There is an on-going battle between Web users and the amount of access advertisers have to their information. A new program is going to be implemented to help protect people’s Internet privacy by allowing them the opportunity to opt-out of being tracked by companies for user specific advertising. Some 5,000 companies will be affected by the program, which will include a blue lower case “i” that turns into an incomplete triangle that will appear near ads. User need only click on the symbol and choose to not being tracked.
Being charged with the enforcing of the programs is the Better Business Bureaus group and the Direct Marketing Association. Marketers can start using the icon by visiting AboutAds.info and will also have the ability to attend Webinars (Web seminars, that is) to learn more about the new programs. Donated ad space will be used to advertise the program to consumers so that they will be aware of their choice to not be tracked. This programs is believed to be a step in the right direction for the protection of user privacy on the web, however self-regulation on the part of advertisers isn’t seen to be the answer that some were looking for in this matter.
Executive director of nonprofit group, World Privacy Forum had this to say on the matter, “This is just the latest version in a long series of failed self-regulatory efforts. We need the government to step in and set rules for industry.”
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
BFD there is already two better, Non Beta, browsers, for XP, Firefox and Chrome... Don't see any reason to use IE9, which of course is still beta,, By the time MS "releases" it for real both FF and chrome will have gone through several releases and upgrades,, MS is just so slow to develop, release and update it is embarrassing ... (posted from My FF browser running on XP)
Posted by: Tom Brander |
September 16, 2010 8:45 AMArgh. So we will end up in the same situation as we are in with IE6.
Posted by: Ben |
September 16, 2010 9:00 AM@Tom Brander
Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about. Chrome's next release and Firefox 4 are on track to match IE9's feature set...maybe just barely pass it. I use Chrome and Firefox almost exclusively, but your ignorant and blind comments about IE9 are just ...well misinformed.
As for leaving out Windows XP -- good. Here is an idea people, move the hell on. You're hurting everyone else by hanging on to your 10 year old OS. Microsoft needs to do this more often in the future -- start forcing people to finally update their damn OS to get the cool new applications. It's time people -- buy a new computer if you have to ...it'll be 10x faster than the slow POS you're using today anyway.
Posted by: Justin Paine |
September 16, 2010 9:01 AM@Justin - Funny thing is, they're still *selling* computers with Windows XP. I bought my netbook 8 months ago and it had WinXP pre-installed...and it wasn't an old model. And the other thing is, WinXP has been far better than any other version of Windows that they've released in that past 10 years...I mean, Windows Vista certainly wasn't a valid replacement...
So, it's not that everyone is "hanging on to 10 year old OS" like they have had all these other options all along. Other than *going to linux*, WinXP has been the only real Windows choice for a long time now...(outside of Windows 2000, which was also solid).
Posted by: Mike Melanson |
September 16, 2010 9:10 AM"For now, this means that more than half - around 55%% of computers, according to StatCounter - will be unable to run Microsoft's latest browser."
I think this is a big deal. That more than half of Windows-based computers won't be able to run MS's new browser is shocking if you take a step back and look at it in context.
How many people got the shaft with Vista and decided to stick with XP (or worse, like me, went out and bought XP after taking Vista out and shooting it) and decided that they're happy with XP (and really not that happy with MS)? Now MS has the idea of forcing people to upgrade to Windows 7 for the privilege of using their new browser? Yeah right.
Tom Brander is right too in a sense: BFD, Firefox, Chrome, not to mention Safari, Opera, and the last versions of IE are all out there, and will (or are already as good) be better than IE9 by the time MS gets done beta testing it.
Still, it doesn't make any sense to me. It's not as if XP was made by Apple or Google or anyone else and MS decided to try and make a statement to company X. Moreover, Apple doesn't force someone to use Snow Leopard or a Mac to use Safari, perhaps because they want more people using Safari than, say, IE.
If the new IE was that much better or had some sort of head-and-shoulders advantage over other browsers on the market today, that'd be one thing. But nothing that I've seen so far from others' reviews (I'm running XP, so I don't know) tells me that that's the case.
Posted by: GradeAWebsites |
September 16, 2010 9:15 AMHow about those people who got shafted with Vista and had to go out and buy (or re-buy) XP? How many are going to say to themselves: golly, I gotta run IE9, guess I should go spend some more money with MS to surf the net? I won't. XP is solid, and every other browser out there will be (or already is) as good as IE9 by the time MS gets done testing everybody's computers/patience. I think this is a big win for the Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and even Opera.
