Well, for a company with a website it's p. dumb not to include hacks to work around IE lack of standards. This is all just further evidence pointing towards IE being a pain in the ass. It isn't standards compliant et it dominates the market. It's a real PITA for devs, I'm sure.

In reply to a post by Pipexer:

No point removing IE.

Reason is quite simple: There are many sites out there which firefox doesen't load up properly, including many which firefox claims are redirecting in a way which will never end, but when you browse them on IE, they are fine.

I'm sure people will remove it though, just so they feel high and mighty

I have not used IE for about 4 years now, well not on my own computers. There was only one site I had a problem with and that was UK sounds, but they have now gone into the void of cyberspace.

I hate IE, I detest IE, I think it is a horrid bit of software. I also don't like it.

In reply to a post by zebedeee:

Isn't the whole point of an OS like Windows the fact that the different modules of it integrate with each other ? I can copy off a Word document and paste it into an email in Outlook. I can click on a URL in IE in an email and open it in Explorer.[/quote[

The problem here is it don't always work and it is flipping expensive, Microsoft office is way over priced., so home users will not normally buy it. I know very few people who have Office, they find free or cheaper alternatives like open office.

What you say above, can be done using Open office, Fire fox and in my case The bat.
[q]
Of course, other companies will write software for Windows which attempts to integrate itself, but the results can be rather hit and miss.

Depends how well it is written. Open office does every thing that most people will need from a office suit and free, The only thing missing is a desktop publisher, but for basic use their is Serif Pageplus Se or Scribble, which is available for most Os.
My sister-in-law have been using Pageplus for years, she is now up toe Pageplus 9, she loves it.

If people hate Microsoft so much (and it's very evident that a lot of people do), then why buy Windows at all ? Why not get Linux ? Then you can spend the rest of your life trying to get software written for the most popular OS to work properly on it.

Linux don't have all the software some people use. I am into video editing and there is nothing on Linux to touch Vegas, a mate of mine does music and again there is nothing on Linux to touch Cool Edit.

For office work, the internet and server use, Linux is great, but it is not the easiest thing to use. I am not a lover of MS, but I realise that ~Ms have done a lot to make computers easy to use and without MS who knows where we would be.

The Mac Os is great, I really like it, but it only runs on a Mac and the MAc is expensive. It have some good software and the few people I know that owns a Mac says they will never go back to Windows.


Maybe if the rumours are true and Google do make a Os for the P.C, it may change things, certainly if it is open source.

I see Beos is getting along nicely now, maybe in time that will be something to reckon with, but I doubt it.

I think it is good that IE can be switched off, the only thing I don't understand is why it is only Ms that have to do this, what about Apple?

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

Linux don't have all the software some people use. I am into video editing and there is nothing on Linux to touch Vegas, a mate of mine does music and again there is nothing on Linux to touch Cool Edit.

For office work, the internet and server use, Linux is great, but it is not the easiest thing to use. I am not a lover of MS, but I realise that ~Ms have done a lot to make computers easy to use and without MS who knows where we would be.

Precisely - Windows is the OS of the masses. People use it because it's easy, and there's lots of software available. And there's safety in numbers ! There's too many "posers" out there using Linux because of the kudos that they think it gives them. Why do people want to tell us that they are using Linux in their sig ? Do you think anyone else gives a fig about the OS you use ?

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

Maybe if the rumours are true and Google do make a Os for the P.C, it may change things, certainly if it is open source.

If Google do come up with an OS, it won't be open-source, because Google are interested in only one thing - money. I certainly would not use either a browser or an OS which spies on my computer usage, and the information sold to the highest bidder !

In reply to a post by zebedeee:

Precisely - Windows is the OS of the masses. People use it because it's easy, and there's lots of software available. And there's safety in numbers ! There's too many "posers" out there using Linux because of the kudos that they think it gives them. Why do people want to tell us that they are using Linux in their sig ? Do you think anyone else gives a fig about the OS you use ?

The only reason Windows is for the masses is that Bill Gates got lucky, simple as that really. I don't take anything away from what he have done, I do think that MS is now far too big and needs to be cut down to size as they could hold the planet to ransom if they wanted to.
Windows and Safety is no something I would put in the same sentence.

