Internet Explorer From 1.0 To 9.0

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Internet Explorer From 1.0 To 9.0

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday March 17, 2011 @05:01AM from the thats-how-he-rolls dept.

FrankNFurter writes "Remember the video of Andrew Tait upgrading Windows from 1.0 to 7. He did another one — this time installing all major versions of IE from 1.0 to 9.0." He actually does some interesting packet sniffing to see why sites aren't rendering, and amusingly shows MSIE 1.0 getting a 93/100 on the acid test... pretty impressive considering it lacks JS and CSS.

129 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

TFA? by Ksevio · 2011-03-17 05:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

This story would be a lot more interesting with a link to an article where we could see some of these things.
1. Re:TFA? by surgen · 2011-03-17 05:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5QqYVurImY&feature=player_embedded
2. Re:TFA? by baresi · 2011-03-17 05:05 · Score: 2
  
  Can't have an article about IE6 or older, just by showing screen shots you will get virus, spyware and just pure ugliness
  
  --
  RGdot.com
3. Re:TFA? by viablos · 2011-03-17 05:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The interesting thing is how good IE9 actually is compared to the older versions. It's a huge advancement from Microsoft and provides browser for casual people that also supports all the newest standards like HTML5 and is extremely secure. Firefox is currently the only browser lacking plugin sandboxing.. They're really lagging behind, and Microsoft has taken over Firefox.
4. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  Ah. Not only is there no link, the ONE snippet it actually took from the video is wrong... it was IE2 that said 93/100... IE1 just crashed.
5. Re:TFA? by viablos · 2011-03-17 05:16 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, you can use separate software to do it.. You could do it with old IE's too. The fact still remains that Firefox is the only current browser lagging sandboxing and security. Even Chrome has it.
6. Re:TFA? by recoiledsnake · 2011-03-17 05:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This story would be a lot more interesting with a link to an article where we could see some of these things.
  http://www.winrumors.com/man-upgrades-internet-explorer-1-0-to-9-0-video/
  
  --
  This space for rent.
7. Re:TFA? by jez9999 · 2011-03-17 05:25 · Score: 2
  
  I don't like the minimalist toolbar interface. The only browser I can still customize to get away from that is Firefox.
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
8. Re:TFA? by gad_zuki! · 2011-03-17 05:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Right click on the toolbar area. You'll see options to bring back the menu bar, various toolbars, status bars, etc. Its not as user hostile as Chrome.
9. Re:TFA? by jordanjay29 · 2011-03-17 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  I hope you're getting paid for that marketing pitch. Effin' fanbois.
10. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  The interesting thing is how good IE9 actually is compared to the older versions. It's a huge advancement from Microsoft and provides browser for casual people that also supports all the newest standards like HTML5 and is extremely secure.
  
  Awesome. But really, this is like saying, "Hey, that shit sandwich MS has been saying tastes great for the last 10+ years finally tastes a whole lot less like shit!" Too little, too late...
11. Re:TFA? by arth1 · 2011-03-17 05:36 · Score: 3
  
  I prefer to R TFA.
  Have we really degenerated so badly that even /. has become a video pushing outlet for generation-ADHD?
12. Re:TFA? by Nerdfest · 2011-03-17 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  I think he probably is. This seems to be the newest incarnation of the pro MS/anti-OSS posters.
13. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  Hey Beavis, shitballs at 1:02
  Heh, heh.
14. Re:TFA? by amicusNYCL · 2011-03-17 05:39 · Score: 2
  
  Pretty much every browser these days is customizable, with Chrome being an obvious exception. You can change virtually everything about Opera, for example, but you're apparently myopic regarding Firefox if you think it's "the only browser" you can do that with.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
15. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  Pro MS does not necessarily mean anti-OSS. Nor does pro-OSS necessarily mean anti-MS. Just sayin'.
16. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 05:47 · Score: 1
  Hi viablos! I see you've created another sockpuppet account, in the fine tradition of astroturfing Slashdot. I'll update the known list of alts.
  
  devxo (1963088)
  divxio (2016536)
  balls of steel (2016538)
  Billy the Boy (2016540)
  devtools (2018510)
  viablos (2018696)
  Please keep participating, viablos. You make Slashdot a better place!
17. Re:TFA? by Daniel_Staal · 2011-03-17 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  When presented with a competitor who they can't defeat in some other fashion, Microspft is capable of putting out some very good products. This has always been the case.
  Unfortunately, Mircrosoft will only do this if they have a real competitor who they cannot defeat in some other fashion.
  
