I've seen the new beta, and it looks interesting.
I might just drop firefox *gasp!*
But is it merely IE in new clothes?
Or do we actually expect *dare to say* security from IE?
ID:276750
 Feb 27 2006, 4:45 pm
|
|
|
Feb 27 2006, 5:02 pm
|
|
PirateHead
 |
Firefox may seem slippery at times, but don't lose grip . . . and if you must, don't slip *that* way! Go to Konqueror!
|
Flame Sage wrote:
I've seen the new beta, and it looks interesting. Of course it's merely IE in new clothes. Mind you IE has the security holes it has in the first place because Microsoft made rock stupid assumptions about Web security and standards compliance from the beginning. They actually empowered the browser to make system updates from their Web site rather than simply writing custom software to grab those updates, and to do that required opening the very holes (and many others) that have turned the browser into (more of) a laughingstock. If you expect security from IE, you've just switched off your common sense box. Lummox JR | |
Bleh, IE7 is ugly. And by ugly, I mean it looks like someone beat it with the ugly stick after it fell out of the ugly tree and hit every ugly branch on the way down.
| |
Yeah, I reckon they made some pretty stupid design decisions. For a start, last I checked the back/forward buttons were in the upper-left while the stop/refresh buttons were in the upper-right. They're all very common functions, and every other graphical browser ever made in the history of the internet puts them all together in the upper-left corner (by default at least), so why go and place them light-years from each other?!
And they got rid of the menu bar, in line with the Windows Vista team's warped "all menu bars must die" crusade. Evil. | |
I never enjoyed using IE at all. It is slow and has all sorts of exploits.
For awhile I used NetScape, it was a little better, then I went back to IE just because I didn't care. 2 or 3 years ago, it was around this time I started to notice my web pages and stuff for taking a long time to load, I mean a LOOONG time, even for dial up. Turned out I had ages and ages and ages worth of adware and all sorts of stuff you don't want on your PC. From there I moved to Opera, but didn't like it, and then tried FireFox, and since then not only has my web pages loaded like 10X faster, but my ad ware has come to almost a complete stop. | |
Apparantly it displays PNG transparancy by default, now. Yay for being behind everyone else!
*edit* Here's a screenshot: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsvista/ images/image008.jpg Speaking of all this IE 7, Windows Vista stuff, I've got a bone to pick with Microsoft. All these new transparant windows are gonna be a big pain. How am I gonna tab-alt from browser window displaying...uh, adult material onto something else when parents are around and expect it to work with all this transparancy? <_< Vista also needs a freakin' original style. Those Mac-OS/shiny style buttons *do not appeal to me*. They look stupid and it makes Windows look desperate. Can't they think up their own style? | |
The Windows "Classic" style is supposed to still be available, so I'd imagine the windows XP theme would be there aswell for those who prefer that to the new layout.
In regards to the transparency, you are able to adjust, and even disable it; "Theres even an advanced color control setting that allows you to disable transparent glass, specify the intensity, and even custom-mix colors and specify color saturation so that you can really get the look you want.: as per http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/web/expert/ bowman_vistapreview.mspx . | |
It just seems like a totally unneeded addition. What Vista needs is stability and performance, not graphics. I know everyone's probably already heard this before so I won't banter on about it.
It's just it'll use up so much more resources- transparancy can suck up CPU if you don't use it well. It even says that in the article you linked to- "While not all computers will be able to take advantage of each one of the new graphical visualization capabilities". Why impliment it if only the best range computers can handle it, y'know? If I want graphics I'll play Doom 3, not open "My documents". =p | |
It also depends on what the actual minimum requirements for Vista end up being, if like XP they are fairly low (233mhz, 64mb ram) than it is to be expected that everything won't be usable. Just like with XP, lower end systems may have to turn off some visual effects to get good performance.
For me, I wouldn't find much of a use for it anyway. I had tried something someone had posted here a while ago that provided similar functionality, I tend to almost always have something maximized, and if I need something from the desktop I can do a quick windows-key+D, and alt+tab for just switching between windows. Some other people though would probably find it to be a great feature (Just like how I can't stand the XP-start menu but other people love it). | |
I'd prefer they make windows as safe reliable/useful as possible, but once they have done that to the fullest extent, as long as they allow you to disable the stuff, I only see it as an interesting feature.
| |
Elation wrote:
Apparantly it displays PNG transparancy by default, now. Yes. AND IT'S ABOUT FRICKIN' TIME. | |
Well my favorite OS style is Windows 3.1 so Im not one to say much. That and MAC OS.
Anyways.. I kept with Windows 98 up until 3 years ago, and since then I've been using Windows XP. I won't upgrade again for at least another 5 years. :P | |
Shades wrote:
Anyways.. I kept with Windows 98 up until 3 years ago, and since then I've been using Windows XP. I won't upgrade again for at least another 5 years. :P Heh, I kept with Windows 98 untill a month ago :P | |
Well in all honesty I do like Windows 98 better, but is just dosen't the same hardware and software support windows xp does.
I used to have all these boot up disks and software drivers and stuff and now Windows XP does most of that for me. Less work for a format or installing new hardware or software and thats what I like. Plug N Play. | |