piece of shit chrome is crashing my computer when I try to attach images to my posts
 

Everything sucks.

this is what my computer is talking about:

"It looks like you are trying to attach images to your post. Would you like some help?"

You should try this great thing called Internet Explorer.

The trendy hipsters and fashionistas will scoff at you, but if you want a browser that works, it is one.

I went back to IE after I got so sick of freaking foxfire crashing on me, then when I'd go the five thousand days it takes to reboot my POS home computer, it'd try to take me right back to the page I just crashed from, not letting me exit or anything.

Or wait, firefox? Foxfire was my ex's band.

eta: there are a lot of foxfire bands on google. None of them is them.

:firefox:

I really haven't experienced any problems with either firefox or chrome.


Are you guys visiting lots of porn sites? :eek:

no more than usual...

Firefox 4 is a POS.

It uses way too much memory (think slowing down a Core 2 Duo with 3GB RAM running Win7 Pro x64 edition).

Google Chrome 11 is nice, it really is, but IE9 is also really good and does accelerated video with the drivers. You need Win 7 to use it well, however. Just remember to keep it updated.

The problem is that IE8 on Windows XP is very unstable. We tested it at work, and it outright broke our corporate apps. IE8 on Windows 7 was completely stable, however, and only a couple of apps broke.

If you have Windows XP, you have the choice of Google Chrome or IE8. IE8 on XP is not good. Chrome is actually quite good on XP, and doesn't require flash player updates as it updates automatically. It's actually the most secure browser you can get out there at this point on XP, as all the security improvements in IE9 require Vista (which barely anyone runs) or Windows 7.

Healthcare IT vendors are notoriously slow to respond to platform changes, but XP SP3 with IE7 still runs like a champ. If it ain't broke...

Yes they are. GE especially is guilty here.

However, we run XP SP3 with IE7 and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. We had to wait to upgrade to IE7 until GE supported it, but we run it and it works really well.

I'm about ready to get a T-shirt made that says "XP SP3 IE7"

If you have XP isn't the SP3 just redundant? I mean, you would have to be pretty ignorant to not be running SP3 if you had XP.

No, you don't work where it is
 

Glatt,

You don't have to be ignorant.

There are pieces of equipment that don't connect to networks that have XP SP2 installed. There are embedded systems and controls vendors that put systems into place and leave them there for years running Windows 2000, Windows XP, or even NT 4.

Or worse, you could have a shop running an unsupported version of Oracle Apps that only supports IE6.

That makes it even more interesting.

Running the Scanning Electron Microscope on 98SE, just fine, cannot be 'upgraded' because of custom hardware/ software.

Similar situations with a lot of lab equipment here.

Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking when I said that.

My dad runs something like 98 on his fleet of PCs in his house. He's got this whole system going of cloning a dozen hard drives, and just rotating through them on some schedule, so if one fails, he has all these dupes backed up. I'm not really sure of the details, but it makes sense to him. I don't think he has a single PC with a closed up case. They are all open all the time so he can swap stuff out easily.

Heck, I'm still doing half of my audio work on a blue-and-white G3 Mac. That's the Apple equivalent of Windows 98.

Apple would like to make that go away.

However, the PowerMac G3 is the last ADB-equipped Mac you can buy (although I do have a customer who has a G5 with an ADB -> USB adapter, I think he may also use the ADB keyboard with his 24" iMac!). It also has PCI slots, and Mac OS 8.6 or 9.x flies on it. You can use a Firewire hard drive to transfer data to more modern hardware (you may have to get a Firewire and USB drive) since Mac OS 8.6 and up have FAT32 support. If you want more power without upgrading, you can drop in a 1Ghz G4 card, although they may be getting scarce as they are no longer made, and you'll have to hit eBay to find one.

I wouldn't use it for anything networked (we have 2 at work that we will not network), but if you have a good enough audio app on it, you don't need to upgrade. Why bother when it works and you don't need to network it?

BTW the only way I'd ever network one of them would involve putting Linux or OpenBSD on it.

Exactly. I don't even do any processing on it, just recording. The raw files go onto a USB thumb drive with 10 times the memory space as the G3, and I do everything else on my Windows laptop.

I was running IE8 on XP with no problems? My porn sites must be less demanding.:blush:
Now I use IE9 primarily, and Firefox/Adblock for a few sites that take forever to load on IE. I'd rather not use Adblock, because that's how most of the sites I use make their money, but some sites are just ridiculous. Watching the status bar flash, is like it's the closed captioning of the disclaimer at the end of a shamwow commercial.
Both are on 7 Pro.

I guess I've contributed not a whit, to solving 3foot's Chrome problem. :o

xoB

do you clickthrough on any of those ads you see?

I am a constant user of Adblock on Firefox. I believe the sites that are supported by ads need a clickthrough, not just a pageview to "deliver" for the site. Actually, taken to its logical conclusion, it needs a clickthrough and a purchase, right? Everybody's selling something.

But when I watch those ads, I'm already "paying" with my attention. I have that in limited supply and I would prefer to spend it as I see fittest, not as someone else does.

Clickthroughs pay much more, but most ad networks pay a small amount for the number of impressions (views) as well.

What constitutes a view, Clodfobble?

If you and I both have computers, I have adblock active and you don't, we both visit the same page at the same time... what's counted? Is that an "impression"?

I ask out of ignorance.

Sorry, that question's above my paygrade. I imagine it would depend on how each ad network counts their views. The actual number of page views on a site is data that's publicly available, but I can see an ad network being able to somehow count from their end how many times the image is actually loaded, so maybe adblock users might not get counted.

Once in a blue moon.
From what I've read, I think Clod's explanation on page-views is correct.