Killing the CRC ad (and other Flash animations)
.blitz
Posts: 6,197
The 'lightning' flash was doing my head in, so after a quick google I found this:
Open Registry Editor by typing REGEDIT.EXE in the Start, Run dialog.
Navigate to the following location:
[HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility]
Expand the tree and if it doesn't already exist, create a sub-key named {D27CDB6E-AE6D-11CF-96B8-444553540000}
In the right-hand pane (if it doesn't already exist) create a new REG_DWORD value named Compatibility Flags
Set the data for Compatibility Flags to 400 (hexadecimal)
Woot ! It works
Open Registry Editor by typing REGEDIT.EXE in the Start, Run dialog.
Navigate to the following location:
[HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility]
Expand the tree and if it doesn't already exist, create a sub-key named {D27CDB6E-AE6D-11CF-96B8-444553540000}
In the right-hand pane (if it doesn't already exist) create a new REG_DWORD value named Compatibility Flags
Set the data for Compatibility Flags to 400 (hexadecimal)
Woot ! It works
0
Comments
-
Or Firefox and add block plus
"Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
Parktools :?:SheldonBrown0 -
Nobody uses Firefox 0
-
Been using Firefox for years.
I hate Explorer so much that any PC I use with it as the default browser is in serious danger of being chucked on the floor.0 -
Easy tiger, just kidding
0 -
Surf-Matt wrote:Been using Firefox for years.
I hate Explorer so much that any PC I use with it as the default browser is in serious danger of being chucked on the floor.
I didn't realise anyone could take the choice of browser that seriously...0 -
I don't take it seriously.
I just hate browsers that crash all the time.
Plus I add content for a few websites - crashing means lost cash. Which means less toys.0 -
0
-
or IE7 :P .
It's never. and I really mean never, EVER crashed on me.
neither has firefox 3, but I haven't used FF3 that much.
my fave browser is Opera, however there are far far too many websites that it doesn't work with properly.0 -
IE makes me want to be sick.
recently been using IE on my gf's Vista laptop with touchpad. jesus. christ. one of the worst computing experiences i've ever had.
and that includes using macs... :P0 -
I hear things like this all the time, but no-one ever explains what they don't like about it - probably because they just jumped on the "it's cool to hate IE" bandwagon.dirtbiker100 wrote:IE makes me want to be sick.
recently been using IE on my gf's Vista laptop with touchpad. jesus. christ. one of the worst computing experiences i've ever had.
and that includes using macs... :P
So go on, what about IE7, specifically, made this the worst computing experience you've ever had?0 -
Surf-Matt wrote:I don't take it seriously.
I just hate browsers that crash all the time.
Plus I add content for a few websites - crashing means lost cash. Which means less toys.
FF2.x crashe[sd] measurably more than IE7. I don't know that there's much in it between IE7 and FF3, either, but I tend to use neither...
The bit that made DirtBiker's IE/Vista experience so bad was probably the Vista bit.0 -
Ok, in that case, what was so bad about vista?
(cue canned "vista sucks" crap)0 -
it comes down to the fact that i've become so used to being on FF with all of the plug-ins i've got, i find it very hard to go back again. its good that they've got tabs now but i still don't feel safe with the security. never had to run adaware on my comp with FF but when i start using IE it soon starts piling up. Also i got some malware that affects IE but doesn't affect FF. I don't like the slimmed down look either. I prefer the menu's etc.
i'll try n get a list of what plug-ins i have when i get home. neither FF nor IE crash enough to annoy me
I'm not one of those who jumped on the bandwagon, i looked at linux because lots of people talked about it but its not for me at the moment. when a time comes that i'll have to move off xp then i will most likely choose linux rather than vista or mac.
thoughts on vista, i'm yet to find something better on it than xp. most of the stuff i've found is far worse. simple as that.0 -
I'm curently using Opera because it takes time for IE to start
and I hate their tab browsing, too slow (connecting....) :roll: .
Btw, how can you turn off flash animations in Opera?0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:Ok, in that case, what was so bad about vista?
(cue canned "vista sucks" crap)
Mostly that it doesn't run well on any hardware currently available.
It's frightfully unstable, uses an archaic and demostrably inefficient means of update and software distribution and installation, broke compatability with a number of legacy applications, while maintaining legacy bugs, is insecure by design (seemingly on purpose), invents more of its own standards and applies them by default, has the least-consistent and most illogical means of configuring the system of any OS ever produced and aims to fill a gap in the market that has never existed and isn't likely to.
