Member - Ian H (NSW) posted:

Since installing IE7 I have had similar troubles and considered changing to back Firefox. Now I will do it.

Member - MR 1927 (NSW) posted:

Only way to go.

Steer clear of IE7.

Member - John (Vic) posted:

Yep what he said :-)
IE7 works great.

Mainey (wa) posted:

Yep what they said :-)
IE7 works gr8

Member - joc45 (WA) posted:

Hope things have improved with the reversion procedure!
A few years back I reverted to a previous version of IE in Win98 (similar story; you can't completely remove IE in Win98).
Reverting to the earlier version of IE stuffed my Outlook program! No amount of reinstalling Outlook would fix it. Fortunately I was running Configsafe (like the Restore function in XP) and I managed to get it working again, no thanks to IE.
Bloody Microsoft!
Gerry

Mike Harding posted:

>Personally I have given up on Windows and use Ubuntu
>and Firefox now.

Good point.

I resisted going Unix/Linux for a long time because some of my professional software required Windows (Schematic capture, PCB layout, SPICE etc) but I use these programmes less these days and should probably install a dual boot XP/Linux as 90% of my computer time is word processing, spread sheet, web browsing, e-mail etc and Linux with Open Office and Mozilla will do all of those and do them much more efficiently than Windows - especially Vista!

Mike Harding

PS. I first used Unix in 1983 on a 68000 CPU with a 45MB hard drive and 512K RAM - supported 8 users on TTYs :)

Steve63 posted:

I stuck with Windows for ages for similar issues. I now have set up dual boot winXP/Ubuntu 7.10 (Gutsy). I only use windows for video editing as the software is still better in winXP. I started out on a PDP 11 with 4 terminals. If you were first in you used to have to set the start address in binary (row of toggles on the front panel) and then turn a key to start it. I think it had a 10Mb disk and 64k of RAM. I remember having to put it into single user mode to use the Fortran compiler.

I know Ubuntu is much more economical with system resources. I would have no hope of running Vista (in fact I don't think it would even instal on my poor old system). I certainly could not run the Areo effects. Yet Gutsy runs all sorts of graphical effects (most better than the Areo effects) with no issues. I currently have a cube (four rotatable work spaces that appear on the face of a cube as you switch workspaces). The cube contains an animated set of gears inside the cube. It looks like an animated desktop. The comparison is scary really. Not only that installing Ubuntu includes Open Office, Gimp (bit like photo shop), firefox and a raft of programming tools. Then there are the global repositories if what you want is not already installed. Updates are a breeze. I'm on my third version of Ubuntu. Each has been a leap forward. I don't know what they are planning for the next release in April but I can hardly wait.

Steve

ExplorOz Team - David posted:

Forget the most important item - I hope you are not using Norton Internet security. Actually I will almost bet you are! If yes then disable it for a test and try the site and see what happens. Let me know.....

The Norton product is not a very good product and causes all sorts of weird issues like this. If you have it whitelist the sites you like as it has a habbit of blocking critical code segments and breaking things.

Member - John (Vic) posted:

David what is the effect of having to much cache enabled?
You suggest less is better??

Cheers

ExplorOz Team - David posted:

Hi John,

I found out in many corporate environments that high cache values caused performance degradation due to the time it took for the cache lookups to complete. Some machines local processing of large caches takes ages (I have seen some more than 1/2 sec) hence several hundred image objects on a page will cause a cache lookup for every image so every 50 little 1KB images in a large cache using worst figures (from my testing) can take 25 seconds or more just to perform local cache lookup - then download if non existant or render from cache.

About 8 months ago MS changed the recommendation to less than 250MB (as shown on the IE settings page).

The other logic is that you should not really be carrying that much cache as most of it will be out of date anyway and require re-download so the extra lookup time is realy a waste. I setup 150 to 250MB on all my systems and on most of my client networks, sometimes even less down to 10-50MB on some networks. It all depends on the network however there is NO reason for a small business/home machine to have a setting larger than 250MB.

IE6 used a percentage of disk space and when you upgrade to IE7 it keeps that figure. We must remember IE6 was released in the time of 20GB being a huge disk drive and settings of percent were 5-10% now 200GB is average and the caches have become way to large.

Anyway hope this helps and explains it a little.