XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: tom_shelton@comcast.invalid   
      
   flatfish+++ submitted this idea :   
   > On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:35:24 -0400, Big Steel wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 3/29/2011 7:54 AM, Ezekiel wrote:   
   >>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote in message   
   >>> news:imrvme$tgc$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...   
   >>>> That's right, dog-slow. The much-vaunted Firefox/Chrome killer is only fit   
   >>>> for 32-bit use.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And for some reason, this gets the Windows fans really riled up...   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> So at least you not admit that there is a 64-bit version of IE.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Here they compare IE9 32 vs 64 bit.   
   >>>    
   >>> Internet Explorer 9 Total (ms)   
   >>> 32 bit 133.7   
   >>> 64 bit 87.28   
   >>>   
   >>> So here you have it, with the exception of few tests, Internet Explorer 9   
   >>> (64 bit) pretty much destroys its 32 bit brother.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>    
   >>>   
   >>> http://www.favbrowser.com/internet-explorer-9-32-bit-x86-vs-ie9-64-bit-x64/   
   >>   
   >> The idiot olive fly Lawrence D'Oliveiro won't believe his lying eyes.   
   >> He'll come up with some excuse and he wins. :)   
   >>   
   >> He is a real piece of work.   
   >   
   > Olive Oil is a slippery one!   
   >   
   > Wasn't his original claim that IE9 users were stuck with a 32 bit   
   > program?   
   >   
   > He sure moved the goal posts around on that one.   
      
   To be fair - when you install the 64-bit version, it actually installs   
   the 32-bit and 64-bit version of IE9 and sets the default version to   
   the 32-bit version. That's what get's pinned to the task bar.   
      
   The reason is mainly plugins - not all of them work in the 64-bit   
   version. So, for now, MS still defaults you to the 32-bit version.   
   You won't see the 64-bit unless you actually go looking for it.   
      
   --   
   Tom Shelton   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
|