SillyDog701

[DJGM]

If Microsoft were to completely overhaul IE, getting of it's v4.x rendering
engine and it's support for Active X and VB Scripting, more or less all of
the security problems in the browser would be effectively eliminated.

Well, at least they would be in the short term, anyway!

Thing is, while Microsoft has such a vice like grip, a stranglehold if
you like, on the browser market, they obviously can't be bothered
to make any of the signifigant overdue changes to IE, therefore
just leaving it with the obsolete, insecure, buggy technology
that has been at it's core for at least the last five years!

(Hell, even pressing the CTRL key in IE can be dangerous!)

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-DJGM-i.net)

[Mandrake]

Approx 70% of all webservers are run on Linux/Unix - the most popular being Redhat.

Try installing IE6 on NT4 - without the explorer shell, and watch how long it takes to load! LONGER than NS and Mozilla!

James - apart from Print Preview - can you tell me of any real improvments in the Internet Explorer Browser since version 4?

Does anyone remember IE Plus? That thing flopped like hell lol

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020512 Netscape/7.0b1

[James]

No, I can't tell you the improvements, although I'm sure there are a host of them. If IE were as bad as it is being claimed, it would be pulled or it would fall into disuse. Look... I think this is getting out of hand. I should have kept my mouth shut.

I simply don't see MS as a damnable company. I realize that pouring scorn upon MS is a past-time of many on the internet and that's okay. I guess.

You both obviously know a great deal more than I and perhaps that is why you can enjoy Netscape to a greater degree. I'm really not a power-user. I don't log more than an hour or so a day and I've found over the five years that I've been online that the vast majority of problems I've had online have been while using Netscape, not Internet Explorer. I've not had any viruses as a result of using IE... ever.

And hey... you're using Windows so MS can't be all that bad, eh?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-SillyDog)

[Mandrake]

The Gecko rendering engine is still a work in progress, and I dont think its really ready for the end user yet. I would use Communicator if you wanted stability. But for someone who likes to experiment and play around like me, Gecko is perfect

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020512 Netscape/7.0b1

[DJGM]

Yes, I'm using Windows. I've nothing against the operating system itself,
especially when I have four seperate versions of it, installed on my PC!
I just don't like the buggy unnecessary junk that comes bundled with it.

So that I don't have to use Windows all the time, I also have the latest
version of SuSE Linux (v8.1) which I highly recommend to anyone that
hasn't tried Linux before, plus that popular abandonware, BeOS 5 . . .

My iMac has Mac OS X v10.1.5 and Mac OS 9.2.2 installed, plus a copy
of Windows NT4 installed within the PC emulator program, VirtualPC 5.
Although, my iMac will soon be running a version of Linux as well!

Speaking of running IE on PC's running Windows NT4, my last workplace
had just this scenario. Without the "enhanced" Windows shell that's been
in Windows since Win98, (and since IE4 could be installed on Win95) IE
took 20-30 seconds to start up, complete with an IE splash screen.
When I installed Mozilla 0.9.9 on one of the PC's (0.9.9 was the
latest release at the time), it took about 10 secs to start up,
display the Mozilla splashscreen, and render the first page.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-DJGM-i.net)

[Mandrake]

NT4 is also a helluva a lot quicker without the IE shell!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020512 Netscape/7.0b1

[James]

Hmmmm....

Well, I read over the entire "What is Wrong with Microsoft?" webpage. I read many but not all of the links embedded in the article. I must admit that it was a bit of a shocker. I'd heard much of it before (having read the president of Vermeer's book [can't remember his name now] and Jim Clark's "Netscape Time") but when you're confronted with the whole story with all its connections, it does set you back on your heels. I really am speechless at this point. I'm not certain I believe every last claim on those pages but even if 50% were true, it is an incredible indictment upon Microsoft.

I'll have to ask my wife's son to take a read. He'll be here for Christmas.

Thanks for the lead.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-SillyDog)

[Mandrake]

James: I run Windows to run all my games ^^

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020512 Netscape/7.0b1

[DJGM]

That article is certainly a real eye opener, for anyone that thinks all of
the negative press against Microsoft, is just unfounded scaremongering.

The latest story about Microsoft's predatory business practises, focuses
on the news that MS is believed to want to acquire Macromedia. If such
an acquisition was successful, the article says that the future of Java
could be in doubt, and the cross platform tools made by Macromedia
such as Flash, could end up being tailored for Windows only.

This article from CBR-Online is mirrored @ The Register . . .
Microsoft plots Macromedia coup against Java . . .

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-DJGM-i.net)