IE can't even paste and go an url, you have to paste it then hit enter or the arrow, lame. In Opera I just select paste and go with right mouse button, so much quicker.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
IE sucks!!!!!
- Thread starter shroomiin
- Start date
IE can't even paste and go an url, you have to paste it then hit enter or the arrow, lame. In Opera I just select paste and go with right mouse button, so much quicker.
That is the fault of the lazy website developers and not the browser. Microsoft broke standards to try and monopolize the browser market. You might support bad business ethics but I don't.
Ironically I have better time with FF then IE with Microsofts own products, such as sharepoint, crm, exchange.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding your post but if I see a url I can easily right click 'open in new tab' or 'open in new window' and it will open fine with IE
It's also the fault of the lazy website developers when websites don't work in IE, as well.
Microsoft introduces new features which aren't part of the standard in an effort to get these features utilized and eventually added to the standard. Do you like your web 2.0 internet? You should thank Microsoft, then. See AJAX.
....Said literally nobody in the entire world. You can't honestly be serious. Name 1 HTML 1.0 compliant website that you use on a weekly basis.
Seriously, did HTML 1.0 even make it to be a standard? I don't think it did; I'm pretty sure it lived it's life as an IETF draft. Also, security? You think HTML 1.0 is more secure than what, exactly?
It's not their software which has created security risk vectors. It's the dumb user-base of people who refuse to use proper permissions that are almost solely responsible for all of the security issues. If you log into your computer as an administrator and encounter security problems, that's largely your own fault. Windows 7/Windows 8, from a security 'moving-forward' perspective serve only to facilitate using the principle of least privilege. Adding more functional web features is necessary for people who wish to use the web for pretty much anything...at all. If you strip away everything down to HTML 1.0 (which again, wasn't even a standard), you're left with almost nothing.
Last edited:
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
ActiveX integration - inherent security problem. Also IE has been historically the No 1 attack vector on windows platform.
No, I've never used IE and never will. Can you even get noscript for IE?
That is not the same as 'paste and go'. Chrome has same option too. IE should add this option. I'm talking about if you copy an url to clipboard and then paste into the address bar in your browser. IE does not have 'paste and go", just paste.
Last edited:
You mean that thing that has been disabled by default and 'opt-in' since 2006?
Can't drive by install malware when there are no scripts on the web site. With HTML 1.0 sites I can use OB1 browser perfectly functional which has no scripting service installed even. Yes, the whizbang sites with scripts all over the place are prettier and more advanced features but they are responsible for messing up peoples computers too.
Last edited:
If that is true then why is there an option for ActiveX filtering under tools menu in IE and if i enable it my BF3 plugin does not work? I never opted into anything.
Last edited:
Yeah...can't do much of anything at all, actually. Good luck, have fun. You wouldn't be using this web page if that was how the internet worked.
On the other hand, wouldn't it just be more intelligent to lock down the environment the web content is running in rather than just locking down the web content itself? It's fairly difficult to install malware on a standard user account, so just use one of those. Then the 'drive by' will need to find a way to get a privilege escalation before it can even do anything.
...So that you can run ActiveX on some websites, while leaving it off on others? Did you even bother figuring out what ActiveX filtering is before you said that?
No, actually, you did. The first time you went to that page, the opt-in dialog would have come up asking you if you'd like to load the ActiveX control, and clearly you have clicked yes, otherwise it would have never worked.
Does this sort of thing look familiar?
http://i.msdn.microsoft.com/dynimg/IC70749.gif
Last edited:
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
There is a way to workaround this: http://www.vinodunny.com/blog/post/Paste-amp3b-Go-with-Internet-Explorer.aspx
Oddly enough the Modern versions of IE do have Paste and Go.
Thanks, by modern you mean IE10 or IE in Metro? I can't use IE10 on Win7 because there is some bug in the update I need to run IE10 that is incompatible with Nvidia driver in BF3 which causes yellow roads, yes, I am serious.
I'm wondering what version of IE you are using as I find the latest builds of Firefox to be the slowest out of Chrome/IE 10/Firefox
Nope, and the IE Tracking protection that uses easylist doesn't even have a manual update function. I am assuming it auto-updates otherwise it is lame.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
The spread between all browsers tested is 0.12%
The spread between IE, Firefox, and Chrome is only 0.05%
All that really says is that all three browsers (IE, Firefox, and Chrome) are stable as hell.
ActiveX is disabled by default in the last few versions of IE, and it can be enabled on a site-by-site basis if it is needed.
Last edited:
Correct, there really was not standard HTML 1.0
HTML 2.0 was the first time an IETF RFC was put out. It never became a standard.
HTML 3.2 was the first time a "modern" spec was put out as a recommendation by the W3C, who still create the HTML specs today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML#Version_history_of_the_standard
I suspect the person talking about HTML 1.0 is more likely talking about HTML 4.0.1 from December 1999, which was the first widely adopted recommendation. Before that and for some time after it was pretty wild wild west out there.
I don't know version number and I am just talking about sites that use basic HTML code and no javascript, activeX and other plugin crapware like Flash. Yes, there are still some sites designed like that and follow the KISS principle. Even for gaming I would prefer an advanced version of Dos because it talks directly to the hardware and gives better game performance. Now you can call me a Luddite.
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040132451&postcount=41
I would expect different from a 'visual' person. Also, on some level, all versions of Windows talk directly to Windows, including the newer ones, like Windows 7 and Windows 8. See HAL. DOS doesn't really live any closer to the hardware....it just does less.
Looks like google should get more credit than Microsoft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(programming)
"Google made a wide deployment of standards-compliant, cross browser Ajax with Gmail (2004) and Google Maps (2005).[6]
The term Ajax was coined on 18 February 2005 by Jesse James Garrett in an article entitled "Ajax: A New Approach to Web Applications", based on techniques used on Google pages."
