[rasmasyean]

Forget the Linux advocacy. It always comes up from your crazy fanatics that just have to incite an argument for it in any topic. FYI...Wall-Mart already gave it a chance...where people might go for "economical computers". And they dumped it because no one wanted to deal with it! Give it a rest until Ubuntu 2010 changes it all at least...

[shekharc]

Quote

Forget the Linux advocacy. It always comes up from your crazy fanatics that just have to incite an argument for it in any topic. FYI...Wall-Mart already gave it a chance...where people might go for "economical computers". And they dumped it because no one wanted to deal with it!

rasmasyean, you didn't read my last post carefully. Read it again. The monopoly plays a very big role when choosing an OS during buying a new computer (by the way, I really doubt that you understand the monopoly!). That's why I had said that users need to go beyond the FUD created by M$ and its fanboys.

To see if people really like Linux or not, at first, the illegal monopoly of the M$ has to be stopped. Then, give a completely new user to use both UBUNTU and Windows (XP?!). Then judge the result. The more intuitive and easy to use OS will win, which surely is not the Windows.

People didn't choose the expected number of UBUNTUs on the Wall-mart computers because they were fed up with the Micro$oft's propaganda that the Windows is the only real choice available to them. They were fed up with the scary FUD created by biased people like you.

That's why I said before also that people need to give the FF or Linux a real try without getting scared by the scary FUD and then, they choose what they really like. The principle of reasoning says that the UBUNTU will win! :-)


And yeah, I also read your comment about Korean users and the large Windows/IE base in the Korean Internet community. But as expected from a biased M$ fanboy, you didn't mention the proportion of virus-infected computers working as botnets in Korea. Take a look at the data, you will be amazed.

[rasmasyean]

Maybe you think they all look the same...but China is not Korea.
www.digitimes.com/news/a20090421PD201.html

And considering that US is the number 1 spam generator (where FireFox has the most popularity)...
[http://www.marshal8e6.com/TRACE/spam_statistics.asp]
Botnets have little to do with browsers.
First...get your facts straight instead of making things up.
And make sure you know what you are talking about. This is not MacWorld where most ppl don't know anything about computers.
;)

[yankeeDDL]

Wow. I log in after 10hrs and see almost 30 messages, most of them of desperate IE fans trying to defend their belowed browser. It's a lost cause, and they probably know it, that's why they send 10 messages trying to reply to every single wrongdoing of IE. A bit pitiful.

The only clever remark was referred to FFNoScript: if the add-on makes the browser safer, shouldn't it be in the browser itself? The answer is yes, and I hope FF will do so sooner rather than later. This does not change the fact that FFNoScrip is the safest way to safe the net today. Period.

There were other remarks a bit laughable: IE is "integrated in the OS, so it makes it hared to break". We're talking Windows here. Every patch Tuesday MS issues several patches to fill gaping holes in the OS, in IE, in Mediaplayer and Outlook. I would say it's exactly the opposite: the more a browser is "integrated", the more easily it has access to OS resources (Otherwise what does "integrated mean"?) and therefore the easier would be to access those resources through the browser.

Other note: if you just do banking and visit trusted sites, you'll be fine. Yes .. LOL, and please, make sure you read the list of trusted sites every time before you browse the web. Come on. Are you a user or a livoin-Firewall? Let's be serious. Does any of the IE users run web searches? They probably use Live Search so they can't find a thing anyway. If they used Google they might be directed to websites that they don't knowabout, and for which they cannot establish whether they're trusted or not. I searched for Lyrics of a known song. Went to a website which did have lyrics but guess what, IE5 was nice enough to break apart and let malware install on my machine. And I do keep my PCs up to date. That was the very last time I used IE. Never, ever had a problem since. And I do search for torrents and I di still search for lyrics.

And again: you need 128bit encryption to be safe. Bull-st. You can shop online safely with Firefox, Safari and Opera just fine. I have done online shopping since 2001 and never had a single problem. Same goes for online banking.

Again: the article was comparing baseline instllation, so without add-ons for Firefox. Says who? Where? The article is about which browser to use for the "everyday" activities.

