[Grimloq]

ok, i am sick of getting these popups!

NO! I DO NOT WANT TO PURCHASE A BOOK CALLED '17 MIND-BLOWING SEX POSITIONS'!!! SO LEAVE ME ALONE!

*sigh* so, what kind of popups do you guys get? im really curious as to some of the worst and dumbest ones ever

go wild.

[Lynx]

I don't get pop ups, I use Firefox. So should you.

[Rictor]

Pop-ups + Firefox = no more pop-ups

[Liquid Fire]

I use firefox, ad-aware, and spybot. That'll take care of your problem right away.

[Zarax]

I use IE on XP SP2 + MS antispywae beta.
The only things that still gets on my way are those flash popups...

[mitac]

Anti-Spy by MS?

That's not just a hidden contradiction.

[Taristin]

Firefox = no flash popups, either.  It's superior in every way. I don't know why Zarax refuses to accept that a program not made by MS could do a better job than an MS one.

[Corsair]

Originally posted by Liquid Fire
I use firefox, ad-aware, and spybot. That'll take care of your problem right away.

[Zarax]

I do not refuse anything, i just feel good with what i got.
And for those interested... www.microsoft.com/spyware
Enjoy.

[Grimloq]

lemme rephrase: i mean ads on various websites. sorry, my bad.


i DO use firefox!

firefox + norton + adaware + MSN firewall (meh, it works)+ win XP SP2 = home free

[Taristin]

...I don't get it, if you're using firefox, how are you getting popups? It automatically blocks them, unless you specifically allow them for that site.

[Hippo]

too many firewalls/popup blockers in that case... Someone here once likened it to having too many guard dogs... They end up fighting over every peice of meat (popup), and it can damage the system...

[Vertigo1]

http://adblock.mozdev.org = Your best friend.  Blocks ANY kind of advertisement implimented, including most google ads (the ones embedded in IFrames).

Also, if you don't feel like registering to view some article on say nytimes.com, download bugmenot and never register for another news site again.

Now, for future reference (ie: Before someone that doesn't know any better asks):

Adaware
Spybot Search & Destroy (Use both because one will find what the other won't, and vice versa.)

[Scuddie]

I use Maxthon, a shell application over IE.  I am very well aware of the exploitation issues regarding IE, but I try to further protect myself by logging in as a standard user, having Sygate running 24/7, redundant gateways for IP spoofing (when going to an untrusted site), and I always keep maxthon and IE updated.

If you take out the security issues of IE, it is better than Firefox by far.

[Vertigo1]

Originally posted by Scuddie
If you take out the security issues of IE, it is better than Firefox by far.

If you consider the lack of tabbed browsing, being closed source, and proper rending of HTML being better....

[Japong]

Yeah, Scuddie, care to validate that statement with some kind of... anything? What is it that makes IE better than firefox?

[Scuddie]

Originally posted by Vertigo1
If you consider the lack of tabbed browsing

www.maxthon.com

being closed source

Windows 2000 and Server 2003 are closed source, and look how much better they are than most linux distros.  Open source, so what?

and proper rending of HTML being better....

OK, now I have to ask you...  Where did you find those shrooms?  Can I have some??  So it doesnt follow the w3c's crap spec, and allows users to actually specify exactly what they want, while still following the generally accepted standard?  It is Mozilla that has the crappy rendering engine, not IE.

And, I was actually referring to the browser engine itself, not the actual browser.

[Vertigo1]

Originally posted by Scuddie
www.maxthon.com

I was referring to IE by itself, not some stupid shell.

Windows 2000 and Server 2003 are closed source, and look how much better they are than most linux distros.  Open source, so what?

You are aware of the massive bug list that Windows 2000 had when it was released, right?  You are also aware of how long it takes Microsoft to release a patch AFTER THEY'VE FINISHED MAKING IT, right?  The entire point of open source software is that the community (not just one organization, but EVERYONE) can work together to fix a problem and release it in a timely fashion.  As far as Windows being better than Linux, that depends entirely what you use it for.  If you're running a server, Linux is so far ahead of Windows its not even funny.  

