Printable View
Hi AO I've been keeping busy but I dropped in to let you guys know that IE9 Beta is out :D
Link:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...ernetexplorer/
Let the IE bashing commence :argue:
Edit: Here is a download link (let me know if this works im doings this off my mac)
http://www.beautyoftheweb.com/#/download
Well it is still in beta, but you can download it now to test it out. Remember betas are not the final product, and alot of things will be subject to change. Think of it as kind of a sneak peak. I think you will be pleasantly surprised!!
Hmmm,
It won't run with XP :( I believe that is still the most popular Windows OS?
It's about time they dropped XP support. I love XP, but requiring a compatibility layer prevents IE from utilizing the new security and sandbox functionality within Vista/2007/7 and introduces it's own set of vulnerabilities. Also, I believe that many of the much touted rendering accelerations are heavily reliant on DX10?Quote:
Originally Posted by nihil
So far i'm lovin ie9. There are off course a few small things i dislike but hopefully most the issues will be fixed come final release.
It's going to give Chrome & Firefox a real run for there money now that they are all pretty much on a level playing field.
Fine each Browser has there own perks and issues, but this can only mean better results for us users.
on my win7 machine i'm now stuck between using both Chrome & ie9.
And it' is a shame they arn't bringing it out for winXP / Vista but it is understandable as XP may have more marketshare amongst there OS, but win7 is there new flagship so offcourse they are going to entice more people to move across to there newer OS.
Those whom are stuck on XP for what ever reason can still benefit from firefox4 or Chrome 7 as they have all these new features included to work on XP up to win7.
Addons to any browser can cause lag. Most common browsers have a good plugin framework by now, so it's really a question of the individual addon, except in the case of Safari on Snow Leopard. A few of the recent changes ****ed everything up.Quote:
Originally Posted by nuesha
AFAIK IE9 will work with Vista SP2?Quote:
And it' is a shame they arn't bringing it out for winXP / Vista but it is understandable as XP may have more marketshare amongst there OS, but win7 is there new flagship so offcourse they are going to entice more people to move across to there newer OS.
If MS drop support for IE8, many people using XP are likely to go to a rival browser. I can't see people buying new kit just to run the latest version of IE, after all XP will run quite happily with much less resource than Vista or 7.
Also, I come across quite a few ex-corporate machines that have onboard video and no VGA slot so graphics would be a problem.
Edit...
Correct Vista 32bit will let you install -> run
but meh Vista is just as useful as Windows ME. :D
Further Edit>>>
What's new in ie9
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/i...er-9#section_9
Both will run perfectly if you give them enough resources, and both were victims of mis-marketing by M$.Quote:
but meh Vista is just as useful as Windows ME.
Basically they let their partners ship the OSes on kit that was not up to the job, and didn't tell people what resources they really needed.
There so stable if your able feed enough resources just to keep them from either BSOD or slowing to a crawl if left on for long periods of time. You can mash as much components together but you won't get a stable OS from either, 1 likes to crash when it wants, the other bloats itself with system resource expense until it's out of breath and just dies.
Yep i can see why both never did/will see themselves in a production environment.
ME wasn't built on the NT kernel and was not designed for anything other than household use. Vista was fine after SP1 and even a halfassed configuration.Quote:
Originally Posted by HYBR|D
When we talk about memory usage we tend to forget that unused RAM is a waste. Great, you have two gigs free... Why not use that for predictive caching?
<Side note, i'm pretty tired atm so forgive if i am coming of arrogant :(
Even for a "Home" use Me was horrid. No matter how you set it up or threw what ever mixture of "Hardware" it would BSOD when your doing basic things, God help you if you actual needed to do something or run a system intense app.
People still complain about Vista pre SP or after a SP it still bottlenecks and once again simple task become mundain.
And most home users wouldn't know the 1st thing when it comes to getting knee deep in the inner settings to make a half assed config just to keep the machine from BSOD or grinding to a halt because it's so sys resource hungry or just plain unstable.
