And why this "server issue" is not issue for Google Chrome?Originally Posted by abachler
And why this "server issue" is not issue for Google Chrome?
All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection,
except for the problem of too many layers of indirection.
– David J. Wheeler
Have you done an actual statistical analysis, or are you just goign off 'well IE locked up so i fired up another browser and it loaded right away'. Because many times these situations can be fixed by simply hitting reload. Google chrome is also written to handle non-standard code, while IE is written to handle standard compliant code. Don't blame the browser because it choked on a broken website.
No, I haven't made a statisitical analysis. And I havent sit with a timer while waiting for some stites to load in IE and Chrome.
I just have seen to many times "Loading..." message in IE (too many for my liking) and started to look for another browser. And Chrme is my current alternative... I'm still evaluating it...
About
I fill just the opposite. Chrome so far is a lot less "real web"-compliant when IE. There are too many sites - that it cannot load while IE can.Google chrome is also written to handle non-standard code, while IE is written to handle standard compliant code. Don't blame the browser because it choked on a broken website
All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection,
except for the problem of too many layers of indirection.
– David J. Wheeler
What kind of websites are you going to?
I've never seen a speed problem with IE. Although Apple's crappy browser (can't remember the name right now) does seem to load pages at lightning speed, they look like crap. But waiting 1 second vs 2-3 seconds, isn't really that important to me.
"I am probably the laziest programmer on the planet, a fact with which anyone who has ever seen my code will agree." - esbo, 11/15/2008
"the internet is a scary place to be thats why i dont use it much." - billet, 03/17/2010
LOL. That line is usually written the other way.Google chrome is also written to handle non-standard code, while IE is written to handle standard compliant code. Don't blame the browser because it choked on a broken website.
IE CSS bugs - Google Search
I believe you are referring to Safari.Although Apple's crappy browser (can't remember the name right now) does seem to load pages at lightning speed
The real debate is over who's standards you want to adopt. There's open standards, found more in the open-source world, but as abachler points out - if all your clients already support one standard, you might as well cater to them. If you do have a virtual monopoly, what you do pretty much IS the standard.
As much as I don't like a lot of Microsoft's recent products, people know them, and you have to deal with that. I use Linux and Firefox because they are closer to my own personal preferences, and from my perspective I believe them to be superior. I even convinced by wife to start using alternative browsers for security reasons. After the switch, she had fewer reliability and virus issues (which were very common on her PC before). On the other hand, she still has to use IE for her homework because she's required to use certain tools that only work on IE.
I think it's only worsening the situation when people develop in such a way that students are required to pay for a Windows license in order to complete the class, but unfortunately that's how a true market economy works, and so businesses are just going to keep working that way. For what I do at work, I thought BSD would be a much better choice - but the fact is, if I used BSD, most of the people working to support my department wouldn't have a clue what was going on, and so we have to account for that.
edit: @ akkerknight
The problem with your computer has nothing to do with Linux's lack of features. When you boot up, a computer has to start somewhere. It starts in a location call the boot record. Windows used to have a boot loader at that location. When you installed Linux, it overwrote that with GRUB, allowing you to choose between two other places to start: Windows, or Linux. Once you remove the files GRUB needs to work, do you really think Linux (which was no longer on your machine) should be written to put your Windows boot loader back at that location? Not only is that a tricky thing to do, I don't think Microsoft would want Linux getting shipped with a very crucial part of their operating system.
Linux may be great and all but I really think most of its users live in a fantasy world where money doesn't win. Microsoft is not going to be de-throned any time soon as the king of OS's. Linux has a long way to go to ever hope of coming close.
If you look at the console market you can plainly see that anyone that is poised to beat Microsoft eventually gets squashed. It is rumored that Microsoft did not make one penny of profit on the first XBox and yet they continued to produce it just to compete. How can a company compete with a giant like that who can afford to put a great product out without making a single dime?
So you really think Linux is going to win over Windows just because it has a bigger fanboy base? C'mon now.
..and my how we have strayed off the topic. My apologies to the OP.
I think that this article titled Linux is Not Windows still makes good points in response to your questions, although some Linux distributions really are working towards becoming "Windows replacements".
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
The problem with the "windows replacement" is that it's exceptionally hard, if not impossible, to get the best of both worlds. Take abachler's issue with the Ubuntu installation, for instance.
I think Ubuntu is the closest thing yet to a drop-in replacement of Windows, but I think it does it without sacrificing a lot of the power. Partitions for instance. In the installer, you can manipulate, create, and remove partitions, install to a particular partition without affecting the others, and then set it up to boot to any of the existing operating systems.
On the other hand, Windows won't let you do any of that. It gives you a one-click installation.
You could make it a one-click installation, with another button to open up a customization menu, but I'm sure that would draw criticism from some groups too - it'll be impossible to please everyone. My only objection is when companies do things to intentionally hide the possibilities from their users.
But it will. Ever since Vista.
It asks you right during the installation on what partition you want to install it on.
I like that approach actually. The ability to choose Standard or Advanced, plus the option that the installer can choose for you, if you are unsure.
The Ubuntu installer, if I remember correctly, is more of the spirit of advanced users:
It provides options for everything to customize, though you can skip over them if you want. It's different than Windows hide it approach, though.
Last edited by Elysia; 04-05-2009 at 12:59 PM.
I don't think Linux would need to come with a Windows boot loader. All they'd need to do is make a backup copy of the existing boot loader before installing Grub. Then when you uninstall, it restores the old boot loader.
"I am probably the laziest programmer on the planet, a fact with which anyone who has ever seen my code will agree." - esbo, 11/15/2008
"the internet is a scary place to be thats why i dont use it much." - billet, 03/17/2010
I believe you are referring to the Debian/early Ubuntu text mode installer. It divides options into "sections", and you can choose to skip them. Not too pretty, but very functional, easy to use, and runs with 32MB RAM.The Ubuntu installer, if I remember correctly, is more of the spirit of advanced users:
It provides options for everything to customize, though you can skip over them if you want. It's different than Windows hide it approach, though.
I believe Ubuntu has had the "dumber" GUI installer since at least 6.04 (released April 2006). IIRC, the steps are (may not be in this order) -
license agreement
timezone
username/password
partitions
confirmation (and whether you want to install GRUB)
That's why I don't get why people say it's hard to install Linux...
Problem is uninstalling is not usually done by Linux code.All they'd need to do is make a backup copy of the existing boot loader before installing Grub. Then when you uninstall, it restores the old boot loader.
Do you uninstall Windows first before you install Linux?
Installing linux is even easier with WUBI. It just creates a partition within a file from windows and then you get the option to boot into linux. You can even uninstall the operating system through addremove programs.
