MS Website plays havoc on older browsers

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

| I don't know what parts of IE that get removed and which are left behind
| by IEradicate. It isn't just IE that uses IE's libraries. There are
| HTAs (HTML Applications) that rely on IE's lib.

(I guess I must have never had any HTAs.)

And CHM help files. The IE browser window is ubiquitous. IE

To support CHM help files, you only needed two .dll files. (Allegedly;
ISTR finding that I could still view CHM files even without one or both
of those - I can't remember, it was a long time ago.)

itself is just a frame around that. And much of the networking
Win32 API uses IE libs. A lot of software uses what are essentially
IE Internet functions because developers use those libs. They're
easy to use because they're basically just IE wrappers. People
can end up with all sorts of things in their IE cache, even if they
don't use IE, because they use software from developers who don't
know the difference between communicating with a server and
just automating IE. All of that software would break without IE.

I think one of the many reasons those of us who removed IE (from our 98
systems, anyway) _was_ the fact that it has its fingers in so many pies,
being _apparently_ so much an essential part of the OS: for example,
"Internet settings" seemed linked to it, and sometimes you could even
get into a situation where an explorer view - i. e. looking at the files
in a directory - came via the IE interface. Removing it made the whole
thing _feel_ more stable (OK, in ways that I can't quantify), and I
_think_ improved boot time a little. (OK, you then had to wait for
Firefox - or, more likely then, Netscape! - to start up if you wanted to
use the web, but in those days we actually used our computers offline a
lot more!)

It certainly _wasn't_ - as someone has said in another part of this
thread - to save disc space, though the feeling of getting back even the
small amount it _was_ taking was probably good. The whole 98lite
philosophy was to make the OS more modular, so you could turn off (not
necessarily delete, though you could that too) things you didn't want -
I wish that was more possible with later OSs! (It may be with Linux, but
I'm too old now.) LitePC, as they're now called, do do an XPlite, but I
haven't played with it (not least because the trial version does a lot
less of what the paid version does than was the case with 98lite). I
don't _think_ they've done anything for 7 or 8 though, though I haven't
looked at their site for a while. (casey.o - have a look; it might
appeal. Especially as you liked IEradicator - did you ever go for
98lite?)

I suspect that what Casey is talking about with "removing IE"
is just removing shortcuts and maybe renaming iexplore.exe.

No, see above. (Though I like his calculator idea!)

In any case, he's very fond of being annoyed. I think we
could all agree on that.

Indeed (-:! Though I remember sharing many of his frustrations when I
started the move to XP.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Jon Danniken

I think the web was a lot better before all of these various scripts on
webpages. I realize that people need work, but most pages would do just
fine with just basic html.

Jon

Agreed. Obviously the scripts _are_ needed for some things, but they're
used in a lot of cases where they really aren't needed, and serve no
purpose, not even advertising (which I accept as a necessary evil in
some cases).

Another source of bloat is the automatic code generation utilities; Word
adds considerable bloat to any basic HTML file you open and save in it,
and I think the worst culprit is Incredimail. (Endless pointless nested
DIVs, and even nested tables to many levels.)

 

[Mayayana]

| >| I don't know what parts of IE that get removed and which are left
behind
| >| by IEradicate. It isn't just IE that uses IE's libraries. There are
| >| HTAs (HTML Applications) that rely on IE's lib.
|
| (I guess I must have never had any HTAs.)
| >
| > And CHM help files. The IE browser window is ubiquitous. IE
|
| To support CHM help files, you only needed two .dll files. (Allegedly;
| ISTR finding that I could still view CHM files even without one or both
| of those - I can't remember, it was a long time ago.)
....

| > I suspect that what Casey is talking about with "removing IE"
| >is just removing shortcuts and maybe renaming iexplore.exe.
|
| No, see above.

You snipped the rest of my IE dependency list and now
you're just confusing things unnecessarily. I don't
understand why it is that you like to wait a week and then
come back and carpet-bomb various threads with posts
that don't add anything.

You can't remove IE. Period.
The basics of IE are used throughout the system. You
cannot remove IE in the way you can remove Firefox or
any other program. You can eliminate iexplore.exe, but
the basics of the IE browser provide a lot of Windows
networking functionality and also provide the actual
browser window, which is used in many places besides IE.

