[TechieXP]

Where do I start? Active X. Theer are several ways to implement Windows MEdia Playback into a webpage. I have used ways that don't require Active X at all. I don't think Active X is anyore of a coding securoty leak then any other technology. It is simply a missued technology. I see it as no different of people who misued power...or sex or any other thing they chosse to misuse. People misused Flash too, but that doesn't mean there is something wrong with it. Humans misused the earths natural resoures...so since man decided to smake tabacco...i guess we should all blame God for its misuse...right?

Get over yourself. I do agree that MSFT should be compliant to ESTABLISHED technologies. I gues sfor that other stuff I dont see it as SFT holding anyone back. They are free to do there own thing and create a browser that supports it. Just like not everyone support all of MSFT technologies they create their own...like PDF and PHP and so many more. All of those are formats that belong to soeone...you can choose to adopt them or not. MSFT does support many commonplace technologies even above their own. That is why Windows is used more in the first place. We can always find something that isn't supported.

The plugins FF users rave about should be bultin my the devoloper. You can't whitelist? If there is a site I need to avoid I simply lit the in the broswer by domain. I never have to worry about being explited online bec I dont visit sites where that is ever an issue. Some peeople don't know how to use a computer properly, just liek there are millions of people who don;t have to use sex properly too and that si why we have problems.

Smart people don't get infected...PERIOD. In 40 years I have never had an infection on my PC. I had one trojan or something once which was my fault bec I downloaded soe pirated software. Easy fix tho, I don't anymore.

As far as MSFT info about IE...if you want the real answes it is always best to view the opinions of those not being paid to do research by a company. In other words companys like Securia who are not partners with any specific company in this industry akes unbiased opinions about the usages of software being secure over another. That fact that IE is hacked at more shows it is ore secure. How do you knwo how secure another software is when it si barely used or isn't as popular? However there have ben tests that show'd other broswer fail to teh same hacks as IE and the heck wasn't using Active X controls...how about that? Apple Safari was hacked in just a few secs...and Safari uses the same tools as Chrome. Opera is simply jiust a stripped down picesof junk...but that is my opinion. I too also use firefox and Iike in over IE in some cases. For me it is not about changing is about changing if and when it works. Yes I aghree many pages are still code with IE6 technologies bec there were nootherbrowsers to compete against so thus no need for change. So now coders have to catch up all at once an it isn't easy. My work at home has tripled since these new kids on the block have shown up and it is painful.

I dont care who releases a browser. It should first work with any present technologies that exist and introduce new ones. That fact these other guys don't work eith MSFT technologies make them suck to me. Yes FF has found some measure of sucess...but it dosn't matter to me at all personally. I don't use IE bec I like it, I use it bec it works. As you said most people may not change..why should they? There are people who will drive a Chrysler until they totally go out of business. They don't make the best cars or the worse eother. Some people liek to stand by what they like wven if it has flaws. Yes IE has flaws..so do the rest.

That lsit on MSFT site is how they see it....you can choose to agree or not. However what they say is factual...you can't change a fact. Like this one:
"many of the customizations you'd want to download for Firefox are already a part of Internet Explorer 8 ? right out of the box"? That is not a fact. It is a presumption. How can that be a presump[tion when they are talking about their own product? If you have to download a plugin to have a feature and I don't that would ean mine is included an yours is not...they said many. Yes they don't say which...do they need too? if you need that much detail there are 3rd parties that will tell you and even they still say IE is safer. In a corporate world it is safer bec IT can prevent users from being about to do many things using policies...no other browser offers this..PERIOD. I have never caught a virus at y workplace. Where I work now we have had 2 bec we don't use policies to control the users ecperience at the desktop. I have tried to incourage the usage of it...but they ahve not. The exploint we caught happened in Firefox first and then we had an IE user who did it later. So in this case which oe was safer? NEITHER!. A browser is only as safe as its users, or the policies that have been set up.

Also you said you can't ever find page where you see things missing? How ould u know? Do you load every single page in 2 browsers? No all missing content require active x, but they may require some type of 3rd party plugin...hoever IE works with more things natively. If I have to always install a plugin...I personally just do without.

Don't like IE...simply don't use it. I personally am forced to use other broswers and since I don't have a favorite I can see the good and bad in all of them equally.
You all see it as sonething different. IE had been around years and these new guys you think are better? How can they be? The work has already been done..all they have to do is copy and present it differently. Its not better bec they do it diifferent. I see it as just different and if MSFT doesn't want to complay then so be it...they aren't compliant either. Since they dont work with MSFT stuff which is an existing technology I see them as you see IE.

