Firefox vs. IE Options

[Spectatrix]

All of us are Firefox users! Except for Dogmeat. Because he's an IE LOSER!

[Dogmeat]

I ran firefox for a few months and there were some piddley little things I liked about IE better.

I've never had any of the problems with IE most people have because I'm smart enough to only allow cookies and shit from sites I know, not anywhere who wants to puke one on my disk

[Spectatrix]

I ran firefox for a few months and there were some piddley little things I liked about IE better.

What'd you like about IE better? Yes, I'm seriously asking, not trying to give you a hard time.

[Dogmeat]

What'd you like about IE better? Yes, I'm seriously asking, not trying to give you a hard time.

It's been so long ago I don't even remember specificaly but it was just a few little nuances with the interface ....

[Mommy]

It's been so long ago I don't even remember specificaly but it was just a few little nuances with the interface ....

I never had problems with IE. In fact, I preferred it for the longest time...that is, until I realized how much nicer tabbed browsing is. Ive been using firefox for about 6 months now and I dont think ill go back to IE unless the new one has some major changes.... *cough* tabbed browing *cough ...oh and some image linking updates

[impala454]

the ie currently in beta has tabbed browsing. i'm personally not a big fan of it and turn it off no matter what browser i use. they got this thing at the bottom of the screen called the taskbar that already does that plus i like to be able to view multiple webpages at the same time since i use dual monitors.

[Hartmann]

the ie currently in beta has tabbed browsing. i'm personally not a big fan of it and turn it off no matter what browser i use. they got this thing at the bottom of the screen called the taskbar that already does that plus i like to be able to view multiple webpages at the same time since i use dual monitors.

Multiple processes vs. multiple tabs (using one process)...

[leg]

I use opera, it has tab browsing also; i like the magic wand function for keeping login info

[Mommy]

Multiple processes vs. multiple tabs (using one process)...

yeah, my computer runs a hell of a lot faster having one firefox with multiple tabs open then it did with multiple different windows of IE open.

[zetec]

i'm surprised that the fact that ie runs anybody and everybody's activex controls hasn't been mentioned.


it's like a slut. a filthy web browsing slut.

[Hartmann]

i'm surprised that the fact that ie runs anybody and everybody's activex controls hasn't been mentioned.


it's like a slut. a filthy web browsing slut.

oh yeah, that too...

[impala454]

Multiple processes vs. multiple tabs (using one process)...

Ie doesn't spawn multiple processes

[impala454]

yeah, my computer runs a hell of a lot faster having one firefox with multiple tabs open then it did with multiple different windows of IE open.

a "hell of a lot faster"? there's virtually no difference in memory or processor usage between the two browsers.

[Hartmann]

Ie doesn't spawn multiple processes

I dunno, maybe I'm blind, but this looks like multiple processes to me:



I can do it with even more IE windows open if you'd like.

Oh and just so it's clear, the reason the Firefox process is eating so much memory is that there is a video playing in one of the tabs.

[Seeker]

it's like a slut. a filthy web browsing slut.

just like you

[danwashere]

I dunno, maybe I'm blind, but this looks like multiple processes to me:



I can do it with even more IE windows open if you'd like.

Oh and just so it's clear, the reason the Firefox process is eating so much memory is that there is a video playing in one of the tabs.

LOL i like how firefox is using 115,692K and IE about 7...

I like the beta IE better but i'm so acustomed to firefox now i keep using it... plus i only have the ff icon on my desktop and it's set as default.. .i guess i'm just lazy.

[Hartmann]

LOL i like how firefox is using 115,692K and IE about 7...

I like the beta IE better but i'm so acustomed to firefox now i keep using it... plus i only have the ff icon on my desktop and it's set as default.. .i guess i'm just lazy.

Did you not read why?

[Spectatrix]

It's well-known that Firefox has a bigger memory footprint than a single window of IE. However, Firefox's memory usage barely increases when adding tabs, whereas IE spawns multiple processes for multiple windows. In short, if you have a lot of windows/tabs open, Firefox is generally better.

[impala454]

I dunno, maybe I'm blind, but this looks like multiple processes to me:


I can do it with even more IE windows open if you'd like.

Oh and just so it's clear, the reason the Firefox process is eating so much memory is that there is a video playing in one of the tabs.

I dunno maybe I'm blind, but looks I got 11 IE windows open and only one process
There used to be a setting where you could have it either way. I'd actually prefer to have pages run in their own process.

[Seeker]

If you open Internet Explorer by launching the executable it will create a new process for each window.

If you create a new Internet Explorer window by going to "File" ---> "New" ---> "Window" then it does not start a new process for each window.

Go ahead and argue some more though, because it's fun watching.

[zetec]

LOL i like how firefox is using 115,692K and IE about 7...

I like the beta IE better but i'm so acustomed to firefox now i keep using it...  plus i only have the ff icon on my desktop and it's set as default.. .i guess i'm just lazy.

...you're a fucking idiot. learn to read plz.


edit: one other thing: firefox uses more memory than IE typically, this is true: but this is due to prefetching, which can be turned off. With prefetching off, FF typically uses less memory. Anyways, with most people having at least a gig of ram nowadays, especially those who use firefox, do we really care if an app is using 100mb of memory? Hell, Vista will require 2gb just to be able to run decently. Quit whining and get with the times.

This post has been edited by zetec: Apr 5 2006, 11:38 AM

[Hartmann]

If you open Internet Explorer by launching the executable it will create a new process for each window.

If you create a new Internet Explorer window by going to "File" ---> "New" ---> "Window" then it does not start a new process for each window.

Go ahead and argue some more though, because it's fun watching.

Exactly... Because when IE launches like that (with Ctrl+N) it assumes the footprint of the window that opened it. It also forces the explorer.exe to work harder.