And most home users just want to press the ON button do there thing without having to worry about if the OS is suddenly going to BSOD or grind to a halt before you can mash the save button, or have to rebuild the mbr etc because you had to hard reboot the machine cause it froze and won't recover.
Well I ran ME on a PII 333MHz with 384MB and I built my wife an AMD Duron 1.3GHz with 512MB and neither of us had any significant problems.
As I recall, ME was rather prone to memory leaks so it wouldn't run for prolonged periods before becoming unstable. However as we always turn kit off when not in use, this never became an issue.
Where I did have problems was with a PII 266MHz and 128MB of 72-pin EDO RAM. Now that was unstable :eek: Strangely, it worked just fine with Windows 2000.
I also had problems with a P4 1.7GHz and 768MB ..........As I recall none of the Windows home OSes could reliably handle more than 512MB? Once again, switching to WIN 2000 fixed that.
As for my Vista box (Home Premium) it has a 2.17GHz processor and 2.5GB of RAM. I have had no problems with it so far.
Maybe I have just been lucky? or perhaps I don't run particularly intensive applications?
I do use File Hippo and Secunia PSI and try to keep everything up to date, and ditch stuff that I have been playing with, and no longer use.
As the saying goes "your mileage may vary" :D
Anyhow Firefox 4, like rival Microsoft 's Internet Explorer 9 (IE9), relies on Windows' Direct2D API to boost browser performance by shifting some chores from a computer's central processor to the graphics processor.
The hardware acceleration switched on in Beta 5 requires Windows Vista or Windows 7 ; the more popular Windows XP lacks the necessary graphics infrastructure, a fact that's prompted Microsoft to drop XP from IE9's supported operating systems.
Even though MS arn't going to port ie9 to XP or lower, those whom still want to experience this whole GPU wow factor :D Chrome 7 from the dev channel and the newer Firefox 4 Beta's have similar features enabled, You off-course need a Graphics card that is DirectX 10 ready.
Probably because it was designed to run with as little as 8MB of Video RAM?:DQuote:
the more popular Windows XP lacks the necessary graphics infrastructure
For those of you running XP, I can tell you that it seems to work just fine, although I have only just installed it. In fact, MOZZ claim that it will work with Win 2000 :eek: (but I haven't tried that yet).
You may not get all the fancy eye candy but at least there is continuity and it does not mean that you will have to buy a new OS and video card :)
This is really what intrigues me about MS's approach? as I see it, their strategy is likely to drive XP users elsewhere if they want an up-to-date supported browser?
EDIT:
Chrome 7 will also support XP :)
Nihil, that now becoming famous crap Gateway essentials I have only has 8 MB of Video from a shitty ATI card. It has 192 MBs of RAM, and that terribly crap 433 MHz Intel Celeron Processor.
With that hardware however, I was able to run Slackware 13 with Enlightenment 17, and some nice GUI features like Ripple FX, and so on....And Opera worked great on it :)
Firefox loaded...Once.... I think I beat the uptime of most Windows machines just waiting for it to load though. But yea, the only two browsers I actually bothered using on that, were Opera and Epiphany. Nothing else wanted to load much.
I've also seen people on here saying "The problem with most computers and Windows is that most people have XP and not enough RAM because they still have machines with 512 MBs of RAM"....
I only have TWO machines, with more than 512 MBs of RAM. One machine I can't use because the Processor is a ****ing AMD Athlon XP 2600+, and it has 768 MBs of RAM, and then this machine, with 4 GBs of RAM.
My Laptop has 512 MBs of RAM, which is the same amount as my secondary Desktop that I use for making Music and Email, and then my Server has 384 MBs of RAM, and so I don't really have much in choices for that. Old RAM costs more money than new RAM, and I simply can't afford to buy a bunch of RAM.
I do find it strange though that someone here actually said a while back that XP wasn't working because "They only had 512 MBs of RAM".... The minimum was, as I recall, either 128 or 256 MBs of RAM.... Why is 512 not enough then?
