I Gave Mozilla Firefox a try......

[Slogun]

I also prefer Mozilla to FF.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Mem
I still prefer Mozilla 1.7.1 and Opera 7.51 to Firefox but at least I`ve actually tried them 😉.

I thought I was the only who still finds Opera 7.51 superior to FF...... I have them both, and Opera is still the fastest.

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: clamum

Originally posted by: Xiety

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy

Originally posted by: Turgon
I can't understand why so many people still use IE.

I also can't understand why so many people still uses Windows.

because not everyone is a nerd like you.

Hehehe

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I've used Windows since 3.1 and think it's pretty good.

windows 3.1 = ok, didn't know much about computing by then
windows 95 = it was magical after 3.1
windows 98 = crap
windows 98 SE = nice
windows NT = ok
windows ME = uber-crap
windows 2000 = omg its awesome
windows xp home = between crap and ok
windows xp pro = GODLIKE!

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Xiety

Originally posted by: clamum

Originally posted by: Xiety

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy

Originally posted by: Turgon
I can't understand why so many people still use IE.

I also can't understand why so many people still uses Windows.

because not everyone is a nerd like you.

Hehehe

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I've used Windows since 3.1 and think it's pretty good.

windows 3.1 = ok, didn't know much about computing by then
windows 95 = it was magical after 3.1
windows 98 = crap
windows 98 SE = nice
windows NT = ok
windows ME = uber-crap
windows 2000 = omg its awesome
windows xp home = between crap and ok
windows xp pro = GODLIKE!

Bill G. gives you a hard on, doesn't he?

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Xiety

Originally posted by: clamum

Originally posted by: Xiety

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy

Originally posted by: Turgon
I can't understand why so many people still use IE.

I also can't understand why so many people still uses Windows.

because not everyone is a nerd like you.

Hehehe

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I've used Windows since 3.1 and think it's pretty good.

windows 3.1 = ok, didn't know much about computing by then
windows 95 = it was magical after 3.1
windows 98 = crap
windows 98 SE = nice
windows NT = ok
windows ME = uber-crap
windows 2000 = omg its awesome
windows xp home = between crap and ok
windows xp pro = GODLIKE!

Bill G. gives you a hard on, doesn't he?

He does for me. 😀😉

 

[Andvari]

I tried Firefox .92 and I have to say it does indeed put IE6 to shame. I'd say it's about the same as Maxthon to me, which I've been using for quite some time. And that's a good thing.

However, I just installed Opera last night, and I have honestly got to say... wow. Where the hell does all the love for Firefox come from? I can understand the want to get away from IE, but why are people flocking to FF and not Opera? As soon as I opened Opera after installation, I was impressed. Everything is just so "polished" for lack of a better word. The features are abundant and I just like the whole feel of everything.

Now that I think about it though, I suppose I can see where FF would grab more attention. With Opera, either you have to stomach an ad or money out of your wallet. Firefox isn't quite as polished/good IMO, but I guess that's easily made up for by being free.

Having only used it for one night, I obviously don't know much about Opera yet. So I've gotta ask, how is it on the security side? And aside from not being free or having an ad, what are the cons of Opera? So far it just seems too good to be true (except for the ad).

 

[n0cmonkey]

Opera is cool, for payware.

 

[igowerf]

Originally posted by: Xiety

windows 3.1 = ok, didn't know much about computing by then
windows 95 = it was magical after 3.1
windows 98 = crap
windows 98 SE = nice
windows NT = ok
windows ME = uber-crap
windows 2000 = omg its awesome
windows xp home = between crap and ok
windows xp pro = GODLIKE!

WinXP Home is literally a subset of WinXP Pro though. To most computer users, Home and Pro would be identical.

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: Andvari
I tried Firefox .92 and I have to say it does indeed put IE6 to shame. I'd say it's about the same as Maxthon to me, which I've been using for quite some time. And that's a good thing.

However, I just installed Opera last night, and I have honestly got to say... wow. Where the hell does all the love for Firefox come from? I can understand the want to get away from IE, but why are people flocking to FF and not Opera? As soon as I opened Opera after installation, I was impressed. Everything is just so "polished" for lack of a better word. The features are abundant and I just like the whole feel of everything.

