Back button in IE is dangerous..
- Thread starter FOBSIDE
- Start date
>NIS doesn't let you click the back button in IE?
No that's not it, Norton knew about this early in the game and when you do Live updates, NIS not only does NAV updates but also does Security updates and one of those security updates was this malicious active script, btw there are other malicious scripts out there but not as well publicized as this one. Once the update is in NIS won't allow the milicious script to be run, so I can use my back button all I want.
Does your firewall give you protection against new malicious active scripts ?
Like I said before others may be free but it all comes down to trust. There are new malicious activeX, java and active scripts all the time, I don't think that will change, with NIS running I really don't have to worry about them much.
No that's not it, Norton knew about this early in the game and when you do Live updates, NIS not only does NAV updates but also does Security updates and one of those security updates was this malicious active script, btw there are other malicious scripts out there but not as well publicized as this one. Once the update is in NIS won't allow the milicious script to be run, so I can use my back button all I want.
Does your firewall give you protection against new malicious active scripts ?
Like I said before others may be free but it all comes down to trust. There are new malicious activeX, java and active scripts all the time, I don't think that will change, with NIS running I really don't have to worry about them much.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
No that's not it, Norton knew about this early in the game and when you do Live updates, NIS not only does NAV updates but also does Security updates and one of those security updates was this malicious active script,
So Symantec is releasing patches for MS' software?
Does your firewall give you protection against new malicious active scripts ?
My firewall is a Linux box, firewalls are supposed to protect you from outside threats not inside ones, if you run sh!tty, insecure software you deserve what you get. I would never browse with IE, I don't trust it.
Like I said before others may be free but it all comes down to trust. There are new malicious activeX, java and active scripts all the time, I don't think that will change, with NIS running I really don't have to worry about them much.
Frankly I don't think even NIS can protect you from all the holes in MS software.
So Symantec is releasing patches for MS' software?
Does your firewall give you protection against new malicious active scripts ?
My firewall is a Linux box, firewalls are supposed to protect you from outside threats not inside ones, if you run sh!tty, insecure software you deserve what you get. I would never browse with IE, I don't trust it.
Like I said before others may be free but it all comes down to trust. There are new malicious activeX, java and active scripts all the time, I don't think that will change, with NIS running I really don't have to worry about them much.
Frankly I don't think even NIS can protect you from all the holes in MS software.
Nice troll you snuck in there. It's complete FUD to compare Mickeysoft exploits to Java exploits.
You could probably count the Java security problems within the past year on one hand.
Furthermore, NIS may be (very) good software, but how many people use it to handle these problems w/ IE since MS just sits on their collective a$$es and doesn't care? Or better yet, will the news media ever slam MS for such a lousy security track record?
You could probably count the Java security problems within the past year on one hand.
Furthermore, NIS may be (very) good software, but how many people use it to handle these problems w/ IE since MS just sits on their collective a$$es and doesn't care? Or better yet, will the news media ever slam MS for such a lousy security track record?
>So Symantec is releasing patches for MS' software?
LOL it's an "active script" I wouldn't call it MS software...
>firewalls are supposed to protect you from outside threats not inside ones, if you run sh!tty, insecure software you deserve what you get.
well that's the beauty of NIS2K2 it can even protect me from inside threats as well.
>Frankly I don't think even NIS can protect you from all the holes in MS software.
oh please.... "It's complete FUD"
>thats pretty lame...
When you goto bed at night do you leave all your doors wide open and then email thieves letting them know. What's pretty lame are users on broadband with no Anti-virus, script, firewall or spyware protection and then bashing software for it. On the other hand some take it to extremes and some people may decide to cocoon themselves inside a vault in a buried cave and some decide to live close to town and implement acceptable security like locking door and windows.
Frankly I don't have anything against Unix or other browsers or firewalls or other whatever software you may have, to each his own. But I'm doing fine with what I have and sleeping well at night.
LOL it's an "active script" I wouldn't call it MS software...
>firewalls are supposed to protect you from outside threats not inside ones, if you run sh!tty, insecure software you deserve what you get.
well that's the beauty of NIS2K2 it can even protect me from inside threats as well.
>Frankly I don't think even NIS can protect you from all the holes in MS software.
oh please.... "It's complete FUD"
>thats pretty lame...
