On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:47:55 -0500, Stan Horwitz >
wrote:

>In article >,
> notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>>
>> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
>>
>> Only an Apple zealot could make that statement with a straight face.
>>
>> nb
>
>On the contrary, only a person who knows how to read prices online would
>say that with a straight face. The Vista edition that's functionally
>equivalent to Mac OS X is Home Ultimate. Amazon.com is offering Vista
>Home Ultimate SP1 for $238.95 while Mac OS X is offered by amazon.com
>for $109.99. In order for Windows Vista users to get the same level of
>functionality that Mac OS X 10.5 users get, it costs them more than
>twice as much money. And if you add Apple's new iLife '09 onto the
>price, its still cheaper then Home Ultimate.

I don't think "PC" people care. Mac and PC platforms are used by
distinctly different user groups.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:31:54 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>I was a Mac user for a long time, both at work and at home. For some
>years, I worked on an application that only ran on under Windows, so I
>mostly used a PC then. I did occasional conversion work. I
>particularly remember helping people who were switching from PC to Mac,
>or vice versa. Switching to the Mac was trivial. In fact, most people
>refused to believe me when I said that I was done. I hadn't taught them
>anything! Going the other way caused a lot of hard feelings. They
>sometimes got very angry at me. I would try to explain that IT didn't
>decide that they should switch from Mac to PC, their boss had made that
>decision. They often didn't believe me. Why would their boss screw
>them over like that? Well, either their boss was more familiar with a
>PC, or usually, they saw that they could save a few hundred dollars in
>purchase cost.

I've wasted too much time in a Mac lab fighting with the OS when I
should have been learning a software application. I HATE Mac/Apple!


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:44:07 -0500, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>I got such a great deal at Tiger Direct (they have a store here in Raleigh)
>that I didn't blink when it said it came with Vista. (I bought a new desktop
>last May, and insisted it had XP Pro on it, though. I do most of my work
>there, so I figured I can afford to try out Vista. If for any reason it
>sucks in time, I will just reformat it and put XP on.

I want a hybrid (PC) next because they're small and cute - I
especially like what Dell has to offer. http://www.dell.com/hybrid


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:49:08 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2009-01-23, Paul M. Cook > wrote:
>>
>> The average home user has little reason not to go Vista. Capable machines
>> to run it are very cheap these days.....
>
>Are they? I recall the $300 Vista boxes at Walmart. I also recall the
>scandal over boxes (computers) that were lableled Vista ready when, in fact,
>they were not. Plus, these same low end boxes come with Vista home edition,
>the version that has none of the neato trick features that are supposed to
>make Vista a good reason to upgrade. In the end, the need to buy a new
>piece of hardware just to take advantage of a questionable new operation
>system is just plain stupid. M$ and Intel have been foisting this scam off
>on the public for a couple decades, now, and it's finally bit them both in
>the ass.
>
Oh, come on. The average home user has little reason to switch OS.



--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-01-31, blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> in fairness, i should say that i know some pretty sensible people who
>> like
>> linux. but there are other people who use it because they feel microsoft
>> is unspeakable evil, and should be banished from the earth, possibly with
>> all its users.
>
> The evil is not unspeakable in my book. M$ will resort to any dirty
> trick,
> tell any lie, spread any untruth. M$ is responsible for the now
> ubiquitous
> acronym, FUD... Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. They are no stranger to blatant
> theft and they prosper by extortion on a level that would make organized
> crime weep for joy. They offer a product that is getting worse, not
> better,
> while charging ever more money for it. They work overtime to limit the
> choice of the worldwide digital community. Banished? Nah. Like I said,
> choice above all, but I do believe M$ should be in the dictionary next to
> the definition of slimey.
>
I hate when you sound like a nutjob.

On 2009-03-20, cyberpurrs > wrote:
>

> I hate when you sound like a nutjob.

