Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Internet Explorer From 1.0 To 9.0

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the thats-how-he-rolls dept.

Microsoft 129

FrankNFurter writes "Remember the video of Andrew Tait upgrading Windows from 1.0 to 7. He did another one — this time installing all major versions of IE from 1.0 to 9.0." He actually does some interesting packet sniffing to see why sites aren't rendering, and amusingly shows MSIE 1.0 getting a 93/100 on the acid test... pretty impressive considering it lacks JS and CSS.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

TFA? (5, Insightful)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518682)

This story would be a lot more interesting with a link to an article where we could see some of these things.

Re:TFA? (5, Informative)

surgen (1145449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518700)

Re:TFA? (5, Insightful)

viablos (2018696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518774)

The interesting thing is how good IE9 actually is compared to the older versions. It's a huge advancement from Microsoft and provides browser for casual people that also supports all the newest standards like HTML5 and is extremely secure. Firefox is currently the only browser lacking plugin sandboxing.. They're really lagging behind, and Microsoft has taken over Firefox.

Re:TFA? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518868)

Firefox is currently the only browser lacking plugin sandboxing.

Really? My Firefox runs plugins in a separate process inside an Apparmor wrapper.

Re:TFA? (2)

viablos (2018696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518912)

Yes, you can use separate software to do it.. You could do it with old IE's too. The fact still remains that Firefox is the only current browser lagging sandboxing and security. Even Chrome has it.

Re:TFA? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519732)

No, you couldn't fully sandbox IE with 3rd-party Windows software, because there was no way of forcefully prohibiting an app from doing things like IPC and exploiting a vulnerability in higher-privilege programs. FYI, AppArmor was designed to work separately, because of the security problems present in tying rules and code together - software inevitably fails at enforcing its own security.

But what would a marketing publicist know...

Re:TFA? (1)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520480)

Well, technically, I think it could be done. I created a Windows image at one point without IE and added IE7 back as a VMware ThinApp package. Even if IE invoked higher priority programs, these were also sandboxed (assuming no bugs in ThinApp).

Re:TFA? (1)

Fuzion (261632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521658)

I use a program called Sandboxie [sandboxie.com] that works quite well in doing sandboxed IPC (along with file and registry operations) in any app, so it's definitely possible with third party apps, but it's nice to see that sandboxing is finally natively built into the browsers themselves.

Re:TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519758)

And yet it's still more secure than Internet Explorer. The coders at Microsoft really suck I guess.

Re:TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520684)

Even Chrome has it.

"Even"? I thought that was one of the first things Google advertised when announcing Chrome and one of the selling points.

Re:How good (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519016)

  I remember an interesting moment when Netscape was all the rage at college, and I first was hearing of IE 3 etc, and figuring it was some sort of Microsoft me-too effort like their later consumer offerings. I had it mentally pegged like the Zune. Then a couple of years passed, and by IE5 suddenly all these "optimized for IE, if you use something else you're not worth bothering with" sites.

I personally didn't see magic between IE5 and IE6 as a consumer, but I did vaguely notice that once it hit IE6 it stalled out pretty badly. I only much later learned about concepts like Enterprise Lockin, but the short time period is amazing to me now - between about 1996-1999.

Re:How good (1, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521042)

>>>"optimized for IE, if you use something else you're not worth bothering with" sites.

I used Mosaic/Netscape all the way from 1993 (Commodore Amiga and Mac) to 2006 (PC). I never had any problem rendering those "IE only" sites, and did try IE5/6 from time to time but never felt any desire to switch. IE5 rendered poorly on the mac, and IE6 crashes a lot.

Then I moved to Netscape's "child" known as Mozilla Seamonkey and eventually Firefox. Still see no reason to switch to IE, even though we have version 8 at work. There are better browsers (like opera).

Re:TFA? (2)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519058)

I don't like the minimalist toolbar interface. The only browser I can still customize to get away from that is Firefox.

Re:TFA? (5, Informative)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519108)

Right click on the toolbar area. You'll see options to bring back the menu bar, various toolbars, status bars, etc. Its not as user hostile as Chrome.

Re:TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521848)

True, but you can't bring back the separate URL/search boxes without a third party toolbar or a different browser.

Re:TFA? (2)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519272)

Pretty much every browser these days is customizable, with Chrome being an obvious exception. You can change virtually everything about Opera, for example, but you're apparently myopic regarding Firefox if you think it's "the only browser" you can do that with.

