IE is far the best browser

[Leythos]

Whats your favorite elesea? (Dadget)

If you were posting a proper reply, where you quoted the name of the
poster you were replying to, we might know who you want to respond.

 

[Novice]

Well then with this being said , I think would rather
stay with IE , It works just fine for me and If i ever
need to update anything i just simply go to microsoft
update site and get my security updates or whatever is
needed , I don't see anyone else providing this type of
technology , like Firefox or Opera .... We novice user's
like this type of technology, its simple and easy ...
Now how much more do i need ? Beside if things goes to
the worse i can always use my new Norton Ghost 9.0 and
just reinstall everything , How much more simple can it
get ??

 

[Leythos]

We novice user's
like this type of technology, its simple and easy ...
Now how much more do i need ? Beside if things goes to
the worse i can always use my new Norton Ghost 9.0 and
just reinstall everything , How much more simple can it
get ??

Nothing is preventing you from using FireFox 1.0 as your primary browser
and using IE 6 on an as needed basis - that's how we run it. FireFox for
anything you trust or don't trust, and IE only for sites that are
trusted.

Even MS recommends that you don't use IE except in HIGH-SECURITY mode,
which breaks most websites completely - if they didn't sense the clients
browser as IE it would work a lot better.

Oh, and Ghost 9 is no-where near as good as 2003 or 8 was, but restoring
from an image, unless done every night, could be a complete pain in the
arse. I would hate to trust IE, since MS says not too, and then have to
restore weeks old ghost images just because of something I could have
prevented by using FireFox.

FireFox is free, simple for anyone to use, works with every website
except those coded to be ONLY IE sites, and is much safer than IE.

 

[Rick]

Haven't trued Opera, but I can say that Firefox doesn't support
_any_ pages the use/require ActiveX controls, which includes Windows
Update.

Why do you need Windows Update when you can set the OS up to do it
automatically?

Rick

 

[Novice]

I have used Firefox but I didn't like it because half the
time it wouldn't load the whole webpage and it would also
hang for a few second before it actually does load , I
even try going to their forum site for help and was given
this advise that i should type this about:config to
perform some tweak , Now when i went there all these
codes didn't make any sense to me , I'm sure it wouldn't
make any sense to other novices user too ... If this is
how Firefox compare as to where you would go to microsoft
update site , Again then i think i rather not use Firefox
and stay to something thats easy to use ....

Oh yes my other question , How would you know how good
Norton products is ??? Have you try and tested all those
3 ? , 2003 , 8 and ghost 9 ... Are you saying that Norton
previous product is better then the newer ? TIA

 

[Woody]

not even close here , firefox rules and this has to be one of the lamest
threads i've ever flagged .

 

[Guest]

So IE simple and easy to use , and faster...

IE is faster because Windows loads it into memory when your computer starts.
Which means it sits in the background using your computer's resources.
Mozilla can be set to do this, if you want.

Even with IE's new "security settings" I still use Mozilla since it's an
inherently more secure browser and you're supporting open source software,
meaning the source code is open to anyone to improve. Unlike MS which is
proprietary, meaning the code is secret, so you have to rely on MS to provide
patches and fixes. MS has finally gotten the idea with SP 2, which they
should've done years ago. Would've saved alot of headaches!

taragem72

 

[X_user]

Only thing thats lamest is your statement Woody , guys
like yourself always like to say they use other browsers,
but whenever things goes wrong they seem to always come
back to IE , so in my book Woody you are the tool of the
day , You TOOL !!! IE IS THE BEST !!!

 

[Leythos]

How would you know how good
Norton products is ??? Have you try and tested all those
3 ? , 2003 , 8 and ghost 9 ... Are you saying that Norton
previous product is better then the newer ? TIA

Yes, as a IT Professional, been doing testing, designing, programming,
etc.. since the 70's, I would have to say that I know good when I use
it.

I was using Ghost before Symantec bought it off of Binary Research and
have owned every version since they bought it. Norton Ghost 2004 is
better then version 9, come to think of it, Ghost 6 was better than 9.
They switched methods when they went to 9.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Why do you need Windows Update when you can set the OS up to do it
automatically?

Rick

Because, as I've said before, only an inexperienced, totally naive user
would even think about allowing his/her system to be updated
automatically. There are far too many variables involved to leave such
a crucial process to some mindless automated mechanism.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Leythos]

Because, as I've said before, only an inexperienced, totally naive user
would even think about allowing his/her system to be updated
automatically. There are far too many variables involved to leave such
a crucial process to some mindless automated mechanism.

And there are to many people with limited scopes of experience that
don't understand reasons for things they don't agree with.

While you do not believe that it's a good idea, and in the past I would
completely have agree with you, I have yet to see a significant problem
caused by Windows Automatic Update on modern systems. For home users and
small office users, or for those companies that don't have IT Staff,
it's the only reasonable method to ensure that they get updates in a
timely manner. It's better to get the updates in these cases and risk
some minor issue that it is to not get the updates and have a
compromised system - the later is more likely to happen in todays world.

 

[CZ]

I still use Mozilla since it's an inherently more secure browser and
taragem72:

If you are referring to Firefox what is there that is inherently more secure
about it than IE with ActiveX controls disabled?

TIA

 

[CZ]

FireFox is free, simple for anyone to use, works with every website
except those coded to be ONLY IE sites, and is much safer than IE.

Leythos:

How is FF safer than IE, if IE has ActiveX controls disabled?

TIA

 

[CZ]

With firefox I don't need ActiveX and javascripting is protected by
Leythos:

How is javascripting protected by default?

Following are defaults per my installs of FF v1.0:
Allow web sites to install software
Enable Java
Enable JavaScript

Periodically check for updates to:
Firefox
My Extensions and Themes

 

[James]

Because, as I've said before, only an inexperienced, totally naive
user would even think about allowing his/her system to be updated
automatically. There are far too many variables involved to leave such
a crucial process to some mindless automated mechanism.

This is just plain silly. It may be fine for the EXPERIENCED user to
examine each and every update and determine if it is appropriate but the
average user and the novice would have a very difficult if not
impossible time determining whether or not to allow the update or deny
it. I completely agree with Leythos that automatic updating is the way
to go for most users. And I must say that I have yet to find anyone
whose box was messed up because of applying automatic updates.

 

[Woody]

sorry , i cant stop laughing .

 

[Leythos]

How is FF safer than IE, if IE has ActiveX controls disabled?

FireFox does not have the fundamental flaws that let scripting take hold
of your computer like IE does. There is more to security of IE than the
ActiveX, much more.

If you were to look at the previous CERT reference I posted, read
through the MS articles, you would see where Microsoft provides you
everything you want to know about flaws in IE.

 

[Leythos]

sorry , i cant stop laughing .

But since you never seem to quote any part you reference, none of us can
laugh with you, we're left wondering what you are replying about.

 

[Rick]

taragem72:

If you are referring to Firefox what is there that is inherently more secure
about it than IE with ActiveX controls disabled?

TIA

It is not targeted for attack like the M$ products. ActiveX is not an
issue with respect being attacked. M$ products have a target painted on
them for hackers and virus writers.

 

[CZ]

Leythos:
of your computer like IE does. There is more to security of IE than the
ActiveX, much more.

I wonder what fundamental flaws FF has.

Here is what I do for secure browsing via IE (in Win XP SP2):
Stay current on Windows updates
Not log into my computer as an Admin gp user
Default for IE's Internet & Restricted zones: High
Default for IE's Trusted zone: Medium (not many web sites are in this zone)
IE's AutoComplete is disabled for Forms & User names/passwords on forms
On IE's Advanced tab: both Install on Demand lines: disabled
I delete all cookies and IE temp files periodically during each day of
browsing.
Use SpywareBlaster (3rd party app) which does the following:
Offers control over some ActiveX controls
Adds about 1k web sites to IE's Restricted Sites zone
Blocks some cookies
Can be used to control hosts file
Can be used to control the Flash app
Use PopUpCop (3rd party app) which offers control of: popups, scripts, Flash
movies, Java applets, ActiveX controls, meta refresh
Use ScriptSentry (3rd party app) as an interceptor for script run on the
local desktop (not embedded in web pages).

through the MS articles, you would see where Microsoft provides you
everything you want to know about flaws in IE.
(http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878)

I wonder how many have been patched?