| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Just browsing | |
|
||
| Time: 02:30 EST/07:30 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
Microsoft's slice of the web browser pie is 95 per cent with Internet Explorer (IE), according to internet research company OneStat. WebSideStory puts the figure at 96 per cent. But just five years ago, that same pie was split almost evenly between Netscape and Microsoft, with a few crumbs left over for all other contenders. With those sort of figures, why should you bother swimming against the tide? Why not lie back and let Microsoft be your surfing partner? | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 162 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:08:37 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7390 (63.211.44.114) at 2/16/2003 7:06:54 AM |
|
Opera is compact, speedy and loaded with enough features to make you consider forking out cash for what's given away free by others
umm..I thought that we covered this in the Netscape-Explorer battle 5 years ago? Also what is the big deal with tabs? he seems to think that the lack of tabs makes IE inferior. For god sakes double click on the big blue E on your desktop and the problem is solved. |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/16/2003 1:15:25 PM |
|
Flight... Interesting comments but you need to reword point 1.
1) Because I trust in security through obscurity Also, on 7... why don't you just set IE properties to blow away the cache when you exit? |
| #3 By 7797 (65.246.219.20) at 2/16/2003 3:29:41 PM |
| sodablue, please describe what mozilla has to do with security through obscurity. |
| #4 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/16/2003 6:50:30 PM |
|
Flight - "Mozilla is Opensource, therefore not obscure... so I rather missed what you're saying. "
This isn't a valid explanation, and ignores the issue. Again, please explain why you feel using security through obscurity is a valid mechanism to protect yourself. JWM - Exactly. Neither tgnb or Flight appear to understand what it is they are advocating. Which is an unfortunately not uncommon trait amongst open source advocates. That's not to say that Mozilla doesn't have several nice features that I wish were in IE. But claiming it is more secure simply because it is more obscure and not targetted is ridiculous. |
| #5 By 14745 (67.243.92.164) at 2/16/2003 8:11:35 PM |
| I don't have anything against Internet Explorer, but I do prefer Mozilla over I.E. With regards to capabilities, Mozilla is more advanced. Simply because the 'majority' supports something, doesn't mean that 'something' is good. History is replete with examples of 'majorities' missing the mark. Our generation isn't exempt from this human error. |
| #6 By 2231 (68.98.146.10) at 2/16/2003 8:26:55 PM |
|
Security is one reason I use the Phoenix browser(aka Mozilla lite). IE has a bullseye on its back. With Phoenix I don't have to worry about IE buffer overflow exploits, harmful vbs scripts or hijacked active-x controls.
If the carjackers are targeting Mercedes then maybe it’s safer to drive a BMW. |
| #7 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/16/2003 9:41:50 PM |
|
Flight - "I think you're confused, are you refering to Mozilla being an obsure browser? "
I think you're confused. Go look up the definition of obscure. "I don't have to plow through the code, there are white and black hats doing that for me." Is it happening? At least with IE, we know Microsoft is paying people to look through their code, and finding issues too. "With a faster fix rate than M$ can claim." Which is a lie. "And for some reason should i have the desire to browse the code of Mozilla, I am able to. Every try that with I.E. ?" I don't need to. As yourself says, I am assured that there are qualified people already doing that. "No. It is Microsoft that uses security through obscurity, and even at that they fail miserably." No, it is you who are promoting security through obscurity by claiming a less popular, less scrutinized browser is more secure without any proof to support this statement. If it were really more secure, this page would be empty: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html "Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean their aren't faults there. " Oh sheesh, be consistent in your arguments, please. |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/16/2003 9:44:35 PM |
| BTW, Flight... Take a look at Chadder007's post. He offers some compelling arguments to use Mozilla or Opera without having to resort to lies and FUD such as your arguments. |
| #9 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 2/17/2003 12:42:15 AM |
|
I don't know. This isn't FUD, just my experience, but every time I try a new browser (and I make a point to try Mozilla and Opera when they release major versions or there's a hoopla about), I use them for awhile but there's always some major annoyance, be it a bunch of pages have minor rendering flaws, pop-ups don't work, or don't work correctly, java applets don't load, or crash the browser, etc, etc, etc.
There's always a bunch of little somethings that lead to a frustrating experience and I always come back to the question: "Why am I using this when IE never crashes and hardly ever mis-renders a page?" I don't know, I guess with my situation and my habits, these other browsers just don't cut the mustard. They have a ways to go yet before the stability, the reliability, and the consistency is there enough for me to use them. It seems that they don't offer many features that I can't get with IE, and the features they do add I can either get with a proxy like Promomitron (which I'd use anywhere to block ads and cookies and such), or I wouldn't use at all (Tabbed browsing is annoying as hell and isn't as convenient as ALT+TAB, etc). I mean, why would I switch? What do they offer me that IE doesn't? |
| #10 By 2960 (68.100.157.191) at 2/17/2003 9:13:52 AM |
|
I question the validity of this data.
It is not uncommon for people to change their browser so it announces itself as MSIE for compatibility with sites that are not necessarily written correctly. MSIE is terrible. The last good version of MSIE was 5.01. Since 5.5 it's been bloated, buggy and just plain slow. MSIE 6 is the worst of the lot. TL |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/17/2003 10:38:46 AM |
|
Flight - "you're an M$ employee aren't you?"
Oh good grief, do we have to go there? I mean, can't you learn how to argue on the merits rather than believe anybody who disagrees with you must be paid to do so? "I never said their weren't faults in Mozilla." You made the implicit claim. "what I said was those faults are fixed faster in Opensource than in Closed (which is a known fact). " That's not what you said before. And the fixed faster thing is actually not a fact. But you are welcome to prove otherwise. Keep in mind, though, that a deployed fix is not when the source is fixed, but rather when the distributions have provided a binary downloadable patch that users can install. Using that measurement, Open Source takes 2-3 times longer to fix issues than does Commercial software. "As for obscurity, let me sum it up for you this way, in your versio nof securty you prefer, "ignorace is bliss". Wherein mine I prefer at least the "ability" to look for faults on my own." No, you are taking the "ignorance is bliss" attitude by claiming it's better to use a browser that nobody else is using to avoid targetting. It has nothing to do with looking at the source, because you've already admitted you don't know how or care to know how. "On the Microsoft side, how many times have their been known vulnerabilites that M$ has refused to fix? " Refused to fix? How many times has this happened in the open source community? How many times have you been told, "I don't want to fix version 2, because I'm working on K-k00l features in features 3" by an open source developer? It certainly isn't a rare occurence. "As for "obscure" in the sense that Mozilla is a rare bird, I disagree as there are other far more rare birds than Mozilla based browsers. Opera, Konqueror, anything on an Apple platform.... etc." Those are all equally as obscure. Anything on the Apple platform would be less obscure than Mozilla. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 2/20/2003 9:23:23 AM |
|
Are you trying to appear unbiased yourself? Why don't you refer to Microsoft by their name - Microsoft?
Secondly, an application with less than 2% market share is, from the market's perspective, obscure. It's not an attack on Mozilla. It's just reality. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 162 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:08:37 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
