I hate to say this, but...

[Lostlover]

I'm actually enjoying the new internet explorer. I have used Google Chrome the last three years (or however long it's been out), but recently had to start using Internet Explorer to use a Microsoft product. And it isn't that bad. Looks good and you can even search in the address bar.

 

[T-Rexx]

A recent study concluded that users of Internet Explorer are dumber than users of other browsers.

Just sayin...



http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2389463,00.asp

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/07/29/internet.explorer.dumb/index.html

 

[Lostlover]

^^^ LOL. Good reads.

What's your take on IE?

 

[maxpowr9]

Since Mozilla went AWOL with Firefox 5 (pretty much very few apps work with it now), I have been playing around with chrome a bit and like it. I'd NEVER go back to IE though.

 

[gewhite3]

I love IE9 as well, LL. Don't let the haters discourage you. Wear it with pride, baby.

 

[T-Rexx]

What's your take on IE?

I can't speak from personal experience, as I don't use Windows.

From what I've read, versions 9 and later are (finally!) reasonably secure, and reasonably compliant with international standards. I would have no problem with it, if it were available for my platform.

However, it would still not likely be my browser of choice, since Chrome is faster and Firefox has (I believe) more useful plugins available.

Also, there is that history. Internet Explorer is the poster child for illegal, anti-competitive behavior by a monopoly. That still bothers me.

 

[Paws]

I'm actually enjoying the new internet explorer.

__________

 

[Lostlover]

^^^ lol.

I love IE9 as well, LL. Don't let the haters discourage you. Wear it with pride, baby.

I will. I will.

It isn't too bad. I don't see any noticeable difference in speed with Google Chrome.

 

[Lostlover]

I can't speak from personal experience, as I don't use Windows.

From what I've read, versions 9 and later are (finally!) reasonably secure, and reasonably compliant with international standards. I would have no problem with it, if it were available for my platform.

However, it would still not likely be my browser of choice, since Chrome is faster and Firefox has (I believe) more useful plugins available.

Also, there is that history. Internet Explorer is the poster child for illegal, anti-competitive behavior by a monopoly. That still bothers me.

How does Microsoft get outflanked by a Firefox? I can understand Google, but Firefox at first? That just seems like pure laziness.

 

[Corny]

because microsoft completely missed basically all internet developments after html 4.1. for how many years ie6 was "state of the art" from ms?

meanwhile all the others were busy creating better browsers. ie8 was a step in the right direction. i still consider ie to be clumsy and inflexible. ie plugins are a joke.

 

[OneGayDude]

I use Chrome, Firefox, and IE. They all have their pros and cons.

Chrome is faster and very neat. But it lacks pop-up ad protection (at least I haven't figured it out?), and printing a page from Chrome usually prints the web address too far to the right to show all of it. If you try to save a webpage, you can't save it as a text file, only a html or complete webpage.

I like Firefox, as you can shut down your computer, and save all the pages you have open to open back up the next time you start Firefox. It also has a lot of add-ons I like. It's more of a browser "your way", which I like.

Internet Explorer is still the standard to see a webpage the way it was created. Some of the stuff that shows up in IE on certain websites is missing when you view it with Chrome. I wish there was a way to combine the parts I like from each of the browsers so I could just use one.

 

[Lostlover]

^^^The YouTube download is one thing I do miss about FF. I got rid of it only because it was taking up too many resources.

 

[Lostlover]

I wonder how Safari compares with these browsers in terms of performance...

I took an MIS class in graduate school. And the Apple users were SHOCKED that their computers and browsers weren't as secure as they thought. The professor said that Apples are even more vulnerable to malware, viruses, etc. than PCs. I wonder if the same is true for Safari.

 

[T-Rexx]

How does Microsoft get outflanked by a Firefox? I can understand Google, but Firefox at first? That just seems like pure laziness.

That's a fascinating question.

Microsoft is a rather strange company, organizationally. It has gone without any competitors for so long that it does not know how to compete. Bill Gates believed in "survival of the fittest" for ideas. He would set competing teams of programmers working on the same problem. The teams would come up with different solutions to the same problem, and management would choose the best approach.

Sounds reasonable, but it hasn't worked out that way. The teams are cutthroat. They work in secret, lest their ideas get leaked to another team. They try to discredit each others' work to MS management, and even sabotage each other's accomplishments. Team leaders fight over individual programmers in their teams, occasionally "stealing" programmers from another team, to much anger and frustration. Typically, individual teams will each come up with some unique, clever ideas - but these ideas sometimes turn out to be completely incompatible with each other.

This is almost the polar opposite of open source programming, where individual programmers all work cooperatively and openly with each other.

It takes Microsoft a dozen programmers to do the work of one programmer at a competing company. And it takes Microsoft a year to do what other companies can do in three months. That is why the largest and richest software developer on earth can spend six years coming up with turkeys like Vista and many disastrous iterations of IE. And that is why people often joke about the poor quality of Microsoft products. ("Microsoft once tried to make vacuum cleaners - it was their only product that didn't suck.")