  --
  'Sensible' is a curse word.
18. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  No, it doesn't. But in this particular shill's case it means being anti-OSS, anti-Apple, anti-Google, pro-everything-Microsoft. Even the most rabid fanboy usually has at least one bad thing to say about his favorite company.
19. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  article(n): A literary composition, forming an independent portion of
  a magazine, newspaper, or cyclopedia.
  Webster, 1913
  What's next? Knuth's volume 5 will be a youtube video?
20. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  No, you couldn't fully sandbox IE with 3rd-party Windows software, because there was no way of forcefully prohibiting an app from doing things like IPC and exploiting a vulnerability in higher-privilege programs. FYI, AppArmor was designed to work separately, because of the security problems present in tying rules and code together - software inevitably fails at enforcing its own security.
  But what would a marketing publicist know...
21. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  And yet it's still more secure than Internet Explorer. The coders at Microsoft really suck I guess.
22. Re:TFA? by viablos · 2011-03-17 06:15 · Score: 2
  
  Just because I said (and many people agree to this) that IE9 is an advancement over the older versions I'm now a marketing shill? Jesus...
23. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  No. Because of the style in which you write in, and your long history of advertising on Slashdot. If you want credibility you won't get it with a UID that high.
  People only sometimes agree with you because they don't see the subtle implications that are always mixed in with your posts. Even a shill can be correct about the things he says.
24. Re:TFA? by Shining+Celebi · 2011-03-17 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox is currently the only browser lacking plugin sandboxing.. They're really lagging behind, and Microsoft has taken over Firefox.
  Huh? Firefox has had plugin sandboxing since 3.6
25. Re:TFA? by yoshi_mon · 2011-03-17 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Asking that there is a link for the video in question, not even on the main page but maybe after we click though to the story, is cause to call for insults?
  Really?
  
  --
  
  Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
26. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  "You may also like to read,
  [...]
  Submission: Man upgrades Internet Explorer 1.0 to 9.0 [video]"
  Here you can find a link.
27. Re:TFA? by Haedrian · 2011-03-17 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Webster, 1913
  There's your problem. I've helpfully put it in bold for you
28. Re:TFA? by Mostly+a+lurker · 2011-03-17 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Well, technically, I think it could be done. I created a Windows image at one point without IE and added IE7 back as a VMware ThinApp package. Even if IE invoked higher priority programs, these were also sandboxed (assuming no bugs in ThinApp).
29. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  Even Chrome has it.
  "Even"? I thought that was one of the first things Google advertised when announcing Chrome and one of the selling points.
30. Re:TFA? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2011-03-17 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Actually Firefox 4 is ahead of IE9. Just try the Html 5 demos on Firefox's site in both both browsers. They only work in Firefox4 :)
  IE9 is very impressive, but when it comes to real performance and features... Firefox is better, even in GPU acceleration. Although I will admit IE9's gpu acceleration is very good in general, even faster in some ways than firefox, but it is often slower in many tests, and even fails to work at all at others.
  IE9 though is quite impressive coming from MS. I think there is a future in it. Right now it seems that MS isnt taking extensions seriously. Their website is like most microsoft "add on" sites... it looks pathetically abandoned.
  I like IE9. I almost switched to it, but Firefox 4 RC seemed to be more solid all around.
  CHROME... failed everything in my eyes. its GPU acceleration is non existent/primitive. FireFox 4 RC did better on html5 features etc. Chrome let me down, and as much as I like Chrome... Its in third place and far behind at that.
31. Re:TFA? by blair1q · 2011-03-17 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  This is not any different from any other company. If you don't know what you have to beat, you just do what you want. And if what you want is driven by $_in / $_out = performance, then you minimize $_out.
32. Re:TFA? by ArundelCastle · 2011-03-17 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  It's right there under the tags:
  
  You may also like to read,
  News: Upgrading From Windows 1.0 To Windows 7
  Submission: Man upgrades Internet Explorer 1.0 to 9.0 [video]
  
  The link is in the original submission.
  And people say the editors don't do anything. Pshaw!
33. Re:TFA? by breser · 2011-03-17 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  What long history of advertising on Slashdot? The guy opened the account yesterday as far as I can tell. Apparently I missed the memo, people used to measure their egos with uptimes, no it seems to be the smaller your UID is the bigger your ego.
34. Re:TFA? by chrishillman · 2011-03-17 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  I am laughing so hard! This needs a "funny", amirite?
  