So here's a question for you (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519372)

For IE9 or Opera (or better yest both) do you know of a good program like Flashblock? I'm pretty laid when it comes to what I need for webbrowsing, and I don't use many addons, but that is one I can't seem to live without. I don't want to get rid of Flash, I just want it to be on-click.

Any suggestions?

While IE can enable it per-site that is rather annoying in the way it works particularly because it is hard to tell if you are authorizing the site or the embedded ad site and you can't remove a site once authorized (short of blowing away the list).

Re:So here's a question for you (2)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519460)

Not sure about IE9, but I set Opera to load all plugins on-demand. That's Preferences -> Advanced -> Content -> Enable plugins only on-demand

Re:So here's a question for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520926)

Thanks for that! I already updated my Opera settings.

Re:So here's a question for you (2)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521322)

Same in IE9. Tools -> Safety -> ActiveX Filtering. Blocks everything, including Flash and Java, just fine. It can be toggled on and off for individual sites quite easily; the little circle-with-a-line-through-it icon in the location bar (between the Search drop-down and the Compatibility Mode toggle button) works as a button to control it, and turns blue when filtering anything.

Re:TFA? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519104)

Oh my god... as is usually the case, your post is rather correct on technical merits. But you write it with this shit-eating marketing gusto. I mean, who the fuck on Slashdot is going to enjoy reading

It's a huge advancement from Microsoft

and provides [a] browser for casual people

also supports all the newest standards like HTML5

and is extremely secure

This is the type of crap reporting we hear on nightly news. Good job at turning HTML5 into an actual buzzword; I felt stupider for reading it.

I sincerely hope you're being paid for the advertisement... otherwise, you are perhaps the biggest waste of life on this planet.

Re:TFA? (0)

jordanjay29 (1298951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519202)

I hope you're getting paid for that marketing pitch. Effin' fanbois.

Re:TFA? (0)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519250)

I think he probably is. This seems to be the newest incarnation of the pro MS/anti-OSS posters.

Re:TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519368)

Pro MS does not necessarily mean anti-OSS. Nor does pro-OSS necessarily mean anti-MS. Just sayin'.

Re:TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519462)

No, it doesn't. But in this particular shill's case it means being anti-OSS, anti-Apple, anti-Google, pro-everything-Microsoft. Even the most rabid fanboy usually has at least one bad thing to say about his favorite company.

Re:TFA? (2)

viablos (2018696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519812)

Just because I said (and many people agree to this) that IE9 is an advancement over the older versions I'm now a marketing shill? Jesus...

Re:TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519982)

No. Because of the style in which you write in, and your long history of advertising on Slashdot. If you want credibility you won't get it with a UID that high.

People only sometimes agree with you because they don't see the subtle implications that are always mixed in with your posts. Even a shill can be correct about the things he says.

Re:TFA? (1)

breser (16790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521336)

What long history of advertising on Slashdot? The guy opened the account yesterday as far as I can tell. Apparently I missed the memo, people used to measure their egos with uptimes, no it seems to be the smaller your UID is the bigger your ego.

Re:TFA? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522090)

Noooo, you are being called a shill because your entire post reads like a press release and normal folks that aren't marketing drones don't actually talk that way.

Hell I've been a Windows guy since Win 3.x yet the folks here (well except for a few FOSSies that believe anyone who isn't dancing with RMS in a field of tulips must be a corporate spy sent from a secret reprogramming facility hidden under Redmond) know I'm not a shill because not only do I not speak marketingese I'm more than happy to point out like every other company on the planet MSFT has put out some real stinkers (Oh Vista how I hated thee, let me count the ways) as well as some gems (Windows 7 rocks).

So unless you spend your 9 to 5 as a marketing drone or have spent so much time ass deep in corporate butt kissing you honestly think you boss's booty smells like roses, well then folks have a legitimate right to call you things like shill and astroturfer. Nearly all the major corp have been involved in astroturfing and your post reads like an ad cooked up on Madison avenue. Hell you might as well have ended it with "Microsoft: We build excitement!"

As for TFA? Cute video but frankly getting burnt having to clean up IE 6 infections for years after MSFT abandoned IE after winning the browser war frankly I just don't trust them in the browser dept anymore. I have also found due to the faster update turnaround of the other guys my customers infection rate goes down when IE goes bye bye.

