| 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 |
 |
Microsoft employees ponder the fate of Internet Explorer | |
|
||
| Time: 08:48 EST/13:48 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
The saga of Internet Explorer, the piece of software that once brought the Department of Justice to the brink of breaking up Microsoft, continues to eat away at the company. Several Microsoft employees have been reporting on their blogs that they feel the browser is not receiving adequate attention from upper management, and that it reflects badly on Microsoft as a result. Rory Blythe, after posting a rant complaining about how many people seem excited about switching Firefox simply to "beat the man," admitted in a comment that the lack of new features in Internet Explorer was embarrassing: | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:01:54 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1401 (69.27.196.125) at 1/4/2006 9:26:41 AM |
| I agree with Montana - I also hate how IE is tied in with every single Microsoft product - so any change to IE affects virtually every other app... |
| #2 By 23603 (70.82.83.103) at 1/4/2006 9:37:47 AM |
|
#1 "For example, there are so many configuration options in so many places"
Ever went to Tools-Internet Options ??? #2: I also hate how IE is tied in with every single Microsoft product Any example? |
| #3 By 61 (71.251.77.95) at 1/4/2006 10:06:52 AM |
| IE is no more tied to Windows than WebCore is to OSX, or KHTML is to KDE, etc... |
| #4 By 1642 (66.208.6.173) at 1/4/2006 2:28:37 PM |
| I am surprised they didn't mention that Rory Blyth once built his own browser (with his infamous stick figues taking on a "clippy" like role). But then again, they couldn't even spell his last name correctly. |
| #5 By 32132 (64.180.41.62) at 1/4/2006 2:33:35 PM |
|
"continues to eat away at the company" ???
While I'm sure Microsoft misses that $0.00 profit on each and every sales of IE, they can take solace in that Linux desktop usage is shrinking. As I've said before, OSS projects like Firefox that work just as well on Windows as on Linux actually cause people to use Windows more. It takes away one of the few mythical reasons to switch from Windows (I say it is mythical because security exploits are actually much more common on *nix ... but they just get less publicity). |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 1/4/2006 4:20:23 PM |
|
PFI_Optix... I'll follow up for argument's sake with what are my primary reasons to stick with IE (though I use Firefox and IE about 50/50 personally; I'm thinking in a corporate sense here):
- Fleshed-out and robust patching mechanisms for a wide range of customers--Automatic Update for consumers and small businesses, WSUS and SMS (among others) for medium and large businesses; SMS offers excellent reporting capabilities, so you know what machines took the patch and which did not, if any. - The ability to restrict settings globally, by OU, and with great granularity through Group Policy. - It's built into Windows, which means that you have to patch it even if you install Firefox. In a company setting, why add even more patching work to your job? - In a company setting, there is a training factor, and also a Favorites/History/etc. confusion factor. People know IE, and though Firefox isn't much different from a base UI perspective, there will nonetheless be some that need hand-holding. On the other hand, having Favorites, History, etc. not in sync between the two browsers will inevitably cause some confusion among users, adding to support costs. - Some applications and sites only work well (or work period) with IE. That said, I really, really wish IE had tabbed-browsing built-in, along with some of the extensions available for Firefox (where would I be without Session Saver?). The ability to save all open tabs at once is simply fantastic. If IE supported these features, I'd have no reason at all to use Firefox. IE does have it's dismal security record, but I wouldn't switch to Firefox for that reason alone, since it has its own security issues. |
| #7 By 2332 (66.92.78.189) at 1/4/2006 6:43:30 PM |
|
6 Months ago I would have agreed with this article, but anybody who has been keeping up with the development of IE 7 knows there are some great things coming down the pike.
The biggest of which, and in my opinion the most compelling and most innovative, is the new security model for IE 7. This new model will all but eliminate IE as an attack vector for Windows. Couple this with the built in firewall, and you have a damn secure system. Firefox and all the rest have been enjoying their relative obscurity (yes, 10% is still obscure), but they have done little that is really innovative on the security front. They likely have many of the same problems IE has, but they're not targeted like IE is targeted and therefore seem more secure... and, effectively, they are. But IE 7 will change all that... it's a huge release for Microsoft and will dramatically improve the Windows platform. |
| #8 By 23603 (70.82.83.103) at 1/4/2006 10:12:05 PM |
| Well said RMD |
| #9 By 1401 (65.255.137.20) at 1/4/2006 11:14:33 PM |
| I'll believe it when I see it RMD - and I wouldn't call a pc with the built in Windows Firewall a damn secure system either... |
| #10 By 1658 (67.183.205.175) at 1/5/2006 2:11:29 AM |
|
"and I wouldn't call a pc with the built in Windows Firewall a damn secure system either..."
Way to provide support for that. I've got a standard Windows XP Professional install with all patches from both the critical and optional areas of Microsoft Update applied, with the Windows Firewall enabled with the following exceptions: File & Printer Sharing UPnP Windows Messenger MSN Messenger My IP is 67.183.205.175 and always remains that way. Come get me if it's so insecure. To the best of our knowledge internally, the Windows Firewall to DATE has never been compromised when enabled and an exception didn't allow rogue traffic to flow. I beg you to demonstrate why the internal firewall we've built isn't strong enough already, even though we're well on our way to producing an even better firewall with the OneCare offering. Andy This post was edited by aamendala on Thursday, January 05, 2006 at 02:13. |
| #11 By 12071 (203.206.243.239) at 1/5/2006 3:36:39 AM |
|
#13 "Come get me if it's so insecure."
No need to, just visit a webpage with one of those nice little WMF pictures in it for which there is no official patch for, install a packet sniffer and just sit back and watch all those outgoing packets fly straight past your firewall. "I beg you to demonstrate why the internal firewall we've built isn't strong enough already, even though we're well on our way to producing an even better firewall with the OneCare offering." Once again, no need to beg, you've provided all the evidence yourself! If it's strong enough, then why would there be a need for you to produce an even better one - unless of course it does NOT currently make your system "damn secure" (Given that "damn secure" is more secure then "strong enough"). Don't take it personally, I'm sure you yourself did a fantastic job on the Firewall and I'm sure you're doing an even better job on your subscription one, but don't try and kid yourself that it automatically makes your system damn secure. |
| #12 By 1658 (67.183.205.175) at 1/6/2006 1:57:54 AM |
|
"No need to"
Of course not, it's always easier to change the subject than to back up an argument. "for which there is no official patch for" http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS06-001.mspx Yawn. "If it's strong enough, then why would there be a need for you to produce an even better one" Wow. So because something hasn't been compromised to date, and we consider it tremendously strong, it can't be better? I fail to see your logic. The walls in the home I've built are strong enough for what they do, that doesn't mean they can't be even better by either more efficient design, a choice of different materials, or simply enough, beefing them up even more. Simply because something performs its intended function 'well enough' or 'strong enough', doesn't mean it can't be better. "Don't take it personally" I don't. I just don't like morons who can't back up their arguments with fact. "but don't try and kid yourself that it automatically makes your system damn secure." Who the hell said that? I simply offered a challenge for the public to consume if they so desired. The built in firewall does make your Windows system pretty damn secure. In fact, the majority of the pieces of spyware and malware floating around the net wouldn't affect Windows at all if the firewall is enabled from the get go. Granted - leaving them off by default is and was a mistake we admit openly. The point? All I ask is that if you're going to bad mouth either our products or any other for that matter - back it up with facts, not hearsay, rumor, or outright B.S. This post was edited by aamendala on Friday, January 06, 2006 at 02:00. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:01:54 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