I don't know where you got the 2 DLLs-for-CHM information.
You need the HTML help files. (hh*) But there's also an IE
browser window that displays the help.

Run a CHM file and look at the dependencies. You'll
see shdocvw.dll, wininet.dll, etc. Those are IE. Next,
check a program that lets you look at all child windows
in a program. You'll find the CHM file has a window of
class InternetExplorer_Server. That *is* IE. It's an IE
browser window.

Now remove shdocvw.dll.... Once you've succeeded in
doing that you might want to revisit one of the threads
about how to reinstall your backup.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

| >| I don't know what parts of IE that get removed and which are left
behind
| >| by IEradicate. It isn't just IE that uses IE's libraries. There are
| >| HTAs (HTML Applications) that rely on IE's lib.
|
| (I guess I must have never had any HTAs.)
| >
| > And CHM help files. The IE browser window is ubiquitous. IE
|
| To support CHM help files, you only needed two .dll files. (Allegedly;
| ISTR finding that I could still view CHM files even without one or both
| of those - I can't remember, it was a long time ago.)
...

| > I suspect that what Casey is talking about with "removing IE"
| >is just removing shortcuts and maybe renaming iexplore.exe.
|
| No, see above.

You snipped the rest of my IE dependency list and now
you're just confusing things unnecessarily. I don't
understand why it is that you like to wait a week and then
come back and carpet-bomb various threads with posts
that don't add anything.

For once, it is you who is adding something misleading. As to why I
don't hang on your every word and respond immediately, I do have a life
(and work) outside this newsgroup ... (-:

You can't remove IE. Period.

You can from '9x (and - I didn't know this - 2000 and 2000 SR1). Not,
yet (and probably never) from XP. (With IEradicator, anyway. See below
for mention of XPlite.)

See http://www.litepc.com/ieradicator.html

The basics of IE are used throughout the system. You
cannot remove IE in the way you can remove Firefox or
any other program. You can eliminate iexplore.exe, but
the basics of the IE browser provide a lot of Windows
networking functionality and also provide the actual
browser window, which is used in many places besides IE.

From http://www.litepc.com/release_notes/ieradicator.txt: "The removal
process eliminates 99% of Internet Explorer's files and registry keys to
clear approximately 30MB of disk space. The remaining 1% is left behind
to maintain compatibility with programs that use the MS HTML layout
engine (e.g. Outlook Express)." [Note I'm not now bothered about the
disc space (though I might have been once).]

There are actually two versions - from the development section of the
same document:

"20-Oct-2003 IEradicator2001 vs IEradicator2001a

IEradicator2001a has the added function of removing the web view
integration from the Explorer Desktop environment.

Specifically IEradicator2001a removes:
* The Sidebar file summaries
* Thumbnail image preview in the sidebar
* Custom graphics for individual folders
* web view.

IEradicator2001 leaves the "enhanced" shell features in place and
just takes out the browser.

07-Oct-2001 - IEradicator2001
- Web-View Shell integration is left intact even after IE removal - this
goes against the original goals of IEradicator but was necessary to stem
complaints (e.g. "I removed IE and now I dont have web-view"...no
kidding!?). Now planning 2 versions - an IE cleaner for the wimps, and a
total eliminator for the bravehearts."

(Which they obviously did.) If you want "web view" as they call it,
you'll need your bits of IE; I find functionality adequate (and quicker
and more stable) without it.

I don't know where you got the 2 DLLs-for-CHM information.
You need the HTML help files. (hh*) But there's also an IE
browser window that displays the help.

I can't remember.
http://www.litepc.com/support/kb.cgi?do=read&id=51&lang=en implies that
mshtml.dll is what's needed.

Run a CHM file and look at the dependencies. You'll
see shdocvw.dll, wininet.dll, etc. Those are IE. Next,
check a program that lets you look at all child windows
in a program. You'll find the CHM file has a window of
class InternetExplorer_Server. That *is* IE. It's an IE
browser window.

Now remove shdocvw.dll.... Once you've succeeded in
doing that you might want to revisit one of the threads
about how to reinstall your backup.

I don't know (or care) about that: I didn't go round deleting .dll files
willy-nilly - I ran 98lite preview (which includes the IEradicator
function and more), from http://www.litepc.com/preview.html.

[If I did remove a .dll and found it broke the OS, I'd try just
restoring it from the relevant .cab file, before going to the full hog
of a restore from backup; the joys of FAT and DOS bootability.]

