Internet Explorer 8

[dickf]

Now if I run a dual core system with 2, 4, 6 and, or 8 gigs of RAM with a high end graphics card, or a SLI system, then running I.E. 8 will install and run without any glitches. If your system is on the 32bit table, you can expect I.E. 8 to run poorly and slow.

Brian...

I disagree - you do not need copious amounts of RAM and a highend gpu (certainly not SLI) to run IE8. Hell, most of the machines sold out there to the typical home-user have integrated Intel cards, and to suggest you need something higher to run a browser is absurd. Is IE a resource hog? Yes. Does it render web pages correctly? No. Does it require a boss system to run? No.

I'm sure there are many people out there that run 32-bit flavors of Vista with IE8 without any issues, also.

Software engineers always show the smallest possible requirements to accommodate older systems, and typically assume the user will turn off optional features or run a slightly dumbed down version of it. Still, with that in mind, let's look at the official system requirements.

System requirements

Computer/Processor

Computer with a 233MHz processor or higher (Pentium processor recommended)

Operating System

• Windows Vista 32-bit

• Windows Vista 64-bit

• Windows Vista with Service Pack 1 (SP 1) or higher

• Windows XP 32-bit with Service Pack 2 (SP 2) or higher

• Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

• Windows Server 2003 32-bit with SP 2 or higher

• Windows Server 2003 64-bit with SP 2 or higher

• Windows Server 2008 32-bit or higher

• Windows Server 2008 64-bit or higher

Memory

• Windows Vista 32-bit – 512 MB

• Windows Vista 64-bit – 512 MB

• Windows Vista with SP 1 – 512 MB

• Windows XP 32-bit with SP 2 or higher – 64 MB

• Windows XP Professional x64 Edition – 128 MB

• Windows Server 2003 32-bit with SP 2 or higher – 64 MB

• Windows Server 2003 64-bit with SP 2 or higher – 128 MB

• Windows Server 2008 32-bit – 512MB

• Windows Server 2008 64-bit – 512MB

Hard Drive Space

• Windows Vista 32-bit – 70 MB

• Windows Vista 64-bit – 120 MB

• Windows Vista with SP 1 – 70 MB

• Windows XP 32-bit with SP 2 or higher – 150 MB

• Windows XP Professional x64 Edition – 200 MB

• Windows Server 2003 32-bit with SP 2 or higher – 150 MB

• Windows Server 2003 64-bit with SP 2 or higher – 200 MB

• Windows Server 2008 32-bit – 150 MB

• Windows Server 2008 64-bit – 200 MB

Drive

CD-ROM drive (if installation is done from a CD-ROM).

Display

Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution monitor with 256 colors.

Peripherals

Modem or Internet connection; Microsoft Mouse, Microsoft IntelliMouse, or compatible pointing device.

As you can see, they're hardly hard to come by. Will IE8 run better with 8 Gigs of RAM on an 8-core chip with dual 8800's SLI'd? Of course, but that's not necessary to run it smoothly (at least, as smooth as it's capable - it's still a hunk of junk).

If you want to uninstall it, Microsoft tells you how in this article: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957700

[Marrok857]

Internet Explorer is one of the worst browsers EVER!  I use Opera, easy to use, can setup up to when you open it theres a list of 9 spots you can put in webistes and just one click will take you to them.  

It doesnt lag out a pc and has slim minimum requirements.

Heres the link-

http://www.opera.com/browser/

[KnotHead]

I disagree - you do not need copious amounts of RAM and a highend gpu (certainly not SLI) to run IE8. Hell, most of the machines sold out there to the typical home-user have integrated Intel cards, and to suggest you need something higher to run a browser is absurd. Is IE a resource hog? Yes. Does it render web pages correctly? No. Does it require a boss system to run? No.

I'm sure there are many people out there that run 32-bit flavors of Vista with IE8 without any issues, also.

Software engineers always show the smallest possible requirements to accommodate older systems, and typically assume the user will turn off optional features or run a slightly dumbed down version of it. Still, with that in mind, let's look at the official system requirements.

As you can see, they're hardly hard to come by. Will IE8 run better with 8 Gigs of RAM on an 8-core chip with dual 8800's SLI'd? Of course, but that's not necessary to run it smoothly (at least, as smooth as it's capable - it's still a hunk of junk).

