1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Not just Internet Explorer then...?

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by Boscoe, Mar 22, 2010.

  1. Joel

    Joel Flightless Bird

  2. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

  3. Joel

    Joel Flightless Bird

    Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote:

    >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
    >
    >On 3/22/2010 1:52 PM, Joel wrote:
    >> Boscoe<laughingboy47@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/7499145/German-government-in-Firefox-warning.html

    >>
    >> https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/3.6.2-candidates/build3/win32/
    >>
    >> Just click on the appropriate language/region (such as en-US) to
    >> download the new version.
    >>
    >> Firefox has occasionally had security bugs like this, but nowhere near
    >> on the scale of IE.
    >>

    >Hahaha...who are you trying to fool?



    You're posting with Thunderbird, rather than WLMail, so who are you
    trying to fool? Microsoft makes good products and not-so-good
    products. IE is one of the latter - although I do use it specifically
    for Facebook, where it has a performance advantage.

    --
    Joel Crump
     
  4. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    On 3/22/2010 3:44 PM, Joel wrote:
    > Frank<fb@amk.cmo> wrote:
    >
    >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
    >>
    >> On 3/22/2010 1:52 PM, Joel wrote:
    >>> Boscoe<laughingboy47@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/7499145/German-government-in-Firefox-warning.html
    >>>
    >>> https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/3.6.2-candidates/build3/win32/
    >>>
    >>> Just click on the appropriate language/region (such as en-US) to
    >>> download the new version.
    >>>
    >>> Firefox has occasionally had security bugs like this, but nowhere near
    >>> on the scale of IE.
    >>>

    >> Hahaha...who are you trying to fool?

    >
    >
    > You're posting with Thunderbird, rather than WLMail, so who are you
    > trying to fool?


    No one you moron. We're talking browsers here, not news readers.
    Big difference.
    My only browser is IE8.

    Microsoft makes good products and not-so-good
    > products. IE is one of the latter - although I do use it specifically
    > for Facebook, where it has a performance advantage.


    There is nothing at all wrong with IE8...nothing.
    >
     
  5. LD55ZRA

    LD55ZRA Flightless Bird

    Joel wrote:

    > Boscoe <laughingboy47@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/7499145/German-government-in-Firefox-warning.html

    >
    >
    >
    > https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/3.6.2-candidates/build3/win32/
    >
    > Just click on the appropriate language/region (such as en-US) to
    > download the new version.
    >
    > Firefox has occasionally had security bugs like this, but nowhere near
    > on the scale of IE.
    >


    You could do better with IEEE:

    <http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/>

    I use Firefox for somethings and IE for others!
     
  6. Joel

    Joel Flightless Bird

    Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote:

    >>>> Firefox has occasionally had security bugs like this, but nowhere near
    >>>> on the scale of IE.
    >>>>
    >>> Hahaha...who are you trying to fool?

    >>
    >> You're posting with Thunderbird, rather than WLMail, so who are you
    >> trying to fool?

    >
    >No one you moron. We're talking browsers here, not news readers.
    >Big difference.



    So why do you prefer Thunderbird? How dare you say that something
    competing with Microsoft is better??? Duh. Thunderbird is analogous
    to WLMail as Firefox is to IE - it's called consistency, and you're
    not showing it.


    >My only browser is IE8.



    "Moron".


    >>Microsoft makes good products and not-so-good
    >> products. IE is one of the latter - although I do use it specifically
    >> for Facebook, where it has a performance advantage.

    >
    >There is nothing at all wrong with IE8...nothing.



    It's not *as bad as some people make it out to be*, but it's pretty
    fuckin' bad. Web browsers are for most users the most vulnerable
    software to bug exploits - and IE has had the worst record on them.

    IE8 under an Admin account *with UAC on* is pretty safe, I suppose,
    but I hate UAC with a passion, and I don't find IE's performance/
    features as good as Firefox's for general use.

    --
    Joel Crump
     
  7. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    On 3/22/2010 5:05 PM, Joel wrote:
    > Frank<fb@amk.cmo> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> Firefox has occasionally had security bugs like this, but nowhere near
    >>>>> on the scale of IE.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Hahaha...who are you trying to fool?
    >>>
    >>> You're posting with Thunderbird, rather than WLMail, so who are you
    >>> trying to fool?

