OT Windows 10

Page 5 of 8  
Hi Vic,
On 2/21/2016 6:53 AM, Vic Smith wrote:

Do they guarantee you won't see them in the future? Or, that they won't gleefully share <whatever> they collect (odd that they are so unwilling to share the details of that, eh?) with the spooks, other marketeers?

I found XP to be more robust than 7even or Vista (never played with the 8's). E.g., *this* machine is "up" for months at a time, toggling between "user1" and "user2" without ever logging off either of them. I tried 7even on one of my workstations and found that it was noticeably more "sluggish" (not in terms of getting work *done* but, rather, getting work *started*).
[I don't upgrade just for the sake of upgrading -- as it invariably costs me some *capability*, in addition to lots of TIME! So, for me, it's always a question of "What is this going to GIVE me that I don't already *have*?" I've not seen anything in that column that has been sufficient to pull me off the XP platform (and W2KS before that)]
I have a desktop publishing program installed on a 7even laptop and it regularly "hangs" (shows a "busy" cursor and becomes unresponsive). Hard to imagine what would be "confusing" it in a program that just processes text and illustrations! Esp when that program NEVER hangs in years of use under XP/W2KS!

I don't really care about how long it takes to install -- as that's a one-time task (and, hopefully, I can clone the disk like I've been able to do previously for additional machines of the same make/model). Smaller footprint would be nice as it would lessen the demands on the donated hardware (I've got a dozen full-size towers that will be scrapped because they don't meet 7even's minimum requirements; pull disks and RAM and scrap the rest! Unfortunate but they'd be bad candidates for the students simply because of their size)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I found XP to be more robust than 7even or Vista
I've found that, too. Vista/7 is a brittle system, and with so many restrictions it's not easy to fix things that go wrong. I was trying to install IE11 recently on Win7-64 or on a Win7-32 laptop. I couldn't get it to work on either one! Microsoft's own browser, which hardly runs anywhere to begin with. Only Win7/8/10 are supported. Yet it wouldn't install.
Win7-32 needed SP1, but that wouldn't install because, it said, there were problematic customizations. ??? It's an extra laptop that's hardly ever used.
On Win7-64 IE11 kept saying it needed to download patches first. It was ridiculous that it should *require* post SP1 patches that are not in the installer. As it turned out, those patches either weren't relevant or were already installed. That didn't satisfy IE11. By the time I was through, Win7 was unstable and a warning on the Desktop was telling me that it was not "genuine". (It's a Dell. Windows should have been able to see that.) I finally ended up reinstalling from a disk image. The sheer incompetence displayed with that IE11 fiasco is jaw-dropping. IE10 was similar. I've never managed to update beyond IE9 on that computer. Not that I care a great deal. I only want it for testing webpages. But it's inexcusable that they can't even make their own browser software install on their own product without problems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 10:24:32 -0500, "Mayayana"

Hardy anywhere? It has 25% of the browser market. I use it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
|> I was trying to install IE11 recently | >on Win7-64 or on a Win7-32 laptop. I couldn't get it | >to work on either one! Microsoft's own browser, which | >hardly runs anywhere to begin with. | | Hardy anywhere? It has 25% of the browser market. | I use it. |
You have my sympathy. :)
IE has anywhere from 10% to 50% share, depending on who you ask. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
But that's IE, not IE11. IE11 can only run on Win7/8/10. It won't install on XP. (Win10 only recently passed XP in usage. XP is still popular. So not being able to run IE11 on XP is a rather pitiful statement about Microsoft.) And it won't install on any other operating system. Given that Microsoft can only manage to get it to run on 7/8/10, I don't think it's too much to ask that the install should be smooth.
The reason I wanted to test with IE11 was because MS broke compatibility in a big way with IE11 and Edge. They've broken most of the technologies that worked in IE4-10. I wanted to see how my own website pages would work. It turned out they don't work at all and would require a total, complex rewrite if I want to support IE11/Edge. Not only would they need to be rewritten, but IE11/Edge no longer support "quirks mode", which allowed one to write webpages that would look the same in IE5 to IE10. Without quirks mode each version of IE is incompatible with the rest and each needs its own special code exceptions in order to display properly.
Given the scale of such a task, I decided, instead, to just show an apology/error page for IE11/Edge. That page suggests that the visitor use another browser or, if that's not possible and they're desperate, that they disable style and reload the page. I get an average of about 400 unique visitors on a weekday. Of those, I estimate 250-300 may be real people. Altogether I'm seeing about 3-10 visitors per day using IE11 or Edge. Nearly all of those are using IE11 on Win7. (Probably a third of those reload the page in another browser within seconds, indicating that they don't depend on IE.) My site is mainly geared toward Windows "power users", scripters, programmers and IT people. Given all that, I'd say that IE11 is not a big factor online. Non-techie people don't generally update things. Techie people know better than to use IE online. So the people actually using IE11 are mostly Microsoft fans who are somewhat handy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 12:25:56 -0500, "Mayayana"

For what? I know, I know. I'm being "spied upon." That's okay. It works very well for me.

Those stats I gave are for IE11. It's all over the net. Why you use a Wiki with old data as a reference is beyond my ken. XP is only about 10% of the market now. But people still drive old cars. My cars are 2003 and 1995.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| >IE has anywhere from 10% to 50% share, depending on | >who you ask. | >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers | > | > But that's IE, not IE11. IE11 can only run on Win7/8/10. | >It won't install on XP. (Win10 only recently passed XP | >in usage. XP is still popular. So not being able to run IE11 | >on XP is a rather pitiful statement about Microsoft.) | | Those stats I gave are for IE11. It's all over the net. | Why you use a Wiki with old data as a reference is beyond my ken.
Because that Wikipedia page is listing the popular stat companies, like statcounter. Perhaps your ken could manage to come up with links if you want to make contrary claims. "It's all over the net" is not useful. You may have got it from an ad in your hotmail for all I know.
Here's w3c's stats. Is that official enough? They put IE11 at 6.75% as of January. That's unusually low because they're counting all visitors, not just desktops. On the other hand, phones and tablets are very real considerations these days. On the bright side, most of those are running Safari or Chrome, so they don't need any special treatment. On my own site those numbers seem to be about right.
Other counters that only track desktops give figures 25-50% for all IE versions.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q che:T4eD8THHc50J:https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx%2B%22www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid%3D0%26qpcustomd%3D0%22&lr&hl=en&as_qdr=all&gbv=1&sei=-QjKVuSoB4rd-QGS7bvIDg&&ct=clnk
It will vary a lot. Shopping sites will vary from more techie sites, for instance. A counter that tracks Victorias Secret and Amazon may have different results from one that tracks CNN and EBay but not Amazon. 25% for IE11 may be realistic in some markets *for desktop only*, but in general browser usage it's quite low. And I know from my own server logs that IE11 is only an occasional visitor to my site, despite it being a Microsoft-centric site. (Frankly I'm shocked at how many people prefer google's Chrome spyware. I don't consider IE spyware. Just unsafe, non-standards-compliant junk. I actually *love* IE for offline use in HTAs. I just don't think it's fit for online use. Chrome, on the other hand, really is spyware.... Well, I should say I don't consider IE to be exceptional spyware. most browsers these days are tracking people, under the guise of such things as "website reputation reporting". Even Firefox has become very sleazy.)
| XP is only about 10% of the market now. | But people still drive old cars. My cars are 2003 and 1995. | That's what I find, too. XP, 8 and 10 are all in the 10% range. The rest is mostly Win7. Another way to look at it is that Windows XP-10 is about 90% of OS share online. About 15+% of those, or 1/6, XP and Vista, can't run Microsoft's latest version of IE. No other OS can run Microsoft's latest version of IE. I don't know about you, but I'd say that's pretty bad performance on the part of Microsoft. To my mind that makes IE11 a niche browser, like Safari. I'm happy to support Safari if I can, but I'm not going to go out of my way for it. The difference is that Safari, like every other non-IE browser, is standards compliant. So I only need to support one of those -- Firefox, Chrome, Safari, etc -- and I automatically support them all. IE11, by contrast, breaks compatibility with IE10, which breaks with IE9, which breaks with IE8... and so on. And they all break compatibility with standards.
You're free to support IE11 if you have a website. I see it as a case of diminishing returns. It's just not worth my time and effort.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 14:24:24 -0500, "Mayayana"

I don't have a website. I just use IE11. With no issues.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 14:24:24 -0500, "Mayayana"

Not when IE11 supports everything back at least to IE8 with it's built-in compatability mode..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 12:25:56 -0500, "Mayayana"

IE11 and Edge are two totally different browsers Edge is a "work in process". Ie11 has built in compatability support and can open and display any webpage that could be opened or viewed with 8, 9, or 10. You may have to tell the browser to use compatability mode - but it is there, available, and simple to implement.

Never depend on ANY OS or browser to continue to support "undoccumented calls" or "undoccumented features" A lot of programmers get way to "smart" for their own good.

Just put a note on the page saying if the page does not open properly in IE11 to use compatability mode.
With Edge, you are totally on your own - I think Microsoft made a big mistake deploying Edge before it was anywhere near ready for prime time. It's the only part of W10 that is not better than or equal to W7, W8, or W8.1 in my eyes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| > The reason I wanted to test with IE11 was because MS | >broke compatibility in a big way with IE11 and Edge | | IE11 and Edge are two totally different browsers Edge is a "work in | process".
They're not that different. Edge is based on IE, with a lot of things removed. It's the same basic rendering engine. And a lot of those changes also affect IE11:
https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2015/05/06/a-break-from-the-past-part-2-saying-goodbye-to-activex-vbscript-attachevent/
| Ie11 has built in compatability support and can open and | display any webpage that could be opened or viewed with 8, 9, or 10. | You may have to tell the browser to use compatability mode - but it is | there, available, and simple to implement. |
No, it isn't. Not for a web designer. You might be able to do it as the viewer, but for the person writing the webpage it requires testing the browser userAgent and then writing special code for each version of IE. As I explained above, up through IE10 there was "quirks mode". As long as I left out the DOCTYPE tag in a webpage it would be rendered old-style in all versions of IE. In IE11 quirks mode no longer works, so each IE version suddenly requires unique code if one wants to accomodate IE11, because each version of IE is incompatible with the last. That means potentially writing one webpage for all other browsers, then one each for each version of IE! And every change in design would require testing in all versions.
| Never depend on ANY OS or browser to continue to support | "undoccumented calls" or "undoccumented features" | A lot of programmers get way to "smart" for their own good.
I don't mean to be harsh, but you're talking way beyond your expertise here. None of this has anything to do with undocumented features. If you don't write graphically complex webpages by hand then there's no way you could know the implications of what's changed with IE11/Edge. For example, VBScript no longer works in IE11. VBS has been standard and documented ever since IE4. Microsoft just decided to remove support for it as of IE11. They also removed support for the IE document object model. That's to say that the actual script code, whether VBS or javascript, can no longer be written in accord with the language as officially defined and documented by Microsoft since IE4. A few versions back that was the *only* way it could be coded. It will work in IE10 compatibility mode, but that means writing different webpages for different IE versions, as noted above, because IE10 mode is not going to display the same way as quirks mode, IE8 mode, IE 9 mode, etc.
It's complicated and I expect few people really care about the details. But the long and the short of it is that Microsoft has made a calamity of IE for over 15 years now. It's a bit like the way refrigerators are made these days. With Firefox, Chrome, Safari it's like a refrigerator that's put together with only #2 phillips head screws. So you only need one tool to fix dozens of refrigerator types. The version doesn't matter. They've always been made that way. Internet Explorer is like a typical refrigerator: One screw is phillips. Another is a hex head. Another is a torx head. Then there might be 3 sizes of square drive. You have to have a big toolbox to work on it. Now imagine that they also change several of those screws on each model, in a vaguely defined attempt to become more standardized. So now you have no idea what you'll find if you go to fix a frig. You'll need to carry a big toolbox. That's analogous to what Microsoft has done with IE. In many respects they did it with good intentions. But it's nevetheless a big mess.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 18:15:53 -0500, "Mayayana"

Every situation we have run accross with web pages that did not work properly in IE11 have been solved by using compatability mode.
Even those that were just way too fancy and complicated than they needed to be.
Taking the browser out of the equasion completely, many of these pages would be totally useless on a dialup or slow network connection to start with.. Web designers as a "breed" tend to totally over-design web pages, adding complexity only because they can. The ability to "enhance" the page has totally outstripped the need, and the ability of the majority to access the content reliably.
Quirks or not.

And that is also what way too many web designers have done with the design of the web-pages. Your toolbox is too full of tools that are incompatible with the refrigerator you are building UNLESS you use a whole lot of different "screws" etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
|> The ability to |> "enhance" the page has totally outstripped |> the need, and the ability |> of the majority to access the content reliably. |> Quirks or not.
....
|> You'll need to carry a | >big toolbox. That's analogous to what Microsoft | >has done with IE. In many respects they did it | >with good intentions. But it's nevetheless a big | >mess. | > | And that is also what way too many web designers have done with the | design of the web-pages. Your toolbox is too full of tools that are | incompatible with the refrigerator you are building UNLESS you use a | whole lot of different "screws" etc.
Your talking nonsense and hearsay. And you've completely misinterpreted my analogy. As usual, you just have to be the expert, even when you don't know anything about the topic.
Yes, many webpages are overproduced. Some pages now use 1/4 MB of javascript. But that has nothing to do with the problems of IE. And you know nothing about my "toolbox".
My webpages are all lean and coded by hand with no need for script, ActiveX, Flash, JSON, HTML5, or anything else other than vanilla HTML and CSS that's been supported for many years. Nothing "cutting edge". Nothing overly complex.
I use a little script in my pages for IE only because older versions of IE don't support the CSS that all other browsers have supported for many years. My pages for all other browsers have no script. All of my pages work perfectly in every version of every browser currently in use, except for IE11 and Edge. To support those would take a lot of work. For you to tell me I'm mistaken about that, when you don't even know anything about webpage coding or browser differences, is beyond ridiculous.
You may be finding all pages work fine in IE11. That's fine if it's working for you. It really depends, though, on what sites you visit. And a browser that "always works if we use compatibility mode" is hardly a good browser. No one should need that. There's no compatibility mode in Firefox. It just works.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:47:40 -0500, "Mayayana"

I haven't done any coding for the last 7 years but I built the original e-commerce site for the insurance company. It worked very well, but it wasn't fancy. We hired a developer to take over that work so I could concentrate on the other work that needed to be done. She coded everything by hand but was unable to produce some of the features management determined they needed, so we moved to a new developer who uses some more advanced programming tools and produces webs that work on mobile devices as well - since many of our clients depend almost exclusively on their mobile devices to access the net.

By "your" I was referring to the developers that build that type of web - not "yours" in particular.

