|
Internet Explorer 11
Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback?
-- Americans deserve better. |
Internet Explorer 11
On 11/20/2013 10:23 AM, Hank© wrote:
Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback? I haven't used IE for years. Devoted Firefox fan. |
Internet Explorer 11
On 11/20/2013 10:23 AM, Hank© wrote:
Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback? No, you go first:) |
Internet Explorer 11
On 11/20/2013 10:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/20/2013 10:23 AM, Hank© wrote: Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback? I haven't used IE for years. Devoted Firefox fan. Same here..... |
Internet Explorer 11
On 11/20/2013 10:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/20/2013 10:23 AM, Hank© wrote: Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback? I haven't used IE for years. Devoted Firefox fan. Me to but there's a 56mb IE11 update waiting in my que. which made me curious. -- Americans deserve better. |
Internet Explorer 11
On 11/20/2013 10:35 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 11/20/2013 10:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/20/2013 10:23 AM, Hank© wrote: Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback? I haven't used IE for years. Devoted Firefox fan. Me to but there's a 56mb IE11 update waiting in my que. which made me curious. kill it, delete, it, do anything but just get rid of it! The wife hasn't let IE in the house for years:) |
Internet Explorer 11
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:30:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/20/2013 10:23 AM, Hank© wrote: Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback? I haven't used IE for years. Devoted Firefox fan. === Ditto that. |
Internet Explorer 11
On 11/20/2013 12:08 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:30:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/20/2013 10:23 AM, Hank© wrote: Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback? I haven't used IE for years. Devoted Firefox fan. === Ditto that. Firefox here. |
Internet Explorer 11
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. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Internet Explorer 11
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:30:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/20/2013 10:23 AM, Hank© wrote: Has anyone updated to IE11. Any comments or feedback? I haven't used IE for years. Devoted Firefox fan. My Firefox takes longer to load than IE8, but once loaded it runs much better. IE8 does some screwy ****. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Internet Explorer 11
|
Internet Explorer 11
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. Stig Arne Bye E-mail ......: lid lid Snail-Mail ..: Axel Borgens veg 4, NO-9900 Kirkenes, Norway Homepage ....: COMING LATER: http://stigbye.footballclubs.io http://stigbye.motocross.io ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Located just about 70°N 30°E - Almost at the top of the world! Remove ".invalid" from mail address to reply to me by direct e-mail! |
Internet Explorer 11
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. Stig Arne Bye E-mail ......: lid lid Snail-Mail ..: Axel Borgens veg 4, NO-9900 Kirkenes, Norway Homepage ....: COMING LATER: http://stigbye.footballclubs.io http://stigbye.motocross.io ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Located just about 70°N 30°E - Almost at the top of the world! Remove ".invalid" from mail address to reply to me by direct e-mail! John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Internet Explorer 11
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. Interesting that you used an average. I just ran my own test. I restarted Windows, then opened IE8, It took about 2 seconds for IE8 to open. Then I fired up Firefox. It took right at ten seconds for Firefox to open. I then tried both again. IE8 opened in about 2 seconds, and Firefox in about 3 seconds. On the next Firefox try, it opened in about 2 seconds. I suppose something is staying in RAM to assist in subsequent openings, but I'm no IT guy so not sure. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Internet Explorer 11
|
Internet Explorer 11
On 11/20/2013 5:20 PM, 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. Stig Arne Bye With my wife it's just an old school fear of the holes in anything Microsoft.... |
Internet Explorer 11
John H 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. Interesting that you used an average. I just ran my own test. I restarted Windows, then opened IE8, It took about 2 seconds for IE8 to open. Then I fired up Firefox. It took right at ten seconds for Firefox to open. I then tried both again. IE8 opened in about 2 seconds, and Firefox in about 3 seconds. On the next Firefox try, it opened in about 2 seconds. I suppose something is staying in RAM to assist in subsequent openings, but I'm no IT guy so not sure. You commented that I used an average value, so just for the record: Based on my manual notes, here are the individual test results where each browser are started alternately (i.e. IE, FF, IE, FF ...) after first doing a clean reboot of Windows: IE Firefox --------- --------- Test #1 (Internet Explorer): 1.60 sec Test #2 (Firefox): 6.18 sec Test #3 (Internet Explorer): 0.85 sec Test #4 (Firefox): 2.82 sec Test #5 (Internet Explorer): 2.66 sec Test #6 (Firefox): 2.52 sec Test #7 (Internet Explorer): 0.92 sec Test #8 (Firefox): 1.89 sec Test #9 (Internet Explorer): 0.81 sec Test #10 (Firefox): 2.37 sec --------- --------- Average: 1.37 sec 3.16 sec Stig Arne Bye E-mail ......: lid lid Snail-Mail ..: Axel Borgens veg 4, NO-9900 Kirkenes, Norway Homepage ....: COMING LATER: http://stigbye.footballclubs.io http://stigbye.motocross.io ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Located just about 70°N 30°E - Almost at the top of the world! Remove ".invalid" from mail address to reply to me by direct e-mail! |