Sounding like a nutjob is one of the few advantages of age.

nb

notbob wrote:

> On 2009-03-20, cyberpurrs > wrote:
> >
>
> > I hate when you sound like a nutjob.
>
> Sounding like a nutjob is one of the few advantages of age.
>


I just call it having "strong opinions", nb...shilly-shallying is for
younger folx who have more time on their hands.

;-)


--
Best
Greg

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-03-20, cyberpurrs > wrote:
>>
>
>> I hate when you sound like a nutjob.
>
> Sounding like a nutjob is one of the few advantages of age.
>

I know. I frequently sound like a nutjob.

Internet Explorer V 8 is now available. No major changes though.

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> Internet Explorer V 8 is now available. No major changes though.
>

I am using it now. It keeps hanging up.

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:21:51 -0400, cybercat wrote:

> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Internet Explorer V 8 is now available. No major changes though.
>>
>
> I am using it now. It keeps hanging up.

i haven't seen any version of i.e. that can touch firefox. or any other
browser, really.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:19:32 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:21:51 -0400, cybercat wrote:
>
>> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Internet Explorer V 8 is now available. No major changes though.
>>>
>>
>> I am using it now. It keeps hanging up.
>
>i haven't seen any version of i.e. that can touch firefox. or any other
>browser, really.
>
>your pal,
>blake


I have always felt the same way, but running IE8 under 64 bit has been
impressive. I don't like it as well under 32 bit, though.

I have some sites that I must access with IE, so I always keep a copy
around for that, anyway. Still you could have knocked me over with a
feather at the performance of 8.

Boron

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:20:17 -0400, Boron Elgar wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:19:32 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:21:51 -0400, cybercat wrote:
>>
>>> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Internet Explorer V 8 is now available. No major changes though.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am using it now. It keeps hanging up.
>>
>>i haven't seen any version of i.e. that can touch firefox. or any other
>>browser, really.
>>
>>your pal,
>>blake
>
> I have always felt the same way, but running IE8 under 64 bit has been
> impressive. I don't like it as well under 32 bit, though.
>
> I have some sites that I must access with IE, so I always keep a copy
> around for that, anyway. Still you could have knocked me over with a
> feather at the performance of 8.
>
> Boron

i have an add-on to firefox called 'IE Tab) that allows any page to be
displayed by i.e. with two mouse clicks.

<http://download.cnet.com/IE-Tab/3000-2356_4-10470729.html>

there's another program out there that does the same thing, but i can't
remember the name.

your pal,
blake

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> Boron Elgar >
> news >
>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:19:32 GMT, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
> I am using it now. It keeps hanging up.
>>> i haven't seen any version of i.e. that can touch firefox. or any
>>> other browser, really.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>> I have always felt the same way, but running IE8 under 64 bit has been
>> impressive. I don't like it as well under 32 bit, though.
>>
>> I have some sites that I must access with IE, so I always keep a copy
>> around for that, anyway. Still you could have knocked me over with a
>> feather at the performance of 8.
>>
>> Boron
>
> Like you I keep IE in case I have to use it. I still don't think
> anything is as good, browser wise, as Firefox. I pretty much use Firefox
> exclusively.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
In the course of business I have to use IE to access some web sites as
they won't accept anything else. Totally PMO because I don't care for IE
and never have, have always used some form of Mozilla since 1992.

I always wonder if those sites are in cahoots with MS just to make me
mad. <VBG>

George Shirley wrote:

> In the course of business I have to use IE to access some web sites as
> they won't accept anything else. Totally PMO because I don't care for IE
> and never have, have always used some form of Mozilla since 1992.
>
> I always wonder if those sites are in cahoots with MS just to make me
> mad. <VBG>

I lurk, and sometimes post, to the Mozilla ant Thunderbird newsgroups
and the consensus there is that the programmers who design those pages
that only work with IE are at fault for not knowing the proper stuff to
make the pages work in other browsers. JMTCW

