How do you know that IE7 is "a more secure version of the browser"? Won't it's success or failure over time determine that?

Five years late and we get a flawed IE7 browser which is in every possible way inferior to the Firefox browser? Normally that would be comedy of an unnatural sort coming from a company like Microsoft - yet sadly true.

Mazehero55 -
How do I change my organization over to Linux?

Microsoft Get load of stick put there way, for minor things, that they sort in the end. My views are that we are all running windows here that is microsoft based, so give them some credit for a change.....

Keep going Microsoft. IE7 is superb

Keep this in mind, when microsoft do it... it is always the the better option in the long run.

Well I guess that means I shouldn't update!

:) lol

I'm very happy with my system at present- Gentoo 2.6 Kernel with Mozilla 1.7. But is it dangerous to continue with this? If I upgrade, which would be a better path: Firefox or IE7? If I go with IE7 how would that system validation thing work? I've never had any experience with that feature. Don.

Use this tool to block automatic downloading of IE 7 thru Windows' updates -http://tinyurl.com/y2vqgk

We can live without IE for good.

LOL Just get Linux! then none of this would be a problem. No syware or viruses. That's the way I like it.
Just about anything Microsoft has security flaws. With Linux it's virtually imposible for viruses to hurt a system. It just takes time to get used to Linux though. LOL

Flexibility in add-ons using is most important feature of Firefox which isn't fully supported by IE7 and any Microsoft products.So I would imagine Firefox would be better than IE7.

switched my main core to mac OSX and linux distros a few years back and have made more progress in just that time then years of battling problems, still have a couple of windows machines around but only for software i cannnot emulate.

What a joke!!! Firefox 2.o will be release and it will whip IE7 think that MS will have to re do IE8 in the next five years.

Jumping to conclusions can land one in the soup. The vulnerability exists, but within Outlook Express; Internet Explorer is merely the vector for exploitation. The comments lead me to conclude that a gang of Microsoft-haters is enjoying a little Schadenfreude.

"What a joke!!! Firefox 2.o will be release (sic) and it will whip IE7"

No, it won't. All you FireFox FANBOYS can just suck my kneecaps, as IE7 does indeed rule. Firefox, Macs, AMD... y'all blow. It's a Wintel world, live it.

"It just takes time to get used to Linux though.."

Isn't that the truth...

I have been forcing myself to *slowly* integrate nix OS's into everyday life. The three distro's that I like thus far is: Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Xubuntu.

Once the base system is where I like it email/browser, etc.. then I install VMware workstation and virtualize a stripped down version of Win2003 Server and install all my windows programs, that way if I hand a laptop to someone there is little chance that it will be hosed 6-months from now.

Another recurring problem is user education and fighting phishing/spam emails, but thats a whole other topic.

Thanks for the IE7 blocker link, I was concerned about that being installed on our LAN as I already removed IE6.

D.

The richest man in the world...the biggest software company and they're 5 years (more like 20, doan ya think?) late and its still buggy. As Gome Pile - not our Gomer Bush said..."Surprise, Surprise! Surprise!"
Poor Al Capone; if only he cudda gotten all the alcoholics to 'accept this liquor license agreement' he cudda got away with RICO too.
Too many broken promises for far too long - hasta la vista Slick Willy II - I'm getting a Mac laptop in the spring.

I too have used both IE and various versions of the Mozilla browsers since very early on, and have felt at different times that one was better than the other.

To me Mozilla was superior until about 1999 (around about the time AOL bought Netscaps), at which time the IE (4 maybe, I don't remember) rendering engine performance put it on top. Communicator was just too bulky so IE reigned supreme. Skip forward a few years and along comes Firefox (we'll say the 1.0 official release), with equal to or better rendering performance than IE6 and exponentially greater control and customization capabilities. After using Firefox IE has simply seemed outdated, clunky, and fragile.

IE7 was supposed to be the Mozilla-killa, but as far as I can see it is basically IE6 with tabs. I was hoping for more, but IE7 certainly is not crap. I will still use it for business-related purposes, intranet sites, that sort of thing. As to personal browsing, particularly online banking or purchases, for now I'm sticking with Firefox - it lets ME control my browsing experience.

I wanted to give IE7 a try out, really I did, but after installing it, it crashed while trying to load my Google News default page. It has crashed every single time since then, too. I don't bother anymore. Why should I waste time trying to fix such a critical problem? Now, if I was the richest man in the world, well, I'd have all the time and resources in the world to sort that problem out ...

I have been using Linux for about 9 years and Windows for atleast twice that. I prefer Linux for its stability. I prefer Linux today because it is easier to use. I prefer Linux. Windows is useful for now. But each day it is less and less.

It has become problematic due to the commercialization of it and its software. You can not change the entire OS and design and expect a solid product.

Windows should create KDE or Gnome like windows managers and use Linux.

I used win for many years....now I am switching to linux. I tried Ubuntu (x64) and it works fine even on my Athlon 64 notebook. I would suggest to every win user to give Ubuntu a try.
By the way, I found browsing with Firefox/Ubuntu more and more quick and easy that IE/Win. I do not care about Trojan-Virus any more!

I have been using IE7 for some weeks now. The tabbed browsing is good. There was some problem with spyware, though I don't know if it is linked to IE7. Anyway, it was removed by Norton Spyware scan in Yahoo toolbar, so IE7 is working fine now. I have AVG and Xoftspy loaded also, and they haven't been complaining much lately.

HOWEVER, I am going to switch to Linux because I think MS is trying to hold the entire world to ransom with their Vista. If many people adopt Linux, the OEMs will not shamelessly toe the line being drawn by MS to adopt Vista for future hardware and software products.

Used the Beta, no problems, now running "final" IE7 on our 4 home computers (of various vintages and mfgrs): not a bit of trouble, everything works first time (and everytime since). My younger kids (aged 10 and 12) offer that its just like IE6, but with a Firefox-style (yes, we tried it last year) tabbed browser. IE7 is no big deal, but if it turns out over time to actually be more secure, then its a winner in my book.

Well IE7 was nice on the comp so I installed it on my HP Laptop and the scanner wouldn't work anymore..only after doing a full restore and rein-stalling IE 7 again, was still not working, Uninstalled IE7 and the scanner is functioning.....again.......

Firefox 2.0- best security, reliability, easy to use.

IE7- not secure, no new functionality, basically old IE4 technology with a new paint job.

This is really sad Microsoft.

I downloaded IE7 and didn't have any install issues, other than all the crap related to Genuine Windows Validation. (Why do they care? I can understand checking for a pirated operating system, but the browser is supposedly free. I mean people ran IE6 on Macs for years).

Any way, I've had no problems and it seems just as fast as the alternates. But IE7 fails in one deal breaker way for me - it doesn't have Adblock. With firefox and the Adblock extension, ads are a non-issue. 30 minutes use of IE7 reminded me just how sheltered my life has become with Firefox and how incredibly annoying web ads still are. I looked to see if I could find a FREE Adblock alternative for IE7, but no dice.

That said, I'm happy Microsoft finally created a safer, more functional browser for those who refuse to try something else, but I can't imagine ever making it my default browser. Sorry, I just don't see the point. And as Brian said, "lots of things on Windows use IE's built in rendering engine". That integration is what scares me and it's reason enough for me to prefer a stand-alone browser.

Wasn't one of MS' arguments in the antitrust case that IE was so inegrated in the OS that it couldn't be separaed without damaging the core OS? How is it now that 5 years later a separate IE comes out as an upgraade when MS are losing browser marketshare to Firefox, OS marketshare to Linux and Mac?

And it still has a hole - whether it's just the 'vector' or not is irrelevant. This is shameful behaviour on MS' part.

I am switching away from MS permanently as of today.

As a Firefox user, I was prepared to hate IE7...

But I don't. If anything, I like IE7 a little better than Firefox 1.5.

I will take a look at Firefix 2.0, when it is available.

Here is a review of IE7 that includes mention of it's security improvements:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2033704,00.asp

I was a it worried about IE7 initially as its UI is a bit different and could impose unfamiliarity for my family. But when I downloaded, the UI does look rather cute. It is as usable as Firefox, but with a typical Microsoft style glitter.
I would recommend IE7 download and install. If it is better than Firefox? It matches Firefox1.5. Will it survive Firefox 2.0? Perhaps. But it is a lot more difficult to persuade common users to move to Firefox, as the article author has mentioned, now that the gap is closed.

But I am also quite happy with Linux Fedora and Firefox. Never missed IE and Windows and dont think I will later, either.

So this article basically says there is nothing wrong with IE7, and the Linux fanboys jump all over it. Typical.

No browser is perfect. That being said, I've got to go with Firefox for timeliness in providing fixes for newly-discovered vulnerabilities.

I think it's abhorrent that Microsoft waits until "Patch Tuesday" to issue fixes for its software unless forced by public opinion into an earlier patch release.

I'm still running Win98 on several of my machines, and experience no difficulties. ..only because I learned early on NOT to apply any fixes, browser upgrades or automated updating, ever! The fixes are sometimes worse than the vulnerabilities.

I give Microsoft credit for trying to secure it's software, it's about time. However, I think that when Vista is released, with it's baked-in SPP (Software Protection Platform, anti-piracy feature), a lot of Microsoft fans will switch to open source when their systems shut down because of "validation" issues.

I'll stick with XP on my newer machines while I'm learning to work with Linux. After that, goodbye Microsoft, permanently.

These comments are completely unusable. They are filled to the brim with what appears to be Microsoft haters. Don't you people understand that if EVERYTHING you say is so blatantly negative that NOTHING you say about Linux, or IE, or Firefox, Micosoft is relevant??

I downloaded and installed IE7 yesterday. Quick and straightforward upgrade with no problems.

What I found was a lot of pleasant surprises. Of course the window "tab" feature was anticipated and it appears to work in a slick fashion. But what I wasn't prepared for were the little things done to make surfing more enjoyable: The reassignment of various "tools" and appearance options to new layouts; the improvement and ease implicit in using the "favorites" function along with the control in adding new URLs; one can now optionally select a "Links" toolbar and can store an entire screen width high usage web locations (including collections stored in a folder); and the slickest thing I initially licked was the new way printing was handled for web contents (the "on the fly" print options and shrinking as necessary to conform to a single page are really neat. You can even get rid of the page headers and trailers in the produced page printout).

All in all I am impressed with its clean approach. Microsoft even makes it easy to select your own default search engine and to organize in a functionally presented catalog, an array of other vendor "add on" for final customization of use.

In reply to poster "TheseComments":

As one of "you people", I found your lead statement so blatantly negative that I ignored the rest of your comment as irrelevant.

I have a brand new HP Pavilion and downloaded ie7 yesterday. As soon as the download was complete and I restarted, my monitor went all greenish-red and my PC started freaking out. About an hour later when I was finally able to get back into my administrative controls, I ripped ie7 out of my machine. Now everything's great again.
I'm a Firefox guy. Have been for a few years now. But I wanted to keep my Internet Explorer option updated. Big mistake.
I won't be re-downloading ie7 anytime soon.

You people are boring,get a life use whatever friggen browse you like, who really cares.Me ill stick with Gates and Team

I've read through a lot of the media reports including the eWeek reviews of Firefox 2 and IE7. They seemed to have them stacked quite closely. Several other reviews showed the same. In some reports Firefox leads, in other IE7 gets the nod. They appear pretty close to me as well.

Firefox is a superior browser--even to IE7. www.mozilla.com - download Firefox and don't look back.

As for the folks inquiring about Linux, people who use Linux swear by it. If you want to get your feet wet with Linux, you can try the Ubuntu distribution. It comes with almost everything you'll need, including an office software suite which may not be as slick as Microsoft Office, it contains almost everything you'll need.

Instead of spending hundreds of dollars on Microsoft software per computer, you can download and install multiple copies of Linux--for FREE.

If I had a company with many employees I'd switch over to Linux in a heartbeat. That money that you'd otherwise Microsoft in licensing fees is money in your pocket!

I only use IE to go the the "windows update" website and download the latest security fixes. And that is only because that site (for some reason) does not work with Firefox.

For everything else I use Firefox. I'll likely need to eventually download IE7, but only to visit that one website once a month or so.

I love how every story about Microsoft or Windows brings out all the little Linux fanboys and Firebird cheerleaders.

Look nobody cares about your Godzilla Firebirds or your Usenix or even the Macs. Some people actually want to run useful software on their computers and share files with more than .02% of the world ok?

This is a windows story and specifically an IE story. If you don't have anything to say regarding IE7 or the security issues then kindly go back to your college dorm or your fanboy sites and leave the productive working world alone. We have work to do.

The new IE7 browser has a few new improvements, a few things microsoft believes are improvements which are not, and more added security.

No problems downloading, it has only choked one home page so far, and the only major problem is that the toolbars are not as customizable as before.

Have not downloaded the new firefox, but I will shortly. Whenever something crashes or did not load on IE6, it usually loaded with Mozilla.

When can I start using safari on a PC? Oh, that is right. Never.

I too use IE only for "patch tuesday" updates and would remove it (and Outlook) from every one of my clients' computers if it were possible to do so.

I'm also a carpenter, and I don't use broken tools; I don't have time (or much respect) for those who do - and that applies to those who use broken software tools as well. Like MS IE and Outlook.

It's been two years now since Firefox and Thunderbird got stable and easy enough for even end users themselves to install and configure; IE and Outlook don't belong on anybody's computer anymore, in my opinion, and for the life of me I can't understand why anyone without a financial interest in selling and/or supporting these two broken bits of badly-developed, poorly-implemented application software even bother to speak up on their behalf or comment as if they somehow "prefer" the risk and inconvenience they're assuming.

teknik: Either download a favourite version or order Free CDs. Ubuntu does this...

https://shipit.ubuntu.com/

... and it doesn't matter how many CDs you want. No shipping fees or COD either.

If you're not sure what distro you want, this is a good place to start...

http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major

[quote]Posted by: Glenn | October 20, 2006 08:38 PM

"What a joke!!! Firefox 2.o will be release (sic) and it will whip IE7"

No, it won't. All you FireFox FANBOYS can just suck my kneecaps, as IE7 does indeed rule. Firefox, Macs, AMD... y'all blow. It's a Wintel world, live it[/quote]

What a moron! :)

IE and Firefox has its share of security problems and vulnerabilities. IE problems are more publicized, but I see just as many "security updates" and "new browser versions" for Firefox and Mozilla. Just look at Mozilla's own webpage: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html#Firefox

In the end, just use whatever browser you want. Firefox is certainly more customizable than IE. BUT as a browser becomes more popular in the marketplace, it becomes more attractive to those wanting to find security holes they can exploit. Firefox users are discovering that sad truth and some refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Opera has become my preferred browser of choice.

I run Windows XP and SuSE Linux on a dual boot laptop. Well, has anyone tried to debug javascript code in IE lately. You have to download MSD and install that. The script debugger is antiquated and virtualy out of the ark, which makes debugging javascript a joke. Of course there is Visual Web Developer. But that will only work with IIS. There's no way I'm dumping Apache web server just to run IIS.

Firefox has the Firebug js debugger extension which is brilliant, Mozilla's Venkman is very competent as well.

Come on MS, surely you can write a decent javascript debugger for IE, to allow us web developers to write some js hacks to make IE jump through some hoops, and try to render a page properly just like other browsers do that conform to web standards!

I like this new version of IE. I'm not that fussy. It seems to be much faster than IE 6. I don't like Firefox,uses too much memory.

> Would you leave a loaded gun sitting on the table in a house with toddlers?

Unless IE7 is proven to be secure, it simply appears that you are leaving a NEWER loaded gun in the room with toddlers.

well Alex Johnson, U are a goof ball! I bet if ole Bill G. him-self said bow 2 your knees, U would in a heart beat!!! and much less 2 say what else U would you probly DOO!!!? Ya just a M$ puppy lead by a chain?

This article does nothing for the majority of people who will use IE7.0 (I believe your article to be biased due to your organizations business software - do report this simple fact someday) , those being businesses, as they have people in their organizations who know not to rely on ANY browser, ANY OS, or any AV solution for security. It does do much to make people in the know chuckle a bit though at your article. Proper computer and network security is done through proper IT management, including secure policies that are enforced. If one person in every household with a computer that is connected to the internet took a quick summary class on this, that alone would eliminate the security problems all are so worried about.
It's not the browser it's how people use them! I have IE7 installed and strongly recommend anyone with IE6 to upgrade immediately, use a hardware firewall, and to maintain their AV software meticulously, particularly those less savvy, as combined these do a much better job at security, but also to explore examples of proper security management used by businesses today. Your article at best is a novices impression of security related matters.

Rambam fights Joe Jared October 2006 Appeal
Pallorium vs. Stephen Jared - Osirusoft

"Fourth Appellate District, Division Three
925 N. Spurgeon Street Santa Ana, Ca 92701 (714) 558-6777
September 8, 2006

The following matters have been ordered on calendar, to be heard in the courtroom of this court, located at 925 N. Spurgeon Street, Santa Ana, California for the time and date so indicated. If you intend to argue any authorities not cited in your brief, you must so advise the court in writing and all other parties before oral argument.

