Anyone switch to Internet Explorer 9 yet?

[Jaymz9350]

what I don't like about FF is how damned difficult it is to migrate your "favorites" from
one computer to another so a User can have the SAMe favorites on all their computers (home office and notebook

Really 5 clicks is difficult? (Oh sorry 10 to backup and Restore)

The funny thing to me is you are the one with all going on that sounds like the tinfoil man you claim the FF users to be.

 

[AllanD]

no, I've done the process for others any number of times (for others) and hd it not work

and every time I ask, "what was broken with IE that _____ was suppost to fix?"

never heard any intelligible, "on-point" answer to that...

any more than I've received a useful answer to why people intensely dislike Windows media player, all the answers you get on thattopic have NOTHING to do with it's fuction as a player, they always have something to say about using its burner or ripping.... and having problems... which functions I've never tried to use becase I have other software that does those jobs better

I think the operative part of the name is PLAYER which it actually does extremely well.

AD

 

[adsm08]

Obvious I didn't try Chrome again...

And I can't imagine why anyone would...

AD

Eh, at least its better than Netscape Navigator.

 

[Twister]

no, I've done the process for others any number of times (for others) and hd it not work

and every time I ask, "what was broken with IE that _____ was suppost to fix?"

never heard any intelligible, "on-point" answer to that...

any more than I've received a useful answer to why people intensely dislike Windows media player, all the answers you get on thattopic have NOTHING to do with it's fuction as a player, they always have something to say about using its burner or ripping.... and having problems... which functions I've never tried to use becase I have other software that does those jobs better

I think the operative part of the name is PLAYER which it actually does extremely well.

AD

I use Firefox, not because it is not a Microsoft products, but because IE runs like utter crap on my computer, along with Chrome. Firefox is the only browser i have found that does not take 8 minutes to load Google.

Windows Media Player is a fine program, have never had problem with it playing music or organizing it, burning cds is not its strong point, it burns the songs with a 2 second gap in between each song that is god awful annoying.

If you want to talk about a program that sucks, look at Itunes.

 

[AllanD]

Eh, at least its better than Netscape Navigator.

Nutscrape was what we used to call it.

It was problems with netscape that got me into IE...

but that was back when Win98 was still "the new thing"

Hey, I was the last one in my family to switch to Win95.
I was dragged screaming and kicking into Win98.

I was the first to jump to Win2k.

I was the one who dragged everyone else into XP
(I gave everyone a choice They could use XP or find
their computer had been shotgunned... and I meant it!)

I'd be "happy" with XP, but Vista & 7 offer a bit more functionality
with faster WiFi and some of the more advanced Bluetooth modes.

Once you have AVRCP headphones you never want to be attached
via wires again... And I really want a Sony MEX-BT5700UI stereo head unit.

Then I can play anything on my notebook via my car stereo without wires...

Gee this tech shit is pretty cool

AD

 

[gribly]

Screw bringing the computer in my truck, my headunit accepts SD cards, and is an MP3 player! No more scratched cd's, and it'll never skip.

 

[AllanD]

Screw bringing the computer in my truck, my headunit accepts SD cards, and is an MP3 player! No more scratched cd's, and it'll never skip.

If I'm not home my notebook, actually "one of my notebooks" is with me anyway.

I have a charging cable hardwired into my truck for the notebook.

an ipod is an additional expense for an item that has a designed limited lifespan, the internal batteries go bad and the connection jacks are fragile.

IF apple would make an automotive specific ipod, one that actually had NO external controls, headphone jack or display OR failure prone internal battery. specifically intended for connection to a car stereo, that had atleast 80gb of storage...
I'd buy one.

OTOH Sony now has a head unit "media player" that swallows an ipod
on a little drawer, no wires... If they made that to swallow a SATA notebook drive I'd forget everything else...

Imagine a head unit that you simply swapped notebook drives into
if you are only doing limited rear/writes that would be a PERFECT application for a 90gb SSD... shove that puppy in there just like a cassette tape...

the customer could write to it with their notebook/desktop with a usb adapter cable and the CUSTOMER would get to choose how much capacity they'd need.

