Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Internet Explorer 7.0 adoption prospects

Reply
Thread Tools

Internet Explorer 7.0 adoption prospects

 
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2006
"juicyjuice" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:453ac726$(E-Mail Removed)...
> impossible wrote:
>> "juicyjuice" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:453aa5be$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What the heck is "Win2003"?
>>>
>>> Windows Server 2003

>>
>> Nothing you can do about the location of the address bar. But then
>> you're only running IE7 as troll bait, so what do you care?

>
>
> In case your eyes are failing you, I'm running IE7 to test web
> applications I'm developing, for compatibility, so it dosn't really
> matter where the address bar is, just find it annoying and weird
> looking.


Sorry, that was a shot fired in haste -- and so misdirected.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
MaHogany
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2006
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:36:18 +1300, juicyjuice wrote:

> I tested this myself on my win2003 version, opened 60 windows, and apart
> from some initial page file swaping as expected, IE only consumed 83mb of
> physical memory which is surprising. I then closed all windows.. which
> reduced physical memory to usage to 42mb, this should be lower in the 20s
> IMO.


Why doesn't it free up ALL memory that was used by that process?

And what memory usage in total did it use (including virtual) for 60 open
web pages? Was it 60 open pages or only 60 open, but blank, windows?


Ma Hogany

--
"The average user doesn't know what he wants. The average user wants
fries with that, if prompted."

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
juicyjuice
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2006
impossible wrote:
> "juicyjuice" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:453ac726$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> impossible wrote:
>>> "juicyjuice" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:453aa5be$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What the heck is "Win2003"?
>>>>
>>>> Windows Server 2003
>>>
>>> Nothing you can do about the location of the address bar. But then
>>> you're only running IE7 as troll bait, so what do you care?

>>
>>
>> In case your eyes are failing you, I'm running IE7 to test web
>> applications I'm developing, for compatibility, so it dosn't really
>> matter where the address bar is, just find it annoying and weird
>> looking.

>
> Sorry, that was a shot fired in haste -- and so misdirected.


np


 
Reply With Quote
 
MaHogany
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2006
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:40:19 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> And what about comments on blogs? Do you ever see those posted in reverse
> chronological order?


In web logs the order that the comments appear on the page is from most
recent through to oldest - because the most recent is the one most people
would be wanting to read, and the oldest one could be hundreds of posts
out of date - and on the same page.


Ma Hogany

--
"The average user doesn't know what he wants. The average user wants
fries with that, if prompted."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2006
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, MaHogany wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:40:19 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> And what about comments on blogs? Do you ever see those posted in reverse
>> chronological order?

>
> In web logs the order that the comments appear on the page is from most
> recent through to oldest ...


I don't think that's very common.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wherever
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2006
On , , Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:45:44 -0400, Re: Internet Explorer 7.0
adoption prospects, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"MaHogany" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:34:34 +1300, -=rjh=- wrote:
>>
>>>> I really can't be bothered scrolling down past pages of quoted
>>>> content
>>>> just to read a new article. If an article hasn't been snipped
>>>> properly, I don't read it.
>>>
>>> I agree - and top posting used to be the norm, though it varies
>>> from ng
>>> to ng,

>>
>> Incorrect. Replying below the text to which you are replying has
>> always
>> been the normative method for posting a reply.
>>

>
>Nonsense. You need to get out more. The "norm" against top-posted
>replies started back in the days when users could only afford to
>download a handful of messages at a time -- they typically composed
>their replies offline, then uploaded these sometime later.


This was when?
I've been using email and 'groups since at least 1990 and I don't
remember top posting ever being the norm.
I've used amateur packet and Fido and top posting was never the
norm there either.

> Top-posting
>was a problem then because the lapse in time it made it difficult to
>know exactly what your message was a response to. This is clearly no
>longer the case -- most USENET users are working nowadays in real
>time, and as a consequnece it's become widely accepted that either
>top-positing or in-line posting is acceptable so long as the context
>of the message is clear.


Not in the groups that I have ever been in.
Top posters were always treated with derision and ridicule and
quite rightly so.
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Wherever
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2006
On , , Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:17:24 -0400, Re: Internet Explorer 7.0
adoption prospects, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"MaHogany" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:50:00 -0400, impossible wrote:
>>
>>> But care does need to be taken to see that in the process of
>>> determining what is "gumph" you don't selectively edit the message
>>> that you're responding to and so destroy the context of your reply.

>>
>> You don't "edit" what somebody else wrote - you should not change
>> their
>> words.
>>

>
>Nor should you gratuitously delete sentences/paragraphs that someone
>wrote -- just because you don't *change* the words d


I don't know about you, but I read from left to right and from
the top to the bottom.
Therefore I expect, and quite rightly so, that the new or latest
information is at the bottom, below the older information.
(I can also read upside down and from right to left even if the
letter order is reversed.)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Wherever
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2006
On , , Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:12:01 -0400, Re: Internet Explorer 7.0
adoption prospects, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
>message news:eh3t29$d76$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>> "MaHogany" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>>> You don't "edit" what somebody else wrote - you should not change
>>>> their words.
>>>
>>> Nor should you gratuitously delete sentences/paragraphs that
>>> someone
>>> wrote -- just because you don't *change* the words doesn't mean you
>>> haven't altered the meaning of those words.

>>
>> You can, and should, edit the words that you are replying to, in
>> order to:
>>
>> * remove the bits that aren't relevant to your own comments
>> * remove the bits that just plain didn't make sense
>> * rearrange bits to make (your understanding of) the point more
>> succinctly.

>
>Such practices are dishonest in the extreme.


Let me get this correct: You have come in here, are posting
deliberately opposite to the convention used here and you are
telling us that we are dishonest?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Wherever
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2006
On , , Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:33:23 +1300, Re: Internet Explorer 7.0
adoption prospects, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:

>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, MaHogany wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:40:19 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> And what about comments on blogs? Do you ever see those posted in reverse
>>> chronological order?

>>
>> In web logs the order that the comments appear on the page is from most
>> recent through to oldest ...

>
>I don't think that's very common.


I've seen a lot like that and it was so inconvenient that I don't
read any blogs of any kind any more.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Wherever
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2006
On , , Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:47:45 +1300, Re: Internet Explorer 7.0
adoption prospects, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:

>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, impossible wrote:
>
>> "MaHogany" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:50:20 -0400, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> Given that 85% of users are
>>>> rendering web pages in some version of IE, developers darn well
>>>> better
>>>> learn how to cope with its idiosyncracies, whether they like them
>>>> or
>>>> not.
>>>
>>> Latest report says IE is now down to 82% - and falling.

>>
>> Good reason for developers to ignore it, is that what you're saying?

>
>It's certainly getting to the point where, when users complain about
>problems, it's easier to say "use Firefox".


Netscape 8.0.2 looks and works very nicely.
I confess to being a Netscape fan, ever since Netscape 1.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Internet Explorer 8: C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe vs C:\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe Nathan Sokalski Windows 64bit 16 02-22-2010 08:31 AM
internet explorer 7 - Internet Explorer cannot display the webpag sandy j Windows 64bit 0 05-02-2009 02:12 AM
Job Prospects for Software Engineers jrefactors@hotmail.com Java 4 01-10-2005 12:57 AM
Job Prospects for Software Engineers jrefactors@hotmail.com Java 5 01-03-2005 10:10 AM
advice on job prospects Javi Microsoft Certification 3 10-26-2003 05:45 PM



Advertisments