Now that I think about it though, I suppose I can see where FF would grab more attention. With Opera, either you have to stomach an ad or money out of your wallet. Firefox isn't quite as polished/good IMO, but I guess that's easily made up for by being free.

Having only used it for one night, I obviously don't know much about Opera yet. So I've gotta ask, how is it on the security side? And aside from not being free or having an ad, what are the cons of Opera? So far it just seems too good to be true (except for the ad).

i'd rather not pay for a browser. i cannot stand ads and that crappy interface. But that's me.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: Mem
I still prefer Mozilla 1.7.1 and Opera 7.51 to Firefox but at least I`ve actually tried them 😉.

I thought I was the only who still finds Opera 7.51 superior to FF...... I have them both, and Opera is still the fastest.

Opera is faster, and more stable, more standards compliant, and better at mimicking IE.
Firefox, however, is free.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: igowerf

Originally posted by: Xiety

windows 3.1 = ok, didn't know much about computing by then
windows 95 = it was magical after 3.1
windows 98 = crap
windows 98 SE = nice
windows NT = ok
windows ME = uber-crap
windows 2000 = omg its awesome
windows xp home = between crap and ok
windows xp pro = GODLIKE!

WinXP Home is literally a subset of WinXP Pro though. To most computer users, Home and Pro would be identical.

Most users aren't here.
Here, you never know when you'll need to log into a domain, or when you'll not be able to hold yourself back from buying a dually 🙂.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: Mem
I still prefer Mozilla 1.7.1 and Opera 7.51 to Firefox but at least I`ve actually tried them 😉.

I thought I was the only who still finds Opera 7.51 superior to FF...... I have them both, and Opera is still the fastest.

Opera is faster, and more stable, more standards compliant, and better at mimicking IE.
Firefox, however, is free.

Mozilla and its children also work in places opera won't. 😉

 

[rh71]

which plugins are most useful ?

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy

Originally posted by: Turgon
I can't understand why so many people still use IE.

I also can't understand why so many people still uses Windows.

It has been researched and found that Linux has just as many security flaws as any Windows OS out there, it's just that it's pointless for a virus writer to write malicious code for Linux, as it's installed base can't compare to Microsoft's 95% worldwide. If you want to hurt people, you're gonna write the code for the OS everyone has, and therefore look for those holes more actively.

I've always believed that if Linux and Microsoft were to switch places today, the minority of you would be singing the praises of Windows and how it's the light at the end of the tunnel, and trying to steer the masses away from the evil Linux.

It's a classic case of going for the underdog. Do you Linux users really even need the extra "features" that Linux may provide over Windows anyhow?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy

Originally posted by: Turgon
I can't understand why so many people still use IE.

I also can't understand why so many people still uses Windows.

It has been researched and found that Linux has just as many security flaws as any Windows OS out there, it's just that it's pointless for a virus writer to write malicious code for Linux, as it's installed base can't compare to Microsoft's 95% worldwide. If you want to hurt people, you're gonna write the code for the OS everyone has, and therefore look for those holes more actively.

I've always believed that if Linux and Microsoft were to switch places today, the minority of you would be singing the praises of Windows and how it's the light at the end of the tunnel, and trying to steer the masses away from the evil Linux.

It's a classic case of going for the underdog. Do you Linux users really even need the extra "features" that Linux may provide over Windows anyhow?

Er, no.
How many times do you need the admin password to do things to your windows box that could harm it? Only when altering user profiles.
You need it for practically everything in linux. Want to go from 1024x768 to 1280x1024? Where's that root password, sonny?

Also, there are new IIS vulnerabilities about, rather than Apache vulnerabilities. Hmmm. Let's do math. IIS is in the minority. Apache is the majority. Yet IIS gets attacked. Maybe it is easier to do so?

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: CerbEr, no.
How many times do you need the admin password to do things to your windows box that could harm it? Only when altering user profiles.
You need it for practically everything in linux. Want to go from 1024x768 to 1280x1024? Where's that root password, sonny?

