View Full Version : Does anyone here use Internet Explorer, and if so, why?
Mindslaver
06-02-2005, 6:32 PM
(see title).
I'm curious as to why people continue to use Internet Explorer in favor of other browsers, most notably Mozilla Firefox (http://www.mozilla.org/).
Is it laziness? Or are there things that make Internet Explorer better?
It's compatible with more sites, seems to be faster, and I just prefer its interface. I do use it on Linux, though, because it's the best available browser.
Markpyro
06-02-2005, 7:23 PM
I rarely use IE anymore, but if I do, its only for going to the windows update sites or sites that require Internet explorer
Lol... most people use IE just becuae they are to stubborn to change, as I was...
I prefer Firefox becuase it actually renders things correctly, in IE you've to have all these special little "hacks" or work-arounds to get things to even display correctly. Which is funny, becuase IE will even display f*cked up code just fine.
There are a few people who also use Avant Browser and other browser things based off IE in some way or another.
-Neo
BlackHawk
06-02-2005, 7:55 PM
I use Firefox. Why? I jumped on the bandwagon.
I only use IE for certain sites that need it, like music.yahoo.com or other things.
Most IE only sites that use activeX stuff you can get to work in FF if you wish, there is an activex plugin for FF, but to me that seems useless since I use firefox becuase it DOESNT have Activex >_>
-Neo
Toucan
06-02-2005, 9:01 PM
To tell the truth I have never got round to trying ff.
In my last job I worked just assembling computers for AustinComputers (http://www.austin.net.au/) and doing warranty jobs for them, in this time I must have loaded windows 10000 times, repaired some really stupid mistakes about 20000 times and would get asked stupid question after stupid question by little old lady's that just refused to understand that there is no way to get a computer to vacume the floor (I dont even know were they got the idea)
So for me, It is just laziness, I simply cant be botherd with it.
But anyways, maby I should.
Hey Neo, you got a link for FF?
Kazansky
06-02-2005, 9:02 PM
We use it CUZ IT'S THE ONLY ONE WE'VE GOT!!!
Mindslaver
06-02-2005, 9:22 PM
We use it CUZ IT'S THE ONLY ONE WE'VE GOT!!!
What is that supposed to mean?
There is:
Firefox (http://getfirefox.com).
Netscape (http://browser.netscape.com/ns8/)
Kmeleon (http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/)
Opera (http://www.opera.com/)
Avant (http://www.avantbrowser.com/)
Mozilla Suite (http://www.mozilla.org/products/mozilla1.x/)
There are plenty of alternatives!
WeekendLazyness
06-02-2005, 9:40 PM
Most of the time I use Firefox. But I do use IE daily to look at porn - it's less of a hassle to clear the cache and history, and I don't loose all my cookies in Firefox.
I use IE because its default. Pop ups dont bother me very much.
X-Master2
06-02-2005, 9:53 PM
Most of the time I use Firefox. But I do use IE daily to look at porn - it's less of a hassle to clear the cache and history, and I don't loose all my cookies in Firefox.
Very interesting indeed, I don't think there are a whole lot of people who want to know the specifics. I only use IE just to get to certain sites it would otherwise take me a while to view because of all the crap they put on it, since it usally does not take long for IE to get the images and display them, instead of waiting for a long time for everything to focus in like it does on most. And IE is somewhat good for researching things for projects.
BlackHawk
06-02-2005, 10:14 PM
Most of the time I use Firefox. But I do use IE daily to look at porn - it's less of a hassle to clear the cache and history, and I don't loose all my cookies in Firefox.
Hah, a very honest answer. My parent's just don't check my computer...as far as I know :D
GrassDragon
06-02-2005, 10:17 PM
Safari all the way. I only use FF for Chatzilla right now, and if a site requires IE (Yahoo Music etc.) then it's not worth it. The only reason I still even have it on my comp is because my driver's ed software uses it.
But I do use IE daily to look at porn - it's less of a hassle to clear the cache and history, and I don't loose all my cookies in Firefox.
Genius!
Mindslaver
06-02-2005, 10:27 PM
Safari is only for Macs, I thought?
And IE is somewhat good for researching things for projects.
X-Master2, please explain. I'm interested why IE is better than the other browsers for research.
It appears that laziness is the main reason why people continue to use IE.
I use FF because I hate pop ups... For a long time I resisted FF because I was ignorant. I didn't realize what it could do and just how much better it is than IE.
So when I switched, I never looked back. I suggest everyone use it, or at least try it out.
Modred
06-02-2005, 10:52 PM
I know Hammock will bring it up, so I might as well. IE leaves a much smaller imprint in the system memory than FF or MozSuite. Running IE with a couple of windows open only uses around 22 Mb, whereas I have had instances of MozSuite around 70 Mb and WK once had FF up to around 90 Mb. If you aren't running anything else, that isn't a problem, but if you have something memory intensive, such as image editing software, open at the same time it can slow you down.
As a note, I can open IE to use Yahoo! Music (it would be a waste not to with a premium account) and close everything except the media player window and IE uses less memory than most other apps I have running, such as Trillian. That way I can listen to the music and use FF. =P
Firefox also has tabs, which automatically make it a much more convieniant browsing... uhm browser lol.
Complaining about Firefox's memory usage is worthless, I mean yeah it might use more memory then IE, but then, I have seen IE reach 130mb before, so what? Firefox has tabs, IE doesnt. Firefox does NOT have ActiveX, IE does... any questions?
