alexalex Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Despite being mainly a Windows user, Internet Explorer is dead to me. Has been for ages. Aesthetics and speed have nothing to do with it. I split my time between Firefox and Chrome for the following Defensive Computing reasons...... http://blogs.computerworld.com/18552/12_reasons_not_to_use_internet_explorer_ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerowen Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Reason number 8 is my main reason. I love Firefox on Windows, but its speed is still not up to snuff in the Linux version, so I run Chrome which is outstandingly fast and reliable on Linux. I too have nudged people into safer environments. A friend of mine complained of constantly getting viruses and paying for antivirus software. He was by no means a technical user, so explaining that there are free antiviruses and all that technical hoo-ha was out of the question. I just installed Debian Linux, put a Google Chrome icon on his desktop and renamed it "Internet" and he is happy as can be, since all he does is instant message and use Facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun N. Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I just prefer Chrome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiagosilva29 Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 13. Colin-uk uses it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xahid Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 dead.cell and Carbon Fiber 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMH Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 HIs 11th point about 32/64 bit is unfair. Chrome doesn't even have a 64 bit version, as far as I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesclarke555 Popular Post Posted July 4, 2011 Popular Post Share Posted July 4, 2011 Ok... 1. On that basis, let's not bother to use any popular software out of fear :rolleyes: 2. Mute point. Microsoft can and do release out of band security updates when needed. 3. See above. 4. Adobe has their own flash and reader update alerts. 5. Is this 2005? ActiveX isn't really a problem anymore at default security settings. 6. What's his point? Apart from a handful, most plug-ins are crap anyway. 7. See point 4. 8. I can see his point but not a problem for me, I don't regularly use Linx or OS X. 9. You can do this with third party software like xmarks or dropbox etc. 10. As IE is part of Windows, it's pretty obvious there isn't going to be a portable version. You could use virtualisation to run side by side copies if you wanted. 11. Now he's really plucking at straws. Yes, let's all lambast Microsoft for developing a x64 version of IE :rolleyes: 12. And so too is Internet Explorer :rolleyes: Unknown_97784568745, Roger H., Xerax and 22 others 25 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Lol @ Computer World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMH Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Ok... 1. On that basis, let's not bother to use any popular software out of fear :rolleyes: 2. Mute point. Microsoft can and do release out of band security updates when needed. 3. See above. 4. Adobe has their own flash and reader update alerts. 5. Is this 2005? ActiveX isn't really a problem anymore at default security settings. 6. What's his point? Apart from a handful, most plug-ins are crap anyway. 7. See point 4. 8. I can see his point but not a problem for me, I don't regularly use Linx or OS X. 9. You can do this with third party software like xmarks or dropbox etc. 10. As IE is part of Windows, it's pretty obvious there isn't going to be a portable version. You could use virtualisation to run side by side copies if you wanted. 11. Now he's really plucking at straws. Yes, let's all lambast Microsoft for developing a x64 version of IE :rolleyes: 12. And so too is Internet Explorer :rolleyes: Hurray! :p Post this in the comment section of the article. I give you twelve +1. :yes: cleverclogs, stevember and Ci7 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XerXis Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 wtf is the difference between an activeX control (which is just COM) or some other plugin system? Let me tell you, none Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin-uk Veteran Posted July 4, 2011 Veteran Share Posted July 4, 2011 13. Colin-uk uses it. thats a reason to use it! :D also, agreed with james clarke :p if people are comfortable using different OS's, why would they not be comfortable using different browsers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the better twin Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Ok... 1. On that basis, let's not bother to use any popular software out of fear :rolleyes: 2. Mute point. Microsoft can and do release out of band security updates when needed. 3. See above. 4. Adobe has their own flash and reader update alerts. 5. Is this 2005? ActiveX isn't really a problem anymore at default security settings. 6. What's his point? Apart from a handful, most plug-ins are crap anyway. 7. See point 4. 8. I can see his point but not a problem for me, I don't regularly use Linx or OS X. 9. You can do this with third party software like xmarks or dropbox etc. 10. As IE is part of Windows, it's pretty obvious there isn't going to be a portable version. You could use virtualisation to run side by side copies if you wanted. 