New Internet Explorer

[herme3]

Microsoft is releasing the next version of Internet Explorer soon.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/08/12/microsoft.browser.ap/index.html

 

It will be really secure and also have some nice features.

[Dak]

Sounds a bit like slim browser, iirc (tabbed browsing, more secure, search box, uses IE engine, rss compatable etc).

 

hope they deliver on the security front.

 

Hmm... i remember hearing that a new version of FF is also in the pipelines, but im not sure if its v1.2 or v2.

[Lance]

I don't see why anybody would bother trying it out. IE has already dropped the ball.

[Dak]

I don't see why anybody would bother trying it out.

 

'cos it will come with the computer, and will probably be downloaded as a security update.

 

I agree about the dropping the ball comment. Lots of the features -- espescially the tabbed browsing -- looks like theyre trying to impliment whats already available and popular in Opera and FireFox.

[Lance]

Good point; sad but true. It really looks like MS has a monopoly going on.

[herme3]

I don't see why anybody would bother trying it out. IE has already dropped the ball.

 

They didn't drop the ball. Other companies just invented a new idea that IE hasn't had a chance to use yet. Bill Gates doesn't have psychic powers. You can't expect him to know what all the other companies are thinking before they release their product. I'm sure that Microsoft invented many ideas that were in IE before any other browser.

 

Lots of the features -- espescially the tabbed browsing -- looks like theyre trying to impliment whats already available and popular in Opera and FireFox.

 

Not only that, but many other features too. Are there any other browsers that can detect a phishing or scam site?

 

A real-time anti-phishing tool was built to address scammers who try to trick people into revealing passwords by posing as legitimate banking or e-commerce site.

 

When IE 7 encounters an unfamiliar site' date=' it gives users the option of passing that address to Microsoft to check against a database of known phishing sites. When there's a match, IE 7 takes you to a "red" warning page.

 

Even when there isn't a match, IE 7 will display a pop-up "yellow" warning when it sees telltale signs of phishing[/quote']

[ydoaPs]

They didn't drop the ball. Other companies just invented a new idea that IE hasn't had a chance to use yet. Bill Gates doesn't have psychic powers. You can't expect him to know what all the other companies are thinking before they release their product. I'm sure that Microsoft invented many ideas that were in IE before any other browser.

 

 

 

Not only that' date=' but many other features too. Are there any other browsers that can detect a phishing or scam site?[/quote']

he may not have psychic powers, but that doesn't keep him from meeting standards.

[Lance]

I see. And how many years exactly has it been...? How many chances do they get before you abandon IE?

 

This is capitalism. You don't stick with the crappy product when it gets obliterated by a superior product, if you do the guy who made the crappy product has no motivation to make his crappy product better. Come to think of it, if you (and by 'you' I don't mean you personally) stopped following the crowd and using IE like everybody else we all might be using a really nice IE browser right now. Bummer.

 

However, I must admit, Bill has shown himself to be extremely adept at business and marketing.

[herme3]

he may not have psychic powers, but that doesn't keep him from meeting standards.

 

I don't know what these "standards" are, but I have yet to find a real web site that doesn't work with IE. Yes, there are web sites that were designed just to show that IE doesn't follow "standards". These web sites contain elements that cause IE to crash. However, these elements are not on regular web sites.

 

Someone could write a program that could make any computer crash. It is called a virus. Just because the computer crashes, doesn't mean it is a bad computer. What do you expect if you load a virus on a computer?

 

I see. And how many years exactly has it been...? How many chances do they get before you abandon IE?

 

I use IE, and I have no reason to abandon it. However, I did abandon Netscape and Firefox because I found too many web sites that didn't work with those browsers!

[ydoaPs]

I don't know what these "standards" are

that is a LIE! Sayo has given you links to the w3c standards several times

[Rakdos]

I don't know what these "standards" are,

 

 

www.w3.org

[Dak]

Good point; sad but true. It really looks like MS has a monopoly going on.

 

Maybe not for much longer, with IE.

 

The EU has already forsed m$ to provide their OSs without m$ media player bundeled with it¹, maybe they'll forse them to not integrate IE so fully, espescially with all of the security poopness assosciated with IE (i can half remember something about the US govournment reccomending people ditch IE due to security reasons).

 

Not only that, but many other features too. Are there any other browsers that can detect a phishing or scam site?

 

Yes. firefox with one of the anti-phishing extentions

 

Or any browser with an anti-phishing toolbar/plugin/extention, come to think of it.

 

But yeah, I was impressed with that. It will only be of limited effectiveness tho, in the same way as all blacklists of websites are only of limited effectiveness (theres a lag atwix a new site being registered and it being added to the blacklist). Nice to see it fires up if a site is expected of phishing. as long as its not too overly sensitive, that should be quite groovy.

[Dak]

I don't know what these "standards" are, but I have yet to find a real web site that doesn't work with IE. Yes, there are web sites that were designed just to show that IE doesn't follow "standards". These web sites contain elements that cause IE to crash. However, these elements are not on regular web sites.

 

 

only because if they were, then everyone who uses IE would not be able to access the site.

 

As yourdad said, this has already been explained to you.

 

To briefly recap: as i understand it, the w3c set standards that, were everyone to follow them, would make life easyer for everyone who, in some manner or form, uses the internet (ranging from the browser desighners, to the web desighners, to the end user etc). m$ blatantly ignore the standards, like their lack of support for CCS2 in IE7. which is cacky.

 

And no, w3c compliant HTML is not comparable to viruses. Viruses are desighned to damage computers, or do something else crappy, and so if the computer crashes its the viruses fault.

 

w3c compliant HTML is desighned to work properly. if this makes IE crash, then that is IEs fault.

 

Someone could write a program that could make any computer crash. It is called a virus. Just because the computer crashes, doesn't mean it is a bad computer. What do you expect if you load a virus on a computer?

 

On the subject of viruses, IE is quite full of security holes (and not just what youd expect from it being the most popular). I would positively orgasm if IE7 is actually secure (preferably out of the box, although i know thats asking alot from m$)

[Pangloss]

It's interesting that people always want fun and exciting things to be determined by the people, except when what the people like happens to come from a corporation -- then the power has to be taken away from the people and given to an elite group that "knows what's best for everyone". (sigh) Hypocrisy in the computer business is so much like hypocrisy in politics.

 

Still, it is probably a good thing that independent standards bodies exist, and it's probably for the best that Microsoft be forced to adhere to them, much as that statement galls my libertarian side. Otherwise it's just a matter of time before we're all paying $30 a month to use Windows. And then $35. And then $40. Because as we all know, it's not enough that corporations make the same amount of money they did last year -- CEOs get fired when that happens.

 

Just don't delude yourselves into thinking that this is a good thing. At most it's the best of a bad situation -- and one that we are all responsible for creating. We're putting a lot of power into the hands of some really wonky ideologues (if you don't believe me, check out some of the infrastructure and standards newsgroups some time), and power always corrupts. There will be a price, and we will all have to pay.

[herme3]

only because if they were' date=' then everyone who uses IE would not be able to access the site.

 

As yourdad said, this has already been explained to you.

 

To briefly recap: as i understand it, the w3c set standards that, were everyone to follow them, would make life easyer for everyone who, in some manner or form, uses the internet (ranging from the browser desighners, to the web desighners, to the end user etc). m$ blatantly ignore the standards, like their lack of support for CCS2 in IE7. which is cacky.

 

And no, w3c compliant HTML is not comparable to viruses. Viruses are desighned to damage computers, or do something else crappy, and so if the computer crashes its the viruses fault.

 

w3c compliant HTML is desighned to work properly. if this makes IE crash, then that is IEs fault.[/quote']

 

EVERYBODY! LISTEN TO MY NEW GREAT STANDARDS FOR COMPUTER MONITORS!

 

I declare that from now on computer monitors need the ability to fly. Why? Because I believe it will make life easier for everyone who uses monitors.

 

*LOUD CRASHING SOUND IN BACKGROUND*

 

Aww... Your monitor doesn't fly very well. I guess it is crap because it isn't following the standards.

 

My monitor is called FlyingFox and it can fly. Unfortunately, most people can't use them because they aren't compatible with computers! Anyway, who cares? They are following the standards...

[Dak]

sigh...

 

1/ the majority of sites DO work with firefox. usually, when they dont it's due to the fact that the site requires an active-x in order to work, and FF doesnt support active-xs; HOWEVER most websites are desighning work-arounds for this, and there really arent that many sites which are incompatable with FF. I cant remember the last time that i found a site that i couldnt view in FF.

 

[edit]except the microsoft update site, suspiciously enough[/edit]

 

2/the w3c doesnt consist of one person making random declarations. its a group of people who descide upon conventions which will make life easyer for everyone. those conventions differ from the convention put forth in your analogy because

 

A) they are not imbecelic

 

and thats it, really. Its only one difference, but its a big one.

 

3/In addition, microsoft are actually a member of the w3c, and agreed to abide by the commonly accepted standards agreed upon by the w3c. so its not as if its some bulchy little organisation shouting about what they want m$ to do; its a group which ms is actually a member of laying out a set of common practices that microsoft have agreed to impliment.

 

so

[Pangloss]

I visit sites all the time that won't display properly in Firefox/Mozilla. Sometimes it's not immediately obvious, because a feature may be covered up and you don't realize it, or you don't know how it's supposed to look. I really wish they'd fix that, because it's very annoying. I wish I didn't have to ever use IE at all.

 

The really annoying thing is when it happens with PHP-based forum software! I mean there is really no excuse for that. Yeesh. They did a great job with the upgrade of this board s/w, though.

 

The standards argument bugs me for another reason: I make sites all the time in Dreamweaver using regular WYSIWYG techniques that look great in IE but get all messed up in Firefox or Mozilla. I don't know who's fault that is, but I really don't appreciate having spent a lot of money on a fancy web design product only to have to constantly adjust my code for multiple web browsers. I mean it's 2005, for crying out loud, not 1995.

[H2SO4]

i know what you mean, youll go to a website, itll look fine but you dont know your misiing out on lots of crap and sometimes important stuff. Sometimes to get to a certain part of a website you ave to switch to IE which sucks.

[danny8522003]

I think some of the features you talk about are worth missing out on most of the time. It's a small price to pay for a browser that is a lot faster and much more secure than IE.

 

The fact IE is installed on every Windows installation also makes it more vulnerable to attack, security holes or not. If you wanted to cause maximum damage to a computer in terms of adware or spyware, you'd target IE, not just because it's the easiest but because almost everyone has it. I've yet to come accross software that hijacks Opera or FireFox.

 

To be quite honest, if they know who the phishing, spamming and hijacking sites are then why the f*ck are they still on the web? Take MySearchNow, I've been hijacked by this 3 times now and my GF had to reinstall Windows after it took over her computer. Why has nothing been done about the company that's behind all this because these aren't isolated incidents. I'm sure some of you have been, or know someone that has been, hijacked by the same group.

 

Maybe it's time people on the net stood up for themselves and did something about the Spyware and Adware creating sites and get rid of them once and for all. We shouldn't have to protect ourselves from these people, we should eliminate these threats from the source.

[Dak]

[off topic] mywebsearch is a CoolWebSearch variant. Nothing has been done because CWS is based in russia, and in any case they always blame the dodgy installs on 'rogue affilates'.

 

'being based in russia' seems to be the number one reason why nothing has been done about these sites.

 

If you get infected with mywebsearch again (sounds like its a reccuring problem for you), shift it with CWShredder

 

[/off topic]

[Pangloss]

I think some of the features you talk about are worth missing out on most of the time. It's a small price to pay for a browser that is a lot faster and much more secure than IE.

 

BS -- if you don't know what you're missing, then it's nothing but bad. That's called putting ideology ahead of reality.

 

Those of us here are smart enough to figure it out if we've missed something important. But what about the hundreds of customers that I have personally set up to use previous versions of Mozilla? When they call me because it won't display a site correctly I look like an idiot. That totally blows chunks. There's no excuse for it.

 

And Firefox is more secure than IE, but in large part that's because it's protected by a lower user base that makes it not worth a hacker's while to hack it. That's what makes it more secure. As we've seen in recent news reports, it's just as frought with security problems as IE. Even worse, Mozilla (I'm not sure if this applies to Firefox) was a crash maven of the very first order.

 

Just to give an example of that, it used to be that there was not one single site on the Internet that could get around Mozilla's pop-up blocker. Now there are many. The Internet Movie Database is one popular example, but I visit many on a regular basis. As its popularity grows, people start to work around its "security".

 

Let's face it: Modern web browsers just plain suck in general. There's no point in acting like Firefox is god's gift from heaven and IE is a red-headed stepchild. I know herme3 is a Microsoft fanboy, but those of us who have to survive in the real world know that Firefox is just not a complete answer yet. I hope it will be soon, but it's not there yet.

 

Bear in mind, I love FF and Moz -- when it comes to FF acceptance and market-share amongst non-geeks, I'm the guy who's actually making that happen, and I have every intention of continuing to do that. Not only do I install Moz or FF on every workstation of every customer I have, I also give it out free to every one of my students whenever I teach any class, even something like Word or PowerPoint, as well as my MCSE students. They all get a free CD with FF on it and a lecture about how it's a good idea to use it, and why.

 

I'm just disappointed that it's not as good as it could (and should) be.

[danny8522003]

Have you tried Opera? In my opinion, it's a lot better than FF.

[Klaynos]

I have used the latest IE brefly, and know people who use it on XP and on Longhorn's testing platforms on a regularlar bassis, and I'm not impressed, neither are the people I know. Their are still big issues with the way previouse patches have been applied allowing for more future security issues, and the tabs looks asif they where thrown in as an after thought (which they where after they orriginal said that their wasn't going to be tabs and every said "wtf you can't do that you fools" so they HAD to do something. This is a great shame in my oppinion esspecially for the people like Herme3 who refuse to open their eyes to the alternative, or don't get a chance to use the alternatives (which I know arn't perfect but in my opinion are alot better), as I'd like them to use a nice good to use secure browser

[Lance]

I recently tried opera but uninstalled it as soon as I realized it wasn't free or I was going to have to look at ads.

[Aeternus]

Have you tried Opera? In my opinion, it's a lot better than FF.

 

At the minute I've got Opera, Firefox and IE6 on my laptop for testing purposes. I mainly use Firefox and can't remember the last time I had to switch to IE. Opera is nice and the UI in my opinon is alot nicer than Firefox (by default) and from what friends who use it regularly have said certain aspects of it are more customisable (moving url bar etc) which is nice. You do get a few problems with it though with certain sites like gmail and others, it seems to have fixed the majority of these but gmail does still host a warning (I think it was something to do with its implementation of Javascript).

 

Internet Explorer is nice enough but I prefer Firefox due to the tabbed browsing, different themes, extensions like the Live HTTP Headers extension (saves using something like Ethereal or similar), its Javascript console and DOM Inspector etc and the fact that it is nice to develop in when trying to conform to web standards (not saying Internet Explorer doesnt conform to most/alot of the standards, just that making sure its in Strict mode rather than Quirks can be annoying to do all the time and its easier to just chuck a few pages together and check them in firefox then neaten them up with the correct DOCTYPE declarations etc (not a point against IE (although they do have some standards problems) just personal preference)). Firefox isn't perfect, there are some problems such as some security problems that have since been fixed, rare problems with IE/ActiveX centric sites and its notable memory usage problem but these are acceptable in my use of the browser and so I use Firefox (not saying these are acceptable to everyone, each to their own).

 

I agree that Internet Explorers security problems are due mostly to the amount of attention it gets, now Firefox and others are getting more attention, more holes and bugs are being found but damn them why do the IE developers have to use ActiveX for everything, I know its not necessarily the satanic platform that it is made out to be but it has and still does to an extent have security issues and alot of the functionality that is canopied under the ActiveX setup doesnt need to be there (My Gripe).

 

I'm looking forward to the final release of IE7, it should be interesting. I will definitely be trying it out and may even begin using it if it suits my needs (better JS debugging, nice tabs, nice UI, easy to customise etc), it's just that currently Firefox is for me as IE6 just doesnt do what I need. I do hope in IE7 that the small lapses from standards are rectified. I know alot of these are simply people knocking IE into quirks mode and that when in standards mode, it is meant to be w3c compliant, it's just that in some cases as can be evidenced by the article posted in another thread it doesn't live up to the standards that it claims to work by (not using this as a major point against IE or anything, just saying it would be nice to have it cleared up).

 

PS - I totally agree with Pangloss' previous post, its always nice to read your posts as they have are generally unbiased and realistic.