| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#91
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Explorer 11
|
|
#93
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Internet Explorer 11
F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/21/13, 9:43 AM, 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. :-) Just stopwatched the laptop ...12 seconds from hitting the power on key on my laptop until it completes the boot process. And I was wrong...it does make a call to the server for its backup folder and my documents folder and my connected SDXC card. It's the SSD drive that makes it that fast. If this is true it's courtesy of the US taxpayers and the other creditors he screwed! |
|
#94
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Internet Explorer 11
F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/21/13, 10:03 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/21/2013 9:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/21/13, 8:54 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/21/2013 8:42 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/21/13, 8:33 AM, 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. Sometimes there is more going on than just the startup of the operating system. On my desktop, running Mac OSX 10.9, the start up procedure includes not only the OS, but a connection to my server and a connection to a half dozen folders on that server and a couple of programs I run in the backaground, so it takes a little longer for the boot-up. But since it is a Mac, I rarely boot it up because it doesn't crash, and I don't have the BSODs that plague Windows. In fact, the last time I rebooted was a few weeks ago when I uploaded and installed the latest *free* version of the OS. I just leave the desktop machine ON and after 15 minutes of no keyboard activity or backup activity, the screen blanks out and the hard drive spools off. My laptop also runs OSX 10.9, but I don't usually connect it to the server, so the boot up is very fast, fastest I have ever seen, actually, on a consumer computer. The laptop has no hard drive in the traditional sense...it has an SSD. I'll have to time the boot up but my guess is that it takes no more than five seconds from the time I push the ON button. It's funny you mention crashes. I can't remember the last time either of my Windows based computers crashed. I also rarely shut them completely off either. I put them in "sleep" mode when they are not being used. The only time a reboot is required is after an update of the OS and occasionally after a major update by AVG (anti-virus). I have them set so I can pick and choose when I want the updates to be installed. XP was (is) a very stable program. The last time I recall routine crashes was back before it came along. I recently read that XP, Vista, Win7 and Win8 were all derived from Windows NT. I remember it because NT was an "industrialized" version of Windows or something. All the CAD PC stations in my company ran on Windows NT. Many of the interim updates for Windows 7 require a reboot, according to my wife, who runs that OS on her home computer. There seem to be "security" updates every week. I still use Microsoft's Office Suite, the Mac version. I've never liked it because of its complexity but most of my clients use it and when I prepare files or presentations for them, the work output has to be 100% compatible. I've tried some of the open source substitutes for these Microsoft programs, and they do work OK, but invariably there are "formatting" problems when importing or exporting to the non-Microsoft versions. My favorite word processor, XyWrite, fell by the wayside decades ago. One of my laptops (the Vista machine) has the full Microsoft Office suite installed. I use "Open Office" in the other one. I don't recall any problems with formatting issues using Open Office as long as you save the document in a fairly recent Word version. My lawyer friend was helping me draft a fairly lengthy legal document a while ago. He uses Mac computers exclusively. We were able to email the drafts back and forth, make changes and corrections without any difficulty. I was using Open Office. He was using whatever Microsoft Office program that ran on his Mac. He's an interesting guy. In addition to being a rock musician from the 60's with a somewhat major hit record that he still receives royalty checks for (he was a good friend of Duane Allmond), a lawyer, a guitar builder and a Democratic Socialist, he also wrote code and developed applications for Apple for a few years. He's a total Apple freak and always has the latest and greatest iPhone, OS or whatever. He can't understand why I, with my technical background, don't have the same level of interest or enthusiasm about smart phones and computers. I've tried to explain to him that to me they are just a tool. If they work and do the job I need them to do, I don't worry about having the latest and greatest. You'd get along famously with him. He's a good guy and we often have interesting but friendly political debates, unlike some that go on here. Some of us are capable of "friendly" political debates. Yet you choose to attack people and pretend to kill file them. |
|
#95
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Internet Explorer 11
F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/21/13, 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: Just stopwatched the laptop ...12 seconds from hitting the power on key on my laptop until it completes the boot process. And I was wrong...it does make a call to the server for its backup folder and my documents folder and my connected SDXC card. It's the SSD drive that makes it that fast. When the time comes that I need a new computer, I am definitely going to look for a hard disk-less model. I'll get one with the SSD drive an use "The Cloud" for mass storage, if needed. My iMac desktop comes off of AppleCare soon, so I am thinking of selling it and getting a new iMac in 2014, one with only an SSD. I have a ton of software on my current iMac, and am only using 190 GBs of a 1000 GBs drive, so I think a 500 GBs SSD will be more than sufficient. I keep all my text, data, music and movie files on my server, and on a separate "critical stuff" backup drive, and I keep some of the music in "the cloud." I'm sure you believe every word you typed, deadbeat. |
