[BenoitRen]

Quote

EH, who needs IE7 if we're using Win98se or WinME? Download and install the Yahoo! Toolbar for IE from the Yahoo Downloads page

Even with the toolbar, it's still IE. Insecure and horribly out-of-date with regards to web standards.

Quote

How about the Maxthon browser? It's customizable, uses whatever IE engine is installed, or mozilla engine, offers tabbed browsing, and still offers an Ansi version for Win9x...

Just a shell on IE. It doesn't make it any more secure.
Yes, you can use the Mozilla engine, but if you want to have a native Windows application that embeds Gecko, you go for K-Meleon.

Quote

SlimBrowser

Another shell for IE.

Quote

But as long as I'm on the net with all the shield's we use now IE is fine, and seemingly pretty secure.

Eh. If I come across annoyances I'll switch back. I guess I don't see the importance of loyalty to boxes that navigate web pages. Sheesh. Who cares? I can't believe people fight over that trivolity. I've gotten quite a chuckle over the years reading all the passion in forum threads over people's favorite browsing GUI.

You should stay far away from IE. It's horribly insecure. It's better to have a secure program than having to have shields up (that consume extra CPU and RAM), don't you think?

This "loyalty to boxes that navigate web pages" is more important than you think. Well, it's not if it's just about the GUI, but there are several rendering engines out there. IE's is named Trident, which has horrible support for web standards, is far too care-less about coding, and promotes proprietary garbage like coloured scroll bars and glowing text. Gecko, Presto, Merlin and KHTML are much, much better.

And I thought this thread was about getting IE7 on Win98 SE.

[Eck]

Yeah, it's about IE7 on 9x but since it looks impossible I thought I'd comment on the mentioning of Yahoo Toolbar which caught my eye.

So, not a hijack but a comment on a post. And, as long as I'm here, a few rantings about my current experiment's!

Hmm. NCSA Mosaic was the first browser, no? And Internet Explorer was built and extended from that, and an early Mozilla version. I remember actually using both Mosaic and an early Netscape way back in the early 80's in a college computer class. Heh. The 20 minute wait for pictures to load seemed the norm. Fun, though.

Standards are, of course, importent for developer's. But for most user's, it seems to me, we just want our pages to work and load as quick as possible. I don't mind whether my scroll bars are colored. Seems to me that's just more fun for the web site builder's creativity.

Firefox has frequent updates for security purposes, as does Internet Explorer. I always make sure I use my firewalls, virus scanners, spybot detectors whichever browser I'm using. I apply any updates available to better secure things as well. Yes, they use resources. Better that than getting infected and repartitioning.

Either browser seems fine to me. I don't mind running security software. Not intentionally visiting known malware infested sites helps for any browser. And, my cable is directly connected to Comcast so with no router I certainly won't go on without those extra protections.

I think what I'm saying is I appreciate the developer's of both IE and Firefox but aren't married to either.

[BenoitRen]

Quote

NCSA Mosaic was the first browser, no?

No, it was not. However, it was the first important browser, in that it was the first browser for Windows, which opened the web to the masses.

Quote

And Internet Explorer was built and extended from that

Not really. Spyglass licensed the technology and trademarks of NCSA Mosaic, but didn't use any of its source code. Later, M$ licensed Spyglass' Mosaic and turned it into Internet Explorer.

Quote

and an early Mozilla version

No, but it was made by some people that worked on NCSA Mosaic before.

I got all this from here: http://en.wikipedia....8web_browser%29

Quote

Standards are, of course, importent for developer's. But for most user's, it seems to me, we just want our pages to work and load as quick as possible.

You're not seeing the whole picture. The neglecting of standards by IE also affects you as a user, because it
1) encourages bad web design
2) prohibits web developers from making better web pages because IE has horrible CSS support

By the way, please don't abuse the apostrophe. Plural forms don't require one in any context.

Quote

I don't mind whether my scroll bars are colored.

Sure, you don't, but I bet colour-blind people do. It's an accessibility problem, which is why it didn't become a standard.

Quote

Firefox has frequent updates for security purposes, as does Internet Explorer.

And pigs fly! IE has frequent updates? Sure, after sitting on the vulnerabilities for up to six months. M$ isn't fast enough as it should be when an exploit is known and in the wild. Mozilla is faster in responding.

Quote

Yes, they use resources. Better that than getting infected and repartitioning.

See, you only get infected if you're using insecure software, of which IE is one, and don't practice common sense. Do I run anti-virus software? No. Do I run anti-malware software? No. Have I been infected? No. Why? Because I use secure Gecko-based browsers while practicing common sense.

Quote

Not intentionally visiting known malware infested sites helps for any browser.

Most of those sites are geared towards IE. Gecko not being IE, not having ActiveX and generally being secure, doesn't get infected on those sites. And I sure did visit some at times.

Quote

I think what I'm saying is I appreciate the developer's of both IE and Firefox but aren't married to either.

Who says I'm married? I use SeaMonkey, by the way. The point is that you should use any browser BUT IE to not promote non-standards and be secure.