No $200-$300 iPod, a $45 notebook drive or $150 SSD and they'd be set....

AD

 

[gribly]

Well, you can get head units that accept SD cards. Some take SDHC cards, too. Look into it, it won't be the 160gb you're looking for, but do you honestly need THAT much music?

I guess I am biased because I mostly use the radio, we have an awesome privately owned rock station here in Maine that covers the whole state plus parts of Canada and New Hampshire.

SSD's also do more read/writes than people generally think. My SSD is what, two and a half years old now and still works great - it's the only drive in my main computer, and I am a student. It depends on your SSD's technology, the good ones are not cheap, though. 64gb for $230 is what my drive sells for still, price hasn't changed in all that time.

 

[97RangerXLT]

Is IE 9 still in beta or pre-release? once they get it released I will probably try it out.

I prefer Firefox because of its ability to have add ons like adblock plus and xmarks. with xmarks I can put my bookmarks on any computer that has xmarks in a matter of seconds. plus IE did not even have tabbed browsing until version 7 came out. Opera had tabbed browsing in 2001, FF in 2003 or 4. I think the thing that keeps me from using IE besides the fact that I have had problems with it loading slow or crashing on certain websites (wikipedia being the biggest offender) is that they are slow to adopt standards that FF and opera have used for years.

Chrome. I have tried it out when it was first released, and it was very buggy and glitchy. Have not tried it since. a buddy of mine swears by it tho. I did like how it made use of most of your monitor for the viewing portion and not for the toolbars/ tab bars.

For media players, I do like Windows media. works pretty good, easy to use. I have not had any issues ripping a cd with it either. I don't think media player was well designed for burning cds tho. for burning cds of any kind, I use a free program called CD burnerxp. never had any issues with that program.

AJ

 

[mjonesjr]

On the PC's I have, I use Firefox with an IE Tab for those Microsoft websites that require IE to do anything.

On my MacBook Pro, I use Firefox without the tab because I don't need to visit any Microsoft site. I have gotten to the point I hate using a PC for everyday use. Windows gives me a headache after using OS X. That is another discussion though.

I have been using Firefox 4 Beta since it came out on my MacBook Pro and love it.


This should be interesting to all. This was done by an independent tester, so the info should be unbias.
http://lifehacker.com/#!5784396/browser-speed-tests-firefox-4-internet-explorer-9-chrome-11-and-more

Is IE 9 still in beta or pre-release? once they get it released I will probably try it out.

It is out for full release.

 

[AllanD]

Is IE 9 still in beta or pre-release? once they get it released I will probably try it out.

I prefer Firefox because of its ability to have add ons like adblock plus and xmarks. with xmarks I can put my bookmarks on any computer that has xmarks in a matter of seconds. plus IE did not even have tabbed browsing until version 7 came out. Opera had tabbed browsing in 2001, FF in 2003 or 4. I think the thing that keeps me from using IE besides the fact that I have had problems with it loading slow or crashing on certain websites (wikipedia being the biggest offender) is that they are slow to adopt standards that FF and opera have used for years.

Chrome. I have tried it out when it was first released, and it was very buggy and glitchy. Have not tried it since. a buddy of mine swears by it tho. I did like how it made use of most of your monitor for the viewing portion and not for the toolbars/ tab bars.

For media players, I do like Windows media. works pretty good, easy to use. I have not had any issues ripping a cd with it either. I don't think media player was well designed for burning cds tho. for burning cds of any kind, I use a free program called CD burnerxp. never had any issues with that program.

AJ

IE9 was full release at the time I posted the original question.

