IE9 does not run on Windows XP

[Andy]

Barry OGrady wrote:

here is a list of major Firefox bugs that Mazilla has not fixed.

Add-ons Blocklist

This page lists blocklisted add-ons that should no longer be used with
Mozilla products.

It seems you're confused.

Everything you listed is an add-on to Firefox developed by third
parties. It's /not/ up to Mozilla to fix these add-ons, but the people
developing them. Half of them just recommended updating to the latest
version, which FF usually does automatically anyway.

(I hope you didn't spend too long digging this up.)

--
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2011-03-19, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:

On 19 Mar 2011 08:03:22 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2011-03-15, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:44:46 +1100, Don McKenzie <5V@2.5A> wrote:


Firefox still has bugs that make it unusable at times.

IE can't download dynamic content over https.

Firefox bugs

Add-ons Blocklist

This page lists blocklisted add-ons that should no longer be used with
Mozilla products.

[long list deleted]

that's a long list of buggy non-mozilla software,
are you trying to make some sort of point?

--
?? 100% natural

If you're going to quote my sig quote it correctly.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

 

[Barry OGrady]

On 19 Mar 2011 20:47:35 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2011-03-19, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
On 19 Mar 2011 08:03:22 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2011-03-15, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:44:46 +1100, Don McKenzie <5V@2.5A> wrote:


Firefox still has bugs that make it unusable at times.

IE can't download dynamic content over https.

Firefox bugs

Add-ons Blocklist

This page lists blocklisted add-ons that should no longer be used with
Mozilla products.

[long list deleted]

that's a long list of buggy non-mozilla software,
are you trying to make some sort of point?

Its a list of software Firefox won't work with because it is poorly
written and Mozilla are not prepared to write proper code.

--
?? 100% natural


If you're going to quote my sig quote it correctly.

--
?? 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

 

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:08:22 +1000, Andy <nospam@> wrote:

Barry OGrady wrote:

here is a list of major Firefox bugs that Mazilla has not fixed.

Add-ons Blocklist

This page lists blocklisted add-ons that should no longer be used with
Mozilla products.

It seems you're confused.

No! The list is from Mozzilla itself.

It highlights the fact that Mozilla can't write compatible code.

Everything you listed is an add-on to Firefox developed by third
parties. It's /not/ up to Mozilla to fix these add-ons, but the people
developing them. Half of them just recommended updating to the latest
version, which FF usually does automatically anyway.

It is up to mozilla to write compatible code.

(I hope you didn't spend too long digging this up.)

--
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

 

[atec77]

On 20/03/2011 5:22 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:08:22 +1000, Andy<nospam@> wrote:

Barry OGrady wrote:

here is a list of major Firefox bugs that Mazilla has not fixed.

Add-ons Blocklist

This page lists blocklisted add-ons that should no longer be used with
Mozilla products.

It seems you're confused.

No! The list is from Mozzilla itself.

It highlights the fact that Mozilla can't write compatible code.

Everything you listed is an add-on to Firefox developed by third
parties. It's /not/ up to Mozilla to fix these add-ons, but the people
developing them. Half of them just recommended updating to the latest
version, which FF usually does automatically anyway.

It is up to mozilla to write compatible code.
comparable with nothing considered std in the industry , I guess you

mean the shite m/s tries to use instead of industry std which smacks of
empire building

(I hope you didn't spend too long digging this up.)

--
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2011-03-20, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:

On 19 Mar 2011 20:47:35 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2011-03-19, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
On 19 Mar 2011 08:03:22 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2011-03-15, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:44:46 +1100, Don McKenzie <5V@2.5A> wrote:


Firefox still has bugs that make it unusable at times.

IE can't download dynamic content over https.

Firefox bugs

Add-ons Blocklist

This page lists blocklisted add-ons that should no longer be used with
Mozilla products.

[long list deleted]

that's a long list of buggy non-mozilla software,
are you trying to make some sort of point?

Its a list of software Firefox won't work with because it is poorly
written and Mozilla are not prepared to write proper code.

why should Firefox be required to work with poorly written code.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

 

[kreed]

On Mar 20, 5:19 pm, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:

On 19 Mar 2011 20:47:35 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:



On 2011-03-19, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
On 19 Mar 2011 08:03:22 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2011-03-15, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:44:46 +1100, Don McKenzie <5...@2.5A> wrote:

Firefox still has bugs that make it unusable at times.

IE can't download dynamic content over https.

