Not really, I use Linux and Windows both at home and at work. I prefer windows for java and windows development. And I don't think there's any way in hell e016 is more stable than all windows software you've tried unless all you've tried is netscape.
I just hope it doesn't use unreadable fonts and colors...and useless huge graphics that do nothing but act as eye candy...next thing you'll know, they'll have a talking penguin.
I wouldn't mind a 64MB card - but I don't think I'd use it.....or Quake3 and the likes would prolly hook me and I'd never get anything done ever again:P
It's a rare time that I've ever seen a hosed process hose other processes on NT. The only things that really happen - are that process doesn't release a global resource (i don't think windows monitors everything global - that would be really costly). Care to point me to an application or some code that I can use to 'hose' NT? I'd be real interested.
I'm sorry, but you must be confusing Windows with MacOS. Win9x and Windows NT both have memory protection - each process has it's own memory space. A bad pointer won't crash the OS. I used to develop primarily in Windows 98, now I use Windows NT. The only time I ever hosed the OS programming was when I was writing windows hooks, and didn't pass the hook on...thus freezing all the other processes. There's is absolutely no way in NT (and almost no way in win9x) that you can hose the system by having a bad pointer - unless you're writing something kernel level like a driver.
is taught as if it's the truth. When evolution is taught, the theory is stated, then evidence is shown. I mean, noone (intelligent) questions whether animals do change over time - biological evolution occurs. There's a difference between evolution - and evolution that leads to humans. Teaching evolution is like teaching anything else like Physics - it's what we can observe happens. When evolution is taught, it is rarely shown as "this is the way we all come about believe it or be damned" - it's saying "this is what happens as we can see it - and then extends on that with more theories". When religion is taught, the teachers (usually christians or the like) will run around stating things as if they are facts, scary kids into it by talking about HELL and what is good and right. Morals, Ethics, etc are relative....some parents might not want their kids taught that they will go to hell if they don't pray to jesus every night etc etc. Creationism is religious - and religion MUST be seperated from the state. Teaching evolution teaches kids facts and science. Teaching creationsm teaches many things which only the parents and the children should discuss themselves until the children grow old enough to make decisions for themselves. Usually when creationsm is taught - it's christian type stuff - why isolate all the other creationist theories? I don't think I'd have too many problems with creationism being "introduced" to kids as a theory and if they were taught to examine it...what's right about it...what does make sense...etc. Not "Jesus died for us all...blah blah blah blah blah". That's what I was taught in primary school.
Actually, Marc didn't write the first web browsers, there were several other people with html browsers out there...and I believe Marc 'borrowed' their code.
You didn't read the rest of my post. Killing the shell DOES not hose windows at all...explain to me how a lot of the core of windows gets hosed huh? All windows does when ti starts up is execute the shell - explore.exe....you could for example be using litestep..or some other shell replacement.
And if you had read further you would have noticed how I mentioned, turn "Browse in a new Process" on, and IE will start in a new process - it won't bring the shell down if it crashes.
And as for you netscape comments - I'm sorry, I'd rather have IE crash and take down windows (tho that never happens here) every once in a while, rather than have ann unsable browser, one that reloads when i resize the window, or one that doesn't stop loading when i press stop, or one that crashes every 5th page i load.
No. If you look at the xpCOM documentation it explicitly states that xpCOM unlike COM wasn't designed for cross language support. And that xpCOM objects need to be written in C++. It's not my fault that they decidede to modify javascript under mozilla and add some objects which 'in a way' supports writing xpCOM objects. In order to write real xpCOM objects from scratch you need to use C++. Look at the script file - does that look like 100% pure javascript.
I can for example write a script to scan thru the page i'm looking at and say..remove all occurances of "" and " "... Or I can make a new Search band, or maybe an IRC band to snap onto the left or bottom of IE's window. All with COM...funny...isn't xpCOM based on COM?
My demostrations of how CRAP netscape is to my friends, colleages, professors;) won't be as impressive....oh well. I still think IE is faster than mozilla - and even when NS5 is out, I'm guessing it will still be faster (MS have lots of money and lots of smart engineers)....but I'll will miss the days when I could start 10 isntances of IE (all in seperate processes) before netscape displays it's splash screen:)
Not really...Microsoft used a windows -> unix porting tool...can't remember the guys...they're like Bristol, except bigger and more well known (just can't remember their name:)). Anyway, I think all those windows -> unix tools only support high end unixes like solaris. Until someone comes along with a linux porting tool, i don't think microsoft will waste it's time.
