Amnot Borg Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 IE7 used to only be available to genuine owners of the OS. It needed authenticity just like the OS to get updates. There are ways around both. Google proves that. Also, some legitimate owners just hate Microsoft nagging for proof of things they purchased from the company. I'm starting to really like Ubuntu as Microsoft gets to be more and more of a real pain. Vista? lol. I'll wait for the next version out in a few years and we'll see if I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayden Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 I use windizupdate.com for my XP updates but it doesn't seem to want to update IE7 (which I must use to bank online, Firefox doesn't work with my bank's web site >:( That's not a problem at all really. You can just download it from microsoft. In fact most updates are freely available from microsoft itself, without any sort of authentication. Only some select updates/programs require you to authenticate your OS prior to download, IE7 is not one of those. Of course, if you want to grab the updates from MS, you do need to know which ones you want, or else it's not much use. :cyclops: (unless you use windowsupdate of course, but given all the alternative sites that's been circling on this page, I have to assume your windows isn't "genuine", so windowsupdate won't work for you. Gotta love legal software :cyclops:) Anyway, get IE7 from MS and be done with that bit at least. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/downloads/ie/getitnow.mspx Except for reasons such as this, i would question use of the program at all.. Its just a massive RAM hog, and i;ve found my computer runs a whole lot better without it. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 IE7 used to only be available to genuine owners of the OS. It needed authenticity just like the OS to get updates. There are ways around both. Google proves that. Also, some legitimate owners just hate Microsoft nagging for proof of things they purchased from the company. I'm starting to really like Ubuntu as Microsoft gets to be more and more of a real pain. Vista? lol. I'll wait for the next version out in a few years and we'll see if I like it. Mark1: used to be - meaning: not any longer, hence, I fail to see the point of that particular bit of the reply, besides the fact that somebody might have thought that the software business is static... :p Mark2: nagging for proof of things - if you have a legitimate version there really isn't any(/or depending how sensitive you are, not much) nagging going on. You authenticate once, via 1 simple click on a button, no information is asked. They just ask, would you please click this button, so I can do everything for you. That really can't be too much work for anybody. If you don't have internet, you'll have to call a free number, yes, that's more work, but at least you'd never be asked to click a button for an update, since no internet = no updates (unless you really don't mind extra work and have MS ship a cd with your updates to you, yes, they do that :o (it's not free btw :p )). Seriously, in terms of authentication, MS is pretty laid back, I've never had any trouble at all with it, and given the amount of 'unlicenced' windows verions that circulate, it certainly is understandable that they have to find at least some way to improve the experience of the people that did pay for their equal OS, compared to the free riders. Now, mind you, I'm no fan of closed software at all, and MS is certainly not one of my favourite companies, but if you look at it objectively, surely you can see that a lot of complaints about MS are simply freeby fanboy-isms. Linux (no matter which version, some are better at it than others) still is harder to learn than windows, even more so for people who've been using windows for most of their lives. The thing is, Linux tries to walk a fine line between enthousiasts and beginners, but once you become a beginner with some extra needs, Linux gets 'hard' fast. Too hard for most people. They don't want to tinker with their pc for 2 hours before they get something to work properly, they want it to work right from the start or at least not take more effort than some simple button clicks. That's what Joe average wants from his pc. Linux is simply not suitable for these people, especially, since they can get a full windows version for $90 and then they'll need to tinker a lot less. And between you and me $90 simply isn't much money nowadays. How do I justify that? Look for example at the sheer number of of Eee pc's that are sold. Now that is a one-piece-of-garbage laptop, the pricing is rediculously high compared to what you get in return, compared to 'normal' laptops, yet they fly of the counter as if they were free. Which to me means, people have plenty of cash to spend on gimmics. Anyway, I'm not at all anti-Linux, however, for the average person, the $90 they save, is not worth the extra hassle