|
|
|
Mozilla surprised by Microsoft's abandonment of XP support in IE9
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 21 March, 2011
Mozilla has expressed surprise after hearing that Microsoft had abandoned support for Windows XP with the release of Internet Explorer 9.
IE9, released last week, does not support the decade-old operating system, which is still the most popular operating system, although 2009's Windows 7 is quickly gaining.
According to NetApplications, XP still accounts for 55 percent of all PC users, ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
bw5011
Newbie
|
25. March 2011 @ 19:59 |
Link to this message
|
I.E. 9 is great.. Windows 7 is great.. People are crying over this.. Car change every 5 years.. Linux changes every 6 months.. FF changes just as much as IE. If you are still using XP just use IE 8 if you want the latest and greatest upgrade your OS... Once you get 7 you will wonder why it took to long to update... Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
25. March 2011 @ 20:37 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bw5011:
Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...
No way. FF4 poos on it.
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
|
|
bw5011
Newbie
|
25. March 2011 @ 20:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...
No way. FF4 poos on it.
how? name one thing
|
Senior Member
|
25. March 2011 @ 20:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...
No way. FF4 poos on it.
how? name one thing
One? How about the thousands of addons you don't have a clue about. Ok, I'll name just one... AdBlock Plus.
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
|
|
bw5011
Newbie
|
25. March 2011 @ 21:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...
No way. FF4 poos on it.
how? name one thing
One? How about the thousands of addons you don't have a clue about. Ok, I'll name just one... AdBlock Plus.
I am a system admin.. i know all about FF... with IE 9 u dont need an "addon" to block adds.. try again...
|
Senior Member
|
25. March 2011 @ 21:02 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...
No way. FF4 poos on it.
how? name one thing
One? How about the thousands of addons you don't have a clue about. Ok, I'll name just one... AdBlock Plus.
I am a system admin.. i know all about FF... with IE 9 u dont need an "addon" to block adds.. try again...
The thousands of addons you don't have a clue about.
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
|
|
bw5011
Newbie
|
25. March 2011 @ 21:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...
No way. FF4 poos on it.
how? name one thing
One? How about the thousands of addons you don't have a clue about. Ok, I'll name just one... AdBlock Plus.
I am a system admin.. i know all about FF... with IE 9 u dont need an "addon" to block adds.. try again...
The thousands of addons you don't have a clue about.
ok. if that is all u got.. we can just say you win.. LOL.... but really you should check out IE 9 and how it performs with html5.. check out chrome and check out ff.... i have to use all because of my users since we dont have a standard browser.. for what most people do on the net you can use anything to surf.. but u should try something else just to see what u think...
|
|
Baccusboy
Junior Member
1 product review
|
25. March 2011 @ 21:24 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by lissenup2:
Those that actually choose to stay on the outdated, boring, technologically deficient and antiquated XP are techno morons. It's 10 years old people. Let it die or GTFO of the world of tech!
The computers at our university run XP quickly, and XP is compatible with the school's software. It boots faster, runs faster on older machines, and requires less hardware to get the basics done. Believe me when I say that we could care LESS about being able to run the newest browser (supporting the latests, most intrusive ads from developers). That's really what all of this is about -- providing new revenue streams for ad companies and MS. Who really LIKES those ads bouncing across your screen when you're trying to view a webpage, or taking-over your entire screen until you push "X"? Why do I want that?? That's why new browsers need all of this speed -- to run that garbage. The school's old IE browser will probably just not run it at all, and still be faster for not doing so!
I like Windows 7 overall, too, but the sad fact is that they'll keep running XP at my job an elsewhere until the older computers using it totally die. No way they'll every purchase an upgrade -- they'll just buy new by that time and have Windows 7 included, or if they still can find a way, will downgrade all of the computers to XP again. That's what they did with all of our new dual-core machines they bought 2 years ago.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. March 2011 @ 21:27
|
Senior Member
|
25. March 2011 @ 21:56 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by bw5011:
Besides IE 9 is the best browser yet...
No way. FF4 poos on it.
how? name one thing
One? How about the thousands of addons you don't have a clue about. Ok, I'll name just one... AdBlock Plus.
I am a system admin.. i know all about FF... with IE 9 u dont need an "addon" to block adds.. try again...
The thousands of addons you don't have a clue about.
ok. if that is all u got.. we can just say you win.. LOL.... but really you should check out IE 9 and how it performs with html5.. check out chrome and check out ff.... i have to use all because of my users since we dont have a standard browser.. for what most people do on the net you can use anything to surf.. but u should try something else just to see what u think...