If you want to uninstall it, Microsoft tells you how in this article: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957700

Wonder which dinosaur he's stuck with. I think that he might actually work for Microslop. You might consider re-reading my last post dude. I in no way made any suggestion of the type that you refer to. Maybe an idea and even maybe a little advice. But you having blown your gasket, answer me this.

Do you use the wrong tools in your leather works to do a job that requires better? Hmmm, by your statement in your last post I wonder.

In the past 6 months in my shop alone, I have taken in at least 2 dozen PC's with this type of problem and even worse in half the cases. Yes, they did not have any problems before they installed microslops IE 8. Yep, PC's may easy on the wallet, or whatever you want to call it. But it all comes back to this one thing, " You get what you pay for " ...

I would tend to think that with all the so called upgrades microslop is coming out with, would be seen as pushing the market for better PC's to be sold and pushed on people that either are not ready for it, or just plain do not have the money for it. Like Vista crap. Microslop going public selling that crappy OS, chopped it up so much that when it hit the market, the only people that could afford to buy it were those fortunate enough to have $800.00, or so to waste. The market for the 3rd party vendors like HP, Toshiba, and others were basically forced into making all their machines Vista and guess what else they made sure that you could not go back to Windows XP by inserting either a chip on the MOBO, or scripting the Bios. If you own a vista machine, or are about to buy one, then I will say this to you and NOT SUGGEST any damn thing, <--- ADVICE INSERTED HERE! --->" DO NOT BUY IT " Wait for windows 7 and at that get a machine that has the premium version on it and up. Forget about the starter edition and the basic edition. Those two editions are worthless.<---

Enough said by me...

Brian...

[dickf]

Wonder which dinosaur he's stuck with. I think that he might actually work for Microslop. You might consider re-reading my last post dude. I in no way made any suggestion of the type that you refer to. Maybe an idea and even maybe a little advice. But you having blown your gasket, answer me this.

Do you use the wrong tools in your leather works to do a job that requires better? Hmmm, by your statement in your last post I wonder.

In the past 6 months in my shop alone, I have taken in at least 2 dozen PC's with this type of problem and even worse in half the cases. Yes, they did not have any problems before they installed microslops IE 8. Yep, PC's may easy on the wallet, or whatever you want to call it. But it all comes back to this one thing, " You get what you pay for " ...

I would tend to think that with all the so called upgrades microslop is coming out with, would be seen as pushing the market for better PC's to be sold and pushed on people that either are not ready for it, or just plain do not have the money for it. Like Vista crap. Microslop going public selling that crappy OS, chopped it up so much that when it hit the market, the only people that could afford to buy it were those fortunate enough to have $800.00, or so to waste. The market for the 3rd party vendors like HP, Toshiba, and others were basically forced into making all their machines Vista and guess what else they made sure that you could not go back to Windows XP by inserting either a chip on the MOBO, or scripting the Bios. If you own a vista machine, or are about to buy one, then I will say this to you and NOT SUGGEST any damn thing, <--- ADVICE INSERTED HERE! --->" DO NOT BUY IT " Wait for windows 7 and at that get a machine that has the premium version on it and up. Forget about the starter edition and the basic edition. Those two editions are worthless.<---

Enough said by me...

Brian...

I wasn't attacking you, I was simply disagreeing with you. My gasket is certainly not blown - you'd know if it was. Also, in my other posts (and in this one that you quoted), you'll see than I'm strongly against Microsoft products for solid reasons and in particular, it's web browser. The IE series of web browser is my largest foe with my 9-5.

I appreciate the comment about using the wrong tools for my leatherwork. Never in any way did I try to insult you or imply that you don't know what you're doing.

You said that people running 32 bit versions of Windows will experience IE8 running slow. But, and I quote:

Now if I run a dual core system with 2, 4, 6 and, or 8 gigs of RAM with a high end graphics card, or a SLI system, then running I.E. 8 will install and run without any glitches.

I commented on that. The browser has little, if anything to do with the video card. It's not 'graphically intensive' in any way and really doesn't stress the card at all.