I put that I am using Linux in my sig, because I am pretty pleased that I have at long last got it working after about 3 years of trying. I have stuck it on the computer in the past and got fed up with it after a few days, now I have been using it on the laptop for months.

I don't think linux is going to worry MS, well not for home users anyway, but I think it is something that everyone should try.
I have managed to change 2 people over to Linux as they find they don't have to bother with security software, it is stable, fast and for what they do it is fine.

There is some good software on Linux, depending what you want to do, but it don't cover everything.

If there was something like Vegas on Linix, I would dump Windows like a shot.

A friend of mine uses Linux on all his computers, his wife even have to use Linux as he refuses to put Windows on his computers, the only computer that don't have Linux is his daughter laptop and that is because it is a MAC.

If Google do come up with an OS, it won't be open-source, because Google are interested in only one thing - money. I certainly would not use either a browser or an OS which spies on my computer usage, and the information sold to the highest bidder !

Then Linux is for you, you pay for a OS at the moment that spies on you, and we have no idea what Ms does with the data. and any one who thinks that Windows don't spy is deluded.

I use FF, but I have used Chrome, well Iron which is the non spy version and to be honest it is fast, but a bit basic. I used Android last week on a Mobile and it is really good, got a few small problems, but get the problems out of the way and it will be a nice OS. The only thing is I would not use 99% of the fuctions, I got a windows mobile phone as it is and I only use it for calls and text.

If Google did do a O/S for the p.C it would be open source, they will get their money some how.

I think Windows 7 is a vast improvement on Vista, but it is still MS.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

....I am pretty pleased that I have at long last got it working after about 3 years of trying....

There's the problem, I remember a quote...something like "Anyone who thinks Linux is free places no value on their time"

For me (and others are different) widows runs 100% of the aps/games that I want...no other OS offers me that, if it did, with the same ease of use, I'd consider changing

In reply to a post by Error:

There's the problem, I remember a quote...something like "Anyone who thinks Linux is free places no value on their time"

For me (and others are different) widows runs 100% of the aps/games that I want...no other OS offers me that, if it did, with the same ease of use, I'd consider changing

But how long did it take MS to get a Os that was easy to use? Windows 3.1 or before was not easy to use, even windows 95 was a pain due to IRQs and incompatible conflicts.

Windows 98 was much better, but that still had major problems until the second edition. Me was a let down and to be honest a big flop. I got a pirated copy of Me, stuck in on the computer used it for a week and then went back to 98.


Xp had problems, boy did it have problems as it was a new system, based on Nt, which was for corporations more than home users. I spent a lot of time on Xp getting it to work with my hardware and software and most of the time failing.

vista is another one that have flopped, Vista had the same problem as XP did in the early days, it also had things that annoyed people and is slow unless you have a lot of memory.
Ms may have got it right with Windows 7, but that requires a fair bit of memory as well, at the moment memory is pretty cheap, so it is not a problem.
I have had a play with Windows 7 and yes it works ok and it seems faster than Vista (not difficult) and Ms have managed to sort out the UAC system, which I hate on vista, which is why I got it turned off. But I have noticed the more I play around with windows 7, the slower it gets and it is now getting to the stage where it is no faster than Xp.

Linux have come a long way over the last few years considering it is open source and don't have the millions of what ever currency you want to use thrown at it..
It is now at a usable stage for most people and considering it was never meant for the average joe, I think it is pretty good. I know pure linux people will not like the way it have gone, but I think it is a good thing.

Get the software and get more hard ware manufactures supporting Linux and we will be away and it is happening slowly and as more authorities are getting fed up with paying MS sky high license fees, they are also going to linux.

This weekend I am going to take Windows 7 off my other hard drive and going to install linux on it and see what it is like on this machine.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

The only reason Windows is for the masses is that Bill Gates got lucky, simple as that really.

Maybe he did, but luck that lasts 20 years really does require a lot of 4-leaf clovers !

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

I don't take anything away from what he have done, I do think that MS is now far too big and needs to be cut down to size as they could hold the planet to ransom if they wanted to.

