> I realize you are trying to make a larger point, which I sympathize
> with. But really, you should have been using Firefox or some other
> browser. There hasn't been any good reason to use IE for years.
Maybe it is not a good reason, but a valid reason exists - some Web sites simply won't work properly with anything but IE. This is jointly the fault of the site owners and the designers who created the site.
But the larger point isn't why WS isn't using another browser, it's why he has Automatic Updates turned on instead of managing which updates he installs when, like a proper control freak. Given Microsoft's past shenanigans, it is almost never safe to blindly install unknown "hot fixes and patches" on a known, functional machine. So check them out, see if those patches come with bonus features that are deal breakers. Remember the brouhaha of lots of large clients not installing XP Service Pack 2 until they had investigated every aspect of how it would change things and how they would fix the things it broke.
Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> --- Eubulides <prince.plumples at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lazy sociologists of the world, unite!
>>
>> Machines pre-loaded with Ubuntu:
>>
>> http://www.system76.com/
>
> [WS:] $1000 for a laptop or $500 for a PC with a free
> OS? What a ripoff. Why not getting a barebone kit
> for $200
Lug your $200 desktop back & forth the way you would a laptop, for a while. The $800 difference isn't a ripoff, it's the premium surcharge for that portability. You knew that of course, but you also needed the soapbox kicked out from under you.
Buck up, see if you can uninstall the latest updates, customize the Automatic Updates settings so you don't get force-fed more crap the way this tidbit was served to you.
Percy