Hollow Knight
Imperfect vessel
- May 3, 2005
- 97,117
- 108,892
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Scuderia Ferrari, Dallas Cowboys
Lol, the devolution of this thread reminded me of why I stopped posting here.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Good thread but.Lol, the devolution of this thread reminded me of why I stopped posting here.
Lol, the devolution of this thread reminded me of why I stopped posting here.
what sort of response were you looking for?
You've always been ambitious, if not a tad unrealistic.Less ad hominem and ideological fundamentalism for a start.
Strawman, I never claimed any such thing. I never made an argument for or against ActiveX, nor did I care what happened to it. And yes many people cared when they could not use a website because it broke in Firefox at the time. You are so mentally deranged your don't even understand what my argument was. All I was arguing was that at the time IE worked on every website and Firefox did not work on 10-15% of them and mentioning ActiveX was only in the context of why it did not work. You can stay in blissful ignorance of the facts and go off and fight your strawman army all you want it has nothing to do with what I was saying.Lordy. You purport to be interested in technology yet completely miss its purpose. So what if they didn't support websites with ActiveX? Do you think anyone cared? Do you think that websites that only rendered in IE stayed that way? Or are all websites these days standards compliant?
Technology progresses and legacy apps get left behind. Why should developers continue to support problematic, proprietary technology. Firefox made the decision not to support ActiveX. It was the right one. None of the non-MS browsers that exist today support that technology. Do you think anyone misses it?
You are seriously mentally deranged thinking I was arguing for ActiveX. I was arguing for why certain websites did not work. The point is IE is still beating Firefox in market share.Duh. Tell me where I asserted otherwise. When you posted your little diatribe MSIE had 90% desktop market share. Now it has only around 20%. How do you think lack of legacy technology support affected other browsers?
If your career is in technology and you make assertions about supporting legacy tech that quickly demises after your assertions then your entire point of view must be called into question. I can only imagine your highest calling is desktop support, because you have very little imagination beyond that.
More like you are incapable of refuting a single argument I made. You are of course free to try to prove me wrong and present a valid argument but you can't.I did thread ban Poptech, but I thought it better to keep him around for lols.
All at your expense puppet.I personally thought this thread was just getting good. I've had a few lolz.
Your pre-2006 rant is dated. Internet Explorer has been highly competitive ever since IE 7 came out in 2006 and IE 11 is very nice, but I use Chrome as well. You have to learn to be a smarter troll.Enjoying my addictive cones as I watch this unfold on Chrome because IE sucks balls.
Your pre-2006 rant is dated. Internet Explorer has been highly competitive ever since IE 7 came out in 2006 and IE 11 is very nice, but I use Chrome as well. You have to learn to be a smarter troll.
Aren't you the special one then.No, you are REALLY, REALLY dumb. We are talking Special Olympics level.
What is my last name?
What University did I attend?
Please embarrass yourself trying to find information that does not exist online. I have had Firefox idiots chasing planted information for years now, you can join them.
IE is utter crap. Most problems on any site I've been involved in can be traced back to the user running IE.Your pre-2006 rant is dated. Internet Explorer has been highly competitive ever since IE 7 came out in 2006 and IE 11 is very nice, but I use Chrome as well. You have to learn to be a smarter troll.
I thoroughly enjoy pulling the strings of these guys.I have always missed Toomanyteams and KevinCat07 - now we have Poptech
Lawl. I think what you're not comprehending, Andrew, is that your belief that not supporting legacy technology is a weakness of software. It never is, ever. You said:Strawman, I never claimed any such thing. I never made an argument for or against ActiveX, nor did I care what happened to it. And yes many people cared when they could not use a website because it broke in Firefox at the time. You are so mentally deranged your don't even understand what my argument was. All I was arguing was that at the time IE worked on every website and Firefox did not work on 10-15% of them and mentioning ActiveX was only in the context of why it did not work. You can stay in blissful ignorance of the facts and go off and fight your strawman army all you want it has nothing to do with what I was saying.
You are seriously mentally deranged thinking I was arguing for ActiveX. I was arguing for why certain websites did not work. The point is IE is still beating Firefox in market share.
OK dumbass, what was my "assertion" about Active X? Quote me.
I do not work in desktop support but am a computer analyst. Everything you post should be called into question because you are unable to even comprehend what you read.
15% of web pages aren't completely compatible with Firefox
Firefox is not 100% Internet Explorer and ActiveX compatible. Web pages that depend on ActiveX or were only tested in Internet Explorer will only render and work properly in Internet Explorer based browsers.
It is good to know you next to nothing about the subject then and like most who don't know any better spread urban legends based on unsubstantiated anecdotes. Maybe you should comment in subjects where you have actual expertise, unlike this?IE is utter crap. Most problems on any site I've been involved in can be traced back to the user running IE.
It is so self-admittedly bad it has a feature to use when it breaks a site.
Another dude who makes unbelievably hilarious inept calls in the tech world:But you look like such a loony doing it.
Love your "John Dvork, PC Mag" quote! So transparently dodgy it is hilarious
It is quite clear you have no remote IT experience with computer illiterate comments like this as legacy support was one of the major reasons Microsoft was so successful on the desktop.Lawl. I think what you're not comprehending, Andrew, is that your belief that not supporting legacy technology is a weakness of software. It never is, ever.
All irrelevant strawman arguments as nothing I said was an endorsement of ActiveX in anyway. It was a statement of fact that consumers needed to be aware of.You said:
So. *******. What? Just like the original iMac not supporting the floppy disk or iOS not supporting flash, the developers at Firefox made a design decision not to support ActiveX. Which was the right call. What you perceive as a weakness was actually a strength. The world moved on. Those 15% of websites that couldn't render in Firefox had to be redeveloped, because as Firefox, Chrome, Safari etc did not support it.15% of web pages aren't completely compatible with Firefox
Firefox is not 100% Internet Explorer and ActiveX compatible. Web pages that depend on ActiveX or were only tested in Internet Explorer will only render and work properly in Internet Explorer based browsers.
Perpetual Strawman, it wasn't my argument. Are you still on drugs? I was never an ActiveX advocate but your previous drug use has apparently melted your brain's ability to read the actual context of what someone wrote.Point to any website developed after your post was made that was developed using ActiveX and you will have made your point.
That is because the conversation is way over your head.But you look like such a loony doing it.