And it doesn't have a decent text editor, either.0 -
Xtreem wrote:I'm curently using Opera because it takes time for IE to start
Btw, how can you turn off flash animations in Opera?
Right click on a blank bit of page. Can't remember what it's called, but it's something like 'content element remover'.
It's not called an adblock, and it doesn't block adverts so much as page elements, like boxes and images.0 -
fair enough, dirtbiker, you are excused
The plugins really are an important feature of FF for those that used them. The only one i really use is the tinymenu one, which gives it that stripped down look that you actually don't like!
As for security, I'll have to disagree with you on that one. My experience of IE7 (running in protected mode, which REQUIRES UAC to be on) is that it is pretty much bulletproof. The only way yet any malware can install itself in this case is with your explicit allowance.
Unfortunately, so many people don't understand UAC, or get so blase about it because there's so many badly written apps out there that invoke it all to often that they just let things through regardless.
I've certainly seen sites that seem clean, and an unexpected UAC prompt will appear asking if I really want to install this software.0 -
dirtbiker100 wrote:but i still don't feel safe with the security.
That's odd. IE7's widely reported to be generally more secure than Firefox.
The anti-phishing's certainly more intelligent and more effective. The bulk of the rest of the security is down to the intelligence of the user.
Out of interest, why not?I'm not one of those who jumped on the bandwagon, i looked at linux because lots of people talked about it but its not for me at the moment.
I'm not trying to convert you, I'm just interested...0 -
Big Red S wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:Ok, in that case, what was so bad about vista?
(cue canned "vista sucks" crap)
Mostly that it doesn't run well on any hardware currently available.
It's frightfully unstable, uses an archaic and demostrably inefficient means of update and software distribution and installation, broke compatability with a number of legacy applications, while maintaining legacy bugs, is insecure by design (seemingly on purpose), invents more of its own standards and applies them by default, has the least-consistent and most illogical means of configuring the system of any OS ever produced and aims to fill a gap in the market that has never existed and isn't likely to.
And it doesn't have a decent text editor, either.
That's all well and good, except that the only thing you said that's true is that it maintains legacy bugs.0 -
Wow Big Red S, it works, and so easy and simple.
I can't belive that I didn't thought on this. What a muppet. :oops:
Thanks mate, a lot. 0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:Big Red S wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:Ok, in that case, what was so bad about vista?
(cue canned "vista sucks" crap)
Mostly that it doesn't run well on any hardware currently available.
It's frightfully unstable, uses an archaic and demostrably inefficient means of update and software distribution and installation, broke compatability with a number of legacy applications, while maintaining legacy bugs, is insecure by design (seemingly on purpose), invents more of its own standards and applies them by default, has the least-consistent and most illogical means of configuring the system of any OS ever produced and aims to fill a gap in the market that has never existed and isn't likely to.
And it doesn't have a decent text editor, either.
That's all well and good, except that the only thing you said that's true is that it maintains legacy bugs.
The software repository system used by everyone that's not MS or Apple works very well and does an awful lot to ensure security. The current Windows method where you have to chase down installers and drivers from all over the internet is inefficient and insecure.
The repeated dark-screen-accompanied-by-a-yes-or-no-prompt _every_ time you try to do anything desensitizes the user. A basic facet of UI design is that if you keep checking whether the user's sure, they'll just get in the habit of clicking 'OK'. If you only prompt them when it's _really_ likely to be bad, they stop and think. I got prompted three times this morning when I tried to delete a file on a Vista box...
The fact it needs to be rebooted _every_ time it updates is absurd. Defaulting to automatically rebooting on update is just stupid.
If you burn a disc with Vista's drag-and-drop thingy, it burns a disc that only works in Vista. Is this sensible?
Is there a configuration layout that's worse than the one found in Vista?0 -
Big Red S wrote:dirtbiker100 wrote:but i still don't feel safe with the security.
That's odd. IE7's widely reported to be generally more secure than Firefox.
The anti-phishing's certainly more intelligent and more effective. The bulk of the rest of the security is down to the intelligence of the user.
Out of interest, why not?I'm not one of those who jumped on the bandwagon, i looked at linux because lots of people talked about it but its not for me at the moment.
I'm not trying to convert you, I'm just interested...