--
Janet Wilder
way-the-heck-south Texas
spelling doesn't count
but cooking does

Janet Wilder wrote:
> George Shirley wrote:
>
>> In the course of business I have to use IE to access some web sites as
>> they won't accept anything else. Totally PMO because I don't care for
>> IE and never have, have always used some form of Mozilla since 1992.
>>
>> I always wonder if those sites are in cahoots with MS just to make me
>> mad. <VBG>
>
> I lurk, and sometimes post, to the Mozilla ant Thunderbird newsgroups
> and the consensus there is that the programmers who design those pages
> that only work with IE are at fault for not knowing the proper stuff to
> make the pages work in other browsers. JMTCW
>

news.mozilla.org

Sorry I should have posted that. It's free.

--
Janet Wilder
way-the-heck-south Texas
spelling doesn't count
but cooking does

Janet Wilder wrote:
> George Shirley wrote:
>
>> In the course of business I have to use IE to access some web sites as
>> they won't accept anything else. Totally PMO because I don't care for
>> IE and never have, have always used some form of Mozilla since 1992.
>>
>> I always wonder if those sites are in cahoots with MS just to make me
>> mad. <VBG>
>
> I lurk, and sometimes post, to the Mozilla ant Thunderbird newsgroups
> and the consensus there is that the programmers who design those pages
> that only work with IE are at fault for not knowing the proper stuff to
> make the pages work in other browsers. JMTCW
>
I spoke to one of them by phone at a site that only wants IE used. She
was a snotty little thing, sounded like a five-year old when I asked her
why they didn't want people who used Mozilla to access their website.
The folks on those newsgroups could just be right.

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:56:04 -0500, Janet Wilder wrote:

> George Shirley wrote:
>
>> In the course of business I have to use IE to access some web sites as
>> they won't accept anything else. Totally PMO because I don't care for IE
>> and never have, have always used some form of Mozilla since 1992.
>>
>> I always wonder if those sites are in cahoots with MS just to make me
>> mad. <VBG>
>
> I lurk, and sometimes post, to the Mozilla ant Thunderbird newsgroups
> and the consensus there is that the programmers who design those pages
> that only work with IE are at fault for not knowing the proper stuff to
> make the pages work in other browsers. JMTCW

that's my understanding as well. apparently some things work with i.e.
that don't comply with the HTML (?) standards.

i'm with george, though, in that i have an aversion (perhaps irrational) to
i.e. and always have. it's not just an anti-microsoft attitude, i just
think it looks cruddy.

your pal,
firefoxy

Boron Elgar > wrote in
news
> I have some sites that I must access with IE, so I always keep a
> copy around for that, anyway.

yeah, me too, which is why i use IE Tab on Firefox. it translates the
bad HTML (Front Page) like IE, but it still has the safety of
Firefox... and i don't have to switch browsers for those few odd
sites that can't figure out real HTML.
lee

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:46:37 +0000 (UTC), enigma wrote:

> Boron Elgar > wrote in
> news >
>> I have some sites that I must access with IE, so I always keep a
>> copy around for that, anyway.
>
> yeah, me too, which is why i use IE Tab on Firefox. it translates the
> bad HTML (Front Page) like IE, but it still has the safety of
> Firefox... and i don't have to switch browsers for those few odd
> sites that can't figure out real HTML.
> lee

i'll put in a vote for IE Tab also. it seems to work pretty well.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:

>
> i'm with george, though, in that i have an aversion (perhaps
> irrational) to
> i.e. and always have. it's not just an anti-microsoft attitude, i
> just think it looks cruddy.

I wouldn't use the word cruddy - kitsch is more like it..
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:56:04 -0500, Janet Wilder wrote:
>
>> George Shirley wrote:
>>
>>> In the course of business I have to use IE to access some web sites as
>>> they won't accept anything else. Totally PMO because I don't care for IE
>>> and never have, have always used some form of Mozilla since 1992.
>>>
>>> I always wonder if those sites are in cahoots with MS just to make me
>>> mad. <VBG>
>> I lurk, and sometimes post, to the Mozilla ant Thunderbird newsgroups
>> and the consensus there is that the programmers who design those pages
>> that only work with IE are at fault for not knowing the proper stuff to
>> make the pages work in other browsers. JMTCW
>
> that's my understanding as well. apparently some things work with i.e.
> that don't comply with the HTML (?) standards.

