Shop RadioShack for Great Gifts
Computer newbies: ***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer***
Re:***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer***
by mboverload - 4/19/04 7:05 PM In reply to: ***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer*** by LarryDSmart people use Mozilla.
People who don't care use IE.
I run Mozilla Firefox and I never get any ads ever, and I never get popups. For a newbie it might be a pain to setup just right.
Re:***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer***
by cspeye - 4/22/04 7:32 PM In reply to: ***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer*** by LarryDum... most of the exploits seem to be fixed already in IE... and many of them only work when they involve risky use of IE (i.e. d/ling unknown files first, etc...) And a good antivirus program stops pretty much all of them anyway.
And i'm pretty sure that if more people used mozilla/firefox, there would be more of a focus on that by hackers, and it's possible that as many bugs can be found in mozilla.
Re:***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer***
by risingstaruk - 4/23/04 12:31 AM In reply to: ***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer*** by LarryDpeople who rely on such *exploits* to hack into computers aren't really hackers, if a hacker wants to hack your compuer he will, w/e browser you have and he wont need you to click a link! i think you've totally over reacted on this issue. if you aren't computer literate enough to not click on dodgy links then it would be wise to purchase some firewall software instead of replacing one faulty browser with another faulty browser.
Re:***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer***
by Themisive - 4/23/04 2:30 AM In reply to: ***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer*** by LarryDHi
I know about all this - I've got IE6, also a good antivirus system & firewall on my machine, & my ISP also provides antivirus & firewall protection.
The trick though is to keep the whole system up to date, as far as I am aware I have NO unpatched vulnerabilities, & the system works ok.
Re:Re:***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer***
by corsair90 - 4/23/04 5:02 AM In reply to: Re:***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer*** by ThemisiveI use both IE and Firefox, I'm new to Firefox but it does have the advantage of not using IE's active X, in which IE is horribly vulnerable, but like the other's have said any use of the internet is a risk, it's up to you to protect yourself.
Re:***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer***
by sitaifun - 4/23/04 5:46 AM In reply to: ***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer*** by LarryDAnother option to avoid such internet dangers is to simply switch to the Macintosh platform. Derived from the Unix environment where security was built in rather than patched on later, you will see far, far less vulnerabilities, viruses, trojans, worms, pop-ups, etc. using Mac OS X and the Safari browser. I administer Windows networks, but find the OS X experience quite a pleasure to use! Truth be told, businesses using OS X save a bundle in HW, SW, and administrative costs associated with securing their networks against attacks. Now that Apple has delivered a modern OS which is rock-solid and very well supported by both major vendors and the open source community, the time is ripe for anyone who wishes to travel the road a little less taken and reap the rewards and taste the fruits of these fine folk's labor. Sorry; a bit metaphoric here, but you are truly in store for a breath of fresh air.
Re:Re:***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer***
by CmputrAce - 4/23/04 7:29 AM In reply to: Re:***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer*** by sitaifunWhy do people insist on making statements that are unsupportable? You say...
"Truth be told, businesses using OS X save a bundle in HW, SW, and administrative costs associated with securing their networks against attacks."
Although this may indeed be true, where is the supporting data? And do you factor in other costs as well, or are you stating that the cost for security overrides all other costs for switching to the OS X OS? (You really can't lump the whole "Macintosh" platform in your statements because until OS X, the Macs were NOT unix-based.
I would just like to see rash, sweeping statements supported with REAL DATA.
And I'm not a Windows / IE Freak. I can't stand IE anymore since I got FireFox. I'm real close to switching to Linux as well.
Evil MSFT-- $ for patching?
by Mahayani - 4/23/04 6:26 AM In reply to: ***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer*** by LarryDI recently received and applied the Microsoft February 2004 Security Update CD.
There were still tons of patches to apply after installing. And the REAL KICKER:
Mister Softy sent me a questionaire asking me if I would be WILLING TO PAY FOR SECURITY PATCH CDs IN THE FUTURE.