You don't know what I know about webpage coding. I know I'm not up to date on the latest methods - but I've done a fair bit of web development in years past

Most of the time compatability mode is not required. When a site doesn't work, every one I have run into runs well on compatability mode. Most that work fine without will give problems if compatability mode is used. Most of what causes problems for us falls into the class known as "portals"

Most of the time you are right, Firefox works. BUT Firefox does not integrate with the major insurance application that is used heavily in the office - IE does - as does Outlook.. Using the same browser for everything is a lot more efficient than using different browsers for different applications.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/21/2016 08:48 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-page_application
That's a quick overview. It's a new world that makes SEO a lot of fun since there isn't anything there to crawl.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/21/2016 06:47 PM, Mayayana wrote:

I'd be dead without script and JSON. Basically there isn't any 'webpage' there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/21/2016 10:50 PM, rbowman wrote:

I like html, css, and some js for stuff I've done.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| > My webpages are all lean and coded by | > hand with no need for script, ActiveX, | > Flash, JSON, HTML5, or anything else | > other than vanilla HTML and CSS that's | > been supported for many years. Nothing | > "cutting edge". Nothing overly complex. | | I'd be dead without script and JSON. Basically there isn't any 'webpage' | there.
You mean you use something like Wix? you're right, there's no webpage there. It's essentially script-based software, served to a URL request. Unfortunately, that also makes security almost impossible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/22/2016 06:36 AM, Mayayana wrote:

https://developers.arcgis.com/javascript/jssamples/#
This is one example with samples. ESRI builds their API on top of the dojo toolkit. The samples use the online ESRI data but we would be pulling from our own servers, tiled or dynamic map services, geocoding services, routing services, plus additional data in JSON or KML format.
This is not ours and Seattle is using Bing rather thanESRI. but this is the general idea:
http://web6.seattle.gov/mnm/incidentresponse.aspx
We don't do public facing web apps so security is not an issue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| > You mean you use something like Wix? you're | > right, there's no webpage there. It's essentially | > script-based software, served to a URL request. | > Unfortunately, that also makes security almost | > impossible. | | This is not ours and Seattle is using Bing rather thanESRI. but this is | the general idea: | | http://web6.seattle.gov/mnm/incidentresponse.aspx | | | We don't do public facing web apps so security is not an issue. |
That's not Wix. I don't have a Wix link offhand, but it's actually even further removed from being a webpage than what you linked. A typical Wix page is nearly all script. The script embeds obfuscated strings that detail specs for the webpage. The webpage content is loaded from the Wix server. So without script there's actually no webpage there. And with script you have to trust that whatever eventually loads will be safe. Looking at the pre-script source code is of no value.
But the security problem is similar with the page you linked. First, it's completely broken without script. (I see the left-side menu but no content at all.) Second, the script is coming from a number of locations. On many sites those scripts will also come from advertisers and trackers. That means not only trusting script but also trusting the script of a half dozen remote URLs, and then trusting the script from the dozen URLs they link to. It's an orgy of software being loaded willy nilly into the browser, just to display a webpage. Meanwhile, one of the biggest threats these days is malware installed through script used in ads bought through big ad servers anonymously. Browsing simply cannot be made safe with script enabled, yet the script mania fad is breaking the Internet for anyone who disables it. All unnecessarily.
So the very idea of using big libraries to create pages that break without script ends up forcing people to be unsafe online. It used to be a matter of common sense and common courtesy not to use script unless absolutely necessary. Dynamic functionality by anyone other than amateurs was done with server-side PHP or ASP. Now it's all being done clientside, often with a dozen or more javascript files, and a total page load of over 1 MB in some cases. I don't mind enabling script at a site like Netflix. They do a good job with it and it really does add a lot of useful functionality. But very few sites are like that. Most have no business using any script at all.
Increasingly it's also being used to force ads and tracking. For instance, some of the Microsoft pages are now blank gray without script. When the page loads, script removes the gray block. The page is fine if I read it without style, because it never needed script in the first place! But Microsoft doesn't want you to be able to read their pages unless you let them rummage around on your system, so the deliberately block your access if you disable script. And it's not just MS. That trick is becoming common.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/21/2016 03:07 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Cygwin has had that problem. They used an undocumented variable in ntdll.dll and MS kept moving the cheese.
otoh, some are too anal. That was the death of XHTML. It was a noble ambition but with millions of HTML documents that weren't legal XHTML it didn't attract support. If anything HTML5 is even more forgiving.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.