Yet household bank credit card services advance cash overnight debt reduction credit card consolidation cash international loan payday services business card credit find small…

Ein download free ringtones t mobile free downloadable ringtones video poker per pc gratis payday loan store in chicago video poker pc…

That argument seems to make sense initially, but it assumes that all software is of the same quality, that all development teams have the same competence, and the same development philosophy, and the same objectives. Which is simply not true.

Or, to put it in another way: Firefox has more than 10% market share now; therefore, in theory, it should have 1/10th of the security problems (not just in number, but in seriousness) IE has had during the same time, right? But that hasn’t happened.

And believe me, spammers and spyware makers would *love* to be able to install stuff on PCs through Firefox. But, so far, it’s been a door closed to them.

More on topic:

Aside from the non-compliance that is typical of Microsoft, it’s my opinion that a lot of the security problems in IE are because it’s so commonly used. They’re kind of like an easy target. But I’m sure there are a lot of problems in Firefox, just that nobody takes the time to find them. Similarly, we always assume that all these viruses etc that end up so widespread are because windows is bad, but if you were going to spend the time to make a virus, why wouldn’t you concentrate on the most widely used software? I really wonder if since Firefox is gaining more and more acceptance that we won’t start to see some specialized attacks on it? What are your guys opinions on this?

*tear*

And spyware DOES install itself - by exploiting vunlerabilities. A lot of people don’t have Automatic Updates turned on, and don’t know how updating your system is important - I’ve even seen people (not techs, of course) who, when asked “how often do you go to Windows Update”, answer “what’s that?”.

I don’t think anyone who doesn’t use Firefox is a complete idiot. I do believe, though, that anyone who uses IE, when there are so much better alternatives (for Windows, mainly Firefox or Opera) is either ignorant of reality, or absolutely stubborn (like my boss - his Windows is slower than everyone else’s here, even though the hardware is exactly the same, because he refuses to learn to use anything but IE :)).

“Securing” IE can theoretically be done, but not by a non-technical user - while installing Firefox is much, much easier.

Mine. The other guy in my office. The 3 guys in the office next door. The guys in the office next door to that. Spyware simply does not install itself. The majority of spyware on PCs I’ve encountered has been due to the owner installing some “useful little tool” and that “tool” being crap. The only other instances have been when someone has visited a lot of porn/warez sites and installed the ActiveX controls without thinking.

IE is perfectly safe apart from ActiveX. So long as people think before they click “yes” to every dialog box that pops up, then then they’ll be safe. The only real reason for using Firefox is because you personally prefer it’s user interface.

“I believe in educating users, which means that they should, eventually, choose Firefox”
I have huge problems with this comment. You seem to be suggesting that anyone who doesnt use FireFox is a complete Idiot. Educating people should simply involve explaining the alternatives available, including advantages and *disadvantages* of all the options. It shouldn’t involve forcing FireFox upon them. How would you feel if you came round to my house and I forced you to use Opera?

There are good browsers out there (I do like Opera) but in my opinion IE is included.

But nowadays I always do one thing: advise them to not use IE anymore (except for Windows Update), install Firefox on their (cleaned up) PC, and say “you’re free to use IE, but if you do so, I won’t help you with spyware and viruses again”.

Those who accept my advice never need my help again, even though they could have it. Those who are stubborn, well, they usually end up asking other people, who tell them that the only thing to do is to format and reinstall Windows and/or charge money…

I suggest this test: pick ANYONE who uses only IE, then run Ad-Aware on their PC. I’ll even be generous: don’t count tracking cookies, bookmarks, or “deinstallable” (through “add/remove programs”) adware, but only “true” spyware. And tell me if you can find anyone whose PC is clean.

did IE shoot your dog or something..?

i use firefox and i don’t like IE but what you just wrote simply isn’t true..

————->8————->8————->8————->8————->8————-

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\Explorer]
“NoInternetIcon”=dword:00000001

————->8————->8————->8————->8————->8————-

Different strokes for different folks. Some people believe that publishing a website that does not comply with the web standards is not a good idea. Many people shrug this off because until recently, the vast majority of web surfers happened to use the same browser that the author uses. But this is just plain ignorance. If you don’t care that 10 to 20% (and rising) of your visitors will be somewhat-to-extremely annoyed with your choice of web authoring, then by all means go ahead.

But the whole point of standards is so that you can publish things that everyone can use - and I’m not just talking about Firefox vs. IE. I’m talking about blind people, mobile phones, automated spidering scripts, Google, and so on. When you write standards-compliant web pages, you make it easier for all of these people to use your site. When you write IE-only tag soup you are just breaking the web and the philosophy of which it was conceived. If you are smart enough to have been awarded a PhD surely you can see that there is some ignorance to forsaking standards and only caring about one certaining implementation of a web brower.

That you won an award for your site speaks well of its content, and not its coding or presentation.

I had switched to Mozilla, and later to Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox, many months before I implemented this thing in my home network. Even though I never launched IE (except for Windows Update), when I ran Ad-Aware (about every 2 weeks), I still encountered some “undesirables” - mostly tracking cookies, but sometimes other stuff. Not the “worst” kind of spyware, surely, but there was still stuff related to IE there. Why? Well, as I said, many programs use the IE engine - and they can do it without even opening a browser window!

After I implemented this solution, a few months ago, Ad-Aware and Spybot Search & Destroy have always detected zero spyware (except Spybot, which detects some harmless cookies in Firefox). I have stopped bothering to run those programs regularly, although I sometimes do it just for fun - or to show off my “toy” to more technically inclined friends.

Anyway…

1- it is possible to use IE and not get spyware, certainly - if you either go only to 2 or 3 sites, and never go anywhere else, or if you disable everything - javascript, java, activex, plugins, etc., and are clever enough never to install anything, never click on an ad, and never install a toolbar - although some install themselves without permission anyway. Or, maybe, if you have some resident anti-spyware program, like the paid version of Ad-Aware, which stops spyware as it tries to install itself. But I doubt that this is your case. You probably have spyware and are simply unaware of it, just like most people are.

2- apparently, being a PhD doesn’t teach you to look through alternatives and pick the best one - a PhD, apparently, uses what he is originally given, out of stubbornness if necessary. “I don’t want to know.” Good thing I’m not one. No, seriously, the problem with PhDs and similar “highly educated” people is that they can be extremely knowledgeable about some particular fields, but that can lead them to be arrogant concerning fields they don’t know much about.

3- why does anyone make an IE-only site? Most do it because they don’t know any better - they can’t conceive of anyone not using Windows or IE, they don’t even know that there are other operating systems and browsers. Others do it because they don’t know anything about HTML or web standards - they use some abomination like Frontpage, which produces intentionally broken HTML code. Others are simply lazy - it’s easier to say “it only works with exactly the same OS and browser I tested it in” than to fix your own errors. And, lastly, some are, probably, simply stubborn.

And you (unfortunately) get awards for making pretty sites (which yours may well be), not solid, well-coded, standards-compliant ones. Ever heard of this?

Also if your site only works on IE then yes in fact it sucks. WC3 standards aren’t just for firefox, you exclude Safari users as well as the random Opera user. IE only is a sign of laziness in 90% of cases. Sometimes active scripting is vital to your functionality, but even then there really is not reason to choose activex.

It’s your site so feel free to do whatever you want with it. Just like this guy does with his blog. But you really can’t expect people to admire the fact that you can’t or won’t take the extra time to make your page univerally accessible.

“As everyone should know, Internet Explorer is a very insecure browser”
I must be doing something wrong. I don’t have spyware and I don’t get viruses? Could someone help me out. Should I visit more porn sites?

“I don’t use IE at home, because Mozilla Firefox is infinitely better and more secure”
Infinite huh? Wow that’s a whole lot better. What the hell was I thinking using IE?

“I’ve found that many people, even those otherwise educated and intelligent, think of “the Internet” as “the blue E”, and, when wanting to open a site, open IE without thinking.”
Gee. Sounds like me. And I even have a PhD. Again whatever was I thinking!

“So I had to do something about it.”
Of course you did. Us poor helpless users need someone to take charge. A good strong man to show us how it’s all done and what is what.

“many bad sites or incompetently-designed intranet applications only work with IE”
Aww shucks. My site only works with IE so it is incompetently designed? That award I won must have because someone felt sorry for me. Bad website! Bad!

Brian: exactly, for just one PC it may be overkill. But last night, for example, a friend of mine took a laptop to my place, to rid it of spyware and such. And everything worked as I wanted: IE couldn’t access anything (I have it blocked in the firewall), so I configured the proxy in it; then it could only do two things: access Windows Update, and download Firefox or Opera.

As to hiding IE, as I said, I think it’s the wrong idea, but it’s just a personal opinion. I believe in educating users, which means that they should, eventually, choose Firefox. But I also know that it’s far from easy. From experience, allowing them to open IE but then get an error message saying it’s insecure works, eventually - most of the “victims” of my home network have eventually changed - on their own - to Firefox at their homes.

But, yes, my way may not be perfect for every case… but then again, I never claimed it was.