Now I give out Mozilla Firefox but frankly after all of the memory sucking and bloat of the last couple of 3.6.x releases I'm testing Chromium based Comodo Dragon, which has the sandboxing and low rights like IE and a lower memory and CPU footprint than FF. Add in the fact it runs both Adblock Plus and ForecastFox which are the two most popular plugins around here? If FF isn't better on the memory and CPU hogging come 4.0 RTM I'll be switching everyone over to Dragon. I already give out Dragon to all Vista and 7 users since FF doesn't support the safer low rights mode.

But go back to IE? Sorry, fool me once and all. They'd have to do a hell of a lot better than just some HTML V5 fish demos for me to risk IE again for my customers and family, and the fact they've abandoned XP while everyone else works fine on XP makes me just dislike it even more.

Re:TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519226)

The interesting thing is how good IE9 actually is compared to the older versions. It's a huge advancement from Microsoft and provides browser for casual people that also supports all the newest standards like HTML5 and is extremely secure.

Awesome. But really, this is like saying, "Hey, that shit sandwich MS has been saying tastes great for the last 10+ years finally tastes a whole lot less like shit!" Too little, too late...

Re:TFA? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519384)

Hi viablos! I see you've created another sockpuppet account, in the fine tradition of astroturfing Slashdot. I'll update the known list of alts.

Please keep participating, viablos. You make Slashdot a better place!

Re:TFA? (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519436)

When presented with a competitor who they can't defeat in some other fashion, Microspft is capable of putting out some very good products. This has always been the case.

Unfortunately, Mircrosoft will only do this if they have a real competitor who they cannot defeat in some other fashion.

Re:TFA? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521140)

This is not any different from any other company. If you don't know what you have to beat, you just do what you want. And if what you want is driven by $_in / $_out = performance, then you minimize $_out.

Re:TFA? (1)

Shining Celebi (853093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519984)

Firefox is currently the only browser lacking plugin sandboxing.. They're really lagging behind, and Microsoft has taken over Firefox.

Huh? Firefox has had plugin sandboxing since 3.6

Re:TFA? (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520852)

Actually Firefox 4 is ahead of IE9. Just try the Html 5 demos on Firefox's site in both both browsers. They only work in Firefox4 :)

IE9 is very impressive, but when it comes to real performance and features... Firefox is better, even in GPU acceleration. Although I will admit IE9's gpu acceleration is very good in general, even faster in some ways than firefox, but it is often slower in many tests, and even fails to work at all at others.

IE9 though is quite impressive coming from MS. I think there is a future in it. Right now it seems that MS isnt taking extensions seriously. Their website is like most microsoft "add on" sites... it looks pathetically abandoned.

I like IE9. I almost switched to it, but Firefox 4 RC seemed to be more solid all around.

CHROME... failed everything in my eyes. its GPU acceleration is non existent/primitive. FireFox 4 RC did better on html5 features etc. Chrome let me down, and as much as I like Chrome... Its in third place and far behind at that.

Re:TFA? (1)

chrishillman (852550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521370)

I am laughing so hard! This needs a "funny", amirite?

It sounds like marketing. Build up product, talk of how modern/new/shiny product is. Pick one aspect superior product from competition where there might be an advantage, and pretend that alone, that one feature makes the product superior to everything.

"With all this IE9 talk, I am constantly surprised by how textual Lynx is. The latest version of Lynx is the most text-oriented of all the Lynx versions. IE9 lacks a decent text-only interface... it is really at a disadvantage over Lynx." I might not have an interest in getting you download and install Lynx (I know you already have it), but it sure seems like it.

I am sure you are not a shill or paid marketer, if you were there would be a link to this amazingly plugin-sandboxed web browser that makes Firefox look like IE8 in comparison.

Re:TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518848)

Ah. Not only is there no link, the ONE snippet it actually took from the video is wrong... it was IE2 that said 93/100... IE1 just crashed.

Re:TFA? (3)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519230)

I prefer to R TFA.

Have we really degenerated so badly that even /. has become a video pushing outlet for generation-ADHD?

Video should be done Benny HIll style.. (1)

nowen2dot (1768088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519508)

Without super fast motion set to Yakety Sax how else can they do all those upgrades in less than 10 minutes?

Re:TFA? (1)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520034)

Asking that there is a link for the video in question, not even on the main page but maybe after we click though to the story, is cause to call for insults?

Really?

Re:TFA? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521418)

Because there is no story, only a video?
(Which large parts of the audience doesn't think is an acceptable substitute, and another large part can't even see.)

Re:TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519252)

Hey Beavis, shitballs at 1:02

Heh, heh.

Horse porn? (2)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520126)

Haha, "horse porn" at 8:02.