As for cache clearing and the like... I prefer netscape. same tabing as ff, but not the same as xP
Besides I have yet to see an involuntary firefox browser hijack. Certainly can't say the same for IE.
-Neo
Trying to sell a lack of ActiveX as a feature will not win many people over. It's like trying to sell a car saying it's less likely to get in accidents because it has no engine or wheels. With SP2 you almost have to go out of your way to install ActiveX apps so I don't see how anyone could accidently get ActiveX malware. I'd also like to point out that not EVERYONE wants tabs either. I've used tabs in Firefox on Linux and regular IE browsing on Windows and I'm no more productive, nor do I find it more convenient with tabs. As we've seen lately, Firefox has had it's fair share of security issues and I agree with the conclusion drawn by some publications that NO browser is "safe".
bluemicrobyte
06-03-2005, 5:29 AM
We use it CUZ IT'S THE ONLY ONE WE'VE GOT!!!
One reason why I used IE for the longest time because it was first party software. I am not the kind of person that likes third party stuff. All my console controlers are all first party, I use microsoft word, outlook express, and formerly internet explorer. I use the blizz UI in WoW, and an HP printer, scanner, screen, keyboard, mouse, computer, and even HP printer paper. As you can see, I like first party stuff. Internet explorer was made and is supported by microsoft, the first party that made Windows, and therefore I like(d) it. Besides, the blue e looks beter than the red fox.
Trying to sell a lack of ActiveX as a feature will not win many people over. It's like trying to sell a car saying it's less likely to get in accidents because it has no engine or wheels. With SP2 you almost have to go out of your way to install ActiveX apps so I don't see how anyone could accidently get ActiveX malware. I'd also like to point out that not EVERYONE wants tabs either. I've used tabs in Firefox on Linux and regular IE browsing on Windows and I'm no more productive, nor do I find it more convenient with tabs. As we've seen lately, Firefox has had it's fair share of security issues and I agree with the conclusion drawn by some publications that NO browser is "safe".
Ive still yet to see an involuntary hijacking of Firefox happen.
And as far as I remember Tabs dont exist in IE, so what are you talking about there? And how can your "productivity" not increase? Tabs are so useful, becuase instead of having to go back to a page every time... its just there. Ie: For forums its extremely useful, "mouse-middle-click" a link and your unread topic opens in a new tab... repeat for each unread topic... I dont know. I just dont see how that isnt useful. Definetly helpful when researching something, browsing forums, etc... You can have topis your going to read pre-load so they are ready by the time you get there. It becomes tedious to either have to back everytime youve read a topic/open a new window...
Besides that, ActiveX is doable in Firefox, I was just being sarcastic. ActiveX would've been nice, but it introduced so many possible hijacks and then it took MS forever to respond, and those of us without XP (Version: Whatever) are still helpless, which makes us turn to other browsers.
bmb I feel sorry for you.
-Neo
hammocksleeper
06-03-2005, 10:41 AM
It's compatible with more sites, seems to be faster, and I just prefer its interface.
I use Internet Explorer for many of the same reasons. I don't use it because I am stubborn or resistant to change. I have downloaded Firefox and have used it enough to figure out that I don't like it. IE offers more compatibility, and I admit that where IE fails I supplement FF, but overall IE is a better browser. It seems one of the biggest points some people make about why the like FF is the lack of popups. I don't have a problem with pop-ups, I use a third-party pop-up stopper that took me five minutes to install (and I don't have to mess with it ever again) that is superior to anything else I've ever tried, including the FF popup stopper.
xodkrm
06-03-2005, 11:00 AM
What is that supposed to mean?
There is:
Firefox (http://getfirefox.com).
Netscape (http://browser.netscape.com/ns8/)
Kmeleon (http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/)
Opera (http://www.opera.com/)
Avant (http://www.avantbrowser.com/)
Mozilla Suite (http://www.mozilla.org/products/mozilla1.x/)
There are plenty of alternatives!
Theres one more- maxthon.
I use Internet Explorer for many of the same reasons. I don't use it because I am stubborn or resistant to change. I have downloaded Firefox and have used it enough to figure out that I don't like it. IE offers more compatibility, and I admit that where IE fails I supplement FF, but overall IE is a better browser. It seems one of the biggest points some people make about why the like FF is the lack of popups. I don't have a problem with pop-ups, I use a third-party pop-up stopper that took me five minutes to install (and I don't have to mess with it ever again) that is superior to anything else I've ever tried, including the FF popup stopper.
The fact that you need a third party popup stopper with IE... >_>
Firefox by itself will stop damn near every popup (hell youcan even force the popups to load in a new tab -- in the background -- thus never bothering even if they do get through some how).
IE, from a coders stand point, is a very poor browser. But oh well, to each his own eh?
EDIT: Besides... Extensions for Firefox... I mean whats available just jumps FF to the front for me... I couldn't live without Adblock, and the Weather thing is just so nice. Tells your the current weath -- mouseover the lil green thing and you get a radar screen -- Plus nothing is adware or will hijack the browser, or force unneeded context menus on you....
-Neo
hammocksleeper
06-03-2005, 4:59 PM
The fact that you need a third party popup stopper with IE... >_>
Firefox by itself will stop damn near every popup (hell youcan even force the popups to load in a new tab -- in the background -- thus never bothering even if they do get through some how).