  It sounds like marketing. Build up product, talk of how modern/new/shiny product is. Pick one aspect superior product from competition where there might be an advantage, and pretend that alone, that one feature makes the product superior to everything.
  
  "With all this IE9 talk, I am constantly surprised by how textual Lynx is. The latest version of Lynx is the most text-oriented of all the Lynx versions. IE9 lacks a decent text-only interface... it is really at a disadvantage over Lynx." I might not have an interest in getting you download and install Lynx (I know you already have it), but it sure seems like it.
  
  I am sure you are not a shill or paid marketer, if you were there would be a link to this amazingly plugin-sandboxed web browser that makes Firefox look like IE8 in comparison.
35. Re:TFA? by arth1 · 2011-03-17 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Because there is no story, only a video?
  (Which large parts of the audience doesn't think is an acceptable substitute, and another large part can't even see.)
36. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  I thought it was a bit disappointed that he used the old IE versions to view the web as it is *now*. He should have used the Wayback Machine or somesuch to demonstrate what browsing the web was like back then. Yes, if you let old browsers look at pages that use things that didn't even exist at release time, the result won't be pretty. But back in the day, those old browsers were usable.
37. Re:TFA? by Fuzion · 2011-03-17 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  I use a program called Sandboxie that works quite well in doing sandboxed IPC (along with file and registry operations) in any app, so it's definitely possible with third party apps, but it's nice to see that sandboxing is finally natively built into the browsers themselves.
  
  --
  "Knowledge makes us accountable." - Che Guevara
38. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:30 · Score: 0
  
  True, but you can't bring back the separate URL/search boxes without a third party toolbar or a different browser.
39. Re:TFA? by hairyfeet · 2011-03-17 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Noooo, you are being called a shill because your entire post reads like a press release and normal folks that aren't marketing drones don't actually talk that way.
  Hell I've been a Windows guy since Win 3.x yet the folks here (well except for a few FOSSies that believe anyone who isn't dancing with RMS in a field of tulips must be a corporate spy sent from a secret reprogramming facility hidden under Redmond) know I'm not a shill because not only do I not speak marketingese I'm more than happy to point out like every other company on the planet MSFT has put out some real stinkers (Oh Vista how I hated thee, let me count the ways) as well as some gems (Windows 7 rocks).
  So unless you spend your 9 to 5 as a marketing drone or have spent so much time ass deep in corporate butt kissing you honestly think you boss's booty smells like roses, well then folks have a legitimate right to call you things like shill and astroturfer. Nearly all the major corp have been involved in astroturfing and your post reads like an ad cooked up on Madison avenue. Hell you might as well have ended it with "Microsoft: We build excitement!"
  As for TFA? Cute video but frankly getting burnt having to clean up IE 6 infections for years after MSFT abandoned IE after winning the browser war frankly I just don't trust them in the browser dept anymore. I have also found due to the faster update turnaround of the other guys my customers infection rate goes down when IE goes bye bye.
  Now I give out Mozilla Firefox but frankly after all of the memory sucking and bloat of the last couple of 3.6.x releases I'm testing Chromium based Comodo Dragon, which has the sandboxing and low rights like IE and a lower memory and CPU footprint than FF. Add in the fact it runs both Adblock Plus and ForecastFox which are the two most popular plugins around here? If FF isn't better on the memory and CPU hogging come 4.0 RTM I'll be switching everyone over to Dragon. I already give out Dragon to all Vista and 7 users since FF doesn't support the safer low rights mode.
  But go back to IE? Sorry, fool me once and all. They'd have to do a hell of a lot better than just some HTML V5 fish demos for me to risk IE again for my customers and family, and the fact they've abandoned XP while everyone else works fine on XP makes me just dislike it even more.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
40. Re:TFA? by gravis777 · 2011-03-17 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  ur cmmnt is 2 lng. Plz post utube vid.
41. Re:TFA? by treeves · 2011-03-17 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Out of curiosity, how do you link all those accounts to the same person?
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
42. Re:TFA? by yoshi_mon · 2011-03-17 09:43 · Score: 0
  
  Because there is no story...
  There is no story behind a browser war that included MS being convicted of monopolistic practices, dominating the browser world too the point that there was no major update for 6 years?!, and now finally having to fight off newcomers?
  Really?
  