OK, now I have to ask you...  Where did you find those shrooms?  Can I have some??  So it doesnt follow the w3c's crap spec, and allows users to actually specify exactly what they want, while still following the generally accepted standard?  It is Mozilla that has the crappy rendering engine, not IE.

And, I was actually referring to the browser engine itself, not the actual browser. [/B]

Psst...you do realize what standards are meant for, right?  Thats the stupidest thing I've seen in this thread so far.  The entire point of the W3C spec is for conformity.  If someone follows W3C specifications, then the site they design and maintain will look and function exactly the same regardless of what browser is used.  Thats the reason why IE, and MS's FrontPage gets so much flak.  They prefer to use MS' proprietary code, which most browsers will not recognize and ignore.  Quite frankly, if you said that to any real web designer, he/she would laugh at you right to your face and tell you what a rediculous notion that is.

[Japong]

Whoa, calm down there sparky. Firstly, Firefox actually follows conventions, so yes, their rendering is better, period.  Arguing for IE's bizzare and ridiculous propeitary workarounds  automatically disqualifies you from any kind of rational commentary there.

Seriously, did you like using tables to place your animated gifs and blinking text? Does proper CSS scare you? Are you afraid your webpage with the centred comic sans text and the marquee images  may not display correctly when used outside of IEs broken world?  

Gad, it's people like you that are making strict so difficult to implement, who continue to stick with IE6 even though you now have to move to 3rd-party vendors to keep up with innovations from the 90s. Longhorn ain't coming till late 2006, so are you really going to stick to your wacky outdated practises? Keep sticking your head in the sand?  

Heh, nice comment on Linux distros - however, I've got a bunch of IT friends on /. who would really disagree with you.  I personally don't use either, being a gamer, but there's enough people using, advocating and coding for linux for me to take any statements you make with more than a few grains of salt.

[Scuddie]

Originally posted by Vertigo1
I was referring to IE by itself, not some stupid shell.

Can you guess what Firefox is?  Hmmm?  It's a "stupid shell" over the Mozilla browser.  I acknowedge vanilla IE is crap, just as vanilla Mozilla is crap.

You are aware of the massive bug list that Windows 2000 had when it was released, right?  You are also aware of how long it takes Microsoft to release a patch AFTER THEY'VE FINISHED MAKING IT, right?  The entire point of open source software is that the community (not just one organization, but EVERYONE) can work together to fix a problem and release it in a timely fashion.  As far as Windows being better than Linux, that depends entirely what you use it for.  If you're running a server, Linux is so far ahead of Windows its not even funny.

You are aware of the fact that UNIX has been around for decades, and Windows 2000 was MS's first venture into a true 32 bit OS, as well as the purposes it was used for?  Come on, you dont think the first versions of linux were perfect, do you?  Also, if something were open source, and commercially available, it would kind of have conflicting interests.  Plus, with open source comes the further possibility of knowing which loopholes you can get past, and if it wasnt updated daily, it'd be a security nightmare.  Also, name ONE linux distro (SuSe doesnt count ) that can do as much as Server 2003 can without serious complications and configuration nightmares.

Psst...you do realize what standards are meant for, right?  Thats the stupidest thing I've seen in this thread so far.  The entire point of the W3C spec is for conformity.  If someone follows W3C specifications, then the site they design and maintain will look and function exactly the same regardless of what browser is used.  Thats the reason why IE, and MS's FrontPage gets so much flak.  They prefer to use MS' proprietary code, which most browsers will not recognize and ignore.  Quite frankly, if you said that to any real web designer, he/she would laugh at you right to your face and tell you what a rediculous notion that is.

Oh brother...  So if I made a standard that said everyone who makes tea should only make it hot, would you follow it?  It's this kind of thinking that limits what we are allowed to do, and without IE, we'd still be using HTML version 3 (which only a public service website would use now), along with jpeg compression only.  And furthermore, what is your idea of a "real" web designer?  I consider myself a real web designer, and I am smart enough to stay away from JavaScript, DHTML, and CSS.  Browser dependancies are a bad idea.