IE10 vs IE9?

[charliec]

(I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)

I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is,
how does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make
the update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet
Website processing?

Thanks for any insights!
charliec

 

[Ashton Crusher]

(I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)

I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is,
how does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make
the update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet
Website processing?

Thanks for any insights!
charliec

I've got IE10 on Win7 and can't say that I've noticed much difference
and haven't seen any problems.

 

[charliec]

I've got IE10 on Win7 and can't say that I've noticed much difference
and haven't seen any problems.

Thanks Ashton.

 

[mick]

(I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)

I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is,
how does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make
the update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet
Website processing?

Thanks for any insights!
charliec

Visually no difference, but it is faster.

 

[Mellowed]

(I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)

I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is,
how does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make
the update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet
Website processing?

Thanks for any insights!
charliec

I've no problems with IE10 and it seems much faster. If you don't like
it, just uninstall it.

 

[sticks]

(I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)

I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is,
how does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make
the update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet
Website processing?

Thanks for any insights!
charliec

I downloaded and installed IE10 as a regular windows/Microsoft update
option. Visually, it doesn't look any different. I have noticed one
thing since installing I haven't figured out yet.

I often open links on a page I'm viewing with a center click of the
mouse allowing me to finish reading the current page. This opens them
in another tab on my machine. It can take from 10 to 15 seconds or more
quite often for the links to actually begin to load. There is no
pattern I have noticed, it just seems to do it regularly.

Wondering if anyone else has noticed this?

sticks

 

[Scott]

I've got IE10 on Win7 and can't say that I've noticed much difference
and haven't seen any problems.

I would agree with this.

 

[Ken Blake]

(I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)

I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is,
how does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make
the update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet
Website processing?

Four points:

1. See the other responses you've gotten for differences between them.

2. Rather than ask people for opinions, for something like browsers
you should evaluate them yourself. None of our opinions should matter
as much to you as your own does.

3. You should compare and evaluate much more in the way of browsers
than just IE9 and IE10. There are several other choices (Firefox,
Chrome, Safari, Maxthon, etc.) that many of us here prefer, and you
just might find one of them to be much better than either IE9 or IE10.
Personally, I like Maxthon the best, but you should make your own
decisions.

4. Please do not send the same message separately to more than one
newsgroup (called multiposting). Doing so just fragments the thread,
so someone who answers in one newsgroup doesn't always get to see
answers from others in another newsgroup. And for those who read all
the newsgroups the message is multiposted to, they see the message
multiple times instead of once (they would see it only once if you
correctly crossposted instead). This wastes everyone's time, and gets
you poorer help than you should get.

If you must send the same message to more than one newsgroup, please
do so by crossposting -- sending a single message simultaneously to
multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups).

 

[ray carter]

(I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)

I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is, how
does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make the
update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet Website
processing?

Thanks for any insights!
charliec

I'm not aware of any particular issues with IE10. With each release MS
seems to be getting closer to the HTML5 and CSS3 standards that the rest
of the world uses. You would likely not notice any difference unless you
browsed to a standards compliant web site. I use Chrome (or unbranded
Chromium) on my systems - partially because they are among the leading
players in adopting the standards.

 

[sticks]

4. Please do not send the same message separately to more than one
newsgroup (called multiposting). Doing so just fragments the thread,
so someone who answers in one newsgroup doesn't always get to see
answers from others in another newsgroup. And for those who read all
the newsgroups the message is multiposted to, they see the message
multiple times instead of once (they would see it only once if you
correctly crossposted instead). This wastes everyone's time, and gets
you poorer help than you should get.

If you must send the same message to more than one newsgroup, please
do so by crossposting -- sending a single message simultaneously to
multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups).

I really hope this doesn't get into a long drawn out flamewar, but I'm
gonna disagree with Ken on this, Charlie.

I believe Ken is entitled to crosspost if he chooses to do so, but it is
in no way a usenet method of choice as he makes it sound. I for one
hate cross posting and believe the way Charlie did it is better. I have
no desire to read whatever direction threads go in any one of the
thousands of "related" newsgroups you can post to these days. I only
wish to read what *this* group has to say. I've seen these crossposted
threads linger on for months many times over the years. If I want to
read another group, I'll subscribe to it.

If Charlie wants to come back and fill us in on whatever another group
had to say, that is up to him. But to suggest that the method Charlie
has used to get information is wrong and to "please" do it the way Ken
would like is improper. IMO YMMV

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I really hope this doesn't get into a long drawn out flamewar, but I'm
gonna disagree with Ken on this, Charlie.

I believe Ken is entitled to crosspost if he chooses to do so, but it is
in no way a usenet method of choice as he makes it sound. I for one
hate cross posting and believe the way Charlie did it is better. I have
no desire to read whatever direction threads go in any one of the
thousands of "related" newsgroups you can post to these days. I only
wish to read what *this* group has to say. I've seen these crossposted
threads linger on for months many times over the years. If I want to
read another group, I'll subscribe to it.

If Charlie wants to come back and fill us in on whatever another group
had to say, that is up to him. But to suggest that the method Charlie
has used to get information is wrong and to "please" do it the way Ken
would like is improper. IMO YMMV

Well, sticks, I *totally* disagree with you and totally agree with Ken.

Even though Charlie has told us what the other group is, I have no plans
to subscribe to that group to try to find and unravel his thread there.
I already subscribe to all the groups I wish to subscribe to.

And it's certainly not just a matter of what Ken would like. It is an
easy and practical way for all (interested) subscribers in *either*
newsgroup to keep track of all responses in *both* groups.

For example, one small effect of crossposting is that if I were to have
an idea for the OP's problem that has already been posted in the other
group and tried by Charlie without success, I wouldn't post it. And
thoughts like that might keep me from bothering to post my solution the
first place...

Obviously I am assuming that my solution would have been perfect

Yeah, I know, in this instance Charlie wasn't asking for a solution but
for a review, but still.

Feel free to flame back ;-)

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, Sticks.

What Ken said...and Gene, too.

One other point that we should mention: The payoff for the OP is that he
doesn't have to visit each of the other newsgroups and try to correlate the
often-conflicting advice that he might be getting. He can read them all in
a single coherent thread in any of the groups.

Of course, the OP should exercise good judgment in choosing the appropriate
NGs - and there very rarely is a need to post to more than a couple.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2012 (Build 16.4.3505.0912) in Win8 Pro


"sticks" wrote in message

4. Please do not send the same message separately to more than one
newsgroup (called multiposting). Doing so just fragments the thread,
so someone who answers in one newsgroup doesn't always get to see
answers from others in another newsgroup. And for those who read all
the newsgroups the message is multiposted to, they see the message
multiple times instead of once (they would see it only once if you
correctly crossposted instead). This wastes everyone's time, and gets
you poorer help than you should get.

If you must send the same message to more than one newsgroup, please
do so by crossposting -- sending a single message simultaneously to
multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups).

I really hope this doesn't get into a long drawn out flamewar, but I'm
gonna disagree with Ken on this, Charlie.

I believe Ken is entitled to crosspost if he chooses to do so, but it is
in no way a usenet method of choice as he makes it sound. I for one
hate cross posting and believe the way Charlie did it is better. I have
no desire to read whatever direction threads go in any one of the
thousands of "related" newsgroups you can post to these days. I only
wish to read what *this* group has to say. I've seen these crossposted
threads linger on for months many times over the years. If I want to
read another group, I'll subscribe to it.

If Charlie wants to come back and fill us in on whatever another group
had to say, that is up to him. But to suggest that the method Charlie
has used to get information is wrong and to "please" do it the way Ken
would like is improper. IMO YMMV

 

[charliec]

I really hope this doesn't get into a long drawn out flamewar, but I'm
gonna disagree with Ken on this, Charlie.

I believe Ken is entitled to crosspost if he chooses to do so, but it is
in no way a usenet method of choice as he makes it sound. I for one
hate cross posting and believe the way Charlie did it is better. I have
no desire to read whatever direction threads go in any one of the
thousands of "related" newsgroups you can post to these days. I only
wish to read what *this* group has to say. I've seen these crossposted
threads linger on for months many times over the years. If I want to
read another group, I'll subscribe to it.

If Charlie wants to come back and fill us in on whatever another group
had to say, that is up to him. But to suggest that the method Charlie
has used to get information is wrong and to "please" do it the way Ken
would like is improper. IMO YMMV

Ken - thanks very much for the support.
charliec

 

[Nil]

I believe Ken is entitled to crosspost if he chooses to do so, but
it is in no way a usenet method of choice as he makes it sound. I
for one hate cross posting and believe the way Charlie did it is
better.