This makes sense, Microsoft being the big dog, is probably less inclined
to follow a third party standard. My guess that's changing with the
advent of other browsers.

> i'm with george, though, in that i have an aversion (perhaps irrational) to
> i.e. and always have. it's not just an anti-microsoft attitude, i just
> think it looks cruddy.

My problem with IE is that it allows pop-ups. People using my laptop
will get alarmed when fake security warnings pop up and they'll ask me
if they should click on the scan or install or some other bogus button.
I hate that. I'll remove the pop-up window and tell them to use Chrome
instead. For some reason, they seem incapable of understanding why they
should do this.

Chrome is pretty good - it suppresses most scripts and doesn't allow you
a choice in the matter. :-)


>
> your pal,
> firefoxy

enigma wrote:
> Boron Elgar > wrote in
> news >
>> I have some sites that I must access with IE, so I always keep a
>> copy around for that, anyway.
>
> yeah, me too, which is why i use IE Tab on Firefox. it translates the
> bad HTML (Front Page) like IE, but it still has the safety of
> Firefox... and i don't have to switch browsers for those few odd
> sites that can't figure out real HTML.
> lee

It's a good add-on, I can watch Netflix streaming movies without IE. :-)

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:47:34 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>>
>> i'm with george, though, in that i have an aversion (perhaps
>> irrational) to
>> i.e. and always have. it's not just an anti-microsoft attitude, i
>> just think it looks cruddy.
>
> I wouldn't use the word cruddy - kitsch is more like it..

i guess one man's crud is another (wo)man's kitsch.

i don't know whether i.e. allows for add-ons or not, but firefox has many
that are useful (adblock in particular).

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:47:34 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> i'm with george, though, in that i have an aversion (perhaps
>>> irrational) to
>>> i.e. and always have. it's not just an anti-microsoft attitude, i
>>> just think it looks cruddy.
>>
>> I wouldn't use the word cruddy - kitsch is more like it..
>
> i guess one man's crud is another (wo)man's kitsch.

I guess it is.
>
> i don't know whether i.e. allows for add-ons or not,

Me neither.

> but firefox has
> many that are useful (adblock in particular).

Quite so. And NoScript is another one, in my book. The thing I like the
most is tabbed browsing - and Firefox has had that for years. IIRC, IE
only had that from ver 7 (I stand to be corrected here, tho'.) Another
handy add-on for Firefox (IMHO) is Foxclocks. Tells me what time it is
anywhere in the world - useful for me because I live in the southern
hemisphere... Likely they have something like that for IE, but couldn't
say. I only fire up (various versions of) IE when I am testing how a
website will look on various (popular) browsers...
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

blake murphy wrote:

>
> i don't know whether i.e. allows for add-ons or not, but firefox has many
> that are useful (adblock in particular).

Add-ons are supported starting with IE7. Go to: Tools/Manage
Add-ons/Find More Add-ons. Not much action going on with the IE
extensions. My guess it's because MS does not encourage/support third
party extensions.

The extension you should be looking at is Ubiquity, since this seems to
be the future of the browser and computing i.e., the browser as OS.

