IE10 vs IE9?

Discussion in 'alt.windows7.general' started by charliec@email.com, Mar 16, 2013.

  1. Guest

    (I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)

    I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
    available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
    IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is,
    how does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make
    the update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet
    Website processing?

    Thanks for any insights!
    charliec
    , Mar 16, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:42:21 -0700, wrote:

    >(I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)
    >
    >I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
    >available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
    >IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is,
    >how does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make
    >the update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet
    >Website processing?
    >
    >Thanks for any insights!
    >charliec


    I've got IE10 on Win7 and can't say that I've noticed much difference
    and haven't seen any problems.
    Ashton Crusher, Mar 16, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:53:42 -0700, Ashton Crusher <>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:42:21 -0700, wrote:
    >
    >>(I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)
    >>
    >>I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
    >>available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
    >>IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is,
    >>how does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make
    >>the update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet
    >>Website processing?
    >>
    >>Thanks for any insights!
    >>charliec

    >
    >I've got IE10 on Win7 and can't say that I've noticed much difference
    >and haven't seen any problems.


    Thanks Ashton.
    , Mar 16, 2013
    #3
  4. mick Guest

    > (I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)
    >
    > I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
    > available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
    > IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is,
    > how does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make
    > the update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet
    > Website processing?
    >
    > Thanks for any insights!
    > charliec


    Visually no difference, but it is faster.

    --
    mick
    mick, Mar 16, 2013
    #4
  5. Mellowed Guest

    On 3/16/2013 11:42 AM, wrote:
    > (I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)
    >
    > I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
    > available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
    > IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is,
    > how does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make
    > the update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet
    > Website processing?
    >
    > Thanks for any insights!
    > charliec
    >

    I've no problems with IE10 and it seems much faster. If you don't like
    it, just uninstall it.
    Mellowed, Mar 16, 2013
    #5
  6. sticks Guest

    On 3/16/2013 1:42 PM, wrote:
    > (I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)
    >
    > I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
    > available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
    > IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is,
    > how does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make
    > the update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet
    > Website processing?
    >
    > Thanks for any insights!
    > charliec
    >


    I downloaded and installed IE10 as a regular windows/Microsoft update
    option. Visually, it doesn't look any different. I have noticed one
    thing since installing I haven't figured out yet.

    I often open links on a page I'm viewing with a center click of the
    mouse allowing me to finish reading the current page. This opens them
    in another tab on my machine. It can take from 10 to 15 seconds or more
    quite often for the links to actually begin to load. There is no
    pattern I have noticed, it just seems to do it regularly.

    Wondering if anyone else has noticed this?

    sticks
    sticks, Mar 16, 2013
    #6
  7. Scott Guest

    On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:53:42 -0700, Ashton Crusher <>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:42:21 -0700, wrote:
    >
    >>(I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)
    >>
    >>I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
    >>available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
    >>IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is,
    >>how does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make
    >>the update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet
    >>Website processing?
    >>
    >>Thanks for any insights!
    >>charliec

    >
    >I've got IE10 on Win7 and can't say that I've noticed much difference
    >and haven't seen any problems.


    I would agree with this.
    Scott, Mar 16, 2013
    #7
  8. Ken Blake Guest

    On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:42:21 -0700, wrote:

    > (I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)
    >
    > I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
    > available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
    > IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is,
    > how does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make
    > the update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet
    > Website processing?



    Four points:

    1. See the other responses you've gotten for differences between them.

    2. Rather than ask people for opinions, for something like browsers
    you should evaluate them yourself. None of our opinions should matter
    as much to you as your own does.

    3. You should compare and evaluate much more in the way of browsers
    than just IE9 and IE10. There are several other choices (Firefox,
    Chrome, Safari, Maxthon, etc.) that many of us here prefer, and you
    just might find one of them to be much better than either IE9 or IE10.
    Personally, I like Maxthon the best, but you should make your own
    decisions.

