Yeah, it can't be uninstalled. That's for legal reasons, not practical ones.
watch out IE users
- Thread starter 97tbird
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
It was never PART of the kernel. It may have had kernel level ACCESS, but it was never part of.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
I would like to throw in my 2 cents here with two observations:
1) I am uncertain if this is still the case, but for a good long while, IE was a part of the flippin' *kernel* of the OS itself. This meant that in addition to being a fairly insecure program i it's own right, any vulnerabilities that were taken advantage of also posed a considerable threat to the very core of the system. Add to that the face that a Windows installation made the default user an Administrator and you have a recipe for big, big trouble.
2) As a web developer, I can assure you, on behalf of web developers everywhere, that IE (moreso version 6 than other versions) is the bane of my existence. It is horrible with standards compliance, meaning that pages look all wonky and weird, necessitating IE-specific hacks and fixes. I'll bet I spend a good 20% of the time developing a small static site making IE concessions. It is infuriating.
Point #2 was made not to aid in the evaluation of IE as a viable and secure browser, but to let those that hate it know that it is reviled universally, deeply and completely by people of all professions and walks of life.
That's interesting.
From time to time I run across a website that won't work correctly using Opera, but will work fine with IE. Sometimes it will state that only IE is supported.
If the site is written in a standard programming language, shouldn't all browsers work equally well??
I would like to throw in my 2 cents here with two observations:
1) I am uncertain if this is still the case, but for a good long while, IE was a part of the flippin' *kernel* of the OS itself. This meant that in addition to being a fairly insecure program i it's own right, any vulnerabilities that were taken advantage of also posed a considerable threat to the very core of the system. Add to that the face that a Windows installation made the default user an Administrator and you have a recipe for big, big trouble.
2) As a web developer, I can assure you, on behalf of web developers everywhere, that IE (moreso version 6 than other versions) is the bane of my existence. It is horrible with standards compliance, meaning that pages look all wonky and weird, necessitating IE-specific hacks and fixes. I'll bet I spend a good 20% of the time developing a small static site making IE concessions. It is infuriating.
Point #2 was made not to aid in the evaluation of IE as a viable and secure browser, but to let those that hate it know that it is reviled universally, deeply and completely by people of all professions and walks of life.
That's interesting.
From time to time I run across a website that won't work correctly using Opera, but will work fine with IE. Sometimes it will state that only IE is supported.
If the site is written in a standard programming language, shouldn't all browsers work equally well??
IE was never part of the kernel. In fact http://www.litepc.com/ removes IE from Windows.
That's what's so frustrating about MS's decision that the "browser is part of the O.S." mentality. I CAN be removed easily and actually speeds things up a bit AND makes things more secure.
But with so many corporate apps written for IE that demand ActiveX controls, one cannot make a 'safer' PC running Windows in a business network. It's a catch 22 for sure.
uc50ic4more, have you tried to develop with IE8? Is it more standards-compliant?
That's what's so frustrating about MS's decision that the "browser is part of the O.S." mentality. I CAN be removed easily and actually speeds things up a bit AND makes things more secure.
But with so many corporate apps written for IE that demand ActiveX controls, one cannot make a 'safer' PC running Windows in a business network. It's a catch 22 for sure.
uc50ic4more, have you tried to develop with IE8? Is it more standards-compliant?
So guys... for the computer illiterate people, exactly what do these vulnerabilities cause on one's computer? My desktop at home has been acting quirky as of lately and keeps getting slower. Could this be a result of such before mentioned IE problems?
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
It was never PART of the kernel. It may have had kernel level ACCESS, but it was never part of.
Point taken. My understanding of the level of integration of the browser "in" the OS (I feel like Bill Clinton needing to define what "is"... is) is that Microsoft integrated the code that "implements" Internet Explorer into the Windows kernel. I use the quotes around "implements" because, quite frankly, that sounds sticky and greasy enough to me that I just shortened it to "part of" as the years went by.
It was never PART of the kernel. It may have had kernel level ACCESS, but it was never part of.
Point taken. My understanding of the level of integration of the browser "in" the OS (I feel like Bill Clinton needing to define what "is"... is) is that Microsoft integrated the code that "implements" Internet Explorer into the Windows kernel. I use the quotes around "implements" because, quite frankly, that sounds sticky and greasy enough to me that I just shortened it to "part of" as the years went by.
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
But with so many corporate apps written for IE that demand ActiveX controls, one cannot make a 'safer' PC running Windows in a business network. It's a catch 22 for sure.
I think Microsoft calls it "embrace and extend"; meaning that they will accept global industry standards, but will add on proprietary MS-specific features and functions available only to their own technology. This extends beyond the browser, in lesser or greater ways, to their IIS web server, .ASP and .NET scripting languages and frameworks, MSSQL database, etc.
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
uc50ic4more, have you tried to develop with IE8? Is it more standards-compliant?