My problem with Firefox is browser-add-on-overload, it's getting to be a
real drag booting it up. That's why I use Chrome as my default. :-)

>
> your pal,
> blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:56:04 -0500, Janet Wilder wrote:
>
>> George Shirley wrote:
>>
>>> In the course of business I have to use IE to access some web sites as
>>> they won't accept anything else. Totally PMO because I don't care for IE
>>> and never have, have always used some form of Mozilla since 1992.
>>>
>>> I always wonder if those sites are in cahoots with MS just to make me
>>> mad. <VBG>
>>
>> I lurk, and sometimes post, to the Mozilla ant Thunderbird newsgroups
>> and the consensus there is that the programmers who design those pages
>> that only work with IE are at fault for not knowing the proper stuff to
>> make the pages work in other browsers. JMTCW
>
> that's my understanding as well. apparently some things work with i.e.
> that don't comply with the HTML (?) standards.
>
> i'm with george, though, in that i have an aversion (perhaps irrational)
> to
> i.e. and always have. it's not just an anti-microsoft attitude, i just
> think it looks cruddy.


Excuse me if I'm out of line here, but why would one be looking at the
browser itself instead of the content of the webpage?

IE works marvelously for me. Especially since most web pages are written
with it in mind.

I don't actually suck Bill Gates' dick, but I don't install unnecessary
third party software either.

I also use Vista Ultimate and Windows Live Mail.

TFM®

ChattyCathy wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:47:34 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>>
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>
>>>> i'm with george, though, in that i have an aversion (perhaps
>>>> irrational) to
>>>> i.e. and always have. it's not just an anti-microsoft attitude, i
>>>> just think it looks cruddy.
>>> I wouldn't use the word cruddy - kitsch is more like it..
>> i guess one man's crud is another (wo)man's kitsch.
>
> I guess it is.
>> i don't know whether i.e. allows for add-ons or not,
>
> Me neither.
>
>> but firefox has
>> many that are useful (adblock in particular).
>
> Quite so. And NoScript is another one, in my book. The thing I like the
> most is tabbed browsing - and Firefox has had that for years. IIRC, IE
> only had that from ver 7 (I stand to be corrected here, tho'.) Another
> handy add-on for Firefox (IMHO) is Foxclocks. Tells me what time it is
> anywhere in the world - useful for me because I live in the southern
> hemisphere... Likely they have something like that for IE, but couldn't
> say. I only fire up (various versions of) IE when I am testing how a
> website will look on various (popular) browsers...

No problem just install this nifty add on IE view and it will
even read IE friendly ( cough) pages in Firefox

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/35
No script is fantastic and often saves a truck load of pain

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:56:59 -1000, dsi1 wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>>
>> i don't know whether i.e. allows for add-ons or not, but firefox has many
>> that are useful (adblock in particular).
>
> Add-ons are supported starting with IE7. Go to: Tools/Manage
> Add-ons/Find More Add-ons. Not much action going on with the IE
> extensions. My guess it's because MS does not encourage/support third
> party extensions.
>
> The extension you should be looking at is Ubiquity, since this seems to
> be the future of the browser and computing i.e., the browser as OS.
>
> My problem with Firefox is browser-add-on-overload, it's getting to be a
> real drag booting it up. That's why I use Chrome as my default. :-)
>

i have three - adblock plus, IETab, and read it later, and two that avg
jammed in there, so i don't see much drag.

you're right, though - there are dozens if you want to go hog-wild.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:28:35 -0400, TFM® wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:56:04 -0500, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>
>>> George Shirley wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the course of business I have to use IE to access some web sites as
>>>> they won't accept anything else. Totally PMO because I don't care for IE
>>>> and never have, have always used some form of Mozilla since 1992.
>>>>
>>>> I always wonder if those sites are in cahoots with MS just to make me
>>>> mad. <VBG>
>>>
>>> I lurk, and sometimes post, to the Mozilla ant Thunderbird newsgroups
>>> and the consensus there is that the programmers who design those pages
>>> that only work with IE are at fault for not knowing the proper stuff to
>>> make the pages work in other browsers. JMTCW
>>
>> that's my understanding as well. apparently some things work with i.e.
>> that don't comply with the HTML (?) standards.
>>
>> i'm with george, though, in that i have an aversion (perhaps irrational)
>> to
>> i.e. and always have. it's not just an anti-microsoft attitude, i just
>> think it looks cruddy.
>
> Excuse me if I'm out of line here, but why would one be looking at the
> browser itself instead of the content of the webpage?
>
> IE works marvelously for me. Especially since most web pages are written
> with it in mind.
>
> I don't actually suck Bill Gates' dick, but I don't install unnecessary
> third party software either.
>
> I also use Vista Ultimate and Windows Live Mail.
>
> TFM®