[Eck]

Apostrophy problem's, eh?

Heh, it's been too many years since my composition training! Sorry, I just put 'em where I think they belong. I learned by the rules but as the memory evades, intuition takes over.

Sea Monkey's the Mozilla Suite reborn right? I used Mozilla until Firefox came out with their 1.0 Final. I also used mostly Netscape before all that. So I've been basically going with the anything but Internet Explorer until quite recently.

What got me back was the Vista Beta 2 CCP program. Although I installed Firefox the first time, as IE7 seemed buggy expecially in the Favorites area, I then decided to try Internet Explorer again without installing Firefox. This, on a slightly later Vista build. They seemed to come out with new build's quite frequently for a while.

I found IE quite usable. So I then tried it on my 9x and XP setup's and also was satisfied. You know, Active X, Flash, Java, etc. have had several security updates in the last couple of years. Now you even get to click to activate the Active X control's.

I understand the argument's. (Still think those apostrophies are supposed to be there!) And, I too have occasionally dabbled in the world of slightly dangerous web page viewing, in both IE and Firefox. Thankfully I've never been seriously infected by anything. In most cases I've viewed these types of things in Firefox since that's what I had been using. And yes, when going to download sites with IE I've had the "boinggg" of my virus scanner detecting, preventing, and deleting nasties. Same sites with Firefox and only something in the download might get the virus scanner's attention, and we would avoid the "auto-nasty thing-install" provided by IE's Active X. But then, the newer security setting's would now also prevent most of that stuff. Generally it would happen when I was looking for something I really shouldn't have! (Bad, Bad Eck.)

Aw, you're probably correct in most cases. However, it seems to me that things are kind of looking pretty similar between the standard's these days. (No apostrophy?)

I'm just liking what I see in IE at this time. I just downloaded the new Firefox 2.0. If I do decide to install it, it then will be my default. I've never seen the point of installing an alternative browser if I wasn't going to be in that thing nearly all the time I'm browsing.

I'll probably just look around at some of the assorted forum's for a bit. Let's see what folks think when comparing the two. For now, I'm an IE7 user. When unfixed bugs start annoying me and Microsoft goes back to almost never fixing them, I'll then once again rejoin the Firefox bandwagon. For now, IE7 is new and works fine.

Like I said, little loyalty regarding this. The IE7 flavor is appealing at the moment.

[BenoitRen]

Quote

Sea Monkey's the Mozilla Suite reborn right?

Yup.

Quote

You know, Active X, Flash, Java, etc. have had several security updates in the last couple of years. Now you even get to click to activate the Active X control's.

Flash and Java are plug-ins that generally get installed by the user. I'm not arguing about those.
ActiveX is an M$ technology integrated into the browser. No security updates will help it, as its very purpose and functionality makes it insecure. ActiveX grants its control the same priviledges that the user has. It can create, delete, move files at will, and more, just like you can. On a Win9x system, users have all priviledges, making it even more of a threat if one misbehaves.

Quote

But then, the newer security setting's would now also prevent most of that stuff.

It's better, but it's no safe-guard against IE's own flaws like buffer overflows and such.

Quote

However, it seems to me that things are kind of looking pretty similar between the standard's these days.

Not even close. Look at this summary table. HTML is generally well implemented, but IE pales in comparison to other browsers when it comes to CSS (2.1). While other browsers support more than 90% of it, IE6 only knows 51% of it, and IE7 still only knows 57%. An improvement, but not good enough. Especially after 5 years, though I'm aware absolutely no development was done during most of it. And if you use a lot of JavaScript to interact with the DOM as a web developer, IE doesn't give you much meat either, while other browsers do much better.

Quote

For now, IE7 is new and works fine.

Technically speaking, it's new if it's 2002.

Quote

Heh, it's been too many years since my composition training! Sorry, I just put 'em where I think they belong. I learned by the rules but as the memory evades, intuition takes over.

I wasn't going to say anything more about it, but since you talk about the problem in your entire post, I'll bite.
Apostrophes are generally only used for possessive context. Microsoft's Windows, Mozilla's browser, etc. For plural forms, you never use an apostrophe in English, as far as I know (you do in Dutch, though ).

[Eck]

I could actually dig out a book or two from my composition courses (but I won't, since that's a lot of digging for this. It's not like I'm writing a book) that gave the rules for that time (1970's).

I KNOW that, at least back then, apostrophies were to be applied for certain plural form's (like that one, I think.)

What I've forgotten is exactly when they are to be used and when they are not.

As far as the browsers, I'm sure you are correct. But I'm getting used to IE again, like I said really for the first time. I guess I've regressed.

Maybe it's temporary insanity.

[MDGx]

If I may intrude...

I found these links about correct use of the apostrophe punctuation mark/symbol in languages using the Latin alphabet [']:
http://www.dace.co.uk/apostrophe.htm
http://alt-usage-eng...s/fxwheret.html
http://owl.english.p...ar/g_apost.html
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Apostrophe

Have fun.

[BenoitRen]

D'oh! I forgot that it's also used to indicate something that is left out.
Thanks for the links MDGx, I like to learn about things like this.

