|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Memphis, Tn
Posts: 1,828
|
I have been thinking about upgradeing my IE 5.0 but all I have read and heard said DON'T. What's the general consensus about the upgrades
------------------ Carl The dyslexic intern gave her boss a jb I tell my son that grades are a reflection of his attitude on life. If he is willing to accept mediocrity in grades then he will be willing to accept mediocrity the rest of his life. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=eta239 |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Member (14 bit)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Kelowna, B.C., Canada
Posts: 9,138
|
5.01 is good, 5.5 is beta.
------------------ Who needs a life?, I have internet! Cheers, Jim Jim & Sue's Free Files | Jims Modems |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 1,239
|
I have been using 5.5 Beta since the day it was released, and have not had a single problem with it. It is also a little faster than 5.01
------------------ Rick >> -- << The solutions to todays problems, Are the problems of tomorrow. RH WebWorx - Site Creators |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Member (13 bit)
|
Agreed, I've been using 5.0 for awhile, and have recommended to customers they get 5.01 for a few weeks now, and haven't heard any problems with either.
But really, in all honesty, they best browser about is Netscape6/Mozilla. It's still beta, so there are kinks to be worked out, but Mozilla anyways from my experience is EXTREMELY FAST. Mozilla and Netscape 6 were built with the web consortium's standards in mind, not with universal compatibility in mind. Therefore, they don't tolerate lazy code and poorly designed sites. They don't crash, they just refuse to load them. But a browser that LOGICALLY loads text and links first, then images last? How about that. How many YEARS did it take us to get a browser that worked so intelligently... Xayd |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: St.Catharines, Ontario , Canada
Posts: 513
|
I also have had NO problems with 5.5 and it is faster on the net. I guess it depends on how you have your system set up because I have read osts here about 5.5 problems. The only way is to install and try it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Member (6 bit)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 38
|
I upgraded from 5 to 5.01 a few months ago, and haven't had any problems so far. I have run quite a few browsers, but 5.01 seems to be the most stable browser.
------------------ Troy Hart's Web Home =8^) |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Member (13 bit)
|
I've been using Windows 2000 on one of my systems (K6-III 350MHz) which comes with IE 5.00.29 and I couldn't be happier! It's been stable, and doesn't have the problems IE 5.0 does with Win98SE, like freezing up the entire Kernel. Maybe it's because IE isn't actually Windows in Win2K....
That, and NT tech helps a lot.------------------ M. A. Dockter Forum Administrator mdockter@pcmech.com http://www.pcmech.com/dockter.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Administrator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Joplin MO
Posts: 36,453
|
Doc - you want to talk *stable*.....I'm running NT 4 workstation with SP 6a and Netscape 4.73.......this is solid as a rock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 294
|
I used the 5.5 beta for awhile and had frequent crashes. Uninstalling the 5.5 beta was also problematic-- it left outdated versions of two system files which lead to system crashes- took awhile to figure out how to fix the problem- or even what the problem was. One of the moderators here (I can't remember which one- I think it was M A Doktor) provided good advice- which was to avoid using beta programs.
[This message has been edited by Prader Willi (edited 06-17-2000).] |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|