Name of Explorer Bookmark File

David S. Vaughan dsvaughn at
Tue Nov 26 12:30:03 EST 1996

I'm in basic agreement with you.  The only advantage I can see to the shortcut approach is that it allows you to keep favorite sites on your desktop (or the Favorites section on the Office toolbar) and launch directly in to them.  However, I have otherwise found IE3.0 to be a very good web browser.  I have Navigator 3.0 as well, but haven't been using it as much lately.  However, due to my concerns about ActiveX, I think that Navigator may be a better product for  public workstations (although you can disable ActiveX, keeping it disabled could be a trick :-)  )


David S. Vaughan, Systems Librarian     905-546-4126 (phone)
  Wentworth Libraries                               905-522-9083 (fax)
  Hamilton, Ont., Canada                        dsvaughn at

From: 	Ed Cherry[SMTP:cecherry at]
Sent: 	Tuesday, November 26, 1996 12:24 PM
To: 	Multiple recipients of list
Subject: 	Re: RE: Name of Explorer Bookmark File

On Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:00:29 -0800 "David S. Vaughan" 
<dsvaughn at> wrote:

> IE doesn't have a bookmark file in the sense of Netscape (at least in =
> Win95 and, I suspect, NT).  Instead, it creates a Win95 shortcut file =
> for each site and stores them in C:\Windows\Favorites.  Can't say for =
> certain how the Win3.1 version works.
In my opinion, this is yet another strike against MSIE.  Here's 
why:  I have 157 "favorite" web sites in this directory and its 
subs.  These 157 files together take up less than 10k of disk 
space.  But, since I have a 1gig uncompressed hard drive, where 
each sector is 32k, these 157 files in total occupy 5.1 MB!  
There's 99% "slack" or unused space where these files are 
stored.  In contrast, my Netscape bookmark.htm is ONE file of 
32k, so it actually occupies only 32k sector of disk real 
estate.  If you have a large hard drive, think carefully before 
you add all those "favorites."  

In a public setting, netscape's bookmark.htm is much easier to 
protect than this ridiculously wasteful alternative.

I know, I know, this is in part due to the outdated design of 
the file allocation system DOS and its heirs use.  But, if 
ANYone should be aware of this limitation, wouldn't it be 

Here's another, somewhat related question:  I have continued 
to use the 16-bit version of Netscape on our public Win95 
machines.  I can make the netscape.ini file read-only to prevent 
alterations.  Netscape for Win95 stores its settings in the 
system registry instead of an .ini file. Has anyone found a way 
of preventing users from changing Netscape preferences with the 
32-bit version?  I'm reluctant to keep "canonical" versions of 
the user.dat and system.dat files and replace them at startup.

* Ed Cherry             *                              *
* Automation Librarian  * Phone:  (205) 870-2506       *
* Davis Library         * Fax:    (205) 870-2642       *
* Samford University    * E-Mail: cecherry at *
* Birmingham, AL  35229 *                              *

More information about the Web4lib mailing list