[Eck]

Yes! Feel free to intrude. Education is a beautiful thing.

Hmm. It seems that only one of those links (I certainly would normally put one there) gave an exception for plural nouns. (Oh, come on. Not there either?)

I believe I was taught, by classes and textbooks, a way that appears to be frowned upon now. Heck. I would've used it in appears as well. Although, perhaps not when all the old rules were fresh in my memory. Perhaps they were never allowed in adjectives.

To think that my English Professors (not there either, eh?) used to call me a natural writer.

Getting older is a dangerous thing for the mind. I used to be able to write whole term papers in a single draft on a regular typewriter without any spelling or grammer checking.

Leaving those apostrophies out is already creeping me out!

[galahs]

My only concern about IE7 on Win9x is that there are still some stupid websites out their that require IE to open or function correctly.

For those sites, what is the best browser to use?

Is using Netscape or Maxthons browser using the trident rendering engine any better (safer/faster) than just firing up IE6 SP1?

[Eck]

You could use Firefox along with an Internet Explorer rendering extention. I just used to open up Internet Explorer whenever encountering a site like that (open IE, go back to Firefox and copy the url, then paste it into IE.) These things were so rare for me it didn't seem necessary to bother installing the extention.

Netscape is not the Netscape of old. It's built on an older Firefox version with some security updates and alot of AOL stuff, since they own it.

Sea Monkey is really the latest version of the old Netscape suite. It's up to date with bug fixes and security updates as well as features. It went from Netscape to Mozilla to Sea Monkey.

The most advanced combination is Firefox, with Thunderbird for email. That way you get more choices as far as customizing your experience with extentions.

Internet Explorer is zippier on 98SE in my experience as far as opening (since it hooks into the Explorer Shell) and web page loading. If you keep the operating system updated along with the browser from the fixes available from links here, I really see no problem using it.

If you miss the faster opening speed, both Sea Monkey and Firefox include the option to keep them resident in memory for faster opening. For me, I didn't need it as it seemed fast enough for me. I'm not that impatient!

I'm not versed in the browser's that use Internet Explorer, but with their own window. I didn't see the point so never tried it. If I wanted to skin IE I'd use Object Desktop, which will also skin Firefox.

I'd say just experiment and choose what you like. It is too bad we won't get IE7 on 9x, but they'll be lots of things we won't get as the years go by now. If your computer gets what you need done, and has the features that satisfy you, your fine. If you need to keep up with the very latest, well then ya gotta pay and upgrade.

[galahs]

Does IE7 render all pages similar to IE6?

If so then I really don't have a need at all for IE7 on Win9x.

[Eck]

Well. yeah. It still is Internet Explorer. If you navigate the Microsoft IE website, I'm sure you'll find a page that lists the changes. It's not like they switched to Gecko. All those security patches and bug fixes are included, as well as the new features. RSS feeds, a redesigned Favorites section, the tabbed browsing, the ability to put several search engines into the search window, no more big, bulky icon's so the browser window is bigger (although you could always have switched to the smaller, Windows Me default style, smaller icon's), etc. Actually, since I installed the Yahoo version that toolbar makes the browser window about the same size as before. Especially with that McAfee Site Advisor thing taking a whole toolbar of its own. There's no room for it on the other bars, so it puts itself on a whole new bar, with the rest empty just taking up space. Same with the Encarta Search thing, though I have that turned off so it won't do that.

It would be nice to have it, but no, it's not a need to have item.

[BenoitRen]

Just embedding the Trident rendering engine opens you up to IE's horror. A shell won't help you.

Quote

The most advanced combination is Firefox, with Thunderbird for email.

If you mean "hogs more memory by using two Gecko rendering engines", then I agree.

Quote

If you keep the operating system updated along with the browser from the fixes available from links here, I really see no problem using it.

Argh... I just spent several posts explaining that it isn't safe to use at all! Fully updated or not, it doesn't matter. [ulr=http://secunia.com/product/12366/?task=advisories]IE7 is already starting to succumb too[/url].

Quote

If you miss the faster opening speed, both Sea Monkey and Firefox include the option to keep them resident in memory for faster opening.

Even better, use K-Meleon!

Quote

I'm not versed in the browser's that use Internet Explorer, but with their own window. I didn't see the point so never tried it. If I wanted to skin IE I'd use Object Desktop, which will also skin Firefox.

Shells are more than a skin. They are an entire interface that interacts with the backend.

Quote

Does IE7 render all pages similar to IE6?

No. Here's the list of CSS changes.

[erpdude8]

BenoitRen, on Oct 26 2006, 02:50 PM, said:

Quote

If you miss the faster opening speed, both Sea Monkey and Firefox include the option to keep them resident in memory for faster opening.

Even better, use K-Meleon!

or use Opera web browser. Opera 9.02 still supports win9xme/win2000 systems unlike IE7 and Opera loads about as fast as K-Meleon.
I'm currently beta testing Opera 9.10 from the Opera Desktop Team's blog page:
http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/