Posted by: GradeAWebsites |
September 16, 2010 9:21 AMSorry for the double (now triple post). Got a comment error in between.
Posted by: GradeAWebsites |
September 16, 2010 9:22 AMMakes perfect sense. It's been almost a decade, and W7 is better in almost every way.
The IE9 beta looks pretty sleek, and I like pinning websites to the task bar. I still think it's got some kinks that it has to fix before I can set it as my default, but it is a beta, after all.
Posted by: Eddy Morales |
September 16, 2010 9:27 AM@Mike Melanson
Windows 7 is a better operating system then Windows XP, hands down. As for OEMs still selling Windows WP -- well I agree, that's idiotic, and it's something Microsoft desperately needs to crack down own immediately. Everyone needs to move forward -- ditch Windows XP/2000, skip the cesspool that is Vista, and get on Windows 7 immediately.
Posted by: Justin Paine |
September 16, 2010 9:31 AMOne other thing to point out:
Yes, IE9 doesn't work on XP. Question: Does Safari 5 work on Mac Os X 10.4? No, it doesn't.
Posted by: Justin Paine |
September 16, 2010 9:34 AM>Show of hands - anyone still running Vista?
I switched to the cheapest 7, and wrote the local Microsoft-Mafia to request a refund due to my default Vista on my funny laptop*, but didn't get it.
Well, I tried.
*Why is my laptop funny? Because Lenovo managed to let the typed characters end all over the screen, if typed quickly. Suddenly you are typing in another line. That's funny. It may explain many of the editorials I read in newspapers.
Posted by: Henrik |
September 16, 2010 9:58 AMThere's a nice Vista 64 machine under my television, but that's all I use it for.
Windows XP on everything else. With dual-core 64 bit cpu's, 1GB PCIe and 2GB RAM, I'm having no problems.
I want to apologize to Justin though, about the pain I've been causing him... I didn't mean to hurt anyone by using an operating system that is still supported by its manufacturer.
IE9? Meh. I'm in the Firefox/Chrome camp. We have a nice fire going and everyone is welcome to join us.
Posted by: Jon |
September 16, 2010 11:41 AMIf MS wants to send me a free upgrade to Win7 from XP, I'll do it, 'til then I've got no reason what so ever to move from XP. If I can't run IE9, that's their loss, not mine.
Posted by: Jason W. |
September 16, 2010 12:39 PMIf win xp users are not able to use IE 9 its their loss not ours.. Chrome is still the best for xp users.
Posted by: Divyansh |
September 16, 2010 12:52 PMSome of the comments seem to ignore the reality that only people who feel the need to show off with the latest and greatest fix what isn't broken. Certainly nothing in IE 9 warrants the cost of an upgrade when what you have is working fine.
Whether you're a home user or you have 1,000 PC datacentre, upgrading your OS means spending time and money that could be put to much better use. The fact that a decade later the majority of computers are still running Windows XP is proof that people are satisfied that it's more than sufficient for the applications they're running. I've even done tech support and found computers running custom software on Windows 3.1 for that matter.
Now Windows 7 may be slightly more stable but it also can't remember icon locations on the desktop without a workaround and that's not something anyone wants to explain to 2500 employees on top of the downtime, and there's still the issue of the initial cost you'd need to sell upper management on.
Here at home I have a PC with Windows 7, one with XP, and two with 98. Windows 7 won't run on the two 98 machines and even if it could I wouldn't waste the money so long as all my computers continue to work -- I certainly have better ways to spend leisure time.
Until there is genuine incentive to upgrade to Windows 7 that outweighs the expense involved, all Microsoft will be doing is handing over more marketshare to Firefox and Chrome.
Posted by: Kevin Carter |
September 16, 2010 3:48 PM@Mike Melanson
Windows 7 is the best release of Windows hands down last 10 years or not. And no offense but Vista was OK too. I ran it since the betas and it was fine. Not perfect but good...and got better with service pack 1. Vista had the most out-of-the-box hardware compatibility of any version of Windows. The only people that seemed to complain about that were the people trying to use ancient hardware with it.