    >>
    >> No one you moron. We're talking browsers here, not news readers.
    >> Big difference.

    >
    >
    > So why do you prefer Thunderbird?


    I've used it for years, from back when it was just called mozilla.

    How dare you say that something
    > competing with Microsoft is better??? Duh. Thunderbird is analogous
    > to WLMail as Firefox is to IE - it's called consistency, and you're
    > not showing it.


    You need to get a life.
    >
    >
    >> My only browser is IE8.

    >
    >
    > "Moron".


    "IDIOT"!
    >
    >
    >>> Microsoft makes good products and not-so-good
    >>> products. IE is one of the latter - although I do use it specifically
    >>> for Facebook, where it has a performance advantage.

    >>
    >> There is nothing at all wrong with IE8...nothing.

    >
    >
    > It's not *as bad as some people make it out to be*, but it's pretty
    > fuckin' bad. Web browsers are for most users the most vulnerable
    > software to bug exploits - and IE has had the worst record on them.


    We're talking IE8 as used in W 7.
    >
    > IE8 under an Admin account *with UAC on* is pretty safe, I suppose,
    > but I hate UAC with a passion, and I don't find IE's performance/
    > features as good as Firefox's for general use.


    I don't give a shit. There is nothing wrong with IE8.
     
  8. Joel

    Joel Flightless Bird

    Frank <fab@xp.fku> wrote:

    >>>> You're posting with Thunderbird, rather than WLMail, so who are you
    >>>> trying to fool?
    >>>
    >>> No one you moron. We're talking browsers here, not news readers.
    >>> Big difference.

    >>
    >> So why do you prefer Thunderbird?

    >
    >I've used it for years, from back when it was just called mozilla.



    Firefox is also Mozilla. It has a better security record than IE on
    any version of Windows. Period.


    >> How dare you say that something
    >> competing with Microsoft is better??? Duh. Thunderbird is analogous
    >> to WLMail as Firefox is to IE - it's called consistency, and you're
    >> not showing it.

    >
    >You need to get a life.



    You mean like wasting my time replying to Alias with repetitive
    insults, instead of just ignoring him or replying to specific things
    you disagree with? Yeah, I want the "life" you seem to have.


    >>> My only browser is IE8.

    >>
    >> "Moron".

    >
    >"IDIOT"!



    I dunno who you're quoting - I was civil, until you called me a moron.


    >>>> Microsoft makes good products and not-so-good
    >>>> products. IE is one of the latter - although I do use it specifically
    >>>> for Facebook, where it has a performance advantage.
    >>>
    >>> There is nothing at all wrong with IE8...nothing.

    >>
    >> It's not *as bad as some people make it out to be*, but it's pretty
    >> fuckin' bad. Web browsers are for most users the most vulnerable
    >> software to bug exploits - and IE has had the worst record on them.

    >
    >We're talking IE8 as used in W 7.



    Ever heard of running it under an Admin account with UAC disabled?
    It's no different than IE8 as used under XP, in that case - and that
    is how many people, myself included, run Win7.


    >> IE8 under an Admin account *with UAC on* is pretty safe, I suppose,
    >> but I hate UAC with a passion, and I don't find IE's performance/
    >> features as good as Firefox's for general use.

    >
    >I don't give a shit. There is nothing wrong with IE8.



    I already said that it's not as bad as some people say it is. You act
    like I'm promoting Linux, when in fact I'm promoting the Windows
    version of Firefox. I'm running Windows 7 on a *MacBook*, on which I
    *formatted over* OS X, because I found its dual-boot scheme fucked up
    Windows' usefulness in a certain way. I have also had Win7 on my
    desktop box since October. But God forbid I tell the truth about IE,
    *including* IE8 under Vista/7, since UAC is for the birds.

    --
    Joel Crump
     
  9. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    On 3/22/2010 6:30 PM, Joel wrote:
    > Frank<fab@xp.fku> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> You're posting with Thunderbird, rather than WLMail, so who are you
    >>>>> trying to fool?
    >>>>
    >>>> No one you moron. We're talking browsers here, not news readers.
    >>>> Big difference.
    >>>
    >>> So why do you prefer Thunderbird?