When you goto bed at night do you leave all your doors wide open and then email thieves letting them know. What's pretty lame are users on broadband with no Anti-virus, script, firewall or spyware protection and then bashing software for it. On the other hand some take it to extremes and some people may decide to cocoon themselves inside a vault in a buried cave and some decide to live close to town and implement acceptable security like locking door and windows.
Frankly I don't have anything against Unix or other browsers or firewalls or other whatever software you may have, to each his own. But I'm doing fine with what I have and sleeping well at night.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
LOL it's an "active script" I wouldn't call it MS software...
The fact that it's MS' interpreter and MS' browser means nothing...
well that's the beauty of NIS2K2 it can even protect me from inside threats as well.
It's a hack to fix the symptom not the problem.
When you goto bed at night do you leave all your doors wide open and then email thieves letting them know.
I don't email the thieves, but yes my windows are open.
Frankly I don't have anything against Unix or other browsers or firewalls or other whatever software you may have, to each his own. But I'm doing fine with what I have and sleeping well at night.
You're in the minority far as I see it, specially from the number of nimda attempts on my boxes per day.
And by not using IE I avoid a lot of stupid sh!t on the Internet like those new flash ads that run across the web pages, annoying popups, most banners, etc.
The fact that it's MS' interpreter and MS' browser means nothing...
well that's the beauty of NIS2K2 it can even protect me from inside threats as well.
It's a hack to fix the symptom not the problem.
When you goto bed at night do you leave all your doors wide open and then email thieves letting them know.
I don't email the thieves, but yes my windows are open.
Frankly I don't have anything against Unix or other browsers or firewalls or other whatever software you may have, to each his own. But I'm doing fine with what I have and sleeping well at night.
You're in the minority far as I see it, specially from the number of nimda attempts on my boxes per day.
And by not using IE I avoid a lot of stupid sh!t on the Internet like those new flash ads that run across the web pages, annoying popups, most banners, etc.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,002
- 126
I would never browse with IE, I don't trust it.
That's your choice of course but what, may I ask do you run instead of Internet Explorer? There's no other browser in existance that can match it in terms of rendering speed and compatibility. Everything else is simply trash.
That's your choice of course but what, may I ask do you run instead of Internet Explorer? There's no other browser in existance that can match it in terms of rendering speed and compatibility. Everything else is simply trash.
>You're in the minority far as I see it,
you are also in the minotiry.. since the majority of users do use IE. The only reason holes are not found in other browsers is because they are not targeted and hacks are not even wasting their time with the minority becasue the show is with IE. A while back when IE and Netscape had fairly close browser markets I seem to recall that many problems that IE had also affected Netscape.
I actually welcome and discovery of security holes and hacks since they are patched fairly quickly by Microsoft and Norton making my online experience even more secure.
you are also in the minotiry.. since the majority of users do use IE. The only reason holes are not found in other browsers is because they are not targeted and hacks are not even wasting their time with the minority becasue the show is with IE. A while back when IE and Netscape had fairly close browser markets I seem to recall that many problems that IE had also affected Netscape.
I actually welcome and discovery of security holes and hacks since they are patched fairly quickly by Microsoft and Norton making my online experience even more secure.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
That's your choice of course but what, may I ask do you run instead of Internet Explorer? There's no other browser in existance that can match it in terms of rendering speed and compatibility. Everything else is simply trash.
I use Mozilla, it uses more memory but it works just as well and I have no speed issues with it.
The only reason holes are not found in other browsers is because they are not targeted and hacks are not even wasting their time with the minority becasue the show is with IE.
Just like all the hacks wasting their time finding problems in IIS when Apache has the market in web servers?
I use Mozilla, it uses more memory but it works just as well and I have no speed issues with it.
The only reason holes are not found in other browsers is because they are not targeted and hacks are not even wasting their time with the minority becasue the show is with IE.
Just like all the hacks wasting their time finding problems in IIS when Apache has the market in web servers?
<< That's your choice of course but what, may I ask do you run instead of Internet Explorer? There's no other browser in existance that can match it in terms of rendering speed and compatibility. Everything else is simply trash. >>
Those are foolish, ignorant statements.
