Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
> Warp wrote:
> 
>>   Download an IE skin for Firefox and change Firefox's icon to that of 
>> IE.
>> See how long it takes for her to notice there's something wrong with it.
> 
> I'm guessing the first time she visits a site that demands ActiveX...?

She uses MSN a lot and perhaps Hotmail also works better -- integrated 
:P -- in IE.

> Me: Dude, you don't seriously use IE, do you?
> Her: No, don't be stupid! I use Avant.
> Me: ...

LOL

Post a reply to this message

>>> See how long it takes for her to notice there's something wrong with it.
>>
>> I'm guessing the first time she visits a site that demands ActiveX...?
> 
> She uses MSN a lot and perhaps Hotmail also works better -- integrated 
> :P -- in IE.

I'm guessing also that a lot of those pointless Flash games and similar 
only work well in IE.

>> Me: Dude, you don't seriously use IE, do you?
>> Her: No, don't be stupid! I use Avant.
>> Me: ...
> 
> LOL

"No! Of *course* I don't use IE! It's buggy and insecure. I use [a thin 
skin over the top of IE] instead. It's way better."

"...uh..."

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:25:27 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>> See how long it takes for her to notice there's something wrong with
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing the first time she visits a site that demands ActiveX...?
>> 
>> She uses MSN a lot and perhaps Hotmail also works better -- integrated
>> :P -- in IE.
> 
> I'm guessing also that a lot of those pointless Flash games and similar
> only work well in IE.

Um, not if they're Flash games....Flash runs in Firefox....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:54:41 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>   Download an IE skin for Firefox and change Firefox's icon to that of
>>   IE.
>> See how long it takes for her to notice there's something wrong with
>> it.
> 
> I'm guessing the first time she visits a site that demands ActiveX...?

Outside of Microsoft-owned sites, there are sites that still use 
ActiveX?  Really?

I don't run into them *ever* unless I'm downloading something from the 
MSDN site.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm guessing also that a lot of those pointless Flash games and similar
>> only work well in IE.
> 
> Um, not if they're Flash games....Flash runs in Firefox....

And how much do you want to bet that the entire site markup is only 
tested with IE?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm guessing the first time she visits a site that demands ActiveX...?
> 
> Outside of Microsoft-owned sites, there are sites that still use 
> ActiveX?  Really?
> 
> I don't run into them *ever* unless I'm downloading something from the 
> MSDN site.

The server administration console for Trend Micro requires ActiveX, for 
example. (Not that this matters to a home user. I'm pretty sure I've 
seen various Internet equipment or ISP websites that also demand ActiveX 
though.)

I'm drawing a blank on real "websites" that require ActiveX, but I think 
there are a few outside M$.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The server administration console for Trend Micro requires ActiveX,

I've seen a fair number of "enterprise" type sites needing ActiveX. 
Basically, places where it's cheaper to tell your customers what to use than 
it is to maintain multiple versions and break out of the sandbox in various 
ways.

> I'm drawing a blank on real "websites" that require ActiveX, 

Not since XMLHTTP stopped being an ActiveX control and got ported to other 
browsers.

Even MS is getting away from it, really.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Neither of those is going to stand long.
> 
> I see MS doing lots of new things that aren't on Linux, tho. You don't 
> stay ahead by not inventing anything new.
> 
What exactly? Just being clear that "every time" they announce some new 
"feature", its either something like .NET, which a lot of people don't 
want at all, or trust, *or* someone goes, "Gee, doesn't GFBunk (or some 
similarly weirdly named thing) already do that on such an such OS?"

>> BTW, here the one about how the EU may have finally gotten so annoyed 
>> at IE being integrated in MS' machines that they may require new 
>> installs to "include" an alternative browser "standard" in all of 
>> them? Can't imagine that making things better for them either...
> 
> Or, honestly, for the users or browser vendors. At this point, nobody 
> can actually *sell* a browser, so I'm not sure what the point of not 
> giving away a browser is, or how you decide which of the 8 or 10 popular 
> browsers out there you should be including.
Hmm. Well there is that. But, the point is "competing", not "every", 
so... Sure they will just pick which ever one has the most market share 
at the time, which would be... Hmm... lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> its either something like .NET, which a lot of people don't 
> want at all,

There's a lot of people who don't want a computer at all. Hence, OSS is 
worthless.

> or trust, *or* someone goes, "Gee, doesn't GFBunk (or some 
> similarly weirdly named thing) already do that on such an such OS?"

I see Linux copying a lot of stuff that MS does on Linux file systems, for 
example. When Linux adds something like the ability to watch for changes to 
the file system or the ability to take a snapshot of the file system without 
disrupting operations, I don't see too many people complaining "Hey, doesn't 
Microsoft do that already?"  But if Microsoft adds virtual desktops, I can 
guarantee people will croon that's been in Linux for years.

You're getting caught by confirmation bias here, methinks. Any small 
improvement is going to be seen as a small incremental improvement just to 
make money on upgrades, or sufficiently close to what someone else already 
did that you can dismiss it. If they do something large and new, you say "I 
don't trust Microsoft and they're the only ones I can get this from, so it 
isn't valuable." (While leaving off the "to me" you should be putting at the 
end, mind.)  So, no, of course you don't think they've done anything new.

The list of new things they've done recently is widely available, so I won't 
bother going thru it.

> Hmm. Well there is that. But, the point is "competing", not "every", 
> so... Sure they will just pick which ever one has the most market share 
> at the time, which would be... Hmm... lol

That's my point. The inclusion of IE isn't keeping anyone from buying 
Firefox or Safari.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> M$ has somehow succeeded in convincing people that it is somehow 
>> "normal" for computers to not work correctly.
> 
> Not really. Personal computers never worked consistently right. 
> Mainframes, yes, but not micros or PCs.  (And by PC, I mean everything 
> from TRS-80 to Apple ][ to Commodore PET to ...)

Or rather, you mean "any computer that hasn't really worked right"? :-P

Post a reply to this message