11. Now he's really plucking at straws. Yes, let's all lambast Microsoft for developing a x64 version of IE :rolleyes: 12. And so too is Internet Explorer :rolleyes: Pretty much this^ This is a poorly written article with very weak and often irrelevant arguments which have nothing to do with IE. Oooo you have to choose between 32bit and 64bit software, how dare you MS! cleverclogs 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 1 reason to ignore the article: It's from a disreputable source. Solid Knight and stevember 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowanvista Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 IE is just a tool to download other browsers :whistle: Depicus, De.Bug, +Matthew S. and 4 others 7 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerowen Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 HIs 11th point about 32/64 bit is unfair. Chrome doesn't even have a 64 bit version, as far as I know. Yep, sure does, I'm using it right now with the 64 bit Debian port of Sun Java and it's working just dandy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teebor Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Seems to run out of steam by about point 8 and turns in to fan service also More than once I have nudged a non-techie Windows user away from Internet Explorer by removing its icon from the Windows desktop, installing Chrome, changing the Chrome icon to IE's blue "E" and changing the name under the icon to "Internet". Some may consider this lying, I consider it good Defensive Computing. Thats just wrong, deliberately misleading people just because you feel its better for them. If the source was not already suspect this certainly cast a shadow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihilus Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Thats just wrong, deliberately misleading people just because you feel its better for them. If the source was not already suspect this certainly cast a shadow Personally I agree that the article is mostly rubbish, however I'll happily admit to having done that very same trick :D Some of my older, and less tech-savvy, friends and family just can't quite grasp the concept of a browser which doesn't have "internet" written underneath it, and a big blue "e" icon. If they're perfectly happy with Chrome, and it's a little more secure, what's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Veteran Posted July 4, 2011 Veteran Share Posted July 4, 2011 Personally I agree that the article is mostly rubbish, however I'll happily admit to having done that very same trick :D Some of my older, and less tech-savvy, friends and family just can't quite grasp the concept of a browser which doesn't have "internet" written underneath it, and a big blue "e" icon. If they're perfectly happy with Chrome, and it's a little more secure, what's the problem? Unless they're on XP, it's not more secure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M V E Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 - Best hardware acceleration - Minimal UI - Native H.264 support - Energy efficient - Very fast JS-engine - Pin-to-taskbar future MiniMeSorinel, Duffydemon, Jan and 2 others 5 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihilus Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Unless they're on XP, it's not more secure. Well it's been the only browser left standing in pwn2own for, what, 3 years running? Pretty sure that's a good sign. The latest version of IE9 might be sandboxed properly, I don't know, but my personal experience is that Chrome has for quite some time been the most secure browser. If IE9 has now drawn level in terms of security, well, I'm already set in my ways. Until IE9 pulls ahead or Chrome begins to lag behind, I'll stick with Chrome. - Best hardware acceleration - Minimal UI - Native H.264 support - Energy efficient - Very fast JS-engine - Pin-to-taskbar future That feature list describes most modern browsers. Just swap out H.264 for WebM as you see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderMarky Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Too many "technology experts" have pursued careers writing these kind of articles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the better twin Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 That feature list describes most modern browsers. Just swap out H.264 for WebM as you see fit. Exactly so people should be free to choose their preference, including IE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remixedcat Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 IE is just a tool to download other browsers :whistle: has been that way for me since 2003 LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScorpioRGc1 Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I've tried using nearly every version of Firefox and Chrome since they first came out, and I can't stand either one. I've pretty well always used IE. I did move to Opera for a while when Opera 9 and 10 were out, but when IE9 was released, I happily switched back. IE9 does everything I need for the most part, and I found a couple of plugins to add in the missing functions I wanted, mostly a spellchecker (...seriously, MS, WTH?) and a couple of other minor things like certain commands to the right-click menu. I even found a website that replicates Opera's SpeedDial feature, except it has the added bonus of multiple categories and I can access my most-used favorites from any computer. :) I still like Opera 10/11's UI slightly better, but IE9's is still fine once I got it the way I like it. MFH 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitmz Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I just can't believe that are people still standing up for IE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts