|
I decided that I had to give it a serious try when I got Windows 10 - went the whole distance and started using Bing too.
First time I loaded it up it went unresponsive a few times, but it's worked fine ever since.
Only graphical glitch I've noticed was on the login screen for CodeProject where the social media buttons were hanging down into the footer.
The reading mode is pretty cool for whenever I want to read an article on one of those add ridden 'news' sites, kinda like what I use Opera Mini for on my phone. I'm pretty sure this is where someone tells me that all browsers have a read mode.
Oh and the Web Notes thing is cool too, but I haven't really found a legitimate use for it.
I'll probably eventually go back to using Chrome though, just because it can sync all my stuff into all my computers (Chromebook included), and computers at work that don't have Edge available.
|
|
|
|
|
I found similar to you. Basically worked OK, but occasionally gets VERY slow - particularly when connected via 3G on my laptop. Seems related to adverts, but why they seem to load an order of magnitude slower than other stuff, I don't know.
Also seems to sometimes not respond to page up/down keys, have to use the touch screen. Not sure why, but it's annoying until I work out what's happening and just use my finger 
There's a few things I do that need plugins, so the inability for it to use them is annoying and forces me to use another browser. A bigger issue is that it seems to cause hangs when entering/exiting sleep mode - I think a problem with my video driver (Intel HD Graphics). Occasionally get that still, but much less than when I used Edge as the default browser - I had to switch to another for stability.
Rod
|
|
|
|
|
clawton wrote: if I stray and get sucked into something like a site with the top 17 funnies cat videos or whatnot, the pages are agonizingly slow. Probably partly due to Edge not have my beloved AdBlocker but is it really just that?
Probably. I having upgrade yet, but I'm CDO enough to use my own content blocker filters in FF. I've optimized some slideshow sites loading time by >10x by blocking all of the 3rd party clickbait containers splattered all around (taboola can EOADIAF). Some of them I'm able to get another doubling by nuking the first party clickbait bucket and site header as well. It's appalling how badly some of that crap performs.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
I tried it with my Win 10 install. I thought the interface was ugly and its functionality pissed me off so I went back to IE. I don't do much recreational surfing so my needs are basic and IE works fine (even though apparently it sucks based on what I hear here). It's an if it ain't broke (for me) don't fix it thing. As I grow older, I am becoming increasingly weary of having to continually adapt to new software when the old stuff does everything I need it to. The cheese, the cheese, where's the elephanting cheese? 
|
|
|
|
|
Hate it - gone back to IE
|
|
|
|
|
I use my hosts file to block ads. Yeah, it's gotta be updated periodically, but that's the price you pay for ad-free browsing...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps AdMuncher[^] is a simpler option, now that it's free. For me it's certainly a better option than manual blocking
Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. T.Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Sucks.
1. Imported all my info from Chrome.. upside down.
2. When I click in the address bar and start typing.. I have to do that twice.
3. I try to 'Save As' and there is no 'Save As'.. Where'd that go?? Who's brainf@$t was that?
4. Why can't I go to the file it just downloaded?
5. Tried to add a bookmark down inside a folder.. nope. Only so many levels.. getting ugly!
6. So it locked up.. Chrome doesn't do that on the same site!
7. Video playback isn't smooth
8.. enough.
ed
~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions.
Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny."
-Frank Outlaw.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using it on my Surface, but am annoyed that they don't have any of the touch gestures that even Chrome has there (like sweep across page to go back/forward).
Even more annoying is that they also removed such gestures from IE in Windows 10.
All in all Web browsing on Windows 10 is a worse experience than on Windows 8, and I think it is due to pushing us to Edge, and crippling IE on there to make sure we move.
Other annoyances, cannot highlight text and right-click to search the web. As I recall History is broken as well.
I'd say it is barely usable. I am mostly using Chrome now, which is ironic because on Windows 8 on that particular machine I used IE.
|
|
|
|
|
NASA Confirms Evidence That Liquid Water Flows on Today’s Mars [^]
Fantastic stuff. 
