Dolphin Applet's don't work...

I'ver tried the applets on object-arts page, after downloading the plugin:
nothing works.

I use IEv6 (all updates installed) and Win2000 latest SP.

The plugin is installed under \Program files\Internet Exlorer\PLUGINS

Is there some security restriction preventing the applet to run???

-Leo-

Leo,

> I'ver tried the applets on object-arts page, after downloading the plugin:
> nothing works.
>
> I use IEv6 (all updates installed) and Win2000 latest SP.
>
> The plugin is installed under \Program files\Internet Exlorer\PLUGINS
>
> Is there some security restriction preventing the applet to run???

No, it just won't work. What happened (as I understand it and reading
between the lines) is that the new owners of Netscape made some demands that
MS didn't feel able to accept. Because of this support for Netscape
plug-ins, which was working correctly in beta versions, was withdrawn from
the final IE5.5 and IE6.

Your choices are
1) Start using a Netscape plugin compatible browser
2) Continue using IE and don't use Dolphin plug-ins until something happens
at MS or OA.

I can't help much with (1) as I'm going with (2) but I am sure there is
someone reading who could suggest a suitable browser/version

Ian

>
> I use IEv6 (all updates installed) and Win2000 latest SP.

I don't have firsthand experience, but last I heard on this newsgroup
there was a problem with using it with IE6 (when MS created IE6,
apparently something was done that caused problems not only for the
Dolphin plug-in, but for a large class of such).  You might try them
with IE5 or Netscape/Mozilla instead and see how you fare.

Probably someone else can provide you with more detailed, up to date,
and correct information.

Howard

--
Howard Ding
<[hidden email]>
http://math.sunysb.edu/~hading  http://thunder.prohosting.com/~hading

In article <dlHX7.4895$XN3.271603@wards>, Ian Bartholomew wrote:
> the final IE5.5 and IE6.
>
With 5.5 it's ok, with 5.5 SP2 it doesn't run anymore.
----
Dominique Dartois

Dominique,

> With 5.5 it's ok, with 5.5 SP2 it doesn't run anymore.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten that it was 5.5 *SP2* that had the problem. The
following should probably be added to my original list of options

3) Revert to the first release of IE5.5 or earlier.

Thanks

Ian

Thanx Ian & Dominique. They do indeed run smooth under Netscape.

BTW: there a glitch in that too: the dolphin pplugin expects tou to use
Netscape Communicator, not just Netscape, as I did. Figuring out where I
should put the plug-in solved the problem. However, not every computer user
knows how to solve this problem, i.e., it's not very "userfriendly".

-Leo-

"Ian Bartholomew" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:K7IX7.5213$Jm.303642@stones...

This sounds like the typical the Microsoft shenanigans. how many times
have we
seen them get everybody dependent on something and then pull support to
harm
their competitors ?  in this case Java.

Java is so screwed up with all the different levels and multiple
installs on each
user machine that the applet developers were not able to rely on which
runtime
libraries would be available.  so they came up with the Java plugin.
This to
level set the content of the user's environment when starting a java
applet,
and download the latest plugin if needed.

I am not suprised to see microsoft do this to further take the wind
out of Java's sails.  ( I beleived they have already pulled the Java
runtime
stuff  from the base IE install...although i don't follow this closely).


On the other hand, I have seen ActiveX components install themselves
just fine,
(and usually without permission) on my machine numerous times.  One
example is RealPlayer.

I wonder if Dolphin could somehow wrapper their plugin in an ActiveX
component?
after all Dolphin is more tied to the Windows GUI stuff etc. than Java
is.


Just my two cents.



Ian Bartholomew wrote:

steve geringer <[hidden email]> wrote in
news:[hidden email]:

> This sounds like the typical the Microsoft shenanigans. how
> many times have we
> seen them get everybody dependent on something and then
> pull support to harm
> their competitors ?  in this case Java.

Er. Except that this one is nothing to do with Java (its the Netscape plugin interface, which
isn't Java), and anyway...
 
> I am not suprised to see microsoft do this to further take
> the wind out of Java's sails.  ( I beleived they have
> already pulled the Java runtime
> stuff  from the base IE install...although i don't follow
> this closely).

They had to, apparently, because of Sun's lawsuit against them. Sun got hoist by their own
petard on this one...

Microsoft's view on this is here: http://www.microsoft.com/java/issues/openletter.htm (with
a pretty obvious MS spin, but the facts seems to support the above intrepretation).