Oh, and I forgot to say...providing you don't want to use Litestep or soemthing else as your shell.....microsoft aren't forcing the interface onto you. Don't use windows.
This is the fourth time I've had to point this out.
Replacing the windows shell (windows explorer) with internet explorer doesn't destablize the windows kernel (ie. causing BSOD). If IE crashes, it will bring down the shell. However, IE5 by default (you can do this in IE4 under options) opens browsers in a NEW PROCESS. Meaning if they crash, they WON'T bring down your taskbar...your shell basically. Please be more careful with your words. Also, IE as a shell is well written....you must live in netscape land too much....it doesn't waste memory when you don't use the internet. It's called dynamic loading of libraries...and ever heard of ActiveX? The Internet/WWW related parts won't be in memory until you load up IE.
Having a "don't install IE option" simply isn't an option. Why should microsoft have to develop two different versions of explorer? one to browse the harddrive, one to browse the internet? huh? Why should they limit technology to end users who love it (like me) simply cause netscape whine? You don't HAVE TO USE IE. It's just needs to be installed otherwise major windows features (like help) won't work. Just like you don't have a choice whether WINSOCK.DLL is installed (it's basically the same thing since IE is simple an OCX, or a DLL with a fancy extension). You have a choice to not use IE for web browsing and installing NETSCAPE instead. I hardly see the problem with having IE on your harddisk so parts of the OS that need it work. I mean, lets say you didn't like COMCTRL (windows common controls)...and you wanted GTK+ widgets....you can program with GTK+ widgets (like the gimp port for win32) - but you still need COMCTRL installed so that windows and windows applications that use COMCTRL will work.
Just don't use IE!! ok? "Forcing interfaces" - just don't use IE. Replace your shell with Litestep if you must. Yeesh
Um, haven't you noticed not only how fast, but how small a memory foot print IE is? IE replaces EXPLORE.EXE with the new EXPLORER.EXE (for IE).....i mean, instead of having the old windows explorer now you have the hybrid internet/windows explorer....it would hardly take up much more space until you start browsing larger websites. And microsoft wouldn't need to use IE to do evil thinks in the background - they could have done that with the old explorer...or any other thing in windows. The term integrated here basically means microsoft has updated the windows shell....it's nothing evil or bad or inappropriate. Noone complained when they moved from program manager to windows explorer. And I don't see why anyone should complain when they move to internet explorer...it makes perfect sense to me. You can replace your windows shell if you want - but deleting IE dlls would render some windows features that make use of HTML (and thus IE) technology like HTML help etc....this would basically render windows as we know it useless...althought the kernel etc would still be running. However, Windows is a lot more than the kernel. It includes the Shell, and the major technologies like COM, ADO, ActiveX, HTML.
that zoom in/out is actually an IE powertoy feature. And powertoys are just registry/script tweaks...so it's acutally something that's pogramatically implementable by anyone using internet explorer scripts. The way microsoft implmented it was with an external java script which is called upon with a reference to the entire object hircharchy of the current page....and the current object on focus. So you could write a script to say enlarge all the pictures...or change the font or color of selected text...etc...basically dynamic html, except it's just not the page's html/javascript that can change it's appearance, you can do it too with scripts.
I can't believe this is the 3rd time i've had to point this out to people here. Just cause you heard the guy next door say IE is tightly integrated into windows doesn't mean it will take windows down. Windows is more than the kernel. When they say integrated, they mean IE is now the default SHELL for windows. Meaning, if IE crashes, it takes down the SHELL (in this case explorer). When that happens, explorer will restart. Windows does not get 'taken down' nor would it crash. Putting that aside for a moment, if you had ever used IE5 you'd realised that IE5 by default starts in a new process - meaning if it crashes, it won't take the shell down. So again, you're just FUD FUD FUDDING.
Microsoft's main motive behind releasing 5.0 was to make Netscape look stupid for not having bigger version numbers. Personally, I find NS 4.X to be a much better internet suite than the crappy MS solution. Seriously, who needs scripting enabled... by default... in their email?
That's the stupidist thing I've heared today. 5.0 had milestone advances in XML and DCOM over HTTP. Not to mention some more (if that's possible) performance increases. These are features most end users won't see - but developers LOVE.