[impala454]

It's well-known that Firefox has a bigger memory footprint than a single window of IE.  However, Firefox's memory usage barely increases when adding tabs, whereas IE spawns multiple processes for multiple windows.  In short, if you have a lot of windows/tabs open, Firefox is generally better.

it doesn't have anything to do with one being "better". Tabs will always use less memory because there's less overhead creating windows. here's a quick test I did, take what you will from it.





they use almost exactly the same memory when in separate windows. it makes perfect sense too because the vast majority of data is the page itself, not the browser. The size of the html & graphics for cnn.com are the same no matter what browser you use. And the whole giant savings by doing tabs is 13 MB of pagefile (and my pagefile is 1GB). I don't have IE7 beta on this machine to test its tabs, but I'm sure it'd be pretty close as well.

If you open Internet Explorer by launching the executable it will create a new process for each window.

If you create a new Internet Explorer window by going to "File" ---> "New" ---> "Window" then it does not start a new process for each window.

Go ahead and argue some more though, because it's fun watching.

there used to be a setting so you could make all new windows open in a separate process. I'd prefer it this way but I don't see the setting in there anymore.

[impala454]

Exactly... Because when IE launches like that (with Ctrl+N) it assumes the footprint of the window that opened it. It also forces the explorer.exe to work harder.

forces explorer.exe to "work harder"? you're talkin outta your ass now. iexplore.exe doesnt have jack shit to do with explorer.exe.

[Hartmann]

forces explorer.exe to "work harder"?  you're talkin outta your ass now.  iexplore.exe doesnt have jack shit to do with explorer.exe.

Actually they are tied directly to each other. IE 7 will be the first time they won't be:
http://www.businessweek.com/mediacenter/po...du_03_09_06.htm
http://www.oreillynet.com/windows/blog/2005/02/
http://www.codeproject.com/shell/ieguardsample.asp

This is the reason it is impossible to uninstall IE from Windows.

Now, you want to talk more shit or are you just going to shut the fuck up?

[impala454]

Actually they are tied directly to each other. IE 7 will be the first time they won't be:
http://www.businessweek.com/mediacenter/po...du_03_09_06.htm
http://www.oreillynet.com/windows/blog/2005/02/
http://www.codeproject.com/shell/ieguardsample.asp

This is the reason it is impossible to uninstall IE from Windows.

Now, you want to talk more shit or are you just going to shut the fuck up?

You can post all the articles you want, end task on your motherfucking explorer and watch how you can still browse to your hearts delight.
I did it a min ago just to make sure I wasnt smokin crack... yeah, start menu, taskbar everything gone, all folders closed, IE still runnin just fine. you're wrong

[Hartmann]

You can post all the articles you want, end task on your motherfucking explorer and watch how you can still browse to your hearts delight.

That's because they run as separate processes. Try uninstalling internet explorer.

I simply stated that they are dependent on each other, and that at times iexplorer.exe sometimes forces explorer.exe to work harder. You're wrong, just accept it and move on.

[impala454]

That's because they run as separate processes. Try uninstalling internet explorer.

I simply stated that they are dependent on each other, and that at times iexplorer.exe sometimes forces explorer.exe to work harder. You're wrong, just accept it and move on.

they're not dependent on each other. and wtf is "work harder" is that some MIS term when you dont know jack shit about what you're talkin about?

[Hartmann]

they're not dependent on each other.  and wtf is "work harder" is that some MIS term when you dont know jack shit about what you're talkin about?

I'll post when I get home. You obviously don't ever read or you'd understand.

explorer.exe is forced to take on some of the load (read, memory usage) at certain points in IEs running.

Just try something simple for me, try uninstalling IE... just try it.

Or try killing explorer.exe and use IE for a while, explorer.exe will restart itself when needed by IE.

[zetec]

You can post all the articles you want, end task on your motherfucking explorer and watch how you can still browse to your hearts delight.
I did it a min ago just to make sure I wasnt smokin crack... yeah, start menu, taskbar everything gone, all folders closed, IE still runnin just fine. you're wrong

fool, everybody knows that IE is directly integrated into explorer. You're a goddamn idiot.


and once again, firefox's slightly larger memory footprint (which nobody with a decent amount of ram should care about) is due to prefetching, which can be disabled.



"you can post all the articles that you want but you're still wrong"............wow. just wow.

[Seeker]

[impala454]

lemme explain a little something about how windows works.

every windows application with a user interface has window handles. it's a pointer to memory that contains information about that window. when you start an application it starts up in its own process, meaning it has its own memory space. the entire application and overhead fires up and you have your inital window handles. window handles take up memory, obviously.

now when you fire up ie or firefox or any other application this is what happens. if I go to firefox -> file -> new window, the firefox application creates a new window handle using windows api calls (there's no special "firefox" window api). that new window handle's memory is contained within the same memory space allocated to firefox.exe, as will any window created by firefox. now the tab will be different, because it doesn't create a new window handle, hence there will be less overhead. it looks as though when you run firefox.exe manually again while it's open, firefox simply sees that it's already running and assumes you wanted to create a new window, and your existing firefox.exe process creates the new window handle. ie on the other hand just starts up a new process with its own memory. this is the only difference in the windows api calls of these two browsers.

is one better? that all depends on how you want to see it. the windows swap space on a typical computer is anywhere from 500MB-2GB nowadays, with new processes of either browser not taking up that much space, so the problem lies when something crashes. if you have a process crash, anything in that process's memory is gone, including all window handles. so in either browser, if you're opening new windows in the same process and one particular page barf your browser, all your browser windows are gone, whereas if they were in seperate processes they would not affect each other. in other words, it's more stable, but takes up more memory.

i'm not tryin to be an asshole here, just tryin to explain how the shit works for those that take all the propaganda at face value. I honestly don't really prefer one browser over the other. I've tried them all out and to me it just displays a damn webpage, whether it's IE, Firefox, Opera, whatever. I simply use IE mostly because it's already on the comp.

[impala454]

explorer.exe is forced to take on some of the load (read, memory usage) at certain points in IEs running.

Just try something simple for me, try uninstalling IE... just try it.

Or try killing explorer.exe and use IE for a while, explorer.exe will restart itself when needed by IE.

i'll say it again, end process on your explorer.exe and see what happens. i could still browse just fine, and my start button, taskbar, any open folders, etc were gone. i had to hard reset my comp because i couldnt get the thing back. IE doesnt need explorer.exe to run.

[impala454]

fool, everybody knows that IE is directly integrated into explorer. You're a goddamn idiot.


and once again, firefox's slightly larger memory footprint (which nobody with a decent amount of ram should care about) is due to prefetching, which can be disabled.



"you can post all the articles that you want but you're still wrong"............wow. just wow.

read the above post it's not worth replying the same shit to you too

[zetec]

read the above post it's not worth replying the same shit to you too

really? because you totally missed the point when you replied. You're talking about how windows handles tabbed browsing; we don't care about that point.

What we care about is your claim that IE isn't directly integrated into windows. Perhaps you're having problems reading? Should we buy you a big boy monitor so you don't have to squint?

[impala454]

really? because you totally missed the point when you replied. You're talking about how windows handles tabbed browsing; we don't care about that point.

What we care about is your claim that IE isn't directly integrated into windows. Perhaps you're having problems reading? Should we buy you a big boy monitor so you don't have to squint?

you didnt read the post i told you to read dipshit, here i'll quote myself so you can see what to read.

i'll say it again, end process on your explorer.exe and see what happens. i could still browse just fine, and my start button, taskbar, any open folders, etc were gone. i had to hard reset my comp because i couldnt get the thing back. IE doesnt need explorer.exe to run.

and btw i have dual 20" 1600x1200 LCDs

[Mommy]

case and point

[impala454]

uh... ok

[zetec]

you didnt read the post i told you to read dipshit, here i'll quote myself so you can see what to read.



and btw i have dual 20" 1600x1200 LCDs

okay, by the same token, delete IE and all related files from your system and see how well windows runs.

edit: and btw, if you haven't figured out that you can ctrl+alt+del and start a new explorer process, well, that certainly explains a few things.

This post has been edited by zetec: Apr 5 2006, 01:20 PM

[Mommy]

they're not dependent on each other. and wtf is "work harder" is that some MIS term when you dont know jack shit about what you're talkin about?

Well, I was going to be nice until you said that. This whole MIS vs CS thing is fucking retarded. There are idiots in both fields (as is proof by this thread).

[impala454]

okay, by the same token, delete IE and all related files from your system and see how well windows runs.

i didnt say windows doesnt have a dependence on ie, i said ie doesn't have a dependence on explorer.exe. there's a huge difference.

[jwttu]

just curious but what exactly is prefetching?

[zetec]

they're not dependent on each other. and wtf is "work harder" is that some MIS term when you dont know jack shit about what you're talkin about?

yeah you did

[impala454]

Well, I was going to be nice until you said that. This whole MIS vs CS thing is fucking retarded. There are idiots in both fields (as is proof by this thread).

and i suppose you and your awesome degree will tell us "idiots" how all this computer nonsense works?

[Mommy]

just curious but what exactly is prefetching?

yeah, and how to you turn that function off?

[impala454]

yeah you did

where?

[zetec]

just curious but what exactly is prefetching?

in a nutshell, prefetching is following and downloading the pages linked in a web page while you view the web page. That way, when the user clicks on the link, the page loads from cache rather than the site, speeding up browsing. The downside is that there is very little in the way of rules telling it what to prefetch and what not to. If you're on a work pc and you're browsing something like fark.com, you'd prolly be better to turn it off than to explain that you didn't actually visit any of those boobies links.


edit: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/netlib/Lin...tching_FAQ.html

This post has been edited by zetec: Apr 5 2006, 01:35 PM

[zetec]

they're not dependent on each other.

RIGHT FUCKING THERE

[Mommy]

and i suppose you and your awesome degree will tell us "idiots" how all this computer nonsense works?

No, but I dont need a degree to know how to use a computer. DURRRR. I know more about computers than I need to know. Go ahead, talk shit about my degree. Its ok. Im starting UT grad school soon so when Im done and Im the age that you are now, we'll compare salaries and see who comes out on top

[impala454]

RIGHT FUCKING THERE

yeah, i was talking about iexplore.exe and explorer.exe, not "windows relying on iexplore.exe" as you suggested.

read the thing in context

[impala454]

No, but I dont need a degree to know how to use a computer. DURRRR. I know more about computers than I need to know. Go ahead, talk shit about my degree. Its ok. Im starting UT grad school soon so when Im done and Im the age that you are now, we'll compare salaries and see who comes out on top

LOL no prob. you talk shit about the salary you think you're gonna make.

and by the way, you came into the thread and basically called everyone in MIS & CS in this thread an idiot, don't expect to not get some kinda response. i think everyone in this thread is a probably pretty freakin smart person, we just get some heated debates is all.

[zetec]

iexplore.exe doesnt have jack shit to do with explorer.exe.