The ONLY issue I had with it is that there was some odd interaction between IE9 and Microsoft Security Essentials after installing it where MSE would "forget" it had scanned or updated.
I removed MSE and reinstalled it and it corrected the problem.
that was only on ONE laptop running Win7

AD

 

[Hahnsb2]

any more than I've received a useful answer to why people intensely dislike Windows media player, all the answers you get on thattopic have NOTHING to do with it's fuction as a player, they always have something to say about using its burner or ripping.... and having problems... which functions I've never tried to use becase I have other software that does those jobs better

I dislike WMP because years ago it was a worthless turd (download a different fawking codec every time you wanted to watch something), I switched to VLC and haven't looked back because it's simple and it works. Maybe WMP is good today, I'm sure it's still WAY more bloated than VLC. And I don't rip or burn with either, just watch videos.

 

[AllanD]

I dislike WMP because years ago it was a worthless turd (download a different fawking codec every time you wanted to watch something), I switched to VLC and haven't looked back because it's simple and it works. Maybe WMP is good today, I'm sure it's still WAY more bloated than VLC. And I don't rip or burn with either, just watch videos.

The issue is that the majority people are blissfully unaware of the fact that they must specify WHICH "WMP" they dislike...

You really need to be specific about WHICH WMP you didn't like because other than a tight family resemblence between 11 & 12 they are all rather "different" from each other.


there is really very little similarity between the current WMM-12 (win7 Only)
or WMP11 (Very slightly different in XP and Vista) and the earlier WMP10 (early XP)

Not to mention that WMP 8 & 9 that were (respectively) upgrades to Win98 and Win2k ...

any earlier versions? different again, saying you don't like fords then revealing that the last one you drove was a 1929 Model B with a bad trans....
WMP7 simply sucked.
WMP8 was an audio player.
I never managed to make WMP9 play anything other than simple video's(DVDs? you're kidding? right?)
I didn't have WMP10 long enough to do more than see it disappear as soon as it opened because WMP11 was a MANDATORY upgrade by the time I finally upgraded to XP....

I actually kinda liked WMP9, but getting to displaying the album art in WMP11 was neat (as I've switched to Win7
I'm still getting used to WMP12, as it handles not only audio and video vbut will actually manage your photo libraries AND actually display (and allow editing) of the meta-data included in most pictures



AD

 

[mp3deviant721]

Tried it for 5 minutes, went back to Google Chrome. Never looked back.

 

[AllanD]

Tried it for 5 minutes, went back to Google Chrome. Never looked back.

"Tried it for five minutes" means that you didn't have time to set it up and
convinces me that you had your mind made up before you even started.

therefore you wasted the time downloading it.

that was of course your time to waste....

You also wasted time replying to this topic

Again, your time to waste

But far more important to me is you wasted MY TIME in posting something that
only proves that you didn't really want to try IE9 and likely just wanted to say
something negative about it.

ANYONE who has tried a software package for less than "a couple of days"
is being less than honest about "trying it".

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm saying that you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself... Ok you are a liar, but not to me, to yourself.

It's like a Virgin (of either sex) saying "sex is over-rated", based only on a furtive, clumsy first time experience)

Based on the information you state that you have: How exactly would you know if IE9 is any good?

Even software I admit I don't like I tried for atleast a week before forming any judgement at all...
then I spend the second week quantifying exactly what it is I don't like
about it, or more commonly deciding "what it is about some other software that I like better?"

you remind me of a guy on another forum who claimed that he "tried" Windows7 (on a new computer) "for 15minutes before I installed XP-pro over it..."

No he didn't "try" it at all "trying" windows7 for 15min isn't trying it,
It's deceiving yourself about having trying it.


What I like about IE9 is that it gives me more useable screen

I'm not sure about the loss of the seperate search window in the upper right
of the screen, the adaptive auto complete seems less functional than it was in IE8

Before for example if I moved my cursor to the search window and typed "na"
the first choice that would be displayed would be one of the websites I visit daily, in my specific case "National Geographic Image of the Day"

as it is now I have to type "national geograp " before that choice even appears on the list... and several more characters, "national geographic im " before it gets to the top of the list

Not that it matters as I do actually have a favorites-bar entry for that site page but as a "test" it reveals that IE9 doesn't "tune itself" to the user like IE8 did.

AD