Over $50 BILLION IN CASH and they are trying to be cheap about security patches!!!!
They should be sending them out FOR FREE with the frequency of AOL 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0----EVERY TWO WEEKS!!
Re:***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer***
by josir - 4/23/04 6:35 AM In reply to: ***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer*** by LarryDI completely agree with you LarryD.
I administer a small network with 30 PCs and I spent 4 hours a week removing trojans and solving problems related to bad emails/sites.
After I change all the stations to Mozilla, the problems stops, the users loved the tabs and the email client and now some users can share the same email database in Linux and Windows.
The only problem I encountered refers to some sites that only works with IE (the sites does not work for the Internet just for Windows) but we got in touch with the webmasters and they are trying to solve the incompatibility.
Now I can use my time to more produtive tasks!
Regarding HTML/CSS
by instrosurf - 4/23/04 7:41 AM In reply to: ***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer*** by LarryDI've seen some people say that IE displays html4 and css1 better than Mozilla.
This is totally untrue, if you refer to scroll bar colors, some table attributes and other tags you're talking about MS HTML tags, not official W3C tags.
The difference with Mozilla and IE is that Mozilla does not use tags that are explicitly designed for Mozilla. Mozilla, and especially Mozilla Firebird, are almost 100% W3C compliant browsers, which means that almost no other browser (and certainly not IE) beats them in displaying html4, xhtml1, css and css2 the correct way according to official standards.
Just ask any web designer who writes W3C compliant code what (s)he thinks about IE, and you'll definatly get a negative answer.
A Developers point of view 1
by bound4doom - 4/23/04 7:57 AM In reply to: ***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer*** by LarryDYou know this has been a debate for several years. Even though the browser wars are over occasionally someone tries to reignite them. While, I am not not trying to debase the poster, but he has not done his research. Or more to the point only one sided his research.
IE has security flaws. Thats a true statement. Mozilla has security flaws, that is a true statement. Both have several security flaws, each of them have thier own different ones. mozilla currently has 13 of them. The numbers fluctuate over time. Which one has had more total. Thats a good question. Do you compair over history or Version to version. However, more recent studies, show Microsoft to be more secure, if you add in another factor. Who readily fixes flaws in timely manner. We all have been sick and tired of the microsoft patches constantly however they are actively patching them.
The main thing most people that Bash IE don't see it from the other perspective. The developers side. You might think that huge active websites that provide you with functionality like search engines, stocks, ebay, games, active content, and dynamically changing websites. Things that people want. If it wasn't for things like this the web would be about as exciting as reading an encyclopedia.
Ok so what is the big deal? The entire world is a big audience, there are millions of people every person out there uses their own prefered browser. You may not remember there used to be every websites said something like "This website should be viewed in IE" Or "This WebSite Should be Viewed in Netscape 4.7" Something like that.
To be continued..
Re:A Developers point of view 2
by bound4doom - 4/23/04 8:00 AM In reply to: A Developers point of view 1 by bound4doomNow, did you ever ask the question why did they say that? Because each browser handles the code behind the web differently. Big companies, that wanted to have a website the whole world could see had to actually develop 1 Website for IE and opera, and then a separate website for every version of Netscape. Other browsers were so poor at how they dealt with the web, they were not consistant and every version broke something else. Microsoft was the only one that every version of IE only increased functionality and didn't completely try to remake it and broke everything that was out there. Most companies couldn't afford to make several versions of their sites. They had to limit their audience.
Now, did you ever ask the question why did they say that? Because each browser handles the code behind the web differently. Big companies, that wanted to have a website the whole world could see had to actually develop 1 Website for IE and opera, and then a separate website for every version of Netscape. Other browsers were so poor at how they dealt with the web, they were not consistant and every version broke something else. Microsoft was the only one that every version of IE only increased functionality and didn't completely try to remake it and broke everything that was out there. Most companies couldn't afford to make several versions of their sites. They had to limit their audience.