The number of times I find myself crying, curled up in the fetal position under a warm blanket in the corner of the room while developing for... Sorry, *kludging together hacks for* IE has lowered considerably from IE 6 -> 7 -> 8. It's still a long way from perfect; and sadly, the usage for IE6 is still very strong.
I should also clarify that IE's woes for web developers are rooted more in rendering and looks (CSS non-compliance, incompatibility w/ 24 bit .png images with transparency, etc.) than function; ActiveX [censored] notwithstanding.
But with so many corporate apps written for IE that demand ActiveX controls, one cannot make a 'safer' PC running Windows in a business network. It's a catch 22 for sure.
I think Microsoft calls it "embrace and extend"; meaning that they will accept global industry standards, but will add on proprietary MS-specific features and functions available only to their own technology. This extends beyond the browser, in lesser or greater ways, to their IIS web server, .ASP and .NET scripting languages and frameworks, MSSQL database, etc.
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
uc50ic4more, have you tried to develop with IE8? Is it more standards-compliant?
The number of times I find myself crying, curled up in the fetal position under a warm blanket in the corner of the room while developing for... Sorry, *kludging together hacks for* IE has lowered considerably from IE 6 -> 7 -> 8. It's still a long way from perfect; and sadly, the usage for IE6 is still very strong.
I should also clarify that IE's woes for web developers are rooted more in rendering and looks (CSS non-compliance, incompatibility w/ 24 bit .png images with transparency, etc.) than function; ActiveX [censored] notwithstanding.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
I think Microsoft calls it "embrace and extend";
That sounds like a prostitute planning to spread STDs
I think Microsoft calls it "embrace and extend";
That sounds like a prostitute planning to spread STDs
Quote:
If the site is written in a standard programming language, shouldn't all browsers work equally well??
The problem is that these sites you come across are *not* developed using standard-compliant languages. They are developed and served; and meant to be viewed, using Microsoft technologies.
... So when we take into account the fact that IE is *not* compliant with a lot of international standards, and add to that the Microsoft development/ server/ browser proprietary-ness, you end up with lock-in, where users are forced to use Microsoft technologies.
I develop most sites using what is commonly referred to as a LAMP stack - a Linux-based server, with the Apache web server, the MySQL database and the PHP scripting language. These are all open source, free technologies that conform to standards and are consistent across all major browsers. A MS-trained developer, however, may be using all MS: The Windows OS with the IIS web server, a MSSQL database and the ASP scripting language. This latter work flow makes it much easier - almost encourages the developer - to craft sites that work with IE only in some manner. My wife employer - The local school board, uses this model; and we, without a Windows system in the house, have a bugger of a time sometimes using the employee portal.
[This is gross over simplification] I think the market share between LAMP and Windows-based servers globally is *about* 60-40, but the trend is favoring MS: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/09/30/september_2008_web_server_survey.html (2nd graph from the top).
If the site is written in a standard programming language, shouldn't all browsers work equally well??
The problem is that these sites you come across are *not* developed using standard-compliant languages. They are developed and served; and meant to be viewed, using Microsoft technologies.
... So when we take into account the fact that IE is *not* compliant with a lot of international standards, and add to that the Microsoft development/ server/ browser proprietary-ness, you end up with lock-in, where users are forced to use Microsoft technologies.
I develop most sites using what is commonly referred to as a LAMP stack - a Linux-based server, with the Apache web server, the MySQL database and the PHP scripting language. These are all open source, free technologies that conform to standards and are consistent across all major browsers. A MS-trained developer, however, may be using all MS: The Windows OS with the IIS web server, a MSSQL database and the ASP scripting language. This latter work flow makes it much easier - almost encourages the developer - to craft sites that work with IE only in some manner. My wife employer - The local school board, uses this model; and we, without a Windows system in the house, have a bugger of a time sometimes using the employee portal.
[This is gross over simplification] I think the market share between LAMP and Windows-based servers globally is *about* 60-40, but the trend is favoring MS: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/09/30/september_2008_web_server_survey.html (2nd graph from the top).
Thanks. That explains a lot.
Another reason to hate microslop.
My standard response to those IE dependent sites is to send an e-mail describing the problem and explaining that I won't ever use their website/product until/unless they become browser independent. I know, waste of bandwith. They never respond.
My 2 biggest grips are CNBC & FBN......
Another reason to hate microslop.
My standard response to those IE dependent sites is to send an e-mail describing the problem and explaining that I won't ever use their website/product until/unless they become browser independent. I know, waste of bandwith. They never respond.
My 2 biggest grips are CNBC & FBN......
CNBC, MSNBC...the MS in MSNBC is why IE will always "work best" with those sites.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
It was never PART of the kernel. It may have had kernel level ACCESS, but it was never part of.
