[WinTard]

dragon69 said:

i don't know where you people keep getting 89% from but wiki says

that this is the browser usage that comes to there page

Internet Exploder has 67.51%
Mozilla's Firefox has 21.73 %
Safari has 8%
Google Chrome has 1.15%
Opera has 0.90%

>

Quote

and 67.51% is a little less then 89% just pointing out some incorrect facts that keep coming up

I think you missed my point.

My figures come from the constantly dynamically changing landscape of PC Operating System market share. Not browser type market share. Latest figures peg Microsoft at around 89% of the PC market share today. Since they are all PC anyways (including Mac), all other PC vendor and brands also roll-up into that figure. The other major player, Apple with OS X weighs in at roughly 10% of the OS market share. The remaining 1% belongs to othe Unix variants such as Linux, FreeBSD, QNX, Open Solaris etc...

Succinctly, if 89% of all machines out there came with IE pre-installed, then one could argue that IE has an implicit 89% penetration rate. Whether in use, liked or not...

That was my rationale behind these figures, to support the idea of a de-facto standard. Now do you understand?

If not may I suggest you re-read my controversial post a bit more carefully, to really understand the meaning behind it.

Thank you.

PS: Frankly I couldn't care less about which browser is more popular or not. As a matter of fact, I generally tend to go the other way of fads, trends, crowds and never jump on any bandwagon. I do not need reinforcement or confirmation in numbers to know that I am right or wrong. I simply make up my own mind.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Now and then it's good to pause in our pursuit of happiness and just be happy.
~ Guillaume Apollinaire

A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought.
~ Warren Buffett

Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.
~ William Penn

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.
~ Robert Heinlein

Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken.
~ Bertrand Russell

Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.
~ Sci

;)

[WinTard]