He should do other non-Windows platforms that have IE too. [grin]

Re:TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521624)

I thought it was a bit disappointed that he used the old IE versions to view the web as it is *now*. He should have used the Wayback Machine or somesuch to demonstrate what browsing the web was like back then. Yes, if you let old browsers look at pages that use things that didn't even exist at release time, the result won't be pretty. But back in the day, those old browsers were usable.

Re:TFA? (2)

baresi (950718) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518728)

Can't have an article about IE6 or older, just by showing screen shots you will get virus, spyware and just pure ugliness

7 days (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519070)

7 days after you watch that youtube video, YOUR BROWSER WILL CRASH.

Re:7 days (1)

valinor89 (1564455) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519502)

If you are using firefox it will crash after 3 days. I still love firefox but it crashes a lot.

Re:7 days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520510)

Pshh. Chrome crashes in two.

It does everything faster.

Re:7 days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521282)

or you'll get an update that nags you to restart the browser to install it.
(yes, i know you can disable auto-update checking)

Re:7 days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521594)

Firefox 57% faster than IE!

Re:7 days (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520876)

It only crashed once in that 8 minute video. I thought that was impressive considering IE used to crash during a reboot.

So many nightmares compressed into a single youtube video. What will he do next?

Re:7 days (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521870)

All versions of Acrobat Reader with Tubular Bells playing in the background? It would fit...

Re:TFA? (4, Informative)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519010)

This story would be a lot more interesting with a link to an article where we could see some of these things.

http://www.winrumors.com/man-upgrades-internet-explorer-1-0-to-9-0-video/ [winrumors.com]

Re:TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519628)

article(n): A literary composition, forming an independent portion of
  a magazine, newspaper, or cyclopedia.
Webster, 1913

What's next? Knuth's volume 5 will be a youtube video?

Re:TFA? (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520374)

Webster, 1913

There's your problem. I've helpfully put it in bold for you

Re:TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520244)

"You may also like to read,
[...]
Submission: Man upgrades Internet Explorer 1.0 to 9.0 [video]"
Here you can find a link.

Re:TFA? (1)

ArundelCastle (1581543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521190)

It's right there under the tags:

You may also like to read,
News: Upgrading From Windows 1.0 To Windows 7
Submission: Man upgrades Internet Explorer 1.0 to 9.0 [video]

The link is in the original submission.
And people say the editors don't do anything. Pshaw!

Where's the content? (1)

pz (113803) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518708)

There's no content... Hello, Taco? You there?

Hello?

Anyone?

Ulp.

Re:Where's the content? (1)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520680)

You were eaten by a grue.

Nobody ever... (4, Funny)

giuseppemag (1100721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518718)

...reads TFA, so no need to add it to the post. A byte saved is a byte earned!

Re:Nobody ever... (1)

need4mospd (1146215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520608)

I take it one step further and I don't even read the summary. Based on the title, I'm assuming this story is about how the Internet is more powerful than the 8.9 earthquake in Japan.

Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518778)

http://www.winrumors.com/man-upgrades-internet-explorer-1-0-to-9-0-video/

watching the video didn't help (1)

craftycoder (1851452) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518934)

I found the video and watched it. I don't feel any more enlightened as a result. While the video of upgrading through all the OSes was really quite interesting to me, this one fell flat. Sorry amigo, but you can't strike gold in every vein.

Re:watching the video didn't help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519414)

The Horse Porn wasn't enough for you?

Re:watching the video didn't help (1)

craftycoder (1851452) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520316)

in a word, no

Suprisingly Interesting Video (0)

us7892 (655683) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518942)

I thought it was going to be lame. But I ended up watching the whole thing.

I was mainly curious to see if Doom2 would keep running. It only failed with one upgrade (XP I think), and started working again after the next upgrade (2000).

Re:Suprisingly Interesting Video (1)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519730)

The article was about the IE video not the Windows one; despite only linking to the Windows. Also Doom2 quit working in 2000 and started working in XP (which was an upgrade to 2000)

Re:Suprisingly Interesting Video (1)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520446)

Just curious but since Windows XP was released to bridge the NT and Win/Dos lines and Windows 2k was marketed more towards business with Win ME being marketed towards consumers, why would he even upgrade through Win 2k. Shouldn't he have gone through 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 9x/ME then XP. If he included Win 2k, why not NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, and 4.0? I understand that many people used Win 2k as a consumer OS but it wasn't really marketed that way and would explain why the NT based OS would have issues with a DOS game until MS improved it's DOS/VESA/SB/MEM emulation in CMD.exe for XP. If I am missing some simple fact forgive me I've killed a lot of brain cells since those days.

