New
#30
Microsoft preps early delivery of IE10 for Windows 7
-
-
New #31
You are right! How can I forget about ME? I remember using that train wreck of an OS. Oh, the good ol' days.
-
New #32
Win ME was superior in every way to Win98 - but suffered from Nortonitis 50% of the time.
Most machines at that time were shipped with Norton pre-installed, and the version shipped with most of them wasn't actually compatible - and it wasn't until well after XP was launched that Norton finally got to grips with System Restore and its implications.
Many machines also shipped (or ended up with) Norton System Doctor installed - and that would eventually kill the system by creating a new file in the Windows folder every 10 seconds until FAT32 ran out of places to put them - this effectively stopped the machine stone dead, until you deleted the files. (and we won't mention Go-back)
Once Norton was exterminated, the OS was great.
It had two notable 'firsts'
It was the first product with System Restore
It was the first Consumer product to do away with DOS
It was also the first product to support USB out of the box properly.
( - and it got me my MVP back-in-the-day, as well :) )
-
-
New #34
With that comment, I'm losing the very little respect I still had to the MVP thing
Can't be serious, really.
-
-
New #36
DOS was still very much there. Micro$oft just hid it and it caused all manner of issues with some games. It was 98 third edition with Windows 2000 type icons and crippled by deleting the PIF files in Windows.It was by far the worst OS ever. Windows 98SE was actually fairly good except for that General Protection Error that showed up once in a while. Who was General Protection and what did he want with my computer?
I only used ME for a few weeks, I was lucky enough to get a copy of Windows 2000 from my employer at the time. Now that was the leanest and meanest OS they ever made as long as you only ran new programs on it. Old crap from 95 did not work or needed so many hoops to fiddle with. NT4 stuff usually worked OK too. Ran that at home for about 2 or 3 years and that was awesome. You could really multitask with it. You could play Quake and music on Winamp at the same time without the music or the game going walkabout. I remember Netscape 3.X being a great browser and the IE 4 update to the 95 desktop meaning if you did not have 16mb of ram it ran slower than treacle downhill. Got paid well to uninstall the browser update and or added more ram to friends machines back then. Seriously slow, like 10 mins to load to the desktop on 4 mb of ram. ME is about the only M$ OS post 3.11I don't have a virtual machine for.
I use Firefox but I am getting a little fed up of the constant version updates......
Am I showing my age?
-
New #37
IE-10 pre release
I have been using IE-10 pre release since middle of november.
I will give it nothing but praise and would recommend it to everyone.
I also use Opera 12.14 but find IE-10 is faster.
Seems like alot of you are afraid of IE.
Why???
-
New #38
When people find something they like, they tend to stick with it. Also, IE 6 was so terrible and we were forced to either use it or either firefox/opera for so long, that many people assume any version of IE is terrible. It didn't help that IE7 was also pretty bad.
I have not used firefox since 2.0, because for some reason when I installed 2.0 I couldn't log in to any websites. I also got sick of it constantly forcing me to close it to install updates. Burned once, never looked back. I used Chrome faithfully for a while, until it let a website download a virus to my computer (it literally downloaded it to my downloads folder). Thank god for MSE. Burned once, never looked back. That was right around the time IE9 RC came out. I've never had a problem with IE9 or 10.
EDIT: That isn't to say that there is problem with using one of those browsers and not IE10. Just stating my reasons for liking IE and not Firefox or Chrome, and why I think many people are resistant to using IE.Last edited by Petey7; 24 Feb 2013 at 10:09.
-
Quote
Related Discussions