    4. Please do not send the same message separately to more than one
    newsgroup (called multiposting). Doing so just fragments the thread,
    so someone who answers in one newsgroup doesn't always get to see
    answers from others in another newsgroup. And for those who read all
    the newsgroups the message is multiposted to, they see the message
    multiple times instead of once (they would see it only once if you
    correctly crossposted instead). This wastes everyone's time, and gets
    you poorer help than you should get.

    If you must send the same message to more than one newsgroup, please
    do so by crossposting -- sending a single message simultaneously to
    multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups).
    Ken Blake, Mar 16, 2013
    #8
  9. ray carter Guest

    On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:42:21 -0700, charliec wrote:

    > (I also posted this message in the Internet Explorer Newsgroup)
    >
    > I'm running Win7 64bit and IE9. Today, I had 12 Important updates
    > available and one of them was IE10. I installed the other 11, but not
    > IE10 as I have being see mixed reviews on IE10. So, my question is, how
    > does IE10 compare to IE9 and what does it offer over IE9 to make the
    > update meaningful. How do the two compare in normal Internet Website
    > processing?
    >
    > Thanks for any insights!
    > charliec


    I'm not aware of any particular issues with IE10. With each release MS
    seems to be getting closer to the HTML5 and CSS3 standards that the rest
    of the world uses. You would likely not notice any difference unless you
    browsed to a standards compliant web site. I use Chrome (or unbranded
    Chromium) on my systems - partially because they are among the leading
    players in adopting the standards.
    ray carter, Mar 16, 2013
    #9
  10. sticks Guest

    On 3/16/2013 3:19 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
    > On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:42:21 -0700, wrote:


    > 4. Please do not send the same message separately to more than one
    > newsgroup (called multiposting). Doing so just fragments the thread,
    > so someone who answers in one newsgroup doesn't always get to see
    > answers from others in another newsgroup. And for those who read all
    > the newsgroups the message is multiposted to, they see the message
    > multiple times instead of once (they would see it only once if you
    > correctly crossposted instead). This wastes everyone's time, and gets
    > you poorer help than you should get.
    >
    > If you must send the same message to more than one newsgroup, please
    > do so by crossposting -- sending a single message simultaneously to
    > multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups).


    I really hope this doesn't get into a long drawn out flamewar, but I'm
    gonna disagree with Ken on this, Charlie.

    I believe Ken is entitled to crosspost if he chooses to do so, but it is
    in no way a usenet method of choice as he makes it sound. I for one
    hate cross posting and believe the way Charlie did it is better. I have
    no desire to read whatever direction threads go in any one of the
    thousands of "related" newsgroups you can post to these days. I only
    wish to read what *this* group has to say. I've seen these crossposted
    threads linger on for months many times over the years. If I want to
    read another group, I'll subscribe to it.

    If Charlie wants to come back and fill us in on whatever another group
    had to say, that is up to him. But to suggest that the method Charlie
    has used to get information is wrong and to "please" do it the way Ken
    would like is improper. IMO YMMV
    sticks, Mar 16, 2013
    #10
  11. On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:06:24 -0500, sticks wrote:

    > On 3/16/2013 3:19 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
    >> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:42:21 -0700, wrote:

    >
    >> 4. Please do not send the same message separately to more than one
    >> newsgroup (called multiposting). Doing so just fragments the thread,
    >> so someone who answers in one newsgroup doesn't always get to see
    >> answers from others in another newsgroup. And for those who read all
    >> the newsgroups the message is multiposted to, they see the message
    >> multiple times instead of once (they would see it only once if you
    >> correctly crossposted instead). This wastes everyone's time, and gets
    >> you poorer help than you should get.
    >>
    >> If you must send the same message to more than one newsgroup, please
    >> do so by crossposting -- sending a single message simultaneously to
    >> multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups).

    >
    > I really hope this doesn't get into a long drawn out flamewar, but I'm
    > gonna disagree with Ken on this, Charlie.
    >
    > I believe Ken is entitled to crosspost if he chooses to do so, but it is
    > in no way a usenet method of choice as he makes it sound. I for one
    > hate cross posting and believe the way Charlie did it is better. I have
    > no desire to read whatever direction threads go in any one of the
    > thousands of "related" newsgroups you can post to these days. I only
    > wish to read what *this* group has to say. I've seen these crossposted
    > threads linger on for months many times over the years. If I want to
    > read another group, I'll subscribe to it.
    >
    > If Charlie wants to come back and fill us in on whatever another group
    > had to say, that is up to him. But to suggest that the method Charlie
    > has used to get information is wrong and to "please" do it the way Ken
    > would like is improper. IMO YMMV


    Well, sticks, I *totally* disagree with you and totally agree with Ken.