And more: Speed is not important. I look at a page for quite some time: why do I need speed in the browser. If you have only used IE, then you're used to slowness and you don't know what you're missing. Try Firefox 3.5beta. Install Ad-block. Then zip through the web without advertisements and with pages that render in an instant. Ever follow stock quotes in Yahoo? Ever look at pages rich of Java and Javascript? Well change your browser and your life will change too.

The sweetest for last: FireFox "hides" what it cannot render. Ever heard of "Acid3 test" (http://acid3.acidtests.org/)?I get 94% with my browser (FF3.6preAlpha). This is a test that indicates how well can the browser render complex pages that MEET defined standards.That's rendering. Some websites are still designed to work on IE. IE is NOT standard so these sites have all sort of trickery to get it to work. The problem is, that because it's not standard, it does not render properly on the other browsers. Rasmasyean, what you say is an indication of how bad IE is!!! And you did not even realize that ...

Why? Why so much effort to defend a crappy product? Just because it's from Microsoft? Are you guys paid by them? Cause it really does not make sense.

I have installed Windows 7 RC on a partition yesterday to see what all the fuss was about. Clean install. Clean boot. Start IE8. www.msn.com starts loading (IE is still the only browser that comes with a pre-loaded page to artificially boost traffic on MSN website. How low is that?). I look for a stop button: don;t care to waste my bandwidth on a website I did not ask to load to begin with. Start entering another url, the browser freezes. Try to close it. Nothing. Get a message from Windows: the application is not responding: we're trying to restore it ... wait 20 seconds (hey, that's NEW technology: I'm starting a browser!) and IE restarts. Back to MSN. I let it load. Then type www.getfirefox.com. 40seconds: that's how long my experience with IE8 was and will ever be.

Oh, and did I mention that it's cross platform, so I have the same exact environment on my Windows and on my Linux PCs?

I could go on, but there's no point. Some people use IE because it's a product from Microsoft. I'm happy for them. Me, I stay clear of IE. I love add-ons. I love the embedded spell-check and the possibility to spell check in multiple languages. I love the pre-fetch plugins, the integration with music players, calendar, IM, ... I can do everything in FireFox and I can do it easily, safely and reliably, and with TraceMonkey I can even do it much faster than ever before.
FireFox is not perfect and I hope it will improve in time, but it overtakes IE by leaps so it is the browser today.

Enough said.

[yankeeDDL]

@Goodone121,

it has nothing to do with hate. After you experience crashes, you get infected, and you see how slow it is compared to other browsers, it is just a bad application. It is upsetting to see such an unfair and unrealistic comparison in this article. All it can do is lure people into thinking that FF3.5 and IE8 are actually somewhat comparable and contribute to the establishment of a non-standard, bloated, crashy browser instead of pointing you towards better alternatives. That's all.

[rasmasyean]

I don't think people "defend IE" or "bash FF" because they are "paid by Microsoft". Only people with some delusion or who can't think of anything better to say would think that. Like calling someone a "shill" just because they don't agree with you. Mostly what these people are trying to say is that there are people who use a browser to suit their purposes...and there are people who are hardcore fanatics who have delusions of grandeur.
I mean, you are pretty naïve if you think the whole world is going to comply to your supported "standards" to the dot over-night (if ever). People don't give a crap about these "causes" you think are so important as if it's like world hunger....really. And you need to get out of your basement if you think most people care about having 100 add-ons to spend their life in front of the computer. And you are too confident about your knowledge of IT if you think that enterprises all over the world can do without IE and should drop it for FF over a weekend deployment. If you are really that smart, why don't you find a breakthrough method of doing this and present it to an IEEE conference? If it's good, I'll be your advocate.

[yankeeDDL]

@rasmasyean,

delusional, fanatic, naive ... any other insult you want to throw?

I didn't say you were paid by MS. After I explained, in great details, why, I wondered how could anybody try so hard to defend IE.

I have no "delusion" about the world supporting "my" standard. Never said so. I said that because there are standards, I think people should be supportive of software that use those standards, not the ones that use proprietary formats.
I also never talked about actually using hundreds of add-on. I have less than 10 installed, and 4 are related to dictionaries for multi-language support. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of add-on but nobody would even need to use them all. It depends what you do with the browser.

I also said that if you're happy with IE, then use IE. Nothing prevents you and I'm certainly not going to be the one convincing you otherwise. I'm talking facts here: FF gives you the possibility to customisze it and increase security via add-on. If you don't need it, then don't use it, or use another browser. But if you do, then don;t look at IE because you're out of luck.

And I have never, not once talked about IT. You bring up the one single point of advantage of IE vs FF: corporate admin.I never talked about corporate either. And yes, IE had advantage in a corporate environment but it's only because of many custom tools developed on IE's custom capabilities which force you to use IE. How many of these tools are broken when MS releases a new version of IE? I do use IE in my corporate because I have to. It's inefficient (because I nee dto use 2 browsers), and it's a pain, because if one of the updates break these toolsthere's no backup. My preference would certainly go to tools based on standards, so I know they work today and they will always work and if for whatever reasons FF will stop satisfying my needs, I know I can look at many other browsers (even IE) to get the job done. Being in the opposite situation (i.e.: being forced to use one specific software) brings no advantages to the user or to corporate. Not one.

[Tappy]

A lot of people use IE probably because they are not tech savvy when it comes to the internet and because firefox is not preinstalled on computers or operating systems (other than Ubuntu) they see it and they have no clue that firefox is out there and it is a way better browser.

It's sad that microsoft took a long time to make a new version of IE to catch up with FireFox, where FireFox is already there and if not it will be SOON. I've had a couple of problems with firefox here and there such as browser crashings but oh wait, I can just restore those. For those who say firefox is slow, try uninstalling IE from your computer for starts.

[fastTurtle]

When I read that you used IE for your banking and stocks, I immediately put up a flag. The fact that you use the most insecure browser for things that should be the most secure made me question the article. Then when I read that you totally gave up Firefox for IE, that just did it. Not to mention all of the extensions that you didn't even mention or the fact that there is the IETab. Seems like maybe some more research should be don.

[fastTurtle]

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[lionroar]

Good point. I was wondering if anybody was going to catch that. I like IE8 just as much as the last guy, but I am not that stupid to trust my bank accounts to be run in it. I always use Firefox for most of my valuable accounts. It is a fairly decent article, just that this particular remark make me wonder if the author really knows about how security in Firefox is far more superior than IE or whether he think' s of Firefox as a child's play browser that is solely for the purpose of using it for pure fun and nothing more.

[lionroar]

No offense buddy, but if you do not care about standards than you are a fool. If those sites missed stuff is because the original web designers or developers were too lazy to do their work. IE came too late to the browser world and thought they were going to dominate everything by implementing their own rules. I guess they did not count on the world wide consurtium being there. IE8 will change how a page is to be display, based on complaints from developers, that previous IE browsers did not follow the rules.

If firefox is not displaying the correct output, blame the webdeveloper for being too lazy at doing his/her job. No matter what client I work for I always use firefox as my guide because I know that Firefox does not break the rules like IE does and if it works well in Firefox I do not even need to even bother seeing the final result in IE cause I know already that what the rusult would be. IE8 was under allot of pressure on following the rules, so if you are a web designer you better start reading up on your html. And this time read the entire book not just half way. Short cuts will be costly if you do not do you homework.

[TechieXP]

When netbooks first came out they all were using Linux. So since they were all netbooks with Linux you had no other choice if you wanted one. Looked what happened when WIndows XP was installed on them. They started selling more of them right away.

Linux is a geeks toy. Most users would not understand the technical nature of Linux. Even I didn't at first, I simply contiunue hacking at learning until I could do enough to get by. I have learn how to install and configure Linux to work with Asterisk/Digium products and I have been doing ok. And fro what I ahve learned, Linux isn't user friendly enough to even be considered a Windows replacement.

As far as teh browser. MSFT forcing OEM's to only offer there products...I don't see a problem with that. If they wanted out they could have simply made there own. If you owned a fste food chanin and you sold most Coke products, they are going to tell you..you can't ofer products by Pepsi. Its called a contract agreement. If you are willing to sign it because your bottom line is more important to you then your customers...then you ahve to take what goes with it.

