 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptop com> wrote:
> And yet funnily enough since Vista/IE7, I've seen people who previously were
> using FF now going back to IE - "well it has tabbed browsing already doesn't
> it?"
Sometimes it scares me the power Microsoft has over people.
Back when Netscape was approximately the only web browser in existence,
with something like 99% of market share, Microsoft published their first
version of IE and in something like *one month* it surpassed Netscape's
marketshare.
Netscape back then was rather horrid, but Microsoft's IE was even
more horrendeous. It broke about every possible standard and RFC in
existence and was completely full of security holes. It was IE which
introduced the concept of going to a website and getting your system
infected with a trojan.
Microsoft made six versions of IE, yet they still failed to support
even the most basic of standards, such as CSS and PNG, and the list
of serious security holes is just endless.
Yet, regarldess, IE became almost overnight the industry standard.
Because IE broke almost every single standard in existence, IE-only
websites started to spawn. IE was the measurement by which the correctness
of websites were measured. If something worked in IE but didn't work in
another browser, it was that another browser which was broken, not IE.
Nobody dared to make websites which wouldn't work with IE, no matter how
many hoops they had to jump through to achieve that. It was simply better
to have an IE-only website than a website which wouldn't work with IE.
Yet IE was so horridly broken that even the US government advised
their citizens to use another browser. Any browser except IE.
It took something like 5 years or more of complete cessation of the
development of IE before people finally started to slowly migrate to
other browsers. Many people wouldn't let go even then. IE was like
some kind of brainwashing, like some kind of addictive drug: They just
couldn't let it go.
It's really scary that one company can have this kind of power.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> Of course, in the real world, food is actually more important that software,
> now how does *that* compute? :P
>
> (Also, I said that the Maersk group shipped bananas, but that was a joke;
> indeed, they may ship more profitable stuff such as oil, cars and Chinese
> Christmas toys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_M%C3%A6rsk; freight is a
> gigantic business that made billionaires such as
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onassis, who was more famous than Bill Gates in
> his time).
Now that makes more sense. I was wondering how the hell you could make
any significant profile *just* by shipping bananas. If you'd said wheat
or rice I'd have been more convinced... And if this one company actually
ships all those different kinds of goods, I can see them making quite a
lot of money.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> IE, on the other hand, has great performance and no standards
> compliance, and since it hasn't been updated much for years... it was
> made for older machines :P
Much of IE's "performance" is deceiving.
For example, IE seems to take much less memory than other browsers
because many of its components are system components already loaded
into memory, and they are not listed under IE in the task manager.
This means that IE is taking quite a lot of memory, but you won't see
how much using task manager.
That's also the reason why IE seems to start faster than many other
browsers: Most of its components are already loaded when Windows start,
and thus the *real* launchtime for IE is hidden by having part of it
launch at system startup.
IE is rather slow at rendering pages. In page rendering speed tests
it performs poorly. (AFAIK in Windows the currently fastest "big" browser
is probably Safari.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Partly it's the whole "everyone runs only Windows, so we only need to
> develop for Windows", which creates the whole "people only develop for
> Windows, so I can only run Windows".
That's the whole "natural monopoly" sort of thing. That's why there's
really only one eBay, only one PSTN, and why Linux is really very
UNIX-like in its APIs.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On the other hand, Windows has been managing basic installs without user
> expertise for decades. :-)
Yes, Windows is clearly superior. Don't you even use anything else.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > What I think Nicolas means is that gzip is the *nix standard packing
> > format, which it's always been indeed.
> The best part is when you say "make configure", and it says
> "Unrecognised arch 'i586/SuSE 10.3'". And you're like "WTF? Now what do
> I do??"
Yes, it's clearly a problem with *linux* when some software you are
trying to install is broken.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> OK. The Amiga lacked the necessary hardware for that.
>
> I do find it interesting that you ask what Windows does that the Amiga
> doesn't, and when given an extensive list, everything is dismissed as
> either "The Amiga didn't have the hardware for that" or "I don't use
> that so it doesn't count."
Well, if the hardware doesn't support it, how is the software supposed
to offer that feature? Let's be realistic here. Given the available
hardware, the software did almost everything you could expect of it.
There's only a few things it could have provided but didn't. (Like
multiple users and security. Or a real network stack.)
>> The STOP messages give generic error codes.
>
> Fortunately, the Amiga was far superior in this regard. ;-)
Yes. It didn't crash. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If that were the case, visiting Windows Update a few times presumably
> wouldn't have fixed it...
Drivers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Mac OS X is an alternative - if you have several thousand pounds laying
> spare...
How much did your Windows cost you, *including* the PC it's running in?
Besides, the "several thousand pounds" is BS. A fully-working Mac mini
(with MacOS X) is $599, which is about 307 British pounds.
"Yeah, but it's a slow machine which you can't do anything with."
Maybe, if you consider an Intel Core 2 Duo with 1GB memory "slow".
> And Apple stuff, actually, but that's very expensive...
You simply refuse to let go of the old myth, don't you?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's really scary that one company can have this kind of power.
You know, if IE was actually a great product, I wouldn't mind so much...
But, how can I put this? It isn't.
Very amusing thing: I said to a friend one time "IE really sucks; I'm
using Firefox". And she was like "OMG, Firefox sucks!"
"You're not using IE are you?"
"Don't be daft - I'm using Avant."
Irony... much?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