(Once you've run IEradicator [or 98lite], you can reinstall IE - ideally
a later version; it then _will_ be a prog., like Firefox, that is
removable. Or so they say - I don't think I ever bothered.)

I repeat: this is for '9x ONLY - I don't know if IE can be removed from
XP at all. The strip down the side of http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html
does show it as a removable option (about half way down), but I don't
know what bits it removes. There's a free trial of XPlite, but I can't
tell how it differs from the paid version, so I don't know if it
includes the IE removal option (so even less whether it is the partial
removal that might be necessary).

 

[Mayayana]

| > You can't remove IE. Period.
|
| You can from '9x (and - I didn't know this - 2000 and 2000 SR1). Not,
| yet (and probably never) from XP. (With IEradicator, anyway. See below
| for mention of XPlite.)
|
| See http://www.litepc.com/ieradicator.html

I looked at it. It removes MS Java and lots of odds
and ends that were never really used, like several
ActiveX controls. (For instance, iemenu.ocx could be
used to create menus in webpages that look like system
menus.) Most of what it's removing will probably never
be used. It's neither good nor bad that it's gone. Some
of it may surprise people. The WebView files are not
part of IE. They're part of Active Desktop, which is
connected with IE integration. You may not want
WebView folders, but that's not IE. Though it's true
that a WebView folder actually has an embedded IE
browser window in it.The folder window itself is
actually a webpage.

Some of what IEradicator removes could be a problem.
For instance, shfolder.dll was created by Microsoft
specifically for one reason: There were numerous,
incompatible ways that software was finding system
folder paths. Shfolder.dll was distributed to solve that
problem. Removing it with IEradicator could cause problems
with some software.

| From http://www.litepc.com/release_notes/ieradicator.txt: "The removal
| process eliminates 99% of Internet Explorer's files and registry keys to
| clear approximately 30MB of disk space. The remaining 1% is left behind
| to maintain compatibility with programs that use the MS HTML layout
| engine (e.g. Outlook Express)." [Note I'm not now bothered about the
| disc space (though I might have been once).]
|

The "MS HTML Layout Engine" is essentially IE.
IE itself is just a frame around it. So you may not
have any problems "removing IE" from '98, but
you really don't accomplish anything other than
a bit of cleanup, with a risk of removing something
needed. The IE browser window itself it still there
and is still used. It's hard to explain, but there's
a lot of integration between Windows, Internet
APIs and IE libraries.

| > I don't know where you got the 2 DLLs-for-CHM information.
| >You need the HTML help files. (hh*) But there's also an IE
| >browser window that displays the help.
|
| I can't remember.
| http://www.litepc.com/support/kb.cgi?do=read&id=51&lang=en implies that
| mshtml.dll is what's needed.
| >

Why not look for yourself? You don't have to take
my word for it, or theirs. First you say CHMs use 2
DLLs. Now you say they use mshtml.dll If you look
at it with ProcExp from sysinternals you'll see it is, indeed,
using mshtml.dll. It's also using shdocvw.dll (the source
of the IE browser window) and lots of other IE-related
files. And as I said before, the CHM file has a window of
class InternetExplorer_Server. You can also check that
for yourself. You couldn't read CHM files if IE were really
removed. The pages of a CHM file are HTML files, displayed
in an IE browser window. (You can also check that by
opening a CHM file with 7-Zip.)

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

| > You can't remove IE. Period.
|
| You can from '9x (and - I didn't know this - 2000 and 2000 SR1). Not,
| yet (and probably never) from XP. (With IEradicator, anyway. See below
| for mention of XPlite.)
|
| See http://www.litepc.com/ieradicator.html

I looked at it. It removes MS Java and lots of odds
and ends that were never really used, like several
ActiveX controls. (For instance, iemenu.ocx could be
used to create menus in webpages that look like system
menus.) Most of what it's removing will probably never
be used. It's neither good nor bad that it's gone. Some
of it may surprise people. The WebView files are not
part of IE. They're part of Active Desktop, which is
connected with IE integration. You may not want
WebView folders, but that's not IE. Though it's true ----------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^

that a WebView folder actually has an embedded IE
browser window in it.The folder window itself is
actually a webpage.