First off, while IE is a pretty good browser today, it wasn't regarded as better than Nutscrape until IE 5.0. Secondly, it renders pretty quickly, but the load time is completely misleading. IE's DLLs are loaded at OS boot time. Mozilla has a Quick Start feature that provides the same type of benefit. While Mozilla is a larger application (in terms of memory footprint), it arguably renders faster than IE and it's *much* more standards compliant. If the web sites you visit are more "compatible" with IE, that's only because their developers aren't well versed in Web standards.
Finally, IE's usage statistics are largely due to the OS monopoly and abuse of that monopoly. There are other good browsers out there, and the companies marketing them operate within the law.
LMAO at NicColt, who thinks that Mickeysoft has a good security track record.
>who thinks that Mickeysoft has a good security track record
I'm not saying nor have I ever said that they ever had a perfect tract record and on the contrary there were lot's of problems but overall when you look at the big picture I'd rather trust MS and Norton that admit and improve from their mistakes than other mickey mouse software out there that believe that ignorance is bliss..
In the end it comes down to balance of risk and functionality, again you may be safe in your own cave but I'd rather live in my house. To each his own but I'm very content and confident with what I have.
Now if you would excuse me I have a wide variety of games that I would like to play.
I'm not saying nor have I ever said that they ever had a perfect tract record and on the contrary there were lot's of problems but overall when you look at the big picture I'd rather trust MS and Norton that admit and improve from their mistakes than other mickey mouse software out there that believe that ignorance is bliss..
In the end it comes down to balance of risk and functionality, again you may be safe in your own cave but I'd rather live in my house. To each his own but I'm very content and confident with what I have.
Now if you would excuse me I have a wide variety of games that I would like to play.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
I'm not saying nor have I ever said that they ever had a perfect tract record and on the contrary there were lot's of problems but overall when you look at the big picture I'd rather trust MS and Norton that admit and improve from their mistakes than other mickey mouse software out there that believe that ignorance is bliss
MS' track record for fixing problems is terrible, it's gotten better lately but that's only cause of the loads of bad publicity. They even have a white paper on why security problems shouldn't be announced to protect people from exploiting them, which really just results in people not knowing they have a security problem, but MS doesn't care about that they just want to avoid more bad publicity.
In the end it comes down to balance of risk and functionality, again you may be safe in your own cave but I'd rather live in my house. To each his own but I'm very content and confident with what I have.
The problem with that analogy is that my 'cave' (i.e. Linux, mozilla, etc) is just as functional and comfortable as your house, and it's a lot safer.
MS' track record for fixing problems is terrible, it's gotten better lately but that's only cause of the loads of bad publicity. They even have a white paper on why security problems shouldn't be announced to protect people from exploiting them, which really just results in people not knowing they have a security problem, but MS doesn't care about that they just want to avoid more bad publicity.
In the end it comes down to balance of risk and functionality, again you may be safe in your own cave but I'd rather live in my house. To each his own but I'm very content and confident with what I have.
The problem with that analogy is that my 'cave' (i.e. Linux, mozilla, etc) is just as functional and comfortable as your house, and it's a lot safer.
<< I use Mozilla, it uses more memory but it works just as well and I have no speed issues with it. >>
Same here. I've been using Mozilla as my standard browser for almost 6 months, and have found it to be noticeably faster than IE. It also seems much more stable than IE6. The only websites that have problems are badly designed sites with broken or non-standard (IE proprietary) HTML code. And those seems to be becoming less common, possibly due to web designers finally coming out from under their rocks and writing compliant code.
>and it's a lot safer
Let's all stop this FUD and give it up.... Let's truly face it, no one is better than the other when it comes to holes.. and it comes down to trust.
===
The Register
Posted: 29/01/2002 at 12:38 GMT A security bug in Netscape and Mozilla browsers could allow a malicious web site operator to access cookies on users' computers.
The vulnerability, which affects Netscape older than 6.2.1 and versions of Mozilla prior to 0.9.7, allows an attacker to steal a user's cookies - if he succeeds in tricking a victim into visiting a particular URL.
Cookies are often used to identify and authenticate users to a Web site. If an attacker can steal a user's cookies, then they can impersonate that user. How much damage could be caused through this is dependent on how a particular site uses the cookies.