Firefox bugs

Add-ons Blocklist

This page lists blocklisted add-ons that should no longer be used with
Mozilla products.

[long list deleted]

that's a long list of buggy non-mozilla software,
are you trying to make some sort of point?

Its a list of software Firefox won't work with because it is poorly
written and Mozilla are not prepared to write proper code.



--
?? 100% natural

If you're going to quote my sig quote it correctly.

--
?? 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---

It is stuff from other parties, not Mozilla that wont work under
FF.
Just as possible that these 3rd parties did a piss poor job of their
code,
didn't check it with Firefox or wrote it for IE only.


If nothing else, Mozilla does come out and say not to use it, rather
than say nothing
and letting people (including the developers of these items) have
constant troubles
that are hard to locate the cause after using these items.

 

[Andy]

Barry OGrady wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:08:22 +1000, Andy <nospam@> wrote:

Barry OGrady wrote:

here is a list of major Firefox bugs that Mazilla has not fixed.

Add-ons Blocklist

This page lists blocklisted add-ons that should no longer be used with
Mozilla products.

It seems you're confused.

No! The list is from Mozzilla itself.

It highlights the fact that Mozilla can't write compatible code.

No, it doesn't.

Look at the list again - It highlights that OLD add-ons, written BY
THIRD PARTIES (who on Earth do you think released the Java plugin, or
the McAfee addon for Firefox?) are incompatible with newer versions of
Firefox.

Everything you listed is an add-on to Firefox developed by third
parties. It's /not/ up to Mozilla to fix these add-ons, but the people
developing them. Half of them just recommended updating to the latest
version, which FF usually does automatically anyway.

It is up to mozilla to write compatible code.

You're wrong. Here's a hint: The Java plugin is maintained by
*Oracle*. And ALL of the other add-ons you listed are maintained by
other companies, /NOT/ Mozilla.

/If/ they were from Mozilla, they'd be part of the stock program, not an
'add-on'.

--
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

 

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:41:39 +1000, atec77 <atec77@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 20/03/2011 5:22 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:08:22 +1000, Andy<nospam@> wrote:

Barry OGrady wrote:

here is a list of major Firefox bugs that Mazilla has not fixed.

Add-ons Blocklist

This page lists blocklisted add-ons that should no longer be used with
Mozilla products.

It seems you're confused.

No! The list is from Mozzilla itself.

It highlights the fact that Mozilla can't write compatible code.

Everything you listed is an add-on to Firefox developed by third
parties. It's /not/ up to Mozilla to fix these add-ons, but the people
developing them. Half of them just recommended updating to the latest
version, which FF usually does automatically anyway.

It is up to mozilla to write compatible code.
comparable with nothing considered std in the industry , I guess you
mean the shite m/s tries to use instead of industry std which smacks of
empire building

Why does Mozzila keep making Firefox updates that break formally
working add ons? Is it deliberate or they just incompetent?
Why does Firefox ignore some links forcing us to go to IE?

 

[Barry OGrady]

On 20 Mar 2011 09:15:09 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2011-03-20, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
On 19 Mar 2011 20:47:35 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2011-03-19, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
On 19 Mar 2011 08:03:22 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2011-03-15, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:44:46 +1100, Don McKenzie <5V@2.5A> wrote:


Firefox still has bugs that make it unusable at times.

IE can't download dynamic content over https.

Firefox bugs

Add-ons Blocklist

This page lists blocklisted add-ons that should no longer be used with
Mozilla products.

[long list deleted]

that's a long list of buggy non-mozilla software,
are you trying to make some sort of point?

Its a list of software Firefox won't work with because it is poorly
written and Mozilla are not prepared to write proper code.


why should Firefox be required to work with poorly written code.

Doesn't it bother you that an add on you have been using suddenly
is not compatible?

 

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 02:42:23 -0700 (PDT), kreed
<kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 20, 5:19 pm, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
On 19 Mar 2011 20:47:35 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:



On 2011-03-19, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
On 19 Mar 2011 08:03:22 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2011-03-15, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:44:46 +1100, Don McKenzie <5...@2.5A> wrote:

Firefox still has bugs that make it unusable at times.

IE can't download dynamic content over https.

Firefox bugs

Add-ons Blocklist

This page lists blocklisted add-ons that should no longer be used with
Mozilla products.

[long list deleted]

that's a long list of buggy non-mozilla software,
are you trying to make some sort of point?

Its a list of software Firefox won't work with because it is poorly
written and Mozilla are not prepared to write proper code.



