re: As usual, "runsan" has no clue.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Windows 98 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by runsan
(98 messages posted)
The majority of infections come from sites you visit (it’s not solely IE fault).
IE has a better bookmark system, e.g. I have a single file, and can place it anywhere,
i.e. on my desktop for 'quick access' to the site or in a folder. Another annoyance:
If I have a web page (stored on my drive) with a link to a word document in it or
a program, firefox treats it like a download... with IE, it realises it’s on my own
drive & opens the document/program without any prompt (it opens a .txt or .ppt within
the IE browser so i dont have to access it's window). Firefox start page/search
bar has Google 'tightly-embedded' in it, & they’re obviously bad on privacy.
IE may stored data in the registry, but I securely wipe my drive and 'fresh install'
every 6/7 months, providing I keep the drivers.
On Monday, March 2, 2009 at 5:24 pm, gewg_ wrote:
>runsan wrote:
>|Don’t bother with Firefox
>|
>Before taking to heart anything this user says, look at his record:
>http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum_search?user=1154084049&requested=win98
>His moronic notions have to continually be slapped down by people with a clue.
>He has a great many opinions; none have a basis in fact.
>
>|(it's a con built of IE).
>|
>Complete nonsense.
>IE uses MSHTML (aka the Trident rendering engine--currently M$'s property)
>and Firefox uses the Gecko rendering engine,
>which has Netscape roots and is now Open Source Software under the GPL.
>The only common link between the 2 is Marc Andreessen
>(who start again from scratch after finishing Trident
>--having learned from his mistakes).
>http://www.google.com/search?q=Marc-Andreessen+Mosaic+Spyglass+Netscape+Gecko
>
>|The older versions are slower/
>|
>Claptrap. You won't notice any negative speed difference
>when compared to any version of IE--especially one usable with Win98.
>You may notice an increase in speed, like when processing JavaScript
>with Firefox's (21st-Century) TraceMonkey JavaScript engine.
>
>|bugged
>|
>WRT "bugged" [buggy?]: Total garbage. (Like all versions of FF)--and unlike IE--
>even the old versions aren't open wounds just waiting to be infected.
>
>The time span since FF3 has been released
>hasn't allowed any threats to be developed nor exploited.
>There have also been updates to FF2 since that time.
>Your 'bugged" [buggy?] comment is uninformed crap.
>If you have a link that confirms your statement with details, post it.
>
>Bugs in Open Source Software are squashed MUCH faster than in M$ products.
>There are known bugs in IE that have been there for YEARS without patches
>--and the defects in IE (especially before IE7) will remain in place eternally;
>there is no further suppport for IE6 (and certainly not for earlier versions)
>and IE6 is the last version that works under Win9x
>--MSFT purposely broke compatibility with IE7 and Win9x).
>
>|& the bookmarks aren’t single files,
>|
>...and, as such, don't take up 8kB each on your hard drive.
>
>...and, as a single file, are easier to back up
>(especially if they have names with over 64 characters).
>
>NOTE:
>That said, I like my Bookmarks/Favorites *timestamped*, so I go the other way,
>but there is no other reason I can see for not using the Mozilla method.
>For most things, I like the way IE does it
>BUT I'm *willing* to take the hit on HDD space used
>as well as the extra effort it takes to create those non-native items under Gecko.
>
>|it’s just one complicated file (not convenient).
>|
>You are a moron.
>Gecko/Mozilla/Firefox/SeaMonkey bookmarks are kept in a standard HTML file
>called -- wait for it -- bookmarks.html.
>You can use it the standard way *or* call it as a viewable page of hyperlinks.
>Most people (who notice a difference) find it MORE convenient than IE's Favorites.
>
>|I speculate [you're] using IE5? it’s well-known for screwing-up,
>|
>ALL versions of IE are festering sores. Because of
>the needlessly liberal privileges granted to the highly-integrated M$ browser,
>the *less* you use IE, the **lower** your chances of a SYSTEM infection.
>
>NOTE: I stopped letting IE have access to the 'Net in 2002.
>Anyone can do the same with an entry in his software firewall's configuration.
>
>|I suggest you upgrade to IE6 due to [its] higher performance
>|
>Not "higher" when compared to ANY non-M$ browser
>--if you don't count ease of system infection via IE.
>
>If you run a Micros~1 OS,
>you will probably need to to have a working install of MSHTML (the core engine).
>It is used by the Help system, among other things;
>several (clueless) app vendors also call it (instead of the default browser).
>
>Since M$ shut down the auto-update for 9x, you don't need the M$ browser
>--unless you go to websites that use (the incredibly dangerous) ActiveX controls.
>Immediately after playing Russian Roulette on those sites,
>shut down IE and use a non-M$ browser for the rest of your websurfing.
>
>|(MS has not ended support for it).
>|
>Utter rubbish.
>
>...and if you are concerned about PRIVACY, the way IE keeps stuff in the Registry
>is avoided by using a non-M$ browser.
>Avoiding Micros~1 as much as possible
>makes it MUCH simpler to erase your browsing footprints.
>
>...and if you had READ the thread,
>you would see the OP has started to use Firefox and is VERY impressed with it.
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 | | |  | re: As usual, "runsan" has no clue. (runsan: Tue, Mar 3, 2009, 1:16 pm) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum
|
|