What makes you think I haven't? :)
Look, the fact of the matter is that I can't be bothered arguing with you bw501. Same as I can't be stuffed arguing with you over a Flat Earth... I don't have the time. If you think IE provides a better (and safer) user experience than FF4 or don't mind Doubleclick spyware from Google's Chrome well good luck to you.
I've cheerfully admitted above I admire Win7. I've defended it above. Still, I'm not about to head over to OCZ forums to ask Bill Gates for a reach around... you're welcome to.
Likewise your welcome to nit-pick over this ~ http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/features/ ~ with some other member of AD... you'll find plenty.
:)
Cheers.
=================================================================
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. March 2011 @ 22:00
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
25. March 2011 @ 21:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by core2kid:
Originally posted by core2kid:
Finally, 7 runs like crap on anything with less than 2GB RAM. Most people don't need more than 2GB RAM. Also I know many people out there who still use early Single core/early Dual Core (Core Duo) machines. 7 runs like garbage on those.
Look, I agree absolutely with everything you said in that post core2kid except that bit. Win7 Ultimate runs cheerfully enough on a old 1GB netbook.
(Just don't install the wireless adaptor driver from MS... get it from the maker/manufacturer or google for it.)
You're looking at a netbook, they perform fine on 7 Starter. I'm talking about a full computer such as a desktop or something. They won't perform well only because people will try to do more than it can. If you use a desktop or low end laptop as a netbook, it'll perform fine. Also I don't think you can buy a standalone license for Windows 7 Starter. I'm pretty sure that Home Premium is the lowest it goes.
*sigh*
I know what version of Win7 I installed on this and other old netbooks mate.
{Yet another person who has no idea how services run in an OS. Pro and Ultimate provide access to a greater number of them only and I mean ONLY if they are called upon.}
Ultimate runs as least as well as XP Home ever did on them and they are frankly more stable.
================================================================
The average home user can't work with services. For pros in computers, we really don't need to have a discussion on which OS to use and why.
|
Senior Member
|
25. March 2011 @ 22:13 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Darney53:
Originally posted by lissenup2:
Originally posted by ROMaster2:
At this point just ignore lissenup2; none of his comments in previous articles make much sense and are usually fanboy bashing rants.
If only doing that too much was a bannable offense...
I'm not a fanboy of ANYTHING. I like certain things but recognize incoherent stupidity when I see it. I'm a pragmatic and highly objective and not subjective in the wrong situations so pipe down because you're sorely mistaken.
As for "fanboyism"......wake up! You're either a fanboy of Apple products or MS products or Hp, Dell, IBM, etc but calling out those that are lazy and cheap that retain severely outdated tech like XP is not being a "fanboy" because I'm not emphasizing anything other than GET CURRENT.
Being behind hinders the progress of modern day networks, the performance of employees and especially hinders tech trying to concentrate on resolving issues with CURRENT DAY TECH.
You really need to check your head before calling out someone that has clearly made a much more valid point than you. I see you as a politician.........the wrong people in positions of authority and power. You're a MOD man........set a better example.
Some of us cannot afford all the upgrading needed to run Windows 7. So should just stop using my computers to do the things we need to do?
Unless you have an older computer with low end Intel integrated graphics (8xx series chipsets) with less than 1GB of ram then you may have to upgrade using a $30 graphics card and maybe $50 in ram but that is probably a 7 - 8 year old computer. I have yet to find a computer within the last 5 - 6 years that cannot run Windows 7 with a simple upgrade to 2GB ram. Win7 runs just as good and in most cases better on the same hardware.
|
Senior Member
|
25. March 2011 @ 22:13 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by core2kid:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by core2kid:
Originally posted by core2kid:
Finally, 7 runs like crap on anything with less than 2GB RAM. Most people don't need more than 2GB RAM. Also I know many people out there who still use early Single core/early Dual Core (Core Duo) machines. 7 runs like garbage on those.
Look, I agree absolutely with everything you said in that post core2kid except that bit. Win7 Ultimate runs cheerfully enough on a old 1GB netbook.
(Just don't install the wireless adaptor driver from MS... get it from the maker/manufacturer or google for it.)
You're looking at a netbook, they perform fine on 7 Starter. I'm talking about a full computer such as a desktop or something. They won't perform well only because people will try to do more than it can. If you use a desktop or low end laptop as a netbook, it'll perform fine. Also I don't think you can buy a standalone license for Windows 7 Starter. I'm pretty sure that Home Premium is the lowest it goes.
*sigh*
I know what version of Win7 I installed on this and other old netbooks mate.
{Yet another person who has no idea how services run in an OS. Pro and Ultimate provide access to a greater number of them only and I mean ONLY if they are called upon.}
Ultimate runs as least as well as XP Home ever did on them and they are frankly more stable.