    >>
    >> I've used it for years, from back when it was just called mozilla.

    >
    >
    > Firefox is also Mozilla. It has a better security record than IE on
    > any version of Windows. Period.


    Prove it, with empirical data, that can be verified.
    Well...?
    >
    >
    >>> How dare you say that something
    >>> competing with Microsoft is better??? Duh. Thunderbird is analogous
    >>> to WLMail as Firefox is to IE - it's called consistency, and you're
    >>> not showing it.

    >>
    >> You need to get a life.

    >
    >
    > You mean like wasting my time replying to Alias with repetitive
    > insults, instead of just ignoring him or replying to specific things
    > you disagree with? Yeah, I want the "life" you seem to have.


    So why are you replying to me?
    You're that stupid huh?
    Figures!
    >
    >
    >>>> My only browser is IE8.
    >>>
    >>> "Moron".

    >>
    >> "IDIOT"!

    >
    >
    > I dunno who you're quoting - I was civil, until you called me a moron.



    That was a compliment.
    Oops!
    >
    >
    >>>>> Microsoft makes good products and not-so-good
    >>>>> products. IE is one of the latter - although I do use it specifically
    >>>>> for Facebook, where it has a performance advantage.
    >>>>
    >>>> There is nothing at all wrong with IE8...nothing.
    >>>
    >>> It's not *as bad as some people make it out to be*, but it's pretty
    >>> fuckin' bad. Web browsers are for most users the most vulnerable
    >>> software to bug exploits - and IE has had the worst record on them.

    >>
    >> We're talking IE8 as used in W 7.

    >
    >
    > Ever heard of running it under an Admin account with UAC disabled?
    > It's no different than IE8 as used under XP, in that case - and that
    > is how many people, myself included, run Win7.


    You mean under the real admin account of the pretend one?
    Well...?
    >
    >
    >>> IE8 under an Admin account *with UAC on* is pretty safe, I suppose,
    >>> but I hate UAC with a passion, and I don't find IE's performance/
    >>> features as good as Firefox's for general use.

    >>
    >> I don't give a shit. There is nothing wrong with IE8.

    >
    >
    > I already said that it's not as bad as some people say it is. You act
    > like I'm promoting Linux, when in fact I'm promoting the Windows
    > version of Firefox. I'm running Windows 7 on a *MacBook*, on which I
    > *formatted over* OS X, because I found its dual-boot scheme fucked up
    > Windows' usefulness in a certain way. I have also had Win7 on my
    > desktop box since October. But God forbid I tell the truth about IE,
    > *including* IE8 under Vista/7, since UAC is for the birds.


    Tweet, tweet!
    Now get a life!
    >
     
  10. Joel

    Joel Flightless Bird

    Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote:

    >> Firefox is also Mozilla. It has a better security record than IE on
    >> any version of Windows. Period.

    >
    >Prove it, with empirical data, that can be verified.
    >Well...?



    Simple *counting* will suffice - IE has had more security holes, far
    more frequently, than Firefox.


    >>> You need to get a life.

    >>
    >> You mean like wasting my time replying to Alias with repetitive
    >> insults, instead of just ignoring him or replying to specific things
    >> you disagree with? Yeah, I want the "life" you seem to have.

    >
    >So why are you replying to me?
    >You're that stupid huh?
    >Figures!



    Because I'm not going to let you promote IE over Firefox without
    pointing out how *DUMB* that is. IE is simply not as good for general
    use, nor as secure.


    >>>>> My only browser is IE8.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Moron".
    >>>
    >>> "IDIOT"!

    >>
    >> I dunno who you're quoting - I was civil, until you called me a moron.

    >
    >That was a compliment.
    >Oops!



    You're the one promoting IE. Oops! Dipshit. You're a fuckin'
    fruitcake, and everyone here knows it.