Netscape DOES look stupid not having developed a new version of their browser for like over a year - just rehashed 4.x codebase with extra little 'features' like a shopping button and netcentre has the centre of your world. NS 4.X a much better internet suite??? You have never used IE5 have you? Never... NS 4.X is SLOOOOOOOW, BUGGY, and I'd say even tho >90% of people here are Linux advocates, 95% of people here would agree with me. It's uneccesarily bloated and takes up far more memory and CPU time than a web browser with it's limited features should ever take. I can't handle using software that just does not work. I can't wait 30 seconds for it to load just to have it freeze up trying to render tables, or lock up for 20 seconds trying to load a page. Then if i click on a link while it's loading, most of the time it just sits there...not loading and not going to my new page. It's full of bugs. Why do you think mozilla quickly ran away from the NS4.x codebase and they started over again...strangly enough copying Windows based technology like xpCOM, the registry..etc.
And as for the scripting enabled thing - can't you turn it off yourself? The thing is IE is componentised, so when you view your email in outlook, it's actually IE embedded into your outlook express. You can always turn it off you know. Scripting in your email, is potentially just as bad as scripting on a web page. Most people prefer to have a feature work. It's like "hey, this page doesn't do XXXXX when it should - IE is crap has no features"...most people don't know how to change options - you'd think nerds(like you're supposed to be) could figure out how.
Re:IE hasn't won. Try Mozilla before you judge.
on
Whither Netscape 5.0?
·
· Score: 1
DLLs are inprocess, IE and Word start in a different process from the DLL. The only advantage would be to cache the DLLs into memory, which since are core windows DLLs anyway would speed up netscape as well. Lets say your special preloading of DLLs thing is true...what stops netscape from doing it? hrm???
I have everything closed(osa, office toolbar etc..) word still loads just as fast.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, I use Linux and Windows both at home and at work. I prefer windows for java and windows development. And I don't think there's any way in hell e016 is more stable than all windows software you've tried unless all you've tried is netscape.
E is more stable than any windows software you've ever used?
ROFL that's god damn funny.
I guess you've never used any windows software.
Does it make you feel like a real geek to use obfusticated UIs?
as Physics is today. It's what we observe...it's happening right now.
Try going to www.talkorigins.org for a better perspective.
I just hope it doesn't use unreadable fonts and colors...and useless huge graphics that do nothing but act as eye candy...next thing you'll know, they'll have a talking penguin.
I wouldn't mind a 64MB card - but I don't think I'd use it.....or Quake3 and the likes would prolly hook me and I'd never get anything done ever again :P
I bet you that IE5 is more standards compliant than opera.
It's a rare time that I've ever seen a hosed process hose other processes on NT. The only things that really happen - are that process doesn't release a global resource (i don't think windows monitors everything global - that would be really costly).
Care to point me to an application or some code that I can use to 'hose' NT?
I'd be real interested.
I'm sorry, but you must be confusing Windows with MacOS. Win9x and Windows NT both have memory protection - each process has it's own memory space. A bad pointer won't crash the OS. I used to develop primarily in Windows 98, now I use Windows NT. The only time I ever hosed the OS programming was when I was writing windows hooks, and didn't pass the hook on...thus freezing all the other processes.
There's is absolutely no way in NT (and almost no way in win9x) that you can hose the system by having a bad pointer - unless you're writing something kernel level like a driver.
is taught as if it's the truth.
When evolution is taught, the theory is stated, then evidence is shown. I mean, noone (intelligent) questions whether animals do change over time - biological evolution occurs. There's a difference between evolution - and evolution that leads to humans. Teaching evolution is like teaching anything else like Physics - it's what we can observe happens.
When evolution is taught, it is rarely shown as "this is the way we all come about believe it or be damned" - it's saying "this is what happens as we can see it - and then extends on that with more theories".
When religion is taught, the teachers (usually christians or the like) will run around stating things as if they are facts, scary kids into it by talking about HELL and what is good and right. Morals, Ethics, etc are relative....some parents might not want their kids taught that they will go to hell if they don't pray to jesus every night etc etc.
Creationism is religious - and religion MUST be seperated from the state. Teaching evolution teaches kids facts and science. Teaching creationsm teaches many things which only the parents and the children should discuss themselves until the children grow old enough to make decisions for themselves.
Usually when creationsm is taught - it's christian type stuff - why isolate all the other creationist theories?
I don't think I'd have too many problems with creationism being "introduced" to kids as a theory and if they were taught to examine it...what's right about it...what does make sense...etc. Not "Jesus died for us all...blah blah blah blah blah". That's what I was taught in primary school.
Hrm, I didn't t hink JavaScript had gotten that far along...like JScript...I guess I'm wrong :).
Oh well.
I guess I should have thought about it more...you can write COM components in Perl now too.
Forgive me.
Actually, Marc didn't write the first web browsers, there were several other people with html browsers out there...and I believe Marc 'borrowed' their code.
Sure, as long as you take yours out of that penguin.
You didn't read the rest of my post. Killing the shell DOES not hose windows at all...explain to me how a lot of the core of windows gets hosed huh? ..or some other shell replacement.
All windows does when ti starts up is execute the shell - explore.exe....you could for example be using litestep
And if you had read further you would have noticed how I mentioned, turn "Browse in a new Process" on, and IE will start in a new process - it won't bring the shell down if it crashes.
And as for you netscape comments - I'm sorry, I'd rather have IE crash and take down windows (tho that never happens here) every once in a while, rather than have ann unsable browser, one that reloads when i resize the window, or one that doesn't stop loading when i press stop, or one that crashes every 5th page i load.
No. If you look at the xpCOM documentation it explicitly states that xpCOM unlike COM wasn't designed for cross language support. And that xpCOM objects need to be written in C++. It's not my fault that they decidede to modify javascript under mozilla and add some objects which 'in a way' supports writing xpCOM objects. In order to write real xpCOM objects from scratch you need to use C++.
Look at the script file - does that look like 100% pure javascript.
You can't write xpCOM components in javascript. javascript can use and call upon xpCOM components tho.
Um, you can do ALL that with IE now.
I can for example write a script to scan thru the page i'm looking at and say..remove all occurances of "" and "
"...
Or I can make a new Search band, or maybe an IRC band to snap onto the left or bottom of IE's window. All with COM...funny...isn't xpCOM based on COM?
My demostrations of how CRAP netscape is to my friends, colleages, professors ;) won't be as impressive....oh well. I still think IE is faster than mozilla - and even when NS5 is out, I'm guessing it will still be faster (MS have lots of money and lots of smart engineers)....but I'll will miss the days when I could start 10 isntances of IE (all in seperate processes) before netscape displays it's splash screen :)
Not really...Microsoft used a windows -> unix porting tool...can't remember the guys...they're like Bristol, except bigger and more well known (just can't remember their name :)). Anyway, I think all those windows -> unix tools only support high end unixes like solaris.
Until someone comes along with a linux porting tool, i don't think microsoft will waste it's time.
Oh, and I forgot to say...providing you don't want to use Litestep or soemthing else as your shell.....microsoft aren't forcing the interface onto you. Don't use windows.
This is the fourth time I've had to point this out.
...your shell basically.
Replacing the windows shell (windows explorer) with internet explorer doesn't destablize the windows kernel (ie. causing BSOD). If IE crashes, it will bring down the shell.
However, IE5 by default (you can do this in IE4 under options) opens browsers in a NEW PROCESS. Meaning if they crash, they WON'T bring down your taskbar
Please be more careful with your words.
Also, IE as a shell is well written....you must live in netscape land too much....it doesn't waste memory when you don't use the internet. It's called dynamic loading of libraries...and ever heard of ActiveX? The Internet/WWW related parts won't be in memory until you load up IE.
Having a "don't install IE option" simply isn't an option. Why should microsoft have to develop two different versions of explorer? one to browse the harddrive, one to browse the internet? huh? Why should they limit technology to end users who love it (like me) simply cause netscape whine? You don't HAVE TO USE IE. It's just needs to be installed otherwise major windows features (like help) won't work. Just like you don't have a choice whether WINSOCK.DLL is installed (it's basically the same thing since IE is simple an OCX, or a DLL with a fancy extension). You have a choice to not use IE for web browsing and installing NETSCAPE instead.
I hardly see the problem with having IE on your harddisk so parts of the OS that need it work.
I mean, lets say you didn't like COMCTRL (windows common controls)...and you wanted GTK+ widgets....you can program with GTK+ widgets (like the gimp port for win32) - but you still need COMCTRL installed so that windows and windows applications that use COMCTRL will work.