  --
  
  Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
43. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  All of his accounts have made at least 1 same-minute first post. All accounts except divxio and 'steel' have done it while supporting or bringing up Microsoft. divxio engaged in a high-UID circlejerk with Billy and steel within minutes of one another.
  If you want to get subjective then simply reading the individual posts should make it clear that they come from the same person. UIDs are another hint.
44. Re:TFA? by palegray.net · 2011-03-17 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Sir, I actually clapped as I read this. Well done, seriously.
  
  --
  512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
45. Re:TFA? by nEoN+nOoDlE · 2011-03-17 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  As my userid # shows, I've been around /. for quite awhile... and people weren't reading TFA since the beginning.
  
  --
  Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
46. Re:TFA? by Daniel_Staal · 2011-03-17 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft has a slightly worse case than most, in my opinion. Competing on the merits of their product always seems to be their last choice, given all options. They'd rather drive you from the market, spread FUD, undercut your prices, anything they can to avoid actually doing anything on their product.
  And they have the habit of not doing anything without competition, where there are many companies who operate without meaningful competition while continually trying to improve their products. (Not always doing a great job, of course, but trying.)
  But yes, Microsoft isn't doing anything unique to them in this. I mainly wanted to point out they are capable of turning out good products, and always have been. It's just their last choice in any market scenario.
  
  --
  'Sensible' is a curse word.
47. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 13:41 · Score: 0
  
  Firefox is currently the only browser lacking plugin sandboxing..
  So then what is plugin-container.exe? Is that a Flash-only sandbox?
48. Re:TFA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  If using something "user hostile" means I get something that is upgraded more frequently and is optimized for its actual purpose (browsing the web) and omits bloated niceties like dock-able toolbars and other UI widgetry intended for layout and customization (some might like it but its not the programs actual purpose) I am all for it.
  
  If you want that stuff, you can wait around for your Firefox 5, IE 10, Opera 11 or whatever. I consider making me wait eons for upgrades to be hostile.
49. Re:TFA? by YoshiDan · 2011-03-17 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  That's just how freetards think. You must be new here...
50. Re:TFA? by Nyder · 2011-03-17 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  The interesting thing is how good IE9 actually is compared to the older versions. It's a huge advancement from Microsoft and provides browser for casual people that also supports all the newest standards like HTML5 and is extremely secure. Firefox is currently the only browser lacking plugin sandboxing.. They're really lagging behind, and Microsoft has taken over Firefox.
  That's great.
  But based on past experience, I will NOT EVER use a Internet Explorer version, unless it's to download firefox/chrome or something.
  Don't care if it polishes dome while you browse, i'd still get something.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
51. Re:TFA? by sootman · 2011-03-17 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  I swear the guy sounds like an OS X text-to-speech voice but he's got some good and funny commentary. Worth watching. (And I usually never watch videos like this.) If you find a computer with MSIE2 installed you can copy the executable onto an XP machine and it'll run fine. (As fine as MSIE2 can run, that is.) Reminds me of old times.
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
52. Re:TFA? by mhenriday · 2011-03-17 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  To my mind, describing Chrome/Chromium as 'user-hostile' is a tad exaggerated ; the browser is indeed customisable and allows one to choose from thousands of add-ons. The only thing preventing me from using it as my default browser is the fact that no option to create a side panel in which, e g, can bookmarks is offered....
  Henri
  PS : Opera was, if I remember correctly, the first browser to pass the Acid3 test....
53. Re:TFA? by drinkypoo · 2011-03-18 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  The only thing preventing me using it for my browser is that Notscripts has a shitty user interface.
  The web without noscript is a nightmare. Even moreso on a netbook, but even on my fairly ballsy desktop just one crap website can choke everything. Amusingly I find this to be more true in Chromium than in Firefox 4.
  As an aside, the new kernel really is provably more responsive. Firefox 4 didn't choke at all during an aptitude dist-upgrade with root on a USB2 flash stick. It used to choke every time there was any significant I/O. Natty Narwhal to the rescue!
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
54. Re:TFA? by mhenriday · 2011-03-18 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps Giorgio Maione could be convinced to port NoScript to Chrome/Chromium ?... Henri
55. Re:TFA? by Ed+Avis · 2011-03-18 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, IE9 isn't too bad. A shame it doesn't run on the operating system most businesses use, Windows XP.
  