|
#96
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Internet Explorer 11
F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/22/13, 9:49 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/22/2013 9:35 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/22/13, 9:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/22/2013 9:15 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/22/13, 8:00 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/22/2013 7:26 AM, John H wrote: On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 20:44:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/21/2013 7:39 PM, John H wrote: On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:51:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/21/2013 5:38 PM, wrote: On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:19:19 -0500, John H wrote: On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:12:55 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:13:17 -0500, John H wrote: On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:44:26 -0500, wrote: 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! There must be something else going on. I get the browser window in a second or so every time. I wonder if there is some spyware program that is loading too. Look at your plug ins Here they a Adobe Acrobat McAfee Site Advisor Quick Time Shockwave Flash Silverlight Windows Presentation Foundation John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! The only addons I see is Logitech Device Detection and my virus scanner. I am no expert but based on previous experience, if I were John I'd dump McAfee and substitute it with AVG. I used to have McAfee as a anti-virus program but it slowed the computer I had at the time down. Not as bad as Norton, but still consumed a lot of resources. I've been using AVG now for over four years and like it a lot. Doesn't seem to affect the computer speed and works just fine. I don't use McAfee as an anti-virus program. The site advisor is a separate plug-in. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! It's still a McAfee program running in the background checking the websites you visit to see if there's a record of malware, viruses, etc. I had it. I got rid of it and my computer ran much faster and smoother. As Greg said, McAfee is a virus unto itself, much like Norton used to be. It was on the XP laptop that I have but no longer use, BTW. Someone recommended AVG and I've used it ever since. The only time it has an affect on computer speed is when you have initiated a full scan of your computer. What's nice about it however is that you can set a priority from "user sensitive" which allows you to continue to use the computer for other things while it scans with little to no affect on computer speed to "Fast" which is good if you are not going to use the computer for a while. I used the free version for two years and liked it so much that I upgraded to the full version. Frankly, I think the free version was sufficient for protection. AVG will also block or alert you to a suspicious website also, like McAfee. It just doesn't bog your computer down doing so. I'll give it a shot, thanks. Cox sent free McAfee to all its subscribers. I've undone the McAfee virus scan, but left the site advisor. Will shut it down and see what happens. An IT friend convinced me to can McAfee and go with the Microsoft Security Essentials, which is what I've done. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! John, again, I am far from being a computer expert but I know it is generally *not* recommended to have two virus protection programs running on your computer at the same time. You may have turned off the routine McAfee virus scan of the hard drive but if you left "site adviser" running it means that McAfee is still installed and running. It could possibly conflict with the Microsoft Security Essentials. You might want to read this: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/securitytipstalk/archive/2011/06/02/does-microsoft-security-essentials-work-with-other-antivirus-software.aspx McAfee was the clown the Repubs brought in as their expert consultant on the ACA software. I thought that was hilarious...a possible murderer and perpetrator of virii and spyware who would love to insert a backdoor into a federal government computer network. John McAfee has nothing to do with the current McAfee, Inc. other than sharing his name since he was the founder. He resigned from the company in 1994 and McAfee, Inc. is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of Intel. Did I say he was still involved with McAfee? No, I did not. Well, at least Peter Norton stayed intellectually honest after he sold out to Symantec, which proceeded to ruin his products. No, you did not however we were discussing the McAfee computer program, not the antics of John McAfee who has nothing to do with the program under discussion. *You* attempted to make the connection in another of your politically biased jabs. If I were Intel, I'd change the name of that program to something that doesn't conjure up a possible murderer. They could call it...oh, "the OJ Suite," or "the Zimmerman Solution." BTW, I used to use a Windows music program called foobar2000. It's been kept up to date and has what I consider a nice interface: http://www.foobar2000.org/ Cut and run! |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| internet geld machen , geld verdienen im internet de , geld seite , wie kann ich online gewinnen , jetzt sofort schnelles geld , schnell geld , www geld im internet , wars schnell viel geld , geld verdienen mit online casino , geld über internet v | General | |||
| MV Explorer | Tall Ship Photos | |||
| WTB: Mad River Explorer 16 | General | |||
| Watch this security patch for Internet Explorer - A Virus | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
