Re:Re[4]: Crash IE with shell://:

From: Peter (fbsdqat_private)
Date: Thu May 24 2001 - 07:59:04 PDT

  • Next message: exceed mekka-symposium: "Re: Crash IE with shell://:"

    I have yet to see Win98 Offer me something that Win 95 does not.
    
    98 == Overworked huge patch to Windows 95.
    
    I have yet to see a Windows box running slower than 700mhz  take 
    my win95 box running @ 233mhz. [boot up times, not photoshop times :) ]
    
    btw.  What is Win98Lite ?
    
    Links or Copy and paste would be nice.
    
    On 05/24/2001 7:49:01 AM, "Kevin J. Menard, Jr." is quoted as saying:
     
    
    . . . .|Hey Bob,
    . . . .|
    . . . .|Wednesday, May 23, 2001, 7:36:20 PM, you wrote:
    . . . .|
    . . . .|BF> Windows 98Lite, using Netscape 4.75, is not vulnerable to this crash test.
    . . . .|
    . . . .|BF> I guess if you don't care about speed, security or stability...then IE could 
    possibly be the best browser you know.
    . . . .|
    . . . .|IE is the fastest browser I've used.  I don't use Windows98 for security, I 
    use
    . . . .|it for multimedia.  If you really cared about security, you wouldn't be running
    . . . .|98.  IE tends to be very stable for me, especially in comparison to all the
    . . . .|other Win32 browsers I've used.
    . . . .|
    . . . .|BF> But without a trace of IE on my system using Win98 Lite, not only am I 
    more
    . . . .|BF> secure...
    . . . .|
    . . . .|Security on Win98 is almost non-existant.
    . . . .|
    . . . .|BF> the performance of my system is unmatched by any Windows 2000 or 
    Windows 98 system without any sacrifices.
    . . . .|
    . . . .|Windows 2000 is a resource hog.  I have yet to see a system that would run
    . . . .|quicker with that than with win98.
    . . . .|
    . . . .|
    . . . .|>>>> "Kevin J. Menard, Jr." <kmenardat_private> 05/23/01 01:57PM >>>
    . . . .|BF> Hey Peter,
    . . . .|
    . . . .|BF>     Interestingly, with the "IE Error Reporting" tool, your page degrades
    . . . .|BF>     gracefully for me.  I mean, it still dies, and I report the error (maybe
    . . . .|BF>     something will be done someday), but it does it "nicely" I guess.  It's
    . . . .|BF>     usually the gopher thing that triggers that for me.  But the shell one kills
    . . . .|BF>     me every time.  My entire task bar disappears and I have to restart 
    explorer
    . . . .|BF>     (Win2k, sp1, IE 5.50.4522.1800, 128-bit encryption).  And I'm not 
    trying to
    . . . .|BF>     start a flame war here, but I think you're web page title was rather 
    flawed.
    . . . .|BF>     Outside of lynx, IE is unfortunately the best browser I've encountered, 
    and
    . . . .|BF>     I've had far less issues with it than NS or Mozilla.  Likewise, I think 
    this
    . . . .|BF>     shell issue has to do with MS binding IE to the OS, which I do not 
    agree
    . . . .|BF>     with.
    . . . .|
    . . . .|BF>     Later.
    . . . .|
    
    
    
    www.nul.cjb.net
    www.FreeBSD.org
    
    
    
    _________________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 24 2001 - 08:26:12 PDT