--
?? 100% natural

If you're going to quote my sig quote it correctly.

--
?? 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---


It is stuff from other parties, not Mozilla that wont work under FF.
Just as possible that these 3rd parties did a piss poor job of their
code, didn't check it with Firefox or wrote it for IE only.

If nothing else, Mozilla does come out and say not to use it, rather
than say nothing and letting people (including the developers of these items) have
constant troubles that are hard to locate the cause after using these items.

Doesn't it bother you that an add on you have been using is suddenly
not compatible with a FF update?
Doesn't it bother you that FF will not work with some links?
It happens less often but it still happens.

 

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:50:53 +1000, Andy <nospam@> wrote:

Barry OGrady wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:08:22 +1000, Andy <nospam@> wrote:

Barry OGrady wrote:

here is a list of major Firefox bugs that Mazilla has not fixed.

Add-ons Blocklist

This page lists blocklisted add-ons that should no longer be used with
Mozilla products.

It seems you're confused.

No! The list is from Mozzilla itself.

It highlights the fact that Mozilla can't write compatible code.

No, it doesn't.

Look at the list again - It highlights that OLD add-ons, written BY
THIRD PARTIES (who on Earth do you think released the Java plugin, or
the McAfee addon for Firefox?) are incompatible with newer versions of
Firefox.

Everything you listed is an add-on to Firefox developed by third
parties. It's /not/ up to Mozilla to fix these add-ons, but the people
developing them. Half of them just recommended updating to the latest
version, which FF usually does automatically anyway.

It is up to mozilla to write compatible code.

You're wrong. Here's a hint: The Java plugin is maintained by
*Oracle*. And ALL of the other add-ons you listed are maintained by
other companies, /NOT/ Mozilla.

/If/ they were from Mozilla, they'd be part of the stock program, not an
'add-on'.

That's no excuse for Mozilla to keep changeing FF to prevent add ons
working.

 

[Rod Speed]

Barry OGrady wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:41:39 +1000, atec77 <atec77@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 20/03/2011 5:22 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:08:22 +1000, Andy<nospam@> wrote:

Barry OGrady wrote:

here is a list of major Firefox bugs that Mazilla has not fixed.

Add-ons Blocklist

This page lists blocklisted add-ons that should no longer be used
with Mozilla products.

It seems you're confused.

No! The list is from Mozzilla itself.

It highlights the fact that Mozilla can't write compatible code.

Everything you listed is an add-on to Firefox developed by third
parties. It's /not/ up to Mozilla to fix these add-ons, but the
people developing them. Half of them just recommended updating to
the latest version, which FF usually does automatically anyway.

It is up to mozilla to write compatible code.
comparable with nothing considered std in the industry , I guess you
mean the shite m/s tries to use instead of industry std which smacks
of empire building

Why does Mozzila keep making Firefox updates that break formally
working add ons? Is it deliberate or they just incompetent?

Why does Firefox ignore some links forcing us to go to IE?

Because everyone tests their web site with IE, and most dont bother to see if it works with Firefox.

 

[Don McKenzie]

On 22-Mar-11 7:38 AM, Rod Speed wrote:

Why does Firefox ignore some links forcing us to go to IE?

Because everyone tests their web site with IE, and most dont bother to see if it works with Firefox.

You are very correct Rod, I'm sure that is what they do.

Strangely, I do it the other way, always test on FF, then goto IE before publishing.

But I'm a Dinosaur. Dead ugly too!

Cheers Don...

=======================



--
Don McKenzie

Dontronics Blog: http://www.GodzillaSeaMonkey.com
Dontronics Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email
Web Camera Page: http://www.dontronics.com/webcam
No More Damn Spam: http://www.dontronics.com/spam

These products will reduce in price by 5% every month:
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/minus-5-every-month.html
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/ics.html

Bare Proto PCB for PIC or AVR projects?
"I'd buy that for a Dollar!".

 

[Rob]

On 22/03/2011 7:49 AM, Don McKenzie wrote:

On 22-Mar-11 7:38 AM, Rod Speed wrote:

Why does Firefox ignore some links forcing us to go to IE?

Because everyone tests their web site with IE, and most dont bother to
see if it works with Firefox.

You are very correct Rod, I'm sure that is what they do.

Strangely, I do it the other way, always test on FF, then goto IE before
publishing.

But I'm a Dinosaur. Dead ugly too!

Cheers Don...

=======================

I just test with FF and don't bother with IE and no one has complained.

IE does some strange things with the font sizes which you have to be
careful, but something tells me that current versions have that sorted.