================================================================
The average home user can't work with services. For pros in computers, we really don't need to have a discussion on which OS to use and why.
================================================================
*Ugh*
We ran comparisons between Ultimate and Starter on newer (same cpu, same chipset) netbooks. It wasn't particularly planned, a mate just turned up with extra one. It's really easy to pop a fresh HDD in one to experiment with.
I agreed with you about everything else. :)
=============================================================
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. March 2011 @ 22:20
|
Senior Member
|
25. March 2011 @ 22:25 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bobiroc:
Unless you have an older computer with low end Intel integrated graphics (8xx series chipsets) with less than 1GB of ram then you may have to upgrade using a $30 graphics card and maybe $50 in ram but that is probably a 7 - 8 year old computer. I have yet to find a computer within the last 5 - 6 years that cannot run Windows 7 with a simple upgrade to 2GB ram. Win7 runs just as good and in most cases better on the same hardware.
Hear bloody hear.
Testify!
:)
======================================================================
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. March 2011 @ 10:29
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
26. March 2011 @ 10:46 |
Link to this message
|
Don't be thinking everyone can cheaply upgrade RAM, either. For one, my home data server is an older dektop that has 512 MB RAMBUS (remember that?) RAM. Now, RAMBUS was nice and fast, but WAY too expensive, and only costs more now. What, I should spend approximately the original cost, if not more, of that PC to upgrade it to run 7..? LOL Nope. Am I going to throw away a perfectly good house server? Nope. And that doesn't even enter into the subject of how much unalloyed *cough* "fun" it is to install an entire OS + applications and etc., whether 7 is superior or not... My main PCs run 7, and that's fine.
Anyone who thinks otherwise probably still has all their bills paid by their parents. If not, they're just elitist trash with too much time on their hands. *ptui*
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
26. March 2011 @ 10:53 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Bozobub:
Don't be thinking everyone can cheaply upgrade RAM, either. For one, my home data server is an older dektop that has 512 MB RAMBUS (remember that?) RAM. Now, RAMBUS was nice and fast, but WAY too expensive, and only costs more now. What, I should spend approximately the original cost, if not more, of that PC to upgrade it to run 7..? LOL Nope. Am I going to throw away a perfectly good house server? Nope. And that doesn't even enter into the subject of how much unalloyed *cough* "fun" it is to install an entire OS + applications and etc., whether 7 is superior or not... My main PCs run 7, and that's fine.
Anyone who thinks otherwise probably still has all their bills paid by their parents. If not, they're just elitist trash with too much time on their hands. *ptui*
RDRAM isn't too expensive anymore, I got 4 x 256MB Sticks for $2 on Ebay shipped. I saw similar ones going for about $10.
|
|
SomeBozo
Member
2 product reviews
|
26. March 2011 @ 11:02 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by core2kid:
RDRAM isn't too expensive anymore, I got 4 x 256MB Sticks for $2 on Ebay shipped. I saw similar ones going for about $10.
I almost think even $10 is too expensive for RDRAM :)
I thought the main problem was even though it was fast memory for its day, there was a huge bug in the memory bus that required you to slow the memory to as slow or slower then the comparable SDRAM at the time... What a joy to pay 3x or 4x the cost of other SDRAM for fast memory only to be required to run it slower then SDRAM...
While i assume it is worth it in your case, if you need it you need it. Now, where's my beer, think i left it, oh there she be.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. March 2011 @ 11:04
|
Senior Member
|
26. March 2011 @ 11:43 |
Link to this message
|
Heh, I don't think I'd ever recommend someone use Win7 for a server.
I would only strongly advise that someone move to Win7 if I built them a gaming rig (or if they had one) that had a DX11 card and they were keen on playing new games.
Pro and Ultimate have built in virtual XP for retro gaming anyway. Not referring to compatibility mode here.
Might look for some old registered RAM on eBay ~ seen a number of superseded workstations for sale. Solis but shame about how they deal with SATA.
I did not know that about RDRAM! I know it has a colourful history what with all those SDRAM execs going to jail and that $700mil fine coz of the price fixing.
Beer...
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
lordoftheleft
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
31. March 2011 @ 02:11 |
Link to this message
|
Why does anyone even care that you can't use IE9 on XP? I've only used IE once and that was to download Firefox. There's so many great browsers to choose from Chrome, Opera, Firefox, Safari why would anyone choose to use one of the worst. Also XP will be relevant for as long as there's software and drivers written for it, Windows 7 has a nice new UI but it's not as if it can do anything XP couldn't.
|
|