I agree with your statement, 'You get what you pay for.' As a developer, I find it much easier to run different machines for different tasks, and I prefer to run primarily on OS X. I don't have to force quite anything, it doesn't crash, and it has a cold start-up time of about 15-20 seconds. I also run the Ubuntu flavor of Linux for various reasons here at work. I would never suggest anyone purchase Vista or a machine with it pre-installed. I've never heard about a chip on the motherboard to prevent an install of XP - in fact, I'd like to read up on that if you have a link. I do know it's very possible to dual boot XP and Vista.

I like geek talk, and it usually ends with me learning more than I knew before the conversation.

Have a good weekend.

[dsenette]

The market for the 3rd party vendors like HP, Toshiba, and others were basically forced into making all their machines Vista and guess what else they made sure that you could not go back to Windows XP by inserting either a chip on the MOBO, or scripting the Bios.

this is completely untrue and has never been done... you can happily go back to XP on any system that can support it...you just can't BUY one with XP already installed (easily) from those manufacturers

[KnotHead]

No prob. I'm a Mac guy myself. I just got mine about 2 yrs ago. The only thing I have had to replace in it is the Hard drive. Once you're used to using OSX and can locate the things you need to use on a daily basis, that system is just about unstoppable. I am multi-lingual OS's... I have not got to use Linux flavors all that much in the area I live in. I have a machine with it Red Hat installed on it and I am attempting to learn that OS with time permitting me to.

I do like the options within the linux flavors. But I am admitting that I just don't know which one to settle with while learning it. Which one is the most used, or the most installed version? I am thinking that it is a matter of user preference as to which linux flavor you like the most. I also really liked the install time of the Red Hat. It was quick. I did not time it, but I will say it felt like it took under 30mins to be inside the and looking at the desktop. I used the gnome desktop and really like how it looks and feels. It had a familiarity of the Mac OS in many ways.

this is completely untrue and has never been done... you can happily go back to XP on any system that can support it...you just can't BUY one with XP already installed (easily) from those manufacturers

Yep. You can if you have the money for it. HP charges almost $150.00 extra for that option. Toshiba, I don't know yet. I'm still waiting on the return email from their Support Gurus in India somewhere. Now I wonder how many normal PC users have that kind of money to just throw at HP? I think that all involved should have left that an option to begin with. But noooo!!!! that did not happen now did it? Instead, let's just stick the damn OS on there and leave the people without any choice until a year and a half later, or there about. Hmmm, me thinks that has a lot to do with the people that don't have deep enough pockets (The greedy ones) that is.

Nough from me.

B...

[TwinOaks]

Cool info on the OSs, thanks to all who've posted.

I've got an '07 version of PCLOS, and I can dual boot it on my little ol' Dell laptop here. Fully funtional even without the extra RAM I installed. The other nice thing about it is that when I want to, I can run the live CD in my antique HP and it's marvelously quick. The old HP desktop has ME installed on it and gets rather glitchy when I run that OS. While running Linux, it's graphically faster than the Dell (which actually has a modern video card) because the Linux GUI is software based instead of hardware based.......at least that's how it was explained to me.

Even in XP (on the Dell), the graphics get glitchy if I push them too much with video games. Linux doesn't even blink at them.

.... getting back to the IE8 question.... Hilly, I'm glad you figured out a way to do it. I've just decided to stick with FF and be done. I really like a lot of the options (add-ons, etc.) and the ability to customize (easily) how the browser displays.

Edited July 10, 2009 by TwinOaks

[TwinOaks]

Well, it looks like I'm gonna have to have '8' on my laptop anyway. I found a nice little freebie download of CAD software (strictly legit) and got to reading the details and saw

"

NOTES: You must use Internet Explorer version 6.0 or later to perform this download. "

Ain't that something. I'm sure that some of our tech folks could tell me how to spoof IE, and still use FF, but WTH, I can't get rid of all of the little pieces of IE8 anyway. I am following Hilly's advice and doing the download with FF, though.