FAIL

[Seeker]

in a nutshell, prefetching is following and downloading the pages linked in a web page while you view the web page. That way, when the user clicks on the link, the page loads from cache rather than the site, speeding up browsing. The downside is that there is very little in the way of rules telling it what to prefetch and what not to. If you're on a work pc and you're browsing something like fark.com, you'd prolly be better to turn it off than to explain that you didn't actually visit any of those boobies links.

by default firefox only prefetches links on a webpage that the webpage author explicitly marked to be prefetched, looks something like this:

HTML

<link rel="prefetch" href="/images/big.jpeg">

firefox doesn't automatically prefetch all links unless you install fasterfox (a popular firefox extension which tweaks firefox settings to prefetch all pages)

[impala454]

FAIL

nevermind man, i've explained several times, if you don't understand that those processes can both run without the other running, you'll never get it.

[zetec]

LOL no prob. you talk shit about the salary you think you're gonna make.

and by the way, you came into the thread and basically called everyone in MIS & CS in this thread an idiot, don't expect to not get some kinda response. i think everyone in this thread is a probably pretty freakin smart person, we just get some heated debates is all.

no, she didn't, she specifically said

This whole MIS vs CS thing is fucking retarded. There are idiots in both fields

seriosuly, give it up

[impala454]

This whole MIS vs CS thing is fucking retarded. There are idiots in both fields

seriosuly, give it up

my God you have a talent for not reading the whole post

you conveientely left out

This whole MIS vs CS thing is fucking retarded. There are idiots in both fields (as is proof by this thread).

and yes i know i misspelled convienetinaelrtijaslifhly

[zetec]

nevermind man, i've explained several times, if you don't understand that those processes can both run without the other running, you'll never get it.

....and that means nothing. It has nothing to do with your claim that they aren't dependant on each other.



I could run my computer without a hard drive, but it wouldn't be much use. I could also run my hard drive without my computer (usb enclosure), but that wouldn't do me a lot of good either.

[impala454]

firefox doesn't automatically prefetch all links unless you install fasterfox (a popular firefox extension which tweaks firefox settings to prefetch all pages)

that's cool so long as it quits prefetching when you actually click a link

[impala454]

....and that means nothing. It has nothing to do with your claim that they aren't dependant on each other.



I could run my computer without a hard drive, but it wouldn't be much use. I could also run my hard drive without my computer (usb enclosure), but that wouldn't do me a lot of good either.

so from this you'd conclude that a computer is not dependant on a hard drive. it's not required to run

[Mommy]

LOL no prob. you talk shit about the salary you think you're gonna make.

and by the way, you came into the thread and basically called everyone in MIS & CS in this thread an idiot, don't expect to not get some kinda response. i think everyone in this thread is a probably pretty freakin smart person, we just get some heated debates is all.

my subtle attempt to call you an idiot was perhaps a little too subtle. I wasnt calling anyone an idiot except for you .

Well, I was going to be nice until you said that. This whole MIS vs CS thing is fucking retarded. There are idiots in both fields (as is proof by this thread).

basically the "as is proof by this thread" was directed at you. People talk shit about MIS majors....well, Im saying that there are idiots on the other side of the field (cs) too...

Get my drift?

I think Stephan is a pretty damn smart dude.


so yup.

I have shut down explorer.exe to have it turn back on while browsing. Happened all the time.

[zetec]

[quote=impala454,Apr 5 2006, 01:33 PM]
seriosuly, give it up[/QUOTE]
my God you have a talent for not reading the whole post

you conveientely left out

[quote=Jessica]
This whole MIS vs CS thing is fucking retarded. There are idiots in both fields (as is proof by this thread). [/quote]

and yes i know i misspelled convienetinaelrtijaslifhly [/quote]
Because i believe she was talking about you. At least thats what I got out of it. And once again, you missing the point, her insulting you had nothing to do with you claiming that she's automatically insulted every CS/MIS major on the face of the planet. I dunno, but she seems smarter than that. You, on the other hand, seem to be grasping for straws, picking at hairs.

[zetec]

so from this you'd conclude that a computer is not dependant on a hard drive. it's not required to run

ITS A GODDAMN ANALOGY


and if you READ, you'd see that i said you WOULDNT BE ABLE TO DO MUCH.


*sigh*. People have successfully removed IE from windows, albeit a painstaking process that usually cripples the system in one way or another. Just like A COMPUTER WITHOUT A HARD DRIVE.


ANALOGY.

[Mommy]

[quote=zetec,Apr 5 2006, 02:37 PM] my God you have a talent for not reading the whole post

you conveientely left out

[QUOTE=Jessica]
This whole MIS vs CS thing is fucking retarded. There are idiots in both fields (as is proof by this thread). [/QUOTE]

and yes i know i misspelled convienetinaelrtijaslifhly [/QUOTE]
Because i believe she was talking about you. At least thats what I got out of it. And once again, you missing the point, her insulting you had nothing to do with you claiming that she's automatically insulted every CS/MIS major on the face of the planet. I dunno, but she seems smarter than that. You, on the other hand, seem to be grasping for straws, picking at hairs. [/quote]

[impala454]

my subtle attempt to call you an idiot was perhaps a little too subtle. I wasnt calling anyone an idiot except for you .




basically the "as is proof by this thread" was directed at you. People talk shit about MIS majors....well, Im saying that there are idiots on the other side of the field (cs) too...

Get my drift?

So by calling both MIS majors and CS major idiots in this thread, you're not calling anyone an idiot except me? uh ok. i dont care anyways, you dont have shit to contribute except calling people idiots anyways (not that it's a contribution)

[Seeker]

[zetec]

So by calling both MIS majors and CS major idiots in this thread, you're not calling anyone an idiot except me? uh ok. i dont care anyways, you dont have shit to contribute except calling people idiots anyways (not that it's a contribution)

oh
my
god


she just explained it to you
I just explained it to you
you're not making any logical arguments anymore
you're not even making arguments about the topic matter

my head is going to asplode

[impala454]

ITS A GODDAMN ANALOGY


and if you READ, you'd see that i said you WOULDNT BE ABLE TO DO MUCH.