Yes. I was quite happy not to have WebView - if it means what I think it
means.
[]

| clear approximately 30MB of disk space. The remaining 1% is left behind
| to maintain compatibility with programs that use the MS HTML layout
| engine (e.g. Outlook Express)." [Note I'm not now bothered about the
| disc space (though I might have been once).]
|

The "MS HTML Layout Engine" is essentially IE.

That is your opinion. Clearly, what constitutes IE is something we have
different opinions about. To me, there were various aspects/areas of the
OS where IE, or something that looked like IE, kept popping up and I
didn't want them to. It was mainly subjective: I always felt there was
something I didn't have control of (not least the possibility of online
behaviour being unexpected), which I felt worked better for me when I'd
selected the remove-IE options when installing 98lite (which I assume
was similar to just running IEradicator).

IE itself is just a frame around it. So you may not
have any problems "removing IE" from '98, but
you really don't accomplish anything other than
a bit of cleanup, with a risk of removing something
needed. The IE browser window itself it still there
and is still used. It's hard to explain, but there's
a lot of integration between Windows, Internet
APIs and IE libraries.

Yes, that's what I (and I wasn't alone!) didn't like!

| > I don't know where you got the 2 DLLs-for-CHM information.
| >You need the HTML help files. (hh*) But there's also an IE
| >browser window that displays the help.
|
| I can't remember.
| http://www.litepc.com/support/kb.cgi?do=read&id=51&lang=en implies that
| mshtml.dll is what's needed.
| >

Why not look for yourself? You don't have to take
my word for it, or theirs. First you say CHMs use 2
DLLs. Now you say they use mshtml.dll If you look

I remembered it as two, but couldn't remember where I got that from;
when I found the page on the litepc site that said the above, I wondered
if I'd remembered wrong. But it might have been from somewhere else I
got the 2 figure from, or indeed I might have remembered it wrongly.

at it with ProcExp from sysinternals you'll see it is, indeed,
using mshtml.dll. It's also using shdocvw.dll (the source
of the IE browser window) and lots of other IE-related
files. And as I said before, the CHM file has a window of
class InternetExplorer_Server. You can also check that
for yourself. You couldn't read CHM files if IE were really
removed. The pages of a CHM file are HTML files, displayed
in an IE browser window. (You can also check that by
opening a CHM file with 7-Zip.)

I can't be bothered arguing any more - you may even be right and I
wrong; it's all such a Very Long Time Ago! All I know is that I found my
system much more stable, and _I_ felt better - possibly only
psychologically so! - when running under 98lite.

(My 98SE laptop still works fine, still having 98lite installed with the
remove-IE options selected; however, about the only thing I ever use it
for is accessing one site [via Firefox 2] and viewing images, so that's
not a real test. My 98SElite desktop system _has_ lost sound, but I
think that was more due to playing with soporific's "tenth anniversary
edition" than anything to do with 98lite - it had sound for years after
being lited.)

I'd be interested to know if anyone here has investigated XPlite, either
the trial or paid-for version, and what their experiences are.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: []

didn't want them to. It was mainly subjective: I always felt there was
something I didn't have control of (not least the possibility of online
behaviour being unexpected), which I felt worked better for me when I'd
selected the remove-IE options when installing 98lite (which I assume
was similar to just running IEradicator).

This does sound just a tad bit "subjective".

The greater stability and, in particular, speed, using the 95 shell
wasn't subjective. The "feeling" regarding the removal of IE might have
been.

Besides which, the illusion of control over most things may be just that,
just as it is in life.
(-:
[]
It's nice to still be able to open up a .CHM help file, I find! Although

I had no problem using such files.

maybe that file format for help files is falling by the wayside nowadays
(can't recall)!

Is that the one you need to download something from MS from to use in
Vista and later?
[]

One can also get the same vibes by running registry cleaners, and
defraggers.
In fact, I do the latter one quite often!

Not on an SSD, I presume!
[]

I for one haven't tried it, but that's probably because I find XP light
enough as it is (at least in comparison with all the succeeding OS
versions). Granted, it's not quite as light as 98SE, however. But for
me, I just don't need the added aggravation of trying out a Lite version,
and finding out much later (after all my apps have been installed, no
doubt), what I'm missing or have lost.

Well, if it's anything like 98lite, it's not itself a version of XP,
it's a utility - not that unlike TweakUI - that you run, which gives you
control over the OS you already have installed. Have a look at
http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html and see what you think (ignore the
excess of exclamation marks!).