    Even though Charlie has told us what the other group is, I have no plans
    to subscribe to that group to try to find and unravel his thread there.
    I already subscribe to all the groups I wish to subscribe to.

    And it's certainly not just a matter of what Ken would like. It is an
    easy and practical way for all (interested) subscribers in *either*
    newsgroup to keep track of all responses in *both* groups.

    For example, one small effect of crossposting is that if I were to have
    an idea for the OP's problem that has already been posted in the other
    group and tried by Charlie without success, I wouldn't post it. And
    thoughts like that might keep me from bothering to post my solution the
    first place...

    Obviously I am assuming that my solution would have been perfect :)

    Yeah, I know, in this instance Charlie wasn't asking for a solution but
    for a review, but still.

    Feel free to flame back ;-)

    --
    Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
    Gene E. Bloch, Mar 17, 2013
    #11
  12. R. C. White Guest

    Hi, Sticks.

    What Ken said...and Gene, too.

    One other point that we should mention: The payoff for the OP is that he
    doesn't have to visit each of the other newsgroups and try to correlate the
    often-conflicting advice that he might be getting. He can read them all in
    a single coherent thread in any of the groups.

    Of course, the OP should exercise good judgment in choosing the appropriate
    NGs - and there very rarely is a need to post to more than a couple.

    RC
    --
    R. C. White, CPA
    San Marcos, TX

    Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
    Windows Live Mail 2012 (Build 16.4.3505.0912) in Win8 Pro


    "sticks" wrote in message news:ki2mp3$gdi$...

    On 3/16/2013 3:19 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
    > On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:42:21 -0700, wrote:


    > 4. Please do not send the same message separately to more than one
    > newsgroup (called multiposting). Doing so just fragments the thread,
    > so someone who answers in one newsgroup doesn't always get to see
    > answers from others in another newsgroup. And for those who read all
    > the newsgroups the message is multiposted to, they see the message
    > multiple times instead of once (they would see it only once if you
    > correctly crossposted instead). This wastes everyone's time, and gets
    > you poorer help than you should get.
    >
    > If you must send the same message to more than one newsgroup, please
    > do so by crossposting -- sending a single message simultaneously to
    > multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups).


    I really hope this doesn't get into a long drawn out flamewar, but I'm
    gonna disagree with Ken on this, Charlie.

    I believe Ken is entitled to crosspost if he chooses to do so, but it is
    in no way a usenet method of choice as he makes it sound. I for one
    hate cross posting and believe the way Charlie did it is better. I have
    no desire to read whatever direction threads go in any one of the
    thousands of "related" newsgroups you can post to these days. I only
    wish to read what *this* group has to say. I've seen these crossposted
    threads linger on for months many times over the years. If I want to
    read another group, I'll subscribe to it.

    If Charlie wants to come back and fill us in on whatever another group
    had to say, that is up to him. But to suggest that the method Charlie
    has used to get information is wrong and to "please" do it the way Ken
    would like is improper. IMO YMMV
    R. C. White, Mar 17, 2013
    #12
  13. Guest

    On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:06:24 -0500, sticks <>
    wrote:

    >On 3/16/2013 3:19 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
    >> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:42:21 -0700, wrote:

    >
    >> 4. Please do not send the same message separately to more than one
    >> newsgroup (called multiposting). Doing so just fragments the thread,
    >> so someone who answers in one newsgroup doesn't always get to see
    >> answers from others in another newsgroup. And for those who read all
    >> the newsgroups the message is multiposted to, they see the message
    >> multiple times instead of once (they would see it only once if you
    >> correctly crossposted instead). This wastes everyone's time, and gets
    >> you poorer help than you should get.
    >>
    >> If you must send the same message to more than one newsgroup, please
    >> do so by crossposting -- sending a single message simultaneously to
    >> multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups).