*sigh*. People have successfully removed IE from windows, albeit a painstaking process that usually cripples the system in one way or another. Just like A COMPUTER WITHOUT A HARD DRIVE.


ANALOGY.

your analogy wasnt much of analogy as it didnt pertain to the topic.

the bottom line (and read this):

internet explorer (iexplore.exe) does not require explorer.exe to be running. do you understand that??????????

oh yeah, and also:
internet explorer (iexplore.exe) does not require explorer.exe to be running

oh and one more thing:
internet explorer (iexplore.exe) does not require explorer.exe to be running








and finally:
internet explorer (iexplore.exe) does not require explorer.exe to be running







explanation from someone who is paid to develop windows applications (me): they share some libraries. sharing libraries != dependence.

this thread is really keepin me entertained though, makin the work day fly by (took thurs-fri off too so keep this thing goin until 6pm cst)

[Mommy]

So by calling both MIS majors and CS major idiots in this thread, you're not calling anyone an idiot except me?  uh ok.  i dont care anyways, you dont have shit to contribute except calling people idiots anyways (not that it's a contribution)

so wait, you say I dont have anything to contribute...then you say I have something to contribute...then you say I dont have anything to contribute. Make up your mind. Im not going to reiterate what everyone else has already said. I know how firefox and ie work. I read this whole thread before I came in and called you an idiot. I didnt base my calling you an idiot on anything except for this thread.

and you need to learn to read. Zetec gets it. why dont you. I didnt call EVERY CS and MIS major idiots. I said there are idiots on both sides and this thread proves it. People talk shit about MIS and say they dont know anything, well this thread is proof that there are idiots on BOTH sides as opposed to what you seem to be saying when you make MIS remarks. Learn to grasp the full meaning of a comment.... its all about reading comprehension. DO YOU UNDERSTAND or do I need to use smaller words and more simple sentence structure?

This post has been edited by Jessica: Apr 5 2006, 01:51 PM

[Mommy]

oh
my
god


she just explained it to you
I just explained it to you
you're not making any logical arguments anymore
you're not even making arguments about the topic matter

my head is going to asplode

you spelled "explode" wrong.



heh jk

[impala454]

oh
my
god


she just explained it to you
I just explained it to you
you're not making any logical arguments anymore
you're not even making arguments about the topic matter

my head is going to asplode

no you dipshit, she called MIS & CS majors in this thread idiots. i do not have an MIS degree. she backtracked because she didnt want to call hartman an idiot, because he's arguing with me and she hates me.

[impala454]

Jessica
Zetec

Well, I was going to be nice until you said that. This whole MIS vs CS thing is fucking retarded. There are idiots in both fields (as is proof by this thread).

that is all

if hartman responds again or lance or someone who knows something about software i'll respond, but i'm done with you too

[zetec]

your analogy wasnt much of analogy as it didnt pertain to the topic.

the bottom line (and read this):

internet explorer (iexplore.exe) does not require explorer.exe to be running. do you understand that??????????

oh yeah, and also:
internet explorer (iexplore.exe) does not require explorer.exe to be running

oh and one more thing:
internet explorer (iexplore.exe) does not require explorer.exe to be running








and finally:
internet explorer (iexplore.exe) does not require explorer.exe to be running







explanation from someone who is paid to develop windows applications (me): they share some libraries. sharing libraries != dependence.

this thread is really keepin me entertained though, makin the work day fly by (took thurs-fri off too so keep this thing goin until 6pm cst)

funny, your argument seems to have changed... as i recall, you claimed they didn't have shit to do with each other and weren't dependent upon each other...

now you're saying that all you're trying to say is that they can run without the other running? a fact that we acknowledged and even elaborated upon pages back?

I think it's safe to say:

Impala:

[zetec]

Jessica
Zetec



that is all

if hartman responds again or lance or someone who knows something about software i'll respond, but i'm done with you too

basically the "as is proof by this thread" was directed at you.

SHE

WAS

TALKING

ABOUT

YOU

AND

ONLY

YOU

edit: and please don't give me that "she backtracked" bullshit, I got what she was implying, and I think anyone else reading the thread would have the same conclusion. You know, seeing how you're the only one in this thread that's arguing total bullshit.

This post has been edited by zetec: Apr 5 2006, 01:55 PM

[impala454]

zetec you fucking dipshit

having a process run without requiring another process to be running

MEANS THEY'RE NOT DEPENDENT

geezus

[John6.7]

Just posting to see what will happen...

I use IE cause I have never had a problem with it and I have no need for tabbed windows.

[moebary]

Just posting to see what will happen...

I use IE cause I have never had a problem with it and I have no need for tabbed windows.

same here

[Mommy]

no you dipshit, she called MIS & CS majors in this thread idiots. i do not have an MIS degree. she backtracked because she didnt want to call hartman an idiot, because he's arguing with me and she hates me.

ok. lets put my degree to work

I said that there are idiots in both fields as is proof by this thread.

I never backtracked. I was meaning to insult YOU and only you.




breaking it down with logic

You implied that MIS majors were idiots
I said that there are idiots on both sides of the field and this thread proved that.
Me saying that there are idiots on both sides MINUS you saying that MIS majors are idiots = There are some CS majors that are stupid too.

When taking this formula in account, I was implying that you sir are an idiot so stop talking shit about MIS because THERE ARE IDIOTS ON BOTH SIDES....

Its a logical statement. Get your head out of your ass.

[zetec]

zetec you fucking dipshit

having a process run without requiring another process to be running

MEANS THEY'RE NOT DEPENDENT

geezus

no, it means they can be run seperately. Windows Explorer uses IE resource files (dll's and the such) when browsing the hard drive and such.


seriously, if you want to prove me wrong, delete every file related to internet exporer on your hard drive. Seriously, go do it. I'll admit defeat if your operating system runs flawlessly.


