 'None of the above'."
Jeremy Paxman, quoted in RT 2015/5/2-8

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 23:16:16 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 14:21:29 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:


I have a sister who uses Internet Explorer. She refers to it as "The
Internet".

One of the first times that I was helping her over the phone, somewhere
around 2003-4, I asked her to launch her browser and go to a specific
site.
Her reply, "Launch my what?"
"Internet Explorer"
"I don't think I have that."
"OK, launch whichever browser you normally use."
"I don't have one of those, either."
"Well, how do you access the Internet?"
"I just click on it!"
"You click on what?"
"The Internet!"
"What does the icon look like?"
"It's a lower case E with a halo."
Me: smack my head

To be fair to your sister,


*My* sister? Nope. I guess you meant to reply to Char. g


I'm sure I've seen desktops where the IE icon
_is_ labelled "The Internet", or similar. I think some OEMs set it up
like that - and, though it offends we purists, it's a reasonable
simplification.


I've never seen that, and some people might have shortcuts for more
than one browser. That wouldn't work for them.


When I'm setting up a system for a not-very-computer-savvy person, I go
for a middle ground - I label the icons "Firefox (the web)" and
"Thunderbird (email)", or similar.


Really long labels! I would never do that; they take up too much room.
Even "Internet Explorer" is a name too long for me. I would make it
"IE." I don't want a name longer than a single line.



LOL! I was about to reply that all she had to do was look at the title
bar of "the internet" to see that it was called "Internet Explorer."
But then I started up IE11 and saw that it didn't say anything on the
title bar. I thought it did, at least in older versions, but now I'm
not sure if my memory is correct.

It sometimes said "Internet Explorer provided by xxx", if you go far
enough back that ISPs used to provide a setup CD; they usually
personalised IE to at least that extent (I think they may have sometimes
made it appear with a different icon [such as their own logo], too.)


I've perhaps seen that on other people's computers (again, I don't
remember for sure), but certainly not on my own. I always set it, and
everything else, up myself.

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 16:32:42 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

Multi-processing is not dependent on multi-processors or multi-core.
Alas, multi-processing is often linked to multi-processors.
Multi-processing can be viewed as multiple processors or multiple
processes. In the later case, we've been running multiple processes on
microcomputers for as long as I can remember. Not even old DOS was
single process since the OS had to keep running while its dispatcher
handling loading and context switching for the loaded program. In
Firefox's case, and Google Chrome, multi-processing means multiple
processes (one for chrome and one, or more, for tabs).



I go back a lot of years, to IBM mainfames, starting in 1962. So I've
always used IBM's definition, and what you describe was called
"multiprogramming." "Multiprocessing" *was* dependent on
multi-processors. See
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledg.../c32mul2..html


Perhaps in these days of personal computers, the definition has
changed. I don't know for sure, but checking in Google, I see many
references that say the same thing I said above, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprocessing

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 23:16:16 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 14:21:29 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:


I have a sister who uses Internet Explorer. She refers to it as "The
Internet".
[]
To be fair to your sister,


*My* sister? Nope. I guess you meant to reply to Char. g

(-:

I'm sure I've seen desktops where the IE icon
_is_ labelled "The Internet", or similar. I think some OEMs set it up
like that - and, though it offends we purists, it's a reasonable
simplification.


I've never seen that, and some people might have shortcuts for more
than one browser. That wouldn't work for them.

People who have more than one browser are not likely to be the sort such
practices are aimed at!

When I'm setting up a system for a not-very-computer-savvy person, I go
for a middle ground - I label the icons "Firefox (the web)" and
"Thunderbird (email)", or similar.


Really long labels! I would never do that; they take up too much room.
Even "Internet Explorer" is a name too long for me. I would make it
"IE." I don't want a name longer than a single line.

Yes, but you'd know what "IE" meant. I _could_ have just used "the web"
and "email", but I want my pupils to at least have a _chance_ of
learning the names of the prog.s they use - if only for my own benefit,
so that when talking to them, if I slip into referring to Firefox or
Thunderbird, they're not completely lost.


LOL! I was about to reply that all she had to do was look at the title
bar of "the internet" to see that it was called "Internet Explorer."
But then I started up IE11 and saw that it didn't say anything on the
title bar. I thought it did, at least in older versions, but now I'm
not sure if my memory is correct.

It sometimes said "Internet Explorer provided by xxx", if you go far
enough back that ISPs used to provide a setup CD; they usually
personalised IE to at least that extent (I think they may have sometimes
made it appear with a different icon [such as their own logo], too.)


I've perhaps seen that on other people's computers (again, I don't
remember for sure), but certainly not on my own. I always set it, and
everything else, up myself.

Again, you're not the target audience (-:.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's OK to be tight on
The seafront at Brighton
But I say, by Jove
Watch out if it's Hove.
- Sister Monica Joan, quoted by Jennifer Worth (author of the Call the
Midwife books, quoted in Radio Times 19-25 January 2013)

Ken Blake wrote:

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 16:32:42 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

Multi-processing is not dependent on multi-processors or multi-core.
Alas, multi-processing is often linked to multi-processors.
Multi-processing can be viewed as multiple processors or multiple
processes. In the later case, we've been running multiple processes on
microcomputers for as long as I can remember. Not even old DOS was
single process since the OS had to keep running while its dispatcher
handling loading and context switching for the loaded program. In
Firefox's case, and Google Chrome, multi-processing means multiple
processes (one for chrome and one, or more, for tabs).

I go back a lot of years, to IBM mainfames, starting in 1962. So I've
always used IBM's definition, and what you describe was called
"multiprogramming." "Multiprocessing" *was* dependent on
multi-processors. See
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledg...3/c32mul2.html

Ah, yes, true.

Perhaps in these days of personal computers, the definition has
changed. I don't know for sure, but checking in Google, I see many
references that say the same thing I said above, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprocessing

No, I'd still use multiprogramming to describe the context switching to
run multiple processes but one at a time.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

It sometimes said "Internet Explorer provided by xxx", if you go far
enough back that ISPs used to provide a setup CD; they usually
personalised IE to at least that extent

IE Adminstration Kit (IEAK) - allowed vendors to stamp IE with their
name.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/.../bb219541.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...nistration_Kit

https://4sysops.com/archives/ieak-bo...configuration/
(be aware of their inline ads within their articles)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aj1juGvUS0
(the parts are not linked so you have to find the other parts)

(I think they may have sometimes made it appear with a different icon
[such as their own logo], too.)

You can specify whatever icon you want in the shorcut's definition. If
the icon isn't available as a resource in another file (.exe or .dll)
then they can supply their own .ico file and point the shortcut to that
for that shortcut's icon.

VanguardLH wrote:
Ken Blake wrote:

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 16:32:42 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

Multi-processing is not dependent on multi-processors or multi-core.
Alas, multi-processing is often linked to multi-processors.
Multi-processing can be viewed as multiple processors or multiple
processes. In the later case, we've been running multiple processes on
microcomputers for as long as I can remember. Not even old DOS was
single process since the OS had to keep running while its dispatcher
handling loading and context switching for the loaded program. In
Firefox's case, and Google Chrome, multi-processing means multiple
processes (one for chrome and one, or more, for tabs).

I go back a lot of years, to IBM mainfames, starting in 1962. So I've
always used IBM's definition, and what you describe was called
"multiprogramming." "Multiprocessing" *was* dependent on
multi-processors. See
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledg...3/c32mul2.html

Ah, yes, true.

Perhaps in these days of personal computers, the definition has
changed. I don't know for sure, but checking in Google, I see many
references that say the same thing I said above, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprocessing

No, I'd still use multiprogramming to describe the context switching to
run multiple processes but one at a time.

I must be an outlier. I would think "multiprocessing" would be a more apt
term, and could mean either using multiple processors OR using multiple
threads.

Multiprogramming (to me) would literally imply "multiple programming", which
doesn't make much literal sense to me (taken literally, it would suggest
multiple programmers were involved, or something like that, wouldn't it?).

Bill in Co wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:
Ken Blake wrote:

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 16:32:42 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

Multi-processing is not dependent on multi-processors or multi-core.
Alas, multi-processing is often linked to multi-processors.
Multi-processing can be viewed as multiple processors or multiple
processes. In the later case, we've been running multiple processes on
microcomputers for as long as I can remember. Not even old DOS was
single process since the OS had to keep running while its dispatcher
handling loading and context switching for the loaded program. In
Firefox's case, and Google Chrome, multi-processing means multiple
processes (one for chrome and one, or more, for tabs).

I go back a lot of years, to IBM mainfames, starting in 1962. So I've
always used IBM's definition, and what you describe was called
"multiprogramming." "Multiprocessing" *was* dependent on
multi-processors. See
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledg...3/c32mul2.html

Ah, yes, true.

Perhaps in these days of personal computers, the definition has
changed. I don't know for sure, but checking in Google, I see many
references that say the same thing I said above, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprocessing

No, I'd still use multiprogramming to describe the context switching to
run multiple processes but one at a time.