How could they do that ? More to the point, why should they do that ? If you're producing a product which everyone in the world buys, and continues to buy after 20 years, why should you want to commit commercial suicide ?

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

Windows and Safety is no something I would put in the same sentence.

And you are so concerned about safety that you will happily accept a stolen copy of Windows and install it, without knowing what sort of nasties could be lurking inside !

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

I put that I am using Linux in my sig, because I am pretty pleased that I have at long last got it working after about 3 years of trying.

Ahh, so it's really easy to use, then !

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

Then Linux is for you, you pay for a OS at the moment that spies on you, and we have no idea what Ms does with the data. and any one who thinks that Windows don't spy is deluded.

What Microsoft does with the data collected is clearly documented. Seems to me that it's the word "pay" that you find most offensive. Do you or any of your friends contribute to Linux development ? No need to answer that one.

In reply to a post by zebedeee:

Do you or any of your friends contribute to Linux development ? No need to answer that one.

To be fair, I don't think many of those who do "actively" contribute to its development would bother if their efforts were not used and appreciated by a wider audience.

In reply to a post by zebedeee:

Maybe he did, but luck that lasts 20 years really does require a lot of 4-leaf clovers !

He got in at the right time and mad a O/S that was easy to use and when home computing was starting to grow. After the Amiga, there was nothing really to compete at a good price, so you had to go for a P.C.

How could they do that ? More to the point, why should they do that ? If you're producing a product which everyone in the world buys, and continues to buy after 20 years, why should you want to commit commercial suicide ?

I did not say he would, but he could. he could pull all the licenses out of use and that would be it.

And you are so concerned about safety that you will happily accept a stolen copy of Windows and install it, without knowing what sort of nasties could be lurking inside !

I used a pirated copy of Me, oh wow. I only used it to have a look what it was like, I done the same thing with Xp, in fact until a couple of weeks ago until I changed over Vista, I still used that copy of Xp. But I also have got a legal version.

Why did I use the pirated version? because of Microsoft stupid activation, it kept playing up on my old computer, every so often just asking me about activation, even when it was activated.

If I had liked Me, I would have got a legal version. The reason I would not run Vista was because I did not really like it, and because I would not pay for it. Itr is only because a mate of mine gave me his Vista that I decided to try it again and it is legal.

As for security, my computer is as secure as it can be and there was no problem with my XP.

Ahh, so it's really easy to use, then !

It is now, which is what I have been saying. Linux have improved a lot, Ubuntu and Mint are bother good and are so easy to use. Sure there are a few problems, but onluy because they do things different.
It is like going from Windows to a MAc or from a Amiga to a P.C. I used a Amiga last week, the first time for years and it was very strange to use.
Still a great machine,

What Microsoft does with the data collected is clearly documented.

yea, yea. Documented and being true is two different things.

Seems to me that it's the word "pay" that you find most offensive. Do you or any of your friends contribute to Linux development ? No need to answer that one.

I don't, apart from buying a Linux book from Ubuntu. My friend does as he have something to do with testing and also he writes software for Linux.
I pay for my software, I got a £400 video editing software that I paid for, I got Photoshop which I paid for. Getting old now, but it does what I want.

Apart from Linux and the Vista that was given to me, I have paid for all my Operating systems, apart from Xp on the laptop as that came with the laptop and I even paid the £14 for a Vista update, both not used now as I have Linux on the machine. I paid for my Xp pro, sure I used a pirated copy, but I only used it instead of the Xp I paid out for. Microsoft did not lose anything. As for the ME disk it don't exist any more, I chucked it a couple of years back.
I still a original version of Windows 95 and windows 98 SE here.

As for paying for other software, if I can get a freeware or open source software that will do the job then I will, simple as that. A lot of software i use is freeware or open source, open office is great, I do have MS office, but it is a only office 2000, which I got from some sale. I only use it for publisher.

I am getting a older version of quark soon and I am going to learn that/

I will try and get things I need for a cut down price and I am not afraid to say so as for using pirated software, that I don't do for long term, only just to see what it is like, apart from jny windows Xp, but I still paid for it anyway.


I do know people that have not paid for any software on their computers, but what can you do, there are also people that have never paid for any music, or have never paid for a DVD, it have been going on for years and will keep on going.