Chances are windows won't even LET you delete the files while you're running. Go ahead and boot to linux via knoppix or use a DOS boot disc. I'll wait.

[impala454]

no, it means they can be run seperately. Windows Explorer uses IE resource files (dll's and the such) when browsing the hard drive and such.


seriously, if you want to prove me wrong, delete every file related to internet exporer on your hard drive. Seriously, go do it. I'll admit defeat if your operating system runs flawlessly.


Chances are windows won't even LET you delete the files while you're running. Go ahead and boot to linux via knoppix or use a DOS boot disc. I'll wait.

i just said in a post above how the shit works. yes, there's libraries they both depend on, but they do not depend on each other. shit, if you delete the libraries ie depends on, fucking firefox wont run either.

[impala454]

ok. lets put my degree to work

I said that there are idiots in both fields as is proof by this thread.

I never backtracked. I was meaning to insult YOU and only you.




breaking it down with logic

You implied that MIS majors were idiots
I said that there are idiots on both sides of the field and this thread proved that.
Me saying that there are idiots on both sides MINUS you saying that MIS majors are idiots = There are some CS majors that are stupid too.

When taking this formula in account, I was implying that you sir are an idiot so stop talking shit about MIS because THERE ARE IDIOTS ON BOTH SIDES....

Its a logical statement. Get your head out of your ass.

backtracker

[Mommy]

backtracker

no. you just have the reading comprehension skills of a 3rd grader.

[zetec]

i just said in a post above how the shit works. yes, there's libraries they both depend on, but they do not depend on each other. shit, if you delete the libraries ie depends on, fucking firefox wont run either.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/04/re...uld_kill_win2k/

Removing IE would kill Win2k, WinXP, MS, says Redmond
Big Red Legal Switch marked 'don't press'
By John Lettice
Published Monday 4th March 2002 15:41 GMT

Both Windows XP and Windows 2000 will be rendered inoperable, and Microsoft will be unable to develop future new operating systems, if it is forced to separate IE from the operating system, according to court filings the company made on Friday. The US States still fighting Microsoft argue, on the contrary, that separation of this and other matters now "integrated" into the OS is both feasible and necessary.

Hence the appearance of serial expert witness Lee Hollaar, whose task it will be to provide the necessary techie data to 'prove' whether or not the disentanglement can be done. We've been down this particular road before a couple of times during and prior to the trial, and we've had Microsoft threatening to ship broken versions of operating systems before. But this time the company seems to be threatening to withdraw Windows from the market entirely, and not develop or ship it ever again.

Which is new, although threatening to tag its antagonists with responsibility for the total destruction of IT's biggest success story (which is effectively what Microsoft is doing here), if legally enforced separation were to go ahead, is something else we've heard before.

So off we go down memory lane. A long time ago, Microsoft began bundling/integrating Internet Explorer with Windows, prompting a preliminary injunction from Judge Jackson, who was then in the chair. Microsoft had previously shipped Windows and IE separately, IE not having actually been what you'd call fully developed when Win95 first came out, but in the period up to the injunction in late 1997 it had somehow become a part of the operating system. Before the appeals court rescued Microsoft by tossing out Jackson's injunction, Microsoft was indeed saying it'd have to ship versions of Win95 that didn't work in order to comply with it.

Note however that this particular scrap took place over Windows 95. Windows 98 was then in beta, and would ultimately ship with IE "integrated," but the disputed version of IE only shipped with later OEM versions of 95 on new machines, while it was (and for that matter, still is) also downloadable as an add-on. The trial documentation included an email from Bill Gates from February 1997 saying it would be important to leverage the OS to make people use IE instead of Navigator, and there was much else that suggested bolting the two together was a predatory decision, rather than a technical one.

As Win98 was essentially a retread of 95, shipping a version without IE oughtn't to have been any more difficult, but the overturning of the injunction meant Microsoft was able to ship it according to plan while the full trial was starting off, and that Professor Ed Felten was called in to demonstrate an uninstall program during the trial. This was the source of much hilarity, when Microsoft was caught accidentally falsifying a video 'proving' that it didn't work, and of much wrangling.

Felten didn't remove all the IE code, so Microsoft did a lot of arguing that he'd just hidden it. Removal/hiding also resulted in some functionality being broken, but the court's conclusion, supported by the appeals court, was that Microsoft had illegally "commingled" code, that is arbitrarily bolted functionality together in order to glue IE into Windows.

It seems equally clear that IE could be removed from Win9x if Microsoft wanted to do it, and that the Microsoft versus Hollaar argument will initially reprise the Felten row. However, this time around we'll be talking about Windows 2000 and WinXP as well, and that widens the battlefield quite a bit.

Microsoft has had a lot more time to build IE deeper into its latest versions of Windows, and if we're being charitable we might even say it's put a lot more IE-related functionality into the OS, which would break if IE were removed. If we were being uncharitable we could say that much of this functionality is IE-dependent precisely because the High Command required that it be so - it could have been done by alternative means, and any vast recoding problems caused by removal are therefore self-inflicted.

What Hollaar comes up with should therefore be interesting, especially if Shane at 98lite.net doesn't come up with a remover for Win2k OSR2 and WinXP sometime soon. 98lite provides an indicator of what can and can't be done as far as IE removal goes. As far as Win9x is concerned, it's worth noting that some features get lost depending on how much you remove, and that one of the permutations offered requires that you use the Explorer version from Win95. Also, note what Shane has to say about web view and active desktop being unavailable after IE's fully removed: "HELLO!!!!! You just removed IE!!! Thats the whole point!!!!!"