IE as a free option back then was certainly better than Netscape. PERIOD. Since Netscape was teh only browser, there was nothing to show just how bad teh software was. Everyone clains IE doesn't follwo industry standards. Really? LAst tie I check..IE created standards. The biggest thing I hated about Netscape is when I would install it, I had to spend 2 hours making sure I idownlaoded and installed all teh plugins needed to view simpl web content. Back then...downloading files on a 14.4 or 28.8 connection was painful...even for floppy sized files. When MSFT release IE it simply work with almost everything...get teh rest took a lesser aount of time.

Even AOL chose to build its browser off IE to insure its users had a better experience. That is one reason AOL did so much better then companies like Prodigy and Compuserve. If MSFT didn't follow other standards, then why do web pages work? Yes I am aware that when webpages are built they take into consideration which browser is being used more. I agree with you a bit that since IE is already on the desktop, people may not look at other options. However, if you ahve something that already works...why look at other options? Its like being married. If you wanted to play the field...why get married. The pointis to be satisfied with what you have. When it comes to browser I think many of them break so as to get you to use them. How is FF better when you go and visit web pages it breaks? That doesn't ean IE is flawed. Whether Mozilla likes MSFT or not, most web pages are built using MSFT standards. Which means FF should follw them at eth very leats and then add new ones to show up the faults of another. I use FF a lot mostly at work. FF fails on simple stuff. CSS files are not written to work with any specific browser. It si simply code you can use to format a page to have things the way they need to be...its more straight-forward then basic html. IE loads them perfectly providing teh coding is right...yet FF and others break. They misalign stuff...drop boxes don't work correctly...the dat in the boxes is all screwed. Its a pin. I do web design and I know how much of a pain it is. PHP...is a perfect example. I build a lot of PHP sites and I use lots of Joomla templates...The pages load perfectly in IE...but I have to go and hack the CSS files to make thing work properly with other browsers. Its a pain...thank God for Dreamweaver which makes it a bit easier. But I still spend at least 4 hours trying to make a page work properly with every single browser because each developer has his own way.

That is what makes MSFT so great if they create a standard and stick with it. People who are having issues with IE* and I have had a few...the problem is how updated teh browser is for security reason and teh pages that most visit are not secure and it is simply breaking the updated browser. Once the page designers update teh coding...it will be fine...they simply ahve to catch up. and as a designer it si still a apin..however its just part of life...things have to get better and you simply have to change with them or get left behind. And since thsi is 1/2 my incoe...i have to stay on top.

Most of teh commets I read siply say FF is better because of plugins. I disagree. if the browser had everythingit is suppose to in the first place...you wouldn't need plugins. Plugines can offer some extended features which is good...but what about the features that the developer shoudl ahve included? Example...I se people say they use NO Script when browsing...IE has this already builtin...if FF was better they would at least do teh same..so you wouldn't have to need a plugin. Plugin should enhance features...not fill in gaps.

I use IE all the time not becaus ei have too...but because it simply works mosyt of teh tie. I use FF as well and the only feature I like is skinning the brwoser to have the look I want. The rest I simply don't have time for. I don't have time to go surfing for plugins to give me features that I use all the time that IE support natively without me downlaoding anything.

[TechieXP]

Nice find...good comeback...

I think back in the old days there were 2 choice of browsers...Mozilla and Mosaic. Netscape/FF choose Mozilla which is short for Mosaic Killer and MSFT chose Mosaic. So far the only thing Mozilla killed off was itself. I am aware MSFT pushed IE very hard...but fact is...if Netscape was a great browser...IE wouldn't have mattered. Just like other software that MSFT makes. MSFT makes lost of spftware...but not all of them dominate their markets. MSFT doesn't even offer that many consumer products...Its only Windows and Office...everything else is business offerings. On the consumer level they set a standard on what is good or not. Where they are bad they are simply bad and where they are good users adopt it quickly. It doesn't matter that IE was the only browser on the desktop. Everyone knew about Netscape...and many know about Chrome and Safari and Opera. They use IE many of them out of habit...others use it because it simply works and they see no reason to use anything else.