 

[Mayayana]

| It's nice to still be able to open up a .CHM help file, I find! Although
| maybe that file format for help files is falling by the wayside nowadays
| (can't recall)!
|

Clearly you don't read directions very often.
CHM is still standard. The original version was .HLP,
which requires an extra download patch from MS to
read on Win7. CHM works on pretty much all systems.
Microsoft also came out with .HXS ("HTML Help 2")
which they use now for some MS products and their
SDKs. HXS is essentially a corrupt version of CHM, with
no stand alone reader available. It seems to have
been intended to force people to buy newer software
in order to access SDKs, MS Office help, etc.

 

[Mayayana]

| I can't be bothered arguing any more - you may even be right and I
| wrong;

The reason it might be important is because the same
security risks are still there when IE is *apparently*
gone. People should realize that if they try to remove
IE they do *virtually nothing to protect from IE security
issues*.

An HTA will probably still work. CHM-embedded
malware will still work. Software and scripts will probably
still be able to create an InternetExplorer.Application
instance. IE security settings are still in force (such
as the Restricted Zone for OE.) IE Browser Helper Objects
can still be installed and have control over Explorer folder
windows.
There are also lots of Windows API functions for
programmers that will still work. Many people use the
function URLDownloadToFile to get files online. It's
an IE function. Or more accurately, there's no distinction
in Windows between IE and many of the Internet functions.
The functions are in IE libraries, updated by an IE install.
URLDownloadToFile puts a copy in the IE cache, then
checks the cache if one calls the function again. Programmers
use the function because it's easy and because Microsoft
calls it an Internet API. Most don't even realize that it's
essentially the same as IE. It's more trouble do download files
cleanly, without using the IE libraries. Many programmers
are not even aware it can be done without the IE libraries.
Some such functions will also add an entry in the IE history.
I think some will even allow cookies, though I don't remember
for sure. People could "remove IE" and yet be using software
that goes online, identifying itself as IE unknowingly, using
IE security, and adding IE cache and history, unbeknownst to
the person using the software.

| All I know is that I found my
| system much more stable, and _I_ felt better - possibly only
| psychologically so! - when running under 98lite.
|

Funny thing: I know what you mean about stability.
The Win95 folder window is very basic and simple. In
WinME there were notable Active Desktop problems.
Sometimes it would boot to a white screen that said
something like, "Yikes! We can't find your Desktop!"
And a lot of Active Desktop was just an attempt to
get people to accept ads on their PCs.

Yet my favorite part of Win98 was the
WebView folders. Each folder was actually a webpage.
The content (file and folder icons) was actually a listview
control embedded in that webpage. By editing the folder.htt
file one could have any view one wanted. It was limited only
by what HTML and script could do. I used to have my
own view, with custom links to other folders and various
other options. For me that was the one good thing about
Active Desktop: It provided more customizability for Explorer.

I missed that so much when I moved to XP that I wrote
an Explorer Bar, which gives me custom links, thumbnails,
and further customizability. I even have a webpage-based
calculator that I can access from any folder window.

I still use my Explorer Bar on XP and Win7-32:

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/jsfv.php5

And I still have the customizing kit for 95/98/2000
folder windows: "Folder Tweaks Galore"
It's listed at the bottom of the page linked above,
in case anyone using Win98, who *has not* IEradicated,
might be interested.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

| I can't be bothered arguing any more - you may even be right and I
| wrong;

The reason it might be important is because the same
security risks are still there when IE is *apparently*
gone. People should realize that if they try to remove
IE they do *virtually nothing to protect from IE security
issues*.

That wasn't _my_ reason for removing what I think of as IE.

An HTA will probably still work. CHM-embedded
malware will still work. Software and scripts will probably
still be able to create an InternetExplorer.Application
instance. IE security settings are still in force (such
as the Restricted Zone for OE.) IE Browser Helper Objects

Assuming OE means Outlook Express, I never used it myself - though find
it much maligned: with OE-Quotefix, it's a perfectly acceptable main and
news client, IMO.

can still be installed and have control over Explorer folder
windows.

_If_ you are using the webby form of such windows.

