Upgrading IE6...?
Janetb
upgrading from IE6 to either 7 or 8. Thus, I have stuck with my IE6. But I
have recently discovered that I am consequently missing out on various
dropdown menus; also a number of sites say they are phasing out compatibility
with IE6. I thus feel compelled to upgrade....
I am looking for a site which has detailed, exact directions (like MS's KB)
for switching from IE6 to IE7 WITHOUT LOSING ANY Favorites, History,
Settings, IE data (e.g., AutoFill), and/or extensive OE Data.
My OS is XP Pro SP2.
Why I don't want IE8:
I am not interested in IE8 until all/most of the bugs are fixed (has that
point been reached yet?), as I remember many people had many problems with
IE7 when it first came out. Also, 8 may be too big for my little system (?).
I have a small, old system, and upgrades of older programs are often
prohibitive in size nowadays.
Why I don't want Firefox:
I have an English interface which is Hebrew-enabled. General consensus is
that Firefox does not work for many basic Hebrew sites (e.g., banks, health
system, etc.) and my system is too small for both IE AND FF.
Ideally it would be good to do a total, new installation, but I do not want
to have to deal with redoing all my data/settings from scratch, so I would
need to know how to export and save EVERYTHING (not just Favorites--see
above). Actually my main concern is not so much with IE, but rather the fact
that OE was a component of IE, and thus removal of IE (for a clean install)
meant removing OE with it. That's what I'm afraid to play around with, as it
has years of business correspondence on it.....Maybe I'll just do an update
after all....But to 7 or 8? I hope the size hasn't tripled...(another reason
I don't upgrade some programs until I get a new system)...
Thanks for any references!
Janet
--
Thanks for the help!
![PA Bear [MS MVP]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXsf05hH-R8XChS3fXPPzfoO8FYYxAKhT86KfPnIELr3QJ9tQ=s40-c)
PA Bear [MS MVP]
After 12 April 2010, your computer will NOT be offered any critical security
updates nor will Windows Update website be available until and unless you
get SP3 installed so you'd best get WinXP SP3 and all post-SP3 patches
installed first.
About IE7 & IE8 and Windows XP Service Pack 3
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/05/05/ie-and-xpsp3.aspx
HOW TO get a computer running WinXP SP2 fully patched (You can probably skip
Step #4)
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/msg/a066ae41add7dd2b
2. To install IE7, see Sandi's Installation Tips for IE7 (Steps #1-8, #10 &
#11; take note of #12, then STOP!)
http://www.ie-vista.com/known_issues.html#pre-install
(ignore any references to Vista)
IE7 will not be offered via Windows Update. You can download the installer
for WinXP here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=9ae91ebe-3385-447c-8a30-081805b2f90b
Save the installer to your desktop, do not Run it. Then double-click on the
saved file when you're ready to install IE7.
Make *certain* that you check in at http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com
immediately after installing IE7, select the CUSTOM option & scan. Install
any critical security updates offered. If Optional Updates category offers
Root Certificates update, install it to take full advantage of IE7's
additional security.
NB: DO NOT INSTALL IE8! Uncheck it then "hide" it.
About IE7 (and IE8) Installation and Anti-Malware Applications
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/10/11/IE7-Installation-and-Anti_2D00_Malware-Applications.aspx
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002
www.banthecheck.com
BillW50
PA Bear [MS MVP] typed on Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:44:27 -0400:
> [Crosspost to IE General newsgroup]
>
> After 12 April 2010, your computer will NOT be offered any critical
> security updates nor will Windows Update website be available until
> and unless you get SP3 installed so you'd best get WinXP SP3 and all
> post-SP3 patches installed first.
The lack of support is a very old one and it goes back to MS-DOS v1.0.
So this shouldn't be a big deal either, we have been all through this
before. Just keep you other security software up-to-date and you should
be just fine.
There are many reasons why somebody doesn't want to install SP3.
1) It eats up too much room on small drive systems
2) Doesn't add any new features
3) Breaks some applications and drivers, even MS own EWF
4) Some people have reported slower performance
And I am sure there are many more reasons.
--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2
N. Miller
> In news:%230hMsrf...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
> PA Bear [MS MVP] typed on Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:44:27 -0400:
>> [Crosspost to IE General newsgroup]
>>
>> After 12 April 2010, your computer will NOT be offered any critical
>> security updates nor will Windows Update website be available until
>> and unless you get SP3 installed so you'd best get WinXP SP3 and all
>> post-SP3 patches installed first.