I'll tell you what annoys the hell out of me: when I've spent a chunk
of my personal time trying to craft a helpful, well researched, well
stated answer to somebody's question, only to discover later that he
multi-posted his question to some other group and it's already been
answered. I feel like I've wasted my time, and I'm instantly
disinclined to help this person any more. It's asking several people
for help without telling them about each other, resulting in much
unnecessary, redundant, wasted time and running around, and eventually,
resentment. I consider such behavior to be very inconsiderate and
disrespectful.

I have no desire to read whatever direction threads go in
any one of the thousands of "related" newsgroups you can post to
these days.

The thoughtful way is to cross-post a technical question to a few
relevant groups, not "thousands". That will maximize the pool of talent
to be drawn upon and keep everyone informed. This is being efficient
and considerate and it benefits everybody.

 

[Bob Henson]

I really hope this doesn't get into a long drawn out flamewar, but I'm
gonna disagree with Ken on this, Charlie.

I believe Ken is entitled to crosspost if he chooses to do so, but it is
in no way a usenet method of choice as he makes it sound.

Technically, it is the recommended Usenet method, however, I agree with
you, it's a pain in the butt. In fact I, and many others, automatically
delete all cross-posted messages unread as routine, as nearly all trolls
cross post as a matter of routine. Combined with deleting everything
that emanates Google Groups, it removes most of the troll and spam mail
unread.

Multi-group posting was frowned upon in the early days of Usenet because
it increased overheads very slightly. I don't think that was ever
relevant, and it certainly isn't these days - so I don't think that
restriction needs to apply at all, and that multi-posting is the way to
go if someone simply has to post in more than one group. It only takes
one key press to skip a message that has already been read elsewhere.
However, that too is better avoided, especially in similar topic groups.

 

[Quilljar]

I agree about Maxthon. I have tried many browsers but this is the one I
prefer. it is rather USA centred but I can just about live with that!
Quilly UK

 

[Ken Blake]

Technically, it is the recommended Usenet method, however, I agree with
you, it's a pain in the butt. In fact I, and many others, automatically
delete all cross-posted messages unread as routine, as nearly all trolls
cross post as a matter of routine.

Trolls typically cross-post to many newsgroups. Note the words "few"
and "related" in my recommendation: "a single message simultaneously
to multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups)."

 

[Bob Henson]

Trolls typically cross-post to many newsgroups. Note the words "few"
and "related" in my recommendation: "a single message simultaneously
to multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups)."

It's been my experience that they often cross-post to just two
(particularly recently) - so I delete all cross-posts.

 

[sticks]

Technically, it is the recommended Usenet method, however, I agree with
you, it's a pain in the butt. In fact I, and many others, automatically
delete all cross-posted messages unread as routine, as nearly all trolls
cross post as a matter of routine. Combined with deleting everything
that emanates Google Groups, it removes most of the troll and spam mail
unread.

Multi-group posting was frowned upon in the early days of Usenet because
it increased overheads very slightly. I don't think that was ever
relevant, and it certainly isn't these days - so I don't think that
restriction needs to apply at all, and that multi-posting is the way to
go if someone simply has to post in more than one group. It only takes
one key press to skip a message that has already been read elsewhere.
However, that too is better avoided, especially in similar topic groups.

20 years ago when there was more decorum on usenet and the majority of
participants followed *all* the suggested ettiquette, crossposting made
more sense that it does today. Nowadays, things like thinking before
replying, checking FAQ's, doing simple google searches, major thread
drift, me too's, among others are commonplace.

As I said in my original reply, people can do either if they choose.
Personally, I've found crossposting does more harm than good. I will
not do it. That said, if poster does it wisely, it can do all the
things originally intended and answer some of the issues people have
brought up here. With today's newsreaders, many people don't even
realize at first an article is crossposted.

My issue, is telling someone that crossposting is the correct way of
doing things and that they should not have done what they did.
Crossposting in many groups will get you flamed before anything else you
do except top posting. Times have changed and many people just don't
like it. Point is: if someone wants to crosspost and does it wisely,
fine. If someone chooses not to crosspost, move on and either
participate or don't at your own discretion. It is the act of telling
someone what is proper here that annoys me.

 

[Nil]

My issue, is telling someone that crossposting is the correct way
of doing things and that they should not have done what they did.
Crossposting in many groups will get you flamed before anything
else you do except top posting.

Not in technical groups like this one.

Times have changed and many people just don't like it.

That would be a kneejerk, unthinking opinion.

Point is: if someone wants to crosspost and does it wisely, fine.
If someone chooses not to crosspost, move on and either
participate or don't at your own discretion. It is the act of
telling someone what is proper here that annoys me.

You mean, like you just did?