ID:276094
 May 24 2005, 4:29 pm
|
|
Would anyone happen to have a link to an Internet Explorer update for Windows XP? For I have 4.0, and I need 5.5, or higher.
| |
I had firefox, but it seemed to cause a lot of problems such as; My computer often froze while using it; I always got an error message when clicking a direct link, plus it seemed really slow for me.
| |
Digital Samurai wrote:
I had firefox, but it seemed to cause a lot of problems such as; My computer often froze while using it; I always got an error message when clicking a direct link, plus it seemed really slow for me. as I stated, you need to cleanup, and patch that comp up. and if you want to give firefox another go, try stipe's build. http://pryan.org/firefox/stipe/blog/ | |
Smoko wrote:
http://www.getfirefox.com Or, if he wants something that will work guaranteed without having to download a bunch of extra crap. He can go here. | |
Teh Governator wrote:
Or, if he wants something that will work guaranteed without having to download a bunch of extra crap. He can go here. And have the same crappy rendering engine of Internet Explorer? | |
Smoko wrote:
Teh Governator wrote: I really have no clue why everyone thinks IE or Microsoft are soo bad. I've never had a problem with either. I've never seen either as inferior to another browser or OS. So, I've come to the conclusion that people are just jealous of Microsoft's success & wish to destroy its reputation by spreading garbage. | |
And exactly what's the problem with that?
Personally, I don't care how my browser renders a page, or whether or not it is following standards to the letter... As long as it reads virtually every page ever made, and will display them, regardless of HTML flaws or minor non-compliances, then that's MUCH better than a so-called "good" browser that will refuse to even try just because someone forgot to nest their tags, or has used some otherwise non-standard page construction... I mean, why force yourself into missing out on things just because they aren't completely web-standards perfect? That's just a bit too elitist, and frankly, stupid... Granted, if a site is so horribly crafted as to trip up a standards-compliant browser, then perhaps its content is of the same poor quality as the page that houses it, but even so, bad content is still content... Why rob yourself of anything? | |
SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:
And exactly what's the problem with that? Thank you. You said it much better than I did. | |
SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:
And exactly what's the problem with that? IE cant handle a fair bit of CSS2 let alone CSS3 when it comes out, thats whats wrong with it apart from the security flaws. I have nothing against microsoft, I just hate the flaws that are in their operation systems and internet explorer. | |
Teh Governator wrote:
...I've come to the conclusion that people are just jealous of Microsoft's success & wish to destroy its reputation by spreading garbage. that's a false conclusion at best. it is widely known and well reported by many respected publications, ezines, tv-shows, and websites that IE has more holes in it than Swiss-cheese, and continues to poorly support even the most common of web-standards (granted IE6 is better at it- but still not quite up to snuff against the other top 4-5 browsers out there). people are just sick of getting spyware, viruses, et al, within minutes of connecting to the net. and no, replying with 'but then they should use good anti-virus and firewall and spyware tools!' - sorry, *no-one* should be required to download more stuff just for safe, simple internet use. yes, i know these tools should be used anyway, but to require people to use them just to check their internet email, or look up a page is completely stupid. brosers like Opera, Firefox, and others do a far better job (although probably not 100%) of protecting you from the net's badies than IE currently does. they may not provide the best experience, but it's a safer one. | |
It's too bad that spyware vendors are now targeting firefox and others, by using the Sun Java Runtime Environment instead of Active-X. Yes thats right spyware that can install through any broswer.
here's a good read. http://www.vitalsecurity.org/2005/03/ firefox-spyware-infects-ie.html IE Sp2, is very hard to self infect with spyware. It’s the users always hitting yes to the prompts!, anti-virus, firewall and spyware tools can only do so much to prevent user stupidly. This is a problem with any browser. The only way to stop spyware is to educate the users. But we all know how hard that is :P | |
<font color="#808080">Digital Samurai wrote:
Would anyone happen to have a link to an Internet Explorer update for Windows XP? For I have 4.0, and I need 5.5, or higher.</font> Something is wrong here... Not sure what version came with the original Windows XP, but it was much later than 4.0. Are you sure you are running Windows XP and IE 4.0? | |
<font color="#808080">Teh Governator wrote:
I really have no clue why everyone thinks IE or Microsoft are soo bad. I've never had a problem with either. I've never seen either as inferior to another browser or OS. So, I've come to the conclusion that people are just jealous of Microsoft's success & wish to destroy its reputation by spreading garbage.</font> The W3C wrote standards for the web. Microsoft strayed from the set standards and included it with every copy of IE. Now most people develop just for IE and therefore breaks compatibility with other browsers. CSS support in IE is also horrible; however, they are improving it. | |
Evidently you've never tried to make a reasonably complicated HTML page that works as advertised in IE. =) This problem rears its ugly head a lot, but especially when using CSS (which is far superior to the old HTML 3.2 style of formatting).
IE has more security holes than swiss cheese. It attracts more spyware than my computer attracts dust (and believe me, my computer attracts a lot of dust - my carpet thinks its a long-haired dog, and is fond of constantly shedding bits of itself). I could forgive the security holes if Microsoft were actually prepared to patch them, but they're quite obviously not. Boo. CSS support is incredibly buggy. And I don't just mean that IE doesn't conform to the standards all the time (it doesn't, but that's another matter); I mean that it is actually buggy. It's impossible to get a feel for just HOW buggy it is until you try to design a reasonably complex CSS-based page with it. (And by reasonably complex, I mean "has a sidebar".) Ugh. Just ugh. Again, I wouldn't mind too much if they were willing to fix it; but, again, they're not. And finally, refusing to render a webpage because of errors is only stupid because IE (and presumably Netscape, back in the day) allowed it to become so. The strict flavour of the XHTML specification actually FORBIDS compliant browsers from rendering badly-formed webpages. (A webpage can be well-formed and still have errors; just not huge ones, like the classic example of failing to correctly nest HTML tags.) Recovering from errors sounds like a smart idea at first. Fault tolerance is good, right? Well, maybe. Unfortunately, this well-intentioned feature has resulted in hundreds - nay, thousands - of webpages containing faulty HTML. Which is bad, because it restricts competition from other browsers that have to emulate IE's handling of errors near-exactly, without access to its source code or any standards indicating how they should do so. I could go on, but I have to go now. =) | |
However, I recommend you to goto Windows updates (http://v5.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/) and update you computer to at least Service Pack 1a, it comes with IE6. Right now you are runing a very insecure setup.