>
> The lack of support is a very old one and it goes back to MS-DOS v1.0.
> So this shouldn't be a big deal either, we have been all through this
> before. Just keep you other security software up-to-date and you should
> be just fine.
>
> There are many reasons why somebody doesn't want to install SP3.
>
> 1) It eats up too much room on small drive systems
The smallest drive I've seen on a computer with sufficient resources to run
Windows XP at all is 20 GB. That computer only has 256 MB of RAM, and that,
not SP3, is the cause of it running so slowly.
> 2) Doesn't add any new features
It is my understanding that it rolled up a number of critical updates that
otherwise had to be installed separately.
> 3) Breaks some applications and drivers, even MS own EWF
I can't say that it has done that on anything I've installed it on.
> 4) Some people have reported slower performance
And some haven't.
> And I am sure there are many more reasons.
If SP3 is such a dog on your hardware, it might be time to either:
Upgrade to newer hardware.
Install an OS that can run on the hardware; say, one of the Linux distros.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
Janetb
original post....:-)....
My system is 20 GB with 256 MB of RAM. When I move a few months down the
line, I will get an entire new system. I am presently looking for interim
solutions. I would like to safely upgrade to IE7. I believe my original post
has clearly outlined the situation, so please do not suggest actions which
will be perfectly suitable down the line but not just now (for me).
Many thanks,
Janet
PA Bear [MS MVP]
August:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser/msg/7f71ca33c663e172
NB: I strongly recommend installing SP3 and any post-SP3 critical security
updates prior to installing IE7.
Janetb
May I offer my sincerest apologies!!! When I was notified of your first
post, I was unable to open the page--got an all white blank page. I tried a
number of times at different times, but never was able to open it. Then I
guess I eventually forgot that I had not seen it. By the time I received
notification of the new posts (yesterday) I had forgotten all about it. Once
again I got only a white page from the email link, so this time I went to the
forum and searched my post. When I read the exerpts of your post within the
new posts, they of course did not include all the 'good' (for me) parts...!
It just didn't occur to me to go back to your original post. Yes, you gave me
ALL the info I was looking for....:-)....! So I will go through it link by
link now and let you know if any further questions come up....I'm going to
assume that once I have SP3 and IE7, email links to this page will work
again....:-)....
Thanks for the help! Again, my apologies...
Janet
Janetb
uninstalling IE removed OE (?). When I upgrade to 7, will my OE remain
unaffected? This is what really concerned me about upgrading, as I have a lot
of OE settings (e.g.,rules), not to mention, years of correspondence.....
J.
Gordon
"Janetb" <Jan...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DDCFA58B-B2BF-4739...@microsoft.com...
> One quick question: OE used to be a component of IE and I believe
> uninstalling IE removed OE (?).
Uninstalling (presumably) IE7 does not uninstall OE...
> When I upgrade to 7, will my OE remain
> unaffected? This is what really concerned me about upgrading, as I have a
> lot
> of OE settings (e.g.,rules), not to mention, years of correspondence.....
>
No. Windows 7 comes with NO mail client at all.
I suggest you download and install Windows Live Mail and transfer all your
mail and settings to that so that you can continue with Windows 7...
Janetb
Janetb
I'm upgrading from IE6 to IE7 on Windows XP PRo....
J.
Gordon
> For Gordon again:
>
> I'm upgrading from IE6 to IE7 on Windows XP PRo....
>
> J.
Precisely. If you uninstall IE7 it won't affect OE...
Gordon
> ??????? Hmmmm. I'm not uninstalling IE7 and I don't have Windows
> 7...:-)....
>
Well you can't uninstall IE6 from XP, so I assumed (correctly) you were
talking about IE7.
You need to be very specific about terminology at this time. "Upgrade to 7"
could mean "Windows" 7.
And if you are upgrading, why not go straight to IE8? Why bother with IE7?
PA Bear [MS MVP]
Uninstalling IE7 or IE8 automatically returns the computer to the previous
IE version and does not effect OE6 in any way.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002
www.banthecheck.com
N. Miller
A: There is a way to get IE7; I just don't know it.
B: I have an old HP Pavilion 6745C with only a 20 GB disc, and 256 MB of
RAM. It came with Windows ME, which was problematic for the way I was using
the computer. After upgrading to Windows XP Home Edition (SP2), I discovered
that XP really doesn't like it so cramped (256 MB of RAM), and runs slower
than Windows ME did. But I am too cheap to upgrade the RAM; the speed is
only an issue during updates.