Also, there are new IIS vulnerabilities about, rather than Apache vulnerabilities. Hmmm. Let's do math. IIS is in the minority. Apache is the majority. Yet IIS gets attacked. Maybe it is easier to do so?

Sounds as if needing the root password to change something as little as a resolution is why Linux will not catch on with the mainstream. Besides, I don't believe your point about having to have a password for everything validates the point you are trying to make (although I'll admit, I do not know much about it, only what I've read).

As for your analogy between server software and operating systems, I wouldn't quite put server software in with operating systems and their vulnerabilities. Two different beasts IMO (the way I'm looking at it anyhow).

Although you may have some points in you somewhere, I picture you as either a die-hard Linux user, or a die-hard Microsoft hater. I'll guarantee no one will ever be able to convince you that Linux (or any other non-MS OS) has a flaw.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy

Originally posted by: Turgon
I can't understand why so many people still use IE.

I also can't understand why so many people still uses Windows.

It has been researched and found that Linux has just as many security flaws as any Windows OS out there, it's just that it's pointless for a virus writer to write malicious code for Linux, as it's installed base can't compare to Microsoft's 95% worldwide. If you want to hurt people, you're gonna write the code for the OS everyone has, and therefore look for those holes more actively.

I've always believed that if Linux and Microsoft were to switch places today, the minority of you would be singing the praises of Windows and how it's the light at the end of the tunnel, and trying to steer the masses away from the evil Linux.

It's a classic case of going for the underdog. Do you Linux users really even need the extra "features" that Linux may provide over Windows anyhow?

Er, no.
How many times do you need the admin password to do things to your windows box that could harm it? Only when altering user profiles.
You need it for practically everything in linux. Want to go from 1024x768 to 1280x1024? Where's that root password, sonny?

ctrl alt +/-

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: CerbEr, no.
How many times do you need the admin password to do things to your windows box that could harm it? Only when altering user profiles.
You need it for practically everything in linux. Want to go from 1024x768 to 1280x1024? Where's that root password, sonny?

Also, there are new IIS vulnerabilities about, rather than Apache vulnerabilities. Hmmm. Let's do math. IIS is in the minority. Apache is the majority. Yet IIS gets attacked. Maybe it is easier to do so?

Sounds as if needing the root password to change something as little as a resolution is why Linux will not catch on with the mainstream. Besides, I don't believe your point about having to have a password for everything validates the point you are trying to make (although I'll admit, I do not know much about it, only what I've read).

As for your analogy between server software and operating systems, I wouldn't quite put server software in with operating systems and their vulnerabilities. Two different beasts IMO (the way I'm looking at it anyhow).

Although you may have some points in you somewhere, I picture you as either a die-hard Linux user, or a die-hard Microsoft hater. I'll guarantee no one will ever be able to convince you that Linux (or any other non-MS OS) has a flaw.

Linux sucks. Now that you know my stance on that:

My take on the point he was making with IIS is that it is crap. Apache has DOMINANT market share in the httpd world. Yet, there are more exploits released for IIS. In the OS world, Windows is DOMINANT, and there are more exploits released for it. Why are the two situations so different?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy

Originally posted by: Turgon
I can't understand why so many people still use IE.

I also can't understand why so many people still uses Windows.

It has been researched and found that Linux has just as many security flaws as any Windows OS out there, it's just that it's pointless for a virus writer to write malicious code for Linux, as it's installed base can't compare to Microsoft's 95% worldwide. If you want to hurt people, you're gonna write the code for the OS everyone has, and therefore look for those holes more actively.

Blah blah blah. Links. To credible sources. 😉

I've always believed that if Linux and Microsoft were to switch places today, the minority of you would be singing the praises of Windows and how it's the light at the end of the tunnel, and trying to steer the masses away from the evil Linux.

Doubtful. Linux would still be freeish.

It's a classic case of going for the underdog. Do you Linux users really even need the extra "features" that Linux may provide over Windows anyhow?

As a Linux user that hates Linux, yes. SSH is necessary for the job I do and half the stuff I do at home. I utilize the freeish software creation tools. I use NFS to share files and data. I use GUI applications on one machine from another. I setup my own router (not Linux, not Windows, but parts are included in Microsoft software :Q). I've run webservers, mailservers, etc.