Point taken. My understanding of the level of integration of the browser "in" the OS (I feel like Bill Clinton needing to define what "is"... is) is that Microsoft integrated the code that "implements" Internet Explorer into the Windows kernel. I use the quotes around "implements" because, quite frankly, that sounds sticky and greasy enough to me that I just shortened it to "part of" as the years went by.
Naw, it's not THAT bad. As TnS said above, it's integration from the install is easily removed.
I think IE's level of interaction with Windows gets blown out of proportion sometimes because of people's hatred for MS and it's stuff.....
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
It was never PART of the kernel. It may have had kernel level ACCESS, but it was never part of.
Point taken. My understanding of the level of integration of the browser "in" the OS (I feel like Bill Clinton needing to define what "is"... is) is that Microsoft integrated the code that "implements" Internet Explorer into the Windows kernel. I use the quotes around "implements" because, quite frankly, that sounds sticky and greasy enough to me that I just shortened it to "part of" as the years went by.
Naw, it's not THAT bad. As TnS said above, it's integration from the install is easily removed.
I think IE's level of interaction with Windows gets blown out of proportion sometimes because of people's hatred for MS and it's stuff.....
For reference's sake, I just tried going to this site - http://os.icloud.com, after being told that it only worked in IE. The error message I received when trying to view the page read a little something like this:
---
For the moment, icloud works solely in Internet Explorer
Support for Firefox is scheduled for March 2009. Until then, please use Internet Explorer to access icloud.
Technical info
When we started to build icloud, Internet Explorer was by far the most popular web browser available. Even today, we are still using some IE-specific techniques, such as XSLT features, CSS filters and VML markup.
---
That last paragraph can elucidate us to an extent about "IE-specific techniques", I guess.
---
For the moment, icloud works solely in Internet Explorer
Support for Firefox is scheduled for March 2009. Until then, please use Internet Explorer to access icloud.
Technical info
When we started to build icloud, Internet Explorer was by far the most popular web browser available. Even today, we are still using some IE-specific techniques, such as XSLT features, CSS filters and VML markup.
---
That last paragraph can elucidate us to an extent about "IE-specific techniques", I guess.
Too bad Iclod didn't know that good design means you design to standards then kludge for exceptions, you don't design for exceptions, then kludge for standards.
And yes, I realize that IE had (and to a lesser extent has) the majority of the market. That doesn't make it a standard, just a popular proprietary system.
And yes, I realize that IE had (and to a lesser extent has) the majority of the market. That doesn't make it a standard, just a popular proprietary system.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
For reference's sake, I just tried going to this site - http://os.icloud.com,
I just realized that the forum auto-parsed my URL *including* the comma... I'll try creating the link manually:
http://os.icloud.com
For reference's sake, I just tried going to this site - http://os.icloud.com,
I just realized that the forum auto-parsed my URL *including* the comma... I'll try creating the link manually:
http://os.icloud.com
One thing that is funny about this discussion is that it was originally about a vulnerability in IE6 which is a 7 year old version of IE. Does not apply to IE7 or Beta 8.
Does anyone even use IE6 anymore?? Why?
IE works fine. I'm running 8 which works better in Windows for me than FF or GC. In Linux FF is great but Opera might be winning me over.
Does anyone even use IE6 anymore?? Why?
IE works fine. I'm running 8 which works better in Windows for me than FF or GC. In Linux FF is great but Opera might be winning me over.
IE6 is the only rubber-stamped version of IE at my job. IE7 requires a few workarounds to make it work with the most prominent in-house apps.
Ah, work requirements.
All our work machines are Win2000. I have one of the few XP machines. Any day they were supposed to push an upgrade to Vista or so it has beed said for the past year.
The IT guys never need to stop by my office. Most of their time is at the offices/cubicles of the female coworkers who have a preference for short skirts. IE6 males a great excuse.
All our work machines are Win2000. I have one of the few XP machines. Any day they were supposed to push an upgrade to Vista or so it has beed said for the past year.
The IT guys never need to stop by my office. Most of their time is at the offices/cubicles of the female coworkers who have a preference for short skirts. IE6 males a great excuse.
Great thing about keeping your options open.
I like IE best in the Windows enviroment and FF best in Linux.
I've tried other browswers like Google Chrome with disappointment.
Been aware of Opera but didn't try till now.
Opera is looking pretty good. Seems faster in Windows than IE...my gripes with FF is that it is a little slower and GC is dead dog slow.
Opera has some very nice features too.
I reserve the right to change my mind.
I like IE best in the Windows enviroment and FF best in Linux.
I've tried other browswers like Google Chrome with disappointment.
Been aware of Opera but didn't try till now.
Opera is looking pretty good. Seems faster in Windows than IE...my gripes with FF is that it is a little slower and GC is dead dog slow.
Opera has some very nice features too.
I reserve the right to change my mind.
mormit, ever use Maxthon browser? It's IE based, but pretty nice all in all.
- Status