FF as its pluses and inues...so does IE. With MSFT software being the strongest in the market it is attacked more. Since SFt knows this that means they have to work 4 times as hard to be safer than anyone else. Since IE is rooted into the OS it is actually safer to use as hackers are finding it less easy to backdoor the OS. There only way in is you. It has been proven that other browsers are easier to hack then IE. They simply work harder at hacking IE because more people use it. Watch what happens if FireFox ever gets teh browser share IE has now...and we will see how well FF does.

[TechieXP]

I am curious to know why in the 22nd centruty of technology would you still be using a 19th century browser? IE5 has really old code that isn't update to be able to fight off todays technology. Just like Windows 9x would be a less safer OS to use now too.

I shop online all the time...i do my banking online all the time...i pay my bills all the time. I always make sure that the site uses high encryption...easy to know...if teh padlock is closed...it safe..no matter which browser you use. If anyone and someone claimed they had their identity stolen because they were using IE...is FUD. If someone stole there identity they gave it to them by going to a spoofed site and entering their info. That isn't a browser fault...thats his fault. I did so as well. i recived an Ebay email that turned out to be garbage and I entered mt passwordd info and logged in...guess what they took over the acciount. It was easy to fix as I reset the acciunt before they could do any hard. But guess what I loaded the page in my default browser...which was FireFox. Because here work they prefer we use it...however I opened that same link in Windows 2000 and IE6SP1 and teh page wouldn't eve work. I opened it in WIndows XP and WIndows Vista with IE7 and IE8 and bammmm teh phishing warning popup immediately. This is a feature the developer should ahve already...since FF doesn't have this...its flawed.

Another example...eher at work we got hit to times with this virus that installs a fake security suite call Microsoft Antispyware 2009. The first uer who got hit with it was using FireFox. The second user was using IE6. Our other IT guy deosn't like SFT sofwtare and sweears by Linux or open-source software. I long told her to update to IE7 but she chose not too...Now that every oneis using IE7 we have had no new problems.

I usually agree with you, but this time I certainly can't. I do agree that no one checks to see what sites are safe. Sucks for them..I do check..I am not a huge surfer anyway. When I go online is is always business only. I seldom do other stuff. My rule is...if i need to download something I get it from the source. If I go to a site and they say I need flash and I know I already have the most recent version installed I never go back. I don't visit porn sites...I have cable...if I need a fix I'll just buy a movie...not visited pirate sites. Have i downloaded torrents before? Many times I have...But when I do...i don't do it from my main WIndows install..I switch to another drive and disconnect the others. And I scan the crap ou to the files..with at least 2 different scanners. You ahve to realize when you give your information online even at trusted sites...you're still giving your info to someone...and they are people you don't know. Just because they secure your money, doesn't mean they have your best interest in view.

I trust no one accept myself...when you swipe your credit card or enter banking infomation or your identity you're at the mercy of hoping you can trust the person whom you will never meet in person. When it comes to online transactions they are all put up against teh same risks. I have yet to have had a problem...since using IE.

[rasmasyean]

bq. "Last time I check..IE created standards."
Good point. There is a side -effect that causes all this commotion. You see, one of the problems that certain people have with IE / MSFT is that they are not as "forgiving" to non-Windows environments. Most of these "consortium standards" (or whatever) has the goal of "interoperability"...which means...it has to work on Windows/Mac/Linux/Unix/yankeeDLLOS/etc. So in effect, they want to REDUCE the functionality of IE just so that their products work exactly the same way in all environments and even the playing field. But this is what I have to say to that...
I don't give a crap about how your browser works in Linux because what matters is what I use. If I have to use Windows to get some functionally...ActiveX for clients, Sharepoint whatever for my business, Office integration with blah blah blah, and I can afford all of this while you have to use some nerfed Open Source second rate software for your business...THEN I WIN. Why in the world would I (and anyone else for that matter) want to stunt my business so my competitor can be at an even playing field with me? If you can't keep up with me...go find another niche. YOU LOSE! And I will step on you and kick your face in the mud for trying to take my business. NOT help you!
As a consumer, I still don't care if you decide to use Solaris as your main desktop to "comply with X standards". But what would be annoying is if you can't do something with me because of that standard differentiation. But I rather not reduce that functionality (go backwards) and use Solaris just for you...unless you're like a really good friend, but then I would prolly just buy you a Windows laptop if you can't afford one because you spent all your money on Solaris.
Which brings to mind. Java. Sun's "cross-platform" technology. Boy does that suck. I've even developed something in Java once upon a time. One of the worst experiences of my life. It's incredibly difficult for it to use special functionality native to an OS because of its "standards" nature. So basically, if you want to take advantage of some really cool feature that's on a specific OS like Windows, you either have to go through hoops to make a "kludge" or pay for some sophisticated solution that a 3^rd^ party figured out as their core business that took like months. What a joke.

[Evildave]

Get your wording straight. Microsoft SUBVERTS standards.

And 'nerfed' open source software? Keep telling yourself that while you waste your resources on the upgrade & licensing treadwheel for premium priced garbage that's absolutely no better than free open source software. It's a guarantee MICROSOFT will be more successful when you think like that. Not that they'll make anything but crap for their moronic users who'll lay people off to afford to shell out money for any old M$ branded crapware.

[rasmasyean]

And that's where you just don't get it. You don't matter. I don't matter. What matters is the bottom line. If they need capital equipment more than they need you or me, we're history. That's what capitalism is about. Until the net costs / benefits of Open Source are less than proprietary, they won't change, regardless of your well-being. And rightly so. If you're just an extraneous gear, you are expendable. Get used to it.

[browntheodore]

The picture for this article is using the old icons for both IE and Firefox. The article is about the latest versions - why not use the icons for them in the picture?

[TechieXP]

All software have proprietory formats. Even open source ones. The only difference with open source is anyone can have access to the...but they are still someones original idea and if you make changes you have to make sure they get those changes. Open Source is a good idea accept for one problem...MONEY. Ownership is very important if you plant to use it to make money. No one is going to give very good ideas away for free. That is why Linux can't get a foot hold, because it doesn't offer everything commercial programs do. I am aware there are lots of open source software that work as good as many commercial ones...but GIMP can't replace what Photoshop does...VirtualBox however works as good as Vmware in many instances. However people want to be able to go and get what they want online from names they have become familiar with. When they go to most website to download software or buy software...the majority will be for Windows and teh rest will be for OSX...Linux is still living in the shadow of both.

FF is a perfect example of how some will have ideas that will catch on. But teh browser idea was easy. No one charges for a browser and haven't done so since teh 90's. All you have to do is come up with some cool ideas. Most ideas people come up with is offering teh idea using things the other guy doesn't offer...or offer it a different way. Like Iphone. The concepts and ideas all appear on other phones. Apple's focus was obvious design and bringing those ideas in a way that made the phone more easier to use. But as they say it is hard to have your cake and eat it too. Apple left out many features that are standard on less costlier phones...and even iphone owners complain.

I am glad we have more options. These options in browser have forced MSFT to work a bit harder to stay ahead. People always ask why are we defending MSFT. We aren't..Wahy are you all always bashing MSFT? There is nothing wrong with talking about another software flaws...but it doesn't seem anyone is saying bad things about FF...yet it has many flaws. If you don't like IE there is a simple way to solve your hate...don't use it. If you don't use it you won't have anything bad to say. If you know a site requires IE, simply don't go there...THanks to how Windows Vista and windows 7 are designed they don't require a browser to get MSFT Updates. So now you don't have to use IE at all. Some sites choose to be IE only because it is safer for them. Active X isn't that easy to exploit...because Active X eliminates making things like downloads which can be harmful automatic. Active X simply forces you confirm teh next move. If you go to a site that is full of crap and you confirm you want to download it anyway...thats your fault...not MSFT or the browser. The problem is people don't want to take responsibility foe their actions as long as they have someone they can blame. I think thet is sad. IE only has a larger market share because Netscape simply sucked and instead of competing by simply making a better platfor they chose to leave. I am aware MSFT pushed very hard to make IE the choice...but it wouldn't have been so easy to do so...if Netscape was catually good. And it wasnt. Many beg to differ..and that is fine.

All pages have code...either you make sure your browser works with it or you don't. Whether you like the standard ot not...most ppl simply won;t use you if you don't want to adopt present standards...there is nothing wrong with introducing new standards and ideas...but what about the ones that already existed.?