This would now be the 2nd time you've asked this, and here is the link to the website were you can get the new version of internet explorer 9Quote:
Originally Posted by nuesha
http://www.beautyoftheweb.com/
http://trololololololololololo.com/Quote:
where can i find a site for a new internet explorer?
I put a link to the download
Hmmm,
@ gore
You have provoked me into having a look at kit I use regularly, (values are in gigabytes of RAM):Quote:
Nihil, that now becoming famous crap Gateway essentials I have only has 8 MB of Video from a shitty ATI card. It has 192 MBs of RAM, and that terribly crap 433 MHz Intel Celeron Processor.
1 x 3.0
1 x 2.5
1 x 2.0
5 x 1.0
1 x 0.764
3 x 0.512
2 x 0.384
1 x 0.192
1 x 0.128
1 x 0.064
I was always taught to test stuff on the lowest hardware configurations on site, because you do not look like a good project manager if they suddenly have to find an extra $2M for hardware to support implementation of your solution?
Anyways, you know that I am a hardware fanboi? :D
I probably have another 20 or so in my "museum" :eek:
EDIT:
Agreed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
When we talk about memory usage we tend to forget that unused RAM is a waste. Great, you have two gigs free... Why not use that for predictive caching?
Given a WIN 32 bit system, it is practically not capable of addressing more than about 3.1GB of physical RAM.............. so I use the rest of the 4.0 to build a "ramdrive" (like 900 MB) and tell it that is where the pagefile lives ;)
Because Windows XP is a journaling OS, it needs a pagefile......... best have it in RAM? which is a lot faster than the HDD?
Just my view:)
Haha, yea. That's some set up you have though. A Museum is kind of neat. I'd probably have one too if I could afford it right now, because some of the older machines, they have a style I just think is cool.
I want some of those Amiga boxes from back in the day that were.... I think it was the Amiga 1000 or something like that.... It had a really cool looking GUI for it's time, and basically I've never gotten to use one.
Anyway, I'm not currently planning on downloading IE 9 since on Windows I only really use two browsers, one of which is Seamonkey.
It makes me wonder why Seamonkey isn't more popular actually. I mean other than me, who here really uses it?
For a while, Seamonkey was all I used. I still don't like Firefox personally, and I don't have it installed on here.
I'm still using Opera and Seamonkey only on Windows. And then on Linux I use Seamonkey, Opera, Epiphany, Dillo, and a bunch of others because I have like 8 installed on my Debian box.
On FreeBSD, same as Linux. Mostly Opera and Seamonkey.
By the way, does anyone actually use Seamonkey here? If not, why? The Mail Client, personally, for me, is actually nicer than Thunderbird, with like half the resources needed.
@ gore
It isn't the $ cost, it's the space?
I live in a 5 bedroom former guest house.....I think you guys call that a "rooming house"?
I had the entire loftspace converted into an extra room.
There are only 5 computers in the living room, and one in the library.........
maybe 8 in my bedroom and a few in the lab?
Haven't gotten one in the John...............yet :D
For ME it's the cost. We have a 3 Bedroom House and since it's just my Wife and I here, one bedroom is a spare room that people use when they spend the night.
Like for example; My Cousin and his Fiancée, stay with us all the time, so they use that room as a bedroom and sleep in there, and we also use it for storage.
The other bedroom, is our "Tech Room" which is where all our Computers are. I have one of those big ass tables from Ikea, and so does my Wife.... The ones that are basically 2 or three feet across, and like 5 or 6 feet long, and I have my Monitors and some speakers on that, and this Computer with the Monitor on top of it.
The Server under my desk has the Monitor on the floor because well... There's no room for it on the Desk, and also, I rarely use the Monitor on it anyway, because I usually log in through SSH to do anything with it.
I also have one of the Coffee Tables in here next to my desk with a Laptop on it and some books, and the other Laptop is on the Desk.
We have a bunch of Computers on the Tables / Desks as I said, and then the cases or Towers, whatever you want to call them, are on the floor, and then the Walk in Closet, has three book Shelves in it full of Computer books.
We like it.