Use of IE ... today?

[sedrosken]

Doesn't anyone else find themselves using IE more and more? In my experience, IE 11 is faster than Chrome because its hardware acceleration is enabled by default. I just switched over completely on my newly Windows 8.1-ified laptop.

A note on that - - I, er, traded my Win 7 Home Premium key to a relative for their Win 8 Pro key - - They didn't like 8 and I wanted to give it a real go. Oddly enough, their laptop came with Pro! Guess they paid extra for it without realizing it.

I will say that it will take some getting used to... Classic Start helps a bit with that.

Now I'm having issues playing UT 99 on here! I think it's because I can't use anything other than M$'s WDDM driver for my graphics - - Intel doesn't support it with Win8 anymore - - this is the same reason I can't play Minecraft on here anymore. Diablo 1 crashes on startup now. Oh well - - guess that's what my AXP is for...

 

[Stereodude]

Doesn't anyone else find themselves using IE more and more?

No, I don't. I use it as little as possible, which is very close to never.

 

[sedrosken]

I just think that since IE 9 they're starting to actually put some effort into it. I guess they kinda have to, considering they get very stiff competition out of Chrome, Firefox, and even Opera these days. It's almost like they're pulling an IE 4 on us, making IE seem faster but really sabotaging the speed of competitors programs. They especially need to put actual effort in because these days installing an alternative is as easy as point and click.

 

[sedrosken]

And while were on the subject of Windows 8.x, I couldn't really tell you if I hated it or not - - I'm having issues playing my games, but that's more hardware and driver related, and while everythings very different, I guess I'll get used to it in the long run. Like the jump from Win3.1 to Win95, I guess.

 

[LunarMist]

I use it.

 

[ddrueding]

The only sites I use IE for are ones that won't work with the more secure competition. Strangely enough, it is usually banking or intranet sites.

 

[Chewy509]

The only sites I use IE for are ones that won't work with the more secure competition. Strangely enough, it is usually banking or intranet sites.

You do realise IE on Win8 can be more secure than Firefox due to the new sandboxing technologies included in IE and Win8? (IIRC, neither Chrome nor Firefox take advantage of those Win8 tech's yet).

And for the OP, I don't use as it's not available on the desktops/laptops I normally use.

 

[Mercutio]

You do realise IE on Win8 can be more secure than Firefox due to the new sandboxing technologies included in IE and Win8?

I'd say that's partially true at best, given Microsoft's reluctance to issue any amount of out of band software patches. Game-breaking bug? "We'll send out a fix second Tuesday of next month."

IE10 and 11 with Tracking Protection Lists are definitely not as bad as older versions. I still don't LIKE using it, because I miss having a proper add-on ecosystem and still have to change all the stupid defaults.

At the moment I actually think desktop Chrome is just as bad or worse than IE11 and here's why: Chrome users have picked up some of the "I'm immune to malware"-attitude common among some Fruit-using people while at the same time having some of the most obscure, least centralized and least manageable configuration functions for browsers that do become infected. Chrome has a tendency to not end all processes when all of its host windows are closed and the steps for removing a rogue Extension are only slightly better than uninstalling an Antivirus program by hand. It's not a winning combination.

 

[ddrueding]

I'm hesitant to trust a closed-source product in an environment (the internet) that is changing so rapidly. How many known security bugs are in Firefox or Chrome? It may be a lot, but at least it is a known quantity. Deal-breakers are also dealt with more promptly (as Merc has stated).

 

[Howell]

Corporately we use all three due to incompatibilities here and there. I'm pushing for documenting the incompatibilities so I can push FF out the door.

 

[Mercutio]

Why would you want to push out Firefox?

 

[Handruin]

I tend to avoid IE whenever possible. There are still a rare few pages internally at work that only function properly on IE so at most maybe once or twice a month I have to use it. It looks like IE 10 is what's on my work laptop.

 

[sedrosken]

Relative decided they didnt want to void their warranty. So Windows 7 it is. Will reinstall when I get home. Its probably for the best. With win7 comes Chrome again.

 

[P5-133XL]

You can run Chrome on XP and Win8. I'm doing it right now an an XP-Pro (x64 version) as well as Win8.1.

 

[Howell]

It is more difficult to centrally manage the cache file size (restrict disk space) with FF. Very hacky.

 

[Will Rickards]

I use IE only on internal sites for work.
And an older version at that due to compatibility.

Chrome for literally everything else.

Chrome with abp isn't immune to malware. As my nephew proved. But for most people who aren't installing random crap it does help a lot.