in the case of i.e., the windows app may have more gunk in it than the
third-party app. maybe if i dicked around with i.e., i could get it to
display the pages in a manner more to my liking, but i haven't been moved
to make the effort.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
says...
>
> Boron Elgar > wrote in
> news >
> > I have some sites that I must access with IE, so I always keep a
> > copy around for that, anyway.
>
> yeah, me too, which is why i use IE Tab on Firefox. it translates the
> bad HTML (Front Page) like IE, but it still has the safety of
> Firefox... and i don't have to switch browsers for those few odd
> sites that can't figure out real HTML.
> lee

I also use IE Tab. But I've had to tweak Firefox a bit because it is a
memory hog. Been playing with Google Chrome and I like it. Very fast.

In article > , dsi1
@spamworld.com says...
>
> enigma wrote:
> > Boron Elgar > wrote in
> > news > >
> >> I have some sites that I must access with IE, so I always keep a
> >> copy around for that, anyway.
> >
> > yeah, me too, which is why i use IE Tab on Firefox. it translates the
> > bad HTML (Front Page) like IE, but it still has the safety of
> > Firefox... and i don't have to switch browsers for those few odd
> > sites that can't figure out real HTML.
> > lee
>
> It's a good add-on, I can watch Netflix streaming movies without IE. :-)

Netflix streaming vids work fine in Firefox. They just make you use
Microsoft Silverlight. Groan!

In article >,
says...
>
> blake murphy wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:47:34 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
> >
> >> blake murphy wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> i'm with george, though, in that i have an aversion (perhaps
> >>> irrational) to
> >>> i.e. and always have. it's not just an anti-microsoft attitude, i
> >>> just think it looks cruddy.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't use the word cruddy - kitsch is more like it..
> >
> > i guess one man's crud is another (wo)man's kitsch.
>
> I guess it is.
> >
> > i don't know whether i.e. allows for add-ons or not,
>
> Me neither.
>
> > but firefox has
> > many that are useful (adblock in particular).
>
> Quite so. And NoScript is another one, in my book. The thing I like the
> most is tabbed browsing - and Firefox has had that for years. IIRC, IE
> only had that from ver 7 (I stand to be corrected here, tho'.) Another
> handy add-on for Firefox (IMHO) is Foxclocks. Tells me what time it is
> anywhere in the world - useful for me because I live in the southern
> hemisphere... Likely they have something like that for IE, but couldn't
> say. I only fire up (various versions of) IE when I am testing how a
> website will look on various (popular) browsers...

Another good one is FlashBlock.

T wrote:

> Netflix streaming vids work fine in Firefox. They just make you use
> Microsoft Silverlight. Groan!
>

Sounds like you got the have-to-use-Microsoft groan! This must be a new
thing they've done with the site. Looks like Netflix is playing footsies
with Microsoft. I'm thinking that Netflix would be a good acquisition
for Google. Hopefully they'll do it soon so I can use Netflix streaming
with Chrome. :-)

On 2009-03-26, T > wrote:
> In article >,

>> Quite so. And NoScript is another one, in my book.....

> Another good one is FlashBlock.

NoScript is infinitely superior. Flashblock primarily blocks Flash scripts.
NoScript blocks ALL scripts, whether they be server-side or client-side
scripts, and there are hundreds. Java, php, cgi, asp, blah blah....