To tell you the truth, I would rather use a third-party popup stopper than the FF popup stopper even if the FF stopper was better (even though it isn't.) My popup stopper not only stops popups and pop-unders spawned by active IE windows, it also stops pop-ups spawned by any other applications I might be running, for example some program that has a link to a webpage or automatically opens a browser window with a page, also stops popups from any trojans or viruses that are on my computer, it is so thorough that it even stops IE from loading when I click the logo on the quick launch bar. (Of course, I choose when I when I want it to stop the popup and when I let it go through.)
Modred
06-03-2005, 5:56 PM
I seriously doubt you'll be able to claim the superiority of FF over IE via tabs for much longer. AOL has been working on an IE based browser with tabs for some time now, and I'm sure Microsoft will implement it in the next major release. Also, the Seamonkey project is going through some rough times at the Mozilla Foundation. The next release of the Mozilla Suite most likely won't be Mozilla 1.8, but will be a renamed application developed by a new team outside the foundation. What this means for FF, I don't know, but MozSuite and FF are both based on the Seamonkey project.
To tell you the truth, I would rather use a third-party popup stopper than the FF popup stopper even if the FF stopper was better (even though it isn't.) My popup stopper not only stops popups and pop-unders spawned by active IE windows, it also stops pop-ups spawned by any other applications I might be running, for example some program that has a link to a webpage or automatically opens a browser window with a page, also stops popups from any trojans or viruses that are on my computer, it is so thorough that it even stops IE from loading when I click the logo on the quick launch bar. (Of course, I choose when I when I want it to stop the popup and when I let it go through.)
And where do you get trojans? And ad infested programs? I dont know about you, but even when I used IE religously I enver had those problems. in fact Googlebar was enough for my popup problems. And it was actually useful to. Thats really stupid -- treating the effects of something instead of the cause. And how can you claim the FF stopper is worse? It does what it is supposed -- quite well I might add. In fact you can stop all popups from ever opening (which is sometimes a detriment, but pfft. takes 2 seconds to correct). Though personally I like the way that I can use adblock to simply block entire domains of ads (or even set a block like */ads/* and *ads.*) I mean, its so much fun browsing a site like CNN or some other site that plasters ads all over the page... without the ads.
I seriously doubt you'll be able to claim the superiority of FF over IE via tabs for much longer. AOL has been working on an IE based browser with tabs for some time now, and I'm sure Microsoft will implement it in the next major release. Also, the Seamonkey project is going through some rough times at the Mozilla Foundation. The next release of the Mozilla Suite most likely won't be Mozilla 1.8, but will be a renamed application developed by a new team outside the foundation. What this means for FF, I don't know, but MozSuite and FF are both based on the Seamonkey project.
I've been hearing the AOL thing forever (which is kinda wierd since AOL like owns... or whatever Firefox).
And jumping on the band wagon late doesn't make it better. And pardon me: but why should I have a crappy internet service (read: aol) or be forced to upgrade (read: sp2 with upgraded IE) my OS just to get a decent browser?
FF will probably be fine, since it has a ton of independent contributors, I don't imagine it just dissapearing, or getting renamed. To be honest though, Firefox's tabs in the default form aren't that great -- they are decent, but to be honest, I think you need to use something like Tabmix to get any true use out of them. Duplicating tabs, setting restrictions on the page being viewed within the tabe (ie: no images, or no javascript or no redirect), etc... You can even lock a tab, or view recently closed tabs (in case you close one on accident? lol)
Whats really wierd are those people who skinned Firefox to look like IE o.O;;;;;
-Neo
Modred
06-03-2005, 6:43 PM
And jumping on the band wagon late doesn't make it better.
Did I say it would make it better? I simply said FF won't have that trump much longer.
And pardon me: but why should I have a crappy internet service (read: aol) or be forced to upgrade (read: sp2 with upgraded IE) my OS just to get a decent browser?
AOL's browser is standalone. You upgrade FF all the time, so I dont' see the problem with upgrading IE. Not every IE update has corresponded to a Service Pack, and I doubt every future release will.
Sikawtic
06-03-2005, 6:44 PM
You can use Mozzilla on sites that "require" IE, just get the Agent Switcher (available at FF's site)
Did I say it would make it better? I simply said FF won't have that trump much longer.
AOL's browser is standalone. You upgrade FF all the time, so I dont' see the problem with upgrading IE. Not every IE update has corresponded to a Service Pack, and I doubt every future release will.
Talking about the fact that the new IE (the one in SP2) isnt available for those of who have win2k or basically anything not-XP. There was promise at one point of a mass security update ot win2k that would include it, but last I heard it was supposed to be out in feburary. (Something like that. Like they were going to back-it to win2k, but like didnt, or still are, sitting on thier thumbs, who knows)
I can't upgrade my IE to the 'newest' version becuase I havent hopped on the XP bandwagon (at least not yet, I will this summer though for my second computer).
Thats what I meant. I dont even have the option to upgrade IE...
And would you use a standalone AOL Browser? ... Would anyone?
-Neo
EDIT: Plus you know, it would be great if even IE7 would support CSS and XHTML stuff correctly. Hell, it would be nice if IE could do something like PNG Transparency. I mean come on, its as if MS just kinda waited for better featured browsers to come along and then rip ideas from them like Mozilla/Netscape/Opera/etc....