Internet Explorer 11
|
Internet Explorer 11
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! |
Internet Explorer 11
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. |
Internet Explorer 11
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. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Internet Explorer 11
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! |
Internet Explorer 11
On 11/21/2013 8:42 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
The laptop has no hard drive in the traditional sense...it has an SSD I've heard of dogs recieving O'Bamacare , but a computer on Social Security Disability. How did you manage that? I've heard you tell some tall tales but you must have told a Whopper to get that approved. ;-) -- Americans deserve better. |
Internet Explorer 11
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. |
Internet Explorer 11
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. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Internet Explorer 11
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. :-) |
Internet Explorer 11
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. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Internet Explorer 11
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! |
Internet Explorer 11
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. |
Internet Explorer 11
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. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Internet Explorer 11
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. |
Internet Explorer 11
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." -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Internet Explorer 11
On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, 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. In windows land we call what you described, waking up from sleep mode. -- Americans deserve better. |
Internet Explorer 11
On 11/21/2013 11:18 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, 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. In windows land we call what you described, waking up from sleep mode. Just wondering if anybody here does anything on their machine that makes that few extra seconds matter? Also note, I have been running win 7 premium on this laptop since basically win 7 came out mainstream.... Don't ever remember one "crash" that wasn't browser related, Flash, or similar... No "Windoze" he) |
Internet Explorer 11
On 11/21/13, 11:30 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/21/2013 11:18 AM, Hank© wrote: On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, 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. In windows land we call what you described, waking up from sleep mode. Just wondering if anybody here does anything on their machine that makes that few extra seconds matter? Also note, I have been running win 7 premium on this laptop since basically win 7 came out mainstream.... Don't ever remember one "crash" that wasn't browser related, Flash, or similar... No "Windoze" he) Ahh. I see indirectly that our 7th grade jokester, FlaJim, doesn't know the difference on a computer between "sleep" mode and a power up from absolutely off. Well, of course. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Internet Explorer 11
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:30:58 -0500, KC wrote:
On 11/21/2013 11:18 AM, Hank© wrote: On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, 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. In windows land we call what you described, waking up from sleep mode. Just wondering if anybody here does anything on their machine that makes that few extra seconds matter? Also note, I have been running win 7 premium on this laptop since basically win 7 came out mainstream.... Don't ever remember one "crash" that wasn't browser related, Flash, or similar... No "Windoze" he) Once you get my age, each second matters. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Internet Explorer 11
On 11/21/2013 11:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/21/13, 11:30 AM, KC wrote: On 11/21/2013 11:18 AM, Hank© wrote: On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, 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. In windows land we call what you described, waking up from sleep mode. Just wondering if anybody here does anything on their machine that makes that few extra seconds matter? Also note, I have been running win 7 premium on this laptop since basically win 7 came out mainstream.... Don't ever remember one "crash" that wasn't browser related, Flash, or similar... No "Windoze" he) Ahh. I see indirectly that our 7th grade jokester, FlaJim, doesn't know the difference on a computer between "sleep" mode and a power up from absolutely off. Well, of course. Not interested what you see directly or indirectly. Although cold booting in 12 seconds is kind of cool. -- Americans deserve better. |
Internet Explorer 11
On 11/21/2013 11:18 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, 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. In windows land we call what you described, waking up from sleep mode. I just timed sleep mode to ready to go (including connecting to router and Internet) on the Vista laptop. About 3-4 seconds. |
Internet Explorer 11
On 11/21/13, 3:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/21/2013 11:18 AM, Hank© wrote: On 11/21/2013 9:51 AM, 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. In windows land we call what you described, waking up from sleep mode. I just timed sleep mode to ready to go (including connecting to router and Internet) on the Vista laptop. About 3-4 seconds. I shut my laptop completely off when I am not using it. Desktop after 15 minutes the screen goes black and the hard drive spools down. I believe, though, the net connection stays active unless I change that setting. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com