IE - could be my stereotyped way of thinking maybe. i do seem to get less fuss and problems with FF with malware etc.
Linux - could come down to my use of windows and finding it hard to change. i used to play a lot of games so windows was a farily no brainer. but now i don't, when i last installed Ubuntu (yeah the easy one...) it had FF3 beta which pissed me off.
installing stuff and what not is harder it seems.
again i think i'm stuck in my ways on windows with the programs i use etc.
I'm making an effort at getting away from MS though, OO instead of office, thunderbird not outlook.
might have another go at changing some time. After the install (which is great) it all just seemed harder work. all hardware worked though which was good.0 -
Big Red S wrote:
Out of interest, why not?dirtbiker100 wrote:I'm not one of those who jumped on the bandwagon, i looked at linux because lots of people talked about it but its not for me at the moment.
I'm not trying to convert you, I'm just interested...
I'm in the same situation (although I actually do use linux in several circumstances)
On every single machine I've tried a linux *distro* on, I get terrible performance compared to either XP or Vista. Applications take an age to load, the appearance of apps is highly inconsitent, as is the quality of the apps available.
The configuration of the system is fragmented across many wholly unconected text files.
Media compatability is poor to shoddy.
Graphics compatability ranges from acceptable to shoddy.
Complete lack of support for most common hardware RAID controllers.
Networking with other OSes is a fricking nightmare to configure, as the only protocols installed by default are those necessary for linux communication. I mean come on, like it or not, windows is everywhere, SMB support should be there by default.
For example, the much touted compiz/fusion. I've got a dual boot machine, with a Q6600 CPU, and a geforce 8800GTS (320Mb) graphics card. It's hooked up to a 24" 1920x1200 dsplay.
Right, Compiz, once configured and installed (ubuntu does it automagically once you allow it to use proprietary drivers) runs very very poorly at this resolution. Also, the text is blurred, as though the whole screen is being rendered at a lower resolution then scaled up to fit the screen.
After over 2 months of tweaking config files I still had not managed to get any major headway into performance.
However, Vista's Aero, on the other hand, runs like a dream, with no slowdown whatsoever. I appreciate that Aero doesn't do most of the crazy efffects of compiz, but it is demonstratably more mature and has much higher performance.
Whether or not you actually like the look of the one and only aero glass theme you get with vista is a personal choice. I'm ok with it, I don't dislike it, but I don't love it either.
Obviously, there's a lot of Linux fans out there that want Linux to look exactly like vista, or there wouldn't be so many aero themes for compiz.
I admit, that many of thesse are personal opinions, and not concrete, but they are the reasons I don't use linux as my day to day OS.0 -
I don't mind vista that much, but I have screaming fast hardware which seems to cope well with it most of the time. Things about it do bug me, such as completely unneccesary sluggishness at times, and a lot of random BSOD's.
I like FF and IE7, I use opera though because of speeddial, which is awesome.
My faveoutire OS's are:
XP
OSX
Vista
Ubuntu
I'm also quite excited about Windows 7, which will hopefully actually be good, although we all know it wont. That said the last time MS had a debacle like vista (refering to ME) they produced xp...0 -
FF1 and 2 were certainly an awful lot more secure than IE6, but IE6 was basically just Windows Explorer with an HTML renderer.dirtbiker100 wrote:
IE - could be my stereotyped way of thinking maybe. i do seem to get less fuss and problems with FF with malware etc.dirtbiker100 wrote:but i still don't feel safe with the security.
IE7 was a return to IE being an entirely separate project, and it showed. It's much more distinct from the OS and is generally a lot better written.
I don't get along with it, but that's on personal not technical grounds.
I found the FF3 beta pretty stable...Linux - could come down to my use of windows and finding it hard to change. i used to play a lot of games so windows was a farily no brainer. but now i don't, when i last installed Ubuntu (yeah the easy one...) it had FF3 beta which pissed me off.
Yeah, the gaming's not so great (though entirely feasible) under Linux. I've ended up subscribing to Cedega and I play games through that. None are particularly recent, but that's through laziness rather than incompatability.
Yeah, that is a bit of an adjustment.installing stuff and what not is harder it seems.
again i think i'm stuck in my ways on windows with the programs i use etc.
I'm making an effort at getting away from MS though, OO instead of office, thunderbird not outlook.
