Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
IE market share at 89%
croxis
I am the walrus
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://livescience.com/technology/ap_050513_mozilla.html[/url]
Comments
[B]Personally I am looking forward to IE 7.0 [/B][/QUOTE]
yeah, im looking forward to seeing how many holes it has in it too:D ;)
[B]yeah, im looking forward to seeing how many holes it has in it too:D ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Not to forget that Firefox has had its share of holes.....
In comparison IE's holes are usually found for malicious purposes and then Microsodt often waits several months before issuing a patch.
Also, as a side note, IE7 is planned only to be available for XP and Longhorn. If you use any other Microsoft OS you are out of luck. Good way for MS to screw their "loyal" followers :p
Sounds like another phallic symbol for Microsoft screwing the customer...
:p
[B]Firefox holes are fixed within days of being found, and becuase Firefox is open source, almost all holes are found in a non-malicious manner.
In comparison IE's holes are usually found for malicious purposes and then Microsodt often waits several months before issuing a patch.
Also, as a side note, IE7 is planned only to be available for XP and Longhorn. If you use any other Microsoft OS you are out of luck. Good way for MS to screw their "loyal" followers :p [/B][/QUOTE]
I see no reason to use Windows 95, 98 nor 2000 any longer. If you really want to use IE7 and still got W98, why not upgrade? You cannot expect that the latest software/hardware works with old OS.
--RC
[B]Longhorn...
Sounds like another phallic symbol for Microsoft screwing the customer...
:p [/B][/QUOTE]
And Microsoft is another :p
[B]I see no reason to use Windows 95, 98 nor 2000 any longer. If you really want to use IE7 and still got W98, why not upgrade? You cannot expect that the latest software/hardware works with old OS. [/B][/QUOTE]
i may be wrong, but i seem to recall hearing somewhere that 98 was actually more stable than XP, but please feel free to correct me
2000 however is just as stable as XP and doesn't have the BS that comes with XP.
[B]XP is more stable then 98. Only things less stable then 98 are 95 and ME.
2000 however is just as stable as XP and doesn't have the BS that comes with XP. [/B][/QUOTE]
XP is rock solid I would say for being a Microsoft OS. Suppose I am just happy that it works excellent, no need to use time to configure and gettings stuff to work.
[B]I can't believe I used to like IE. [/B][/QUOTE]
And I am too lazy to install something else and get into another habit just because which browser I am using isnt important for me as long as it works. Maybe something else works better, but I dont care as long as IE is "good" enough, I just dont need any fancy features just to browse the net.
(and I have been using Firefox, Opera and others when working with Linux)
Linux baby!
Fuck M$!
;)
It doesn't have the amount of games in the bundle that 9.1 had, but hey it's still rock solid...
WINE hasn't become a solution to windows software for me yet, but eventually I'll get things going. Still so much to learn about it.
With all that said though... Stills beats the shit out of Windows.
XP/ Longhorn phhht!
KMA!
;)
[B]And I am too lazy to install something else and get into another habit just because which browser I am using isnt important for me as long as it works. Maybe something else works better, but I dont care as long as IE is "good" enough, I just dont need any fancy features just to browse the net.[/B][/QUOTE]I know what you mean. The first few weeks of using a new browser are absolutely terrible--everything feels wrong and you spend more time messing with the stupid thing than actually surfing the web. That's why it took me almost a year to give Firefox a serious try. :p
[B]I know what you mean. The first few weeks of using a new browser are absolutely terrible--everything feels wrong and you spend more time messing with the stupid thing than actually surfing the web. That's why it took me almost a year to give Firefox a serious try. :p [/B][/QUOTE]
i have to say that within minutes of trying firefox id decided that i was never going to use idiot explorer again! it just felt much more streamlined and easier to use, especially when i installed plugins and learnt the shortcuts.
[B]IE is "good" enough[/B][/QUOTE]
IE doesn't support W3C standards for HTML, CSS2, and a whole slew of other things. To me that isn't "good enough" but rather "outdated" -- do not forget that IE hasn't been updated in years. Web standards continue to evolve. MS, until Firefox came out, had no reason to update their browser. They had the market share and had no threat, so they let it stagnate. IE 7 was only decided to be backported to XP after Firefox began cutting MS's market share. Originally it was only for and going to be integrated into Longhorn.
To me that says MS doesn't care a damn about any of its users or their ability to surf the web.
So why do you use IE when it doesn't support standards?
NO IE version has ever supported proper HTML standards. MS just likes to invent their own, and ignore those others invent -- which is counter to the whole idea of the internet.
[B]IE doesn't support W3C standards for HTML, CSS2, and a whole slew of other things. To me that isn't "good enough" but rather "outdated" -- do not forget that IE hasn't been updated in years. Web standards continue to evolve. MS, until Firefox came out, had no reason to update their browser. They had the market share and had no threat, so they let it stagnate. IE 7 was only decided to be backported to XP after Firefox began cutting MS's market share. Originally it was only for and going to be integrated into Longhorn.
To me that says MS doesn't care a damn about any of its users or their ability to surf the web.
So why do you use IE when it doesn't support standards?
NO IE version has ever supported proper HTML standards. MS just likes to invent their own, and ignore those others invent -- which is counter to the whole idea of the internet. [/B][/QUOTE]
Why? because I am not creating webpages and I havent yet visited a page that demanded that I used another browser. Of course it is a big problem for the people creating them, but since I am not doing it, its not my problem. Once pages demands using a browser other than IE to be properly displayed, and I really have a need for visiting them, I will think about changing.
But now: Back to reading "Managing and using information systems - a strategic approach"...exams coming closer :(
[B]"Its not my problem" is the root of all evil in the world, from internet standards to world hunger. [/B][/QUOTE]As long as the evil doesn't affect me, it's not my problem. ;)
[B]As long as the evil doesn't affect me, it's not my problem. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Microsoft is evil, therefore it affects you :p
[B]Microsoft is evil, therefore it affects you :p [/B][/QUOTE]That's one step below tautology. :p
[B]Longhorn...
Sounds like another phallic symbol for Microsoft screwing the customer...[/B][/QUOTE]Just wait until you hear it's system requirements/recommendation!
[quote]Even on our testbed, a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 running a high-end ATI Radeon 9800XT graphics card, the Avalon DWM seemed just a tad sluggish. Additional cool features, like the compositing manager, weren't available yet.[/quote]
[url]http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1586599,00.asp[/url]
[url]http://www.dvhardware.net/article4730.html[/url]
[url]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1130996/posts[/url]
So what you can expect is big steaming shitpile of bloatware requiring half of system resources just for running itself! :angryv:
You can try blessedness of M$ bloatware by trying Catalyst Control Center made for .NET (Njet would be more approriate name)... people using that have reported around 10 second starting times for graphic card's control panel.
And Macro$hit wants to move more programs to that platform!