Were it not for its monopoly status, Microsoft would have already largely disappeared from the software marketplace. But because of the monopoly, Microsoft remains - for all its inefficiencies - one of the most profitable companies on earth. They just pass their costs on to you, the end user, in the form of higher prices for Windows and Office.

 

[T-Rexx]

How does Microsoft get outflanked by a Firefox? I can understand Google, but Firefox at first? That just seems like pure laziness.

That's a fascinating question.

Microsoft is a rather strange company, organizationally. It has gone without any competitors for so long that it does not know how to compete. Bill Gates believed in "survival of the fittest" for ideas. He would set competing teams of programmers working on the same problem. The teams would come up with different solutions to the same problem, and management would choose the best approach.

Sounds reasonable, but it hasn't worked out that way. The teams are cutthroat. They work in secret, lest their ideas get leaked to another team. They try to discredit each others' work to MS management, and even sabotage each other's accomplishments. Team leaders fight over individual programmers in their teams, occasionally "stealing" programmers from another team, to much anger and frustration. Typically, individual teams will each come up with some unique, clever ideas - but these ideas sometimes turn out to be completely incompatible with each other.

This is almost the polar opposite of open source programming, where individual programmers all work cooperatively and openly with each other.

It takes Microsoft a dozen programmers to do the work of one programmer at a competing company. And it takes Microsoft a year to do what other companies can do in three months. That is why the largest and richest software developer on earth can spend six years coming up with turkeys like Vista and many disastrous iterations of IE.

Were it not for its monopoly status, Microsoft would have already largely disappeared from the software marketplace. But because of the monopoly, Microsoft remains - for all its inefficiencies - one of the most profitable companies on earth. They just pass their costs on to you, the end user, in the form of higher prices for Windows and Office.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

I like IE9 okay. Its better than anything after IE6 before other browsers knocked IE off.
However, it has a very strange annoying thing with the graphics on streams. If you have multiple windows open and are streaming a video from lets say CNN or You tube it will slow it down or stop it until you go back to that window. I read something about this but don't understand.
So if you are listening to something that is streaming video but have another window open reading all of the sudden it stops. When you go to the window with the streaming video it moves in fast motion to catch up.
Where it gets awful is if a ad is on. It will stall the process from the ad to the next segment of stream and repeat the ad over and over with no volume.
Thus I use Firefox which doesn't do this.

This also happens on cams. If you go to say CAM4, and click on a cam to watch then click to another open browser window it will not connect you to the CAM4 webpage until you return to that page. Then sometimes it once again moves in fast motion and the chat pane zooms by rapidly until it catches up where it should be as if you were on that cam since you clicked on it.
Where often you will see a brief glimpse of some hottie before it quickly goes to "offline" blank. You missed it all.

 

[T-Rexx]

^ That's "normal" behavior, vulgar. Pretty much all browsers now do that.

The intent is to optimize the browsing experience over a slow connection. The browser "knows" which tab you have open, and will try to selectively download the data for that tab. Since you're not looking at the video in another tab, the browser figures you're not interested, and will stop downloading the video data in favor of downloading the stuff in the tab you have open.

If your connection were fast enough, you probably wouldn't notice that effect. With a fast connection, the browser can download data for unopened tabs in the background, even as it loads the data for the tab you have open. But, we tend to have slower connections in the USA than most of the rest of the world, so optimizing downloads for the open tab can be helpful behavior.

 

[Atzesp]

I like Firefox, as you can shut down your computer, and save all the pages you have open to open back up the next time you start Firefox. It also has a lot of add-ons I like. It's more of a browser "your way", which I like.

Same here. In fact, I even tried using Chrome, but I didn't like it. It didn't seem THAT faster for me, and - like OneGayDude said - I couldn't manage to block pop-ups and other stuff. In fact, it seemed to me a little bit arrogant: Google people think that everything they make is so perfect that you don't have to adapt them to you. YOU must adapt yourself to THEM.

Firefox, so, is my choice. Although I still keep IE installed - unfortunately, there still are some websites that only work properly on IE. Their webmasters must be lost somewhere in time.

 

[Lostlover]

Same here. In fact, I even tried using Chrome, but I didn't like it. It didn't seem THAT faster for me, and - like OneGayDude said - I couldn't manage to block pop-ups and other stuff. In fact, it seemed to me a little bit arrogant: Google people think that everything they make is so perfect that you don't have to adapt them to you. YOU must adapt yourself to THEM.

Firefox, so, is my choice. Although I still keep IE installed - unfortunately, there still are some websites that only work properly on IE. Their webmasters must be lost somewhere in time.

That's why I've kept IE too. For the first time ever, Google Chrome has been crashing. I've been trying to upload Word documents to the web and in the process of the file uploading, Chrome crashes.

Has anyone else had this problem here with Chrome?

 

[T-Rexx]

I still keep IE installed - unfortunately, there still are some websites that only work properly on IE. Their webmasters must be lost somewhere in time.

Those webmasters died a long time ago of old age.