>I disagree with this as being an insult. So, we need some DLLS and OCXs. Big deal. Your installation program will include them and install them if needed.


I don't wish to dwell on this any longer as the thread has moved in another direction. The point I was trying (but obviously failed) to make has nothing to do with DLLS, OCXs or any other solution. There will always be solutions.

My concerned is what I perceive to be a less than straightforward (some would say sleezy) Microsoft tactic inwhich HTML Help is presented in the article (did you read the article?) in such a way as to "specifically state" that IE has to be installed.

As a programmer, I could (and should) care less about what browser my clients prefer - as you said, all we need are the necessary components. Obviously, Microsoft does not want us to see it that way. They want us to see the solution in terms of IE - the gateway to their future and, currently, a political "hairball". They want us to promote IE, plain and simple.

In fact, if you really think about it, they want us to envision ALL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS in terms of the Internet (e.g. three-tier architectures, blah-blah-blah). For example, the day is coming where all HTML help for all Microsoft products will be linked to a website and you may get the message "HTTP Server Busy" as you look for help concerning the syntax of some obscure VFP function you haven't used in years.

Personally, I applaud Microsoft's vision and their technologies. My objection lies in the sneaky methods they use to try to ram it down my throat - it isn't neccessary.