    >
    >I really hope this doesn't get into a long drawn out flamewar, but I'm
    >gonna disagree with Ken on this, Charlie.
    >
    >I believe Ken is entitled to crosspost if he chooses to do so, but it is
    >in no way a usenet method of choice as he makes it sound. I for one
    >hate cross posting and believe the way Charlie did it is better. I have
    >no desire to read whatever direction threads go in any one of the
    >thousands of "related" newsgroups you can post to these days. I only
    >wish to read what *this* group has to say. I've seen these crossposted
    >threads linger on for months many times over the years. If I want to
    >read another group, I'll subscribe to it.
    >
    >If Charlie wants to come back and fill us in on whatever another group
    >had to say, that is up to him. But to suggest that the method Charlie
    >has used to get information is wrong and to "please" do it the way Ken
    >would like is improper. IMO YMMV


    Ken - thanks very much for the support.
    charliec
    , Mar 17, 2013
    #13
  14. Nil Guest

    On 16 Mar 2013, sticks <> wrote in
    alt.windows7.general:

    > I believe Ken is entitled to crosspost if he chooses to do so, but
    > it is in no way a usenet method of choice as he makes it sound. I
    > for one hate cross posting and believe the way Charlie did it is
    > better.


    I'll tell you what annoys the hell out of me: when I've spent a chunk
    of my personal time trying to craft a helpful, well researched, well
    stated answer to somebody's question, only to discover later that he
    multi-posted his question to some other group and it's already been
    answered. I feel like I've wasted my time, and I'm instantly
    disinclined to help this person any more. It's asking several people
    for help without telling them about each other, resulting in much
    unnecessary, redundant, wasted time and running around, and eventually,
    resentment. I consider such behavior to be very inconsiderate and
    disrespectful.

    > I have no desire to read whatever direction threads go in
    > any one of the thousands of "related" newsgroups you can post to
    > these days.


    The thoughtful way is to cross-post a technical question to a few
    relevant groups, not "thousands". That will maximize the pool of talent
    to be drawn upon and keep everyone informed. This is being efficient
    and considerate and it benefits everybody.
    Nil, Mar 17, 2013
    #14
  15. Bob Henson Guest

    On 16/03/2013 9:06 PM, sticks wrote:
    > On 3/16/2013 3:19 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
    >> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:42:21 -0700, wrote:

    >
    >> 4. Please do not send the same message separately to more than one
    >> newsgroup (called multiposting). Doing so just fragments the thread,
    >> so someone who answers in one newsgroup doesn't always get to see
    >> answers from others in another newsgroup. And for those who read all
    >> the newsgroups the message is multiposted to, they see the message
    >> multiple times instead of once (they would see it only once if you
    >> correctly crossposted instead). This wastes everyone's time, and gets
    >> you poorer help than you should get.
    >>
    >> If you must send the same message to more than one newsgroup, please
    >> do so by crossposting -- sending a single message simultaneously to
    >> multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups).

    >
    > I really hope this doesn't get into a long drawn out flamewar, but I'm
    > gonna disagree with Ken on this, Charlie.
    >
    > I believe Ken is entitled to crosspost if he chooses to do so, but it is
    > in no way a usenet method of choice as he makes it sound.


    Technically, it is the recommended Usenet method, however, I agree with
    you, it's a pain in the butt. In fact I, and many others, automatically
    delete all cross-posted messages unread as routine, as nearly all trolls
    cross post as a matter of routine. Combined with deleting everything
    that emanates Google Groups, it removes most of the troll and spam mail
    unread.

    Multi-group posting was frowned upon in the early days of Usenet because
    it increased overheads very slightly. I don't think that was ever
    relevant, and it certainly isn't these days - so I don't think that
    restriction needs to apply at all, and that multi-posting is the way to
    go if someone simply has to post in more than one group. It only takes
    one key press to skip a message that has already been read elsewhere.
    However, that too is better avoided, especially in similar topic groups.