[dsenette]

Yep. You can if you have the money for it. HP charges almost $150.00 extra for that option. Toshiba, I don't know yet. I'm still waiting on the return email from their Support Gurus in India somewhere. Now I wonder how many normal PC users have that kind of money to just throw at HP? I think that all involved should have left that an option to begin with. But noooo!!!! that did not happen now did it? Instead, let's just stick the damn OS on there and leave the people without any choice until a year and a half later, or there about. Hmmm, me thinks that has a lot to do with the people that don't have deep enough pockets (The greedy ones) that is.

gotta preface this with...i'm not arguing...or looking to argue...just offering some clarification....

with dell...the option (when available) to have XP installed from the factory is $99

as to why you can't buy a computer with XP on it without paying extra.....XP has reached the end of it's life cycle...i.e. they're not making it anymore...and they won't be supporting it much longer....the ONLY reason you can still get a computer with XP on it is because of the public outcry to have this as a feature....you can't buy a computer with windows 98 on it either...there's nothing stopping you from installing it yourself when you get the computer home (assuming you've got the disks and a license)....i can't see where any company would continue to offer the installation of a product that's been basically discontinued.... for the first year of vista's release you had the choice to get vista or xp on all computers...then following the STANDARD (as in the way they did it when 98 went out of support and xp was introduced) life cycle they made XP "less available"...for the second year you could STILL select XP as an option...but only on SELECT builds (generally less powerful computers)...after that second year (or half year or whatever) the option was SUPPOSED to go away...but because of the public's view of the OS (which is ACTUALLY a good OS) "they" decided that the OS should still be available...but with a charge for that luxury....i don't think this is outside of their rights as producers of a product.....

if a customer comes to you and asks for something "non standard" (i.e. custom) don't you charge them extra?

[dickf]

gotta preface this with...i'm not arguing...or looking to argue...just offering some clarification....

with dell...the option (when available) to have XP installed from the factory is $99

as to why you can't buy a computer with XP on it without paying extra.....XP has reached the end of it's life cycle...i.e. they're not making it anymore...and they won't be supporting it much longer....the ONLY reason you can still get a computer with XP on it is because of the public outcry to have this as a feature....you can't buy a computer with windows 98 on it either...there's nothing stopping you from installing it yourself when you get the computer home (assuming you've got the disks and a license)....i can't see where any company would continue to offer the installation of a product that's been basically discontinued.... for the first year of vista's release you had the choice to get vista or xp on all computers...then following the STANDARD (as in the way they did it when 98 went out of support and xp was introduced) life cycle they made XP "less available"...for the second year you could STILL select XP as an option...but only on SELECT builds (generally less powerful computers)...after that second year (or half year or whatever) the option was SUPPOSED to go away...but because of the public's view of the OS (which is ACTUALLY a good OS) "they" decided that the OS should still be available...but with a charge for that luxury....i don't think this is outside of their rights as producers of a product.....

if a customer comes to you and asks for something "non standard" (i.e. custom) don't you charge them extra?

I agree. The actual reason XP is extra is because trying to minimize lots of newly sold PC's with a non-supported system costs more than trying to keep everyone on the same page. I've talked about lifecycles in the past on here, but for those that are interested, here's the chart that shows Microsoft's lifecycles: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&C2=1173

I'm not looking to argue, either. I got flamed by Knothead earlier, and what's funny is that all of his 'facts' are untrue.

There has never been a chip on the motherboard to prevent an XP install - asking him for a link was a nice was of saying 'You're wrong'. You don't need a wicked graphics card to run a browser (I can't help but laugh about that - a 'graphically intensive' browser). And finally, nobody ever 'scripted' the BIOS to prevent an install of XP.

I do like the options within the linux flavors. But I am admitting that I just don't know which one to settle with while learning it. Which one is the most used, or the most installed version? I am thinking that it is a matter of user preference as to which linux flavor you like the most. I also really liked the install time of the Red Hat. It was quick. I did not time it, but I will say it felt like it took under 30mins to be inside the and looking at the desktop. I used the gnome desktop and really like how it looks and feels. It had a familiarity of the Mac OS in many ways.

This also doesn't make sense. They're basically all the same, and install time is moot. Nearly every version of Linux can be run from a live disc, installed over a network, and doesn't require a GUI.

OS X is like Linux? Really? Makes sense since they're basically the same system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_03

end rant.

Edited July 13, 2009 by dickf