On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:43:37 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/21/2013 8:45 AM, John H wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:33:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/21/2013 7:13 AM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:44:26 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:20:36 +0100, Stig Arne Bye
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:55:08 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:42:58 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:23:27 -0500, Hank© wrote:

Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback?

I'm still using XP. The latest I can use if IE8.

Another good reason to run Firefox. IE8 will not open a lot of things
but Firefox will. (Bill Gates trying to sell more product)

I've had Firefox run into problems opening Microsoft stuff. But I like Firefox. Never had any
problems with it, although it is slow to open compared to IE8.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


I do also have one computer running XP SP3 with multiple browsers
installed, and by using a stop watch, I measured and compared the time
to open IE and Firefox after clicking the shortcut.

After doing this test 5 times for each browser, I got the following
results:
- IE (version 8.0) opened in 1.37 seconds in average.
- Firefox (version 25.0.1) opened in 3.16 seconds in average.

A lot of IE is actually resident in Windoze.

That would help explain it. I've learned patience when it comes to Firefox.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!




The first time after a reboot both Firefox and IE are slow to open on
both of my computers (meaning four or five seconds) but after that they
open fairly fast ... like a second or two. As previously mentioned, I
don't use IE as a browser, but I just tried it for comparison. Doesn't
seem to be any faster than Firefox.

My computers are both laptops, one running Vista Home Premium (64 bit)
and the other Win 7 Home Edition or something like that ... also 64 bit.
When I bought them I was advised by a computer geek to make sure they
had at least 4GB of RAM memory and a faster CPU (forget what speed they
are). Both work fine, although Vista takes forever and a day to
initially boot up. Once it's fully booted however it seems just as fast
as Win 7. I also have an older XP laptop that has both IE and Firefox.
It is slow as molasses compared to the Vista or Win 7 laptops.

I called the builder of my computer yesterday about upgrading from XP. When mine was built, Vista
was out. He told me to stick with XP, and that he'd upgrade it when a decent version came out. He
offered to put Win 7 on it if I would bring it in. No charge...and it's not even an Apple!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!



Depending on your amount of RAM and CPU clock speed, skipping over Vista
probably made sense. It's a resource hog. I was told however that most
of the problems associated with Vista were caused by insufficient RAM
and relatively slow CPUs ... and ... most were 32 bit machines.

The computer geek that advised me as to minimum memory and CPU speed to
run Vista was correct, IMO. Other than being slow to initially boot, I
have absolutely no complaints with the Vista laptop. It's fast, is
stable and has been free of crashes. I used it at the guitar shop for
four years and used the Win 7 computer at home. Now that I am no longer
involved much in the shop, I brought the Vista laptop home and it sat
for a long time, unused. Then I realized it has a much bigger screen
than the Win 7 computer, so I switched over to it.

I just read some of the stuff printed on the stickers on it. Apparently
it is an HP model that was designed primarily for multimedia
applications. It has more memory and a faster CPU.

It runs fine, lasts a long time. :-)



I've got the speed and the RAM, just somewhat worried about finding and loading all the programs
that won't work with Vista (about 15 according to Microsoft's site).

I'll probably wait until nothing supports XP, and then bite the bullet.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!