Although Netscape states it is not aware of active exploitation of the bug, the issue is a concern because the exploit could be conducted with something as simple as an image tag in a Web page or email pointing at a maliciously crafted URL. There's no requirement for active scripting to be enabled for the vulnerability to work.
Netscape advises users to upgrade to the recently released version 6.2.1 of its browser or Mozilla 0.9.7, which are free of the vulnerability. Netscape Communicator 4.x is also immune from the glitch. ®
Evolt.org 01/29/2002
With all the buzz around these days by the anti-Microsoft crowd about how insecure Microsoft's Internet Explorer is, it's quite ironic to see a security notice come out about a cookie problem existing in the anti-Microsoft crowds' browser of choice ? Mozilla. What's even more ironic is that the security hole was reported to Netscape in the middle of November 2001. There wasn't a fix available until the release of Mozilla 0.9.7, approximately 1½ months after it was reported. And there's no mention of this fix in the release notes, though it was reported as fixed to Mark Slemko who discovered the exploit. A very similar security hole was reported to Microsoft within approximately one week's time and a patch was available within 4 days. There was plenty of noise about how Microsoft wasn't quick enough to address the issue. How come we don't hear the same amount of noise (or, more appropriately, more noise) about Netscape dropping the ball on this issue for so long?
>if you run sh!tty, insecure software you deserve what you get. I would never browse with IE, I don't trust it.
Mozilla didn't give a rat's ass on this hole nor did they care to fix it nor admitting it to their users, telling them to just upgrade the browser when it was ready. It's always nice to trust one's browser isn't.
enough said on this.... for which the conclusion is self evident. Have yourself some happy and safe surfing.
Let's all stop this FUD and give it up.... Let's truly face it, no one is better than the other when it comes to holes.. and it comes down to trust.
===
The Register
Posted: 29/01/2002 at 12:38 GMT A security bug in Netscape and Mozilla browsers could allow a malicious web site operator to access cookies on users' computers.
The vulnerability, which affects Netscape older than 6.2.1 and versions of Mozilla prior to 0.9.7, allows an attacker to steal a user's cookies - if he succeeds in tricking a victim into visiting a particular URL.
Cookies are often used to identify and authenticate users to a Web site. If an attacker can steal a user's cookies, then they can impersonate that user. How much damage could be caused through this is dependent on how a particular site uses the cookies.
Although Netscape states it is not aware of active exploitation of the bug, the issue is a concern because the exploit could be conducted with something as simple as an image tag in a Web page or email pointing at a maliciously crafted URL. There's no requirement for active scripting to be enabled for the vulnerability to work.
Netscape advises users to upgrade to the recently released version 6.2.1 of its browser or Mozilla 0.9.7, which are free of the vulnerability. Netscape Communicator 4.x is also immune from the glitch. ®
Evolt.org 01/29/2002
With all the buzz around these days by the anti-Microsoft crowd about how insecure Microsoft's Internet Explorer is, it's quite ironic to see a security notice come out about a cookie problem existing in the anti-Microsoft crowds' browser of choice ? Mozilla. What's even more ironic is that the security hole was reported to Netscape in the middle of November 2001. There wasn't a fix available until the release of Mozilla 0.9.7, approximately 1½ months after it was reported. And there's no mention of this fix in the release notes, though it was reported as fixed to Mark Slemko who discovered the exploit. A very similar security hole was reported to Microsoft within approximately one week's time and a patch was available within 4 days. There was plenty of noise about how Microsoft wasn't quick enough to address the issue. How come we don't hear the same amount of noise (or, more appropriately, more noise) about Netscape dropping the ball on this issue for so long?
>if you run sh!tty, insecure software you deserve what you get. I would never browse with IE, I don't trust it.
Mozilla didn't give a rat's ass on this hole nor did they care to fix it nor admitting it to their users, telling them to just upgrade the browser when it was ready. It's always nice to trust one's browser isn't.
enough said on this.... for which the conclusion is self evident. Have yourself some happy and safe surfing.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Let's all stop this FUD and give it up.... Let's truly face it, no one is better than the other when it comes to holes.. and it comes down to trust.
You found 2 articles about things for which no exploits were ever created, that doesn't even compare to the countless IE holes for which there are active exploits.
And the articles you quoted say the expoits were reported to Netscape, well Netscape != Mozilla so who knows how long before it was in the real Mozilla Bugzilla database.
You found 2 articles about things for which no exploits were ever created, that doesn't even compare to the countless IE holes for which there are active exploits.
And the articles you quoted say the expoits were reported to Netscape, well Netscape != Mozilla so who knows how long before it was in the real Mozilla Bugzilla database.
>that doesn't even compare to the countless IE holes for which there are active exploits.
at least Microsoft will admit that there are bugs, holes or exploits and will fix them quite fast. With Mozilla they won't even admit or be aware of bugs or exploits so you have to take your chances and you want a patch you say.... well forget that, wait ti'll the next upgrade which seems to be the normal bug fix for mozilla. >if you run sh!tty, insecure software you deserve what you get.
at least Microsoft will admit that there are bugs, holes or exploits and will fix them quite fast. With Mozilla they won't even admit or be aware of bugs or exploits so you have to take your chances and you want a patch you say.... well forget that, wait ti'll the next upgrade which seems to be the normal bug fix for mozilla. >if you run sh!tty, insecure software you deserve what you get.
If you're gonna use an example, at least find a good one.
First off, sniffing the user's cookies isn't nearly as bad as running arbitrary code. It's like the difference between a peeping tom and a house burglar.
Secondly, it's nice that MS fixed a relatively minor problem, but yet they allow a serious problem to affect users for months. For this particular problem (Back button considered dangerous), they were notified in Nov 2001.
If you manage to use IE safely (only because of NIS), more power to you, but you're definitely spreading a false opinion here. Microsoft has a terrible security track record, and just because you don't care to admit it doesn't mean it isn't so.
You're simply completely wrong that MS admits flaws in its software, and fixes it in a reasonable time frame. For how long was Outlook the primary transport for Internet worms due to a faulty design?
First off, sniffing the user's cookies isn't nearly as bad as running arbitrary code. It's like the difference between a peeping tom and a house burglar.
Secondly, it's nice that MS fixed a relatively minor problem, but yet they allow a serious problem to affect users for months. For this particular problem (Back button considered dangerous), they were notified in Nov 2001.
If you manage to use IE safely (only because of NIS), more power to you, but you're definitely spreading a false opinion here. Microsoft has a terrible security track record, and just because you don't care to admit it doesn't mean it isn't so.
You're simply completely wrong that MS admits flaws in its software, and fixes it in a reasonable time frame. For how long was Outlook the primary transport for Internet worms due to a faulty design?
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
at least Microsoft will admit that there are bugs, holes or exploits and will fix them quite fast.
You must be new...
With Mozilla they won't even admit or be aware of bugs or exploits so you have to take your chances and
Mozilla isn't even considered 'done' yet, why post big reports about problems in beta software? If you opt to download the software and use it, you take the risk that you're running buggier than normal code and some of those bugs may be security related. If you download IE, er wait you don't have that choice it's there whether you want it or not, you're under the impression MS has stamped it OK, but the fact is you're running even buggier code because MS' programmers have no idea how to program with security in mind.
you want a patch you say.... well forget that, wait ti'll the next upgrade which seems to be the normal bug fix for mozilla.
Mozilla is Open Source, if you want you can download patches and new builds daily.
You must be new...
With Mozilla they won't even admit or be aware of bugs or exploits so you have to take your chances and
Mozilla isn't even considered 'done' yet, why post big reports about problems in beta software? If you opt to download the software and use it, you take the risk that you're running buggier than normal code and some of those bugs may be security related. If you download IE, er wait you don't have that choice it's there whether you want it or not, you're under the impression MS has stamped it OK, but the fact is you're running even buggier code because MS' programmers have no idea how to program with security in mind.
you want a patch you say.... well forget that, wait ti'll the next upgrade which seems to be the normal bug fix for mozilla.
Mozilla is Open Source, if you want you can download patches and new builds daily.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,002
- 126
it uses more memory but it works just as well and I have no speed issues with it
Mozilla like other browsers does not render pages as fast or as accurately as Internet Explorer does. Quite simply IE is the best browser in the industry in that respect.