Quote: Nasa 'will send humans to Mars in the near future'
Nasa's John Grunsfeld says:
Quote These observations are giving us a much better view that Mars has resources that are useful to future travellers... I think we will send humans in the near future to Mars... to be able to live on the surface, the resources are there.
He says you could even make rocket fuel from some of the substances found on Mars, but the discovery of water is critical
Me, me, me!!! I'll go!!!
modified 28-Sep-15 12:56pm.
|
|
|
|
|
"provide the strongest evidence"
How did they confirm the idea?
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
They found something that makes them think there is water there but no actual view of the water itself. For all they know it's actually chocolate milk.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote:
I wonder why this doesn't interest you? (take it to the usual place!  )
RyanDev wrote: They found something that makes them think there is water there but no actual view of the water itself.
The article makes it quite clear. the science appears sound, so what's the problem? They've seen and confirmed a particular phenomenon and are able to infer the presence of water as a reasonable explanation for said phenomonen. Why would that not excite you? Ohhhh.
|
|
|
|
|
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: I wonder why this doesn't interest you?
They are claiming there is water without actually seeing or finding water. I can understand how that excites you but it does not me.
The knowledge we have is miniscule compared to the available knowledge and yet we continue to box everything we learn into the tiny bit that we feel comfortable believing that we know.
There are a million different possible explanations for what they found. Water is the most obvious and therefore, the least interesting of them all.
You can't tell me that you wouldn't be more excited to see chocolate milk falls rather than waterfalls. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: They are claiming there is water without actually seeing or finding water.
They don't need to see the water: they deduce its presence from other observations. Not sure why you don't get that. [sarcasm]
RyanDev wrote: There are a million different possible explanations for what they found.
and those would be?
RyanDev wrote: You can't tell me that you wouldn't be more excited to see chocolate milk falls rather than waterfalls.
That would be something out of a Douglas Adams novel, not reality!
|
|
|
|
|
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: and those would be?
Chocolate milk for starters. Why doesn't that excite you?
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: not reality!
You're proving my point. There is no scientific reason that it could not be chocolate milk falls. You are boxing in the possibilities based on the tiny bit of knowledge that you have. Sorry, not exciting for me.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: and the other 999,999?
Yes.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Look, I've told you a gazillion times not to exaggerate and there you go, doing for the 4125364758th time.
Seriously, if your best objection is it could or should be chocolate milk then you clearly either don't or won't understand or enjoy the discovery and what it might mean.
Unless, of course, there is some religious objection to finding water and the possible consequence of that... dun-dun-dah...
|
|
|
|
|
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: if your best objection is it could or should be chocolate milk then you clearly either don't
If you thought that was my objection then you clearly did not understand my point.
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: religious objection to finding water
 When you already know that there are countless planets like ours that have people living on them, finding water on one planet is not that engaging.
However, I took my kids to the fair Saturday and my 6 year old just loved the simplest rides. Smiled from ear to ear. We get excited based on our experiences. It would be great to be excited by simple things again, I admit.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: If you thought that was my objection then you clearly did not understand my point.
a) you went on about and said it was one of a million possibilities. What, like sherbet dip?
b) I got your point. It was a poor one made poorer by chocolate milk. At least it should have been malted.
RyanDev wrote: When you already know that there are countless planets like ours that have people living on them, finding water on one planet is not that engaging.
Do you have some evidence of that?
RyanDev wrote: I took my kids to the fair Saturday and my 6 year old just loved the simplest rides.
Simple is as simple does.
RyanDev wrote: It would be great to be excited by simple things again, I admit.
Then stop being so dogmatic. Put aside your irrationality and come back to the light side, where science is real whether you believe it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: I got your point.
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: Put aside your irrationality and come back to the light side, where science is real whether you believe it or not.
Now you're proving that you did not understand my point. I think it's a bit beyond your grasp.
TTYL. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: I think it's a bit beyond your grasp.
That is, of course, a possibility. In this case, though, it isn't. You just prove how little you understand of science and have yet to answer any of the questions I posed, instead choosing to do a madge. Weak, very weak.
|
|
|
|
|
"Thank you, NASA"
~ Matt Damon et al.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