Drawbacks[edit source]
In pre-HTML5 browsers, pages dynamically created using successive Ajax requests did not automatically register themselves with the browser's history engine, so clicking the browser's "back" button may not have returned the browser to an earlier state of the Ajax-enabled page, but may have instead returned to the last full page visited before it. Such behavior — navigating between pages instead of navigating between page states — may be desirable, but if fine-grained tracking of page state is required then a pre-HTML5 workaround was to use invisible iframes to trigger changes in the browser's history. A workaround implemented by Ajax techniques is to change the URL fragment identifier (the part of a URL after the '#') when an Ajax-enabled page is accessed and monitor it for changes.[9][10] HTML5 provides an extensive API standard for working with the browser's history engine.[11]
Dynamic web page updates also make it difficult to bookmark and return to a particular state of the application. Solutions to this problem exist, many of which again use the URL fragment identifier.[9][10] The solution provided by HTML5 for the above problem also applies for this.[11]
Depending on the nature of the Ajax application, dynamic page updates may interfere disruptively with user interactions, especially if working on an unstable Internet connection. For instance, editing a search field may trigger a query to the server for search completions, but the user may not know that a search completion popup is forthcoming, and if the internet connection is slow, the popup list may show up at an inconvenient time, when the user has already proceeded to do something else.
Because most web crawlers do not execute JavaScript code,[12] publicly indexable web applications should provide an alternative means of accessing the content that would normally be retrieved with Ajax, thereby allowing search engines to index it.
Any user whose browser does not support JavaScript or XMLHttpRequest, or simply has this functionality disabled, will not be able to properly use pages which depend on Ajax. Devices such as smartphones and PDAs may not have support for the required technologies, though this is becoming less of an issue. The only way to let the user carry out functionality is to fall back to non-JavaScript methods. This can be achieved by making sure links and forms can be resolved properly and not relying solely on Ajax.[13]
Similarly, some web applications which use Ajax are built in a way that cannot be read by screen-reading technologies, such as JAWS. The WAI-ARIA standards provide a way to provide hints in such a case.[14]
Screen readers that are able to use Ajax may still not be able to properly read the dynamically generated content.[15]
The same origin policy prevents some Ajax techniques from being used across domains,[6] although the W3C has a draft of the XMLHttpRequest object that would enable this functionality.[16] Methods exist to sidestep this security feature by using a special Cross Domain Communications channel embedded as an iframe within a page,[17] or by the use of JSONP.
The asynchronous callback-style of programming required can lead to complex code that is hard to maintain, to debug[18] and to test.[19]
I was picking on a rant about a web page presentation software in the operating system area of this forum.
Wikipedia copy-paste? That's your argument?
You did actually read this sentence, didn't you? I don't think you did, because all it's saying is that Google made two websites (Gmail and Google Maps) that used the AJAX technologies....As in, they didn't make any of the technology; They just used it.
Ajax is just the name for a variety of ways or protocols to create and deploy client-agnostic services (among other things). Google did not develop these services any more than any other entity. Read the article you're using; it explicitly states that Google didn't invent ajax
What argument? google>> Microosft. I don't see any argument.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Uh... you realize the Xbox One is basically abstraction-city, right?
The Xbox One runs on top of a custom Hypervisor OS based on Hyper-V, which hosts two virtual machines (one for disc-based games, one for the main UI / media consumption activities). You effectively have two full OS's between your game and the hardware at all times.
It's a console, it's running games inside of a virtual machine to provide increased flexibility, it's using abstraction to its advantage. Doesn't seem to be harming anything.
Last edited:
Where did I say "developed" or "invented"?
I don't know anything about Xboxone but there is an article explaining why consoles can do more on less hardware and it says it is because of less OS overhead and talking more directly to the hardware so that article doesn't jive with what you are saying.
Also, I said PC gaming and not Xbox, I don't need no steenkin' Xbox. I want Microsoft to make a gamer's OS for PC gamers. They should have separate dedicated products for gamers, tablets and desktop PC users. I smell money to be made if they do that. More work but better success rate too.
That would be Xbox, Windows RT and Windows 8.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Just pointing out that your example using game consoles is no-longer valid (whatever old article you're referring to doesn't jibe with the current reality).
Current-gen consoles use more abstraction than you find on a gaming PC. The PS3, PS4, and Xbox One all use a hypervisor running one or more virtual machines, and games run inside of one of those VM's.
So... Microsoft have already done what you wanted. You're already using a desktop OS with fewer abstraction layers than current-gen consoles.
Last edited:
You didn't read the article correctly and/or the article isn't correct.
Consoles do more with different, not more with less. The organization and architecture of the console systems is completely different from that of a PC. The hardware is different, and uses a different instruction set, and it's all tailored to doing different things.
In case you haven't noticed PC gaming is where its at and consoles is mostly for the kiddy gamers. I bought both Xbox360 and PS3, returned 360 due to no BD and was also noisy compared to PS3. I rarely use it and 99% of gaming is done on my PC. PS3 serves more as a BD player than a gaming machine.
Next gen won't be so different from the PC so how are they going to maintain that performance benefit when PC hardware has already far surpassed what they will have?
I didn't read the article wrong and have seen many people say the same thing besides that article.
I should make a habit of quoting people. Before you edited your post you explicitly said that Microsoft is taking credit for "something Google developed." (you literally said that last part in quotes, but have since edited your post)
Last edited:
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
What performance benefit? Consoles have almost always been slower than desktop PCs.
This is par for the course.
Unfortunately, you must have. Or the article was incorrect. Loads of people on the internet don't actually know what they're talking about.
If you would like an actual answer, I would suggest learning how to program would be a great start.