    --
    Bob - Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

    Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint. - Mark
    Twain
    Bob Henson, Mar 17, 2013
    #15
  16. Quilljar Guest

    I agree about Maxthon. I have tried many browsers but this is the one I
    prefer. it is rather USA centred but I can just about live with that!
    Quilly UK
    Quilljar, Mar 17, 2013
    #16
  17. Ken Blake Guest

    On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:35:25 +0000, Bob Henson <>
    wrote:

    > On 16/03/2013 9:06 PM, sticks wrote:
    > > On 3/16/2013 3:19 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
    > >> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:42:21 -0700, wrote:

    > >
    > >> 4. Please do not send the same message separately to more than one
    > >> newsgroup (called multiposting). Doing so just fragments the thread,
    > >> so someone who answers in one newsgroup doesn't always get to see
    > >> answers from others in another newsgroup. And for those who read all
    > >> the newsgroups the message is multiposted to, they see the message
    > >> multiple times instead of once (they would see it only once if you
    > >> correctly crossposted instead). This wastes everyone's time, and gets
    > >> you poorer help than you should get.
    > >>
    > >> If you must send the same message to more than one newsgroup, please
    > >> do so by crossposting -- sending a single message simultaneously to
    > >> multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups).

    > >
    > > I really hope this doesn't get into a long drawn out flamewar, but I'm
    > > gonna disagree with Ken on this, Charlie.
    > >
    > > I believe Ken is entitled to crosspost if he chooses to do so, but it is
    > > in no way a usenet method of choice as he makes it sound.

    >
    > Technically, it is the recommended Usenet method, however, I agree with
    > you, it's a pain in the butt. In fact I, and many others, automatically
    > delete all cross-posted messages unread as routine, as nearly all trolls
    > cross post as a matter of routine.




    Trolls typically cross-post to many newsgroups. Note the words "few"
    and "related" in my recommendation: "a single message simultaneously
    to multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups)."
    Ken Blake, Mar 17, 2013
    #17
  18. Bob Henson Guest

    On 17/03/2013 3:23 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
    > On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:35:25 +0000, Bob Henson <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 16/03/2013 9:06 PM, sticks wrote:
    >>> On 3/16/2013 3:19 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:42:21 -0700, wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> 4. Please do not send the same message separately to more than one
    >>>> newsgroup (called multiposting). Doing so just fragments the thread,
    >>>> so someone who answers in one newsgroup doesn't always get to see
    >>>> answers from others in another newsgroup. And for those who read all
    >>>> the newsgroups the message is multiposted to, they see the message
    >>>> multiple times instead of once (they would see it only once if you
    >>>> correctly crossposted instead). This wastes everyone's time, and gets
    >>>> you poorer help than you should get.
    >>>>
    >>>> If you must send the same message to more than one newsgroup, please
    >>>> do so by crossposting -- sending a single message simultaneously to
    >>>> multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups).
    >>>
    >>> I really hope this doesn't get into a long drawn out flamewar, but I'm
    >>> gonna disagree with Ken on this, Charlie.
    >>>
    >>> I believe Ken is entitled to crosspost if he chooses to do so, but it is
    >>> in no way a usenet method of choice as he makes it sound.

    >>
    >> Technically, it is the recommended Usenet method, however, I agree with
    >> you, it's a pain in the butt. In fact I, and many others, automatically
    >> delete all cross-posted messages unread as routine, as nearly all trolls
    >> cross post as a matter of routine.

    >
    >
    >
    > Trolls typically cross-post to many newsgroups. Note the words "few"
    > and "related" in my recommendation: "a single message simultaneously
    > to multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups)."
    >


    It's been my experience that they often cross-post to just two
    (particularly recently) - so I delete all cross-posts.

