5 Reasons Why IE9 Cannot Stop IE's Decline

5 Reasons Why IE9 Cannot Stop IE's Decline:

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/internet-explorer-google-chrome-firefox-apple-safari,news-10709.html

 

Interesting, I think a lack of really good or varied extensions & customisability is a big factor as well.

 

Did he run out of good reasons after the 1st reason? Hell, he didn't even mention Daveski's reason which is a GOOD reason.

I'll skip point 2 since nothing will come of it.
Point 3: There's that "loyal" word again *urgg*, yeah rapid release cycles is what made firefox so popular, no.. wait... it isn't. It's popular because it would hands down beat every other browser for the last 9 years or so, and Chrome only started doing it recently. Actually, I'm not even going to start on the part of being "loyal" to 1's and 0's because I'll be ranting for days.
Point 4: I'm no marketing expert but I'm not spotting anything wrong in this point? He mentions a little bit about HTML5 support, for which last I checked W3C, IE9 lead. I don't see how alpha/beta attracts more users that it normally would.
Point 5: Again talking about HTML5 as in point 4, but with added nonsense about not supporting in-draft standards. Last I checked, IE9 was supporting more javascript calls on Google's sputnik than any other browser, and as already mentioned, was supporting more HTML5 on the W3C in-development sheet. IE9 and Firefox are also the only browsers that don't support technologies being phased out just to get 100% on Acid3. But ofcourse, we can't go without complaining that it doesn't support Webworkers and WebGL, can we.

I think the first comment sums it up:

Infact a lot of the comments there are correcting the original author, not even any need for me to do so.

 

Thanks!

Can't agree more with you!

 

Agreed.

There are only three kinds of end users who shouldn't be running IE9: people not on Vista/Win7, people who can't live without some more esoteric extensions, and die-hard Microsoft haters. For everyone else, I can't think of a better browser than IE9.

 

What about security, specifically script control? That's the one place every browser seems to fail, including Firefox minus NoScript.

 

Meh.

There's a reason every browser fails at it. The need for script control is mostly artificial, and the source of this artificial need can mostly be traced back to Giorgio Maone's exaggerated and sensationalist claims.

 

Well, I admit to being a NoScript fan, but I don't consider Maone's word to be final on the matter, and won't be chiseling what he says in stone any time soon I do worry about all the various ways scripts are used maliciously though (well, at least from all the things I read). It seems everyone hollers for cross-site, clickjack and other protections. How, though, in your opinion is the need "artificial"? Isn't scripts the main source of infections these days (whether by drive-by or social tricking)?

-Edit-

Though the old ABP vs NoScript fight was talked about some here (we all know what that was), further into the discussion I got a bit more information regarding NoScript and the need for/lack of need for it. http://my.opera.com/LorenzoCelsi/blog/firefox-users-do-not-install-noscript . I'm not going to be writing his words in stone either, just making an effort to learn things for myself, and some of what is said makes a bit of sense to me.

 

The "Captain Obvious" reply: if there is no vulnerability present for a script to exploit, it doesn't matter. This may sound risky, but historically there have been no widespread attacks on security vulnerabilities in Firefox and Opera. Browser vendors are generally quick to patch security holes these days.

The standard reply: privilege restriction mechanisms render script/binary attacks moot. IE Protected Mode, Chrome sandbox.

Last of all, there's the question of script whitelisting by the user to ensure security. Remove all scripts, and you cripple functionality. You'll need to selectively enable them if you don't want to break functionality. And the agent who gets saddled with the responsibility of deciding which scripts are safe or otherwise is... the end user. Really? Since when has putting the end user in charge of their own security worked out well? The only reason NoScript users don't get infected on a widespread basis is that, in fact, they'd have been perfectly safe without NoScript anyway.

 

I find IE9 just fine and a dramatic improvement over IE8. That said I still prefer Firefox 4 precisely because of the extension support. Whether or not extensions matter depends on how you use the browser. I really like "Grab & Drag" and "Tab Mix Plus" for FF. There is nothing quite like these two extensions for any other browser AFAICT and they make FF easier for me to use. There are also a number of security extensions having to do with SSL and certificates that I believe address some weaknesses in the system. Flexibility is a good thing.

 

Offtopic: I believe Grab & Drag is available in Opera. Go to opera:config, search for "scroll is pan", and tick the checkbox.

To enable Grab & Drag for ALL programs in Windows, not just the browser, you can try an AutoHotkey script.

 

Thanks I appreciate the tip. Unfortunately it doesn't quite get me there, because I prefer to reverse scroll direction which is supported in G&D. Chrome has something similar enough called Chrome Touch.

 

Loving IE 9 so far with no compelling reason to switch.

 

I wish the reload button wasn't in the search bar though...and itty bitty, lol. Also, Active-X filtering kind of sucks when you have to flip it on and off for things such as installing Flash. Off-topic, but Protected Mode doesn't work in Sandboxie I would have liked to see the search bar a bit shorter, it's kind of long. I wouldn't mind being able to auto-update TPLs as well.

 

I honestly can't see why a rapid release development (like Chrome) should be recieved positive. In corporate environments a stable browser with longer support are more appreciated than one which has a new release every 2-3 months. It saddens me that Firefox goes the same path.

 

Technically it's the "one" bar, not a search bar. You can change the width of it by moving your mouse to the far right. You can also move the refresh/cancel button to be in front on the URL instead of behind.

I love ActiveX filtering, used it ever since it was implemented, but I can't find myself recommending it to standard users. I've allowed the websites i frequently visit and barely have to touch it.

 

In all fairness, security researchers have found ways to break out of IE's sandbox (Protected Mode). It happened at the pwn2own contest. IE9's, according to Microsoft, didn't have this flaw, though. But, this was a new flaw in IE's Protected Mode. At least one other has been disclosed before that one.

The same can't be said about Chrome's sandbox. Even with vulnerabilities, its sandbox would make it difficult for exploits to be successful.

 

Well, the "one" bar then..Mr. Ballmer (teasing you) Thanks for that tip, worked great No, the Active-X filter is not for normal users. It breaks far too many websites. The obvious answer is to stop making, for instance, Flash be an Active-X plugin. It's time to move on now, MS knows Active-X caused a lot of security issues, yet they still continue to use it.

 

Give them time, Moon. At some point, Chrome will fall. It's just the way things are, the good guys make a breakthrough, the bad guys follow suit. It'll probably be some kid that figures it out In the meantime, just wrap up IE9 in Sandboxie, no problem.

 

First of all, Google brought out a huge security patch just before the pwn2own event, Microsoft did not do this. Secondly, everything can be bypassed (even Chrome's sandbox: http://www.infosecurity-us.com/view...ine-security-flaws-in-updated-chrome-browser/ , though I agree with you that Chrome is the most secure browser available nowadays... except maybe lynx ).

 

Sorry bud, forgot to add my sarcastic smilies in there --> that's better! Every time I hear "one" I think LotR and some joke revolving around it. :x

 

"Where now the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?
Where is the helm and the hauberk, and the bright hair flowing?
Where is the hand on the harpstring, and the red fire glowing?
Where is the spring and the harvest and the tall corn growing?
They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadow;
The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.
Who shall gather the smoke of the dead wood burning,
Or behold the flowing years from the Sea returning?"

 

That's correct. But, if I'm not mistaken, the versions in contest had to be 1 week old? If I still remember this well, then the version that Google released back then, wasn't the participant.

Regarding Chrome's sandbox... Google didn't reinvente nothing, rather making use of what is already provided by the operating system. Therefore, if a fail happens, it has to be in the operating system's own mechanisms. In the end, the failure belongs to Microsoft.

 

I believe the 1 week thing came after the patch rush this year.

 

Mr Celsi is pretty...self-conscious, as in "It's my blog and I'll argue as I damn well please".
Add-ons should be avoided; bugs, memory leaks, mere financial opportunism...
Especially Noscript which is making 'evil $$' with ads.
AdB+ gets much credit though and it's even argued, it can replace Noscript. I don't think so.
The mentioned affair was nasty and Noscript almost made my sw faeces list.
The article serves well for reminding me.
But Maone has continued development steadily, offering unique features, even with 'Scripting allowed' afaik and the ad-supported update web page can easily be disabled.
(SBIE for the win though when it comes to browser/browsing security).

What's esoteric about AB+? Literally the minority who doesn't feel a need for ads?