Just as people don't need to upgrade if they don't feel the need Microsoft shouldn't feel the need to stay in the dark ages with their OS because some people don't want to upgrade hardware to run it. I run Win7 on a now-ancient Athlon64-based system and it's very good.
@Kevin Carter: Windows 7 is a *lot* more stable...not just a little bit. I've yet to have had a BSOD on Vista or Win 7. I've had quite a few on my XP laptop at work which is less than a year old.
I always find these types of conversations amusing...the ones where people crow about how solid and great XP is always forgetting how truly awful it was when it first came out.
Posted by: Jason Kratz |
September 16, 2010 6:18 PM@justin, not sure why this denegrated into an operating system pissing contest, but if that is what strokes you, fine, I have a old ex windows xp laptop that I was about to junk,, Put Fedora Linux on it, It smokes my dual core win 7 laptop that has twice the memory (&4+times the processor performance),, of course I do run Chrome on it... Microsoft's clear attitude to it's installed base is just how much pain can we inflict before they go elsewhere,, and they are finding out as more and more flee to Chrome, Firefox, Gmail (vs exchange) and Gdocs or open office. The shameless trumpeting of what apprears to be an ok browsewr, that can only run on brand new systems leaves me sort of cold, particularly since most if not all the important performance features are already avaialable in NON-Beta form via Chrome and Firefox, which as mentioned will have major upgrades out (on all platforms I might add)
Posted by: Tom Brander |
September 17, 2010 8:28 AMJust downloaded it and now using it. Its speed is good and it is working perfectly alright.
http://noxedgereviews.org/Posted by: sharicepas |
September 17, 2010 11:48 PMNo more new IE on XP? Who cares?!?!?
I still use XP on my old PC and IE is disappered from there years ago. Now i use firefox 4 beta version 6 and is very fast and very nice. And is still beta.
Microsoft makes a favor to me for this time. Thank you!Posted by: Dns |
September 18, 2010 1:26 AMWell, I am 62 year old female who has a "10 year old computer bought in 2000 with windows XP". It still works great, I use it everyday and just keep it clean and up to date. I had one crash in 10 years and that is because I let a tech support person on it for a bug. He bombed it out! Refixed it and all was well.
Now for the statement of the fellow above about moving on and buying a new computer, whatever the reason may be...I for one live on $694 per month and am disabled. If I could possibly afford a new computer I would love one. Maybe he would buy one for me out of the "kindness" of his heart so I could move on. LOL
I also have a 10 year old laptop that also works with xp and good. Hardly use it though as I don't like the mouse on the laptop with finger thing.
Anyways, just stating that moving on is not just a matter of grabbing a checkbook and getting another computer for many elderly and disabled in this world, plus probably many others.Posted by: Jody |
September 18, 2010 11:22 AMI would like to see a show of hands who uses IE to do any kind of online transactions.
I have Vista and Windows 7 dual booting on 2 different machines.I loaded xp pro first so I could recover if something went wrong. Try using Norton Partition magic with Vista or Windows 7 You have to use Gnome to make another partition
I still think XP Pro sp3 is a great OS. I use Firefox for my main browser and Chrome 2nd.
I had purchased a legal cop of Windows 7. When I put the key in it said it was an invalid key. 1 hour on the phone with a nice guy in the middle east saying I had a pirated version. He finally gave me another key.
New OS's are fun to play with but not if you need a stable and safe OS to do business.
Posted by: mossy |
September 19, 2010 12:52 PMHello I just bought a PC with windows 7 , 3 months ago it is a piece of crap.the new PC has 4 GB of ram with it runs slow as crap even and unstable for games and so forth if i turn off all the start up in msconfig. So i took it to a pro in town that took the 7 off of it and put xp professional sp3 on it and the computer is more stable and 2 times faster .Microsoft sucks .i hope they put a explore version 9 for us please.thank you for reading my story thanks
Posted by: Jeremiah |
September 20, 2010 8:45 PMie9? Should Microsoft just consider the browser and let Firefox and Chrome run the show, since they are doing much better job?
Posted by: txp50vt20b |
September 21, 2010 6:17 AMWhat's all the fuss about?
Just use Linux and Firefox/Chrome!
Posted by: Barista Uno |
September 25, 2010 8:13 PMA few years ago I changed my web browser from ie6 to fire fox and found out it was a great.
This year I've found out chrome is even better (from Fire Fox 3) and now if MC wants to get serious about here web browser they should consider making the browser work on XP because no one will change their OS for a new WB (which is not far greater than chrome today).
And of course windows 7 is much faster and smoother than XP but still yet not worth the price.Posted by: Jonathan |
October 4, 2010 4:24 PMFor those who are thinking of upgrading to vista or win7 to get this ie9. To be honest your not grains anything different. the only thing you gain is a sidebar which you can have you clock so you can see the time, and the gauge to show your cpu and ram usage, and a photo slideshow. you dont need that crap. because all of that take up space and use ram and anyway so your not really helping yourself. Really when you got the clock on the wall in the room your in which you change the battery in like once or twice a year, and you can go to your local store and buy a photo slideshow for about £20+ to show all you photos, so to go out and pay the odds to upgrade there is no different. If you want something better then IE 8/9 - Go for firefox 4.0 or Google Chrome. If you badly want your computer to look like vista or win7, check out the website for transformation packs.
Posted by: Rob |
October 4, 2010 5:48 PMBFD there is already two better, Non Beta, browsers, for XP, Firefox and Chrome... Don't see any reason to use IE9, which of course is still beta,, By the time MS "releases" it for real both FF and chrome will have gone through several releases and upgrades,, MS is just so slow to develop, release and update it is embarrassing ... (posted from My FF browser running on XP)
Posted by: Tom Brander |
September 16, 2010 8:45 AMArgh. So we will end up in the same situation as we are in with IE6.
Posted by: Ben |
September 16, 2010 9:00 AM@Tom Brander
Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about. Chrome's next release and Firefox 4 are on track to match IE9's feature set...maybe just barely pass it. I use Chrome and Firefox almost exclusively, but your ignorant and blind comments about IE9 are just ...well misinformed.
As for leaving out Windows XP -- good. Here is an idea people, move the hell on. You're hurting everyone else by hanging on to your 10 year old OS. Microsoft needs to do this more often in the future -- start forcing people to finally update their damn OS to get the cool new applications. It's time people -- buy a new computer if you have to ...it'll be 10x faster than the slow POS you're using today anyway.
Posted by: Justin Paine |
September 16, 2010 9:01 AM@Justin - Funny thing is, they're still *selling* computers with Windows XP. I bought my netbook 8 months ago and it had WinXP pre-installed...and it wasn't an old model. And the other thing is, WinXP has been far better than any other version of Windows that they've released in that past 10 years...I mean, Windows Vista certainly wasn't a valid replacement...
So, it's not that everyone is "hanging on to 10 year old OS" like they have had all these other options all along. Other than *going to linux*, WinXP has been the only real Windows choice for a long time now...(outside of Windows 2000, which was also solid).
Posted by: Mike Melanson |
September 16, 2010 9:10 AM"For now, this means that more than half - around 55%% of computers, according to StatCounter - will be unable to run Microsoft's latest browser."
I think this is a big deal. That more than half of Windows-based computers won't be able to run MS's new browser is shocking if you take a step back and look at it in context.
How many people got the shaft with Vista and decided to stick with XP (or worse, like me, went out and bought XP after taking Vista out and shooting it) and decided that they're happy with XP (and really not that happy with MS)? Now MS has the idea of forcing people to upgrade to Windows 7 for the privilege of using their new browser? Yeah right.
Tom Brander is right too in a sense: BFD, Firefox, Chrome, not to mention Safari, Opera, and the last versions of IE are all out there, and will (or are already as good) be better than IE9 by the time MS gets done beta testing it.
Still, it doesn't make any sense to me. It's not as if XP was made by Apple or Google or anyone else and MS decided to try and make a statement to company X. Moreover, Apple doesn't force someone to use Snow Leopard or a Mac to use Safari, perhaps because they want more people using Safari than, say, IE.
If the new IE was that much better or had some sort of head-and-shoulders advantage over other browsers on the market today, that'd be one thing. But nothing that I've seen so far from others' reviews (I'm running XP, so I don't know) tells me that that's the case.
Posted by: GradeAWebsites |
September 16, 2010 9:15 AMHow about those people who got shafted with Vista and had to go out and buy (or re-buy) XP? How many are going to say to themselves: golly, I gotta run IE9, guess I should go spend some more money with MS to surf the net? I won't. XP is solid, and every other browser out there will be (or already is) as good as IE9 by the time MS gets done testing everybody's computers/patience. I think this is a big win for the Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and even Opera.
Posted by: GradeAWebsites |
September 16, 2010 9:21 AMSorry for the double (now triple post). Got a comment error in between.
Posted by: GradeAWebsites |
September 16, 2010 9:22 AMMakes perfect sense. It's been almost a decade, and W7 is better in almost every way.
The IE9 beta looks pretty sleek, and I like pinning websites to the task bar. I still think it's got some kinks that it has to fix before I can set it as my default, but it is a beta, after all.
Posted by: Eddy Morales |
September 16, 2010 9:27 AM@Mike Melanson
Windows 7 is a better operating system then Windows XP, hands down. As for OEMs still selling Windows WP -- well I agree, that's idiotic, and it's something Microsoft desperately needs to crack down own immediately. Everyone needs to move forward -- ditch Windows XP/2000, skip the cesspool that is Vista, and get on Windows 7 immediately.
Posted by: Justin Paine |
September 16, 2010 9:31 AMOne other thing to point out:
Yes, IE9 doesn't work on XP. Question: Does Safari 5 work on Mac Os X 10.4? No, it doesn't.
Posted by: Justin Paine |
September 16, 2010 9:34 AM>Show of hands - anyone still running Vista?
I switched to the cheapest 7, and wrote the local Microsoft-Mafia to request a refund due to my default Vista on my funny laptop*, but didn't get it.
Well, I tried.
*Why is my laptop funny? Because Lenovo managed to let the typed characters end all over the screen, if typed quickly. Suddenly you are typing in another line. That's funny. It may explain many of the editorials I read in newspapers.
Posted by: Henrik |
September 16, 2010 9:58 AMThere's a nice Vista 64 machine under my television, but that's all I use it for.
Windows XP on everything else. With dual-core 64 bit cpu's, 1GB PCIe and 2GB RAM, I'm having no problems.
I want to apologize to Justin though, about the pain I've been causing him... I didn't mean to hurt anyone by using an operating system that is still supported by its manufacturer.
IE9? Meh. I'm in the Firefox/Chrome camp. We have a nice fire going and everyone is welcome to join us.
Posted by: Jon |
September 16, 2010 11:41 AMIf MS wants to send me a free upgrade to Win7 from XP, I'll do it, 'til then I've got no reason what so ever to move from XP. If I can't run IE9, that's their loss, not mine.
Posted by: Jason W. |
September 16, 2010 12:39 PMIf win xp users are not able to use IE 9 its their loss not ours.. Chrome is still the best for xp users.
Posted by: Divyansh |
September 16, 2010 12:52 PMSome of the comments seem to ignore the reality that only people who feel the need to show off with the latest and greatest fix what isn't broken. Certainly nothing in IE 9 warrants the cost of an upgrade when what you have is working fine.
Whether you're a home user or you have 1,000 PC datacentre, upgrading your OS means spending time and money that could be put to much better use. The fact that a decade later the majority of computers are still running Windows XP is proof that people are satisfied that it's more than sufficient for the applications they're running. I've even done tech support and found computers running custom software on Windows 3.1 for that matter.
Now Windows 7 may be slightly more stable but it also can't remember icon locations on the desktop without a workaround and that's not something anyone wants to explain to 2500 employees on top of the downtime, and there's still the issue of the initial cost you'd need to sell upper management on.
Here at home I have a PC with Windows 7, one with XP, and two with 98. Windows 7 won't run on the two 98 machines and even if it could I wouldn't waste the money so long as all my computers continue to work -- I certainly have better ways to spend leisure time.
Until there is genuine incentive to upgrade to Windows 7 that outweighs the expense involved, all Microsoft will be doing is handing over more marketshare to Firefox and Chrome.
Posted by: Kevin Carter |
September 16, 2010 3:48 PM@Mike Melanson
Windows 7 is the best release of Windows hands down last 10 years or not. And no offense but Vista was OK too. I ran it since the betas and it was fine. Not perfect but good...and got better with service pack 1. Vista had the most out-of-the-box hardware compatibility of any version of Windows. The only people that seemed to complain about that were the people trying to use ancient hardware with it.
Just as people don't need to upgrade if they don't feel the need Microsoft shouldn't feel the need to stay in the dark ages with their OS because some people don't want to upgrade hardware to run it. I run Win7 on a now-ancient Athlon64-based system and it's very good.
@Kevin Carter: Windows 7 is a *lot* more stable...not just a little bit. I've yet to have had a BSOD on Vista or Win 7. I've had quite a few on my XP laptop at work which is less than a year old.
I always find these types of conversations amusing...the ones where people crow about how solid and great XP is always forgetting how truly awful it was when it first came out.
Posted by: Jason Kratz |
September 16, 2010 6:18 PM@justin, not sure why this denegrated into an operating system pissing contest, but if that is what strokes you, fine, I have a old ex windows xp laptop that I was about to junk,, Put Fedora Linux on it, It smokes my dual core win 7 laptop that has twice the memory (&4+times the processor performance),, of course I do run Chrome on it... Microsoft's clear attitude to it's installed base is just how much pain can we inflict before they go elsewhere,, and they are finding out as more and more flee to Chrome, Firefox, Gmail (vs exchange) and Gdocs or open office. The shameless trumpeting of what apprears to be an ok browsewr, that can only run on brand new systems leaves me sort of cold, particularly since most if not all the important performance features are already avaialable in NON-Beta form via Chrome and Firefox, which as mentioned will have major upgrades out (on all platforms I might add)
Posted by: Tom Brander |
September 17, 2010 8:28 AMJust downloaded it and now using it. Its speed is good and it is working perfectly alright.
http://noxedgereviews.org/Posted by: sharicepas |
September 17, 2010 11:48 PMNo more new IE on XP? Who cares?!?!?
I still use XP on my old PC and IE is disappered from there years ago. Now i use firefox 4 beta version 6 and is very fast and very nice. And is still beta.
Microsoft makes a favor to me for this time. Thank you!Posted by: Dns |
September 18, 2010 1:26 AMWell, I am 62 year old female who has a "10 year old computer bought in 2000 with windows XP". It still works great, I use it everyday and just keep it clean and up to date. I had one crash in 10 years and that is because I let a tech support person on it for a bug. He bombed it out! Refixed it and all was well.
Now for the statement of the fellow above about moving on and buying a new computer, whatever the reason may be...I for one live on $694 per month and am disabled. If I could possibly afford a new computer I would love one. Maybe he would buy one for me out of the "kindness" of his heart so I could move on. LOL
I also have a 10 year old laptop that also works with xp and good. Hardly use it though as I don't like the mouse on the laptop with finger thing.
Anyways, just stating that moving on is not just a matter of grabbing a checkbook and getting another computer for many elderly and disabled in this world, plus probably many others.Posted by: Jody |
September 18, 2010 11:22 AMI would like to see a show of hands who uses IE to do any kind of online transactions.
I have Vista and Windows 7 dual booting on 2 different machines.I loaded xp pro first so I could recover if something went wrong. Try using Norton Partition magic with Vista or Windows 7 You have to use Gnome to make another partition
I still think XP Pro sp3 is a great OS. I use Firefox for my main browser and Chrome 2nd.
I had purchased a legal cop of Windows 7. When I put the key in it said it was an invalid key. 1 hour on the phone with a nice guy in the middle east saying I had a pirated version. He finally gave me another key.
New OS's are fun to play with but not if you need a stable and safe OS to do business.
Posted by: mossy |
September 19, 2010 12:52 PMHello I just bought a PC with windows 7 , 3 months ago it is a piece of crap.the new PC has 4 GB of ram with it runs slow as crap even and unstable for games and so forth if i turn off all the start up in msconfig. So i took it to a pro in town that took the 7 off of it and put xp professional sp3 on it and the computer is more stable and 2 times faster .Microsoft sucks .i hope they put a explore version 9 for us please.thank you for reading my story thanks
Posted by: Jeremiah |
September 20, 2010 8:45 PMie9? Should Microsoft just consider the browser and let Firefox and Chrome run the show, since they are doing much better job?
Posted by: txp50vt20b |
September 21, 2010 6:17 AMWhat's all the fuss about?
Just use Linux and Firefox/Chrome!
Posted by: Barista Uno |
September 25, 2010 8:13 PMA few years ago I changed my web browser from ie6 to fire fox and found out it was a great.
This year I've found out chrome is even better (from Fire Fox 3) and now if MC wants to get serious about here web browser they should consider making the browser work on XP because no one will change their OS for a new WB (which is not far greater than chrome today).
And of course windows 7 is much faster and smoother than XP but still yet not worth the price.Posted by: Jonathan |
October 4, 2010 4:24 PMFor those who are thinking of upgrading to vista or win7 to get this ie9. To be honest your not grains anything different. the only thing you gain is a sidebar which you can have you clock so you can see the time, and the gauge to show your cpu and ram usage, and a photo slideshow. you dont need that crap. because all of that take up space and use ram and anyway so your not really helping yourself. Really when you got the clock on the wall in the room your in which you change the battery in like once or twice a year, and you can go to your local store and buy a photo slideshow for about £20+ to show all you photos, so to go out and pay the odds to upgrade there is no different. If you want something better then IE 8/9 - Go for firefox 4.0 or Google Chrome. If you badly want your computer to look like vista or win7, check out the website for transformation packs.
Posted by: Rob |
October 4, 2010 5:48 PM
robert shumake
ABC <b>News</b> and Facebook team up for election coverage - Lost Remote
ABC News is also partnering with Yahoo! News to do election polling, with results posted on both sites. In addition, the network will be doing daily 15-minute webcasts beginning October 25th at 6:45 am, the idea being that the webcast ...
Bill & Melinda Gates Sponsoring ABC <b>News</b> Health Coverage
NEW YORK — ABC News is announcing a yearlong project to focus attention on the diseases and health conditions that afflict the world's poorest people. The series, "Be the Change: Save a Life," will begin in December and continue through ...
Photo of the Week: iPad in Colorado | iLounge <b>News</b>
iLounge news discussing the Photo of the Week: iPad in Colorado. Find more Site News news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.
robert shumake
ABC <b>News</b> and Facebook team up for election coverage - Lost Remote
ABC News is also partnering with Yahoo! News to do election polling, with results posted on both sites. In addition, the network will be doing daily 15-minute webcasts beginning October 25th at 6:45 am, the idea being that the webcast ...
Bill & Melinda Gates Sponsoring ABC <b>News</b> Health Coverage
NEW YORK — ABC News is announcing a yearlong project to focus attention on the diseases and health conditions that afflict the world's poorest people. The series, "Be the Change: Save a Life," will begin in December and continue through ...
Photo of the Week: iPad in Colorado | iLounge <b>News</b>
iLounge news discussing the Photo of the Week: iPad in Colorado. Find more Site News news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.
robert shumake
There is an on-going battle between Web users and the amount of access advertisers have to their information. A new program is going to be implemented to help protect people’s Internet privacy by allowing them the opportunity to opt-out of being tracked by companies for user specific advertising. Some 5,000 companies will be affected by the program, which will include a blue lower case “i” that turns into an incomplete triangle that will appear near ads. User need only click on the symbol and choose to not being tracked.
Being charged with the enforcing of the programs is the Better Business Bureaus group and the Direct Marketing Association. Marketers can start using the icon by visiting AboutAds.info and will also have the ability to attend Webinars (Web seminars, that is) to learn more about the new programs. Donated ad space will be used to advertise the program to consumers so that they will be aware of their choice to not be tracked. This programs is believed to be a step in the right direction for the protection of user privacy on the web, however self-regulation on the part of advertisers isn’t seen to be the answer that some were looking for in this matter.
Executive director of nonprofit group, World Privacy Forum had this to say on the matter, “This is just the latest version in a long series of failed self-regulatory efforts. We need the government to step in and set rules for industry.”
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
robert shumake
ABC <b>News</b> and Facebook team up for election coverage - Lost Remote
ABC News is also partnering with Yahoo! News to do election polling, with results posted on both sites. In addition, the network will be doing daily 15-minute webcasts beginning October 25th at 6:45 am, the idea being that the webcast ...
Bill & Melinda Gates Sponsoring ABC <b>News</b> Health Coverage
NEW YORK — ABC News is announcing a yearlong project to focus attention on the diseases and health conditions that afflict the world's poorest people. The series, "Be the Change: Save a Life," will begin in December and continue through ...
Photo of the Week: iPad in Colorado | iLounge <b>News</b>
iLounge news discussing the Photo of the Week: iPad in Colorado. Find more Site News news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.