I have updated the OS to SP3, and the browser to IE8, and am only filling
10.5 GB, or so, of the 20 GB disc.
N. Miller
As of MS Internet Explorer 7, MS Outlook Express is no longer bundled with
the browser. However, MS Outlook Express 6 is not removed when updating
MSIE.
N. Miller
> I'm upgrading from IE6 to IE7 on Windows XP PRo....
Which will have no impact on MS Outlook Express 6.
FWIW, MS Outlook Express 6 was bundled with MS Internet Explorer 6.
Commencing with MS Internet Explorer 7, Microsoft no longer bundles an email
client with the browser; there is no MSOE7, nor is there an MSIE8.
Windows XP shipped with MSIE6, and MSOE6 was bundled with it.
Windows Vista ships with MSIE7, but there is no email client bundled with
the browser; no "MSOE7". There is an email client bundled with Vista,
called, "Windows Mail". It looks a lot like MSOE, but it is not.
Windows 7 will ship with MSIE8, but there is no email client bundled with
the browser; no "MSOE8". Nor is there an email client to be included with
the OS (based on reports in these groups). You will need to install one
yourself. Windows Live Mail is available from Microsoft, and there is also
Mozilla Thunderbird. There are others, as well.
BillW50
on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:36:18 -0700 wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:46:36 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
>
>> In news:%230hMsrf...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
>> PA Bear [MS MVP] typed on Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:44:27 -0400:
>>> [Crosspost to IE General newsgroup]
>>>
>>> After 12 April 2010, your computer will NOT be offered any critical
>>> security updates nor will Windows Update website be available until
>>> and unless you get SP3 installed so you'd best get WinXP SP3 and all
>>> post-SP3 patches installed first.
>>
>> The lack of support is a very old one and it goes back to MS-DOS
>> v1.0.
>> So this shouldn't be a big deal either, we have been all through this
>> before. Just keep you other security software up-to-date and you
>> should
>> be just fine.
>>
>> There are many reasons why somebody doesn't want to install SP3.
>>
>> 1) It eats up too much room on small drive systems
>
> The smallest drive I've seen on a computer with sufficient resources
> to run
> Windows XP at all is 20 GB. That computer only has 256 MB of RAM, and
> that,
> not SP3, is the cause of it running so slowly.
I bought 7 computers in the last 3 years and only five of them have
enough room to run SP3. And the ones I do have SP3 installed on, I have
regretted it.
>> 2) Doesn't add any new features
>
> It is my understanding that it rolled up a number of critical updates
> that
> otherwise had to be installed separately.
My understanding too. But I am running Windows 2000 without updates and
it isn't a big deal and I haven't been infected with anything yet. So
what is the big deal?
>> 3) Breaks some applications and drivers, even MS own EWF
>
> I can't say that it has done that on anything I've installed it on.
If it did for everybody, nobody would install it and Microsoft would be
out of business. Of course it works for some people! Virtually
everything works for some people. Otherwise it wouldn't exists.
>> 4) Some people have reported slower performance
>
> And some haven't.
Of course.
>> And I am sure there are many more reasons.
>
> If SP3 is such a dog on your hardware, it might be time to either:
>
> Upgrade to newer hardware.
7 computers in the last 3 years and I've upgraded 6 of them. Sorry, but
that isn't true.
> Install an OS that can run on the hardware; say, one of the Linux
> distros.
Been there and done that. Completely useless without drivers and
applications.
1) XPSP2 runs 100% of everything I want to run
2) XPSP3 runs about 95% of what I want to run
3) Windows7 runs about 90% of what I want to run
4) Linux runs about 40% of what I want to run
5) Windows 2000 SP4 runs about 95% of what I want to run
So use your head Norman, which OS and SP do you believe is my favorite?
--
Bill
Windows Ultimate (build 7100)
Gateway MX6124 - 2G RAM
N. Miller
> "N. Miller" wrote in message news:rncngks2lyp4$.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
> on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:36:18 -0700 wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:46:36 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
>>> In news:%230hMsrf...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] typed on Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:44:27 -0400:
>>>> [Crosspost to IE General newsgroup]
>>>> After 12 April 2010, your computer will NOT be offered any critical
>>>> security updates nor will Windows Update website be available until
>>>> and unless you get SP3 installed so you'd best get WinXP SP3 and all
>>>> post-SP3 patches installed first.