THEY ARE ALL PROPRIETORY SOFTWARES AND THEY ARE ALL NON-COMPLIANT.

@YankeeDDL...of course you agree bec he basically parrotted your words...lol

[yankeeDDL]

@YankeeDDL...of course you agree bec he basically parrotted your words...lol


It's more that he caught all the reasons behind the comments and expanded on them nicely.
For example, a "decent" browser must meet established standards, but a great browser, promotes innovation, pushes for the new standards, new applications. Like Google did, pushing applications like online office (Google Docs) to a whole new level.

MSFT does not state facts: it twists the reality an interprets questions in a devious way only to hide the deficiencies of its browser. It calls a browser "faster" because it lets you do the same function with less clicks. As if changing the home page with 1 less click is something that will make your daily experience any better. As opposed to look at the truth, which is executing Java code over ~5X to ~10X slower than other browsers http://cybernetnews....e-safari-opera/

Same goes with the add-ons being "included" in IE8. The whole point of add-ons is that you can run only the ones you need and like. You have several add-ons that do the same thing but in different way, so you can pick the one that fits best your taste/needs. Having it embedded in the browser is not a good thing, is a bad thing. That's also why IE8 installation file is more than 2X FireFox's. Personally, I would like to see noScript embedded in FireFox but several users don't like noScript, so why "providing it" for everybody is that's not needed, or liked, by everybody?

And why in th eworld would browsers like Firefox, Google and Opera have to support MS formats like ActiveX, which are proprietary, when you can do the exact same things with standard technologies? Sure, maybe ActiveX allows some extra tricks, but at what price? ActiveX, like any code that allows running apps on your computer is bound to have security holes. And I laredy mentioned that the fact that people can crack a software in few seconds during sows like PWN2OWN is misleading info, at best: just read the interview of the winner of PWN2OWN and see how he had to spend weeks trying to crack FireFox. Same goes for IE or any other software: if it's fully patched, discovering new holes takes an awful long time.And it's a good thing. But that says nothing about the security of the browser.

And finally, stating that FireFox does not display correctly a website that uses ActiveX is not really a good argument: a website that uses MS proprietary software is obviously targeted for IE users only. Any decent website would stay clear of proprietary code and try to be as compatible and cross-platform as possible. The only websites that I'm aware of that require IE are the "Free online virus scan" like McAfee, Norton or others: ActiveX is more "forgiving" than Java and gives more control of the PC, which is needed to do a file scan. And it's also why ActiveX is "natively" more dangerous since it's designed to give more control, any bug will give more power to the viruses.

[TechieXP]

"Same goes with the add-ons being "included" in IE8. The whole point of add-ons is that you can run only the ones you need and like. You have several add-ons that do the same thing but in different way, so you can pick the one that fits best your taste/needs. Having it embedded in the browser is not a good thing, is a bad thing. That's also why IE8 installation file is more than 2X FireFox's. Personally, I would like to see noScript embedded in FireFox but several users don't like noScript, so why "providing it" for everybody is that's not needed, or liked, by everybody?"

When it comes to being safe online, a person opinion is not important. If we all had to go by how many feel about software, no one would ever be safe. No Script should be builtin...I am not against plugins...what I hated mostly about them in the past was the needing to download them on slow connections. Now that speed isn't and issue time is. I don't like hunting down plugins...if I need one that is required to view content...I want something to alerts me and then either link me to the direct download or use Active X. I have never had a problem with Active X controls...but I also only visit trusted sites that use it. No matter what software I need, I download it directly from the developer.

"And why in th eworld would browsers like Firefox, Google and Opera have to support MS formats like ActiveX, which are proprietary, when you can do the exact same things with standard technologies? Sure, maybe ActiveX allows some extra tricks, but at what price? ActiveX, like any code that allows running apps on your computer is bound to have security holes. And I laredy mentioned that the fact that people can crack a software in few seconds during sows like PWN2OWN is misleading info, at best: just read the interview of the winner of PWN2OWN and see how he had to spend weeks trying to crack FireFox. Same goes for IE or any other software: if it's fully patched, discovering new holes takes an awful long time.And it's a good thing. But that says nothing about the security of the browser."

