5 Reasons Why IE9 Cannot Stop IE's Decline

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by TheKid7, Apr 4, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheKid7

    TheKid7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Posts:
    3,469
  2. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Interesting, I think a lack of really good or varied extensions & customisability is a big factor as well.
     
  3. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2011
  4. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
  5. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    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.
     
  6. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    What about security, specifically script control? That's the one place every browser seems to fail, including Firefox minus NoScript.
     
  7. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    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.
     
  8. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    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 :D 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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2011
  9. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    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.
     
  10. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,121
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
  11. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    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.
     
  12. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,121
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
  13. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Loving IE 9 so far with no compelling reason to switch.
     
  14. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    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.
     
  15. Martijn2

    Martijn2 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    321
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    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.
     
  16. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    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.
     
  17. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    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.
     
  18. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543

    Well, the "one" bar then..Mr. Ballmer :D (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.
     
  19. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543

    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 :D In the meantime, just wrap up IE9 in Sandboxie, no problem.
     
  20. Martijn2

    Martijn2 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    321
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    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 ;) ).
     
  21. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    Sorry bud, forgot to add my sarcastic smilies in there --> :D :D that's better! Every time I hear "one" I think LotR and some joke revolving around it. :x
     
  22. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543

    "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?" ;)
     
  23. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    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. :D In the end, the failure belongs to Microsoft. :D :blink:
     
  24. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    I believe the 1 week thing came after the patch rush this year.
     
  25. Baserk

    Baserk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    1,317
    Location:
    AmstelodamUM
    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?
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2011
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.