Re:Suprisingly Interesting Video (1)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520958)

I think he mentions one reason is that you can't upgrade from ME to XP. So to continue the upgrade path, going through 2K is the best option. And it is a valid one since, even though it was marketed more for business, there always seemed to be a lot of 2K machines browsing the decidedly non-business related websites I've managed.

I remember there was another one that he didn't have an upgrade copy of. Maybe 98SE? But he was able to fudge an install version into an upgrade, which I've seen fairly straightforward instructions on in the past. I don't think fudging a path from ME to XP would have been quite as simple.

Re:Suprisingly Interesting Video (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521964)

Besides, Me was a bit like Vista - virtually everyone who had it had it because it came with their computer. If you weren't satisfied with Windows 98, Windows 2000 was the obvious upgrade path, being superior in every area but DOS support.

Re:Suprisingly Interesting Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520972)

ME cannot be upgraded. It's the end of the line.

Not the first, not the second time (0)

tuxrocks4 (2018920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519024)

Here is a blog post about guy that updated ubuntu from 4.10 to 10.10.
He doesn't include video, but rather series of a screenshots and fun details.

Re:Not the first, not the second time (-1, Troll)

tuxrocks4 (2018920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519278)

Here the link [wordpress.com]

Re:Not the first, not the second time (2)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519456)

Goatse alert, don't be fooled. The goggles, they do nothing!

tuxrocks4, you're a dick.

Re:Not the first, not the second time (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519406)

Where is the blog post?

Re:Not the first, not the second time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519862)

I was wondering, too. The closest I can find so far is this:

http://www.techdrivein.com/2011/01/evolution-of-ubuntu-over-years-brief.html

Not sure if that's the exact article, but it matches the description I guess.

Re:Not the first, not the second time (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519972)

I already got burned by a goatse link in this thread.

So after carefully following your link from the techdrivein home page on down I see that you have actually provided something interesting. Thanks.

Not strange. (2)

rolfc (842110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519030)

I don't find it strange that 1.0 is good. Microsoft was caught without a browser when they realized that no one wanted MSN. So they bought Spyglass Mosaic which was a good browser, but they didn't have the time to ruin it before the release. Curiosly, I was one of the first 10 000 that downloaded it and was rewarded with a T-shirt.

Re:Not strange. (1)

BlackHorse (671909) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519720)

I got that shirt too! No idea what happened to it... I wonder if it'd be worth anything these days :P

Re:Not strange. (5, Funny)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520210)

Yeah - Mosaic was so good that it implemented most of specs involved in Acid test correctly before they were even conceived!

We are IE (1)

Boigaz (789379) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519036)

bet i'm the only one to get the reference (lennie de ice)...

Link to the actual article: (1)

FrankNFurter (89904) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519044)

winrumors [winrumors.com]

Next project for Andrew : (1, Funny)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519186)

From Fire and Wheel to Space. there. get to upgrading.

Acid Test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519198)

I think it was actually MSIE 2.0 that scored a 93 on the Acid Test

No link, and Incorrect on 1.0 Acid test: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519364)

No link to the story at all, and viewing the video it isn't IE 1.0 but 2.0 that gets 93/100 on the acid tests.

Remind me why I still read slashdot?

Re:No link, and Incorrect on 1.0 Acid test: (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519474)

I guess it's time to stop. Buh-bye.

Maybe ACID does not matter? (1, Insightful)

howardd21 (1001567) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519392)

A score of 93 from a first generation browser?

Re:Maybe ACID does not matter? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519478)

Yeah, if you ignore FAIL FAIL FAIL YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THIS AT ALL FAIL.

Filter error: Don't use so many caps.

Re:Maybe ACID does not matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519488)

That's so base of you to say that.

IE9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519852)

I use it and it is ok but its frustrating when aspx controls for video/applications force me to use IE8 or 7

Here's the link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520058)

in case you missed it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

IE9 is naughty... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520110)

I like how he searches for horse porn on his friends computer testing IE9.

Re:IE9 is naughty... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521188)

He didn't do that. That's a feature of the search engine's autocorrect function that now makes it search for what you want instead of what you type.

GatesBorg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35520406)

I liked the old GatesBorg better

Awesome! (1)

Georules (655379) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520654)

No one can tell me to RTFA, since it wasn't even given to me!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?