  --
  -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Link by mike_c999 · 2011-03-17 05:04 · Score: 0

Link
http://www.winrumors.com/man-upgrades-internet-explorer-1-0-to-9-0-video/

--
Ctrl-Z
Article is here: by fiordhraoi · 2011-03-17 05:04 · Score: 1, Informative

http://www.winrumors.com/man-upgrades-internet-explorer-1-0-to-9-0-video/
1. Re:Article is here: by mmj638 · 2011-03-17 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the original is here: http://rasteri.blogspot.com/2011/03/we-are-ie-comparing-every-version-of.html
Where's the content? by pz · 2011-03-17 05:04 · Score: 1

There's no content... Hello, Taco? You there?
Hello?
Anyone?
Ulp.

--

Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
1. Re:Where's the content? by NevarMore · 2011-03-17 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  You were eaten by a grue.
Nobody ever... by giuseppemag · 2011-03-17 05:05 · Score: 4, Funny

...reads TFA, so no need to add it to the post. A byte saved is a byte earned!

--
My book: Friendly F#, fun with game development and XNA; my game: Galaxy Wars by VSTeam; my gamedev language: Casanova.
1. Re:Nobody ever... by need4mospd · 2011-03-17 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  I take it one step further and I don't even read the summary. Based on the title, I'm assuming this story is about how the Internet is more powerful than the 8.9 earthquake in Japan.
2. Re:Nobody ever... by treeves · 2011-03-17 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  I think the earthquake was upgraded to 9.0 from 8.9 (at least by the USGS), so someone thought they see if IE could keep up, and lo and behold, it upgraded all the way from 1.0 to 9.0, ergo, more IE is more powerful than the earthquake.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Here's the link by g051051 · 2011-03-17 05:07 · Score: 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5QqYVurImY
Link by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 05:08 · Score: 0

http://www.winrumors.com/man-upgrades-internet-explorer-1-0-to-9-0-video/
watching the video didn't help by craftycoder · 2011-03-17 05:17 · Score: 1

I found the video and watched it. I don't feel any more enlightened as a result. While the video of upgrading through all the OSes was really quite interesting to me, this one fell flat. Sorry amigo, but you can't strike gold in every vein.
1. Re:watching the video didn't help by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  The Horse Porn wasn't enough for you?
2. Re:watching the video didn't help by craftycoder · 2011-03-17 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  in a word, no
Suprisingly Interesting Video by us7892 · 2011-03-17 05:17 · Score: 0

I thought it was going to be lame. But I ended up watching the whole thing.

I was mainly curious to see if Doom2 would keep running. It only failed with one upgrade (XP I think), and started working again after the next upgrade (2000).
1. Re:Suprisingly Interesting Video by TheCycoONE · 2011-03-17 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  The article was about the IE video not the Windows one; despite only linking to the Windows. Also Doom2 quit working in 2000 and started working in XP (which was an upgrade to 2000)
2. Re:Suprisingly Interesting Video by similar_name · 2011-03-17 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Just curious but since Windows XP was released to bridge the NT and Win/Dos lines and Windows 2k was marketed more towards business with Win ME being marketed towards consumers, why would he even upgrade through Win 2k. Shouldn't he have gone through 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 9x/ME then XP. If he included Win 2k, why not NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, and 4.0? I understand that many people used Win 2k as a consumer OS but it wasn't really marketed that way and would explain why the NT based OS would have issues with a DOS game until MS improved it's DOS/VESA/SB/MEM emulation in CMD.exe for XP. If I am missing some simple fact forgive me I've killed a lot of brain cells since those days.
3. Re:Suprisingly Interesting Video by dreemernj · 2011-03-17 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think he mentions one reason is that you can't upgrade from ME to XP. So to continue the upgrade path, going through 2K is the best option. And it is a valid one since, even though it was marketed more for business, there always seemed to be a lot of 2K machines browsing the decidedly non-business related websites I've managed.
  I remember there was another one that he didn't have an upgrade copy of. Maybe 98SE? But he was able to fudge an install version into an upgrade, which I've seen fairly straightforward instructions on in the past. I don't think fudging a path from ME to XP would have been quite as simple.
  
