|
Post by rockpickerforever on Mar 13, 2013 13:02:47 GMT -5
Has anyone upgraded to IE10 yet? Think I'd like to wait a while, until the bugs are figured out and corrected. But I'm tired of getting messages telling me updates are available Just wondering what advantages it has over IE9, that it would be worth adding to the indigestion on my hard drive with almost 70MB of data to download? Faster, easy, safer? Also looks like a lot of people are having problems with installing it via windows update... Jean
|
|
|
Post by Hard Rock Cafe on Mar 13, 2013 13:14:30 GMT -5
I use Chrome or Firefox. Haven't used Internet Exploder for years.
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by rockpickerforever on Mar 13, 2013 13:17:33 GMT -5
I've tried them both. Didn't like Google Chrome and removed it, still have Firefox loaded, and use it occasionally when IE won't work with a website. Jean
PS - I thought "exploders" were vehicles made by Ford - teehee!
|
|
|
Post by helens on Mar 13, 2013 13:54:48 GMT -5
Years ago when Firefox came out, it was by far the best choice. It was new, didn't have as many hackers targeting it, and it was very fast and flexible. Few years later, it became the buggiest from the plethora of weird add-ons, and it also became the slowest. At that time, NO ONE liked IE, and made fun of it. The only purpose for it was in corporate office settings.
By then, Google Chrome was out, and wow... that was FAST. And less buggy than Firefox. And everyone loved google... after all, google was the nerd/hacker/programmer baby. People loved the google search engine, and so it was easy to love Chrome. That it was the fastest made it the new default favorite.
IE was the slow, dowdy, poor-reputation browser for a decade. But still, many many things work with it better... like Paypal's multi-ship feature, which won't even activate properly on Chrome. Also, financial sites don't like Chrome... which makes me wonder how secure Chrome is. Then, I have Xfinity On Demand, and it will NOT work with Chrome. I used to use Chrome for speed browsing, and IE for my account based stuff. Now I use IE for everything. Google has gone from the anti-establishment to the greatest purveyor of adware spying all around, aka corporate profiteering, focusing on 'targeted' ads that so closely match your taste that you have to wonder exactly how much snooping they are doing of your personal information and habits.
IE 10 is faster than Chrome. AND has better built in security today. AND works better with every type of account. AND... Microsoft seems to have come full circle. It used to be that Microsoft was the 'establishment', and Google was the 'anti-establishment'. Now Google is the intrusive adware queen, and Microsoft put in privacy controls to IE 10, and ad/spam blockers... 180 degree flip in corporate culture (gee, almost like Dems and Republicans over the same time span).
I never had a choice, when I got the Surface Pro, IE 10 was the only browser I could use because it's fully integrated with Windows 8 and the touch/start interface, and now my desktop dual boots with Windows 8 too. I don't even use Windows 7 anymore on anything. The SPEED, and perfect compatibility with everything from Acrobat to Paypal makes it blow away every other browser, and while I used to have all browsers for different purposes, I've uninstalled the others, and only use IE 10.
Google some reviews and comparisons, I like IE 10. Of course, if you have an android cell phone or tablet, you have no choice but to use Chrome. But Chrome by nature is insecure, keeping in mind the open-source philosophy/culture it came from, so I personally keep my password sites on IE.
|
|
|
Post by rockpickerforever on Mar 13, 2013 14:44:38 GMT -5
Helen, thanks for your input. Certain financial sites I use, don't seem to like IE9. I am unable to download information, so I just open them in Firefox.
Guess I should've mentioned that I'm currently using 64 bit IE9, on an HP with Windows 7 Professional. While I've read that IE10 can be used with non-touchscreen computers, I think it was designed first and foremost to be run on Windows 8. I have a cell phone, but it is not even mildly intelligent (and don't expect that to change anytime soon), nor do I use a tablet. I do not have a lightning fast, $100 a month internet connection (have AT&T DSL), but it is plenty fast enough for me. Up until a couple years ago, I was still on dialup!! It's all about what you are used to.
So, is anyone here using IE10 with Windows 7? Like it? Or having issues with it? Jean
|
|
|
Post by helens on Mar 13, 2013 14:58:12 GMT -5
Jean, see if you can get a copy of IE 9, download it, then install 10, and if you don't like it, uninstall it and put 9 back:).
|
|
|
Post by helens on Mar 13, 2013 15:04:11 GMT -5
Jean, here's the download page for IE 9 from Microsoft: windows.microsoft.com/en-us/internet-explorer/downloads/ie-9/worldwide-languagesJust make sure you save the download, so if you decide you don't like 10, just uninstall the 10, and reinstall the 9. I'm pretty sure Microsoft will keep the 9 available just for people who are worried about not liking 10 for quite some time tho, but having the download yourself will give you peace of mind that you can go back whenever you like.
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Mar 13, 2013 16:00:26 GMT -5
I use Chrome for video streaming, nothing else. It seems to work better for that. Firefox with no add-ons is ok, but IE9 is better.