And there are several projects working on enhanced memory protection in Linux, can you say the same for Windows?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: CerbEr, no.
How many times do you need the admin password to do things to your windows box that could harm it? Only when altering user profiles.
You need it for practically everything in linux. Want to go from 1024x768 to 1280x1024? Where's that root password, sonny?
N0c: yeah, bad example. You still need it to change to resolutions outside of those selected for the video card or monitor.

Also, there are new IIS vulnerabilities about, rather than Apache vulnerabilities. Hmmm. Let's do math. IIS is in the minority. Apache is the majority. Yet IIS gets attacked. Maybe it is easier to do so?

Sounds as if needing the root password to change something as little as a resolution is why Linux will not catch on with the mainstream. Besides, I don't believe your point about having to have a password for everything validates the point you are trying to make (although I'll admit, I do not know much about it, only what I've read).

As for your analogy between server software and operating systems, I wouldn't quite put server software in with operating systems and their vulnerabilities. Two different beasts IMO (the way I'm looking at it anyhow).

Although you may have some points in you somewhere, I picture you as either a die-hard Linux user, or a die-hard Microsoft hater. I'll guarantee no one will ever be able to convince you that Linux (or any other non-MS OS) has a flaw.

Try neither. I'm using Win2k and like it. I'll probably get XP once SP2 is out. However, to do many of the stupid things that the mail-born virii and worms require to propagate, you'd need the root PW in linux.

For servers, there is just no competition....Linux can run very well on hardware you would otherwise throw away. SSH in, and it's like being there...only no drone of the fans.
However, MS has countered that with XP's remote desktop, which puts VNC, PCAnywhere, and all those others to shame. Sure, you can do remote X, but it can be a PITA.

For desktop use, it all depends. For a business desktop, where the user isn't expected to customize things, Suse 9.0 had it made. For any other users, Xandros 2 has it. Not counting gaming, it's as slick as Windows at its worst. But of course, DirectX, DirectX, DirectX.

Hopefully MS is making more changes to the interface than we've seen so far for Longhorn.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: CerbEr, no.
How many times do you need the admin password to do things to your windows box that could harm it? Only when altering user profiles.
You need it for practically everything in linux. Want to go from 1024x768 to 1280x1024? Where's that root password, sonny?
N0c: yeah, bad example. You still need it to change to resolutions outside of those selected for the video card or monitor.

Also, there are new IIS vulnerabilities about, rather than Apache vulnerabilities. Hmmm. Let's do math. IIS is in the minority. Apache is the majority. Yet IIS gets attacked. Maybe it is easier to do so?

Sounds as if needing the root password to change something as little as a resolution is why Linux will not catch on with the mainstream. Besides, I don't believe your point about having to have a password for everything validates the point you are trying to make (although I'll admit, I do not know much about it, only what I've read).

As for your analogy between server software and operating systems, I wouldn't quite put server software in with operating systems and their vulnerabilities. Two different beasts IMO (the way I'm looking at it anyhow).

Although you may have some points in you somewhere, I picture you as either a die-hard Linux user, or a die-hard Microsoft hater. I'll guarantee no one will ever be able to convince you that Linux (or any other non-MS OS) has a flaw.

Try neither. I'm using Win2k and like it. I'll probably get XP once SP2 is out. However, to do many of the stupid things that the mail-born virii and worms require to propagate, you'd need the root PW in linux.

For servers, there is just no competition....Linux can run very well on hardware you would otherwise throw away. SSH in, and it's like being there...only no drone of the fans.
However, MS has countered that with XP's remote desktop, which puts VNC, PCAnywhere, and all those others to shame. Sure, you can do remote X, but it can be a PITA.

For desktop use, it all depends. For a business desktop, where the user isn't expected to customize things, Suse 9.0 had it made. For any other users, Xandros 2 has it. Not counting gaming, it's as slick as Windows at its worst. But of course, DirectX, DirectX, DirectX.

Hopefully MS is making more changes to the interface than we've seen so far for Longhorn.

