Internet Explorer 9 Report?

[Fire cat]

No. I'd say use IE9 because Chrome has funny corners and the button is over there instead of here.

Pfft. Forget it.
I don't mind sacrificing (well, it isn't the case for me but anyways) the appearance over the features
It's the same for any software. Would you rather use the not-so-great-looking piece of software, which has tons of features, or use the good looking one, which has a fraction of the features the other one has? If so, no offense, but there's a problem right there.

Okay, I'll admit I've done this "mistake" quite a few times - but still. For example, on Mac I have two dev apps; Coda and Komodo IDE. (Komodo IDE is on Windows as well, by the way).
Coda looks great, but the features are meh.
Komodo looks meh, but it has so many features, plugins, themes that you don' t care about the looks anymore. It leaves Coda in the dust...

 

[Digerati]

Would you rather use the not-so-great-looking piece of software, which has tons of features, or use the good looking one, which has a fraction of the features the other one has? If so, no offense, but there's a problem right there.

So you feel everyone must believe like you or they are wrong! That's where the problem is.

I use the program that works for me. Not you. And IE9 works great for me - I never bashed any of the others, or the users of the others!

The facts are any of the major browsers will work just fine. Just because you don't like the corners of one, does not make it bad browser.

 

[Fire cat]

Screw it, I'm 14 and making 600$ a week.

 

[Digerati]

Screw it, I'm 14 and making 600$ a week.

Okay. Good for you.

 

[catilley1092]

Screw it, I'm 14 and making 600$ a week.

That's great, FC, really great for your age. But don't allow arrogance to ruin your future.

Just because you don't like IE9, or prefer not to use it, doesn't make it bad. I use FF 4 myself most of the time, and IE9 on sites where FF doesn't work well or not at all. It's not my default browser, but I don't bash it, just as I don't other software (that's legit). I either choose to use or not to use a particular app, and that's it.

Cat

 

[Digerati]

Interesting the timing. I just got the US CERT Vulnerability Summary for last week. Note that once again, there were no new vulnerabilities discovered for IE, and sadly, Firefox continues to get the most.

It should be noted there probably would be no Firefox or Chrome if it weren't for IE6 being such a sieve - at least not in the numbers they are. But then MS made the right commitment to put security first so they don't get blamed for the actions of the badguys anymore and they have succeeded with IE9. That does not mean the others are insecure - you still must have a real-time anti-malware solution, a client based firewall, keep your system patched and updated, and avoid risky practices - understanding the user is always the weakest link. It just means security can not be used as an excuse to use an alternative with IE9 (or IE8, if stuck with XP). IE is safe, and it is very fast. There are many add-ons available. Accelerators are cool. I can't remember it last crashing - but I remember crash recovery works. IE works.

Note I did not say it was better. I just like it better.

I like Ford trucks too. My neighbor likes his RAM.

 

[catilley1092]

I had no idea that FF had that many vulnerabilities, there were a handful that hit the roof. On the other hand, Linux was OK, some medium ones, but that was it.

You're right, security is not an issue not to use IE9. According to the report, security is an issue to look at in other browsers, notably FF. I had always assumed that the NoScript addon, along with Adblock Plus in FF would keep me safe. After reading that, I'm second guessing myself just how safe FF really is.

For about 2 months, I was using IE9 for most everything, I reverted back to FF not because there was anything wrong with IE9, but that I missed my addons, what I perceived as having control of FF, and didn't want to give them up.

After reading that report, I'm going to start using IE9 more, as of now.

Cat

 

[TrainableMan]

I believe a lot of what FireCat is saying, and the part I have to wholeheartedly agree with, is that IE is generally behind the curve in releasing versions that support the latest web tools/technologies. Browsers like FireFox and now Chrome have the newer technology first and as a programmer he is actually forced to add extra code to webpages with a less efficient or older method to properly support IE browsers which have not caught up.

That being said, a high percentage of users will continue to use IE just because that's what comes with Windows and is updated with Windows Updates (currently this is over 40%), so you will continue to have to make those programming exceptions regardless of how many other browsers are out there.

And for the other users who do utilize non-IE, they will still use what they like the look and feel of (currently 28% Firefox, 14% Google Chrome, and on down).

So IE9 may well be the best IE so far and it has hopefully caught Microsoft up to most of the current technology ... but for me I will keep using FireFox except when I run into issues where my ad/script blockers give me trouble and I want to see the site anyway. (Is it at all surprising to anyone that these tend to be Microsoft's Bing/MSN sites that usually give me issues in FireFox?)

Source: Based on Medium estimates gathered for March 2011

 

[catilley1092]

For those sites that FF 4 won't click onto, there's an IE tab that allows for sites to work in IE mode. This is very useful when using Microsoft sites, or any site that requires ActiveX controls. Such as online scanners, or having to "validate" your copy of Windows for certain downloads (like XP Mode or MSE).

And while I do agree that while IE9 is a good browser, the main thing that keeps IE afloat is that it's bundled into Windows. So is the Windows Media Player. We have optional choices for both.

And you're right about another issue, that's when a user becomes accustomed to another browser, there's that certain look & feel, that can't be duplicated by another. Every browser is unique, and so are we. We use what we want to use, for our own reasons.

While IE9 is a decent browser, far better that what it replaced, many just won't make the switch. I've been using FF since 3.5RC, and though I tried to change, it's just not as simple as that. If a browser serves one well, and the user is comfortable with what he/she has, then there's no reason to change.

EDIT: IE Tab for FF 4 has to be added on through FF's addon manager, just as other addons (like Adblock Plus & No Script) are. It was a recent addition for FF 4.

Cat

 

[TrainableMan]

Cat, thank you for the compatibility information, but just like Microsoft did with IE and XP Classic menus, FireFox has changed things more than I like, so I don't use FF 4 and likely won't any time soon.

 

[Digerati]

I had no idea that FF had that many vulnerabilities

It has been a roller coaster for FF. It started off and grew with great speed on the [false] promise you would be safe if you moved away from IE6. I say false because while true IE6 was woefully insecure, simply keeping Windows updated, running a real-time AV and firewall and avoid clicking on and opening unsolicited attachments and downloads and you and your computer were safe. 100s of million of users running default Windows with an AV proved that for years.

If your ONLY security was what the browser provided, then yes FF was far superior to IE6. But everyone needs an AV and FW, and to keep their systems current anyway - so it was false to suggest someone was unsafe or would be infected if they continued to use IE6.

But then FF's popularity grew, MS got serious and IE got secure. As predicted, badguys started focusing on FF. But I am surprised this is the first you have heard of it. FF has been trailing in this area for some time now - it was big news a couple years ago - Firefox Tops Vulnerability List - Nov 2009 and the FF fanatics/IE bashers had to shut-up when it comes to security. You can subscribe to the CERT

I believe a lot of what FireCat is saying, and the part I have to wholeheartedly agree with, is that IE is generally behind the curve in releasing versions that support the latest web tools/technologies.

Yes, there was too much time between IE8 and IE9, but so what? IE9 is here now. This is about IE9 - not past history. Give IE9 a chance. That's not 10 minutes! It takes a long time to get used to ANY major application, such as a browser when you are used to another.

Browsers like FireFox and now Chrome have the newer technology first

No. It's a trade off. They leapfrog past each other all the time. Just like AMD and Intel. One will always be first, and the rest will trail behind. And there is not just one standard. There are many and no browser is first in every one every time. You can't single out one, but not the others.

and as a programmer he is actually forced to add extra code to webpages with a less efficient or older method to properly support IE browsers which have not caught up.

No! Sorry but that's not the case anymore. Forget the past. There is absolutely no reason a programmer today needs to write to anything but the commonly accepted WC3 standards that are in place today, unless he wants to single out a specific browser. Period. Exclamation point! Writing or tweaking to older IE6 standards to support IE6 users just coddles those users who have refused to stay current. Supporting legacy products over security is what caused securing XP to be such a pain. Microsoft has learned that and made changes across the board starting with IE7, free Windows Defender then MSE, Windows Vista then 7 and now IE9.

But again, thanks to badguys, if we use networking technologies, ALL of us must be "security aware", and stay current - at lease as much as their hardware and budget will allow.

So put the blame, and responsibility where it belongs. If the user is using a browser that has not caught up, shame on the user! It is time to be a responsible networked computer user and get current. If running XP, you should be at IE8. If running Windows 7, your should be at IE9 - even you use an alternative browser by default. Failure to be at those versions is failure to keep your system updated.

So IE9 may well be the best IE so far and it has hopefully caught Microsoft up to most of the current technology ... but for me I will keep using FireFox except when I run into issues where my ad/script blockers give me trouble and I want to see the site anyway. (Is it at all surprising to anyone that these tend to be Microsoft's Bing/MSN sites that usually give me issues in FireFox?)

While you may not have intended it, and you are certainly not alone, it is clear your impression of the company, "Microsoft" affects your perception of the product, "Internet Explorer 9".

To be clear, IN NO WAY am I suggesting Microsoft has always been the perfect angel. Some of their past, including recent past, business decisions and marketing tactics left bitter tastes in my mouth too. But the fact remains, they make good software. And IE9 is worth setting aside prejudices for, and giving it honest try.

If not willing or don't have the time to give it an honest try, it is not fair to bash it based on past experiences with IE or Microsoft. It is not perfect. No browser is. Any criticism can be met with something similar in any other browser. Any glowing review can be met with a countering review. That's what happens when they are so close, it does not matter. It is a matter of personal taste. So pick your favorite flavor of browsers, they are all good. Well, most of them anyway.

 

[catilley1092]

Actually, it's not the first that I've heard of FF's vulnerabilities, but didn't realize how widespread it was.

FF is the default browser in many versions of Linux, and there's an ongoing thread that's been running since 2006 (that's right, 5 years) in regards to remote code execution threats with FF. I didn't begin to use Linux until the summer of '09, about a year later, on the forum that I used for help with Linux. I saw this topic, and w/o even realizing how long the thread had ran, or the page of it that I was on, I jumped in to FF's rescue, not realizing just how bad a threat it was.

In fact, up until that point, I had never heard of remote code execution. I was only going by my personal experience, and the many Windows users that uses FF w/no issues. The mistake that I made was in posting that this was impossible, that the No Script option keeps the user safe, and that no Windows user that I knew of had this type of attack.

In essence, with my single post, I made an assumption, and discredited over 4 years of posts on a still running thread over FF's security. Man, did I piss some people off. And yet, continued to defend my stand, until finally, one of the moderators stepped in and gave me a serious warning, at first suspending me, then after giving me some links as to what was going on, and told me to read the thread from the beginning, I began to see my wrongs.

After an apology to everyone, I was allowed back, but with a 3 month major strike against me. Meaning that during that time, the smallest offense, I was gone. Needless to say, I don't come to the rescue of web browsers any longer.

I suppose for the most part, the modern ones are all good, it depends on the user's taste, what options each offers the user, a lot of different things.

They're all good for the most part, no matter how "secure" a browser claims to be, we all must still use safe computing practices, or any of us can be burned on any given day.

That goes for all web browsers.

Cat

 

[DallasDad]

Except that is a marketing tactic to get you to go down every aisle again so maybe you will see something new and buy it too instead of just all your normal purchases.

yeah I know, makes me hate it even more! LOL