Lee
|
|
|
Post by rockpickerforever on Mar 13, 2013 16:10:31 GMT -5
Thank you, Lee. I tried Chrome for a while, but I just didn't like it. I can't say why... But what about IE10? Anybody?
Helen, I am downloading 9 as I type. I'd rather not play the switching game ('cause it always leaves extra crap on my hard drive), but I guess I can do that if it comes down to it. The information that I got about IE10 was from Microsoft's website. You never know how many people are satisified/like it, since the only ones that seem to leave feedback are people having issues with it. They ask a question about a problem they are having, someone answers it, but nothing after that. So you don't know (in most cases) if it solved their problem or not.
One thing I know for sure, if I do go to 10, I will download direct from the site, and not let windows upgrade do it. That way, I can click off things I don't want to get added on. That's how I got Google Chrome the last time around. Jean
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2013 16:27:09 GMT -5
What is IE10? Never heard of it.
|
|
|
Post by rockpickerforever on Mar 13, 2013 16:49:51 GMT -5
Sorry, it is Internet Explorer 10. It's the default web browser for Windows 8, and has been around since that was released last fall. I guess Microsoft has already made some patches to/for it, and it is now available for previous windows versions, such as 7 (and a few older as well). I'm getting notices from Microsoft Updates saying that "there are updates for me to install." Since it was designed to work on devices that have touch screens, I'm hesitant to install it on my computer running windows 7 (no touch screen). Jean
|
|
|
Post by helens on Mar 13, 2013 17:08:26 GMT -5
Jean, I don't have touch screen on my desktop either... nor would I want it, when typing, it's WAY easier to use a mouse, not to mention the long force of habit. It's going to be years before they break us of the mouse habit, and that's only once Google Glass becomes the norm (eye movement and voice driven mouse). You don't have to install it at all if you don't want to, that's why 9 is still available. But you should probably read more about it first to decide, it's got better security features than 9. Here's the CNet review on it: reviews.cnet.com/8301-3514_7-57571231/ie-reborn-internet-explorer-10-arrives-on-windows-7/Here's something interesting about microsoft's privacy policy: www.geek.com/articles/news/microsoft-says-do-not-track-will-stay-on-by-default-20121213/Now let me say that because I'm ALSO androided out, I'm as tracked as anyone not wanted by the cops on the internet. I don't mind advertising tracking all that much in general, and I don't go to contraband/porn sites, so I don't care if I'm tracked. There's just something annoying about thinking that it's bad enough that people can pinpoint what ROOM I'm in via my cellphone, total strangers watch me make faces as I try to pick icons out through my cellphone camera, and know everything I've bought for the last 5 years, I see no reason why I should make it easier than I have to for them to read what I'm reading on screen too. Further, I find it completely ironic that Microsoft has now picked up the privacy gauntlet Google so recently threw on the ground and stepped on, and I think it's great. Grant you, it probably doesn't mean a darn thing, but I still like the fact that Microsoft made the effort: "Microsoft won’t cave in to pressure and change the Do Not Track default in Internet Explorer 10, says executive VP of legal and corporate affairs Brad Smith. Microsoft ruffled feathers in the online advertising world by turning on the privacy protection feature in IE10′s express settings. Advertisers weren’t alone, either. Both Mozilla and Apache voiced their displeasure with Microsoft’s move, and Apache announced that it would refuse to recognize Microsoft’s setting unless the company changed its decision about DNT.
According to Smith, however, Microsoft has “no intention of going back and have no intention of engaging in discussion on that possibility.” Microsoft has been willing to discuss certain aspects, like the way Do Not Track is described to users and simplifying the process of turning the setting off. Microsoft’s stance from day one has been to protect users first and allow them to opt in if they see enough benefit in enabling the type of tracking DNT would prevent. Nearly everyone else in the discussion says that DNT means nothing if a user doesn’t make a conscious choice to enable it — which is exactly what really happens during the Internet Explorer 10 setup. It’s hardly Microsoft’s fault if a user blindly clicks next and agrees to default settings.
In October, 75% of respondents to a Microsoft survey said they felt Do Not Track should be turned on by default. That’s all well and good, but the Association of National Advertisers says that “the Internet is funded by [advertising]” and that DNT by default will “undermine American innovation and leadership in the Internet economy.”
At this point, Do Not Track remains almost totally useless. Many advertisers have said they’ll ignore the beacon if it comes from Internet Explorer. Any server that runs Apache will ignore your IE setting, even if you’ve disabled it at first run and manually enabled it later (a conscious decision on your part). Beyond that, the average user is unlikely to take the initiative to hunt down the toggle in Firefox, Opera, or Chrome — no browser really makes a big deal about describing what DNT is, why you’d want to use it, and how you go about turning it on. More savvy users have already been using privacy protection add-ons (many of which go way beyond what DNT offers) for years, and for them there’s no added incentive to use Do Not Track."
|
|
|
Post by helens on Mar 13, 2013 17:12:17 GMT -5
Here's benchmarking for IE 10 (it "destroys" IE 9 on benchmarking): www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/internet-explorer-10-for-windows-7-arrives-destroys-ie9-in-benchmarks-20121113/What can you expect from IE10? It picks up where IE9 left off, so you’ll see better JavaScript and overall rendering performance and improved support for web standards, for starters. That includes new CSS goodies like 3D transforms, transition, animations, SVG filter effects plus HTML5 file APIs and drag-and-drop, Web workers, and much more.
Internet Explorer 10 users on Windows 7 will also be able to take advantage of the same much-improved Chakra JavaScript engine that powers IE10 on Windows 8. The hardware acceleration code that made IE9 a much better performer than its predecessors has been overhauled, too.
So just how much better does IE10 perform on the same system? Here’s a quick side-by-side from my test rig (a rather modest Acer VL4610 running a Core i5 and the 64-bit version of Windows 7 Professional):
As you can see, on the tests where higher scores are better, IE10 pulls away easily — posting figures 20-25% than what IE9 can manage. On Google’s V8 test, the contest isn’t even that close.
On Sunspider, where a lower score is better, IE10 once again finishes well ahead of IE9.
Benchmarks, of course, don’t always offer an accurate representation of real-world performance — though Peacekeeper and RoboHornet were both built in an attempt to make automated browser tests more realistic. In actual use, however, IE10 is definitely quicker than IE9.
In short, it’s a great second effort from the new Microsoft — one that’s focused on standards compliance and competing with rival browsers for the performance crown rather than just letting its users schlep along on an outdated, proprietary app.
It was already easy to see that IE10 was Microsoft’s best browser yet on Windows 8, and now hundreds of millions of Windows 7 users can finally see how big an improvement it is, too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2013 17:54:22 GMT -5
Jean; I was kidding. My question was a sort of answer to your query! Say hi to Bill! ss
|
|
|
Post by texaswoodie on Mar 14, 2013 7:54:02 GMT -5
I'm still in the Stone Age. XP with IE7. One thing I'll never do is install Chrome or any other Google product. I have Google mail and would like to get rid of it but it would be a big hassel. Any Google product is a privacy invasion, including maps and search. Curt
|
|
|
Post by helens on Mar 14, 2013 9:40:56 GMT -5
Well, the thing about technology is that the more conveniences you have, the more invasive it can become. I exaggerated if I imply that having a cell phone means someone WOULD watch you with the camera or pinpoint you via GPS... although the phones certainly have that capability, as you can see from Krystee's post earlier.
But if you can guide yourself via GPS, someone can find you via the same GPS, if you can use your camera to video conference, someone else can activate it and see you. It's a matter of would they? What for? But maybe that ability can save your life if you are lost in the woods or trapped in a snowbank.
Plus, you CAN shut all these features off (although I think law enforcement can get access anyway). By law, apps have to tell you what Permissions they access, and if it's too much, don't install them. Given a choice between privacy and convenience, most of us would chose convenience.
I'm not sure if XP and IE7 is more secure than the newer versions... I'm not a programmer to know if older coding is more easily hackable than newer. But if you are on the internet, your location is trackable via your IP, and what you use that IP for is trackable too. That's been the case from day 1, you pay for that connection, and your info is out there they day you signed up for it. Why not have the added conveniences too?
If you aren't using internet maps, you're missing out. They are SUPER convenient!! Yes, they let google track you... but they're doing it to sell local ads (ie., showing you a local store's specials... what good would it do you to see an ad for a pizza parlor 2000 miles away?).
I can't decide if Google is worse because it wants so many permissions, or better because it tells you what they can see. We've always been subject to online ads... but like TV commercials, that's what pays for our free content, and we all like free content - like the ads on this forum... would we pay an annual fee to access everything we want to look at online?
|
|
|
Post by rockpickerforever on Mar 14, 2013 9:51:05 GMT -5
Curt, nothing wrong with that. I have a Sony Vaio that was given to me years ago, that I use to receive faxes, and print them out. Don't use it for anything else. (The imaging part of my fax machine quit working years ago, so I just have the faxes sent to the Win 98.) Until it gave up the ghost a few months ago, I still had an old Windows 98 computer running as well. And I still sometimes use a Toshiba laptop running XP as well. But mainly I use the HP with Win 7.
The downside to replacing the old stuff is you have to replace just about all the peripheral hardware as well. I'm talking scanners, printers, heck - even the little device to download pictures out of my (also old) camera. Getting photos from the camera is a two computer deal. First, the XP to get the photos off the memory stick, transfer to a thumbdrive, then pop that in the HP. Like I've said in a previous post, I hate computers!!!
For now, guess I'll just have to put up with the Windows Update notice that pops up everytime I turn on the computer, saying that there are upgrades available. I suppose I could turn off the update notices, but I do like to install the updates that affect security. Jean
|
|