JTK wrote:
> jesus X wrote:
> > But you see, I'm not an "anti-Microsoft" person.
> Then you impersonate one rather well.
I can also impersonate Sean Connery with astounding accuracy, but I'm not him
either.
> You don't want MS to "make your
> choices for you" (whatever that means), right?
I thought it was rather clear. MS decided that a web browser doesn't need to
adhere to standard protocols. MS decided a web browser should have a shitload of
proprietary extensions to HTML that are worthless in a non-MS browser. MS
decided to change kerberos and then tried to scream "copyright!", for the love
of god. I don't LIKE those choices, and so I want the ability to chose
otherwise. Hence, Mozilla.
> > Honestly, I LIKE some of the MS
> > operating systems. I use Win98 because I LIKE it.
> NOBODY uses Win9x because they like it! They use it only because they
> have no other realistic option, and nobody seems to be willing to give
> them one.
Let me try this again. I use Win98 because I LIKE it. Got that? I also have NT
and OS/2 installed on other drives, because I like things they do as well. I
have DOS boxes hotkeyed because I like a command line. I have old DOS based
utils that I still use because I like them.
As for no one willing to give users options, that's what Mozilla is all about.
So here we have thousands of people willing to give users an option, FOR FREE,
and you're bitching. Pick one side.
> > I like WinNT even more. Win2k
> > is a nice upgrade from NT, but still needs a bit more work.
> Needs work where? Why2K as I see it is the culmination of all the work
> MS has put into all the various Windii over the years. It's the Windows
> Windows should have been all along.
While I disagree on that last statement, it is still not a perfect Windows. Too
many bugs and illogical bits. I say it still needs work. If MS didn't disagree,
they wouldn't be preparing such a huge push behind XP, which is what Win2k
SHOULD have been.
> > WinME sucks.
> You like Win98 but WinME sucks?!?!
You're quick!
> WinME *is* Win98, plus a boatload of bugfixes. How can you like 98 and hate
> ME?
Because it's NOT win98 + bugfixes. In the extremely precise words of Fred Langa,
it's the worst parts of win98, plus the worst parts of Win2k, rolled together
with some new awful bits thrown in for good measure.
> I have yet to even take a look, since what I'm hearing is that it's
> Why2K with a little bit of that horrid Apple "Aqua" look to it. Yawn.
> But whatever...
Yeah, most people a focusing on the Luna UI, but it's trivial to either switch
back to the classic look, or use Windowblinds XP, the officially sanctioned UI
editor.
> > While most technical people dislike MS OSes flat out,
> Mmm, no, most zealots do that.
You say zealot, I say technically adept.
> Who does better word processing than Word?
Publisher, to me. I don't even have Word installed anymore. I only had it to
view clients' Word docs, but it's just too painful. I just import it into other
apps when needed.
> > Access is just not worth it.
> Never used it, and IIRC doesn't come in the package anymore unless you
> get the "enterprise" edition or whatever they call it.
Office Professional.
> > MS's business practices I
> > despise.
> Only AOL could go to China.
In the choice of the lesser of two evils, I choose AOL.
Which reminds me, AMERICA Online is CHINA. The only way that could be funnier is
if they ever get into Iran.
> IE is the Windows shell.
No, Explorer is. IE is still a separate program, that shares a few libraries
with Explorer. You can get it down to just shdocvw.dll if you want a more to
keep IE from loading, but still like the "Web View" of folders.
> > There is one that I have used, which name I can't recall (of course), which
> > allows the user to recover icons that should be in the system tray, but
> > disappear after an Explorer/IE GPF.
> I'm not sure how that would be possible. I know what causes that
> problem, and it isn't really IE's fault, it's the program's, in that it
> doesn't respond to the "IE has restarted, redraw your icon" message.
> Admittedly I'm not convinced the program should *have* to respond to
> such a message...
It's simple, this program just resets a series of pointers, really. It's not
IE's fault about the icon problem, it's Explorer's, but IE is what crashes
Explorer as well.
> > Utilities designed to help separate IE from the OS (such as TweakUI
> > from the Win95/98 shell team). Etc.
> How does TweakUI do anything like that?
The IE4 tab. It's labeled IE4, but works on everything since 4.0.
> > I do recall that the beta's of
> > IE 5 could not be uninstalled, necessitating a reinstall of the OS.
> Beta. The Mozilla faithful want to use that excuse even though Mozilla
> was released about six months ago,
That was Netscape 6, NOT Mozilla. It was BASED on a Mozilla milestone, but WAS
NOT MOZILLA.
> so I think it's only fair that you
> give IE that same excuse when it actually applies.
I'm not saying it was a valid complaint. I say with beta software, if there's a
problem, report it, but don't bitch, because you knew it was beta when you DLed
it. But that's the closest situation I could think of as far as problems with
the browser forcing an OS reinstall.
> > But that's another matter (like how half of the
> > programmers of drivers should be allowed to program).
> I've done more than my fair share of driver writing,
As have I.
> and let me dispel
> that myth right now: If there are jobs in Hell, they're for writing
> Windows drivers. You cannot imagine what an absolute horror writing
> Windows drivers is. There is virtually no documentation on anything,
> and what there is is about 50% correct, 30% misleading, and 20% just
> plain wrong. *Experts* in the field, the ***guys that write the
> books***, the guys with ***direct lines into MS***, will oftentimes tell
> you, "yeah, nobody knows what that does, or how to do that".
But you have to agree, people like ATI's driver team need to have their
programming tools removed, and ban them from using any programming language more
complex than Batch files, FOREVER.
> > On occasion I'll have to fire up IE for one site or another, and when it
> > crashes, 75% of the time I'll have to reboot to get things right again.
> And how often does it crash for you in comparison to NC4.x? Or Mozilla?
It crashes a little more often than NS4 (which isn't all that much), and a
little less than Mozilla. 0.9.1 is wonderful.
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