So when the arguments come round again, remember that one person's broken may be another one's fixed. ®

[Mommy]

this thread makes me giggle

[impala454]

no. you just have the reading comprehension skills of a 3rd grader.

yeah that must be it. damn you'll be a successful psychologist

keep it comin kids, 3 hrs to go (although i'll prob take a break soon)

[Mommy]

yeah that must be it. damn you'll be a successful psychologist

keep it comin kids, 3 hrs to go (although i'll prob take a break soon)

my major wasnt psychology, jack ass

[impala454]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/04/re...uld_kill_win2k/

Removing IE would kill Win2k, WinXP, MS, says Redmond
Big Red Legal Switch marked 'don't press'
By John Lettice
Published Monday 4th March 2002 15:41 GMT

Both Windows XP and Windows 2000 will be rendered inoperable, and Microsoft will be unable to develop future new operating systems, if it is forced to separate IE from the operating system, according to court filings the company made on Friday. The US States still fighting Microsoft argue, on the contrary, that separation of this and other matters now "integrated" into the OS is both feasible and necessary.

Hence the appearance of serial expert witness Lee Hollaar, whose task it will be to provide the necessary techie data to 'prove' whether or not the disentanglement can be done. We've been down this particular road before a couple of times during and prior to the trial, and we've had Microsoft threatening to ship broken versions of operating systems before. But this time the company seems to be threatening to withdraw Windows from the market entirely, and not develop or ship it ever again.

Which is new, although threatening to tag its antagonists with responsibility for the total destruction of IT's biggest success story (which is effectively what Microsoft is doing here), if legally enforced separation were to go ahead, is something else we've heard before.

So off we go down memory lane. A long time ago, Microsoft began bundling/integrating Internet Explorer with Windows, prompting a preliminary injunction from Judge Jackson, who was then in the chair. Microsoft had previously shipped Windows and IE separately, IE not having actually been what you'd call fully developed when Win95 first came out, but in the period up to the injunction in late 1997 it had somehow become a part of the operating system. Before the appeals court rescued Microsoft by tossing out Jackson's injunction, Microsoft was indeed saying it'd have to ship versions of Win95 that didn't work in order to comply with it.

Note however that this particular scrap took place over Windows 95. Windows 98 was then in beta, and would ultimately ship with IE "integrated," but the disputed version of IE only shipped with later OEM versions of 95 on new machines, while it was (and for that matter, still is) also downloadable as an add-on. The trial documentation included an email from Bill Gates from February 1997 saying it would be important to leverage the OS to make people use IE instead of Navigator, and there was much else that suggested bolting the two together was a predatory decision, rather than a technical one.

As Win98 was essentially a retread of 95, shipping a version without IE oughtn't to have been any more difficult, but the overturning of the injunction meant Microsoft was able to ship it according to plan while the full trial was starting off, and that Professor Ed Felten was called in to demonstrate an uninstall program during the trial. This was the source of much hilarity, when Microsoft was caught accidentally falsifying a video 'proving' that it didn't work, and of much wrangling.

Felten didn't remove all the IE code, so Microsoft did a lot of arguing that he'd just hidden it. Removal/hiding also resulted in some functionality being broken, but the court's conclusion, supported by the appeals court, was that Microsoft had illegally "commingled" code, that is arbitrarily bolted functionality together in order to glue IE into Windows.

It seems equally clear that IE could be removed from Win9x if Microsoft wanted to do it, and that the Microsoft versus Hollaar argument will initially reprise the Felten row. However, this time around we'll be talking about Windows 2000 and WinXP as well, and that widens the battlefield quite a bit.

Microsoft has had a lot more time to build IE deeper into its latest versions of Windows, and if we're being charitable we might even say it's put a lot more IE-related functionality into the OS, which would break if IE were removed. If we were being uncharitable we could say that much of this functionality is IE-dependent precisely because the High Command required that it be so - it could have been done by alternative means, and any vast recoding problems caused by removal are therefore self-inflicted.

What Hollaar comes up with should therefore be interesting, especially if Shane at 98lite.net doesn't come up with a remover for Win2k OSR2 and WinXP sometime soon. 98lite provides an indicator of what can and can't be done as far as IE removal goes. As far as Win9x is concerned, it's worth noting that some features get lost depending on how much you remove, and that one of the permutations offered requires that you use the Explorer version from Win95. Also, note what Shane has to say about web view and active desktop being unavailable after IE's fully removed: "HELLO!!!!! You just removed IE!!! Thats the whole point!!!!!"

So when the arguments come round again, remember that one person's broken may be another one's fixed. ®

there's only been about 2305702375023975 patches and changes to windows xp since this article FOUR years ago

[impala454]

my major wasnt psychology, jack ass

oh cool philosophy... damn... you'll be a millionaire one day





(if you win the lotto that is)

[zetec]

[quote=impala454,Apr 5 2006, 02:03 PM] [/QUOTE]
there's only been about 2305702375023975 patches and changes to windows xp since this article FOUR years ago [/quote]
really? wow, i don't remembe "UNINTEGRATE INTERNET EXPLORER" being the description in any of those patches. This was the first aticle that came up on google, would you like me to find more? I'm sure there's no shortage.


Oh, and I especially liked how you ignored the content of the article and focused on the date. That was almost sneaky.

[Mommy]

oh cool philosophy... damn... you'll be a millionaire one day





(if you win the lotto that is)

philosophy was my fast ticket out of school and on to grad school. which means I can have a PhD by the time Im your age, old man. I have 5 years to go until then. I can do grad school for whatever I really want to do AND I can even do law school. So you tell me why it was stupid of me to pick philosophy and I will tell you that you are an idiot because what I really want to do, I need a master's for and to get into grad school for that, all I needed was some rinky dink under grad degree which I finished in less than 3 years. So go ahead, keep it coming. I have a life goal that will earn me some fine money and Ill get there a hell of a lot faster than most considering my age.


oh and to stay on topic, your arguments at the begining of this thread is what threw me off totally. Tabbed browsing takes less of a toll on my memory usage than multiple windows of ie ever did (including when I went to file> new window).

[impala454]

really? wow, i don't remembe "UNINTEGRATE INTERNET EXPLORER" being the description in any of those patches. This was the first aticle that came up on google, would you like me to find more? I'm sure there's no shortage.


Oh, and I especially liked how you ignored the content of the article and focused on the date. That was almost sneaky.

i didn't bother reading it because yes, it's four years old, and secondly you're not even arguing the same topic here. you're arguing that windows can't run without ie. nobody anywhere in this thread has said that it can.

it started with hartman saying that iexplore.exe sometimes causes explorer.exe to "work harder". i said no, it doesn't because those two processes are not dependent on each other, and iexplore.exe can in fact run even when explorer.exe is not.

[Throwdown]

i'm not reading all this shit.

why does firefox use so much memory? usually its over 115k. IE uses a fraction of that

[Mommy]

it started with hartman saying that iexplore.exe sometimes causes explorer.exe to "work harder". i said no, it doesn't because those two processes are not dependent on each other, and iexplore.exe can in fact run even when explorer.exe is not.

and thats what i disagree with. explorer.exe would kick back on when i shut it down while browsing.

[Mommy]

i'm not reading all this shit.

why does firefox use so much memory? usually its over 115k. IE uses a fraction of that

I think that either 1) there is something wrong with your computer or 2) you have 4 billion tabs open.

my firefox doesnt use that much.

This post has been edited by Jessica: Apr 5 2006, 02:14 PM

[zetec]

i didn't bother reading it because yes, it's four years old, and secondly you're not even arguing the same topic here. you're arguing that windows can't run without ie. nobody anywhere in this thread has said that it can.

it started with hartman saying that iexplore.exe sometimes causes explorer.exe to "work harder". i said no, it doesn't because those two processes are not dependent on each other, and iexplore.exe can in fact run even when explorer.exe is not.

I'm arguing the topic that you've been whining about for the last 3 pages until you decided to "switch topics" and now, apparently, try to throw the focus back onto the thread's original topic so as to distract us from your failing arguments and pathetic attempts at logic.

I'm sorry, but it's not working, and you lose.

PS: admitting you refuse to read other people's evidence doens't help your case. That's twice you've done it in this thread. The first line of that article states that MIRCROSOFT THEMSELVES claimed that it was not possible or feasible. I'm sorry, you lose in every way imaginable.

[impala454]

philosophy was my fast ticket out of school and on to grad school. which means I can have a PhD by the time Im your age, old man. I have 5 years to go until then. I can do grad school for whatever I really want to do AND I can even do law school. So you tell me why it was stupid of me to pick philosophy and I will tell you that you are an idiot because what I really want to do, I need a master's for and to get into grad school for that, all I needed was some rinky dink under grad degree which I finished in less than 3 years. So go ahead, keep it coming. I have a life goal that will earn me some fine money and Ill get there a hell of a lot faster than most considering my age.

that's great, really it is. very good ambitions. but you seriously can't talk shit about what you're planning to get vs what i already have.

oh and to stay on topic, your arguments at the begining of this thread is what threw me off totally. Tabbed browsing takes less of a toll on my memory usage than multiple windows of ie ever did (including when I went to file> new window).

yeah but it's a tabbed browsing vs non tabbed browsing argument. you can't compare tabbed firefox vs ie non-tabbed. look at the screens i posted, firefox and ie non-tabbed use virtually the same memory. and as far as tabbed vs non-tabbed using more memory, it's such a minscule amount it doesnt even matter (13MB/1000MB).

[impala454]

and thats what i disagree with. explorer.exe would kick back on when i shut it down while browsing.

explorer.exe runs your taskbar and start button, as well as any folders you have open. it's designed to kick back on any time it's shut down, it has nothing to do with ie.

[Mommy]

that's great, really it is. very good ambitions. but you seriously can't talk shit about what you're planning to get vs what i already have.

what you already have???? a bachelors degree??? I have one of those too!

[zetec]

i'm not reading all this shit.

why does firefox use so much memory? usually its over 115k. IE uses a fraction of that

Prefetching, tabs, and also because Firefox typically allocaes a certain percentage of your ram if it thinks that it might need it. It's not like you don't have plenty to spare. (I'm assuming here.) Also, the more extensions, themes and whatnots you have installed, and depending on what they do, those all raise the memory footprint. It's really not something to worry about anymore.

If you want to worry about ram, start fretting because Vista is reportedly gonna require 2GB just to run decently

[impala454]

I'm arguing the topic that you've been whining about for the last 3 pages until you decided to "switch topics" and now, apparently, try to throw the focus back onto the thread's original topic so as to distract us from your failing arguments and pathetic attempts at logic.

I'm sorry, but it's not working, and you lose.

PS: admitting you refuse to read other people's evidence doens't help your case. That's twice you've done it in this thread. The first line of that article states that MIRCROSOFT THEMSELVES claimed that it was not possible or feasible. I'm sorry, you lose in every way imaginable.

i didnt change topics, you did. you changed the topics so you could paste your shitty four year old link

exactly, I changed the topic, then waited 3 pages all the while waiting for the right time to post my shitty link.


right. dead on. you caught me. Nevermind that whole "IE and Windows are totally not related" thing you posted right after hartmann. Yeah, that had nothing to do with it.

This post has been edited by zetec: Apr 5 2006, 02:22 PM

[Mommy]

explorer.exe runs your taskbar and start button, as well as any folders you have open. it's designed to kick back on any time it's shut down, it has nothing to do with ie.

but i didnt use my taskbar or my start button