Aren't *beta* versions notoriously unstable and quirky?
Alphas are usually that way.
Depends on the type of beta.
I've installed the preview, and it seems to work okay. Anything marked as a public beta is generally in decent form.
There, fixed that for you. [grin]
Now just why in h*ll would I want to use an unstable beta release of a notoriously insecure web browser from a notoriously unethical, immoral, convicted monopolist company whose track record shows that they historically have not and cannot provide even reasonably functional, secure software programs? And whose notoriously insecure program is so intimately intertwined with and into the operating system code that it will regularly corrupt and trash the whole computer it is installed on-- in between the times that it is filling my machine up with viruses, trojans, worms, keyloggers, backdoors, adware and spyware, all unbeknowst to me and without my consent.
Especially when I can (and do) use a stable, reasonably secure browser program with better features and a track record of fixing bugs within hours if not days of the bug being identified -Firefox! And when that program's source code is fully available for viewing to determine exactly what it is doing on my computer when I run it? And which has many features, extensions, plug-ins and skins available for free. And the program is available for free.
And which doesn't require me to have a specific bloated, slow, insecure, bug ridden operating system installed on my computer, but will run on different versions of Windoze, and Linux, and MacOSX, etc. And runs just as any other program, instead of being intimately intertwined in the OS code itself.
Yes, beta versions are notoriously unstable- any software's beta versions. But some company's software never gets beyond the stability of the beta version. And that company is Microsoft.
So, I'm thinking, why exactly should I become an unpaid guinea pig/beta tester for a convicted monopoly's software?