  --
  1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
4. Re:Suprisingly Interesting Video by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  ME cannot be upgraded. It's the end of the line.
5. Re:Suprisingly Interesting Video by Jesus_666 · 2011-03-17 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, Me was a bit like Vista - virtually everyone who had it had it because it came with their computer. If you weren't satisfied with Windows 98, Windows 2000 was the obvious upgrade path, being superior in every area but DOS support.
  
  --
  USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:How good by TaoPhoenix · 2011-03-17 05:22 · Score: 1

I remember an interesting moment when Netscape was all the rage at college, and I first was hearing of IE 3 etc, and figuring it was some sort of Microsoft me-too effort like their later consumer offerings. I had it mentally pegged like the Zune. Then a couple of years passed, and by IE5 suddenly all these "optimized for IE, if you use something else you're not worth bothering with" sites.
I personally didn't see magic between IE5 and IE6 as a consumer, but I did vaguely notice that once it hit IE6 it stalled out pretty badly. I only much later learned about concepts like Enterprise Lockin, but the short time period is amazing to me now - between about 1996-1999.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Not the first, not the second time by tuxrocks4 · 2011-03-17 05:23 · Score: 0

Here is a blog post about guy that updated ubuntu from 4.10 to 10.10.
He doesn't include video, but rather series of a screenshots and fun details.
1. Re:Not the first, not the second time by just_another_sean · 2011-03-17 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Where is the blog post?
  
  --
  Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
2. Re:Not the first, not the second time by just_another_sean · 2011-03-17 05:52 · Score: 2
  
  Goatse alert, don't be fooled. The goggles, they do nothing!
  tuxrocks4, you're a dick.
  
  --
  Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
3. Re:Not the first, not the second time by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  I was wondering, too. The closest I can find so far is this:
  http://www.techdrivein.com/2011/01/evolution-of-ubuntu-over-years-brief.html
  Not sure if that's the exact article, but it matches the description I guess.
4. Re:Not the first, not the second time by just_another_sean · 2011-03-17 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  I already got burned by a goatse link in this thread.
  So after carefully following your link from the techdrivein home page on down I see that you have actually provided something interesting. Thanks.
  
  --
  Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Not strange. by rolfc · 2011-03-17 05:23 · Score: 2

I don't find it strange that 1.0 is good. Microsoft was caught without a browser when they realized that no one wanted MSN. So they bought Spyglass Mosaic which was a good browser, but they didn't have the time to ruin it before the release. Curiosly, I was one of the first 10 000 that downloaded it and was rewarded with a T-shirt.
1. Re:Not strange. by BlackHorse · 2011-03-17 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  I got that shirt too! No idea what happened to it... I wonder if it'd be worth anything these days :P
2. Re:Not strange. by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-03-17 06:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yeah - Mosaic was so good that it implemented most of specs involved in Acid test correctly before they were even conceived!
3. Re:Not strange. by gravis777 · 2011-03-17 09:06 · Score: 2
  
  Uh, The Microsoft Network was bundled with 95, and unless I am much mistaken, did not work on older versions, meaning it was released on August 24, 1995. Internet Explorer 1 was released on August 16, 1995, but was not originally included with Windows 95, although it was in the Plus pack that many OEMs shipped with their system.
  Therefore, Microsoft had already licensed and released Internet Explorer before The Microsoft Network was released on the public. (Albeit only by a week)
4. Re:Not strange. by rolfc · 2011-03-18 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft realised that MSN was dead before its release and licensed Spyglass Mosaic as a quick Fix. They had the idea to lock users in to their own network and provide services for pay. When Internnet took off, they wondered where their customers went. Wikipedia writes " Open access to the World Wide Web was not originally included in the classic MSN service at the time of its initial launch, but Internet access was quickly offered through Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser, which was available as a download from the MSN service or as part of the Windows 95 Plus! package"
We are IE by Boigaz · 2011-03-17 05:23 · Score: 1

bet i'm the only one to get the reference (lennie de ice)...
Link to the actual article: by FrankNFurter · 2011-03-17 05:24 · Score: 1

winrumors

--
"Slashdot - the one place on the internet where guys brag about how small it is." - that IT girl
7 days by sakdoctor · 2011-03-17 05:26 · Score: 5, Funny

7 days after you watch that youtube video, YOUR BROWSER WILL CRASH.
1. Re:7 days by valinor89 · 2011-03-17 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  If you are using firefox it will crash after 3 days. I still love firefox but it crashes a lot.
2. Re:7 days by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  Pshh. Chrome crashes in two.
  It does everything faster.
3. Re:7 days by Inda · 2011-03-17 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  It only crashed once in that 8 minute video. I thought that was impressive considering IE used to crash during a reboot.
  