> On the other hand, I have seen ActiveX components install themselves
> just fine, (and usually without permission) on my machine numerous times.

If it's doing it without permission, that's what you've set your security settings to (there may
be a bug, but I've never had it install ActiveX when I've set the setting not to)

> I wonder if Dolphin could somehow wrapper their plugin in
> an ActiveX component?

This does seem to be the way forward, if OA are prepared to do that.

MS explain that Netscape plugins aren't supported ("by design") on
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q303/4/01.ASP, but that's remarkably
uninformative about _why_....

As one of my friends once said, he "hates MS for well thought out and justified reasons". I
personally don't have much against MS, but if you do, let's keep the factual bits straight.

Paul,

> > This sounds like the typical the Microsoft shenanigans. how
> > many times have we
> > seen them get everybody dependent on something and then
> > pull support to harm
> > their competitors ?  in this case Java.
>
> Er. Except that this one is nothing to do with Java (its the Netscape
plugin interface, which
> isn't Java), and anyway...

Steve's point (correct or not, I don't pretend to know) is that the Java
crowd created a Netscape style plugin that had the job of restoring a
predictable JVM installation.  Assuming his facts are correct, pulling
plugin support from IE would harm the Java community.

In most cases that MS pulls something (after selling lots of books telling
how great it is), their motive appears to be short term cost-cutting rather
than to harm the competition.  Of course, their motive isn't of much
consequence when they pull a technology that is crucial to _your_ product
(speaking from experience).

Have a good one,

Bill

--
Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
[hidden email]

"Bill Schwab" <[hidden email]> wrote in
news:a1cuh9$ptvqa$[hidden email]:

>
> Steve's point (correct or not, I don't pretend to know) is
> that the Java crowd created a Netscape style plugin that
> had the job of restoring a predictable JVM installation.
> Assuming his facts are correct, pulling plugin support from
> IE would harm the Java community.

Well, given that the link about Java I posted tells the user how to get Java for their IE, I think
it's more likely to be cockup than conspiracy...
 
> In most cases that MS pulls something (after selling lots
> of books telling how great it is), their motive appears to
> be short term cost-cutting rather than to harm the
> competition.  Of course, their motive isn't of much
> consequence when they pull a technology that is crucial to
> _your_ product (speaking from experience).

I think this is a necessary if irritating consequence of MS trying to succeed in many areas.
They're pretty persistent, but are also not afraid to kill something if it makes sense for them
(as you observe, it leaves the users of that technology in the lurch, however).

Paul Hudson wrote:

Well, I have seen six or eight major instances where Microsoft has
played dirty.  

The most recent incident is Eastman Kodak and the
Digital Camera software for Windows XP. (made the front page of
wall street journal a few months ago).  I believe kodak is suing.
This is about how Kodak and Microsoft "Collaborated" on a software
package that would instantly detect a digital camera when plugged
in and launch a Kodak software package which would download the
photos and make it easy for users to order prints through
Kodak  (and thereby hopefully save Kodak from bankruptcy).  
At the last minute, Microsoft flipped a bit somewhere
and now a Microsoft photo software package is launched instead where
users have the option of ordering prints through photo finishers which
pay a fee to microsoft to be listed on the ordering page.
Of course Microsoft claims the users can still enable the Kodak
software if they want, but who is going to bother?   Do you think  
they were NOT working on a competitive photo software
package during the "Collaboration" period?  They simply
operated in bad faith in their business dealings with Kodak.
They probably sat across the table looked them straight in the eye
and said something like, "Yes, John, having your photo software
installed in Windows XP is really a fantastic opportunity for you guys
at Kodak and we at Microsoft are going to do everything we can
to make it a success for you".

There are numerous other examples.  Doesn't anyone remember the
Novell Netware disaster when Windows 95 was launched.  That After
"Collaboration" between Novell amd Microsoft to ensure 100%
Comaptibility with Windows 95.  Netware crashed and burned.
Novell ended up with egg on their face.  and Microsoft eventually
took over the LAN server market.

Or how about the WordPerfect for Windows 95 "Collaboration"
that worked until a couple of hours before launch.  After WordPerfect
had thoroughly tested everything and shipped millions of units,
it would not with the shipped version of Windows 95.

Or what about the "Collaboration" between IBM and Microsoft
for Windows compatibility with OS/2?

Blah Blah Blah.

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but after seeing them royaly shafting so
many other players in the industry, I immediatley "Jump To Conclusions"
and assume they are at it again.



> > consequence when they pull a technology that is crucial to
> > _your_ product (speaking from experience).
>
> I think this is a necessary if irritating consequence of MS trying to succeed in many areas.
> They're pretty persistent, but are also not afraid to kill something if it makes sense for them
> (as you observe, it leaves the users of that technology in the lurch, however).

steve geringer <[hidden email]> wrote in
news:[hidden email]:

> now a
> Microsoft photo software package is launched instead where
> users have the option of ordering prints through photo
> finishers which pay a fee to microsoft to be listed on the
> ordering page.

This appears not to be so. There was a fuss about the betas, but the final XP seems
changed to Kodak's satisfaction.

For instance (picking some site that's neither an MS site or a Kodak site),

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/12747.html

which dates the settlement of the dispute to before XP was launched.

> There are numerous other examples.  Doesn't anyone remember
> the Novell Netware disaster when Windows 95 was launched.
> That After "Collaboration" between Novell amd Microsoft to
> ensure 100% Comaptibility with Windows 95.  Netware crashed
> and burned. Novell ended up with egg on their face.  and
> Microsoft eventually took over the LAN server market.

No, I don't remember. (Not doubting you, I was working with products that used Novell
around then, and I don't recall this, although I wasn't closely involved with networking - do
you have a link? After a quick look I couldn't turn one up)

> Or how about the WordPerfect for Windows 95 "Collaboration"
> that worked until a couple of hours before launch.  After
> WordPerfect had thoroughly tested everything and shipped
> millions of units, it would not with the shipped version of
> Windows 95.

Similarly, can't find anything about this.

I think there are some more clear-cut cases (e.g. browser wars IE vs. Netscape), but in
many cases, I still feel the claims are exaggerated. They should be argued against on the
evidence, not on the assumption MS must be up to something.

> Maybe I'm just a cynic, but after seeing them royaly
> shafting so many other players in the industry,

A lot of that is business life, really. Sun and the other UNIX vendors all played similar games
against each other and other companies, they just never had the market power to do it to
MS. That's the reason for anti-trust laws, and MS certainly hasn't always stayed wthin
those....

> immediatley "Jump To Conclusions" and assume they are at it
> again.

I think what they should do should be looked at - they're not whiter-than-white, but it is the
leaping to conclusions that I tend to react to. In the case that started this, removing plugin
support to nobble Java either wasn't the motive or was incompetently carried out, since they
made it quite clear how to get Java back again.

I'm sure MS weren't at all unhappy that the judgement in Sun's court case meant they needed
to do drop Java as a standard item, though. Given Sun's vemon against MS recently (indeed,
Sin don't seem to have a strategy recently other than to respond to MS's latest idea and call
it bad, then copy it), I don't see they owe Sun any favours.

I'm curious to know the reason for dropping Netscape plugin support, however. The rumour I
read/heard was that Netscape had demanded something for the right to use it that MS
couldn't live with, but I can't find anything much now and that may be complete rubbish.

P.

P.

Paul Hudson <[hidden email]> wrote in
news:Xns9190BA3483CE7phudsonpoboxcom@127.0.0.1:


<Something he later cancelled>

because it was out of place.

Steve, don't feel you have to respond. I don't think I should have sent that one.

actually, i didn't think you were out of place.
you are right, i am not following formal "rules of evidence".

i am going on the "where there is smoke, there is fire" theory.
especially when i've smelled smoke so many times.
(who has time to waste tracking down all of microsoft's dirty deeds,
and build a formal case, that's the government's job).

Re. Kodak, judging by your link, mr. gates apparently decided it was
better to give back the photo software to kodak to avoid bad
publicity for XP, especially with the antitrust thing still going on.
but that doesn't change my belief that the situation came about
through bad faith dealings on the part of microsoft.

if microsoft killed plug-in support,  it was likely to weaken  
somebody else and strengthen their own position.  i initially thought
it was Sun Java, it may in fact could have been the
AOL/Time/Warner/RoadRunner/Netscape conglomerate (or both?).

who knows?  

Steve

"Keep on Smalltalking"
http://www.TradePerformance.com





Paul Hudson wrote:
>
> Paul Hudson <[hidden email]> wrote in
> news:Xns9190BA3483CE7phudsonpoboxcom@127.0.0.1:
>
> <Something he later cancelled>
>
> because it was out of place.
>
> Steve, don't feel you have to respond. I don't think I should have sent that one.