My good friend TechieXP, you are right on! I agree with all your incisive and on the mark opinions and wisdom. I like the way you think. Because I think like you. But mostly appreciate your input, for those things I have not stumbled upon yet, or thought about. :)

~~~~~~~~~~
If you understand everything, you must be misinformed.
{Chinese Proverb}

Love is life. All, everything that I understand, I understand only because I love.
~ Leo Tolstoy

[elhombrenuclear2007]

Totally agree

[eMJay]

Quote

I saw a commenmter mentioned he like FF better and felt it was safer because with plugins he could increase his browsers security. So you're happy that a 3rd party found a way to increase browser security...but the original developer didn't? Since the original developer wrote the code then they should be teh best to write the security for it. I am not saying the 3rd party can't increase it, but how familiar are you with the 3rd party? What is teh old saying? To many cooks spoil a good dinner?

What I was simply saying there was that I have the option in FF to protect my PC from the vulnerabilities in the plug-ins used by all the browsers to add function and features to web pages. Plug-ins from vendors like Adobe and Java have had many vulnerabilities that could be exploited to take over machines while being used by any browser. Right now the only browser that has actually been designed in a way that can limit the effectiveness of an attack via a plug-in is Chrome, by virtue of its sandboxing technology. FF, while lacking this feature, still allows me to protect my PC from this kind of plug-in attack thanks to the availability of NoScript. It just adds the ability to deny access of websites to my plug-ins or to run scripts until such time that i determine that the website can be trusted. Plug-in based attack mitigation is really the responsibility of the plug-in vendor, not the browser developer. I'm VERY familiar with NoScript because I've been using it for a few years now. Even Charlie Miller, one of the PWN2OWN hackers, recognizes its ability to protect the PC. In an interview with Tom's Hardware, Charlie Miller offered some advice to PC users -

bq. "For all operating systems, make sure you keep your system up to date. That’s the best thing you can do. On a PC, I'd recommend running some AV software to help clean up when things go bad. Otherwise, just be smart, pay attention, and hope for the best. It is possible to really lock down your computer (running NoScript for example) and make it safer, but in my opinion it’s not worth the trouble and the loss of functionality you experience."
I'm simply one of those who prefers to really lock down his systems. Most people wouldn't want to do it and i can understand that. I just prefer not to have to deal with the consequences of any surprise attacks when i visit new websites. I actually use the other browsers (with the exception of IE) but i use them to browse sites that i know and trust. Now that IE can render as fast as FF3, I'll probably use it in the same way i use the others - for light browsing at sites I know are safe. However, there's the Linux factor. I use Linux about 70% of the time for heavy internet use, which has made the usage of IE less relevant to me anyway.

[TechieXP]

if you have a virus scanner installed it should automatically scan any file you download. That isn't an IE problem. Files are downloaded through ports on your pc...if your virus scanner doesn't scan files that are being downloaded on your com[uter then that means you must have a cheesy antivirus program.

Also for anyone using Windows Vista or Windows 7 (Beta, Release Candidate) you don't need IE to download Windows Updates. That feature is built directly into the OS. The best thing about older versions of IE like 7 and 6 is that Microsoft updates required teh proper Active X controls. This ensured no one could sppof files being downloaded from MSFT website. Sites that don't use Active X in downloading files and the Active X control hasn't been digitally signed by MSFT, should be a stop sign. That's one protection no other broswer offers. When using other browsers you are at the mercy of the site you're downlaoding from.

I see so many say how unsafe it is to browser the internet with IE. I have been using IE since version 4.0 and I have never gotten a virus (and I seldom use running anti-virus programs / but I do routine scans) and I have never been exploited.

I never use software as an excuse to do what I should do as a computer user. Just like if you're walking down the street...it isn't teh police's job to follow you everwhere you go and protect you. Its' your job to protect yourself.

[TechieXP]

And to add. As you said. If MSFT has 89% of the PC market everyone of them will use IE at some point expecially if they have Windows XP or older. All older versions of Windows require IE in order to download updates. And since IE is actually part of the OS itself and not a component that means everytime you boot your PC, you're technically are using IE. Also other MSFT software uses teh enhanced features of IE to protect itself. MSFT Office uses features built into teh OS and into IE. One is the ability to browse the internet from inside Outlook without actually launching IE. Lotus Notes also has this ability. AOL's original browser was based on the API's of IE. Any service inside Windows uses the features of the browser to have network access.

Windows Vista and Windows 7 downloads updates based on an enhanced feature of WSUS. WSUS uses features in IE to give the OS a direct connect with MSFT servers without actually launching the browser. THis is why teh EU agreement is so stupid. If MSFT actually removed IE from Windows and didn't allow any OEM to put another browser on your computer...the user would have no direct access too the internet. It would have to be done indirectly using another application. But without IE, softwares wriiten to take advantage of the features built in the OS would fail.

Back in the old days of Windows 95...if IE wasn't included on a saparate CD, that means you had to get some type of broswer throuh some other means. if you knew how to use the commandline you could access an FTP download using the DOS window. Or you had to get a CD with MSN or Netscape or AOL or some other CD provided by an ISP. MSFT rolling in IE into Windows to me was a great move. NO matter what, it doesn't prevent usage of any 3rd party alternative. However there are many advantages to IE that no other browser will ever be able to offer.

[rifter]

To TechieXP:

You're missing the point, guy. Back in the day, Netscape was the king of the hill, and did a very good job for the times, taking everything into context. MS decided they wanted to dominate the browser market and put out IE, including it as part of the Windows load out. And, along with a lot of dirty business tactics (which we all know, and I won't repeat here) succeeded in forcing Netscape over a cliff along with a bunch of other good software. Historically, IE has been a lousy program because of sloppy code, buggy code, and slow response on patching. I could live with that if necessary, but what really cranked my jaw was how Microsoft hijacked HTML and forced everybody to use their version if they wanted breaks on licensing, etc. That had the effect of making a lot of web sites not work right with other browsers. But that's the kind of thing that happens when you have a captive audience dependent on a browser that's built into the OS. It's also a big reason why Microsoft ended up in court in Europe over bundling.

Now, with Win 7 coming, they've finally seen the light and broke a lot of the built-in apps out and made them optional, including IE. That's a good thing in my opinion. Now, they will be forced to compete one on one with Mozilla and the others, and the end users will be the beneficiaries of that. However, I still have problems with IE. As I said, I prefer the approach taken by Mozilla with Firefox, ie. open source, and user created plug-ins (which still have to be vetted by Mozilla). That let's me fine tune MY browser for the way I want it to work. That's something Microsoft still doesn't get, and likely never will because they aren't satisfied with letting the marketplace decide. But then, that seems to be a problem in a lot of areas these days.

[Jesant13]

Very nice review. :)

[thebratboy]

Can firefox be installed & coexist on a Vista x64 system thats using/running IE8? I really like IE8 but the new TVersity Pro program required that I have Adobe's Flash player plug-in for Firefox or Chrome installed to function properly. Has something to do with TVersity having Webkit built in as its browser. I have the plug-in installed for IE8 but TVersity doesn't like that one. Like I said as things stand I prefer IE8 and don't want to mess it up but I can't see a way around having firefox installed to get the Adobe Firefox plug-in installed.

[elhombrenuclear2007]

Yes,can be installed on vista 64,just download from ie browser and the set up will check for a version for your system in :

"Other Systems and Languages",chech this:http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/system-requirements.html,

and To install Firefox in Windows
visit the page of Firefox's unloads with any (browser) (p.e. Microsoft Internet Explorer). Automatically it will detect the platform and language of your PC and will recommend the Firefox's best version. If you want to unload a version different Firefox's, do click in " Other Systems and Languages " to see a list of all the available versions.

[r53s]

Perhaps you´re using a quad core, but under a Jurasic 2.26 gb pentium 4 and 1.5 gb of ram, running the same windows 7 ultimate x32, firefox 3.5 is way faster than ie8...