  So many nightmares compressed into a single youtube video. What will he do next?
  
  --
  This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
4. Re:7 days by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  or you'll get an update that nags you to restart the browser to install it.
  (yes, i know you can disable auto-update checking)
5. Re:7 days by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  Firefox 57% faster than IE!
6. Re:7 days by Jesus_666 · 2011-03-17 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  All versions of Acrobat Reader with Tubular Bells playing in the background? It would fit...
  
  --
  USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
7. Re:7 days by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  7 days after you watch that youtube video, YOUR BROWSER WILL CRASH.
  If you're using IE, then that represents a huge boost in stability.
Next project for Andrew : by unity100 · 2011-03-17 05:33 · Score: 1, Funny

From Fire and Wheel to Space. there. get to upgrading.

--
Read radical news here
1. Re:Next project for Andrew : by adavies42 · 2011-03-17 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.ovff.org/pegasus/songs/uplift.html
  
  --
  Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
  -kfg
2. Re:Next project for Andrew : by SpinningCone · 2011-03-17 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)
3. Re:Next project for Andrew : by drinkypoo · 2011-03-18 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  "Click the mouse", seriously? Way to insert anachronism. Future generations of fantasy fans will wonder WTF a mouse was when they sing that song around the glph-fire.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Acid Test by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 05:33 · Score: 0

I think it was actually MSIE 2.0 that scored a 93 on the Acid Test
No link, and Incorrect on 1.0 Acid test: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 05:45 · Score: 0

No link to the story at all, and viewing the video it isn't IE 1.0 but 2.0 that gets 93/100 on the acid tests.
Remind me why I still read slashdot?
1. Re:No link, and Incorrect on 1.0 Acid test: by MetalliQaZ · 2011-03-17 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  I guess it's time to stop. Buh-bye.
  
  --
  "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
So here's a question for you by Sycraft-fu · 2011-03-17 05:46 · Score: 1

For IE9 or Opera (or better yest both) do you know of a good program like Flashblock? I'm pretty laid when it comes to what I need for webbrowsing, and I don't use many addons, but that is one I can't seem to live without. I don't want to get rid of Flash, I just want it to be on-click.
Any suggestions?
While IE can enable it per-site that is rather annoying in the way it works particularly because it is hard to tell if you are authorizing the site or the embedded ad site and you can't remove a site once authorized (short of blowing away the list).
1. Re:So here's a question for you by amicusNYCL · 2011-03-17 05:53 · Score: 2
  
  Not sure about IE9, but I set Opera to load all plugins on-demand. That's Preferences -> Advanced -> Content -> Enable plugins only on-demand
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
2. Re:So here's a question for you by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for that! I already updated my Opera settings.
3. Re:So here's a question for you by cbhacking · 2011-03-17 07:57 · Score: 2
  
  Same in IE9. Tools -> Safety -> ActiveX Filtering. Blocks everything, including Flash and Java, just fine. It can be toggled on and off for individual sites quite easily; the little circle-with-a-line-through-it icon in the location bar (between the Search drop-down and the Compatibility Mode toggle button) works as a button to control it, and turns blue when filtering anything.
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Maybe ACID does not matter? by howardd21 · 2011-03-17 05:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

A score of 93 from a first generation browser?

--
no comment
1. Re:Maybe ACID does not matter? by _0xd0ad · 2011-03-17 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, if you ignore FAIL FAIL FAIL YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THIS AT ALL FAIL.
  Filter error: Don't use so many caps.
2. Re:Maybe ACID does not matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  That's so base of you to say that.
3. Re:Maybe ACID does not matter? by Lothsahn · 2011-03-17 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it's IE2 that gets 93. IE1 fails to render the Acid tests and actually crashes on the 3rd acid test. Of course, the editors couldn't bother to fact check the submission...
  