>>> The lack of support is a very old one and it goes back to MS-DOS
>>> v1.0. So this shouldn't be a big deal either, we have been all through
>>> this before. Just keep you other security software up-to-date and you
>>> should be just fine.
>>>
>>> There are many reasons why somebody doesn't want to install SP3.
>>>
>>> 1) It eats up too much room on small drive systems
>> The smallest drive I've seen on a computer with sufficient resources
>> to run Windows XP at all is 20 GB. That computer only has 256 MB of RAM,
>> and that, not SP3, is the cause of it running so slowly.
> I bought 7 computers in the last 3 years and only five of them have
> enough room to run SP3. And the ones I do have SP3 installed on, I have
> regretted it.
Any computer sold in the last 3 years must have had at least 40 GBytes of
disc storage, and 512 GBytes of RAM. Plenty of space for SP3. And I've got
SP3 on every computer running Windows XP; even a creaky old eMachines with
only 128 MBytes of RAM and 40 GBytes of disc (must be six years old,
anyway). On that one, even Windows XP without any service packs was dog
slow. It really needs more RAM. But no problems, no regrets with any SP3
installation.
>>> 2) Doesn't add any new features
>> It is my understanding that it rolled up a number of critical updates
>> that otherwise had to be installed separately.
> My understanding too. But I am running Windows 2000 without updates and
> it isn't a big deal and I haven't been infected with anything yet. So
> what is the big deal?
What you, personally, experience is a good basis for what you, personally,
choose to do. It may not be sufficiently representative for everybody else,
though.
>>> 3) Breaks some applications and drivers, even MS own EWF
>> I can't say that it has done that on anything I've installed it on.
> If it did for everybody, nobody would install it and Microsoft would be
> out of business. Of course it works for some people! Virtually
> everything works for some people. Otherwise it wouldn't exists.
In this case, of course, it works for most people all of the time. Again,
what you, personally, experience is just one single point of data; hardly
sufficient for anybody else to do more than take note of, in case something
breaks when they try. But the odds are in their favor.
>>> 4) Some people have reported slower performance
>> And some haven't.
> Of course.
Have I mentioned that yours is a single data point? Just one of many; most
of which are not so bad?
>>> And I am sure there are many more reasons.
>> If SP3 is such a dog on your hardware, it might be time to either:
>>
>> Upgrade to newer hardware.
> 7 computers in the last 3 years and I've upgraded 6 of them. Sorry, but
> that isn't true.
I've seen Windows XP running on two really ancient (6 years old, more, or
less) computers, which are short on resources (20 GB and 40 GB discs, and
256 MB and 128 MB of RAM, respectively). Windows XP runs, slowly, but needs
more RAM to run well. Went from SP1 to SP3 on the one, and from SP2 to SP3
on the other. SP3 did not slow either down beyond where they were running
before the updates.
I've seen Windows XP running on 5 other computers, most not even 3 years
old, and one older, but with sufficient hardware resources. I'll match those
7 against your 7, and say that SP3 is not a problem on any of them.
>> Install an OS that can run on the hardware; say, one of the Linux
>> distros.
> Been there and done that. Completely useless without drivers and
> applications.
>
> 1) XPSP2 runs 100% of everything I want to run
>
> 2) XPSP3 runs about 95% of what I want to run
>
> 3) Windows7 runs about 90% of what I want to run
>
> 4) Linux runs about 40% of what I want to run
>
> 5) Windows 2000 SP4 runs about 95% of what I want to run
>
> So use your head Norman, which OS and SP do you believe is my favorite?
But you are just one data point. Why should I trust one person's experience
over the experiences of all the people who have posted in all the other
groups and forums I have visited. Most of the complaints I've seen regarding
Windows XP have centered on WGA, not on problems getting SP3 to run.
So use your head, Bill, and what do I care about which OS and SP are your
favorites?
BillW50
N. Miller typed on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:46:44 -0700:
I am sure in your tiny world, this is so. But outside of your world,
there are millions of computers that can't. To catch you up, Asus has
came out with the netbook back in 2007 and has sold millions right in
the first year. Quickly other manufactures have come out with their own
netbook line. And millions of these only sport 4GB for a boot/system
drive.