 

[Mercutio]

Wait until you run in to something that manages to convince Windows that a particular Chrome Add-on that it was installed "by Enterprise Policy."

 

[Howell]

Sounds like a local registry entry. Google has adm/x available for chrome.

 

[sedrosken]

I'm done reinstalling. Windows 7, all my programs, and a fairly invasive Windows 8 theme (invasive as it replaced 99% of my original shell, from explorer buttons to explorer window borders to sounds to cursors to log on screens to boot screens and everything in between), are all installed.

You guys might not believe this - - when I started up after I finished installing everything, my RAM usage was 19%, after everything loaded. That is the lowest I've ever gotten it under Windows 7 with 4 GB RAM. Normally it hovers around 27%.

 

[Mercutio]

Chrome has its own internal config, but it also interacts with the registry and with GUID entries in its own profile folders (there are at least two that I know of) and bad guys can interact with any of the above in an effort to make their mal-extensions as difficult to remove as possible. I've found a number of them that can survive nuking all of Chrome's profile folders and registry entries, let alone a simple uninstall or profile reset. The situation is not unlike dealing with BHOs on IE6 before the development of Hijack This and as a result, Chrome's stock with me is way, way, WAY down at the moment. There's just no excuse for it being that bad these days.

 

[Chewy509]

my RAM usage was 19%, after everything loaded.

So ~819MB used, just for the OS and a few helper applications? :-o

Out of interest, what does Lubuntu use on your other box? snigger, snigger...

PS. just kidding, I now, Win7 doesn't like being on machines with less than 2GB these days...

 

[Tannin]

My usage of IE has more than doubled recently. Already this year I have used it on as many as three occasions for as long as it took to download a proper browser.

 

[Tannin]

Also, I hate Chrome. It is the ultimate airline chicken of browsers. The only thing I use Chrome for is Google and/or Bing (Nokia) maps. The Google Maps software is much better (Nokia/Bing Maps is buggy), but Google's actual maps lack a great deal of essential geographic detail, which I need. On the other hand, only oogle Maps has a (semi) decent terrain view. So I switch between them, in each case using Chrome because Chrome seems to work better with the Google product than other browsers do.

 

[P5-133XL]

oogle maps is just google earth filtered to remove anything that can't be seen through a window. It is the ultimate Windows experience for peeping toms. For them, the terrain is perfect.

 

[Howell]

 

[sedrosken]

So ~819MB used, just for the OS and a few helper applications? :-o

Out of interest, what does Lubuntu use on your other box? snigger, snigger...

PS. just kidding, I now, Win7 doesn't like being on machines with less than 2GB these days...

Dunno what Lubuntu used, but XP uses ~200 MB on a 1GB system. I noticed that Windows XP and Vista are not terribly efficient with RAM - XP is more efficient with 512 MB than with 2GB, and Vista isn't efficient with anything, but 7 ran all around very well on my P4, considering it was on minimum specs. Nothing like XP was on 64 MB RAM. In fact, the only thing stopping me from installing it on my AXP is it's distinct lack of support for my GeForce2 MX. I currently can't afford an upgrade. When I do purchase a new video board for it I'll also upgrade it to 2GB RAM so 7 will run more happily. On that subject, what is the best ATi/AMD AGP board? I know nVidia's is the GeForce 6800 Ultra, but am willing to consider other options, especially if ATi/AMDs offerings are more attractively priced. I figure if I'm gonna upgrade it, I might as well give it the maximum it can handle. Like upgrading my laptop's CPU - what's the point if it isn't going to be the best it can use when my current CPU does the job?

 

[Chewy509]

On that subject, what is the best ATi/AMD AGP board?

Native AGP: Radeon X850 XT PE or FireGL X3-256 (which is an up-spec'ed X800XT).

PCIe-AGP Bridge chip: Radeon HD 4670 or Radeon HD 3870

The latter cards use a bridge chip to turn a PCIe card into a AGP card. There are known compatibility issues with some AGP chipsets and these cards, but this is largely undocumented or hard to find on the internet. Work for some, don't work for others...

Mind you nVidia has a similar problem on some of the 6800 Ultras as well. (There are 2 different 6800Ultra GPUs, one is a native AGP chipset (NV40) and is also used as the basis of the Quadro FX 4000, and a PCIe based chip (NV45). Some manufacturers did released AGP 6800Ultra's using the NV45 + bridge chip as this was rumored to be cheaper than the NV40 chip). So you need to be careful. The GeForce FX 5950 Ultra however are all AGP chips.