Those are foolish, ignorant statements.
Oh really? Then show me some evidence that Mozilla is either a faster renderer and/or more accurate than IE.
First off, while IE is a pretty good browser today, it wasn't regarded as better than Nutscrape until IE 5.0.
Rubbish. IE already owned Netscape at version 4.
IE's DLLs are loaded at OS boot time.
So what? Any other program can load its' DLLs when launched, giving it the alleged benefit that you claim IE has.
Also, what on earth does that have to do with pages' rendering speeds? The code inside the DLLs may be required as part of the rendering process but nobody in their right mind would load the DLLs while the webpage is loading. That is, unless the programmers are totally incompetent.
it arguably renders faster than IE
No it doesn't.
and it's *much* more standards compliant.
Then why does IE produce more pages looking like what they should?
If the web sites you visit are more "compatible" with IE, that's only because their developers aren't well versed in Web standards.
<rolleyes>
Riiiight, so first you claim that Mozilla is just as accurate as IE but when it isn't, it's because the developers are stupid. Honestly, your anti-MS zealotry really shows.
Finally, IE's usage statistics are largely due to the OS monopoly and abuse of that monopoly.
When did I ever talk about the usage patterns? Or is this just another opportunity for you to get in one of your anti-MS trolls?
There are other good browsers out there, and the companies marketing them operate within the law.
But none as good as IE.
Mozilla like other browsers does not render pages as fast or as accurately as Internet Explorer does. Quite simply IE is the best browser in the industry in that respect.
Those are foolish, ignorant statements.
Oh really? Then show me some evidence that Mozilla is either a faster renderer and/or more accurate than IE.
First off, while IE is a pretty good browser today, it wasn't regarded as better than Nutscrape until IE 5.0.
Rubbish. IE already owned Netscape at version 4.
IE's DLLs are loaded at OS boot time.
So what? Any other program can load its' DLLs when launched, giving it the alleged benefit that you claim IE has.
Also, what on earth does that have to do with pages' rendering speeds? The code inside the DLLs may be required as part of the rendering process but nobody in their right mind would load the DLLs while the webpage is loading. That is, unless the programmers are totally incompetent.
it arguably renders faster than IE
No it doesn't.
and it's *much* more standards compliant.
Then why does IE produce more pages looking like what they should?
If the web sites you visit are more "compatible" with IE, that's only because their developers aren't well versed in Web standards.
<rolleyes>
Riiiight, so first you claim that Mozilla is just as accurate as IE but when it isn't, it's because the developers are stupid. Honestly, your anti-MS zealotry really shows.
Finally, IE's usage statistics are largely due to the OS monopoly and abuse of that monopoly.
When did I ever talk about the usage patterns? Or is this just another opportunity for you to get in one of your anti-MS trolls?
There are other good browsers out there, and the companies marketing them operate within the law.
But none as good as IE.
BFG10K,
Your argument is completely backwards because Mozilla is the most standards-compliant browser on the planet. You don't have to take my word for it; go research that for yourself.
Just because you feel IE is the most "standard" doesn't make it so. And nobody with any good understanding of the situation will believe you either.
As far as rendering speed goes, Mozilla's rendering engine, Gecko is very fast. I said it's arguably faster than IE, but I honestly don't have the numbers to prove it. Then again, you really have nothing at all to back up your technical claims.
Frankly, I don't care if you feel IE is a better browser. Many people agree with you. But you said all other browsers are "trash", which gives you zero credibility. I have my biases, which are pretty clear, but I don't go around making foolish statements w/o basis in fact.
Finally, I mentioned "Quick Start" to describe the memory footprint and application load time issues; it's separate from the page rendering performance issue.
Your argument is completely backwards because Mozilla is the most standards-compliant browser on the planet. You don't have to take my word for it; go research that for yourself.
Just because you feel IE is the most "standard" doesn't make it so. And nobody with any good understanding of the situation will believe you either.
As far as rendering speed goes, Mozilla's rendering engine, Gecko is very fast. I said it's arguably faster than IE, but I honestly don't have the numbers to prove it. Then again, you really have nothing at all to back up your technical claims.