Re:Re:A Developers point of view 3
by bound4doom - 4/23/04 8:01 AM In reply to: Re:A Developers point of view 2 by bound4doomNow there are things like server controls where the server can detect what browser your hitting the site with and adjust the code that is sent to the browser dynamically. But you still have to write 1 version of your website for IE, 1 version for Opera, and then several different versions for netscape. While Opera is very similar to IE. It follows the strict standards put out by the stabdards commitees, like the w3c. You can find complete specifications on everything you need for building a website at www.w3c.org Netscape never followed these standards closely which made it such a pain for developers of sites. Finally large corporations started to mandate Internet explorer only and develop internal websites Internet explorer only. Corporation were not going to pay to have several versions of internal websites created. Instead they made the browser a standard much the way they made email applications standard and document format standard. When posed with the question what browser to use. IE was the only one and still the only one that made sense. Why, because it didn't matter what version of IE, as long as it was IE. Netscape every version required its own special code and there were somethings it just plain simply could not do.
Now if you look at statistics on browsers anymore. It depends on the type of site. Unix sites and older technology sites are hit more by Netscape users, Average Joe sites and new technology site are hit more by IE. I know my sites I average 300 to 400 visiters per hour of which 98% are IE users. That other 2% are not worth the time and money making a second version of my site, while they will work under netscape. I just disable some functionality for other browsers. Rather than have those user call and complain because something doesn't work I just don't show it to them.
Re:Re:Re:A Developers point of view 4
by bound4doom - 4/23/04 8:02 AM In reply to: Re:Re:A Developers point of view 3 by bound4doomThis is also a big current developer trend, developers have grown weary of developing several versions they are now just making fully functional sites for IE then just disabling features for all other browsers.
Now mozilla has done a good job in the last several versions of mainting their functionality over several versions, but it will take a long time to persuade the developers and corporate world and all the IT Staff to change to another version. I am not saying it can't be done. The old analogy still holds true. If you build a better mouse trap, people will use it. When someone build a better browser then it will be used. But the browser market is a world wide market. Hence it must be built to be used by a 80 year old lady in vietnam using it to find recipies, to the 15 year old kid using it to play games, to the high tech administrator dialing in through his mobile phone. (In case your forgot most cellphones have browsers on them as well now) When that browser is built I will be the first in line here at download.com in the download que. Until then I am sticking with what works.
Bound4doom
by chuckieu - 4/25/04 11:22 AM In reply to: Re:Re:Re:A Developers point of view 4 by bound4doomThis reads EXACTLY like a Microsoft news release. Admit a few things and maybe they will ignore the other 200 possibly more serious ones. Makes me wonder which department of Microsoft you work in. Bill, is that YOU?
Anyway, while true that all programs have flaws, it is how they are handled that really matters. Open source
projects like Mozilla, Open Office, etc. immediately jump on problems when discovered(usually by a LOT of volunteers also) BEFORE they are forced to. Microsoft is on record as ignoring serious vulnerabilities and then(and only because they became public knowledge)
taking months to supply the patches. As to developers
using IE as a platform, if you are not really given a choice, it's not really a choice. Hopefully, this is in the past. Nowdays more developers ARE using different platforms because they are more compatible. While I use
Linux, it is true HW, SW, etc. are a problem until they are easier for the average user to install and manufacturers make them fully compatible. All this being said, I still use Windows and IE6, but I watch them like a hawk and my firewall has to ask me every time IE wants to access the web. Also the crack about Mozilla's stability and compatibility is untrue. I have only found 1 instance of something not working properly
and that was a news video refusing to work with anything but IE. This is an issue I am going to take up with Yahoo. And to think I wasn't goint to read Larry' post because I had learned my lesson a while back.
GOOD WORK, Larry. chuck
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