>>>> 2) Doesn't add any new features
>
>>> It is my understanding that it rolled up a number of critical
>>> updates that otherwise had to be installed separately.
>
>> My understanding too. But I am running Windows 2000 without updates
>> and it isn't a big deal and I haven't been infected with anything
>> yet. So what is the big deal?
>
> What you, personally, experience is a good basis for what you,
> personally, choose to do. It may not be sufficiently representative
> for everybody else, though.
There has to be millions of users out there that have been virus free.
And the lowest priority for your protection is Windows updates. I rate a
firewall is the first most important thing. As this blocks over 99% of
attacks right there. Next is a resident anti-virus checker. Next is
anti-spyware. And last on the list and not that important are the
Windows updates.
>>>> 3) Breaks some applications and drivers, even MS own EWF
>
>>> I can't say that it has done that on anything I've installed it on.
>
>> If it did for everybody, nobody would install it and Microsoft would
>> be out of business. Of course it works for some people! Virtually
>> everything works for some people. Otherwise it wouldn't exists.
>
> In this case, of course, it works for most people all of the time.
> Again, what you, personally, experience is just one single point of
> data; hardly sufficient for anybody else to do more than take note
> of, in case something breaks when they try. But the odds are in their
> favor.
Pure rubbish! Adding huge amounts of extra code to your OS rarely
improves anything. Just look at Vista and Windows7 for examples. What a
slow pokey OS those are. This Windows 2000 with a slipstreamed SP4 was
only 700kb installed. After all of the bloody updates it was well over
3GB. I am seriously thinking of removing all of the security updates on
this machine. Why do I or anybody else need them?
>>>> 4) Some people have reported slower performance
>
>>> And some haven't.
>
>> Of course.
>
> Have I mentioned that yours is a single data point? Just one of many;
> most of which are not so bad?
Most people don't notice that Vista and Windows 7 runs slower than
Windows XP either. Which is good news for developers I guess. Although I
am not as easily fooled. I run many machines side by side as a
comparison.
>>>> And I am sure there are many more reasons.
>
>>> If SP3 is such a dog on your hardware, it might be time to either:
>>>
>>> Upgrade to newer hardware.
>
>> 7 computers in the last 3 years and I've upgraded 6 of them. Sorry,
>> but that isn't true.
>
> I've seen Windows XP running on two really ancient (6 years old,
> more, or less) computers, which are short on resources (20 GB and 40
> GB discs, and 256 MB and 128 MB of RAM, respectively). Windows XP
> runs, slowly, but needs more RAM to run well. Went from SP1 to SP3 on
> the one, and from SP2 to SP3 on the other. SP3 did not slow either
> down beyond where they were running before the updates.
>
> I've seen Windows XP running on 5 other computers, most not even 3
> years old, and one older, but with sufficient hardware resources.
> I'll match those 7 against your 7, and say that SP3 is not a problem
> on any of them.
Three of them have 4GB SSD purchased just last year. All of them came
with 512kb of RAM, which I upgraded to 2GB. The RAM isn't the problem,
just the boot/system drive is too small for SP3. And there are millions
of these things out there.
>>> Install an OS that can run on the hardware; say, one of the Linux
>>> distros.
>
>> Been there and done that. Completely useless without drivers and
>> applications.
>>
>> 1) XPSP2 runs 100% of everything I want to run
>>
>> 2) XPSP3 runs about 95% of what I want to run
>>
>> 3) Windows7 runs about 90% of what I want to run
>>
>> 4) Linux runs about 40% of what I want to run
>>
>> 5) Windows 2000 SP4 runs about 95% of what I want to run
>>
>> So use your head Norman, which OS and SP do you believe is my
>> favorite?
>
> But you are just one data point. Why should I trust one person's
> experience over the experiences of all the people who have posted in
> all the other groups and forums I have visited. Most of the
> complaints I've seen regarding Windows XP have centered on WGA, not
> on problems getting SP3 to run.
>
> So use your head, Bill, and what do I care about which OS and SP are
> your favorites?
Well most would agree with me and my decades worth of computer
experience. And you have proved that you are totally ignorant outside of
your tiny world. You totally are clueless about the netbook craze and
appear to know nothing about SSD technology. Which some experts are
claiming that will be used in half of the computers sold two years from
now. I personally can't wait. As I see no need for old clunky and
fragile 1970's technology used in our modern day computers.
--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
N. Miller
> Three of them have 4GB SSD purchased just last year. All of them came
> with 512kb of RAM, which I upgraded to 2GB. The RAM isn't the problem,
> just the boot/system drive is too small for SP3. And there are millions
> of these things out there.
Okay. So you are dealing with newer drives which haven't caught up in
capacity with the current state of mechanical drives. Should have said
something about that earlier.
> Well most would agree with me and my decades worth of computer
> experience.
For some values of "most" ...
> And you have proved that you are totally ignorant outside of
> your tiny world. You totally are clueless about the netbook craze and
> appear to know nothing about SSD technology.
Until now, you have never mentioned "netbook", or "SSD". I am not ignorant,
but neither am I a mind reader. Are you?
> Which some experts are claiming that will be used in half of the computers
> sold two years from now. I personally can't wait. As I see no need for old
> clunky and fragile 1970's technology used in our modern day computers.
I suppose, when SSDs catch up to mechanical drives in capacity. But I have
wads of fansubbed anime which would overwhelm those SSDs you have in your
computers. When I can get a 1 TB SSD for $150, then we'll see what pops. But
a 1 TB SSD will have plenty of room for SP3, yes? OTOH, a 4 GB SSD can only
hold a single series of 26 half hour episodes of anime, with no room at all
for the OS. Just one series, /Bamboo Blade/, takes up 4.32 GB on the disk.
Next time you whine about the lack of space, at least explain that you are
using what is, currently, cutting edge hardware. Stuff which really isn't on
the radar of the typical user. Yet. It's kind of rude to malign a person as
being ignorant without first explaining the reason one has a limitation.
Isn't it presumptuous to assume that, because you know something, everybody
else must also know it?
And isn't it, perhaps, overreaching to expect a current OS, designed for
current machine specs, to be able to fit a cutting edge piece of hardware
with lower storage capacity than antiques sold six years ago normally had?
BillW50
N. Miller typed on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:08:09 -0700:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:53:25 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
>
>> Three of them have 4GB SSD purchased just last year. All of them came
>> with 512kb of RAM, which I upgraded to 2GB. The RAM isn't the
>> problem, just the boot/system drive is too small for SP3. And there
>> are millions of these things out there.
>
> Okay. So you are dealing with newer drives which haven't caught up in
> capacity with the current state of mechanical drives. Should have said
> something about that earlier.
Well about 6 months ago, they then had 1TB ones. They might have larger
ones now or at least will have soon. <wink> It is just the smaller ones
are dirt cheap. I have two 8GB and one 16GB one too. The 16GB one has
Windows7 installed on it.
>> Well most would agree with me and my decades worth of computer
>> experience.
>
> For some values of "most" ...
>
>> And you have proved that you are totally ignorant outside of
>> your tiny world. You totally are clueless about the netbook craze and
>> appear to know nothing about SSD technology.
>
> Until now, you have never mentioned "netbook", or "SSD". I am not
> ignorant, but neither am I a mind reader. Are you?
Well there are millions of these things out there. And you just can't
ignore them as a novelty anymore. And if it weren't for the netbook,
Microsoft would have stopped selling OEM licenses for Windows XP by now.
Although they made an exception for netbooks.
>> Which some experts are claiming that will be used in half of the
>> computers sold two years from now. I personally can't wait. As I see
>> no need for old clunky and fragile 1970's technology used in our
>> modern day computers.
>
> I suppose, when SSDs catch up to mechanical drives in capacity. But I
> have wads of fansubbed anime which would overwhelm those SSDs you
> have in your computers. When I can get a 1 TB SSD for $150, then
> we'll see what pops. But a 1 TB SSD will have plenty of room for SP3,
> yes? OTOH, a 4 GB SSD can only hold a single series of 26 half hour
> episodes of anime, with no room at all for the OS. Just one series,
> /Bamboo Blade/, takes up 4.32 GB on the disk.
Netbooks can and often have more than one drive. Usually the fastest and
smallest SSD drive holds your boot/system. A second SSD is usually a
larger, slower, and cheaper SSD usually for applications and some data.
Then they usually have a SD card slot too. Which acts as another drive.
So that is 3 drives we are up too. Now you can add external drives as
well. So space isn't tight at all except usually for the boot/system
drive.
> Next time you whine about the lack of space, at least explain that
> you are using what is, currently, cutting edge hardware. Stuff which
> really isn't on the radar of the typical user. Yet. It's kind of rude
> to malign a person as being ignorant without first explaining the
> reason one has a limitation. Isn't it presumptuous to assume that,
> because you know something, everybody else must also know it?