EDIT2: Oh, and most of the time switching your agent does allow you to visit "ie-only" sites. There are still only a few stubborn ones that wont work.
Whiteknight
06-03-2005, 7:35 PM
I know Hammock will bring it up, so I might as well. IE leaves a much smaller imprint in the system memory than FF or MozSuite. Running IE with a couple of windows open only uses around 22 Mb, whereas I have had instances of MozSuite around 70 Mb and WK once had FF up to around 90 Mb. If you aren't running anything else, that isn't a problem, but if you have something memory intensive, such as image editing software, open at the same time it can slow you down.
Bah. Currently, my FF uses about 65 MB, including chatzilla. However, for every extra tab, it only increases .2 and for every window it only increases .8. While IE starts out lower, at around 38, for every extra open window in IE it increases 25 Mb. For the amount of windows I usually have open, FF is much better for me.
Most of the time I use Firefox. But I do use IE daily to look at porn - it's less of a hassle to clear the cache and history, and I don't loose all my cookies in Firefox.
Bad idea. IE is incredibly susceptible to viruses and the like. It's the only browser I've had that has been hijacked, etc. And porns sites are just crawing with things you don't want on your computer. Oh well.
I'm wondering why you guys say you have trouble with yahoo music? I can open it fine.
BlackHawk
06-03-2005, 7:54 PM
Bah. Currently, my FF uses about 65 MB, including chatzilla. However, for every extra tab, it only increases .2 and for every window it only increases .8. While IE starts out lower, at around 38, for every extra open window in IE it increases 25 Mb. For the amount of windows I usually have open, FF is much better for me.
Bad idea. IE is incredibly susceptible to viruses and the like. It's the only browser I've had that has been hijacked, etc. And porns sites are just crawing with things you don't want on your computer. Oh well.
I'm wondering why you guys say you have trouble with yahoo music? I can open it fine.
I can open it, I just can't use the radio or video players.
hammocksleeper
06-03-2005, 9:06 PM
Bah. Currently, my FF uses about 65 MB, including chatzilla. However, for every extra tab, it only increases .2 and for every window it only increases .8. While IE starts out lower, at around 38, for every extra open window in IE it increases 25 Mb. For the amount of windows I usually have open, FF is much better for me.
*insert Tim Allen's AAAaaaooOOOOOooo?! here*
IE uses only 24mb on my computer. A second window increases memory usage by 6mb, and a third window by only 4mb. Try using ctrl-N to open a new window rather than trying to load another whole instance of IE. It's a faster way to get a new window anyway. Speaking of speed, firefox takes over nine seconds to load on my computer, while IE takes between one and two. Lord knows how much longer it would take to load if I installed all kinds of extensions I don't need like adblocker or weatherbot. It kind of reminds me of the glory days of Netscape, around 4.0, when it was so bloated it took like a whole minute (or more) to load, much like photoshop.
Modred
06-04-2005, 12:35 AM
Alright, here's a test. I opened IE and FF at around the same time. I opened 3 seperate websites in IE, including Warboards. I opened two tabs at Warboards in FF. I made a post in FF and went to two or so threads. In IE, I logged in and went to a couple of threads. Hence they are about equal in usage. And the results?
IE 37 megs, FF 38. And IE opened faster. After a bit more browsing, they are still about equal, and IE has more sites open. If I open all 3 sites in FF, FF leaps around 6 megs ahead of IE. Sure, that's neglibile, but it proves a point.
I still plan to use FF, but IE does leave a smaller imprint from my experience.
*insert Tim Allen's AAAaaaooOOOOOooo?! here*
IE uses only 24mb on my computer. A second window increases memory usage by 6mb, and a third window by only 4mb. Try using ctrl-N to open a new window rather than trying to load another whole instance of IE. It's a faster way to get a new window anyway. Speaking of speed, firefox takes over nine seconds to load on my computer, while IE takes between one and two. Lord knows how much longer it would take to load if I installed all kinds of extensions I don't need like adblocker or weatherbot. It kind of reminds me of the glory days of Netscape, around 4.0, when it was so bloated it took like a whole minute (or more) to load, much like photoshop.
Are a few seconds really that big of a deal? On mine it takes maybe 5-6 seconds to load Firefox. A little longer when its been on for awhile (ie: weeks). IE actually takes about the same amount of time, sometimes a little longer, in fact, FF and IE for me usually flip flop back and forth on loading times. Not that i care. Its a few seconds. Its not like trying to open Photoshop :P
Besides that Adblock and the Weather thing don't make it load any slower. When the weather thing is grabbing info it doesnt stop the entire browser. For that matter adblock is more of like a GUI to using a HOST like... uhm thing... to block sites. So its not that big of a deal.
Alright, here's a test. I opened IE and FF at around the same time. I opened 3 seperate websites in IE, including Warboards. I opened two tabs at Warboards in FF. I made a post in FF and went to two or so threads. In IE, I logged in and went to a couple of threads. Hence they are about equal in usage. And the results?
IE 37 megs, FF 38. And IE opened faster. After a bit more browsing, they are still about equal, and IE has more sites open. If I open all 3 sites in FF, FF leaps around 6 megs ahead of IE. Sure, that's neglibile, but it proves a point.
I still plan to use FF, but IE does leave a smaller imprint from my experience.