    --
    Bob - Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

    It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.
    Bob Henson, Mar 17, 2013
    #18
  19. sticks Guest

    On 3/17/2013 4:35 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
    > On 16/03/2013 9:06 PM, sticks wrote:
    >> On 3/16/2013 3:19 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:42:21 -0700, wrote:

    >>
    >>> 4. Please do not send the same message separately to more than one
    >>> newsgroup (called multiposting). Doing so just fragments the thread,
    >>> so someone who answers in one newsgroup doesn't always get to see
    >>> answers from others in another newsgroup. And for those who read all
    >>> the newsgroups the message is multiposted to, they see the message
    >>> multiple times instead of once (they would see it only once if you
    >>> correctly crossposted instead). This wastes everyone's time, and gets
    >>> you poorer help than you should get.
    >>>
    >>> If you must send the same message to more than one newsgroup, please
    >>> do so by crossposting -- sending a single message simultaneously to
    >>> multiple newsgroups (but only to a *few* related newsgroups).

    >>
    >> I really hope this doesn't get into a long drawn out flamewar, but I'm
    >> gonna disagree with Ken on this, Charlie.
    >>
    >> I believe Ken is entitled to crosspost if he chooses to do so, but it is
    >> in no way a usenet method of choice as he makes it sound.

    >
    > Technically, it is the recommended Usenet method, however, I agree with
    > you, it's a pain in the butt. In fact I, and many others, automatically
    > delete all cross-posted messages unread as routine, as nearly all trolls
    > cross post as a matter of routine. Combined with deleting everything
    > that emanates Google Groups, it removes most of the troll and spam mail
    > unread.
    >
    > Multi-group posting was frowned upon in the early days of Usenet because
    > it increased overheads very slightly. I don't think that was ever
    > relevant, and it certainly isn't these days - so I don't think that
    > restriction needs to apply at all, and that multi-posting is the way to
    > go if someone simply has to post in more than one group. It only takes
    > one key press to skip a message that has already been read elsewhere.
    > However, that too is better avoided, especially in similar topic groups.
    >


    20 years ago when there was more decorum on usenet and the majority of
    participants followed *all* the suggested ettiquette, crossposting made
    more sense that it does today. Nowadays, things like thinking before
    replying, checking FAQ's, doing simple google searches, major thread
    drift, me too's, among others are commonplace.

    As I said in my original reply, people can do either if they choose.
    Personally, I've found crossposting does more harm than good. I will
    not do it. That said, if poster does it wisely, it can do all the
    things originally intended and answer some of the issues people have
    brought up here. With today's newsreaders, many people don't even
    realize at first an article is crossposted.

    My issue, is telling someone that crossposting is the correct way of
    doing things and that they should not have done what they did.
    Crossposting in many groups will get you flamed before anything else you
    do except top posting. Times have changed and many people just don't
    like it. Point is: if someone wants to crosspost and does it wisely,
    fine. If someone chooses not to crosspost, move on and either
    participate or don't at your own discretion. It is the act of telling
    someone what is proper here that annoys me.
    sticks, Mar 17, 2013
    #19
  20. Nil Guest

    On 17 Mar 2013, sticks <> wrote in
    alt.windows7.general:

    > My issue, is telling someone that crossposting is the correct way
    > of doing things and that they should not have done what they did.
    > Crossposting in many groups will get you flamed before anything
    > else you do except top posting.


    Not in technical groups like this one.

    > Times have changed and many people just don't like it.


    That would be a kneejerk, unthinking opinion.

    > Point is: if someone wants to crosspost and does it wisely, fine.
    > If someone chooses not to crosspost, move on and either
    > participate or don't at your own discretion. It is the act of
    > telling someone what is proper here that annoys me.


    You mean, like you just did?
    Nil, Mar 17, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. rob

    Anyone know when IE10 will be available for Win7?

    rob, Feb 8, 2013, in forum: alt.windows7.general
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    321
    Lee Waun
    Feb 10, 2013
  2. Fokke Nauta

    How to uninstall IE10

    Fokke Nauta, Mar 15, 2013, in forum: alt.windows7.general
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    788
    Gadfly
    Mar 19, 2013
  3. IE10 nag

    , May 16, 2013, in forum: alt.windows7.general
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    255
  4. Robin Bignall

    Pop Up Blocking in IE10

    Robin Bignall, Aug 16, 2013, in forum: alt.windows7.general
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    218
    Robin Bignall
    Aug 27, 2013
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    184
Loading...

Share This Page