Just don't use IE!! ok?
"Forcing interfaces" - just don't use IE. Replace your shell with Litestep if you must. Yeesh
Um, haven't you noticed not only how fast, but how small a memory foot print IE is?
IE replaces EXPLORE.EXE with the new EXPLORER.EXE (for IE).....i mean, instead of having the old windows explorer now you have the hybrid internet/windows explorer....it would hardly take up much more space until you start browsing larger websites.
And microsoft wouldn't need to use IE to do evil thinks in the background - they could have done that with the old explorer...or any other thing in windows.
The term integrated here basically means microsoft has updated the windows shell....it's nothing evil or bad or inappropriate.
Noone complained when they moved from program manager to windows explorer. And I don't see why anyone should complain when they move to internet explorer...it makes perfect sense to me. You can replace your windows shell if you want - but deleting IE dlls would render some windows features that make use of HTML (and thus IE) technology like HTML help etc....this would basically render windows as we know it useless...althought the kernel etc would still be running. However, Windows is a lot more than the kernel. It includes the Shell, and the major technologies like COM, ADO, ActiveX, HTML.
that zoom in/out is actually an IE powertoy feature. And powertoys are just registry/script tweaks...so it's acutally something that's pogramatically implementable by anyone using internet explorer scripts.
The way microsoft implmented it was with an external java script which is called upon with a reference to the entire object hircharchy of the current page....and the current object on focus. So you could write a script to say enlarge all the pictures...or change the font or color of selected text...etc...basically dynamic html, except it's just not the page's html/javascript that can change it's appearance, you can do it too with scripts.
I can't believe this is the 3rd time i've had to point this out to people here.
Just cause you heard the guy next door say IE is tightly integrated into windows doesn't mean it will take windows down. Windows is more than the kernel. When they say integrated, they mean IE is now the default SHELL for windows. Meaning, if IE crashes, it takes down the SHELL (in this case explorer). When that happens, explorer will restart. Windows does not get 'taken down' nor would it crash.
Putting that aside for a moment, if you had ever used IE5 you'd realised that IE5 by default starts in a new process - meaning if it crashes, it won't take the shell down. So again, you're just FUD FUD FUDDING.
Microsoft's main motive behind releasing 5.0 was to make Netscape look stupid for not having bigger version numbers. Personally, I find NS 4.X to be a much better internet suite than the crappy MS solution. Seriously, who needs scripting enabled... by default... in their email?
That's the stupidist thing I've heared today. 5.0 had milestone advances in XML and DCOM over HTTP. Not to mention some more (if that's possible) performance increases. These are features most end users won't see - but developers LOVE.
Netscape DOES look stupid not having developed a new version of their browser for like over a year - just rehashed 4.x codebase with extra little 'features' like a shopping button and netcentre has the centre of your world.
NS 4.X a much better internet suite??? You have never used IE5 have you? Never...
NS 4.X is SLOOOOOOOW, BUGGY, and I'd say even tho >90% of people here are Linux advocates, 95% of people here would agree with me. It's uneccesarily bloated and takes up far more memory and CPU time than a web browser with it's limited features should ever take.
I can't handle using software that just does not work. I can't wait 30 seconds for it to load just to have it freeze up trying to render tables, or lock up for 20 seconds trying to load a page. Then if i click on a link while it's loading, most of the time it just sits there...not loading and not going to my new page. It's full of bugs. Why do you think mozilla quickly ran away from the NS4.x codebase and they started over again...strangly enough copying Windows based technology like xpCOM, the registry..etc.
And as for the scripting enabled thing - can't you turn it off yourself? The thing is IE is componentised, so when you view your email in outlook, it's actually IE embedded into your outlook express. You can always turn it off you know. Scripting in your email, is potentially just as bad as scripting on a web page. Most people prefer to have a feature work.
It's like "hey, this page doesn't do XXXXX when it should - IE is crap has no features"...most people don't know how to change options - you'd think nerds(like you're supposed to be) could figure out how.
DLLs are inprocess, IE and Word start in a different process from the DLL. The only advantage would be to cache the DLLs into memory, which since are core windows DLLs anyway would speed up netscape as well.
Lets say your special preloading of DLLs thing is true...what stops netscape from doing it? hrm???
I have everything closed(osa, office toolbar etc..) word still loads just as fast.