Installing Windows 7

[Steiner]

Had this nice long explanation, but knew no one would read it...

It's not a knock on the idea Dan, it's a knock on IE. I don't care if the better browsers do it, because they know what the hell they're doing. Microsoft does not.

IE has always been the splinter in M$ side they're just too oblivious to notice it's infected and when they should have pulled it out.

The system of multiple processes for Moz and Chrome (naturally stable/light-weight browsere (stock)) is a dream come true, however IE's attempt at this method leaves me with 5 tabs at ~5,000k each... where as Chrome... you're lucky to break 20,000k with 20 tabs. If you get my drift.

I never took the fact that IE sucks out of the focus... just someone always has to generalize things and this is not one of them they should be taken out of context. It was directed ENTIRELY on IE's attempt at this method.

[TonyV]

Had this nice long explanation, but knew no one would read it...

...

IE has always been the splinter in M$ side they're just too oblivious to notice it's infected and when they should have pulled it out.

Hey now, I would have read it...

And to MS's credit, IE hasn't always been a splinter in their side.

I remember back when Netscape wasn't free.  I mean, most people downloaded it and used it for free, but technically, after something like a 30-day evaluation of it, you were supposed to shell out 30 bucks to Netscape in order to continue using it.  IE was kind of nice in that it wasn't as bloated as Netscape, and it really was free.  (Well, free as in beer, in FOSS-speak, anyway.)  If you were a company, IE was the way to go, plain and simple.

It really wasn't until Microsoft made the boneheaded decision that IE would be required to run Windows that it became evil.  (Of course, when Microsoft does evil boneheaded things, they really don't mess around.)