>
> And isn't it, perhaps, overreaching to expect a current OS, designed
> for current machine specs, to be able to fit a cutting edge piece of
> hardware with lower storage capacity than antiques sold six years ago
> normally had?
Oh I don't know Norman? I don't believe you can ignore millions of them
and I believe they have to be included. And if the experts are right,
the trip point will be in two years where more than half of new
computers will include SSD instead of old mechanical hard drives that
are not very portable at all.
N. Miller
> Well there are millions of these things out there. And you just can't
> ignore them as a novelty anymore. And if it weren't for the netbook,
> Microsoft would have stopped selling OEM licenses for Windows XP by now.
> Although they made an exception for netbooks.
There are hundreds of millions of computers with regular, mechanical HDDs
out there. Netbook with SSDs are still something of a niche. Interesting
that they even did that; make the exception for netbooks. Windows XP was
designed well before SSDs, and when typical HDDs included in computers were
at least 40 GB.
> Netbooks can and often have more than one drive. Usually the fastest and
> smallest SSD drive holds your boot/system. A second SSD is usually a
> larger, slower, and cheaper SSD usually for applications and some data.
> Then they usually have a SD card slot too. Which acts as another drive.
> So that is 3 drives we are up too. Now you can add external drives as
> well. So space isn't tight at all except usually for the boot/system
> drive.
Except that the system/boot drive probably should be at least 20 GB if it is
going to hold an OS designed when the programmers had that much space to
work with.
>> And isn't it, perhaps, overreaching to expect a current OS, designed
>> for current machine specs, to be able to fit a cutting edge piece of
>> hardware with lower storage capacity than antiques sold six years ago
>> normally had?
> Oh I don't know Norman? I don't believe you can ignore millions of them
> and I believe they have to be included. And if the experts are right,
> the trip point will be in two years where more than half of new
> computers will include SSD instead of old mechanical hard drives that
> are not very portable at all.
I expect that trip point will occur when you can get 40 GB SSDs for $40. I
had barely considered a netbook when I started thinking about getting a
laptop. I had not actually checked their specs. But, given how I'd use one,
I'll not be getting one until I can get something bigger then 4 GB for the
boot/system disk. Well; maybe, if I've decided to move over to Linux before
then.
In the meantime, I still say you were arguing from a position of special
knowledge (and withholding details that would have colored my responses, had
I known them), and a personal experience which doesn't match that of
hundreds of millions of ordinary mortals.
Janetb
to the other posts. Posts not present when I posted appear before mine, so
there seems to be a certain amount of confusion. I did not receive
notification of the posts which came after my last post.
Posts by the gentleman named Gordon demonstrate that he did has not read the
thread, so his posts are off-topic. There should not be a green check by his
first post, as it completely missed the point (as a result of not having read
the previous posts). Can it be removed?
PA Bear [MS MVP]
removed.
Threaded view of your thread in Google Groups archive:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser/browse_frm/thread/63023d8e98511042
Gordon's 2 posts seem entirely appropriate and on-topic to me, given the
context of your earlier posts.
If you accessed this and other MS newsgroups in a newsreader (e.g., OE),
you'd find the thread much less confusing and easier to follow IMHO.
Setting up Outlook Express to access Microsoft newsgroups
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
To open this newsgroup in your default newsreader, click on the following
link:
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser
NB: Those with IE7- and/or IE8-specific questions or comments should post in
IE General newsgroup:
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002
www.banthecheck.com
N. Miller
> Please note that my posts on 15/9 do not appear in the proper place in regard
> to the other posts. Posts not present when I posted appear before mine, so
> there seems to be a certain amount of confusion. I did not receive
> notification of the posts which came after my last post.
Your posts all appear to be properly ordered as I am viewing them. However,
I am not using the "Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000" reader, which is a kind
of an "HTTP-to-NNTP" thingy which is more of a kludge than a proper news
reader.
| Posts by the gentleman named Gordon demonstrate that he did has not read the
| thread, so his posts are off-topic. There should not be a green check by his
| first post, as it completely missed the point (as a result of not having read
| the previous posts). Can it be removed?
The 'msnews.microsoft.com' news server does not honor cancels (and, in any
case, I don't think the "Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000" can send them), so
you just have to wait for the articles to age out of the system.