    >>>>> There is nothing at all wrong with IE8...nothing.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's not *as bad as some people make it out to be*, but it's pretty
    >>>> fuckin' bad. Web browsers are for most users the most vulnerable
    >>>> software to bug exploits - and IE has had the worst record on them.
    >>>
    >>> We're talking IE8 as used in W 7.

    >>
    >> Ever heard of running it under an Admin account with UAC disabled?
    >> It's no different than IE8 as used under XP, in that case - and that
    >> is how many people, myself included, run Win7.

    >
    >You mean under the real admin account of the pretend one?
    >Well...?



    *BZZT*. You dodged the point. It's because you're wrong. Deal with
    it.


    >> But God forbid I tell the truth about IE,
    >> *including* IE8 under Vista/7, since UAC is for the birds.

    >
    >Tweet, tweet!



    If you use UAC, fine. If you use IE, fine. Don't promote it without
    pointing out the necessity of UAC under an Admin account, around here,
    though, or I will point out the stupidity of it.


    >Now get a life!



    Get a clue.

    --
    Joel Crump
     
  11. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    On 3/22/2010 8:22 PM, Joel wrote:
    > Frank<fb@amk.cmo> wrote:
    >
    >>> Firefox is also Mozilla. It has a better security record than IE on
    >>> any version of Windows. Period.

    >>
    >> Prove it, with empirical data, that can be verified.
    >> Well...?

    >
    >
    > Simple *counting* will suffice - IE has had more security holes, far
    > more frequently, than Firefox.


    hehehe...can't prove your point can you.
    figures!
    >
    >
    >>>> You need to get a life.
    >>>
    >>> You mean like wasting my time replying to Alias with repetitive
    >>> insults, instead of just ignoring him or replying to specific things
    >>> you disagree with? Yeah, I want the "life" you seem to have.

    >>
    >> So why are you replying to me?
    >> You're that stupid huh?
    >> Figures!

    >
    >
    > Because I'm not going to let you promote IE over Firefox without
    > pointing out how *DUMB* that is. IE is simply not as good for general
    > use, nor as secure.


    Prove it or else STFU!
    >
    >
    >>>>>> My only browser is IE8.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Moron".
    >>>>
    >>>> "IDIOT"!
    >>>
    >>> I dunno who you're quoting - I was civil, until you called me a moron.

    >>
    >> That was a compliment.
    >> Oops!

    >
    >
    > You're the one promoting IE.


    Wrong dung breath. I'm simply refuting what you're saying.

    Oops! Dipshit. You're a fuckin'
    > fruitcake, and everyone here knows it.


    Keep it up dipshit, as we're all enjoying watching you start foaming at
    the mouth!...LOL!
    >
    >
    >>>>>> There is nothing at all wrong with IE8...nothing.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It's not *as bad as some people make it out to be*, but it's pretty
    >>>>> fuckin' bad. Web browsers are for most users the most vulnerable
    >>>>> software to bug exploits - and IE has had the worst record on them.
    >>>>
    >>>> We're talking IE8 as used in W 7.
    >>>
    >>> Ever heard of running it under an Admin account with UAC disabled?
    >>> It's no different than IE8 as used under XP, in that case - and that
    >>> is how many people, myself included, run Win7.

    >>
    >> You mean under the real admin account of the pretend one?
    >> Well...?

    >
    >
    > *BZZT*. You dodged the point. It's because you're wrong. Deal with
    > it.
    >

    hehehe...OMG...you don't know the difference do you?
    Figures!
    >
    >>> But God forbid I tell the truth about IE,
    >>> *including* IE8 under Vista/7, since UAC is for the birds.

    >>
    >> Tweet, tweet!

    >
    >
    > If you use UAC, fine. If you use IE, fine. Don't promote it without
    > pointing out the necessity of UAC under an Admin account, around here,
    > though, or I will point out the stupidity of it.


    You're the stupid one and thanks for proving it.
    >
    >
    >> Now get a life!

    >
    >
    > Get a clue.


    You're the clueless one.
    Oops!...LOL!
    >
     
  12. Joel

    Joel Flightless Bird

    Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote:

    >>>> Firefox is also Mozilla. It has a better security record than IE on
    >>>> any version of Windows. Period.
    >>>
    >>> Prove it, with empirical data, that can be verified.
    >>> Well...?