How does remote desktop compare speed/bandwidth wise to SSH?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: CerbEr, no.
How many times do you need the admin password to do things to your windows box that could harm it? Only when altering user profiles.
You need it for practically everything in linux. Want to go from 1024x768 to 1280x1024? Where's that root password, sonny?
N0c: yeah, bad example. You still need it to change to resolutions outside of those selected for the video card or monitor.

Also, there are new IIS vulnerabilities about, rather than Apache vulnerabilities. Hmmm. Let's do math. IIS is in the minority. Apache is the majority. Yet IIS gets attacked. Maybe it is easier to do so?

Sounds as if needing the root password to change something as little as a resolution is why Linux will not catch on with the mainstream. Besides, I don't believe your point about having to have a password for everything validates the point you are trying to make (although I'll admit, I do not know much about it, only what I've read).

As for your analogy between server software and operating systems, I wouldn't quite put server software in with operating systems and their vulnerabilities. Two different beasts IMO (the way I'm looking at it anyhow).

Although you may have some points in you somewhere, I picture you as either a die-hard Linux user, or a die-hard Microsoft hater. I'll guarantee no one will ever be able to convince you that Linux (or any other non-MS OS) has a flaw.

Try neither. I'm using Win2k and like it. I'll probably get XP once SP2 is out. However, to do many of the stupid things that the mail-born virii and worms require to propagate, you'd need the root PW in linux.

For servers, there is just no competition....Linux can run very well on hardware you would otherwise throw away. SSH in, and it's like being there...only no drone of the fans.
However, MS has countered that with XP's remote desktop, which puts VNC, PCAnywhere, and all those others to shame. Sure, you can do remote X, but it can be a PITA.

For desktop use, it all depends. For a business desktop, where the user isn't expected to customize things, Suse 9.0 had it made. For any other users, Xandros 2 has it. Not counting gaming, it's as slick as Windows at its worst. But of course, DirectX, DirectX, DirectX.

Hopefully MS is making more changes to the interface than we've seen so far for Longhorn.

How does remote desktop compare speed/bandwidth wise to SSH?

That I don't know, as 1) SSH doesn't need to do any GUI stuff (though IIRC, you can tunnel an X session), and I'm on cable. Remote desktop is just barely slow enough that you can notice you're not there. When you close something, it quickly redraws the stuff behind it in wide bands, rather than being practiacally instant. What's really cool is being able to actually watch movies across the 'net 🙂. Frameskipping a bit, sure, but still awesome.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: CerbEr, no.
How many times do you need the admin password to do things to your windows box that could harm it? Only when altering user profiles.
You need it for practically everything in linux. Want to go from 1024x768 to 1280x1024? Where's that root password, sonny?
N0c: yeah, bad example. You still need it to change to resolutions outside of those selected for the video card or monitor.

Also, there are new IIS vulnerabilities about, rather than Apache vulnerabilities. Hmmm. Let's do math. IIS is in the minority. Apache is the majority. Yet IIS gets attacked. Maybe it is easier to do so?

Sounds as if needing the root password to change something as little as a resolution is why Linux will not catch on with the mainstream. Besides, I don't believe your point about having to have a password for everything validates the point you are trying to make (although I'll admit, I do not know much about it, only what I've read).

As for your analogy between server software and operating systems, I wouldn't quite put server software in with operating systems and their vulnerabilities. Two different beasts IMO (the way I'm looking at it anyhow).

Although you may have some points in you somewhere, I picture you as either a die-hard Linux user, or a die-hard Microsoft hater. I'll guarantee no one will ever be able to convince you that Linux (or any other non-MS OS) has a flaw.

Try neither. I'm using Win2k and like it. I'll probably get XP once SP2 is out. However, to do many of the stupid things that the mail-born virii and worms require to propagate, you'd need the root PW in linux.

For servers, there is just no competition....Linux can run very well on hardware you would otherwise throw away. SSH in, and it's like being there...only no drone of the fans.
However, MS has countered that with XP's remote desktop, which puts VNC, PCAnywhere, and all those others to shame. Sure, you can do remote X, but it can be a PITA.