The downside to NoScript is you also can't do any sort of online activities
without a lot of hassles like individual script control. Online banking is
a good example. I do online banking, but only with a really locked down
user acct with cookies, firewall, and scripts tightly controlled. It's
worth the hassle.

nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-03-26, T > wrote:
>> In article >,
>
>>> Quite so. And NoScript is another one, in my book.....
>
>> Another good one is FlashBlock.
>
> NoScript is infinitely superior. Flashblock primarily blocks Flash scripts.
> NoScript blocks ALL scripts, whether they be server-side or client-side
> scripts, and there are hundreds. Java, php, cgi, asp, blah blah....
>
> The downside to NoScript is you also can't do any sort of online activities
> without a lot of hassles like individual script control. Online banking is
> a good example. I do online banking, but only with a really locked down
> user acct with cookies, firewall, and scripts tightly controlled. It's
> worth the hassle.
>
> nb

for a bit of depth of why people should do as you do. see
http://www.tinyurl.com/43kjvz

On 2009-03-27, phil..c > wrote:

> for a bit of depth of why people should do as you do. see
> http://www.tinyurl.com/43kjvz

I advise against downloading the file in the above link.

Another good example of unsafe web surfing. The above link provides a
direct download link to a .pdf file, completely circumventing any chance to
view the originating website and/or make knowledgeable choices about the
security of said site. I will NEVER download anything until I know where it
comes from. Nice try, phil, but no cigar.



nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-03-27, phil..c > wrote:
>
>> for a bit of depth of why people should do as you do. see
>> http://www.tinyurl.com/43kjvz
>
> I advise against downloading the file in the above link.
>
> Another good example of unsafe web surfing. The above link provides a
> direct download link to a .pdf file, completely circumventing any chance to
> view the originating website and/or make knowledgeable choices about the
> security of said site. I will NEVER download anything until I know where it
> comes from. Nice try, phil, but no cigar.
>
>
>
> nb
>
Actually what you say is VERY proper and correct

there was no agenda or malice in posting a tiny url here ya go on the
Monster

really is a read that would interest you I feel

follow this for verification and your peace of mind
Reihe Informatik. TR-2008-006

"Michael "Dog3"" > wrote in message
...
> TFM® >
> . com: in
> rec.food.cooking
>
>>
>> Excuse me if I'm out of line here, but why would one be looking at the
>> browser itself instead of the content of the webpage?
>>
>> IE works marvelously for me. Especially since most web pages are
>> written with it in mind.
>
> IE works okay but I prefer Firefox. I always have. Maybe I'm so used to
> Firefox IE seems inferior <shrug>. Even when I was a domain admin I used
> Firefox instead of IE and naturally our company used Microsoft products.
>
>>
>> I don't actually suck Bill Gates' dick, but I don't install
>> unnecessary third party software either.
>
> Bleh... even *I* wouldn't touch his pecker. I don't mind 3rd party
> software if it doesn't interfere with my OS.
>
>>
>> I also use Vista Ultimate and Windows Live Mail.
>
> How is Ultimate? I've never used it. For mail I'm using Thunderbird. I
> was using Eudora but started having issues with it and so I dumped it.


It's the only version I've used so I have nothing to compare it to. I like
it better than XP but it requires horsepower to run it.

TFM®

"Michael "Dog3"" > wrote in message
...
> TFM® >
> om: in
> rec.food.cooking
>
>>> How is Ultimate? I've never used it. For mail I'm using Thunderbird.
>>> I was using Eudora but started having issues with it and so I dumped
>>> it.
>>
>>
>> It's the only version I've used so I have nothing to compare it to. I
>> like it better than XP but it requires horsepower to run it.
>
> I like Vista. A lot of friends use it and really don't care for it much.
> I've got Vista tweaked the way I like it so I think I'm going to keep it.
> It was hard to get used to Vista after XP. Initially I like XP much
> better. I might have to take Ultimate for a test drive.
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Impeached former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on the Don and Roma
> Morning radio talk show:
>
> "I'm going to trust in the truth and as it says in the Bible, the truth
> shall set you free".
>
> You can find me at: - michael at lonergan dot us dot com

if you like vista, you'll love windows 7. if you like xp, you'll hate
windows 7.

--
C.D