I work with Dreamweaver and that's mostly clean and works with most
popular browsers.

 

[Andy]

Barry OGrady wrote:

That's no excuse for Mozilla to keep changeing FF to prevent add ons
working.

The developers of the add-ons have a simple choice. Continue
development to remain compatible, let someone else take over, or let the
add-on die.

Do you think that all of the add-ons that were developed for Internet
Explorer 6.x magically work with IE 7, 8 or 9?

(They don't. HTH)

--
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

 

[asdf]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:30:30 +1100, Barry OGrady wrote:

Firefox doesn't work with some links.

That should be: some sites don't care a flying turd about Internet
standards.

 

[Huge Ackman]

On 19/03/2011 10:06 AM, Petzl wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:14:25 +1100, Huge Ackman
wolverine@example.com> wrote:

On 18/03/2011 6:50 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:26:32 +1100, Huge Ackman
wolverine@example.com> wrote:



Been known for ages that IE9 isnt for XP. They would rather you buy new
than they support old. XP is just old.

Just "upgraded" to IE9 (home edition Win7 32 bit) and its still brokem
crap! Have to use Fire Fox as main browser

IE9 works here and pretty damned fast, too. What's broken for you?

Yeah sure not according to everyone I know
Something has changed on its cookie storage/handling which means I
can't log into many websites. Commenting/messages on places like
YouTube/Twitter/Facebook and others is pretty useless, the pagelayout
from IE7 changed and don't like it,
Fact is FireFox works where IE8 and now IE9 don't and now use three
browsers (FF,IE,Chrome) whereas before I only used "Internet
Explorer". Futher fact is Microsoft since Gates left has become buggy
junk I will be faceing up to giving Google Chrome if they can get it
working

Part of the problem with browsers not working, I have found over many
years, is some people installing every damned one there is. I have FF4
and IE9 on mine and it works well. I have UNINSTALLED Chrome from many
machines and problems just disappear. This isnt to say that Chrome is
the problem itself but that something along with Chrome caused the
problem. I dont like Chrome, I must admit. FF4 is probably the fastest I
have ever seen a browser work to date.

 

[Huge Ackman]

On 19/03/2011 4:58 PM, Rob wrote:

On 18/03/2011 11:15 PM, Huge Ackman wrote:
On 18/03/2011 6:01 PM, David Ross wrote:
In article<8u9sqbFgirU2@mid.individual.net>, Don McKenzie<5V@2.5A
wrote:

IE9 does not run on Windows XP

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/251335,ie9-a-non-event-for-most-businesses.aspx



Cheers Don...

============

..And thats bad because...

David

Nothing wrong with old stuff. I reckon the D-type Jag was one of the
better looking machines built of its era. Hell, vintage cars can bring
in a lot of money, too!

Yep had a bit of a play in one just the other day.

Did you wipe the evidence off the seat when you finished?

 

[Huge Ackman]

On 19/03/2011 5:31 PM, Don McKenzie wrote:

On 19-Mar-11 4:58 PM, Rob wrote:

Nothing wrong with old stuff. I reckon the D-type Jag was one of the
better looking machines built of its era. Hell, vintage cars can bring
in a lot of money, too!

Yep had a bit of a play in one just the other day.

A d type in oz?
that would be rare. wasn't an e?

There are 2 I know about and there is a place that makes fibreglass body
copies to shove on a chassis, somewhere in Vic....well used to be anyway.

Or do you mean a vintage car?

I had an FJ holden for years, and drove one recently, and was horrified.

Never driven an FJ. Driven an EH, a HD, a HK, HT, HG and VN as well as
assorted early 70s Toranas and now own a Captiva which is only front
wheel drive but the suspension is good enough for mild off road stuff
AND is has ESP which is great. Went for a 30K run down a dirt road when
it was dry and the dirt was like sand in spots so the car, at about 60K
may start to drift. The ESP put on the required brake on the correct
wheel and brought it back into line before I even had a chance to do a
thing. Also on a REAL bad dirt downhill in it with shitloads of gravel
and it has a downhill descent in it. Put that on and chucked it into
neutral and the car used the handbrake brakes to slow it down. Handbrake
brakes are drum in it and all wheels are disc. Strange thing having a
second lot of brakes on a car, for me.

Then, my first car was a 1924 Rugby.
My first registered car was a 1938 Morris 8/40

First car I ever owned was an old Austin A40 (Farina model). Loved it,
still think about it and so on.