For desktop use, it all depends. For a business desktop, where the user isn't expected to customize things, Suse 9.0 had it made. For any other users, Xandros 2 has it. Not counting gaming, it's as slick as Windows at its worst. But of course, DirectX, DirectX, DirectX.

Hopefully MS is making more changes to the interface than we've seen so far for Longhorn.

How does remote desktop compare speed/bandwidth wise to SSH?

That I don't know, as 1) SSH doesn't need to do any GUI stuff (though IIRC, you can tunnel an X session), and I'm on cable. Remote desktop is just barely slow enough that you can notice you're not there. When you close something, it quickly redraws the stuff behind it in wide bands, rather than being practiacally instant. What's really cool is being able to actually watch movies across the 'net 🙂. Frameskipping a bit, sure, but still awesome.

ssh -X IIRC tunnels X. It's very bandwidth intensive though, so not recommended on anything but local lans.

But what you are saying is that RD is basically useless on slow links. 😉

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: CerbEr, no.
How many times do you need the admin password to do things to your windows box that could harm it? Only when altering user profiles.
You need it for practically everything in linux. Want to go from 1024x768 to 1280x1024? Where's that root password, sonny?
N0c: yeah, bad example. You still need it to change to resolutions outside of those selected for the video card or monitor.

Also, there are new IIS vulnerabilities about, rather than Apache vulnerabilities. Hmmm. Let's do math. IIS is in the minority. Apache is the majority. Yet IIS gets attacked. Maybe it is easier to do so?

Sounds as if needing the root password to change something as little as a resolution is why Linux will not catch on with the mainstream. Besides, I don't believe your point about having to have a password for everything validates the point you are trying to make (although I'll admit, I do not know much about it, only what I've read).

As for your analogy between server software and operating systems, I wouldn't quite put server software in with operating systems and their vulnerabilities. Two different beasts IMO (the way I'm looking at it anyhow).

Although you may have some points in you somewhere, I picture you as either a die-hard Linux user, or a die-hard Microsoft hater. I'll guarantee no one will ever be able to convince you that Linux (or any other non-MS OS) has a flaw.

Try neither. I'm using Win2k and like it. I'll probably get XP once SP2 is out. However, to do many of the stupid things that the mail-born virii and worms require to propagate, you'd need the root PW in linux.

For servers, there is just no competition....Linux can run very well on hardware you would otherwise throw away. SSH in, and it's like being there...only no drone of the fans.
However, MS has countered that with XP's remote desktop, which puts VNC, PCAnywhere, and all those others to shame. Sure, you can do remote X, but it can be a PITA.

For desktop use, it all depends. For a business desktop, where the user isn't expected to customize things, Suse 9.0 had it made. For any other users, Xandros 2 has it. Not counting gaming, it's as slick as Windows at its worst. But of course, DirectX, DirectX, DirectX.

Hopefully MS is making more changes to the interface than we've seen so far for Longhorn.

How does remote desktop compare speed/bandwidth wise to SSH?

That I don't know, as 1) SSH doesn't need to do any GUI stuff (though IIRC, you can tunnel an X session), and I'm on cable. Remote desktop is just barely slow enough that you can notice you're not there. When you close something, it quickly redraws the stuff behind it in wide bands, rather than being practiacally instant. What's really cool is being able to actually watch movies across the 'net 🙂. Frameskipping a bit, sure, but still awesome.

ssh -X IIRC tunnels X. It's very bandwidth intensive though, so not recommended on anything but local lans.

But what you are saying is that RD is basically useless on slow links. 😉

For something like movies, sure. For other uses, I genuinely don't know, as I have no access to a WinXP box that isn't using broadband. EVen on broadband, however, it beats the competition silly. I would be very suprised if the likes of PCAnywhere were still faster even on 56k.

 

[lavagirl669]

Got Firefox 9.0
great browser...although sometimes I gotta fire up IE 6 because of
my MS Front Page usage.

Plus Firefox doesn't recognize some stuff....like Yahoo mail.
when you do a conpose, there are no options to add fonts/emoticons/etc.
just plain text.

Maybe there's another add on for that?

Otherwise it rocks.

Gotta love the Mouse gestures.
I feel like a conductor....LOL!