To be fair, most of IE's components and what not are kind of already loaded with windows. I mean, how do you think you browser your computers contents? You can even switch from looking at your c drive to going to a website (though in my experience you get funky results sometimes -- lol)
bmb, hey. .2 megs of memory for a new tab or 4-6 megs for every new window? I like the whole .2 megs myself. Considering that I usually have anywhere from 10-25 tabs open at any given time, Id run out of physical memory pretty fast with IE.
Anyways, its really all a matter of opinion... I mean even though FF is more secure then IE has been (omg fact alert) and it offers a lot of features that many browsers like (thats browsers as in users... lol) for instance, support for web standards, transparent pngs, etc... people will continue to use IE, and some will even pay for (or pirate...) programs that block popups, or 'enhance' thier security or browsing features.
I kind of like Firefox's whole open-source like approach and how I dont have ot pay for extensions that are useful. And aren't ad supported.
Personally though, I did use IE for years. But after using nothing but firefox for a couple of weeks (it was a kind of challenge to me, since I had always heard it was better) I starting falling in love with the features... and the possibility of features that extensions brought.
-Neo
EDIT: Launch.com fans lookie:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=206213
And... http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=206217
And finally... (if you have MPC) http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=206217
Lynx is more secure than Firefox. No JPEG exploit. ;)
Lynx is more secure than Firefox. No JPEG exploit. ;)
Doesn't effect Firefox either, whats your point?
-Neo
You seem to be missing the point. My point was when you strip a web browser down to the most basic features (text based) you inherently become more secure by having less surface area, so to speak. Based on the logic I've seen in this post, Lynx is clearly the superior browser. No ActiveX exploits, no domain phishing vulnerabilities, no popups, pretty much no exploits.
Ragnarox
06-04-2005, 11:53 PM
Well...I learned something new today to say the least...
Anyways the only reason why I use IE on this spicific computer is because 56k for some reason can't handle the download bandwidth of downloading a browser program.
You seem to be missing the point. My point was when you strip a web browser down to the most basic features (text based) you inherently become more secure by having less surface area, so to speak. Based on the logic I've seen in this post, Lynx is clearly the superior browser. No ActiveX exploits, no domain phishing vulnerabilities, no popups, pretty much no exploits.
Thats taking things to the extreme. Is that what it comes down to?
Firefox delivers features and security. IE has not offered either, waiting for others to come up with them... lol.
But seriously, even if you personally don't like features offered by other browsers (ie: Tabbed Browsing) does that make it useless to switch... or are you just being stubborn? In the past things have gotten better through change, who are you to condemn a browser as "unworthy" becuase you don't like tabs? I admit that IE has its uses, especially since everyone uses it (imo, its becuase many people are lazy/ignorant) you've got to code websites correctly, but by the same token, you can't goto the extreme and code websites only for IE (yahoo launch for instance - and even they are joining the firefox bandwagon).
Hell, even companies like IBM are urging its employess to use Firefox.
You can't dodge tabs forever ;)
-Neo
EDIT: Oh, and im an idiot, duhr. I read lynx as linux or something, lol >_<
I don't know how I could be stubborn if I use the browser on an almost daily basis in Linux. It's a fine browser. My gripes are with people (I'm not implying you) who go on a religious quest to "convert" all their friends, family, and anyone who will listen to switch to Firefox under the vague guise of "features and security" which is almost always backed up with tabs and "security stuff". In my opinion, if people see a better browser, they will use it, but if the person needs to spread lies about IE and jam Firefox down their throat, then there's a problem.
Firefox = Good
IE = Good
Choice = Good
Zealotry = Bad
Dark_Viper
06-05-2005, 12:50 AM
I use FireFox because i finds its faster.. more reliable.. customizable with extentions(tons of extentions).. tabs have actually saved me alot of time when i have to open alot of links at once (which allways happens for me)..
when i need IE.. i just right click in FF on a link and click 'open link target in IE' and bam .. there we go..
its not really the tabs that sell Firefox IMHO.. its the endless amount of great extentions for it..
and so far.. ive had not troubles with it at all
D_V
Lol, I just love debating computer stuff, I've argued for IE before :P Just whatever I am in the mood for.
I don't push FF on anyone, I will recommend it though for people who are having a lot of trouble with spyware/browser hijacks/etc... since it is easier if they use something like FF that isnt vulnerable to things like coolweb/or whatever else that are extremely hard to clean the system of.
Although I dont know how many lies you can spread about IE, it IS a poor choice for people running pre-XP until, or even if, MS decides to release a version of IE for older windows OSs (imo, I feel as if MS has gone completely insane, the fac that you might have to call them when upgrading an xp system is proof alone, its my software, I paid for it, Ill do whatever the hell I want with it, upto and including upgrading the entire computer damnit)
-Neo
Arcani-Ranger
06-05-2005, 6:10 AM
Well I use Fixfox more often these days. To me it seems mroe reliable cause with IE the browser kept on crashing almost every 5 minutes and that really pissed me off. Also Firefox seems more secure because under IE I got spyware and adware loading up almost everyday.
Also the less pop ups are a great bounus!
-The Tabs on Firefox are great as well, IE should have them as well.
...
Firefox = Good
IE = Good
Choice = Good
Zealotry = Bad
* Basan rolf's
We've already debated this issue a couple of times before in here and you almost everytime get on this stance when you lack serious motives to support your ideas about IE.
And what's wrong about trying to aid other folks to improve their browsing security, or for that matter it's capabillities? (In a forum folks usually try to help out others...) Hmm, I still have to see a previous Xp OS that is relatively safe with IE (for instance, the pop-up's lack of control). That urge of MS into gettin' folks to undoubtly upgrade to Xp through the crappy IE previous OS's of theirs had, is much of a scheme already to call it a zealotry as it is. "Come to Xp and your browsing security will leap light-years ahead." - If this is their idea of browsing to simply push their intire most recent OS through it, tks but not tks. :P
On the other hand with Windows OS systems you have to put up with IE at least 'till you have an add/spyware encounter like I did (since it's laced with the access Net properties). From that 'get along' with spy/addware, have test tried FF and was reluctant to do it. After a couple of wks, I didn't want other thing for Net browsing and I can say that in these last 6 months I've been using it never had another clash with spy/addware.
You don't like tabs, fine. Don't use'em. Even with FF you aren't 'forced' to use'em. Afterall who's being sort of a zealot here? ;)
We've already debated this issue a couple of times before in here and you almost everytime get on this stance when you lack serious motives to support your ideas about IE.
What is there for me to support? All I've seen is people beating a dead horse on IE exploits which have been patched for years, as well as people being ignorant towards SP2 and not even recognizing that it does add popup blocking, more secure ActiveX, and some other nice features. If you're using a 6+ year old operating system, that's your own problem, go ahead and use Firefox.
That urge of MS into gettin' folks to undoubtly upgrade to Xp through the crappy IE previous OS's of theirs had, is much of a scheme already to call it a zealotry as it is.
I didn't know common business practices were zealotry. Find me a company that doesn't want to sell its new upgrades/products. If they keep Win 2K exactly the same as XP, where's the profit motive for MS? XP has around for almost 4 years now, it's not like they're jamming it down your throat, but you can't expect them to port everything to an old operating system.
On the other hand with Windows OS systems you have to put up with IE at least 'till you have an add/spyware encounter like I did (since it's laced with the access Net properties). From that 'get along' with spy/addware, have test tried FF and was reluctant to do it. After a couple of wks, I didn't want other thing for Net browsing and I can say that in these last 6 months I've been using it never had another clash with spy/addware.
I wanted to avoid saying it, but if you get spyware using IE, you lack web browsing common sense. The only way you can get spyware in IE is if you actually willingly install ActiveX. The only "spyware" I get with IE is cookies, but there's really nothing IE can do about that and I just clean them out every once in a while with Adaware. I don't how you could be getting random popups, toolbars, or other spyware without installing it yourself through the web or through other spyware laced programs. For ma and pa, it may be better to get them using Firefox since they often install anything that asks to be installed, but my friend is proof that you can get your computer trashed with spyware even using Firefox.
What is there for me to support? All I've seen is people beating a dead horse on IE exploits which have been patched for years, as well as people being ignorant towards SP2 and not even recognizing that it does add popup blocking, more secure ActiveX, and some other nice features. If you're using a 6+ year old operating system, that's your own problem, go ahead and use Firefox.
And what if my IE still does have more (security) holes than FF as it is today (even with all thoses patches it took)?
I'm currently happy with my 2K OS to go and buy a couple Xp CD's that will cost me more than buying a whole paraphernalia of PC extras like a multifunction printer, a webcam and a mic' for that matter.
And what other nice features you speak of? The media related ones? If those are it, don't count me in.
Last time I went under a Xp security console it even twitched with the latest Norton Anti-Virus (read update CD). I can't think of a better example of it's 'wonderful' capabillities that he couldn't even recognize an well known Anti-Virus software. >_<
I didn't know common business practices were zealotry. Find me a company that doesn't want to sell its new upgrades/products. If they keep Win 2K exactly the same as XP, where's the profit motive for MS? XP has around for almost 4 years now, it's not like they're jamming it down your throat, but you can't expect them to port everything to an old operating system.
Yeah, yeah... I might becoma a tad hasty to call MS a bunch of zealots. I know everyone wants to sell but they could do it a lil' more conscient. Their MS Anti-Spyware tool does work wonders, even if to me it's more of a merchandising technique to have a toll out instead of improving it's Net access apps security (mostly IE related issue).
They do become less honest when promised to have the lates IE thingys in Net security within the 2K OS and then won't fulfill the promised bargain (as said earlier by Neox).
I wanted to avoid saying it, but if you get spyware using IE, you lack web browsing common sense. The only way you can get spyware in IE is if you actually willingly install ActiveX. The only "spyware" I get with IE is cookies, but there's really nothing IE can do about that and I just clean them out every once in a while with Adaware. I don't how you could be getting random popups, toolbars, or other spyware without installing it yourself through the web or through other spyware laced programs. For ma and pa, it may be better to get them using Firefox since they often install anything that asks to be installed, but my friend is proof that you can get your computer trashed with spyware even using Firefox.
/me lol's
Lacks common sense? Oh boy, aren't we getting giddy...
As for Active X in IE, it mostly does it by default to load the movies and such crap when you surf on sites. (Not considering you've bothered to set it's security customized little in order to prevent it, wich usually happens to most of my friends PC's I get my hands into.) The cookies business, in FF by default it's set for you to allow the cookies you want not the crap of allowing any cookie to get in. And for that matter even when using IE you can have it that Secret Maker (http://www.secretmaker.com/) have it cleaned automatically, wich btw works wonders for improving Net security over Windows system apps. :) To everyone's Ma n' Pa... or ven relatives with access to your PC. :P
When I started using P2P progs (or FTP ones) didn't really know what to use... and a friend of mine did me the 'favour' of getting the spyware in (without me knowing). From that point onwards had a myriad of trouble everytime I unleashed IE (read merely getting it open). With FF I simply don't get those issues by simply using the FireFTP extension. As for P2P now have changed to some more harmsless software. *Cough*SoulSeek (http://www.slsknet.org/)*Cough* :smirk:
Btw, I might know what your friend had in FF to allow spy/addware installed through. See if he has the Stumble Upon toolbar. Had seen it today n' tried it, altough it seemed a nasty bait to me but had it anyway. Obviously after a previous run of SpyBot and Ad-Aware SE. And did the same afterwards. Guess what? It placed "Alexa" crummy crap inside. Yup, FF is not safe, but if only you too do not know what you're really putting inside it. (A especial beware to those of you that use the Mr.Tech's Local Istall extension without much knowledge.) ;)
Win2k is barely a year and ahalf older then XP. Xp is 4 years old, going on 5, 2k is 5 going on 6. That doesn't change the fact that Win2k was one of the best OSes that MS ever made. Why is it that XP is so great? Based of a 2k all they had to do was add eye candy, make it prettier, and more user friendly and they had an even better os. That doesn't mean I want to go and pay $150 (for OEM even) for WinXP Pro just for a browser upgrade. ;/
Though I will be getting XP Pro this summer to exchange the XP 64bit version, I mean we all have to change at some point eh? Ill leave Win2k on this machine though ^_~
Why is it ok for them to stop supporting Win2k? Or to promise to release comprehesnive "Security" updates (or whatever they called it -- since they didn't want to release a new Win2k service pack) that included the new IE functions/other updates that SP2 has.
Our WinXP machine with SP2 really doesnt impress me, security console thing? big woop most AV software/spyware etc... even firewalls will tell you if they need to update, or if you seriously need to update. The updated IE looks like to little to late, and IE7 isn't looking very promising either.
Your "friend" ? What happened? Wheres the proof? Clean Fox vs Clean IE (no plugins, extensions or anything) Which will fall to a hijack? Which will fall to spyware first? To my knowledge there are no Fox vulnerabilities that would allow hijacks. Can't say the same for IE.
-Neo
Why is it ok for them to stop supporting Win2k? Or to promise to release comprehesnive "Security" updates (or whatever they called it -- since they didn't want to release a new Win2k service pack) that included the new IE functions/other updates that SP2 has.
Our WinXP machine with SP2 really doesnt impress me, security console thing? big woop most AV software/spyware etc... even firewalls will tell you if they need to update, or if you seriously need to update. The updated IE looks like to little to late, and IE7 isn't looking very promising either.
Your "friend" ? What happened? Wheres the proof? Clean Fox vs Clean IE (no plugins, extensions or anything) Which will fall to a hijack? Which will fall to spyware first? To my knowledge there are no Fox vulnerabilities that would allow hijacks. Can't say the same for IE.
Pretty much the same I wanted to say on above, but maybe more nutshelled. ;)
hammocksleeper
06-06-2005, 2:39 PM
Just an fyi for y'all, tabbed browsing has been around as early as 2002, when it was featured in Netscape 7.0, over two years before firefox was released.
I think a substantial portion of the reason for firefox's appeal (commanding approximately 6.75% of the market) is marketing. Good marketing can create a popular product with the most loyal users but it does not always mean that the product is superior; AOL is an excellent example of this. EVen still, there is no doubt that firefox has taken hold of many parts of the world, like Germany, when an estimated 22.58% of web surfers use it.
SpeedyWorm1
06-06-2005, 2:46 PM
I use Internet explorer for 2 reasons.
1: its what was on my computer when I got it and I have never used anything other then it
2:Because I don't know what FireFox is.
Just an fyi for y'all, tabbed browsing has been around as early as 2002, when it was featured in Netscape 7.0, over two years before firefox was released.
I think a substantial portion of the reason for firefox's appeal (commanding approximately 6.75% of the market) is marketing. Good marketing can create a popular product with the most loyal users but it does not always mean that the product is superior; AOL is an excellent example of this. EVen still, there is no doubt that firefox has taken hold of many parts of the world, like Germany, when an estimated 22.58% of web surfers use it.
Firefox was first released in 2002 under the name Pheonix, so its not really "new" or anything like that. It surprising though that its taken this long for IE to consider adding Tab Support. For me though, until IE7 promixes to deliver open standards and stuff, I won't be switching -- even if I have xp pro at the time.
I dunno, there are a ton of aol users who know they have a crappy service, but are to lazy to switch (lol :P)
-Neo
Theres one more- maxthon.
Only one more? Yeah right...
Example: http://browsers.evolt.org/
You are also forgetting Amaya...
Whiteknight
06-06-2005, 11:15 PM
Just an fyi for y'all, tabbed browsing has been around as early as 2002, when it was featured in Netscape 7.0, over two years before firefox was released.
I think a substantial portion of the reason for firefox's appeal (commanding approximately 6.75% of the market) is marketing. Good marketing can create a popular product with the most loyal users but it does not always mean that the product is superior; AOL is an excellent example of this. EVen still, there is no doubt that firefox has taken hold of many parts of the world, like Germany, when an estimated 22.58% of web surfers use it.
In case you didn't know, FF actually stemmed from the fallen Netscape. Just thought I'd like to clue you in.
I use Internet explorer for 2 reasons.
1: its what was on my computer when I got it and I have never used anything other then it
2:Because I don't know what FireFox is.
And there we have it, our typical windows user. They see something labeled "internet", they open it, it works alright, so be it. This is why FF will never control much more of the market than it does currently.
Just an fyi for y'all, tabbed browsing has been around as early as 2002, when it was featured in Netscape 7.0, over two years before firefox was released.
Firefox was first released in 2002 under the name Pheonix, so its not really "new" or anything like that. It surprising though that its taken this long for IE to consider adding Tab Support.
And then it came FireBird who was renamed due to a copyright issue to later on be called what it is currently. So ya see Hammock', it's been around for a while now.
Neox, as we should already know stubborness is a major (flaw) caratheristic of great coorporations... so why would be MS that different (from others)? *Cough*:lame:*Cough*
I use Internet explorer for 2 reasons.
1: its what was on my computer when I got it and I have never used anything other then it
2:Because I don't know what FireFox is.
/me sighs *
Alas, here's the common MS OS/apps user. As lazy they could possibly be. That's why MS never really bothers to (succesfully) improve what they sent out in the market.
And you never bothered to find out (about FF) wasn't it? Of for that matter take the above link that BB provided to see if you find a better one than IE. There are a few, ya know? ;)
hammocksleeper
06-07-2005, 9:16 AM
And then it came FireBird who was renamed due to a copyright issue to later on be called what it is currently. So ya see Hammock', it's been around for a while now.
Of course it has. But you weren't using tabbed browsing way back in 2002, were you? ;) My point is if you want to attribute any of the success of firefox to the tabbed browsing, you really shouldn't attribute it to the tabs themselves but to the marketing of them.
WeekendLazyness
06-07-2005, 11:05 AM
I attribue the success of Firefox to the good feature set and ease of use. I attribute the success of IE to the good feature set and the ease of use.
This thread started as a discussion of what browser you use and why, not which one is better. In my opinion, both are great, and I need to use both every day. Some sites just don't work in Firefox, but IE doesn't have tabs (a feature I really like). I know I could install tabs in IE, but that's not what I like IE for. People arguing in this thread are missing the point: everyone has his or her own opinion and prefered browser, and it's not going to change unless they really like what they try. Threfore, it's pointless to argue over which browser is better. It's a bad idea to force someone to change, better to give them a chance to see what it is (if they want), and give them the choice instead of bombarding them with useless facts about the lack of security in IE (as a matter in fact, Firefox has several exploits itself). To sum that all up: to each his own.
Basan
06-07-2005, 11:55 AM
Of course it has. But you weren't using tabbed browsing way back in 2002, were you? My point is if you want to attribute any of the success of firefox to the tabbed browsing, you really shouldn't attribute it to the tabs themselves but to the marketing of them.
My point wasn't really the tabbed browsing but instead it's less security exploits when compared to MS's option. (Altough now that I've come grown used to it I might miss it when using IE. And with further adue and respects paid, I've always known that it's base was Netscape.) :)
And of course marketing aids in everything. Same could be said about Xp, PhotoShop, mIRC, yada, yada. ;)
I attribue the success of Firefox to the good feature set and ease of use. I attribute the success of IE to the good feature set and the ease of use.
Note that I haven't stuffed FF, nor IE for that matter, down anyones throats... just said that there are so many better options out there when concerning (a more secure) browsing. As for instance, stated in mine above post. :)
Still chum's, I hope? *Tries to hug both Hammock' and WkendLazzyness (and everyone else across the room) to smooth these differences out* :D
Didnt I say that already?!
Firefox's security exploits (As such they are) are nowhere near as severe as Internet Explorer's are, or have been in the past.
And FYI: I was using tabbed browsing back in '02 ;) There was a time I went through where I was a netscape freak.
Heh, If people would just try Firefox for a week, and then any other browser they found interesting, then I would be happy -- but alas, people are stubborn and lazy :)
-Neo
Heh, If people would just try Firefox for a week, and then any other browser they found interesting, then I would be happy -- but alas, people are stubborn and lazy :)
My thoughts exactly
Graeme
06-07-2005, 9:00 PM
Everyone keeps talking about these alleged security holes on IE. Having used IE for my entire computer life (aside from the time I did a test-run of mozilla), I have yet to be hit by any of them :P. Am I just lucky, or do I just browse responsibly and properly?
Seriously though, on windows XP with the newest IE and a google bar, what is my computer susceptible to on a regular basis, if I browse the "non-porn, non-shady" parts of the internet?
Am I just lucky, or do I just browse responsibly and properly?
I must be another one of the lucky IE users. I've never had my browser infected/hijacked/etc.
WeekendLazyness
06-07-2005, 11:19 PM
I must be another one of the lucky IE users. I've never had my browser infected/hijacked/etc.
Me too.
Seriously though, on windows XP with the newest IE and a google bar, what is my computer susceptible to on a regular basis, if I browse the "non-porn, non-shady" parts of the internet?
I would think pretty much nothing, although evertime I use google/yahoo without FF I always end up with some type of spyware.
EDIT - I remembered to add this after I posted.
Because I use FF for appox. 95% of my internet browsing, I come away with maybe, maybe 5 reports of spyware a month.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.