Frankly, I don't care if you feel IE is a better browser. Many people agree with you. But you said all other browsers are "trash", which gives you zero credibility. I have my biases, which are pretty clear, but I don't go around making foolish statements w/o basis in fact.
Finally, I mentioned "Quick Start" to describe the memory footprint and application load time issues; it's separate from the page rendering performance issue.
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 34,545
- 1,707
- 126
<< it uses more memory but it works just as well and I have no speed issues with it
Mozilla like other browsers does not render pages as fast or as accurately as Internet Explorer does. Quite simply IE is the best browser in the industry in that respect. >>
Mozilla was designed from the ground up to be completely standards compliant. There was a test called the "Acid Box Test" or something to that effect that showed how correctly the browser worked. If someone can dig that up and take screenshots, that should solve this.
<<
and it's *much* more standards compliant.
Then why does IE produce more pages looking like what they should? >>
How do you know what they are supposed to look like? There is only one correct way to read the code and IE doesn't render pages correctly as often as Mozilla.
<<
web sites you visit are more "compatible" with IE, that's only because their developers aren't well versed in Web standards.
<rolleyes>
Riiiight, so first you claim that Mozilla is just as accurate as IE but when it isn't, it's because the developers are stupid. Honestly, your anti-MS zealotry really shows. >>
Standards exist to be standard. Unfortunately the majority seems to be going to proprietary code, which will make said code standard.
<<
Finally, IE's usage statistics are largely due to the OS monopoly and abuse of that monopoly.
When did I ever talk about the usage patterns? Or is this just another opportunity for you to get in one of your anti-MS trolls?
>>
I expect an OS to come with a basic set of tools, and a browser is one of them. MS would naturally only bundle IE. People have their options, IE is good. Mozilla is better now, maybe it will motivate people to download it.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Mozilla like other browsers does not render pages as fast or as accurately as Internet Explorer does. Quite simply IE is the best browser in the industry in that respect.
IE just allows for more mistakes where Mozilla is more strict, just because it allows you to be lazy or stupid doesen't mean it's better. And IE is a lot worse in other areas (i.e. security, the whole purpose of this thread) and that's enough for me not to use it.
Oh really? Then show me some evidence that Mozilla is either a faster renderer and/or more accurate than IE.
Why don't you pull out some proof? You're the one that ran in here yelling 'liar! liar!'.
So what? Any other program can load its' DLLs when launched, giving it the alleged benefit that you claim IE has.
No, he's saying IE's support DLLs (like the HTML renderer, socks, etc) are loaded with the OS because the OS is dependent on them, making IE's load time a lot less, where as other browsers have to load all their DLLs at launch time making it take longer.
Then why does IE produce more pages looking like what they should?
Because people preview their pages in IE.
And how would you know anyway, did you ask all the web masters if the page really looks like they wanted it to?
Riiiight, so first you claim that Mozilla is just as accurate as IE but when it isn't, it's because the developers are stupid. Honestly, your anti-MS zealotry really shows.
It's a known fact that IE allows sh!t HTML to render without errors. If you take that as zealotry I think you need to find yourself a mirror.
IE just allows for more mistakes where Mozilla is more strict, just because it allows you to be lazy or stupid doesen't mean it's better. And IE is a lot worse in other areas (i.e. security, the whole purpose of this thread) and that's enough for me not to use it.
Oh really? Then show me some evidence that Mozilla is either a faster renderer and/or more accurate than IE.
Why don't you pull out some proof? You're the one that ran in here yelling 'liar! liar!'.
So what? Any other program can load its' DLLs when launched, giving it the alleged benefit that you claim IE has.
No, he's saying IE's support DLLs (like the HTML renderer, socks, etc) are loaded with the OS because the OS is dependent on them, making IE's load time a lot less, where as other browsers have to load all their DLLs at launch time making it take longer.
Then why does IE produce more pages looking like what they should?
Because people preview their pages in IE.
And how would you know anyway, did you ask all the web masters if the page really looks like they wanted it to?
Riiiight, so first you claim that Mozilla is just as accurate as IE but when it isn't, it's because the developers are stupid. Honestly, your anti-MS zealotry really shows.
It's a known fact that IE allows sh!t HTML to render without errors. If you take that as zealotry I think you need to find yourself a mirror.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter