kenratboy Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 I have to use IE6 to use 'rich text' and even normal text mode isn't too great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 me too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j-malotky Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 I have no problems with FF. I do not use rich text, never tried. Everything works for me. JM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 IE should be banned. It is awful that you have to use IE to get Windows updates. Firefox is an excellent browser. Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scp53 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 I agree with Marvel. IE is getting out dated for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible Nectar Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 "IE should be banned....." MICROSOFT should be banned. Anything that works that poorly and is that full of holes should be banned. If a certain software maker merged with a certain speaker maker, it would be called MicroBose. It would be a match made in heaven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenratboy Posted March 13, 2005 Author Share Posted March 13, 2005 The computer science professor I have had something to say about Microsoft. This guy is a millionaire (from computers), he has started and sold IT businesses (very sucessfully), have a few homes around the country, etc. Drives a Corvette Z06 to class. Absolute genius. He is not a fan of Microsoft, but accepts their role in the world. He said that people who say stuff like 'Window's sucks because its full of holes' is a fool and doesn't know anything about software. A program as large as Window's is VASTLY complex and is designed to be added to (updates, software, etc.) and that it is 100% IMPOSSIBLE to make it totally safe. Microsoft Windows is the most prominant program as far as security and hackers go, and they every little thing is being tested. Any other complex program has the same flaws as Windows, but people are not choosing to exploit them. Makes sense to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 i have absolutely no problems with FF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 ---------------- On 3/13/2005 8:27:26 PM bsafirebird1969 wrote: i have absolutely no problems with FF ---------------- Same here. I've been using Mozilla on this forum almost since the beginning, and never once, had I ever had a problem on here. Yes, it is true the "Rich Text" does not work, but since I pretty much know most of the formatting codes that I need (and not difficult to look them up on the 'net if I need to figure out how to do something), I just put them in by hand and it works fine that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 ---------------- On 3/13/2005 7:16:06 PM kenratboy wrote: He said that people who say stuff like 'Window's sucks because its full of holes' is a fool and doesn't know anything about software. ---------------- Lets see. I have a four year degree in Computer Science (and starting to work on a Master's degree). I've been prograamming as a professional for the past 12 years (as a hobby much longer than that - over 20). I've written software on everything from the old TRaSh-80s, PC Dos, VAX/VMS, Unix/Linux, and now currently, Windows .NET. I've used/familier with many languages, including Assembler (mainly VAX assembler), Pascal, COBOL, FORTAN, Ada, C/C++, Visual Basic, and Java, and just becoming famlier with C#. I've written some pretty substatial pieces of software, including one program that required me to program SCSI devices down at the "bare-metal", including reading and writing the disk at the sector level. Written a compiler as well as some debuggers. It is not unusal for some of the software I've written to go into 25,000+ lines that I've written myself (not to mention what is written by other members of my team - not unusal for complete projects to go into the 100,000s of lines) And I am one that also says Windows is full of holes, and as described above, I hardly "don't know anything about software". Why is it that we've (as in my programming team), have never had any of the kinds of problems with our Unix installations as we do with the Windows boxes? Yes, I know Windows is a complex piece of software (Ever try to do anything lower-level than the Win32 API? ). But so is Unix, but from my own personal experience, Unix/Linux have conistantly showed better security and stability than any of the Windows boxes. I'll admit that Windows 2000 and XP have gotten much better, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenratboy Posted March 13, 2005 Author Share Posted March 13, 2005 skonpoa: Because there are not thousands of people whose life goal is to exploit a UNIX system. I have a hard time believeing if there was a non-Windows OS as complex and versitile as WinXP, that is would be a whole lot safer is people really wanted to do malicious things (as they do with WinXP). Also, considering what Microsoft needs to do with XP (having it work with everything from the past, work in the future, etc., its not a closed, locked up piece of software), they can't just have a pretty, sealed little box. Again, I am not a huge Microsoft fan, but it makes sense that for what XP is needing to accomplish, there will be bugs. Oh, over 2 years on the SAME INSTALL of XP Pro and I have not had one hard lock!!! That is unfreaking believable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 ---------------- On 3/13/2005 10:09:42 PM kenratboy wrote: skonpoa: Because there are not thousands of people whose life goal is to exploit a UNIX system. ---------------- If you only knew.... Most of the big webservers, corporate servers, etc are Unix based. Believe me, there are alot more people than you think that are trying to break/exploit Unix systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenratboy Posted March 13, 2005 Author Share Posted March 13, 2005 ---------------- On 3/13/2005 11:01:29 PM skonopa wrote: ---------------- On 3/13/2005 10:09:42 PM kenratboy wrote: skonpoa: Because there are not thousands of people whose life goal is to exploit a UNIX system. ---------------- If you only knew.... Most of