Generally, if you use the Applications-> Add/Remove applications tool, and put in what you want to do (not what you want to use) you'll get what you're after.
The only significant things I've found that are difficult are MS Exchange-compatible mail clients and an MS Publisher clone.
Yeah, it is very different. The entire logic is quite different, too.might have another go at changing some time. After the install (which is great) it all just seemed harder work. all hardware worked though which was good.
I've found this a good explanation of the different approaches of Windows and the free OSs:
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm0 -
As for the repository system. That really is a very neat feature, and a definite strong point of Linux.
HOWEVER. As far as I know, there is NO commercial software in the repositories, so you still have the same problem as windows if you use such apps.
The reason for that, I guess, is that big software companies don't play nice together, and this affects the possibility of a repository system on windows.
As for UAC being annoying, redS? Am I to presume that you always log on as root in linux/unix? Once your software loadout is installed, the UAC popups seem to be more or less in the same places as Ubuntu's SUDO popups You just seem to be adheering to some commonly held myth here.
rebooted every time it updates? Not so sure on that one either. My main vista system was setup last april, and is almost permamently on. It has rebooted maybe 40 times in that duration. sounds like a lot, but that's over more than a year.0 -
What kind of hardware? I've always found similar or better...yeehaamcgee wrote:Big Red S wrote:
Out of interest, why not?dirtbiker100 wrote:I'm not one of those who jumped on the bandwagon, i looked at linux because lots of people talked about it but its not for me at the moment.
I'm not trying to convert you, I'm just interested...
I'm in the same situation (although I actually do use linux in several circumstances)
On every single machine I've tried a linux *distro* on, I get terrible performance compared to either XP or Vista.
Yeah, that's the/a downside of freedom, I suppose.Applications take an age to load, the appearance of apps is highly inconsitent, as is the quality of the apps available.
Commercial unices are far more consistent, and the developers of these free apps are generally willing to hear your comments and receive your help.
It is?The configuration of the system is fragmented across many wholly unconected text files.
All the config's under /etc/
In a subdir if there's a few.
You'll need to separately install codecs and drivers if they're not free. It's one of the downsides of using non-free standards (or using free software, depending on how you look at it).Media compatability is poor to shoddy.
Graphics compatability ranges from acceptable to shoddy.
Which ones?Complete lack of support for most common hardware RAID controllers.
Samba's part of most distros now, isn't it? In any caseNetworking with other OSes is a fricking nightmare to configure, as the only protocols installed by default are those necessary for linux communication. I mean come on, like it or not, windows is everywhere, SMB support should be there by default.
apt-get install samba
yum install samba
is not difficult.
I've never played with Compiz or Fusion, so I've no idea.For example, the much touted compiz/fusion.... but I don't love it either.
I know it works on mine because it's on by default, and everything looks pretty, but I've never felt much need to look at it...0 -
There is commercial software in the repositories for the commercial distros.yeehaamcgee wrote:As for the repository system. That really is a very neat feature, and a definite strong point of Linux.
HOWEVER. As far as I know, there is NO commercial software in the repositories, so you still have the same problem as windows if you use such apps.
There's little closed-source software in the repos though, since the distro maintainers can't maintain it, and that would defy part of the point.
No, I log in as a normal user.As for UAC being annoying, redS? Am I to presume that you always log on as root in linux/unix? Once your software loadout is installed, the UAC popups seem to be more or less in the same places as Ubuntu's SUDO popups You just seem to be adheering to some commonly held myth here.
I don't tend to get the gksudo popups very often, but that might be down to the user-switching that you can do in *nix.
I was perplexed that the prompt to delete a file looked the same as I would expect if I was trying to uninstall something.
We've got one Vista machine here, which we got to see if we could migrate to it. The other week it spent three hours in an update-reboot cycle. To the best of my knowledge it reboots for most updates, but I don't actually use it myself. I'll check with the poor bastard who does next time he's looking a bit happier...rebooted every time it updates? Not so sure on that one either. My main vista system was setup last april, and is almost permamently on. It has rebooted maybe 40 times in that duration. sounds like a lot, but that's over more than a year.0 -
A big part of it for me, i'm not expecting it to be like windows obviously but i just need to adjust to its way of doing things.Big Red S wrote:Yeah, it is very different. The entire logic is quite different, too.
I've found this a good explanation of the different approaches of Windows and the free OSs:
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
thanks for the link though.0