I must be an outlier. I would think "multiprocessing" would be a more apt
term, and could mean either using multiple processors OR using multiple
threads.

Multiprogramming (to me) would literally imply "multiple programming", which
doesn't make much literal sense to me (taken literally, it would suggest
multiple programmers were involved, or something like that, wouldn't it?).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comput...ltiprogramming

Multiple programs, not multiple programming languages.

Then came multitasking (cooperative and preemptive):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comput...e_multitasking

Cooperative meant the processes cooperated as to who got a time slice on
the CPU. Yeah, well, some programs weren't very cooperative hence the
need for OS-based preemptive multitasking. However, processes at high-
priority would still get more CPU time (a longer slice) and real-time
priority processes could render all others as stuck in idle mode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing

Multitasking involved sharing the processor. That involved context
switching.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_switch

Then more processors got added hence multiprocessing. Parallel
processing appeared with the availability of multiple processors but
only a few programs do that (mostly it's an OS thing). It also meant
you could assign processor affinity to a process to keep a processor
from getting idle or to offload one from excessive context switching
from lots of multitasking process using it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprocessing

Processors with multiple cores appeared so you couldn't count the
processors just by the CPU package(s).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor

An advantage with multiple cores was not having to pump up the current
at the edge pins to pass the signal over foils on the motherboard. More
cores, however, meant more heat on the same substrate. While an old
Pentium consumed 35W (max):

https://ark.intel.com/products/55627...Cache-2_10-GHz

a 72-core Intel CPU package consumes 300W:

http://ark.intel.com/products/codena...Knights-Corner

That's still a lot less than 72 Pentium single-cores that would consume
over 2500W. Multi-cores are more efficient because they don't need
current pumps at the edge of each core to interconnect them. However,
the more cores on a substrate the more likely you get some with
defective cores hence more cores need to be designed onto the substrate
than for expected use and a means of disabling the bad ones.


Wonder what technology or scheme that we'll get next.

"Bill in Co" wrote

| I must be an outlier. I would think "multiprocessing" would be a more apt
| term, and could mean either using multiple processors OR using multiple
| threads.
|

A thread is not the same as a process, which is
not the same as a processor. (You probably know
that, but the mixing of terms is getting confusing.)

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...=vs.85%29.aspx

This is all unnecessary complication. A CPU core can
do one thing at a time. Very quickly. Multiple cores can
do more. All computers (in this context) run multiple
processes or programs or applications or whatever-
you-want-to-call-it at a time. (And processes can have
multiple threads.) Otherwise there would be no sense
having multiple cores, and there would be no such thing
as programs. We'd be talking about a calculator.

The point of a multi-process browser is to separate
the memory space of each instance, so that none
is connected to another and the crashing of one won't
take down another.

There might be an interesting question as to whether
that's more efficient on mutli-core. I'm not sure. As I
understand it, multi-core efficiency may be limited by
the efficiency of the OS. I don't know how threads
vs processes relate to that. But assuming FF is already
multi-threaded, I would think that multiprocess would be
no more or less efficient but would use more memory.

"VanguardLH" wrote
|
| IE Adminstration Kit (IEAK) - allowed vendors to stamp IE with their
| name.

Remember the AOL browser? It was a skin and
even hid some tabs in the Internet Options applet.
But it was IE. And the IE browser window is
also programmable. There's a browser window
ActiveX object. Remember Maxthon? Last I heard
it wrapped two browsers, but for most of its life
it was just a custom window with an IE browser
window in it. The IE part is still that. And there
have been lots of "power users" who thought they
were using an exotic browser.

Microsoft loosely define web browsing and related
functionality as Windows functionality. It dates back
to Active Desktop. Some of the main Internet API
is installed as part of IE. Those functions, presented
as Windows API, actually connect with IE cache and
IE cookies. For example, the popular function to download
a file: URLDownloadToFile. It's just a wrapper around
IE. (I've seen programmers in Windows programming groups
who don't know that Windows cookies and cache are
IE cookies and cache.) Explorer windows used to
be IE browser windows, pre-XP. There are also mime
filters, which allow one to access all pages going to
IE before they get there. (I think that's been stopped
with Edge.) And shell extensions apply to both IE
and Explorer. It's built that way. That was the famous
cutting off of Netscape's air supply. And Microsoft
have been doing their best to bring back Internet
as an OS function ever since.

That's also why IE is so powerful and fun to work
with. It's highly programmable. And that's also why IE
is too risky to use online.