There are also lots of Windows API functions for
programmers that will still work. Many people use the
function URLDownloadToFile to get files online. It's
an IE function. Or more accurately, there's no distinction
in Windows between IE and many of the Internet functions.
The functions are in IE libraries, updated by an IE install.
URLDownloadToFile puts a copy in the IE cache, then
checks the cache if one calls the function again. Programmers
use the function because it's easy and because Microsoft
calls it an Internet API. Most don't even realize that it's
essentially the same as IE. It's more trouble do download files
cleanly, without using the IE libraries. Many programmers
are not even aware it can be done without the IE libraries.

Well, as I now only ever use my 98SElite laptop to access one site (via
Firefox), I'm not worried about the above: downloading works OK (I don't
_think_ Firefox 2 uses the IE way of downloading).

Some such functions will also add an entry in the IE history.
I think some will even allow cookies, though I don't remember
for sure. People could "remove IE" and yet be using software
that goes online, identifying itself as IE unknowingly, using
IE security, and adding IE cache and history, unbeknownst to
the person using the software.

Yes, they could, I suppose, _if_ all that really is still there after
they've IEradicated. (I never used IEradicator, only 98lite which
included that function; I don't _know_ that the two achieved it in the
same way, just assumed they did as they came from the same company.)

| All I know is that I found my
| system much more stable, and _I_ felt better - possibly only
| psychologically so! - when running under 98lite.
|

Funny thing: I know what you mean about stability.
The Win95 folder window is very basic and simple. In
WinME there were notable Active Desktop problems.
Sometimes it would boot to a white screen that said
something like, "Yikes! We can't find your Desktop!"
And a lot of Active Desktop was just an attempt to
get people to accept ads on their PCs.

Active desktop was one of the things I didn't want and didn't like - so
we're clearly different in that respect!

Yet my favorite part of Win98 was the
WebView folders. Each folder was actually a webpage.

And, again, one of my un-favourite parts. (For example, I don't want -
or see any point in - back and forward buttons in an explorer window!
[Yes, I know I can _hide_ them by customising the toolbar - I have in
XP.])

The content (file and folder icons) was actually a listview
control embedded in that webpage. By editing the folder.htt
file one could have any view one wanted. It was limited only
by what HTML and script could do. I used to have my
own view, with custom links to other folders and various
other options. For me that was the one good thing about
Active Desktop: It provided more customizability for Explorer.

I missed that so much when I moved to XP that I wrote
an Explorer Bar, which gives me custom links, thumbnails,
and further customizability. I even have a webpage-based
calculator that I can access from any folder window.

I still use my Explorer Bar on XP and Win7-32:

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/jsfv.php5

And I still have the customizing kit for 95/98/2000
folder windows: "Folder Tweaks Galore"
It's listed at the bottom of the page linked above,
in case anyone using Win98, who *has not* IEradicated,
might be interested.

Thanks, noted for reference.

 

[Mayayana]

| > The reason it might be important is because the same
| >security risks are still there when IE is *apparently*
| >gone. People should realize that if they try to remove
| >IE they do *virtually nothing to protect from IE security
| >issues*.
|
| That wasn't _my_ reason for removing what I think of as IE.

No, but it's good to be aware of it. And you're not
the only person who might read this thread. Many people
may be expecting to prevent security risks by "removing
IE". It sounds like you got what you wanted from the tool.
I just wish they'd call it a WebView Remover instead of an IE
remover. It wouldn't be so misleading.

(If their XP-Lite does something about IE, I don't know
what it is. I wasn't willing to actually let their XP-Lite
executable run on my system, and the help file that comes
with it doesn't say much specific about what it does.)


| > A BHO can still be installed and have control over
|> Explorer folder windows.
|
| _If_ you are using the webby form of such windows.
|

That's an interesting point. It may be true for Win98
without WebView, but it's not true for XP. There's an
IE browser window in each folder window up to 2000,
and I think WinME. After that, Microsoft removed the
WebView stuff while also building some of it in. There's
no longer any folder.htt and a folder window can no longer
host custom HTML, but Explorer and IE are still linked. It's
part of the core shell functionality. A BHO gets access to
all IE and Explorer windows, whether it's wanted or not.
In general, the "GUI paradigm" still equates Explorer with
IE and still maintains that functionality for backward
compatibility. Any process that accesses folder window
content can also have access to the Document object in
all open IE instances, and vice versa. Some software
may depend on that. So for most people it's best to leave
IE alone and just not let it go online.