to properly set up and maintain and use a Linux desktop as their main system. For the computer enthousiast, the whole story changes of course, but we don't live on a planet filled with computer enthousiasts (good for me :D ). Some extra thoughts on the $90, if you buy your pc from an OEM, like DELL, HP, Lenovo, etc... The OS won't even cost you that much. More like $40 or $50. How did I arrive at that figure. Some of those OEM's allow you to buy a PC with either Windows or Linux, the rest of the configuration remains the same. It's not $90 cheaper... Why? If they install Linux, they have to provide support for it, which costs money... Personally, if I'd buy a pc from an OEM (which I've never done btw, besides laptops), I would always choose the windows version, since it simply is better real-life value... You can always install Linux yourself afterwards if you're an enthousiast, and if you aren't chances are you won't like 'the Linux way' and be forced to buy (or pirate) windows afterwards anyway... Now, if you are a fanboy or you sit on your cash like a rock (for whatever reason) and you really want the cheapest and you don't mind doing some extra work for it, then I can understand you find saving $40 for an OS you might or might not need a good deal, most 'westerners' would buy it anyway though. Wow, I seem to have gone on an extensive off-topic parade. :D Anway, in short what I wanted to say, no matter what is a popular rethoric on the net today, windows simply is more user friendly than linux (try doing anything 'serious' in linux without using the command line and then I'm not even speaking of all the different Linux 'distros', it's not really comparable (in a way it's worse, in another way, it's better, it simply depends on your pov), but people complain about there being too many windows versions, well as far as that statement and 'user friendlyness' is concerned, I laugh at Linux). Of course, in my entire long and boring text above, I'm completely ignoring Mac OS. Why? Because, when we talk about user lock-in and authentification, Mac OS is at least 10 times worse than windows. Now that's the only comment I make on mac os, since I haven't used it since the 90's and I'm sure a lot has changed, so whatever I'd say would probably be incorrect and irrelevant (I can say that most people I've spoken to who've made a serious effort to try and work with it, have been converted into mac 'fanboys' and that considering the pricing and hardware lock-in, it would cost you a fair penny more to be able to enjoy it). Except for reasons such as this, i would question use of the program at all.. Its just a massive RAM hog, and i;ve found my computer runs a whole lot better without it. :P Weren't you on Mac? Anyway, I've got IE7 installed on all my windows pc's and don't have any trouble with any one of them, nor does it consume much more memory than IE6. Compared to FF3 and opera9.x however, that's another matter. (let's forget about ff2, since that's the greatest memory eating browser made, EVER) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyran Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Why all the dispair at how much ram your systen uses ? thats what ram is for. I whinge when it's not using enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayden Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Weren't you on Mac? Anyway, I've got IE7 installed on all my windows pc's and don't have any trouble with any one of them, nor does it consume much more memory than IE6. Compared to FF3 and opera9.x however, that's another matter. (let's forget about ff2, since that's the greatest memory eating browser made, EVER) Thats what i had on my mind when i posted my reply, maybe i should have made my self clearer... I am on a Mac for my personal pc.. At work though and on my old PC, i use ff. I thought IE7 was clearly superior in ram hogging abilities over ff2? Do you use ff3? I know its only candidate release, but i still thought it was interesting enough to get it.. Especially when your net browser has multiple tabs running i do find the memory usage clocks up. Why all the dispair at how much ram your systen uses ? thats what ram is for. I whinge when it's not using enough Haha, valid point.. My brother would want to be your best friend. He has a memory monitoring widget so he knows whats going on and makes sure hes optimising his ram. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Thats what i had on my mind when i posted my reply, maybe i should have made my self clearer... I am on a Mac for my personal pc.. At work though and on my old PC, i use ff. I thought IE7 was clearly superior in ram hogging abilities over ff2? Do you use ff3? I know its only candidate release, but i still thought it was interesting enough to get it.. Especially when your net browser has multiple tabs running i do find the memory usage clocks up. Well, it depends, if you're only running a few tabs, IE7 gets away pretty decently, when you're running a whole bunch of tabs, it gets worse than FF2 really fast. I hardly ever run more than 3 or 4 tabs myself though. FF3 is way superior to either one of those btw, I believe they're up to RC2 by now, so I'm guessing they'll be releasing a final within the next 2 months. I'm also guessing that Opera 9.5 final will be released in that same timeframe, they will probably have to, to remain competitive. Unfortunately, that would probably also mean that the full acid3 fixes won't be included in the 9.5 final build of opera (since I don't think they've been included in the last beta and weeklies either, I guess we'll have to wait for either 9.6 or 10 for those) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amnot Borg Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 ok, I don't use IE7. The last article I read or googled about it did mention workarounds to the process of activating IE7. I did assume it still needed such a thing. My error. Nagging, yes, MS is known for bugging its users by asking slightly annoying questions. I don't even like the "click me to use this software" EULA thingies from other software providers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Myself I've never been much of a fan for the tabs in IE7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Thats what i had on my mind when i posted my reply, maybe i should have made my self clearer... I am on a Mac for my personal pc.. At work though and on my old PC, i use ff. I thought IE7 was clearly superior in ram hogging abilities over ff2? Do you use ff3? I know its only candidate release, but i still thought it was interesting enough to get it.. Especially when your net browser has multiple tabs running i do find the memory usage clocks up. Well, it depends, if you're only running a few tabs, IE7 gets away pretty decently, when you're running a whole bunch of tabs, it gets worse than FF2 really fast. I hardly ever run more than 3 or 4 tabs myself though. FF3 is way superior to either one of those btw, I believe they're up to RC2 by now, so I'm guessing they'll be releasing a final within the next 2 months. I'm also guessing that Opera 9.5 final will be released in that same timeframe, they will probably have to, to remain competitive. Unfortunately, that would probably also mean that the full acid3 fixes won't be included in the 9.5 final build of opera (since I don't think they've been included in the last beta and weeklies either, I guess we'll have to wait for either 9.6 or 10 for those) I'll agree with that, can't wait for full release of ff3. I was reading somewhere that IE7 was way over the top of everything, i actually went and found it. I got it from this post at Life Hacker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Hehehe, this topic has gone so much off-topic that I think we can safely ignore the original topic by now, especially since the original problem was very specific and was solved? :grin: Anyway, back on the 'new and improved' topic ( :D ), it seems there are even some people that are (without realising it when they started?) defending IE7 in a weird way. IE7, the fastest browser on the block: --- IE7 outperforms other XP and Leopard browsers in RIA tests GUIMark --- What's worse, it even looks legit. :o So far for browser tests... Seems they can't be trusted, since I've seen tests that say Opera is fastest, I've seen a bunch that say Savari is the speediest, I've also seen those that say FF is faster and now I've seen tests that say IE7 is the dragster... We'll probably just have to rely on our own subjective feeling of speed when we're using a browser, since a test that can definately determine the winner in an objective way, doesn't seem to exist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Thats true they always seem to be testing different things. weather it be calculating Pi() to 1000 decimals, or some bs.. So i think your quite right saying that their unreliable. IMO though, when ever I've been using tabs in IE7, it seems to be consume ram exponentially, where as with FF2 its a bit more conserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyran Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Why bother putting ram in? the whole point of having ram is to USE it the more ram you use the faster you go. cos you're not writing to disc, you WANT to use more ram, don't moan about it be thankful it's getting used Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I see your a ram conservationist, its not as if i don't like seeing my ram go to use, but i do enjoy the feeling of all that backup sitting there just in case i go into a multiple app fenzzie! For an example i had windows media centre running the other day, watching a bit of voyager i might add, on my secondary monitor (sony lcd), and felt like a bit of age of empires 3.. So i just booted it up no worries and it was cruising. I was just under boarder line for my cpu though lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now