d_ralphie Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Windows is Microsoft's product, they can include whatever software they please because they made it. Just because you make something doesn't mean that you can do anything you want with it. If I make a knife, that doesn't give me the right to go around stabbing people. Similarly, Microsoft has no right to violate antitrust laws by illegally abusing their dominant position in the OS market to prevent competition in the browser market. I own a mac, and I don't complain that Safari is installed by default. Mac OS is not dominant. Windows is. There's a huge difference there. Dominant players in a market play by different rules because everything they do has a huge effect on the market. I hate companies that sue to get a market share, No one has sued anyone. A complaint was filed with the EC because of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. The EC agreed that Microsoft seemed to be breaking the law, and decided to investigate further. if it weren't for MS, then Opera, Norton (especially the anti-virus companies) would not have a product anyways... LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell-In-A-Handbasket Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 actually they mainly get infected by people to busy to actually read what their clicking/opening/downloading, most are pop-ups that people click and install ignoring what it is they just clicked on or believing that what they just clicked on will clean their system of what the popup said they had. iv had so many calls about people saying they got a screen " it said i had alot of virus's spyware and if i wanted to clean them, i clicked for it to but now it wont go away" ( Antivirus 200x and its renditions ), and when they bring it in, shure enough you can get infected through FF/Safari/Opera just as easy as IE Patch your system and pay attention to what your clicking Computers get infected through IE, e.g. like the latest ActiveX exploit that has remained unfixed for a year.By "studies" you obviously mean the one funded by Microsoft where they skewed the result and left out all the facts that didn't match their goal of "proving" that IE was the best? The one where they claimed to have tested Opera 9.64, but version 9.63 was the latest version when they performed the test, to which they replied that Opera had updated itself automatically, but Opera didn't support automatic updates before version 10? LOL :D Yeah, Microsoft needs to LIE and BUY ITSELF "reports" in order to look good. That's why Microsoft is being dismissed. Because all evidence that they are good at something always turns out to be nothing but pseudoscientific marketing crap paid and bought by Microsoft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nekrosoft13 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 I'd actually prefer it if they did what opera said and let you choose the browser on install, just removing ie is stupid. that is just a stupid idea, then MS would be responsible to updating other browsers, or install old browsers with security issues. what else? maybe different media players? diffrent text programs? different image programs? if a user wants to use different programs, they can install them by them self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toadeater Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 you can get infected through FF/Safari/Opera just as easy as IE Firefox makes it nearly impossible to accidentally install a file unless the user is completely clueless, and it prevents silent installation of files or code injection into system processes. IE routinely (seems like every month there is a new one) has ActiveX vulnerabilities that will SILENTLY install software or compromise a system through code injection. Even UAC doesn't stop many such attacks because the user is fooled into thinking that Windows is asking to install an update, or because the injected process is disguised to look like a legit process, or because the attack becomes part of Windows' startup process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robomaster Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Hallelujah! Opera has totally got the right idea and you must be off your rocker to dislike it. I personally don't use Opera, but I am impressed they've got the guys to try to kick out IE and help better, faster browsers like Opera, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari take over. Good for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eice Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Firefox makes it nearly impossible to accidentally install a file unless the user is completely clueless, and it prevents silent installation of files or code injection into system processes. IE routinely (seems like every month there is a new one) has ActiveX vulnerabilities that will SILENTLY install software or compromise a system through code injection. Even UAC doesn't stop many such attacks because the user is fooled into thinking that Windows is asking to install an update, or because the injected process is disguised to look like a legit process, or because the attack becomes part of Windows' startup process. One of the many shills who think evidence for their outright false claims are unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 that is just a stupid idea, then MS would be responsible to updating other browsers, or install old browsers with security issues.what else? maybe different media players? diffrent text programs? different image programs? if a user wants to use different programs, they can install them by them self. I didn't say either way would be a good idea. I think they should just let ms keep ie because any operating system should have a browser by default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_ralphie Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 actually they mainly get infected by people to busy to actually read what their clicking/opening/downloading Browsers today protect you from that. Infections happen through remote exploits like the still open ActiveX hole. that is just a stupid idea, then MS would be responsible to updating other browsers, or install old browsers with security issues. Why would Microsoft install old browsers? They should use the most up to date version of each browser. But your argument is pure garbage anyway, because what do you get with a brand new Vista DVD? Yes, that's right an old browser with security issues. As for updates, all other browsers that matter have their own update systems anyway, or they could simply offer updates through Windows Update. This is a non-issue what else? maybe different media players? diffrent text programs? different image programs? If any of these break the law the way IE did, sure. But Notepad and Paint don't cause lock-in, did not destroy any markets, etc. One of the many shills Oh, the irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis W. Veteran Posted July 22, 2009 Veteran Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) Browsers today protect you from that. Infections happen through remote exploits like the still open ActiveX hole. Please provide a link to this hole; I did a quick glance on Secunia's site and didn't come across this exploit for IE 7 and 8. Why would Microsoft install old browsers? They should use the most up to date version of each browser. But your argument is pure garbage anyway, because what do you get with a brand new Vista DVD? Yes, that's right an old browser with security issues.As for updates, all other browsers that matter have their own update systems anyway, or they could simply offer updates through Windows Update. This is a non-issue As if they could anticipate shipping a issue-free browser come RTM? You missed the point of his post. The keyword is responsibility. Say if you pick the Windows Update route. Windows Update (and if you include Microsoft Update) doesn't issue updates for any non-MS software, except for third party drivers. Why should they suddenly change that stance to accommodate web browsers? Let's also consider that Microsoft would be held responsible should a badly issued patch hose the system, corrupt a browser's profile folder, or unintentionally damage documents. So they'll have to unnecessarily invest time and effort vigourously test each update for all browsers, which comes at a productivity cost. In other words, Microsoft gets the brunt of responsibility for bad patches. It would be nice one day for manufacturers to take advantage of probably Windows Update something to notify of updates to third party software, but either go all the way or forget about it - don't just stop at browsers. I guess they'd have to stick with their existing update methods... then again, wouldn't it be more beneficial in the end to simply supply links to browsers in say the Windows Welcome screen if people still insist on offering links to browsers? Saves us all this updating and bundling hassle. Microsoft doesn't even bundle the apps in their Live Essentials suite, why should they start bundling browsers? Edited July 22, 2009 by rm20010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_ralphie Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Please provide a link to this hole; I did a quick glance on Secunia's site and didn't come across this exploit for IE 7 and 8. http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/07/1...ed_activex_bug/ Windows Update (and if you include Microsoft Update) doesn't issue updates for any non-MS software, except for third party drivers. Why should they suddenly change that stance to accommodate web browsers? Because they broke the law, and to amend that, the government might order them to do so. In other words, Microsoft gets the brunt of responsibility for bad patches. They shouldn't have broken the law in the first place then. If you rob a bank and are thrown in jail, and lose your job over it, cry harder. You robbed the bank. You face the consequences Microsoft doesn't even bundle the apps in their Live Essentials suite, why should they start bundling browsers? So they should remove IE after all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts