Internet Explorer 9 Released

There's actually one more thing that I'd like to mention regarding Pinned Sites feature. It's ridiculous, and I'll explain why.

Here you'll what Microsoft states about Pinned Sites feature.

The interesting one is the following reason, IMHO:

** Emphasis is mine

This is very nice, specially if you use IE9 to access your bank's account. But, websites opened using Pinned Sites open without BHO (Browser Helper Objects)! I don't know about all banks, but some provide flash content in their website!

Or imagine you have an account in Youtube, accessing it requires your Gmail credentials, correct? Well, you need Flash for Youtube. More examples could be given.

Was this a well thought feature? If a given website requires no BHO like Flash, then I guess is a nice one, but not if it needs it.

-edit-

This is a really nice feature for such situations, but Microsoft really threw it out of the "Windows" with such design preventing BHOs. -edit- I believe that Microsoft should have introduced options to decide which BHOs to allow/deny.

 

m00nbl00d, you know fine well Flash is ActiveX not a BHO. It loads fine using pinned sites.

 

Do you have addons attached to IE? I suggest you look though the list of addons. Also, I don't have EMET attached to IE9, incase you do.

 

You're right about that one! Momentary insanity! I don't know why I confused it. LOL

Moments ago I did post something regarding Active-X Filtering and Flash. But, sometimes I do tend to call everything that gives functionality to IE a BHO.

Still, I wonder if it could break certain functionality if certain BHO is needed, for whatever websites? * This was a stupid question, because that's going to be a side effect! **

I'll test it with the bank account, though, so that relatives can make use of that feature. It's a really nice one for such situations.

Again, thanks for waking me up!

-edit-

** Still, I believe it would be welcome an option that could let users pick which BHOs they would want to allow for certain websites. Rather allow only 1, for example, than all a person may have in IE.

 

OK. This is awkward.

I pinned a website to the taskbar. For testing purposes I used a system where I got Prevx SafeOnline. Prevx SafeOnline does add a BHO to IE. At least, that's what IE calls it!

I opened the pinned website, but BHO was initiated, so was all others.

Could someone verify that?

 

I switched Fanboy's lists by those provide at -http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/Default.html

Fanboy's lists were crippling Wordpress blogs. Images would not appear. Has anyone experienced this?

They do appear fine with the lists provided in the link above. I just didn't add the one from TRUSTe, it's way permissive.

 

Which ones did you add from the ms link?

 

I just didn't add TRUSTe's list. This list allows many stuff; more than it blocks. TRUSTe is more about allowing good services than anything else.

I actually added this one EasyPrivacy Tracking Protection List instead of the one provide at the Microsoft link; it's more complete* *They're the same. -http://easylist.adblockplus.org/en/

I do notice some slowness while browsing with all these lists. I'm on a 128 kbps connection right now, and the slowness is perceptible. Removing the lists speeds things a bit. I'll try and narrow down the ones that will do a better job. I won't be using IE9 that much, so not much of a big deal for me... But, I want a smooth experience to relatives who do use it, when I upgrade them to IE9.

 

Did you add both the Privacy Choices?

Also, in comparison of the two list(EasyList), I'm not seeing any difference in their content. They look the same to me.

 

No, I added only the one here -http://easylist.adblockplus.org/en/

To be honest, I have no idea why I said this one is more complete. They actually are the same, at least judging by the link provided in both websites. I believe I saw it mentioned somewhere that they were different, which is why I thought they were; had no reasons not to believe I guess.

But, no, you're right, judging by the URL and name of the list, they have to be the same. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

 

I have noticed some avatar FPs with Fanboy's lists but they are far better at blocking ads than the MS listed ones. It would be best to report the URL as a FP on fanboy's forums and get it sorted.

 

Anybody know of a registry hack or something to make the back and forward button ALWAYS change color according to the website?

 

You're right, Fanboy's list seems to be more efficient. But, for now I had no lists, and I accessed -http://www.pcworld.com and Parental Controls icon appears all over the place. I thought it was due to Active-X Filtering, so I disabled. The same still happens.

Is anyone able to reproduce it? (@ all)

 

Group Policy Settings For Internet Explorer 9

Group Policy Settings For Internet Explorer 9

 

If you think tracking protection is blocking something just open up dev tools (F12) click the console tab the refresh the webpage. It will tell if if anything was blocked.

Fanboy's TPL collection is serving me well so far.

 

Anyone noticed that certain sites will make IE9 display a border around the webpage? Well, that's because it's being forced into 'Quirks' rendering mode. A.K.A. the website hasn't been updated to allow IE9 to run properly like any other browser.

Most forums, including this one, force it into IE7 mode. You can check this by hitting F12 and looking at the "Document Mode" dropdown. Updated websites such as facebook will show "IE9 standards (default)" where as most forums will show "IE7 standards (default)".

I've even noticed some websites as "Quirks mode (default)" and I have no idea what that is. All-in-all it's up to the website administrators to upgrade their site to stop forcing IE9 into a previous rendering mode as far as I can see.

FYI, forcing this forum into IE9 mode breaks it, and it will probably be this way until it's upgraded? Any forum admins feel like teaching us about that?

 

That's a nice hint, actually. Haven't thought about it, though I did notice that it's possible.

But, except for the once called "InPrivate Filtering", there's nothing else enabled (I mean, no lists for now.), and even "InPrivate Filtering" is set to let me decide what to block or allow.

Could it still be blocking something I'm still discovering IE9. It could also be some bug. I'll see if I can dig any further.

 

This forum works well in IE9 mode, in my case.

 

In my case, even though InPrivateFiltering aka Personal List is disabled by default, it appears to still be blocking. How, I don't know. This was one of the reasons why I rolled backed and reinstalled IE9 a few different times. I thought it was causing my infamous YouTube Blackbox no video problem. After rolling back to IE8, I reset the registry to original default values and cleared all the InPrivateFiltering data. Reinstalled IE9 and flash worked. Anywho, that was my second attempt. I found something else I wanted different before installing IE9, so I rolled back again. Reinstalled IE9 for a third time doing everything as before, no flash again on the third try. Flash is working now though. I think it had something to do with me disabling the flash addon for awhile then enable it. Only issue I have now is that my search engine Yippy and Seven forums favicon will not show in the taskbar frequent items list. Yippy will not even show in the address bar. I don't think it has to do with IE9 but rather the Crappy app CrapCleaner. I've used CC only for keeping cookies and favicons and somehow after all this time I believe it's got it all screwed up.

 

Break was an overstatement, some things just look odd, like quote boxes.

edit: nevermind it actually looks fine...

 

They are calling them good sites. I disagree. I have also read that an "Allow" on one list overrides "Block" on any list so use the TRUSTe list at your own risk.

One thing I do not like about IE9 is that I see no place on the interface that shows me the integrity level. Before when it said protected mode was off I knew that it had inherited admin rights from a parent process and I could close it and re-launch it. Now I can only tell if I open Process Explorer and check it from there.

 

I thought the "ielowutil.exe" was to keep it as low?

 

True, if you launch it from a shortcut. If you are installing or uninstalling software and it opens the browser to ask you to fill out a survey or something similar, it inherits the installers' Admin permission and launches with an integrity level of High.