Snicker (IE7) - comp.sys.mac.system

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explorer-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens.

On 06-15-2012 16:52, Alan Browne wrote: > http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explorer-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story What do they charge for IE6? -- Wes Groleau Promote multi-use trails in northeast Indiana! http://www.NorthwestAllenTrails.org/

In article <jrjohu$m44$1@dont-email.me>, none.of@your.biz wrote: > On 06-15-2012 16:52, Alan Browne wrote: > > http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explorer-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story > > What do they charge for IE6? I'm still using Internet Explorer 5. :o) Technically I rarely use it. I only have it for the ocasional website that doesn't work properly with either Firefox (version 1) or iCab (version 3). Helpful Harry :o)

>."Alan Browne" wrote in message >news:B9-dnWoBubTiPUbSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com... >http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explorer-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story -- >"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary >necessities." > -Samuel Clemens. DUH, most people are using IE9, and a few Luddites use, MOOHOOHOOHAAHAAHARR, Safari. snicker, snicker.

On 2012-06-17 09:10 , james wrote: > > >> ."Alan Browne" wrote in message >> news:B9-dnWoBubTiPUbSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com... > > >> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explorer-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story Per Wikipedia Chrome is the top dog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usage_share_of_web_browsers_(Source_StatCounter).svg For good reason. It's a fine browser (the first year it was a bit dodgy). Safari continues to gain. No idea why. -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens.

In article <8-6dneK0MIo4c0DSnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2012-06-17 09:10 , james wrote: > > > > > >> ."Alan Browne" wrote in message > >> news:B9-dnWoBubTiPUbSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com... > > > > > >> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explore > >> r-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story > > Per Wikipedia Chrome is the top dog. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usage_share_of_web_browsers_(Source_StatCoun > ter).svg > > For good reason. It's a fine browser (the first year it was a bit dodgy). > > Safari continues to gain. No idea why. Maybe because Mac sales are increasing, and it's the default browser on Macs? It's pretty obvious from the graph that Chrome's increase is almost entirely due to IE converts. Even if every Safari user had switched to Chrome it wouldn't have caught up to IE without a huge number of IE users switching as well. It looks like the Safari usage share is roughly equal to the Mac share in the desktop market. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

On 2012-06-17 11:20 , Barry Margolin wrote: > In article <8-6dneK0MIo4c0DSnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > >> On 2012-06-17 09:10 , james wrote: >>> >>> >>>> ."Alan Browne" wrote in message >>>> news:B9-dnWoBubTiPUbSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> >>> >>>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explore >>>> r-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story >> >> Per Wikipedia Chrome is the top dog. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usage_share_of_web_browsers_(Source_StatCoun >> ter).svg >> >> For good reason. It's a fine browser (the first year it was a bit dodgy). >> >> Safari continues to gain. No idea why. > > Maybe because Mac sales are increasing, and it's the default browser on > Macs? It's pretty obvious from the graph that Chrome's increase is > almost entirely due to IE converts. Even if every Safari user had > switched to Chrome it wouldn't have caught up to IE without a huge > number of IE users switching as well. > > It looks like the Safari usage share is roughly equal to the Mac share > in the desktop market. My comment was TIC. In a recent survey in one of the Mac oriented sites, Safari was the favourite by far. IMO a good chunk of that is loyalty (as well as the default thing). I personally never liked Safari and find it balky in some situations (or did, I don't think I've loaded it more than 10 times in the last 3 years). Chrome is lean, mean and fast. -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-06-17 15:46:37 +0000, Alan Browne said: > Safari was the favourite by far. IMO a good chunk of that is loyalty > (as well as the default thing). I personally never liked Safari and > find it balky in some situations (or did, I don't think I've loaded it > more than 10 times in the last 3 years). Most computer users - mac and otherwise - use whatever comes on the machine. That means Safari on Macs and IE on Windows. Something has to be really really bad before they generally go out of their way to replace it, though it looks like Windows users are switching more than ever before. I've found Safari isn't terrible, just not great. It hangs, sometimes just for a few moments, sometimes completely - as do all browsers - but Safari does it in my experience more often than either Firefox or Chrome. > > Chrome is lean, mean and fast. For my needs, the ability to use certain extensions/plug-ins, and not hanging - are the most important issues. Firefox, Safari and Chrome all now have decent plug-in support, and lately the one which hangs least is Chrome. I have mixed feelings about how Chrome, using my Google ID, syncs up information between all my machines - it all means that Google is getting a bit more information than I'm terribly comfortable with, but nowadays, they're probably getting almost as much even if I weren't using Chrome.

On 2012-06-17 15:41 , Bread wrote: > On 2012-06-17 15:46:37 +0000, Alan Browne said: > >> Safari was the favourite by far. IMO a good chunk of that is loyalty >> (as well as the default thing). I personally never liked Safari and >> find it balky in some situations (or did, I don't think I've loaded it >> more than 10 times in the last 3 years). > > Most computer users - mac and otherwise - use whatever comes on the > machine. That means Safari on Macs and IE on Windows. Something has to > be really really bad before they generally go out of their way to > replace it, though it looks like Windows users are switching more than > ever before. > > I've found Safari isn't terrible, just not great. It hangs, sometimes > just for a few moments, sometimes completely - as do all browsers - but > Safari does it in my experience more often than either Firefox or Chrome. See Matlaw's post of today... >> >> Chrome is lean, mean and fast. > > For my needs, the ability to use certain extensions/plug-ins, and not > hanging - are the most important issues. Firefox, Safari and Chrome all > now have decent plug-in support, and lately the one which hangs least is > Chrome. I have mixed feelings about how Chrome, using my Google ID, > syncs up information between all my machines - it all means that Google > is getting a bit more information than I'm terribly comfortable with, > but nowadays, they're probably getting almost as much even if I weren't > using Chrome. The evil factor of Chrome is outweighed by its usability (and that that others are about as evil - so we're talking delta-evil). The bookmark/bar sync is great as Chrome at home, work, anywhere is always the same. The first year it was a bit balky - now it's smooth as silk. The "sandboxing" they did when designing it was plain good engineering. -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens.

In message <jrlbtk$6j9$1@reader1.panix.com> Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote: > I've found Safari isn't terrible, just not great. It hangs, sometimes > just for a few moments, sometimes completely - as do all browsers - but > Safari does it in my experience more often than either Firefox or > Chrome. I used FireFOx pretty much exclusively from 1.0 through about v4 (right before the version stupidity started) as it was easily the best browser out there. However, since then Firefox has become lethargic and problematic. I gave Chrome a go, but found it was a memory hog, was unstable, and its internal Flash engine meant I couldn't avoid the craptacular Flash animation spam that some sites so love. Around Safari 5.0.1 I switched full time to Safari and have found it a lot more stable and well-behaved than either FF or Chrome, though I do use FF on any windows machine I happen to use. If it's a machine where I can install software though, I install Safari. It looks like iOS6 will cement my relationship with Safari on the desktop as the iCloud tab syncing is a true 'killer' feature. >>Chrome is lean, mean and fast. Lean? The last time I ran chrome it was using over 1GB of real RAM in less than an hour of casual browsing. Safari might get that high after several days, maybe, but unless you leave 20+ tabs open its not likely. -- 'Tell me, sir Samuel, do you know the phrase "Quis custodiet isos custodes?"? (...) It means "Who guards the guards themselves?" (...) Who watches the Watch?' --Feet of Clay Strange things are afoot at the Circle K

On 2012-06-17 16:38 , Lewis wrote: >>> Chrome is lean, mean and fast. > > Lean? The last time I ran chrome it was using over 1GB of real RAM in Current instance of Chrome is about a week old and seriously used. RAM: 201 MB (real mem) + 315 virtual. The "helpers" and such about another 150 MB + 200 virtual. eg: 350 MB real mem. If I increase that to 5 tabs, one playing video, then add about 55 MB per tab opened (real mem) + 65 MB per tab (virtual). Shut down the tabs, and all that mem is returned to the OS. -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens.

In message <J6mdnZboPfBn2UPSnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2012-06-17 16:38 , Lewis wrote: >>>> Chrome is lean, mean and fast. >> >> Lean? The last time I ran chrome it was using over 1GB of real RAM in > Current instance of Chrome is about a week old and seriously used. > RAM: 201 MB (real mem) + 315 virtual. > The "helpers" and such about another 150 MB + 200 virtual. > eg: 350 MB real mem. > If I increase that to 5 tabs, one playing video, then add about 55 MB > per tab opened (real mem) + 65 MB per tab (virtual). > Shut down the tabs, and all that mem is returned to the OS. I'll give Chrome another look then. There's still the Flash issue though... Safari on my laptop has been running since Friday and is using a total of 450-500MB, though nearly 200MB of that is shared. -- Ahahahahaha! Ahahahaha! Aahahaha! BEWARE!!!!! Yrs sincerely The Opera Ghost Nobody puts one over on Fred C. Dobbs.

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:38:15 +0000, Lewis wrote: > I used FireFOx pretty much exclusively from 1.0 through about v4 (right > before the version stupidity started) as it was easily the best browser > out there. However, since then Firefox has become lethargic and > problematic. I have been using Firefox extensively over the last couple of years, mainly for the plugins available. The recent versions appear to have addressed the bloat. >>>Chrome is lean, mean and fast. > > Lean? The last time I ran chrome it was using over 1GB of real RAM in > less than an hour of casual browsing. Safari might get that high after > several days, maybe, but unless you leave 20+ tabs open its not likely. Running on a Linux system I recently had 150 tabs open in Firefox. Performance wasn't stellar, but it wasn't unacceptable either.

> > I used FireFOx pretty much exclusively from 1.0 through about v4 (right > > before the version stupidity started) as it was easily the best browser > > out there. However, since then Firefox has become lethargic and > > problematic. > > I have been using Firefox extensively over the last couple of years, > mainly for the plugins available. The recent versions appear to have > addressed the bloat. > > >>>Chrome is lean, mean and fast. > > > > Lean? The last time I ran chrome it was using over 1GB of real RAM in > > less than an hour of casual browsing. Safari might get that high after > > several days, maybe, but unless you leave 20+ tabs open its not likely. > > Running on a Linux system I recently had 150 tabs open in Firefox. > Performance wasn't stellar, but it wasn't unacceptable either. And most importantly....all are superior to Exploder. Then again a dead fish rotting under the front porch is a better browser than Exploder. -- My name Indigo Montoya. | The Dude abides. You flamed my father. | I'm whoever you want me to be. Prepare to be spanked. | Annoying Usenet one post at a time. Stop posting that! | At least I can stay in character.

On 2012-06-17 01:04 , Wes Groleau wrote: > On 06-15-2012 16:52, Alan Browne wrote: >> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explorer-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story >> > > What do they charge for IE6? I'm sure you get that the point the business is trying to make is that it is costly for them to adapt their web code so that it handles the quirks of IE6 properly. It's a burden. They're just trying to get people to upgrade. If it were me and I thought the cost of IE6 "compliance" wasn't worth the business earned, I'd simply put up a note that the browser could not be used at the store when anyone tried to use it and urge them to move up to Chrome, Firefox or Safari. -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens.

On 12-06-18 7:51 AM, Paul Sture wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:38:15 +0000, Lewis wrote: >>>> Chrome is lean, mean and fast. >> >> Lean? The last time I ran chrome it was using over 1GB of real RAM in >> less than an hour of casual browsing. Safari might get that high after >> several days, maybe, but unless you leave 20+ tabs open its not likely. > > Running on a Linux system I recently had 150 tabs open in Firefox. > Performance wasn't stellar, but it wasn't unacceptable either. There seem to be leaks in Chrome on the Mac. I have to quit and restart it every few days. Cheers, -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts Reply-To address is valid

In article <1cadnU9D9KZoOULSnZ2dnUVZ_tYAAAAA@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2012-06-17 01:04 , Wes Groleau wrote: > > On 06-15-2012 16:52, Alan Browne wrote: > >> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explore > >> r-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story > >> > > > > What do they charge for IE6? > > I'm sure you get that the point the business is trying to make is that > it is costly for them to adapt their web code so that it handles the > quirks of IE6 properly. It's a burden. They're just trying to get > people to upgrade. The article is about IE7 compliance, not IE6. But I suspect that the charge is actually for IE7 and older, not just IE7. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

On 06-18-2012 23:09, Barry Margolin wrote: > In article <1cadnU9D9KZoOULSnZ2dnUVZ_tYAAAAA@giganews.com>, > Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > >> On 2012-06-17 01:04 , Wes Groleau wrote: >>> On 06-15-2012 16:52, Alan Browne wrote: >>>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explore >>>> r-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story >>>> >>> >>> What do they charge for IE6? >> >> I'm sure you get that the point the business is trying to make is that >> it is costly for them to adapt their web code so that it handles the >> quirks of IE6 properly. It's a burden. They're just trying to get >> people to upgrade. > > The article is about IE7 compliance, not IE6. But I suspect that the > charge is actually for IE7 and older, not just IE7. Why? The cost of supporting IE6 might be an order of magnitude higher than that of IE7. -- Wes Groleau “But, Professor! I didn't plagiarize! I paid someone to write the essay for me, and that person plagiarized!" — from http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com

In article <jrork0$h56$4@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: > On 06-18-2012 23:09, Barry Margolin wrote: > > In article <1cadnU9D9KZoOULSnZ2dnUVZ_tYAAAAA@giganews.com>, > > Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > > >> On 2012-06-17 01:04 , Wes Groleau wrote: > >>> On 06-15-2012 16:52, Alan Browne wrote: > >>>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explo > >>>> re > >>>> r-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story > >>>> > >>> > >>> What do they charge for IE6? > >> > >> I'm sure you get that the point the business is trying to make is that > >> it is costly for them to adapt their web code so that it handles the > >> quirks of IE6 properly. It's a burden. They're just trying to get > >> people to upgrade. > > > > The article is about IE7 compliance, not IE6. But I suspect that the > > charge is actually for IE7 and older, not just IE7. > > Why? The cost of supporting IE6 might be an order of magnitude higher > than that of IE7. But maybe there's diminishing returns from trying to get too complicated, if there aren't that many users of each older version. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

Similiar Articles:

Web-Safe Fonts? - comp.fonts
... fucking high on themselves if they think that they're just born with a soul. *snicker ... support nearest neighbor resizing of images and elements (I haven't checked IE7 yet ...

Great Advertising: Snickers – Don’t Stop (Director’s Cut ...
The commercial has nothing to do with Snickers, but concept of the commercial is ... Of course, that’s not enough for me to start using IE7 over Firefox, but it ...

Google phases out IE7 support - Tom's Guide: Your High-Tech Source ...
Now it's IE7's turn. Google has ... but I AM stuck with IE7 (which I had to install myself last year, the computer CAME with IE6). When McAfee System Defender *snicker* isn't ...

7/20/2012 4:35:48 PM