  --
  -=Lothsahn=-
Video should be done Benny HIll style.. by nowen2dot · 2011-03-17 05:55 · Score: 1

Without super fast motion set to Yakety Sax how else can they do all those upgrades in less than 10 minutes?

--
I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it. -- Groucho Marx
IE9 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 06:18 · Score: 0

I use it and it is ok but its frustrating when aspx controls for video/applications force me to use IE8 or 7
Here's the link by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 06:33 · Score: 0

in case you missed it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
IE9 is naughty... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 06:37 · Score: 0

I like how he searches for horse porn on his friends computer testing IE9.
1. Re:IE9 is naughty... by blair1q · 2011-03-17 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  He didn't do that. That's a feature of the search engine's autocorrect function that now makes it search for what you want instead of what you type.
Horse porn? by antdude · 2011-03-17 06:38 · Score: 2

Haha, "horse porn" at 8:02.
He should do other non-Windows platforms that have IE too. [grin]

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
GatesBorg by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 06:56 · Score: 0

I liked the old GatesBorg better
Awesome! by Georules · 2011-03-17 07:13 · Score: 1

No one can tell me to RTFA, since it wasn't even given to me!
Re:How good by cpu6502 · 2011-03-17 07:37 · Score: 1, Troll

>>>"optimized for IE, if you use something else you're not worth bothering with" sites.
I used Mosaic/Netscape all the way from 1993 (Commodore Amiga and Mac) to 2006 (PC). I never had any problem rendering those "IE only" sites, and did try IE5/6 from time to time but never felt any desire to switch. IE5 rendered poorly on the mac, and IE6 crashes a lot.
Then I moved to Netscape's "child" known as Mozilla Seamonkey and eventually Firefox. Still see no reason to switch to IE, even though we have version 8 at work. There are better browsers (like opera).

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
still bad by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 09:34 · Score: 0

I am still pissed at IE for not supporting the blink tag in 8. Firefox supports it. IE still needs to get that support up for common tags.
I am forced to use JavaScript to do the blinking in IE.
1. Re:still bad by twotailakitsune · 2011-03-17 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Opera also supports that simple tag. Apple is also behind in support.
(OT) Flashblock on Chrome: no add-on! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 11:26 · Score: 0

I know this is horribly off-topic but for the sake of archival, somewhere, of some sorts, let me share with you this awesome piece of information: in Chrome, go to <chrome://flags>. There, find the "click to start plugin" option (and/or anything else you fancy :D). Then go to the configuration panel to find a third option: allow plugins, disable plugins and *click to enable*.
Big score!
1. Re:(OT) Flashblock on Chrome: no add-on! by RoFLKOPTr · 2011-03-19 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  I know this is horribly off-topic but for the sake of archival, somewhere, of some sorts, let me share with you this awesome piece of information: in Chrome, go to <chrome://flags>. There, find the "click to start plugin" option (and/or anything else you fancy :D). Then go to the configuration panel to find a third option: allow plugins, disable plugins and *click to enable*.
  Big score!
  How is that horribly off-topic? It seems to be very precisely on-topic.
  Thanks for that info, by the way!
Internet Explorer's Chrome by mlauzon · 2011-03-17 12:00 · Score: 1

Does anyone remember Chrome from late '97 or sometime in '98, it wasn't used on that many sites, I remember Universal Monsters' -- or was it Horror -- site used it..?!

--
Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163
Re:How good by davester666 · 2011-03-17 18:15 · Score: 1

Yeah, back then, Microsoft was working really hard to make sure the Internet worked best on Windows, by making their servers and web development tools that used IE-specific html, so your site by default would pretty well in IE, but look wrong and not work so well in other browsers.
See also their work on Java. Oops, you used some Microsoft-specific Java library. No, we can't tell you where. And no, we can't prevent you from doing so.
Then once the world woke up to this crap, and started checking for html compliance, and non-Microsoft web servers vending standard html became popular, Microsoft went 'meh', and then stopped advancing IE [at 6 I believe].
It was years later that Microsoft made a half-hearted attempt at improving standards compliance with IE 7, and more of one with IE 8 and 9. Except now the only reason they put out IE is so there's one browser that defaults to Bing [except in the EU, where you are asked which search engine you want to use up front].

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!