Every one has their own formts...ther eis nothing wrong in supporting others...that is one reason Windows is so dominiate. Yes it has its own formats and it supports others. Remember how people compalined when WMP didn't support ripping files to MP3? It sucked to have to install 3rd party codecs for a format that is used often. When a technology is commonplace like PDF, DOC, XLS, WMV, MOV or whatever there should be support fro EVERYONE and then also ontroduce their own thing. In the case like Real, their formats sucked. So if their format sucks and it doesn't use alternatives...then what? Its broke. Not all proprietory formats are good and certainly not all of MSFT's are...however I find I have less issues using them. Active X is a great security deterent when use properly. It sucks that we live in the world where abusing things is more widely accepted over what is best for everyone. Other broswer can incorporate Active X. Just like MSFt could easily incorporate Acid3. Which means your statement can be used across the board.

I won't say a browser that doesn't use Active X is bad. For me its unsafe. It dosn't have to be Active X, it could be anything similar. Active X gets a bad wrap bec ppl just say OK to everything without reading. That's not MSFT fault. When used properly it work =s find...the only way you can be exploited is to be stupid. People don't read. if you get something you don't understand simply Google it. Most people rather google teh life of a porn start than to google helpful info. I have never been explointed from an Active X control..and I never will be. For one I only use sites that are the main company websites and used trusted technologies whether they be from MSFT or not. However, MSFT technologies is what helped made the web what it is today good or bad and I feel at the very least browser should support todays technology as well as new stuff with it. To pass over existing stuff and not support it just to promote your own is no better than what many complain MSFT does.

Hackers are dedicated into exploiting MSFt software. MSFT has to work much arder at being safer. I am not going to feel sme new kid has teh totally worry-free answer and they just cam out. MSFT has been doing this for years. I am not saying a new company can't provide new tools to help make it better. However MSFT has proven skills. A brand new compnay proves.......stilling thinking.......

The fact they get exploited just as quick or quicker does prove something...just depends if you want to be biased for it or against it. IE has inter-office benefits where none of them can compete. Since you can't trust people to make good decisions...IE has a backup...Policies. It can create rules that are sent to users pc's without there knowledge that will force IE to stay on track. It is seldom that users of IE get hacked. You can't do that with any other browser. That is a security risk. If those other browsers were more secure than IE businesses would be using them. The problem is control. They don't offer enterprise control...IE does..thus making it more secure at work. Whatever you do at home thats up to us. If it works at work I use it at home. And I too have Windows Server and I use the policies to help secure my ow usage. to this day I can say IE has worked fine for me. I have every browser installed bec I do web design. I get to see what others don't. I know where they have flaws and don't.

I don't care about browser speed an never really have. Pages that have just text all load fast for me...pages with lots of media take longer. In my experience they all are fast an slow depending on what you are viewing and where it is coming from. However even if IE takes 3 secs longer I don't really care.

As far as Java, not a programmer on that level. But I do remember this. Back when MSFt was developing java...everything worked fine and it was fast. After the lawsuit with Sun and Sun won it sucked after that.

When it comes to being safe MSFT answers the call a bit faster and they have too. I'll take my chances suing a leader vs a follower in this regard :-).

[Evildave]

1. FireFox isn't from Microsoft. BIG WIN over IE.

2. Privacy: FireFox can nuke EVERYTHING (except your shortcuts) every time you quit (close the last window). I like this mode. You don't have to 'remember' to set it. It stays that way and takes care of its self. I don't want the damned browser to 'remember' passwords and form entries that may be private.

3. FlashBlock: (A PLUGIN) Excellent tool that makes FLASH animations, advertisements, other useless, annoying crap GONE. Unless I press a little 'play' icon. Has an exception list for the few sites it 'breaks'.

4. Adblock: (A PLUGIN) Excellent tool that gets rid of the other annoying animations/ads and spying garbage. Has an exception list for the few sites it breaks, too.

* Neither FlashBlock nor AdBlock are things that Micro$uck would EVER include in their browser. Why? Because THEY BLOCK MICRO$UCK'S CRAP, TOO.

5. NO ACTIVEX! This is absolutely, bottom line the worst security threat, EVER! M$ IE has it. M$ IE can KEEP it. DO NOT use IE until they finally remove ActiveX from it completely, forever.

forums.pcworld.com/message/238392#238392
[http://forums.pcworld.com/thread/60721]

1. Safari isn't from Microsoft. BIG WIN over IE.

2. Privacy. Not as good as Mozilla. Probably about the same as IE. Fixable with an 'onlogout' script that nukes all of the plain text files that Safari stores things in.

3. Adblock: (A PLUGIN) Uses Mozilla's Adblock database. Works about the same. No Micro$uck version for M$ users. Too bad.

4. No ActiveX!

5. In PCWorld forums, I don't get the (broken) WYSIWYDG editor. YAY!