    >>
    >> Simple *counting* will suffice - IE has had more security holes, far
    >> more frequently, than Firefox.

    >
    >hehehe...can't prove your point can you.
    >figures!



    Will you prove your assertion that there is "nothing wrong" with IE8?
    Didn't think so. And it figures.

    Put up, or "STFU".


    >> Because I'm not going to let you promote IE over Firefox without
    >> pointing out how *DUMB* that is. IE is simply not as good for general
    >> use, nor as secure.

    >
    >Prove it or else STFU!



    Make me, lame brain. You do nothing but play games and act like the
    fruitcake you are, and I actually try to answer questions. You are in
    no position to dictate anything.


    >>>>> "IDIOT"!
    >>>>
    >>>> I dunno who you're quoting - I was civil, until you called me a moron.
    >>>
    >>> That was a compliment.
    >>> Oops!

    >>
    >> You're the one promoting IE.

    >
    >Wrong dung breath. I'm simply refuting what you're saying.



    You haven't refuted anything, pee pants.


    >> Oops! Dipshit. You're a fuckin'
    >> fruitcake, and everyone here knows it.

    >
    >Keep it up dipshit, as we're all enjoying watching you start foaming at
    >the mouth!...LOL!



    I'm quite sure that you're the one who appears to be foaming at the
    mouth, with your fruitcake LOLs and oopses.


    >>>>> We're talking IE8 as used in W 7.
    >>>>
    >>>> Ever heard of running it under an Admin account with UAC disabled?
    >>>> It's no different than IE8 as used under XP, in that case - and that
    >>>> is how many people, myself included, run Win7.
    >>>
    >>> You mean under the real admin account of the pretend one?
    >>> Well...?

    >>
    >> *BZZT*. You dodged the point. It's because you're wrong. Deal with
    >> it.
    >>

    >hehehe...OMG...you don't know the difference do you?
    >Figures!



    Well, actually, since you want to dodge the point, and talk that kind
    of garbage to me, please do feel free to explain what the fuck you
    meant by "pretend" account - I was nice enough to assume you meant
    what you must have actually meant, but if you wanna be a stuck-up
    little nerd, let's see you defend that "pretend" comment. Duh.


    >> If you use UAC, fine. If you use IE, fine. Don't promote it without
    >> pointing out the necessity of UAC under an Admin account, around here,
    >> though, or I will point out the stupidity of it.

    >
    >You're the stupid one and thanks for proving it.



    What, by not letting you trap me with a pointless question, designed
    to dodge my point showing how wrong you were? Trust me, pussy boy,
    I've dealt with much more intelligent liars than you, and beaten them
    just as easily. You're dealing with a mind orders of magnitude above
    yours, and you would be wise to quit replying, unless you simply enjoy
    making an ass of yourself just to get attention (which wouldn't
    surprise me, of course).


    >>> Now get a life!

    >>
    >> Get a clue.

    >
    >You're the clueless one.
    >Oops!...LOL!



    You're a fruitcake beyond most I've encountered. It's actually
    disturbing.

    --
    Joel Crump
     
  13. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    On 3/22/2010 10:42 PM, Joel wrote:

    <---deleted the fruit flies stupid bullshit as a public service-->

    Read'em and weep loser!

    http://nsslabs.com/browser-security

    Oops!...LOL!
     
  14. Joel

    Joel Flightless Bird

    Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote:

    ><---deleted the fruit flies stupid bullshit as a public service-->



    Thank you for admitting that you couldn't debate me effectively.


    >Read'em and weep loser!
    >
    >http://nsslabs.com/browser-security
    >
    >Oops!...LOL!



    Try getting a year or two of college under your belt, if you think
    that has anything to do with this discussion. Social engineering/
    phishing != software-bug exploits.

    "Oops". Heh.

    --
    Joel Crump
     
  15. Alias

    Alias Flightless Bird

    Joel wrote:
    > Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote:
    >
    >> <---deleted the fruit flies stupid bullshit as a public service-->

    >
    >
    > Thank you for admitting that you couldn't debate me effectively.
    >
    >
    >> Read'em and weep loser!
    >>
    >> http://nsslabs.com/browser-security
    >>
    >> Oops!...LOL!

    >
    >
    > Try getting a year or two of college under your belt, if you think
    > that has anything to do with this discussion. Social engineering/
    > phishing != software-bug exploits.
    >
    > "Oops". Heh.
    >


    Using Firefox in Linux is safer than *any* browser in *any* flavor of
    Windows.

    BTW, debating with Frank is like trying to debate with a duck billed
    platypus.

    --
    Alias
     
  16. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    On 3/23/2010 12:04 AM, Joel wrote:
    > Frank<fb@amk.cmo> wrote:
    >
    >> <---deleted the fruit flies stupid bullshit as a public service-->

    >
    >
    > Thank you for admitting that you couldn't debate me effectively.
    >
    >
    >> Read'em and weep loser!
    >>
    >> http://nsslabs.com/browser-security
    >>
    >> Oops!...LOL!

    >
    >
    > Try getting a year or two of college under your belt, if you think
    > that has anything to do with this discussion. Social engineering/
    > phishing != software-bug exploits.
    >
    > "Oops". Heh.
    >

    Can you provide any verifiable empirical data to prove your point?
    Well...?
    Oops!...LOL!
     
  17. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    On 3/23/2010 4:01 AM, Alias wrote:
    > Joel wrote:
    >> Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote:
    >>
    >>> <---deleted the fruit flies stupid bullshit as a public service-->

    >>
    >>
    >> Thank you for admitting that you couldn't debate me effectively.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Read'em and weep loser!
    >>>
    >>> http://nsslabs.com/browser-security
    >>>
    >>> Oops!...LOL!

    >>
    >>
    >> Try getting a year or two of college under your belt, if you think
    >> that has anything to do with this discussion. Social engineering/
    >> phishing != software-bug exploits.
    >>
    >> "Oops". Heh.
    >>

    >
    > Using Firefox in Linux is safer than *any* browser in *any* flavor of
    > Windows.
    >

    Can you provide any verifiable empirical data to prove your point?
    No? Figures. You're just a lying POS asshole linturd loser.

    snip
     
  18. Stefan Patric

    Stefan Patric Flightless Bird

    W7 and OSX Dual Boot (was Re: Not just Internet Explorer then...?)

    On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:30:40 -0400, Joel wrote:

    > Frank <fab@xp.fku> wrote:
    > [big snip]
    >>I don't give a shit. There is nothing wrong with IE8.

    >
    >
    > I already said that it's not as bad as some people say it is. You act
    > like I'm promoting Linux, when in fact I'm promoting the Windows version
    > of Firefox. I'm running Windows 7 on a *MacBook*, on which I *formatted
    > over* OS X, because I found its dual-boot scheme fucked up Windows'
    > usefulness in a certain way. I have also had Win7 on my desktop box


    What way? I've never heard any complaints from other Mac users who dual
    boot Windows and OSX.

    Stef
     
  19. Joel

    Joel Flightless Bird

    Re: W7 and OSX Dual Boot (was Re: Not just Internet Explorer then...?)

    Stefan Patric <not@this.address.com> wrote:

    >> I'm running Windows 7 on a *MacBook*, on which I *formatted
    >> over* OS X, because I found its dual-boot scheme fucked up Windows'
    >> usefulness in a certain way.

    >
    >What way? I've never heard any complaints from other Mac users who dual
    >boot Windows and OSX.



    You can't hibernate Windows the normal way (at least with 10.6.2,
    Boot Camp 3.1, and Win7 Home Premium 32-bit - Windows choked on the
    resume, and started a new session instead), but have to use
    Boot Camp's "Restart in Mac OS X" function, which hibernates Windows
    in some specific way, and then hibernate OS X. Obviously not a great
    scenario for a laptop, when I had decided I didn't like using OS X as
    the main OS.

    Then again, I'd only used OS X for three weeks. I've always been a
    Windows person, although experimenting with Linux and OS X *has* been
    very rewarding experience, if not what I would do day-to-day.

    --
    Joel Crump
     

Share This Page