All counsel must check in no later than 9:00 a.m. for the morning calendar and no later than 1:00 p.m. for the afternoon calendar. The calendars will be called at 9:30 a.m. for the morning and 1:30 p.m. for the afternoon.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

BEDSWORTH, O'LEARY, MOORE
G036124 Pallorium, Inc. v. Stephen Jared"

Windows is and has always been insecure, and so is their "ala VISTA baby"(give it a very short time) vaporware. So who needs ie7 just too have head aches. Their software is like a screen door, full of holes. Been with windows scense win 3.1 and all the way up too VISTA RC1, I have one thing to say is, thank goodness that I have started learning open source for the last 3 years. Now i can can really break the M.S. chain of "computer prision". has anybody really read the EULA agreement for vista, it is a joke! Go ahead and really read it.(very carefully). And it is not M.S. bashing.......hey they wrote it!

Installed and works fine. Don't understand why people are so critical of Microsoft. Jealous of Gate's wealth?

Since installing IE7.0, my computer has slowed, the 'fan' on the CPU keeps running 100% of the time now, and on this 2005 year purchased 3.0 GHz 1GB modern computer, basically has flaked it out. Putting back V6.0 immediately resolved these problems. Is this some kind of trick to incite XP users to follow a hardware/software "railroad" upgrade?

While the universe isn't going to collapse whether you use IE7 or FF (people become 'disciples' of some of the most insignifigant stuff), it seems to me that if your going to post an observation here, about either product, that you'd have something of substance to back it up.

I mean, just because someone in the news tells you that product A is more secure than product B, that isn't really a 'personal' experience that validates a comment.

I don't understand why people become 'parrots' about this stuff, simply rattling off what they've read in the news or marketing hype.

If you make a statement, give something of substance that backs it up! 'That's' a helpful comment!

Derek

"I love how every story about Microsoft or Windows brings out all the little Linux fanboys and Firebird cheerleaders."

In regular markets there is a thing called competition. Competition is good for a consumer as it drives down prices, and rewards innovation. While Microsoft is in charge there are neither of these things.

They do the bare minimum.

When "Linux fanboys and Firebird cheerleaders" pipe up as you suggest, its actually GOOD for the consumer, why? Because it brings about awareness. You dont have aids, but you know to use protection. You dont use linux, but you are aware that it has its good points and bad points, if you werent aware, you wouldnt want anything more from microsoft other then occasional fixes, and sometimes occasional suggestions.

Without innovation a market becomes stagnant. Without competition, consumers pay a premium, because they want to sell at the higest price with the lowest cost of production.

Understand?

The only gun in the house is the one that Microsoft is holding to our heads, demanding that we upgrade our operating systems every five years.

Okay too many comments here that are clearly made by people who are unaware of what the real issues are:

Tuzoner Native - IE7 is not flawed - follow the money - and u will see why certain sites report "mistruths" - this can usually be done in a few minutes - then find unbiased sites.

Don Kamp - Gentoo 2.6 Kernel with Mozilla 1.7?? you're kidding, right? What programs run properly without extensive tweaking well on that?

Sr Gen Than Shwe of Burma (burma?? are they allowed encrypted technology?)

Fred M - has a brand new HP Pavilion - actually it was designed in 2000 and they've been sitting in warehouses - it's obsolete and has a CUSTOM version of IE on it - people do your homework!

anachronitis - needs to read my earlier comments and understand its implications.

ThePenguin - his allegiance is clearly understood - most likely another hack who uses free tools as he is unemployed in his field.

Mary - check your bios to allow hardware config by OS, this should fix your issue.

slime - your chosen blog name says it all.

Attacks Have Legal Consequences - is attempting to point out that these hackers are getting sued now left and right and many are doing hard jail time. Hopefully, this will dissuade many others.

Alan - all i can say is are these Firefox fans getting any OS updates - and much more liekly are they using a pirated copy of MS Windows? I do hope they are not and suggest anyone who has not updated lately do so - Firefox is now more riddled than IE6 with security issues as MS is doing a good job of stopping them.

me - be prepared to have few usable options for software or games or drivers.

Linux is just a hiccup along the road and is basically unusable my most - the timing of the release of IE7 is tied to the releases of MS Office 12 and Vista - once all these tools are in place Linux & FF will be obsolete. It will be years until they catch up (not that I think they have yet or ever will!).

As a web developer, I can tell you that IE in all its versions is one of the worst mainstream browsers for adhering to standards and for security. If you want reliability in a browser, or even an operating system, stick to open source software.

Seems that my computer is opeating a little
slower with IE7.
Is that my wrong thinking.

It's comical reading how fired up people on here get about IE, Firefox, Microsoft this, Mac that. You take it all so personally, like you're the developers or something.

Just use what is reliable, which means: Read a variety of informed reviews, go with what works best for your needs and get on with life.

The last sentence in article disturbs me: "Final note: If you want to install IE 7, keep in mind that it requires you to validate your copy of Windows."

Is this a bad thing? Microsoft is trying to make sure that only valid users of Windows can have the latest and greatest.

If computer users were more honest, and purchase software that they use, maybe Microsoft would not have to do this.

I use (and purchased) Adobe acrobrat. Their validation is much more sensitive than Microsoft's. I have had to call Adobe at least 10 times this year because of their security techniques. If I have a USB drive connected when starting acrobat, the software thinks it has been moved to another machine and then fails vaildation becuase it has been validated too many times. Why don't you complain about them?

RE: Alex Johnson MBA

a) You don't add much to this discussion did you. I use Firefox instead of IE for very practicaly reasons. Firefox has features that currently are five years ahead of Microsoft. Indeed all Microsoft really is doing here, is just looking as what features Firefox had five years ago. (Tabbed browsing and better security) and copying them.

If you would like to talk about Microsoft security, then we can talk about vectors and Outlook and a ask "why is IE still so tightly coupled to the OS" - 10 years after a court ruling, stating that it shouldn't be.

b) I'm a 40 year old computer progammer writing very productive software that you likely have used in the past, or could use in the future. You on the other hand claim to be an MBA. So I fail to see what kind of "productive" work you do.

I teach volunatary groups and schools to make their own web pages. Having web browsers that adhere to worldwide standards does matter for groups trying to make the world a better place. It is pretty difficult making a web site that works and looks decent in IE5 (yes, still used by many poor people) and IE6. So, how does IE7 work out? Is it standard like Firefox, that is pretty much, or does it make you want to pull your hair out, like IE??

All I see here is a bunch of whining and complaining about a stupid browser that most of you would have no problems with if you stayed off of porn sites.

No Windows products or any combinations of Linux can match the performance and reliability of OpenVMS.

If you want to play, use Windows. If you want to dink, use Linux. If you want to get the job done and go home, use OpenMVS.

THANK YOU FOR A WELL ROUNDED ASSORTMENT OF
VIEWS ABOUT IMPORTANT WEB BROWSERS IN USE
TODAY. THE RANGE AND ASSORTMENT OF VIEWS
WERE VERY HELPFUL. IT IS GOOD TO KNOW WHAT
PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD ARE EXPERIENCING
AND THINKING ABOUT BROWSERS.

Well, I was following all the IE7 related postings in the internet for the last few days.
I think IE7 will bring the end of IE7!!
Many people are sceptical about tabbed browsing and the use of RSS feeders. Now IE7 pushing for those things.
Now we don`t need to explain to people about these features.
Now it is very easy to explain to people about these plus additional features available in FF2.0.
Let`s enjoy the web with firefox
Cheers

M$ does indeed make it better but it was 10 years ago when non tech people think that M$ created the computer but compare to the present, we have to admit that M$ do copy products(zune,xbox,live.com,IE) yet they do not do better with it one of the core reason i guess is that M$ has so many product that it doesnt do great on its other product except the OS and the Office. Indeed Mac and linux are great but Windows is still on the top. Regarding IE7, if your using firefox with addon or extension then IE7 is worth nothing except for its clean interface especially for web developer where you have to install its debugger and turn on the script debugging. Plus IE does ignore some of the minor attacks that can lead to bigger attacks then only then they fix these attacks. Plus who would turn their antivirus off before installing a software?!?

i downloaded ie7 with no problems whatsoever. works fine and i like it.i will also downloaad firefox 2. as of now i believe i will use ie much more than in the past.

"Linux is just a hiccup along the road and is basically unusable my most - the timing of the release of IE7 is tied to the releases of MS Office 12 and Vista - once all these tools are in place Linux & FF will be obsolete. It will be years until they catch up (not that I think they have yet or ever will!)."

Check this out:

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2005/08/23/211411/Opensourcewills
eewidespreadadoptionoverthenextfiveyears.htm

above link should be:

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2005/08/23/211411/Opensourcewillseewidespreadadoptionoverthenextfiveyears.htm

RSS was one reason that I switched to Firefox 1.5. Now, it's the reason that I find myself sticking with IE7. From Computerworld:

"Another big improvement in IE7 is its impressive RSS support. It outdoes the native RSS support built into Firefox via Live Bookmarks and also bests the Firefox Sage RSS add-on. In fact, it's a sophisticated enough tool that it might make you throw away your dedicated RSS reader."

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004205

I've never paid for windows yet but I feel I may have to pay up some day
Bummer!

As a monopolist, Microsoft has no incentive to produce a quality product. Expect to see more TV ads telling us how great Microsoft stuff is.

In response to "The Penguin", I find the following:

ComputerWeekly.Com is part of Reed Business Information which is part of the Reed Elsevier Group

http://www.reed-elsevier.com/index.cfm?articleid=64

....whose Legal Branch uses and maintains a Windows NT infrastructure and has a document on Microsoft Global Evidence Management as to how well they perceive these products and Microsoft SQL:

http://members.microsoft.com/CustomerEvidence/Search/EvidenceDetails.aspx?EvidenceID=814&LanguageID=1

(see linked .doc in above.)

"Because our search and retrieval speed went from days to hours with SQL Server 2000, our capacity increased dramatically, while our cost per transaction dropped. We're now able to accept more capacity from customers that we would have had to turn down without this solution."

Dean Marker, Windows NT Shared Services Manager, LEXIS-NEXIS

Think maybe a leading provider of legal and data services' Legal Division might know what platform to use? It's not Linux, BTW.

All I know is ctrl+w does *not* close a tab, which is downright stupid.

Please read the requirements for the following job posted on the Washington Post's website that includes a required knowledge of MS Office:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wl/jobs/JS_JobSearchDetail?jobid=21751196&jobSummaryIndex=0&agentID=

Apparently everyone at the WP does not dislike MS.

If you check the security archives you will find that security wise at least firefox is no more secure than any past version of IE. All you people promoting it should really wake up and smell the rotting code..

You want secure browsing, wrap IE in crazybrowser or maxthon or use some obscure browser. Neither of the top 2 are secure by any stretch of the imagination.

FIREFOX 2.0- best security, reliability, easy to use and safe.

OPERA 9.x- An excellent, fast, secure and safe choice.

IE7- not secure, no new functionality, basically old IE4 technology with a new paint job.

This is really sad Microsoft. As a supposed leader in technology and innovation, all you have done is sprayed some paint on your garbage. It is very disappointing and frightening for you to present us with a product that jeapordizes our privacy and security. You have had five years to get it right, but you have failed. Again, very disappointing. I simply will not use a browser that tracks me and exploits my personal and sensitive information. Better luck next time.

The thing that cracks me up are the posts telling us to "Do the math" and "Settle down".
Two words for ya..."F*** You!"
When a piece of Microsoft garbage tries to choke out my new PC I speak my mind.
So you settle the F@ck down.

It is funny that most of the people posting on here are not technical at all, most of the arguments are based on third information that is inaccurate. You should all try reading some of security reports on each browser rather the news head line that twist the facts. Symantec releases a browser report every six months or so the last one was Internet Security Threat Report Vol. 10. The last one stated that 47 reported vulnerabilities in Mozilla browsers versus the 38 reported vulnerabilities in IE. this report also state that FireFox had a better response time to vulnerabilities then IE, Firefox 1 day IE 7-9 days for a patch. As an experience systems admin and programmer I would say that they both have problems but I would have to give the edge to IE, here is why. One IE has more users that means that it is also targeted more but has less vulnerabilities then FireFox. I think the fact that as humans we are not perfect that means the code we right is not perfect, all browsers will have vulnerabilities and the more they get used the more will be found, End of story! If you use windows you have to use IE and if you are smart you will upgrade to protect yourself as much as possible. Oh one last thing I am also A certified RedHat Engineer and I can tell you that you Linux users are not safe, I have seen more Linux compromises in my work then I have windows, most are because users really don't understand the system well enough to use it properly.

Re: Alex Johnson MBA,

Who sticks "MBA" after his name unless he's insecure about something, anyway? But pointing and laughing at Mr. Johnson aside, he's made a few points which need to be addressed just in case some of the lurkers might erroneously believe them.

First of all, there is one simple reason why IE is less secure than alternative browsers and always will be: Microsoft tied IE very tightly into the Windows kernel so that they could claim it was "part of Windows" rather than just an application. Therefore, an exploit successfully targeting IE is already inside the fence. Simply put, IE is right in the guts of Windows where an attack on it can do more harm.

As for the comment "Some people actually want to run useful software on their computers and share files with more than .02% of the world ok?" ... well, I run useful software on my computers and share files with pretty much anyone in the world. I have three machines running Win98, one running XP Pro, and one running RedHat Linux. (yes, all legit Windows) Plus, my husband has one with Linspire. (Note: he's the ordinary user in the family, I'm the geek) He brings files home from the office, browses the Web, pays bills, and sends email, all of which his Linspire box handles quite nicely. He might suffer if he was a gamer, but he's not. I need to share more files with a fair bit of the world since I'm a freelance website designer, and I can assure you that Firefox and OpenOffice.org can handle anything the world has thrown at me so far. I can't imagine being as productive with IE (I feel half-crippled every time I have to use it) or MS-Office. I use IE5.5, IE6, IE7, Firefox 1.5, Opera 9, and Lynx, and occasionally Konqueror on a Linux box, when I'm testing websites, and almost exclusively Firefox when I'm getting productive work done.

My personal feeling is that Microsoft may have shot themselves in the foot with IE7's attempts at copying the best of other browsers. I've known people who wouldn't switch to Firefox or Opera because "I don't understand how those tab things work." Those people are going to be foricbly switched to a tabbed browser next Patch Tuesday ... and once they know how those tab things work, and what an RSS feed is, there is much less to stand in their way of switching to a faster, more standards-compliant, and more secure browser. MS is trying to compete against Firefox's strongest points, but they can't do that. They can't compete on innovation because they're up against a much more flexible and agile development effort, just like a hidebound giant named IBM was, once upon a time, when a little upstart named Microsoft ate its lunch. What they *can* compete on, they're more or less ignoring.

IE7 is decent, I'll grant it that. It's slow, as expected. It's not standards-compliant, as expected. But it's head and shoulders above IE6. It might actually be on a par with Firefox 1.5. But that all changes Tuesday.

The real question isn't "why use Firefox" (or Opera, or any other browser) but "why not?" Even after five years of development, there is nothing that IE can do that Firefox can't do. (yes, you can even get a Fx extension that wraps ActiveX if you really want to open up that security hole) There's a lot that Firefox can do that IE can't do. The main reason for using IE as your primary browser, for 99.9% of the people out there, is that it came with the computer. That makes as much sense as keeping the lousy factory AM radio because it came with the car instead of installing the AM/FM/CD/MP3 deck that you got for free: none at all.

I found Jean's reply so disingenuous and nonfactual that I thought it best to put a proper point of view on her nonsensical comments.

Jean, please reply here and be very detailed of your personal understanding of browser integration- I always thought browsers used HTTP and HTML - is this any different in FF?? - FF cannot handle ActiveX controls properly, does not run streaming audio and video well (if at all on most sites), and is not an accepted browser on many e-stores.

Why in the world do two people need FOUR OS's??? why?? This cannot possibly be productive- it can all be done quite well with XP Pro on a modern (non-junk) computer - I assume based on your purchase on a Linspire that you're short on money - wrong career?? - and use old computers that run 100 times slower than the new ones.

More people use PC's for gaming than apparently you are aware of, many more. Few (none that I know of) are released to run on Linux.

Open Office is far, far less integrated into business systems, which are predominantly MS - anyway, why would any company want to have to train and maintain two sets of any software that has similar capabilities?? I just does not happen - the users of open source and FF are start ups and companies who cannot afford software anymore. Once they grow or get $$ they know where to gain productivity - with MS.

What in the world does one do for WORK in FF??? really, please be detailed if you reply here as I am so intrigued to learn that people do productive work using a web browser.

"I don't understand how those tab things work." Do they also know how to tie their shoes??

None will be forced to install IE7 as an update - it will be optional, I am sure at some point IE6 will no longer be supported, but surely a web designer understands the life cycle.

MS has almost 90% of the market for very fundamental reasons - it works and does so well.

What she fails to tell everyone is that none of the free options, Open Source, Linux or Firefox have product support departments that come with it.

The GUI is a much better thought than text based commands.

"IE7 is decent, I'll grant it that. It's slow, as expected " [[runs great on my Asus P4P800E down to my my Compaq 5012US, my 7 year old computer).

" It's not standards-compliant, as expected." OpenSource.Org wrote standards that were not a party to MS's patents (of course)and now wants the world to use them - few do.

Please explain why none of the major OEM's issue their machines with other browsers. Is it because they know people want IE, do not want the others and they want to sell machines that work and people want to buy and use without having to take classes?? - though they should all take one on Internet Security (read above).

In closing I hope anyone thinking of making a career in open source software understands that you may also be forced to use a Linspire, as these skills (or lack of) are not required in the overwhelming majority of business environments.

50% of the world should switch to Linux and this is where it will start getting viruses and spyware. For now only Windows is the target. I'm not switching to Linux just because I'm happing with XP and saw many Linux Kernel panics in my company. And what the Linux guy said - I blame it on Veritas...Ridiculous, you get windows blue screen and Windows is the cause, but for Linux kernel panic Veritas is to blame. So typical for Linux people - the blame is always someone else's.

Am no geek, just PC user.
Down loaded IE7, it crashed and crashed. was on phone with MS help for hrs, removed all spyware programs, disabled all antivirus, started the PC many times and spent one full wekend.
End result, it crashed and I lost some programs as well and make my life difficult.
back to IE6
My suggestion, hold on, donot jump on IE7. A bad joke from MS

wait one week and get firefox 2.0, it should be great and virus free as usual

God, I really love Mac =)

> I found Jean's reply so disingenuous and nonfactual that I thought it best to put a proper point of view on her nonsensical comments.

Nice insults, Master Guru. Sorry, I don't do flamewars with my real name, so you're not going to bait me. :)

> Jean, please reply here and be very detailed of your personal understanding of browser integration- I always thought browsers used HTTP and HTML - is this any different in FF??

Well, since you seem to need some lessons in teh intartubes, or at least you're pretending to: HTTP is the protocol used for sending hypertext -- HTML, XHTML, XML, and bloody near anything else that ends in "ML", as well as auxiliary files such as CSS and JS. The official abbreviation for Firefox is Fx, by the way. Firefox, although it doesn't quite pass Acid2 yet, is still much more standards-compliant than Internet Explorer. That's part of what's different.

But that has nothing to do with the security issues, despite your best efforts at confusing matters. The security issue is that IE is wrapped into the innards of Windows. It's the rendering engine for various Windows functions, for instance. Firefox, Opera, and other browsers run as applications. They're outside the fence. IE, as part of Windows, is inside the fence. In simple terms, it's the difference between a family member and a stranger. Who would have an easier time stealing your silver spoons?

> FF cannot handle ActiveX controls properly...

And IE cannot handle Fx extensions properly. Duh! ActiveX is an IE component, which by definition is not part of another browser. Though, for what it's worth, there is a Firefox extension which will allow you to run ActiveX controls, if for some reason you absolutely need to. Given the fact that ActiveX is one of the major vulnerabilities in IE, it's worth avoiding in any form. If you really, truly, absolutely have to do something with ActiveX, well, you can't get rid of IE anyway, so you still have it around. Just pop open an IE session in a Firefox tab. It's still IE, so it's still insecure, but it's there if you need it.

> ... does not run streaming audio and video well (if at all on most sites)...

I haven't had any problems with audio or video in any way, shape, or form, except for one of my Win98 boxes which has some kind of fits about QuickTime. No clue why, none of the others do, and it hasn't been important enough for me to troubleshoot.

> ...and is not an accepted browser on many e-stores.

MANY? I've never found ANY. Name one.

And if one of my clients told me he wanted to exclude 10-15% of his customers "just because" I'd think he'd taken leave of his senses.

> Why in the world do two people need FOUR OS's??? why??

Oh, those are just the computers in active use! :) If you really want to count ... hm, lemme think ... counting the elderly laptops awaiting service as props for wobbly couch legs, and other weird boxen, I've got at least 9 other OS's that I can think of, Microsoft and otherwise.

As for why: One of the Win98 machines is my web dev box and more or less my personal machine -- the one I use for email, web browsing, etc. It does that fine without an OS upgrade. Another is our household file server. Likewise, it does that just fine without an OS upgrade. Yet another is my laptop, which still does what I need it to do, so I'm not ready to replace it yet ... and if I do spend money on the thing, it's going to be to buy a whole new laptop, not a new OS for the old one. My Linux box is a testbed system for various things. And all the weird stuff in the previous paragraph is, basically, silt. I built my first computer in 1981, and the collection has been getting larger and stranger ever since.

> This cannot possibly be productive- it can all be done quite well with XP Pro on a modern (non-junk) computer - I assume based on your purchase on a Linspire that you're short on money - wrong career?? - and use old computers that run 100 times slower than the new ones.

No, I'm not going to rise to the bait about "wrong career", etc. My husband has a Linspire box because it does everything he needs -- hell, it does a lot more than he needs -- and why waste money on something he doesn't need? He's not doing high-end graphics work. He's not playing games. He looks at websites, gets his email, and works on files he brings home from the office (usually Word docs). Why does he need to buy a $1000 computer when a $200 computer will do the job just fine, and leave us with an extra $800 to spend on other things? As for productive ... it works for us. Of course, we're intelligent, competent people, and we have no problems switching between our various OS's as needed. (he uses XP at work, by the way)

> More people use PC's for gaming than apparently you are aware of, many more. Few (none that I know of) are released to run on Linux.

Yeah, only obscure games like Quake and Unreal Tournament, stuff like that. But that's not relevant to my husband. He's not a gamer. Sorry to burst your stereotype bubble, but I'M THE GAMER. My game box is the one running XP Pro. :)

> Open Office is far, far less integrated into business systems, which are predominantly MS - anyway, why would any company want to have to train and maintain two sets of any software that has similar capabilities??

Those who use OO don't. They just have one: OpenOffice.

> I just does not happen - the users of open source and FF are start ups and companies who cannot afford software anymore. Once they grow or get $$ they know where to gain productivity - with MS.

You mean obscure companies like Novell?

> What in the world does one do for WORK in FF??? really, please be detailed if you reply here as I am so intrigued to learn that people do productive work using a web browser.

I'm a website developer. Now do you see the connection?

> "I don't understand how those tab things work." Do they also know how to tie their shoes??

Apparently, though I suppose velcro might be an option for some of them. There is no understanding end-user stupidity.

> None will be forced to install IE7 as an update - it will be optional, I am sure at some point IE6 will no longer be supported, but surely a web designer understands the life cycle.

As I understand it, MS will be pushing IE7 with the regular patches. I hope so ... I truly hope so ... the sooner we can get IE 6- off the Web, the easier my job will be. There is a special place in hell for the incompetent coder somewhere in the black pits of Redmond who gave us the box model bug.

> MS has almost 90% of the market for very fundamental reasons - it works and does so well.

You mean IE? It has almost 90% of the market for ONE reason: It's included with over 90% of the desktop computers sold.

> What she fails to tell everyone is that none of the free options, Open Source, Linux or Firefox have product support departments that come with it.

Firefox has massive user support. If I have a question about Firefox, I can get an answer to it much faster via the Mozilla forums or IRC than I can with a comparable question about IE anywhere that I've tried. Not that you need a whole lot of support for a freaking browser, y'know?

Sure, Microsoft provides support ... at $2.95 a minute, last time I looked. $180 an hour for some mouth-breather to read the manual to me? I could hire a consultant to come here and literally hold my hand for half that!

If you're using Linux, you get your support through the vendor like any other OS. You can decide how much you want to buy. Download it free and go to the forums for support ... buy an enterprise support contract ... or anything in between. Whatever suits your needs.

> The GUI is a much better thought than text based commands.

Um, what does that have to do with anything we're discussing? *totally boggled look*

> " It's not standards-compliant, as expected." OpenSource.Org wrote standards that were not a party to MS's patents (of course)and now wants the world to use them - few do.

OpenSource.Org??? Where are you inventing this from? Now I KNOW you're talking out your, um, something the WP would disapprove of me saying here. Or smoking something the DEA would disapprove of. Opensource.org has nothing to do with Web standards. They're the Open Source Initiative, promoting OSS, but that doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. Which you either knew and are trying to muddy the waters, or you didn't know and you're now looking like a fool.

The standards in question are, of course, set by the W3C -- the World Wide Web Consortium. The organization that determines just what the Web is, what should be in HTML, etc. An organization which, I should point out, Microsoft is a member of. Patents have nothing to do with it. Open source has nothing to do with it.

For those people legitimately wondering what I'm talking about, I'll give you an example. One part of one W3C standard is that if you apply padding to an element -- a paragraph, for instance -- the padding is added to the outside of that element. A paragraph set to be 100 pixels wide with 10 pixels of padding will take up 120 pixels: 100 for the paragraph, 10 on each side for the padding. Except in some versions of IE, where apparently some Microsoft programmer put a - where he should have put a + and the padding gets put inside the element instead. So that paragraph is only 80 pixels wide, plus 10 on each side for padding. This is the sort of thing that drives us website designers up the wall.

That's why I would like to see every version of IE 6 and below disappear from the face of the Earth: they fixed a lot of those bugs in IE 7. It's still not as good as any other modern browser in that respect, but every other IE is much worse.

> Please explain why none of the major OEM's issue their machines with other browsers.

Quite simple: Their vendor contracts with Microsoft prohibit them from including other browsers, media players, and so on. (note the current antitrust litigation in Europe over the media player issue) It's real simple: "If you want to buy Windows from us wholesale, then you configure it the way we say." I wish I was making that up; it was brought out in the DoJ vs. MS case.

> Is it because they know people want IE, do not want the others and they want to sell machines that work and people want to buy and use without having to take classes?? - though they should all take one on Internet Security (read above).

Nope. In what strange world would someone have to take classes to use Firefox instead of IE? You could sneak into Joe User's office, install Fx, slap an IE-looking skin on it, change the desktop icon and the name, and Joe would probably never know the difference. As for "machines that work" ... what makes you think that Firefox or OO, or Linux, for that matter, DOESN'T work? I've seen more XP crashes than Linspire crashes.

> In closing I hope anyone thinking of making a career in open source software understands that you may also be forced to use a Linspire, as these skills (or lack of) are not required in the overwhelming majority of business environments.

Now that makes no sense at all ... not even your kind of sense. I understand you're trying to throw FUD around in some way, but I can't figure out what it's supposed to be. "...forced to use a Linspire...?" Huh??

Are you trying to say that someone can only learn to use one word processor in their entire lifetime, and if they use OO Writer, they can never use Word, or the other way around? (and if so, what do they do on the next release of Word when MS rearranges all the menus again?) And the same holds true for Firefox and IE, so somehow people who have clicked on links in Fx can never click a link in IE or something? If you actually have a point here, please, explain it, because I can't find it in there anywhere.

This convicted monopolist charged me for their xp through their deals with Dell. Though I never use windows and never wanted to pay for it, there were very few options to get a laptop without paying for the preloaded xp. It is amazing how in this world of consumer freedom a company can effectively tax the computer users, even those who don't want their products. Just hoping for better justice in the os market. In the meanwhile I am very happy with the ubuntu.

Final Reply to Jean,

Basically, what you're saying is that the issues you raised are very technical in nature, and have very little overall effect on who will or will not use a browser anyway, that almost everyone has or will use IE anyway, that if web developers all played well together there would be many less bad web pages, that you do not deny that you bought an XP machine to run mainstream applications, and everyone should update to IE7.

Thank you bolstering my previous comments. Of course, I stand by all my previous comments.

BTW, will IE7 be "integrated" into Vista?

For those of you who think that you are safe using Linux or it's derivatives:

http://download2.rapid7.com/r7-0025/
and was posted on 10-06-2006.

Shows a Buffer Overflow mechansim related to Nvidia Drivers in Linux or Linux-like systems.

I really wish people would do their homework.

Downloaded it, and now it loads (at least every other time, as my preferred e-mail, Outlook express. It leaves the Fire Fox alone, but then I load thunderbird from the start menu, select to make it my preferred, and low, next time I open the menu there is Outlook/IE as the selected e-mail Am no techie, don't claim to be, just a normal user, but this is more than annoying. Did not happen this way until I updated with IE7

argthh.

Yes, IE7 is going to be incorporated into Vista.

I have used all beta versions of IE7 and love it. Downloaded and installed it last week with no problems (yes, I did turn off the anti-spyware before doing so).

I found that some of the financial sites (online banking, and some mutual fund companies) do not allow you access if you are using Firefox, so I'm sticking with IE7.

Basically what YOU'RE saying is that you just got owned. But you don't need to say that; the readers can figure it out for themselves.

Little clues give it away. For example, your complete lack of comprehension of Web standards, who sets them and why, and what the W3C is. You invented something strange about patents out of whole cloth, with no connection to reality, and when I pointed that out, you totally ignored what I said. That's a tactic that might work on Slashdot, but not here. If you, as you say, stand by all your previous comments, then stand by that one. Give us some reason to believe that the OSI, an organization that came into existence after the CSS2 standard was announced, nonetheless somehow went back in time and created it. I can assure you, that would come as quite a surprise to both the OSI and the W3C.

For those who are curious, a list of the members of the W3C can be found here: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List -- note the presence of companies from Adobe to Yahoo (sadly, no Z's) and the absence of the OSI.

Technical? You asked for a technical response; I gave you one. So of course it was technical. My original post was the less technical version. Apparently you didn't understand any of it. Most of what you said in your "final reply" either misrepresents what I said, totally contradicts what I said, or makes no sense at all. I noticed, except for a mention of a single Linux vulnerability which you (alone) thought related somehow, you were unable to refute anything I said.

Speaking of which, the article you linked states that the problem with the NVIDIA driver in question is limited to the proprietary version of that driver. Quote: "The open-source driver is not vulnerable." So if you were intending that to be some sort of indictment of open source (though why, I'm not sure; we're discussing the relative merits of a new browser version versus several of its competitors here, not open source versus proprietary software) you just failed. Note: it helps to read the article you're linking, because the rest of us are going to ... linking an article for support that proves you wrong can be kind of embarassing, as I'm sure you're noticing right now. :)

No, I didn't say that "if Web developers all played well together there would be many less bad Web pages" or anything like it. What I said, for those just joining us, is that if Microsoft would fix their bugs and get up to date on Web standards (CSS 2, which they still haven't caught up with, has been around since before IE5) my job as a website developer would be a whole lot easier. Which was and is true. There will still be plenty of bad Web pages out there, but at least they'll be equally bad in all browsers.

Another comment to stand by: You said Firefox "...is not an accepted browser on many e-stores." I notice that you seem to be unable to present even a single example, as I requested, let alone the MANY you claimed. Another case where you got totally owned and you're hoping people didn't notice.

You declared yourself the winner despite being proven wrong point by point: On the reason for the vulnerability of Internet Explorer, on streaming audio/video, on browser compatibility with ecommerce, on games for Linux, on companies that use open source software, on why someone would need a Web browser for their work, on the IE7 update process, on the reasons for IE's market penetration, on tech support for Firefox, Linux, OpenOffice, etc., on what Web standards are and how they are created, and practically everything else. Not much of a win there, I'd say. And you still haven't clued us in to what you meant by "The GUI is a much better thought than text based commands."

But, yes, everyone with WinXP should update to IE7. Please. (Then use Firefox!) :)

P.S. I bought an XP machine to play games. If that counts as "running mainstream applications" then so be it. Nearly all the serious work gets done on one of the Win98 boxes.

"I found that some of the financial sites (online banking, and some mutual fund companies) do not allow you access if you are using Firefox, so I'm sticking with IE7."

pp, could you please give me an example? I'd like to check this out for myself, and see what it is that they're doing, or not doing.

Also, even if there are a few sites which aren't up to speed on browser compatibility yet (though fewer all the time) that's not a good reason to use IE for everything else. If you have a totally trusted site (your bank, let's say) then just add IEtab, or one of the related extensions, to Firefox and set that site to always use IE, and that will take care of the problem. You can still have the safety and advantags of Fx everywhere else.

Just because I have to give my car keys to the valet parking attendant doesn't mean I'm going to hand them over to any random person who wanders by.

I'm just a regular-joe smo type PC user. I often try to read tech sites in order to educate myself on tech matters. I have to say that this discussion has not been particularly informative.

I think one of the main divides between those of you who are "techies" and those of us who are not, is that you folks have lost(or never have had), the ability to understand how most folks conceive of and use their PC's and laptops!

I hate to say it, but most of us non-techies are tech-dumb. Things needs to be dumbed-down and said in plain everyday venacular. I wish folks would devote more time to understanding how hardware and software works, but they don't and won't take the time.

Americans like to plug it in and click "On" and that's about it. More and more folks know they need antivirus and spyware protection, but don't know how it works or can configure the programs.

Let's face it, the vast majority of users just want the ability to email, chat, dopwnload stuff and not much else.

Yes shame of them, but that's the reality. Unfortunately, those with bad intentions understand and exploit this, those of you with good(or indifferent) intentions, including most tech companies haven't seem to grasp this fact.

The bottom line is that the main vulnerabilty are the users more than the particular OS or software. Those of you who advocate for better net experiences have to find a way to communicate more effectively to the masses if things are going to change.
People use IE and Windows because it comes with their PC's and presents(in their mind) the less hassle. I mean if I wanted to switch to Linux, I have to do more than just order a free or cheap CD, I have to read over material that makes no sense to me.It needs to be as close to put-the-CD-in and just sit back as it can be for true competition to take place.

Well, I have been proven wrong .. the two sites that I had been having trouble with, Chevy Chase Bank and BB&T Bank, now both accept Firefox ... but I still prefer the IE7 .. sorry about that.

Jean:
Sorry but I'm totally unclear on your rantlike responses - please actually read mine and not "interpret" them as you see fit. I hoped my summary would be beneficial to other readers, not just you. Everyone does not think like you and I am now not the only one to point that out. I stand by all my comments, they were made in the order to yours, so some simple deduction may point you in the right direction on any that are confusing you. You have made a pluthera of assumptions in this dialogue and should not. Happy Browsing. BTW, take a breathe and imagine an angry individual creating websites.......

- quote -
Final Reply to Jean,
...
Posted by: Master Guru | October 23, 2006 05:30 AM
- endquote -

Followed, on October 23, 2006 02:49 PM, by yet another reply. Hm, your definition of "final" seems to be as flexible as your memory and your grasp on the facts.

Unfortunately, your post-final reply doesn't make any more sense than the previous ones. Just another pile of snide insults, misdirection, and "I won! I won!" without ever actually addressing any of the points I made. Of course, that's because most of them CAN'T be addressed, at least not by Master Guru.

> Sorry but I'm totally unclear on your rantlike responses - please actually read mine and not "interpret" them as you see fit.

I'm responding to what you wrote. If there's some magic way to understand what you really mean other than reading the words on the page, you'll have to explain it to me, because it's not one I'm familiar with. For example, you stated that Firefox "...does not run streaming audio and video well (if at all on most sites)" but have provided no examples of sites where this is the case. You also stated that Firefox "...is not an accepted browser on many e-stores" but, again, have refused to provide any examples. Is there something there that I'm not understanding? What other way is there to interpret "Firefox ... is not an accepted browser on many e-stores"? What is hard to understand about "Name one"? Why haven't you named one?

Let's look at one example here in depth:

You, Master Guru, said, with regard to IE's compliance (or lack thereof) with Web standards, "OpenSource.Org wrote standards that were not a party to MS's patents (of course)and now wants the world to use them - few do."

Now, that is saying to me that the standards we're talking about -- the Web standards that IE is notorious for not complying with, specifically the CSS2 stylesheet standard -- were written by the Open Source Initiative, the owners of opensource.org. Is there another way to interpret that? If so, please explain. You are saying that these standards (CSS2) did not take MS's patents into account. You are saying that the OSI wants the rest of the world to follow these standards (CSS2). You are saying that few (companies? individuals?) follow them. I don't see any "interpretation" involved.

Let's look at them point by point:

--> "OpenSource.Org wrote standards..."

The Open Source Initiative (owners of opensource.org) has nothing at all to do with Web standards. Nothing.

They haven't written any Web standards. Period. They advocate open source software and hand out little emblems. While they presumably somewhere have a standard for what constitutes sufficiently 'open' software to merit one of their emblems, that has no more to do with Web standards than the requirements for Microsoft's "Made for Windows" emblems do. There is no connection whatsoever.

Web standards are set by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), an industry group which Microsoft is in fact a member of. As I pointed out, the standard that IE has the most problems with, CSS2 (Cascading Style Sheets version 2) was created before the OSI even existed.

This is _not_ a trivial fact. A supposed expert (or guru) not knowing what organization sets Web standards is showing a level of ignorance on a par with an ordinary user not knowing what company makes Windows.

--> "... that were not a party to MS's patents (of course)..."

There are no patents involved here. Not Microsoft's. Not anyone else's. We're talking about the standards for what HTML is, what CSS is, etc. Period. Standards that were set by an industry organization that, I reiterate, Microsoft is a part of.

--> "...and now wants the world to use them..."

The whole purpose of an industry-wide organization, including everyone from Microsoft down to, well, anyone who has $6k+ to pay the lowest tier membership fee, is to set standards for the whole industry. There are many organizations like this. They decide on what pitch of threads should be on propane tank fittings, how telephone calls should be routed from one carrier to another, or what qualifies as class SJ motor oil. In the case of Web-related industries, that organization is the W3C. Of course they want their members to use the standards they set. That's why they're members.

--> "... - few do."

"Few" meaning "every single company that produces browsers and browser-like software, except for Microsoft, whose software is still buggy and not compliant with an industry standard they helped to create." Um, right.

So where does the "interpretation" come in here?

What is it that I'm not understanding?

You said that a specific organization set Web standards. You were wrong.
You said that the standards involved patents. You were wrong.
You said that the standards are rejected by the industry. You were wrong.

> I stand by all my comments ...

Okay, so stand by the one I just examined. You stated three "facts" in that comment. You were verifiably wrong in all three. When you're done, go stand by the rest of them, because that is just one example. Do I really need to take apart everything else you've said and waste a lot of the Washington Post's bandwidth showing you wrong point by point in exactly the same way?

> You have made a pluthera [sic] of assumptions in this dialogue and should not.

*scratches head* Well, I initially assumed that I was discussing this topic with an expert -- a "guru" as you call yourself -- and I'll admit, that was an erroneous assumption. But would you kindly point out any other incorrect assumptions I have made?

> Happy Browsing. BTW, take a breathe [sic] and imagine an angry individual creating websites.....

Is that intended to be some sort of a threat? Or are you trying to claim that you are also a website designer? Or does it mean something that makes sense if I read it backwards?

I'm still waiting to see your response to all of the points I've brought up, case by case, where your assertions were misleading, inaccurate, or dead wrong. I'm sure the lurkers are too. *waves at lurkers* Watching you get owned is undoubtedly entertaining, but most people are really here to read about browsers, security, and IE7, so perhaps you could address some of my points instead of just tossing vague insults in my general direction and hoping Strategem VIII will work on me (Sorry, it doesn't; I've read Schopenhauer too).

Jean, you are the one who appears, to everyone I showed this to, to be the angry website creator, or did not even that point float? We love MS and are very happy (and wealthy) people. Get over it. I have no more time today as I have fun things to do. But I do still stand by all my statements.

STILL posting? You've had more "final" appearances than Barbra Streisand!

No, I never considered that you might be referring to me, because my mood has ranged between mild amusement and side-splitting laughter.

You love Microsoft? Is this an admission that your choice of browsers is based on emotion instead of rational thought? I thought it was something like that, given your inability to respond to a single factual point in any of my posts. You can make statements. You can stand by your statements. You just can't bring out a single fact to support those statements. You think being rich means you're smart? Then Paris Hilton is smarter than you are.

Sorry this is unprofessional but it has to be said: Spend some of that wealth of yours on buying a clue.

Now, is there anyone left out there who actually wants to discuss browser security?

Jean, they stopped looking after my comments, they now have all the info they need.

in reply to: thathouguy

I'm technically minded and have really enjoyed reading Jean's responses to MG, but I can also understand your point -- the "end user" just wants something that works without having to think about it (much like my own understanding of my car -- I can drive it just fine, but wouldn't know a carburator from a driveshaft...)

for the "just throw it in the drive and sit back" perspective, there is a subset of linux distributions known as "live-CD's", most notable is one called "knoppix". If you have your computer set to "boot from CD", then all you have to do is insert it in the drive and turn on the power. it admittedly takes a little longer than a windows bootup sequence, though there is a "simple" reason why (CD drives are slower than hard-disks) and a "technical" reason why (the boot sequence has to take into consideration EVERY possible hardware combination you may have; with an "installed" system, the installed version already KNOWS what is there and doesn't have to check for obscure bits of hardware here and there)

BUT, once that's out of the way, you are "running" a linux system, complete with a windows-class presentation manager [heh heh heh -- inside joke for the REALLY old techies] and usually with painless access to the internet (provided, of course, your plugged in to a DSL or cable modem, or heaven forbid, have an old-fashioned DIAL-up connection ;) ) and in most cases, all the tools (and even a few games) that you're likely to use "in a real production environemnt"

note that this runs completely "from the CD", so in general you cannot actually save files on the system you are using (essentially, you've sidestepped the existing hard drives) but that usually isn't the point behind running a "live" CD distribution -- they are more for the "test drive" aspect (or to use a technical term, "proof of concept" -- you get to see, with your very own eyes, just how easy or difficult it is to use such a system -- exactly the same as if you took a "test drive" at a car dealership to see if you "like" driving their newest car or not)

Of course, this has completely strayed from the main point: is IE7 secure enough to use for the average user, but I felt it was worth addressing.

To the Washignton Post organization:
Please review for yourselves the following link, and find for me why we all should not disregard any comments on anything Microsoft related from the Washington Post, based on your own list of previous posts, almost exclusively negative, particularly the Headlines.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/technology/special/05/index.html

Surely the WP is an unbiased website!

What is Mozilla?
It's Netscape Communicator prettied up.
verification: http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5091869.html

The coders of Mozilla related products are almost exclusively former employees of the networks that supported netscape and AOL, both dead or dying businesses, and/or people who cannot gain proper licensing terms with MS. Of course they will argue that they are no longer affiliated with AOL (I would be embarrassed too).

Dude, if you hadn't noticed, we've gotten bored with your trolling. Nobody's listening to you anymore.

After reading this blog, I've come to the understanding why Linux and good alternative browsers will never displace M$ on the desktop.

The Linux advocates continually engage in snotty ad hominem attacks on the users in the very market they wish to capture. After many years in various computing environments, I have to say it's typical of the Unix crowd in general.

I installed IE7 and at first, all was copasetic. After a while I started to have connectivity problems and started getting time-out errors. Meanwhile, Firefox was working just fine. Eventually I couldn't see anything outside my firewall. The internet settings were right. Servers on my intranet worked fine. IE7 diagnostics told me that I needed to contact my system admin, but couldn't tell me why. Firefox was still working just fine...

On the brighter side, the uninstall seemed to work OK, so I'm back to square one (apparently).

I have to say, from what I saw, the tab implementation was pretty lame. Loading pages was much slower, but maybe I'm just spoiled by Firefox (and Safari on my Macs). I was very disappointed by the poor CSS support... what the heck have they been working on?

Security issues notwithstanding, I don't see any real reason to upgrade.

Joey,

Please give your hardware info. All of us who have been using the Beta's without issue and have installed IE7 just fine are curious why your install would be so different. If you have a properly installed (and legal) instance of Windows XP SP2 with all updates, I have reason to expect you have other issues not related to any MS sofware, like, perhaps, running XP SP2 on some old hacked unix mainframe you found in a basement somewhere. Does your 2006 Fuel Injection System work on your '57 Edsel? Are your 1997 boots not worn out? Is this the one and only sofware related problem you have had on the machine in question?

One more thought, did you buy a sripped down and dirty OEM version of XP SP2 with a custom IE version? If so, now you know why not to do so in the future.

I've been using the last RC of IE7; I haven't installed the final version yet. So far I haven't had any problems with it, though I also haven't really put it through its paces, as I use IE primarily to test web pages I'm working on.

The IT department of the company my husband works for sent out an urgent memo telling employees NOT to install IE7, and saying something vague about major problems and unrecoverable system failures. I'm trying to get some more information about that, though it may be difficult. They're ... how shall I say this ... well, outsourcing their duties to the lowest bidder would be an improvement. They might be reporting a real problem, or they might just have broken something (again). I'm trying to find out which.

The CSS support is the biggest issue for me, as I'm a website designer. It's better than IE6, which is a good thing, but why is Microsoft still playing catch-up on CSS2, a standard from 1998 for the love of all that's holy, when everyone else is already supporting CSS2.1?

CSS is not rocket science. The "AOL spinoff" that our resident troll mocks so lamely can get it right. An obscure company in Norway can get it right. Someone doing strange things with JavaScript even got it right! I've been expecting, after all of these years (and all of the comments in the IE blog) that IE7 would pass Acid2, or at least come close, but they've missed the mark, badly.

I have to assume, at this point, that it's deliberate on Microsoft's part. I can't figure how it benefits them, though. If I don't want to go to the effort to use workarounds and filters to make a page look decent in IE, I just build for the lowest common denominator. IE users never get a BETTER experience; at best they get the same that everyone else does, and often they get something worse, as their browser doesn't support the standards.

Of course, some people go nuts:
http://csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/062/062.css

Two totally different layouts, depending on if you're using IE (at least 6-) or a standards-compliant browser. And here I thought I was doing well using a few simple hacks to display transparent GIFs instead of PNGs to browsers (i.e., IE) that don't handle alpha-channel transparency properly!

Obviously, I'm looking at this from a totally different perspective than the end user. Security doesn't concern me as much because I don't use IE as my primary browser; almost all the time, it's viewing my clients' sites or my own work in progress. In ease of use, well, I'm more towards the poweruser end of the spectrum. My main concern is how easy it is for me to build websites that look good, and work right, for all of my clients' users. So for me, two things matter: 1) CSS support, and 2) widespread adoption.

If MS actually does push IE7 through their usual patch system, then I have some hope of #2. I'll probably still be supporting IE6 for a while, but my feeling is that the XP users will move to IE7 very quickly, and the 98/ME/etc. users, more likely to be cheapskates and/or geeks, will probably switch to Firefox or Opera since they can't get IE7. That will leave IE6 and below orphaned much more quickly than, say, early versions of Netscape. (it's amazing the things you find in your access logs ...)

Also, while the IE7 CSS support still sucks, it doesn't suck nearly as hard as IE6 and below did. Therefore, more sites are going to be using some of those advanced features. Look at how many are dependant on Flash now -- once IE7 has an installed base equivalent to Flash plugins, you'll see the same sort of shift to reliance on it. This will, again, start pushing the IE6- users to upgrade, and if they weren't in the first wave to switch to IE7, they have some reason for not wanting it (out-of-date version of Windows, slow comp, etc.) and they'll probably end up with Firefox/Mozilla or Opera, with full CSS support. So either way, either through the MS upgrade path or through another browser, advanced CSS usage will become more widespread, and browsers without it will become marginalized.

Which, to summarize for all those people I put to sleep two paragraphs ago, means that IE6 and below will be dropping off the face of the Web much more quickly than previous versions did. This will make my job much easier, since I'll only have to support standards-compliant browsers and one not-quite-compliant browser, instead of a range from fully compliant to "CSS? What's CSS?" I will be able to do things in a site-wide stylesheet that currently need to be hard-coded into every page.

From the end-user perspective, of course, this doesn't mean much. Some websites will be a bit prettier. Some won't break when their owners try to update them. You'll get to see the pretty stuff. But from a developer's standpoint, the savings in time (hence money) and the massive increase in robustness and ease of maintenance will be enormous.

In summary, I'm not going to say that IE7 is what it should have been -- it's rather a disappointment, actually -- but it is a step forward, and that's a Good Thing.

Yawn

Being the nice guy I am, please find a link to the well published info on CSS in IE here:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/workshop/author/css/reference/attributes.asp

A google got me there (& lickidy split, with IE7, of course)

So if anyone has been confused here please rely on MDSN for all your MS IE7 CSS needs.

You don't need to tell me that IE7 still doesn't support some of the pseudo-attributes ... trust me, I know. :(

I'm thankful that they picked up :first-child, at least, and the adjacent sibling selector. I was one of the loud voices advocating for that on ie-blog. Now if only they'd add :focus, :before, and :after, and of course the content attribute, I'd be delighted.

As it is, giving me first-child and siblings will make my life a hell of a lot easier. Plus, people will start coding CSS for them, resulting in pages looking like crap on IE6 and below, which will push users to get standards-compliant browsers, or at least IE7. The sooner the old IE versions collectively slip below about 5% usage, the happier I will be.

Oh ... and I don't have to google for the attribute list on MSDN, I have it bookmarked. :)

Master Guru... you need to be enlightened about CSS standards so I provided to links which will show you how various browsers handle or don't handle various standards... they are easy to follow... also note that firefox 2.0 is not on the list because it just came out today:
http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_summary.ph