I don't design for tech impaired ducks, but if I would I'd refuse to suggest to them an upgrade from one pile of shit to another. Maybe pile of shit 9 will smell less, let's pray.
IE6countdown.com – a wolf in sheep's clothing
131–140 of 158 posts
Re: IE6countdown.com – a wolf in sheep's clothing
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not my reason, and I've never once mentioned it. I don't care a bit about other people's security. It's an important issue, but life is short, and I've got other stuff to worry about. My applications have to run in people's browsers...if there are a significant number of people using crappy old browsers (of which IE8 is one), it affects my life and my use of time.
Alright, well I'm in security and I want people off Windows XP. What now? Do we fight over who has the more self-serving agenda? Please. Since when did Hacker News become about pandering to software development subfields?
The difference is that XP can be coerced into a reasonable semblance of security, whereas IE6 is unfixable.
Re: IE6countdown.com – a wolf in sheep's clothing
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should make a free Windows 7 Basic basic (basically XP but newer ;p) upgrade. That way people would have a option but that IF they have a PC capable of running a basic version of Windows 7.
Really I think it's surprising that MS hasn't done this rather than continuing to spend money on XP security patches.
Companies don't usually put off upgrading for lack of money, rather all the outdated internal software that will have to be fixed.
Re: IE6countdown.com – a wolf in sheep's clothing
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alright, well I'm in security and I want people off Windows XP. What now? Do we fight over who has the more self-serving agenda? Please. Since when did Hacker News become about pandering to software development subfields?
The difference is that XP can be coerced into a reasonable semblance of security, whereas IE6 is unfixable.
XP is also unfixable. You just know more about web development than you do about permissions security.
Re: IE6countdown.com – a wolf in sheep's clothing
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that XP can be coerced into a reasonable semblance of security, whereas IE6 is unfixable.
XP is also unfixable. You just know more about web development than you do about permissions security.
So, are you saying that Windows 7 is significantly more secure than XP can ever be?
Re: IE6countdown.com – a wolf in sheep's clothing
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
XP is also unfixable. You just know more about web development than you do about permissions security.
So, are you saying that Windows 7 is significantly more secure than XP can ever be?
Yes. A number of security augmentations in Windows 7 required significant modifications to the operating system kernel and user space environment (almost to the point of a rewrite in some cases). These modifications cannot happen in Windows XP without turning Windows XP into Windows 7.
Re: IE6countdown.com – a wolf in sheep's clothing
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only people "coping" with IE are Web developers. Most users that have something greater than IE6 never even notice that poor experience nor do they know any better to begin with -- I don't even think a lot of users could tell the difference if you showed them. Try showing your grandmother why Chrome is better. I know I would have a hard time "selling it." >Heck. Even Microsoft would stop spending money developing…
Some of the least technically inclined people I know massively prefer Chrome to Internet Explorer. Chrome has a noticeable speed advantage, nags less and within an hours casual use it has their favorite sites one click away when they open the browser. These are all noticeable improvements, even to users who couldn't care less about web standards.
It's also much easier to sell Chrome than, e.g. Firefox. My current browser of choice is Firefox 4, but whenever I'm setting up someone's computer, I give them Chrome.
If I gave them Firefox, they'll have the attitude of "I want the old one back!". For chrome however, they already use Google, so they're happy using "Google" to view other pages. And while I worry a little about Possibly accidentally creating a Google = the Internet opinion in them, transparent automatic updates prevent this having consequences like the IE = the Internet attitude others have.
Re: IE6countdown.com – a wolf in sheep's clothing
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that XP can be coerced into a reasonable semblance of security, whereas IE6 is unfixable.
XP is also unfixable. You just know more about web development than you do about permissions security.
Not true. First of all, I wouldn't use Windows at all on a machine I depended on for security. The fact is my XP box has never had a bug on it. It's fully patched, services off, behind a nat, with firefox and noscript. Acl's can be improved but I've never bothered. I admit it takes a lot of upfront prep to get XP safe to use, but it can be done if one has the knowledge.
Who said I know anything about web development? Greybeard here that learned on the Vic-20.
Re: IE6countdown.com – a wolf in sheep's clothing
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, are you saying that Windows 7 is significantly more secure than XP can ever be?
Yes. A number of security augmentations in Windows 7 required significant modifications to the operating system kernel and user space environment (almost to the point of a rewrite in some cases). These modifications cannot happen in Windows XP without turning Windows XP into Windows 7.
Not enabled by default making them less effective than they should be.
Re: IE6countdown.com – a wolf in sheep's clothing
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of the least technically inclined people I know massively prefer Chrome to Internet Explorer. Chrome has a noticeable speed advantage, nags less and within an hours casual use it has their favorite sites one click away when they open the browser. These are all noticeable improvements, even to users who couldn't care less about web standards.
It's also much easier to sell Chrome than, e.g. Firefox. My current browser of choice is Firefox 4, but whenever I'm setting up someone's computer, I give them Chrome. If I gave them Firefox, they'll have the attitude of "I want the old one back!". For chrome however, they already use Google, so they're happy using "Google" to view other pages. And while I worry a little about Possibly accidentally creating a Google…
> Possibly accidentally creating a Google = the Internet opinion
Well... At least they have a "don't be evil" in their corporate values. ;-)