the big webservers, corporate servers, etc are Unix based. Believe me, there are alot more people than you think that are trying to break/exploit Unix systems. ---------------- And there you go. I know there are plenty on non-Windows systems that are compromised - and in some cases, because of holes. So it just isn't XP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 ---------------- On 3/13/2005 11:17:22 PM kenratboy wrote: And there you go. I know there are plenty on non-Windows systems that are compromised - and in some cases, because of holes. So it just isn't XP. ---------------- I never said that Unix and other non-Windows systems are perfect, but from personal experience and from talking with those that knows what they are doing, Windows is, by far, less secure than many of the others. And it has nothing to do with "how popular" it is. After all, how many VAX/VMS systems have you heard getting compromised? (and you'd be surprised just how many of those are still out there, including the one we still use at work.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgb Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 I can't use rich text, but that's no biggie. I've been using Firefox for a few months now and have enjoyed it. It has a couple flaws but none major IMO. As to Windows... I appreciate what MS has done having lived through the the multi-OS years and nearly driving myself insane trying to find the right computer for a paper I had written, or trying to convert one type of format to the other. I am a pretty high function computer user, and use the computer everyday. The fact that any thing I work on from the word processor to a database to a GIS to an image is transferrable to every other person I have dealings with is an immense plus. I don't want to program (I've done it, it's boring IMO) or try to convert to some "superior" system the geeks have fallen in love with. I want to get on my computer and work. MS has come a very long way, speaking as a former Apple/Mac user. Despite their OS-elitist snobbery, Mac users are generally shunned and mocked in polite society. Most Mac users I know are hippies, unemployed or performance artists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Adams Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 I never said that Unix and other non-Windows systems are perfect, but from personal experience and from talking with those that knows what they are doing, Windows is, by far, less secure than many of the others. And it has nothing to do with "how popular" it is. After all, how many VAX/VMS systems have you heard getting compromised? (and you'd be surprised just how many of those are still out there, including the one we still use at work.) ---------------- First of all, this is in no way a defense of M$.....however, I've read the same type of comments from folks with similiar "credentials" on forums related to motorcycles to forums about A/V. And what I don't get, is if M$ XP or any other of their OS is so flawed, yet there's a host of folks out there that have written millions of lines of code with no flaws, then how come no one has created an OS that has all the Fortune 500 companies beating a path to their door? And how come these flaw-free programmers aren't being hired by M$? I understand that Linux is a great OS. So why aren't Fortune 500 companies going that route? Is it possible that we're just being "Monday morning quarterbacks"??? Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 ---------------- On 3/14/2005 1:48:52 PM Tom Adams wrote: First of all, this is in no way a defense of M$.....however, I've read the same type of comments from folks with similiar "credentials" on forums related to motorcycles to forums about A/V. And what I don't get, is if M$ XP or any other of their OS is so flawed, yet there's a host of folks out there that have written millions of lines of code with no flaws, then how come no one has created an OS that has all the Fortune 500 companies beating a path to their door? ---------------- At the risk of sounding like a 'Geek Snob' as some seems to like to label anybody that has any interest in Linux, it seems that Linux is becoming that OS. However, here is an interesting article that may just very well answer your question better than I can (as I have no say/dealings of just what the "higher-ups" make in software purchase/deployment decisions). The article is a little dated, though (August of 2003). Another article saying sales of Linux servers hit a new high. Sounds to me that Fortune 500 companies are starting to "beat a path to thier door". ---------------- And how come these flaw-free programmers aren't being hired by M$? ---------------- Perhaps, maybe because many of those programmers (including myself) don't want to work for M$? ---------------- I understand that Linux is a great OS. So why aren't Fortune 500 companies going that route? Is it possible that we're just being "Monday morning quarterbacks"??? Tom ---------------- Again, may I refer you to this article as well as this article? It seems that plenty of companies, including Fortune 500 are going that route! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Big companies haven't wanted to switch to Linux because of the support, even though the online/user community support is often far better than what MS gives. And MS charges a lot. But the other non-MS OSes out there, at least most of the Linux flavors, are still user surly and not user friendly. We use them all where I work. Windows, Linux and Solaris (even still have some NEXT PCs alive and kickin'). Was glad when we got rid of VMS at the college. They are all getting better. XP is probably the best OS MS has put out to date, and it should be. The newest really should be your best. There is nothing that works as easily as Windows, when it works the way it is supposed to. Most of the time it does. Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olorin Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 I think the Forum likes Firefox just fine. I've been using it for over a year now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "IE should be banned." Microsoft should be outlawed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.