Whirlpool

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/17/if-only-the-hungry-used-ie8-they-could-get-10000-rather-than-014-from-microsoft/

...

Sadly, I don’t have IE8, so instead I get this rather rude message on the page: “But you’ll never find it using that browser. So get rid of it, or get lost.” That’s a nice FU to Mac users who don’t even have the option to use IE. Not that it should be surprising.

...

Link to the campaign: http://www.microsoft.com/australia/ie8/competition/

Personally, I find this pathetic and rude. I understand IE is losing market share, but instead of making a more competent browser, Micro$oft decided to use $$$ as well as offensive messages in the marketing campaign (seriously, 'get lost'?).

This shows how different Apple and Micro$oft are. In 'Get a Mac' ads, Apple make jokes of Micro$oft and Windows, they might not always be accurate, but they're never offensive. In fact, many of the ads are considered funny.

But this attempt from Micro$oft is just so low...

Your thoughts?

I get:
... But you'll never find it using tarnished chrome.
(So get rid of it, or get lost.)
Chrome 2.0

They are just trying to be cool I guess... Kinda stupid if you ask me

1. They're not forcing you to use IE.
2. It's a Microsoft owned website.
3. If they want to hand out money to promote their browser, fine with them it's how they do business.
4. I hardly think 'Get rid of it, or get lost.' is offensive.
5. If you won the money I don't think you'd be complaining.

Nevertheless I'm stucking to Firefox.

It's not just against other browser, IE6 also puts out a message saying 'you'll never find it using IE6', but doesn't include get lost message .. surprise surprise.

The particularly funny thing is;

If you visit the site in IE8 and you have it set to use the regularly updated list of sites that are known to be incompatible with IE8 you will get told "But you'll never find it using Internet Explorer 7"

This is of course because Microsoft.com is on the compatibility mode list as they have not updated their own sites to IE8 standards.

Sheldon Cooper writes...

Your thoughts?

HTFU?

It's a competition aimed AT GETTING PEOPLE TO USE IE8.

Turns out, just get a User Agent Switcher, and it works – well, it removes the stupid message.

It'll probably use some IE8 only ActiveX stuff.

I get
But you'll never find it using boring Safari. (So get rid of it, or get lost.)
Sounds like they're trying to be cool but don't know how to do it properly.

My thoughts...

This campaign resembles too much the familiar TV scam ads that ask you to TEXT a phone number, which charges people for calling with fake promises but never delivering.

Meh. Who cares?
I just think its funny: "UPGRADE to IE8"
I think upgrade is the wrong word.

Umm.. I just accessed the site using IE8 on Win 7 RC and got ...

'But you'll never find it using Windows Internet Explorer 7'. LOL.

That technical hitch aside, the site is a pretty try hard attempt at being cool and funny. Most likely thought up and run by an externally engaged marketing company. Hopefully MS will ditch them soon.

What a crap campaign.

I use a Mac by the way.

I think they're better off giving money to people to switch from IE6 and IE7.

TBH, I am not sure what you are all fussing about. I am currently on IE8 as I have just finished fixing a laptop for someone, sure there are little things that such as the "Run add-on" active-x control pop-up that annoys me. But that feature might be handy for the average user – like the one I am fixing the PC for.

What have you guys got against IE8?

Using it right now it feels like its actually a lot faster than firefox and therefore much much more faster than Opera. I have also found it to have the least amount of incompatibility issues, then again I never use it except for when a website in Firefox or Opera doesn't work.

I must admit but their campaign is pretty desperate and like people say its feels like one of those "sms to win $10,000" tv advertisements that you know are a scam and you wouldn't personally send that SMS, but they are paying for that advertising air-time somehow – which means idiots are sms'ing! Same goes for this I really couldn't be bothered changing and learning a new browser just because there is the slightest chance I could win that money.

Note: I am a Firefox user on every one of my PC's, I also run Opera as a secondary browser, it's really very good and very rarely use IE8

SaKaTuMi writes...

Using it right now it feels like its actually a lot faster than firefox

That also was my experience. I trialled FF3 against IE8 for over a month before dumping FF. Initially opening the browser was the only thing was usually faster in FF. Otherwise my impression of it was that it felt 'fatter' than IE.

My search for an alternative to IE wasn't a failure though, it led me to K-Meleon. Now that is a fast browser. So far I really like it.

SaKaTuMi writes...

What have you guys got against IE8?

I think you might have missed the point. It's not about a browser, it's about specific advertising campaign.

sysKin writes...

I think you might have missed the point. It's not about a browser, it's about specific advertising campaign.

and for some reason MS is an evil company for wanting to only let people that use their product enter a comp about that product? the hide of them!

the sheeple have become so desperate for reasons to criticize MS that they come up with rubbish now.

sysKin writes...

I think you might have missed the point. It's not about a browser, it's about specific advertising campaign.

And what is it wrong it? if it was Firefox having the competition I bet you guys would be laughing at Microsoft.

Sheldon Cooper writes...

In 'Get a Mac' ads, Apple make jokes of Micro$oft and Windows, they might not always be accurate, but they're never offensive. In fact, many of the ads are considered funny.

Perhaps considered funny by those who support the ads, but maybe less so by those being targeted. They made analogies that people using Windows based p.c.s are 'uncool,' unstylish and as one ad said "look nerdy."

It boils down to one side calling the other names, and the other side telling them to "get lost." Sounds like real life, actually...

They are trying to make people upgrade to IE, it's safer and in general a better browser. You guys seriously need to just grow up, sigh.

The campaign is trying to sound 'cool' and 'edgy' like the 2006 'All I want for Christmas is a PSP' thing from Sony.

I would presume Microsoft did enough research to safely say the campaign wasn't targeted at anyone in this thread to begin with.

I love the main selling point for IE8 for Australian customers;

-Upgrade to Internet Explorer 8
Optimised for ninemsn-

It's like reverse psychology, "you know you want to" but in reality they know it's the ugly middle child.

Sheldon Cooper writes...

Your thoughts?

My thoughts is that both Apple and Microsoft are money grabbing idiots that like to take pot shots at each other because they know that it builds up their fan base significantly.

This message barely rates on my "shock horror" scales. Wow, MS trying to be edgy..... Neeeeextt!

Why do microsoft even bother competing in the browser wars? They must lose a lot of money and I don't see what exactly they gain?

Guess they make their money selling developer tools, usually making those work only on IE so they sell the tools. Not sure how else they make money from a browser, no idea how other browsers make money.

. I understand IE is losing market share, but instead of making a more competent browser

Microsoft make some absoultely fantastic products, and i've found IE8 works pretty well so far. I haven't rolled it out to my users due to some issues with it and group policies, but yet to have it ever crash or fail to display/render a web page. Security wise so far it seems pretty decent too.

As for their marketing, meh i find it humerous.

But this attempt from Micro$oft is just so low...

Microsoft don't have a $ in their name.

Your thoughts?

QQ Moar

dealerkim writes...

Why do microsoft even bother competing in the browser wars?

Umm, they're still winning the 'browser war' ;)

Microsoft are just up to their old tricks. Nothing new and innovating, just catching up with the competition with more money to inject into marketing.

Looks like their marketing department is onto a winner. I never would have known about this competition had this thread not been made. Still not confident enough to use IE to go browsing random sites though.

http://www.tengrandisburiedthere.com/

DiggeR writes...

Umm, they're still winning the 'browser war' ;)

Yes but at what cost? What it the point of winning something which really has no value and it's costing you considerable resources?

dealerkim writes...

Yes but at what cost?

Think of all the portals they get paid for, all the companies that use IE because they use MS products and IE is the best choice to connect to them. IE makes them considerable money.

dealerkim writes...

Yes but at what cost? What it the point of winning something which really has no value and it's costing you considerable resources?

What else are they going to spend their billions of dollars on?
Plus its a tax write off anyways.

Also, thats the ugliest browser ive ever seen. Its got like 3 different toolbars installed on it right away and all this ninemsn junk.

Someone give me some ideas as to where to look to find this 10 grand. I assume you'd have to use bing at some stage.

http://www.tengrandisburiedhere.com/

Cant be viewed in my IE8 Link Broken..

dealerkim writes...

Why do microsoft even bother competing in the browser wars?

Er... Considering a good 70% of people that use a PC use IE, they aren't losing anything. Just because WP uses FF, doesn't mean the average use does.

Sheldon Cooper writes...

Personally, I find this pathetic and rude.

Fair shake of the sauce bottle mate, its just a bit of fun marketing.

you can always use this:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59

Penguin writes...

you can always use this:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59

Good old User Agent Switcher (UAS) to the rescue! By default, UAS comes with IE7. To view the site, edit the IE7 profile and change all the 7's to 8 and it works.

Viewing the site right now on Linux running FF3.

Sheldon Cooper writes...

Personally, I find this pathetic and rude

Suck it up. they snipe each other all the time. Go to your Mac computer and try networking it to a Windows machine and the icon OS X assigns to it is a PC with a blue screen. Pathetic and rude

Or at Apple's conference introducing Leopard, there were banners all over the venue stating, "Redmond Start Your Photocopiers". Again pathetic and rude

Just suck it up and go do something else

luncheon meat writes...

Still not confident enough to use IE to go browsing random sites though.

You are safer with IE8 on Vista or Windows 7 cruising random sites than with any other browser due to its enhanced security features, particularly its "protected" mode operation

But, IE8 is a superior browser according to their browser comparison chart:

www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/browser-comparison.aspx[^

Im happy using explorer and will be sticking with it.

Dechah writes...

the icon OS X assigns to it is a PC with a blue screen. Pathetic and rude

that’s funny I never saw it! Apple are just as stupid as Microsoft with these advertising campaigns, the other day I saw a video running in a DSE and it was churning out reasons to buy a MAC one of which was "it won't get PC viruses"...

Advertising is just Spin and the guys in advertising probably have little grounding in IT, leave it for the masses and be secure in your inside knowledge I say!

:)

Heavens! A large company is getting people to upgrade their web browser! How EVIL of them.

That's ok, every browser has their own redeeming feature and IE8 is pretty good compared to IE6. (Of course I'm still using a Beta build so things do break.)

Not as good as Chrome, though. ;)

If you get offended by the phrase "Or get lost" then Australia isn't the country for you. We have a sense of humor here.

However, I will forgive you, because I love "The Big Bang Theory"

RazCo writes...

(Of course I'm still using a Beta build so things do break.)

Why of course, whats stopping you from updating to the final version?

kiplinght writes...

Australia isn't the country for you.

After all, our ad campaign was "where the bloody hell are ya?"

RazCo writes...

A large company is getting people to upgrade their web browser!

They are not saying "get lost" to IE6/IE7 users...

kiplinght writes...

If you get offended by the phrase "Or get lost"

Not offended I guess... but I *am* their customer – running Windows, with MSDN subscription etc. I'd say it's an unusual phrase for a company to say to their customers.

sysKin writes...

Not offended I guess... but I *am* their customer – running Windows, with MSDN subscription etc. I'd say it's an unusual phrase for a company to say to their customers.

It was a joke..... Was never meant to offend anyone.

I think it's a good idea, the newer IE8 has a lot of safety features to protect the average computer user. All of this is GOOD, because it means less PC infections from computer users who are absolutely "noobs". Less PC infections means, less spam, zombie bots for hackers to take over and send out spam, viruses, attack other networks, etc.

HAHA.. looks like their site http://www.tengrandisburiedhere.com/ has been DOS'd or something.

sysKin writes...

I'd say it's an unusual phrase for a company to say to their customers.

Not in the context of a treasure hunt where the object is to follow the clues to the prize and not get lost.

Presjar writes...

looks like their site http://www.tengrandisburiedhere.com/ has been DOS'd or something.

Yeah .. Hasnt worked on mine..maybe they want you to download again.?. Fat chance..

Presjar writes...

DOS'd or something.

I'd go with 'or something' it looks like it's copping a hammering with a lot of interest world wide.

DiggeR writes...

I'd go with 'or something' it looks like it's copping a hammering with a lot of interest world wide.

its for Australian people only though. Even if they find it, they wont get the money

Presjar writes...

its for Australian people only though. Even if they find it, they wont get the money

This has never worried the internet before ;)

The site is down, actualy gone, no records for the IP in DNS servers

C:\Users\<User>ping tengrandisburiedhere.com
Ping request could not find host tengrandisburiedhere.com. Please check the name and try again.

Presjar writes...

The site is down, actualy gone, no records for the IP in DNS servers

C:\Users\<User>ping tengrandisburiedhere.com

Ping request could not find host tengrandisburiedhere.com. Please check the name and try again.

Wha'choo talkin bout willis?

Presjar writes...

The site is down, actualy gone, no records for the IP in DNS servers

http://www.intodns.com/tengrandisburiedhere.com

Tell him he's dreamin!

Presjar writes...

The site is down, actualy gone, no records for the IP in DNS servers

http://network-tools.com/default.asp?prog=express&host=tengrandisburiedhere.com

It's still live, ping is extremely unreliable as a dns checker ;)
The site is still down/being hammered but is still 'live' and real.

I'm meaning that the site doesn't exist anymore for us in Aus. As on no one can get to it. The dns sites you provided is American based.

nslookup gets you nothing either.

I tried it now, it just redirects to http://www.microsoft.com/australia/ie8/competition/ yet it didnt work last night

CBasePlayer writes...

I tried it now, it just redirects to http://www.microsoft.com/australia/ie8/competition/ yet it didnt work last night

Yep just found that also. but http://www.tengrandisburiedhere.com/ doesn't work

Ah well, all sorted

edit: AHAH now its says... Or get lost... in the hunt

Presjar writes...

I'm meaning that the site doesn't exist anymore for us in Aus. As on no one can get to it. The dns sites you provided is American based.

DNS doesn't work that way ;)

The link I sent you showed there was a vaild IP for it, and it was still 'live' except the webserver at the other end was not responding. I got the same output using dig on my laptop.

They would need to block Aus by IP, they can't make DNS do it though.

I was thinking perhaps more along the lines of there were issues with our traffic to and from US. Not that DNS block people / IPs. I know how they work.

Presjar writes...

I was thinking perhaps more along the lines of there were issues with our traffic to and from US. Not that DNS block people / IPs. I know how they work.

Wasn't saying you didn't, but I'd be surprised if one site went wonky because of a set of links, I've verified it all with a couple of them available to me with different backbones ;)

IE8 FTW!

Does anyone think $10,000 might be 'physically' buried somewhere in London?
I got bored and tried http://www.tengrandwasburiedhere.com which actually works. Zoom in (and out if you have to), and see what you find. (Any browser will do)

Note: Looks like someone is trying to make a mockery out of Microsoft?

huyie writes...

I got bored and tried http://www.tengrandwasburiedhere.com which actually works.

Wrong URL .. Been taken for a ride..swap "was" for "is"

I know it's not the one for the MS competition, since the 'was' domain was registered from godaddy, whereas the one for the competition isn't.
That wasn't the point I was making. Looks like some group/individuals trying to make a mockery out of MS? Site uses google maps.

Negative press is still press but this is just plain stupid.

What did the development/marketing teams conclude? "Hey let's dish out some nonsensical abuse! That'll get everyone's attention".

Sure, you have mine now Microsoft but there's loads of ways to sell a product still even in this consumer saturated age we live in.

Sounds like that mob needs a good glass of water & maybe some sleep would help.

Is it just me or have they removed the browser detection?

~Doug~ writes...

HTFU?

DITTO.
Their browser, their money. Nobody is forcing you to associate your self with it in any way.

Clamburger writes...

Is it just me or have they removed the browser detection?

Same here. Firefox is opening it and I can see the hints and instructions...

Apparently Microsoft's also running a campaign where they'll donate 8 meals to the needy for every download of IE8.

That's a completely positive move, right? Can't possibly go wrong there!

...

Quote from a guy on the Microsoft Office (Excel and Access Web Services) team:

"Using FF or Chrome on Windows takes 8 meals away from the needy."

DiggeR writes...

Umm, they're still winning the 'browser war' ;)

A war most people are forced onto the wrong side of because it came with their OS.

To add insult to injury:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/browser-comparison.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/mythbusting.aspx

I particularly like this one:

The Real Deal: Internet Explorer 8 passes more of the World Wide Web Consortium's test cases than any other browser.

I mean, wow, just wow.

Sheldon Cooper writes...

To add insult to injury:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/browser-comparison.aspx

You seem strangely offended when Mozilla have done the same thing... for far longer:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ie.html
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/switch.html

As for the Wow comment look at:
Free:
they say the best things in life are free, and Firefox is totally, 100% free of charge.

I'm definitely struggling to see how that's an advantage over, or a reason to switch from Internet Explorer.

Sheldon Cooper writes...

I mean, wow, just wow.

That would explain the score of 12/100 on Acid3, would it not?

On the upside, it does now pass Acid2 at least.

manfred writes...

You seem strangely offended when Mozilla have done the same thing... for far longer:

Yes because Mozilla's claims have grounds whilst Microsoft's are just marketing BS. I don't know about you but I'm okay with some stretches (i.e. Firefox obviously isn't the 'fastest in the industry') but am not too fond of total BS.

Where does it say get lost?

I viewed the site on both FF and IE8 and they look identical.

Psychologist writes...

Where does it say get lost?

Microsoft gave their marketing company a kick and the negative statements displayed when visiting using browsers other than IE 8 have been removed.

Sheldon Cooper writes...

Yes because Mozilla's claims have grounds whilst Microsoft's are just marketing BS

Do you have anything to back that statement up with, or is it yet more unsubstantiated zealotry on your part?

What is BS in respect of the four points listed at their site? http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/mythbusting.aspx

hello to all my good friends. i cannot tell a lie i have always liked internet explorer best. yes it is good that the inferior browzers have added competition with the bells and whistles, but this has only served to increase the quality of internet exploder. when it comes down to trust i would rather trust a rich and charitable man than a motley collection of spaced out browzer hippies

thankyou for reading my contribution

Dechah writes...

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/mythbusting.aspx

The link has more lies, misinformation and disinformation to get you to use IE8.

And why would I need to use IE8 to view a webpage? Silly Microsoft! If I can see a webpage in IE8, I should see it in Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc.

God I hope Microsoft haven't gone back to the dark ages of being anti-web standards and filling up Microsoft-centric sites with proproprietary ActiveX controls in place and telling you that this site only works in IE8. God help us!!

P.S. Compared to other browsers, IE8 failed miserably in the Acid3 Test, a measure of web standards support.

http://acid3.acidtests.org/

Marty writes...

The link has more lies, misinformation and disinformation to get you to use IE8.

Please elaborate. IE8 haters such as yourself post these kinds of statements all the time, but never substantiate them

And why would I need to use IE8 to view a webpage?

Because it is part of the competition. It is not a difficult concept to grasp really. The intention is that you must be using IE8 to compete, and since this is part of a promotion to increase the awareness and market share of IE8, then that is perfectly fine. It is not like the ATO etc can only be viewed in IE8, I would agree that would be unacceptible.

If I can see a webpage in IE8, I should see it in Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc.

Not when the page is part of a competition designed to only be accessible from IE8.

God I hope Microsoft haven't gone back to the dark ages of being anti-web standards

It borders on idiocy to even make such a statement

P.S. Compared to other browsers, IE8 failed miserably in the Acid3 Test, a measure of web standards support.

IE8 haters roll the Acid 3 test out as evidence of the "crappiness" of IE8, yet they seem to have no idea what the Acid 3 test actually is? Furthermore, they fail to mention, or basically have no idea, that most other browsers currently fail the same test to. Then the idiots say something like, well Firefox fails, but it scores 77/100 whereas IE8 only scores 40/100 on the Acid 3 test, that means that Firefox is better, BZZT!!!! wrong. The score out of 100 is irrelevant regarding conformance to web standards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_3_Test in particular this quote The percentage displayed is based on the number of subtests passed. It does not represent an actual percentage of conformance as the test does not keep track of how many of the subtests were actually started (100 is assumed).

For the misguided, uneducated or plain FUD merchants amongst us, here is the relevant link: http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3/

Dechah writes...

Not when the page is part of a competition designed to only be accessible from IE8.

Not sure what happened to 'IE8 only site' but site has been visible in Firefox since yesterday...

Master Darko writes...

Not sure what happened to 'IE8 only site' but site has been visible in Firefox since yesterday...

Yes, apparently Microsoft Australia has told its marketing people to make the competition open to all and remove the IE8 only restriction.

Master Darko writes...

Not sure what happened to 'IE8 only site' but site has been visible in Firefox since yesterday...

No, not the competition page..Its not concealed in ie8, but the "Hidden" Winners URL is only viewable in IE8.. Well so they say, but we wont know until the winner accesses it..(maybe in FF?) I would love to see that and the proceeds sent to FF ..lol..

Dechah writes...

apparently Microsoft Australia has told its marketing people to make the competition open to all and remove the IE8 only restriction.

Including the winning URL?
I guess that would be in accordance to Australian Competition laws?

Up the Creek writes...

Including the winning URL?

No, according to the competition rules, that will still only render in IE8. But this site http://www.microsoft.com/australia/ie8/competition/default.aspx used to have four "here's what you have to do" listed, and now it only has two.

Sheldon Cooper writes...

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/browser-comparison.aspx

Notice that Opera is missing? Opera has both individual tabbed browsing (for 10 years or so) and can restart you where you were in the event it crashes.

Gnuthad writes...

Notice that Opera is missing?

Easy to look good when you eliminate the Competition..

Gnuthad writes...

Notice that Opera is missing?

After what Opera is (trying) doing to Microsoft over in Europe, I would do ignore them too.

I refuse to have Opera on any of my systems anymore, they used to be my number 2 browser

Up the Creek writes...

Easy to look good when you eliminate the Competition..

From a market share perspective, Opera is about as much competition to Microsoft as your local kebab store is to McDonalds

GarionW writes...

After what Opera is (trying) doing to Microsoft over in Europ

They do have point..
The consumer should have a choice..

Like a Telco saying, You can have our B/Band , but you must have our PSTN bundled.

Up the Creek writes...

The consumer should have a choice..

So are you saying that Europeans can't choose to use Opera if they desire?

Like a Telco saying, You can have our B/Band , but you must have our PSTN bundled.

It is nothing like that at all

Dechah writes...

From a market share perspective, Opera is about as much competition to Microsoft as your local kebab store is to McDonalds

So? To make a fair comparison you ought to actually compare the major browsers on the market. They are IE, Firefox, Chrome and Opera with possibly another one in there on Mac.

Up the Creek writes...

They do have point..
The consumer should have a choice..

They do have a choice, its not like Apple who force you to use safari on the iphone, you are entitled to install any browser you like.

It's almost like the local kebab store suing McDonalds saying McDonalds should carry their competitors products. Well it is, because Opera want their product bundled with the Microsoft Operating System (whether it be on the disk or an option to download, they still want it available at the start).

Gnuthad writes...

So? To make a fair comparison you ought to actually compare the major browsers on the market.

The post I replied to was referring to Opera as "competiton" to IE. My point was that they really do not compete, because their competition to date has been completely insignificant.

In regards to you labeling Opera as a major browser, again I was looking at it from purely a market share perspective and only Firefox and IE are significant on the PC. So it would be a stretch in my opinion to label Opera as a major browser. It would be a different story on a portable device like a mobile phone though. that is where Opera has more relevance.

Sheldon Cooper writes...

Your thoughts?

Best way for M$ to get more people using it's browser, is to build a user friendly browser that is a) reliable b) secure and c) doesn't annoy the living shit out of people with the friggen menu bar not at the top.

Headley writes...

a) reliable b) secure and c) doesn't annoy the living shit out of people with the friggen menu bar not at the top.

check, check and why? I presume you mean the file, edit, view toolbar which has disappeared on Chrome, Safari and even my copy of Firefox. I don't think its needed any more in 2009 (maybe in 1995)

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/browser-comparison.aspx

Im curious as to why is Chrome in this comparison but not Opera? Has Chrome got significantly higher market share than Opera or is this truly a case of eliminating the competition? I dont know, that is why Im asking.

I personally think, regardless of market share, Opera should have been included. Its windows based internet browser, hence, it is competition to IE8.

...but, I do think that whatever comparison chart you look at, it will always be positively skewed towards the host software, IE8 in this case. Sure, go to Firefox website and I bet it will say all good about itself.

Example: Only Internet Explorer 8 has both tab isolation and crash recovery features; Firefox and Chrome have one or the other.

This point could easily be split in 2 categories, tab isolation and crash recovery.

Crash Recovery – IE8-tick, FF3-tick, Chrome-doh!
tab isolation – IE8-tick, FF3-doh!, Chrome-tick

Split into 2 categories, it doesnt sound as bad on the FF and Chrome. However, the moment you merge those 2 points, it looks worse for FF and Chrome and becomes bit misleading in the process as neither gets a tick now, where otherwise they would.

Master Darko writes...

Im curious as to why is Chrome in this comparison but not Opera?

Google Chrome (1.80%)
Opera (0.72%)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=124

That comparison table absolutely has nothing to do with market share! Safari with 8.43% share is not included but Chrome with 1.80% is...

Master Darko writes...

That comparison table absolutely has nothing to do with market share! Safari with 8.43% share is not included but Chrome with 1.80% is...

It has everything to do with it. Safari market share on PC's is probably less than 0.01%

spyvpsy writes...

Safari market share on PC's is probably less than 0.01%

fair call...

Dechah writes...

Do you have anything to back that statement up with, or is it yet more unsubstantiated zealotry on your part?

What is BS in respect of the four points listed at their site? http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/mythbusting.aspx

I'm not sure if you're deliberately trolling, but I'll answer your question anyway.

Myth #1: Internet Explorer is much slower than Firefox and Chrome.

True.

http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/browserStatistics.action

Myth #2: Internet Explorer is less secure than Firefox.

True.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers#Vulnerabilities

Myth #3: Firefox is a richer, more adaptable browser than Internet Explorer.

True.

http://ieaddons.com/gb/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/

Not to mention that IE can only be run on Windows.

Myth #4: Internet Explorer doesn't play well with Web standards.

If you need a statement for this one, then I probably shouldn't be answering your question anyway.

I am not a M$ hater, I use what is best suitable for me. Internet Explorer to me is garbage (I'm a web developer by the way), I was offended because M$ is trying to mislead average Internet users. Of course, if you are happy with Internet Explorer then good for you and I respect that.

The most offending/misleading piece of information would be the Web Standards comparison on http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/browser-comparison.aspx.

M$ shamefully gave themselves a tick. Seriously, IE8 fells miserably in HTML5/CSS3, and have the same level of support for CSS 2.1 as other browsers ( http://www.quirksmode.org/css/contents.html ).

False advertising, period.

M$'s dirty advertising tactics would only work with non tech savvy users.

Here's the browser stats from one of my websites which has a tech savvy target audience.

1. Firefox 67.83%
2. Internet Explorer 9.59%
3. Chrome 8.10%
4. Safari 8.08%
5. Opera 3.63%
6. Mozilla 1.62%

Dechah writes...

Not when the page is part of a competition designed to only be accessible from IE8.

Competition or not, IE8-only webpages are so 90s, were you even born then?? If you don't begin to understand this little concept of web standards, you don't know how the web works. IE8 is a glorification of IE6 and 7. Sure, IE8 do have developer tools and add-ons, it's basically a glorification at best and it is the worst of the major browsers for web standards support, and I'm not talking about CSS2.1, we all know that, it can't deal with CSS3 quite as good. Microsoft should start thinking about using the WebKit rendering engine instead.

I'll be really surprised if your an IT person who thinks that IE8-only pages are OK!!

The actual fact is that Microsoft is a miser of the truth (doesn't tell the whole truth) when it comes down to advertising or blatant and outright misleading!!

Myth #3: Firefox is a richer, more adaptable browser than Internet Explorer.

True.

The answer is false. While IE has more add-ons than Firefox, but more people downloaded Firefox add-ons.

Yet another misleading statement from Microsoft.

Myth #4: Internet Explorer doesn't play well with Web standards.

Stating the obvious. IE failed miserably in web standards and it is playing catch up. What Microsoft is telling you is that it now following web standards knowing that it will quickly lose browser market share (seen the huge drop lately??) but the actual fact is IE8 is playing catch up!! and it doesn't even rate itself as better than Firefox, Safari or Chrome in web standards.

Marty writes...

Competition or not, IE8-only webpages is so 90s

It's a competition to promote the adoption of IE8 FFS. 90's or not, in the context of the promotion, it is perfectly valid.

If you don't begin to understand this little concept of web standards, you don't know how the web works

It is a competition FFS.

IE8 is a glorification of IE6 and 7.

"glorification" in what way is it a glorification. To my eyes it is an updated version of IE.

it's basically a glorification at best and it is the worst of the major browsers for web standards support

There's that word again. What do you mean by glorification? From a user's perspective, I have no trouble accessing any of the sites I wish to access using IE8. Secondly IE8 passes the Acid test 2, and fails Acid test 3, so does the other major browser Firefox.

we all know that, it can't deal with CSS3 quite as good.

All I can say is that from a user's perspective, it gives me no grief whatsoever, and some definite advantages over Firefox

Microsoft should start thinking about using the WebKit rendering engine instead.

Should it?

I'll be really surprised if your an IT person who thinks that IE8-only pages are OK!!

Int he context of a competition promoting the adoption of IE8, then involving a page that can only be rendered in IE8 is perfectly fine.

Dechah writes...

It's a competition to promote the adoption of IE8 FFS. 90's or not, in the context of the promotion, it is perfectly valid.

No it's not, when you need to view a webpage and you are using a mac that don't have IE.

Hiding behind the argument that it is for a competition is invalid. Firefox doesn't stoop this low forcing you to view Firefox-only pages, because there is no such thing as a Firefox-only page.

Are you an IT person?

(Looking at your other posts, it's obvious you have a Microsoft agenda...)

Dechah writes...

All I can say is that from a user's perspective, it gives me no grief whatsoever, and some definite advantages over Firefox

This is because, we, web developers, work our ass off to support IE. In the case of IE6, we pretty much spend 80% of effort to have the 10% gain.

Without us web developers working so hard, you wouldn't enjoy the sites as well as you do now. So how about you cut your slack and show some respect.

At least Microsoft has 'fixed' their campaign now:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/19/microsoft-tells-its-ie8-campaign-to-get-lost/

Sheldon Cooper writes...

Without us web developers working so hard, you wouldn't enjoy the sites as well as you do now. So how about you cut your slack and show some respect.

Hear, hear. I'm a web developer too. IE is so painful to keep happy!!

Marty writes...
No it's not, when you need to view a webpage and you are using a mac that don't have IE.

Windows runs natively on a Mac, has done so for years. IE8 runs on Windows. If a Mac user wants in on the competition, then they need to use Windows and IE8.

Hiding behind the argument that it is for a competition is invalid

Who is hiding. If you are incapable of seeing that this whole event is a promotion by Microsoft to promote the adoption of IE8, then nothing I write is going to change that opinion.

Firefox doesn't stoop this low forcing you to view Firefox-only pages, because there is no such thing as a Firefox-only page.

It is hardly stooping low. Lots of companies reward promote their products and services in a similar vein, just because Firefox is incapable of doing so should not be held against Microsoft.

Are you an IT person?

Why is that relevant?

(Looking at your other posts, it's obvious you have a Microsoft agenda...)

What posts are those?

Sheldon Cooper writes...

This is because, we, web developers, work our ass off to support IE

Oh boo hoo, cry me a river. For christ sake, if you find your job so difficult, then perhaps you picked the wrong vocation. There are a lot more complex professions out there than web developing.

In the case of IE6, we pretty much spend 80% of effort to have the 10% gain.

Never used IE6. I used Firefox. Still you picked your profession, enjoy it, or go do something else.

Without us web developers working so hard, you wouldn't enjoy the sites as well as you do now.

Yes, and without the TV producers, directors, writers and actors, I wouldn't enjoy TV. Or if there were no drum kit or electric guitar manufacturers, I would not enjoy the music I like to listen to.

So how about you cut your slack and show some respect

I have no respect for a bunch of sooks whinging about the profession they chose to do.

.

I felt sorry I actually replied to your posts, seeing you are just trolling now.

You have a good day sir.

Marty writes...

The answer is false. While IE has more add-ons than Firefox,

Hey Marty are you sure about this?

M$ claims there are more than 1700 addons for IE8. I would have thought Firefox 3 had much more than that. Although I couldn't find any statistics.

Sheldon Cooper writes...

M$ claims there are more than 1700 addons for IE8. I would have thought Firefox 3 had much more than that. Although I couldn't find any statistics.

You may be right, we need statistics. 1,700 is obviously too high a number when browsing for IE add-ons which I did yesterday.

What is clear, however, is that Firefox has a LOT more downloads than IE for add-ons, something that IE lovers in this thread continue to ignore...

Sheldon Cooper writes...

http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/browserStatistics.action

I see your link and give you mine:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/161616/browser_showdown_ie_8_vs_firefox.html

But realistically, from a user's perspective, is a few milliseconds in some laboratory really that significant? In the real world, IE8 is superbly fast compared to previous IE's on my Win 7 machines, and feels just as snappy as Firefox or Chrome with added advantages for the users, such as protected mode operation.

True.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers#Vulnerabilities

IE8 operates in protected mode on Vista or Win 7, that is a major security advantage to all other browsers on that platform. It is the sole reason I switched from Firefox to IE7 when Vista emerged.

Also: http://secunia.com/advisories/35331/

Also from Secunia:

Firefox 3 Affected By 15 Secunia advisories
81 Vulnerabilities http://secunia.com/advisories/product/19089/?task=advisories

Internet Explorer 8: Affected By 2 Secunia advisories
8 Vulnerabilities http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/

According to Secunia, Firefox 3.x has 10 times more vulnerabilities than IE8, yet you claim that Firefox is more secure?

As for your Myth 4, IE8 is Microsoft's most web standard compliant browser to date. It passes Acid 2 test. From a web developer's standpoint, developing for IE8 is huge step forward.

Sheldon Cooper writes...

I felt sorry I actually replied to your posts, seeing you are just trolling now.

Hardly trolling, just responding to the incessant feed of BS tarted up as fact with huge dollops of rhetoric on the side.

I have never developed a web site, and have no inclination or desire to do so. I also read that developing for IE6 was a bitch, but any profession worth doing has a modicum of skill and complexity. Developers such as yourself and others should embrace these marketing efforts by Microsoft, because the quicker the bulk of the IE6 using community upgrade to IE8, then the easier your life will be.

Marty writes...

What is clear, however, is that Firefox has a LOT more downloads than IE for add-ons, something that IE lovers in this thread continue to ignore...

There is an excellent multi-functional IE addon for IE7 and IE8 called IE7Pro. www.ie7pro.com It adds an excellent array of extras to IE7 or 8 in one neat combined package. I find that is all I need, plus a few handy accelerators

Dechah writes...

IE8 is Microsoft's most web standard compliant browser to date. It passes Acid test 2.

Please provide proof of your assertions of this misleading and utterly blatant lie, misinformation and disinformation. Everyone except you here knows that IE8 as the most web standard compliant browser is a lie to serve pro IE agenda.

Are you an IT person ? Do you work for Microsoft Australia ?

Run IE8 through the Acid 3 test and tell me what it's score is ?? :)
http://acid3.acidtests.org/

Don't tell me you didn't know that Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera already passed the earlier Acid2 test long before IE ?

Sheldon Cooper writes...

Here's the browser stats from one of my websites which has a tech savvy target audience.

Very interesting stats! What site is it ?

spyvpsy writes...

Very interesting stats! What site is it ?

It's from my blog, I have PM'ed you the URL. :)

Dechah writes...

There is an excellent multi-functional IE addon for IE7 and IE8 called IE7Pro. www.ie7pro.com It adds an excellent array of extras to IE7 or 8 in one neat combined package.

I don't need you trying to sell me something like any Microsoft Australia employee will try to do!

You have to admit that IE add-ons aren't as good as Firefox add-ons. IE add-ons still have a low download count (i.e. not very popular). IE has a lot of catching up to do !! :)

Marty writes...

Please provide proof of your assertions of this misleading and utterly blatant lie

Steady on sunshine, what misleading and blanket lie was that?

Everyone except you here knows that IE8 as the most web standard compliant browser is a lie to serve pro IE agenda.

It appears that you find reading and comprehension to be as difficult as designing a web page for IE6 browser. I never said anywhere that IE8 was the most web standard compliant browser. I said, and I quote:

As for your Myth 4, IE8 is Microsoft's most web standard compliant browser to date at /forum-replies.cfm?t=1223391&p=7#r124 on the second last line. I can't say it anymore plainly than this, IE8 is Microsoft's most web standards compliant browser to date, and it indisputably is.

Are you an IT person ? Do you work for Microsoft Australia ?

Give it up

Run IE8 through the Acid 3 test and tell me what it's score is ?? :)

http://acid3.acidtests.org/

Hehe, the old Acid 3 fail score point. It always comes up. Do you know that if the browser fails the Acid 3 test, then the number that is displayed is not all that relevant? Just because Firefox 3 fails the Acid 3 test and scores 77/100 and IE8 fails the Acid 3 test and scores 24/100, this does not mean Firefox is more web standards compliant.

From Wikipedia: The percentage displayed is based on the number of subtests passed. It does not represent an actual percentage of conformance as the test does not keep track of how many of the subtests were actually started (100 is assumed). at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_3 line 3

Don't tell me you didn't know that Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera already passed the earlier Acid2 test long before IE ?

Are we talking about here and now, or are we talking about the past? I have been referring to the here and now in my posts.

Actually, I don't mind checking out IE7Pro, even though I only use IE (via IETester) for development purposes.

Marty writes...

I don't need you trying to sell me something like any Microsoft Australia employee will try to do!

Microsoft does not make or sell IE7Pro

You have to admit that IE add-ons aren't as good as Firefox add-ons.

I have not found a single extension in Firefox that gives me all the functionality of IE7PRo. I need to download 6 or more Firefox extensions in order to get the functionality IE7Pro gives me with just one.

But Firefox could have a million extensions for all I care. While IE8 runs in protected mode on my OS of choice, and all the alternatives don't, then I am more than happy to forego extensions likes bork bork bork or bisby to have the enhanced security benefits of protected mode operation

Dechah writes...

I also read that developing for IE6 was a bitch

It was, and it was a bitch that ONLY required the extra work for IE6. When you have to double (or worse) your time and effort to accommodate a single browser, I feel that it's a rather justified complaint to make.

$10,000 seems a bit cheap Considering it's Micro$oft!

- Cheers

Dechah writes...

I have not found a single extension in Firefox that gives me all the functionality of IE7PRo. I need to download 6 or more Firefox extensions in order to get the functionality IE7Pro gives me with just one.

You might want to check out the new Collections feature: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/editors_picks

Marty writes...

Everyone except you here knows that IE8 as the most web standard compliant browser is a lie to serve pro IE agenda.

That's not what he said. He said that it is the most compliant MICROSOFT browser.

Dechah writes...

I need to download 6 or more Firefox extensions in order to get the functionality IE7Pro gives me with just one.

Nice try. Unless you are a developer you won't know how more useful Firefox add-ons are. IE does not have Firebug and even if IE developer tools are used, it is excrucitating slow to use and the UI left a lot to be desired.

Sorry, but IE is falling behind. It needs a LOT of catching up to do to convince me otherwise.

Marty writes...

Sorry, but IE is falling behind. It needs a LOT of catching up to do to convince me otherwise.

I didn't know it had to. If you are happy with Firefox, or Chrome or Safari or Opera, then all power to you. Again, if there is a feature or extension for Firefox that makes your job easier, then you would be silly not to use it.

My browser experience is strictly limited to a user's perspective. IE8 give me the best browsing experience, coupled with enhanced security features that no other browser can offer on my chosen operating system, namely protected mode. Again from a user's perspective, IE8 is fast, stable and reliable on my three Win 7 boxes. It renders pages as fast as I need it to, and is not perceivably faster or slower than the likes of Chrome on the same hardware.

Clearly the needs and desires of the developer community of professionals will differ from these. But this does not make IE8 a crappy browser.

Gnuthad writes...

ONLY required the extra work for IE6. When you have to double (or worse) your time and effort to accommodate a single browser, I feel that it's a rather justified complaint to make.

IE6 only came out in 2001. At that time, its competitor was Netscape Communicator 4.7 – which was also known as a pain to code for.

Comparing the ease of work with newer applications against something built in 2001 is almost always likely to favour the newer competitors.

manfred writes...

IE6 only came out in 2001. At that time, its competitor was Netscape Communicator 4.7 – which was also known as a pain to code for.

That's not the way I remember it. IE6's competition, in late 2001, was Netscape 6.1 / Mozilla 0.9.3.

I was using them side by side at the time (I was a Web developer then), and my recollection is that I found Mozilla 0.9.3 distinctly superior, as a user and a developer.

Guppy writes...

That's not the way I remember it

Here's the timeline with both: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_(web_browser)

Mozilla really started just as IE 6 release was being finalised, and as you note was not even in final release stage, which didn't happen 'til mid 2002. With the source code being open to all, it attracted a lot of public development effort after that, which probably had a big influence on it being subsequently favoured so much by developers.

A more detailed timeline of Netscape 6 is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_6

You'll note that Netscape 6.1 (Mozilla 0.9.2.1)'s release date was August 8, 2001, as against Internet Explorer 6's release date (according to Wikipedia) of August 27, 2001. Netscape 6.1 was nothing at all like the early, half-baked "we're still alive! Honest!" Netscape 6.0 release, and was a real, viable competitor to Internet Explorer.

Mozilla 0.9.3 was actually released on August 2, 2001, but Netscape had already committed to a 0.9.2.1-based release and branched off prior to that.

manfred writes...

Mozilla really started just as IE 6 release was being finalised, and as you note was not even in final release stage, which didn't happen 'til mid 2002.

Netscape 6.0 was released when the underlying Mozilla codebase (0.5-0.6) really wasn't ready, but that was in 2000. By the time IE6 came out, Mozilla was well and truly into the 0.9 builds, far beyond the point of starting.

I wouldn't make too big a deal of the idea of "final release." The 0.9.2 version (which preceded IE6 by two months) was good enough for general usage in my experience, and things got better with each subsequent release.

With the source code being open to all, it attracted a lot of public development effort after that, which probably had a big influence on it being subsequently favoured so much by developers.

Could be. All I recall from the time was that it had fewer quirks to develop for than IE5.5 or IE6. As a Web developer that was all I cared about. (Of course, I still had to make the sites work in IE; it's just that the contrast between the browsers didn't make me feel warm and fuzzy about it.)

Sheldon Cooper writes...

But this attempt from Micro$oft is just so low...

I think you're having a tremendous overreaction.

I don't see how this is different from any of the thousands of competitions that require you to buy a product to enter.

Personally I keep IE on my computer anyway for the sites that don't work with FF (and I do come across them at times), so it's really no big deal for me.

I fail to see what's so 'low' about it. I think it's a good idea – the idea, I think, is to get the people who have lost faith in IE to at least just have a look at the new browser – not to write it off without trying it. Don't like it? Keep using FF or whatever, who cares.

Don't want to use a microsoft product, even for the 2min to enter the competition? Then don't use it – just like any other competition that requires you to buy their product.

I think another important thing to remember is IE's ability to be administered via group policies on a local machine or domain. From my company's perspective we will continue to run IE as our main browser as most security holes are swiftly patched, it can be administered very easily via GP to lock it down and make it secure, and it's easier for us to have one core browser to insure our intranet and internet based sites work for all staff.

As my company work in the defence industry it's also important that all of our software is secure and any known security exploits are published, doccumented and patched, this is something Microsoft do bloody well. We've even at times reported issues directly to Micrososft to have them come up with patch sollutions for our security issues within a day.

FF and Chrome have support no where near this.

Skwai writes...

A war most people are forced onto the wrong side of because it came with their OS.

Do not confuse laziness/ignorance with lack of free will.

EDIT: Sorry. Wrong Thread.

Rika-san writes...

I think another important thing to remember is IE's ability to be administered via group policies on a local machine or domain.

There is a modified version of Firefox that supports Group Policy management, but I'd agree that this is an advantage of IE.

As my company work in the defence industry it's also important that all of our software is secure and any known security exploits are published, doccumented and patched, this is something Microsoft do bloody well. We've even at times reported issues directly to Micrososft to have them come up with patch sollutions for our security issues within a day.

FF and Chrome have support no where near this.

Certainly Firefox and Chrome don't have a support line you can call like Microsoft's, and the nature of open-source development doesn't lend itself well to environments where you need to be able to order someone to work on something Right Now; same-day patching would be difficult to guarantee with volunteer developers.

That said, I don't think it's necessarily the case that Microsoft are universally better at fixing security issues faster. The last Secunia report seemed to indicate otherwise:

http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/03/firefox-has-the-most-bugs-and.html

(Incidentally, Mozilla's explanation for why Firefox's total vulnerability count was so high was that because of the project's open-source nature, all vulnerabilities are disclosed including those that are found and fixed internally, while other vendors tend not to publish internally-discovered vulnerabilities unless they become known outside the company.)

Ah this thread is quite amusing.

So many Microsoft haters in this world, so many FireFox fanboys

So so sad :(

Rika-san writes...

I think another important thing to remember is IE's ability to be administered via group policies on a local machine or domain. From my company's perspective we will continue to run IE as our main browser as most security holes are swiftly patched, it can be administered very easily via GP to lock it down and make it secure, and it's easier for us to have one core browser to insure our intranet and internet based sites work for all staff.

You are overreacting. Firefox forces users to update to the latest version by displaying a dialog box for the user to start the update, which is good news.

IE, is updated via Windows Update, which can easily be turned off via notifications.

Security-wise, IE6 is pathetic. Users are stuck with it even when IE8 is available. IE8 is an improvement. To assume other modern browsers lack security haven't yet explored these browsers in detail.

CapnGusBloodbeard writes...

Personally I keep IE on my computer anyway for the sites that don't work with FF (and I do come across them at times), so it's really no big deal for me.

When people say IE is "low", that's because from a web developer's point of view they truly truly lack web standards BIG TIME – and I'm not kidding. IE8 is a long long time coming since IE6 (so many years wait for a major version upgrade it's not funny).

It takes 90% for 10% gain to make something work in IE6, a little better in IE7 and further more in IE8.

However, IE8 is no match for other modern web browsers in web standards. (I'm talking about Chrome, Safari, Firefox and Opera are a LOT better than IE8 for keeping developers happy).

IE8 still has a long way to go.

Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer catch cried "Developers, developers" like an angry man wanting them to use his products. Obviously he never heard of web standards.

liteon writes...

So many Microsoft haters in this world, so many FireFox fanboys

No, it's Microsoft vs everything else (Lynx, Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Conquerer, Camino, etc, etc...).

If you had looked in past history in IE particularly IE6 and earlier versions, you'll have to wonder why people haven't forgotten the evil deeds Microsoft has done.

Marty writes...

If you had looked in past history in IE particularly IE6 and earlier versions, you'll have to wonder why people haven't forgotten the evil deeds Microsoft has done.

If you'd supported internet customers pre-IE6 you'd see what good they'd done. It got people on the web. People who didn't know how to 'download a website' or what a forward slash was.

Everyone hated it for it's issues, that for the most part if you'd bothered to set it up wouldn't have been issues.

If you get software and don't configure it – what do you expect. MS gave clients a heap of software bundled in the OS, what pricks eh... :P

DiggeR writes...

If you'd supported internet customers pre-IE6 you'd see what good they'd done. It got people on the web.

Without going into the specifics, there are other browsers when pre-IE6 existed. Microsoft is slow on the uptake after the messy IE vs Netscape wars in the 90s with their own proprietary code built in where there are Netscape-only sites and IE-only sites which can be viewed only by their respective web browsers and neither can read the other (very well), and Netscape is the first one to introduce JavaScript (but IE decided to come up with JScript). Basically two sets of code, one for each browser. Yuck.

In terms of web standards (that every browser should see almost 100% in page rendering) – we haven't forgotten, especially if you're in IT and is a developer.

And IE8 today hasn't yet implemented many of the CSS3 features that all other major browsers already did, that's telling you something: that until IE has more specifications implemented in the web browser, it is holding back innovation and creativity by web developers.

It is still encouraging to know that Microsoft is doing something about it, but we aren't too convinced yet!

Marty writes...

it is holding back innovation and creativity by web developers.

I have to disagree with you there. There are certain features of CSS3 that I'm using in my new site that won't appear in IE8 (embedded fonts, rounded corners, :last-child). The site will still work and preform the same in IE8, but the more compatible browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Safari) will see the site in a much nicer window (no pun intended)

Marty writes...

Without going into the specifics, there are other browsers when pre-IE6 existed.

I've worked in and around the internet since before World Wide Web was a buzzword, I remember IE6's launch as well ;)

Basically two sets of code, one for each browser. Yuck.

Like every other Home Entertainment equipment article in the world we had competing standards and competing code, choice is something that humans pride themselves on, and different people believe different implementations are better.

In terms of web standards (that every browser should see almost 100% in page rendering) – we haven't forgotten, especially if you're in IT and is a developer.

Some designers still implement flash into websites, shame, I'll never see that content due to it not being standard without plugins and also being potentially a security risk. I get your argument but there's only so many times people can cry wolf. Pick your poison, make it work, if it's not IE then you're cutting out your market share and that's the reality of it.

IE8 today hasn't yet implemented many of the CSS3 features that all other major browsers already did, that's telling you something

Feature sets are added extras and not essential framework bones, but it's there from what I understand (no longer involved in Dev work but hear a lot of positive things from some VERY anal people). As an admin – IE is the best thing we've had for years, I can stop it doing basically anything, I have control, and it has no dependancies as it's part of the system. Pro's and Con's I guess ;)

although we're waaaay off topic now.

liteon writes...

Ah this thread is quite amusing.

So many Microsoft haters in this world, so many FireFox fanboys

So so sad :(

Got to agree with that. IE8 is actually a pretty nice browser. For me its faster than FF3, and these days it is standards compliant. If it supported a few plugins I would gladly stop using FF3.

Please compare against Firefox 3.5 RC2 build 2 or RC3,
Firefox should be faster than IE 8.

nasanu writes...

Got to agree with that. IE8 is actually a pretty nice browser. For me its faster than FF3, and these days it is standards compliant. If it supported a few plugins I would gladly stop using FF3.

I just whish it had built in spell cheker.

nasanu writes...

If it supported a few plugins I would gladly stop using FF3.

Give IE7Pro a whirl. It has a number of different functions rolled into one add on. Also there are extensions like Foxmarks available as accelerators etc for IE8

Mr Miyagi writes...

I just whish it had built in spell cheker.

I do to, however IE7Pro adds a nifty spellchecker among other handy things like Youtube video downloading, mouse gestures and cloud based backup of Favorites etc.

I just do everyday stuff and had used firefox until early this year when they did an upgrade and was messy for a bit so changed to IE7 and found it much better for my use. Not going to spend the time trying to find $10,000 though, seems to be aimed at very few users.

Sybil writes...

Not going to spend the time trying to find $10,000 though, seems to be aimed at very few users.

90 million dollar draw next Tuesday, go for that instead haha... But i'd have to agree, there's some complex ideas coming up in the other thread which I don't think many people would be able to find this 10k.

Dechah writes...

What is BS in respect of the four points listed at their site? http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/mythbusting.aspx

Every company can twist facts & figures.

An independent study shows that, in 2006, IE users were vulnerable to online threats 78% of the time. Firefox users? Only 2%.
http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/firefox/security/

Firefox days at risk: 9

IE days at risk: 284

What's Up? writes...

Every company can twist facts & figures.

It's all who posts the figures/divulges in house discoveries, and how you address them (is 1 exploit that gets patched then exploited still 1 issue? To some vendors it's not, to some it is).

What's Up? writes...

Firefox days at risk: 9

IE days at risk: 284

it would appear that Firefox is making up for it at rapid speed

According to Secunia, for June 2009:

Firefox 3.x has 81 vulnerabilities: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/19089/?task=advisories

Internet explorer 8 has only 8: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/

That is a 10 to 1 advantage for IE8 over Firefox 3, and does not even consider the myriad of third party add on for Firefox that may also add additional vulnerabilities

Dechah writes...

Internet explorer 8 has only 8: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/

That is a 10 to 1 advantage for IE8 over Firefox 3, and does not even consider the myriad of third party add on for Firefox that may also add additional vulnerabilities

It's grossly misleading. IE8 is a new product whereas Firefox 3 isn't. Give it time for people to look "under the hood". Do have a look for IE7 (which has been around longer), tell me – how many security vulnerabilities are there? Obviously, a LOT more.

IE6 is 15% unpatched (not good!) – 154 vulnerabilities
IE7 is 22% unpatched (not good!) – 84 vulnerabilities
IE8 is 50% unpatched (not good!) – 8 vulnerabilities

Firefox 2.0.x is 10% unpatched (not good!) – 154 vulnerabilities
Firefox 3.x is 0% unpatched (Excellent) – 81 vulnerabilities

Opera 9.x is 0% unpatched (Excellent) – 50 vulnerabilities

Google Chrome is 0% unpatched (Excellent) – 3 vulnerabilities

Apple Safari 3.x is 22% unpatched (not good!) – 40 vulnerabilities
Apple Safari 4.x is 0% unpatched (Excellent) – 0 vulnerabilities

The latest version of the modern web browsers above are 0% unpatched except for IE8. Microsoft needs to patch up all the vulnerabilities because it is to date the only popular modern web browser for the desktop that is not fully patched, i.e. if anyone claims IE8 is best for security, think again.

Marty writes...

It's grossly misleading.

As are all figures. You're missing timelines there, as well as release cycles.

Mozilla, google and opera tend to make a new release instead of patch the existing version unless it's a critical problem whereas MS tend to patch IE and spend more time on development cycles.

Marty writes...

if anyone claims IE8 is best for security, think again.

I prefer having 8 known vulnerabilities as compared to 80+, coupled with protected mode operation on vista or Win 7. That makes it best for security in my world, yours may be different

Dechah writes...

I prefer having 8 known vulnerabilities as compared to 80+, coupled with protected mode operation on vista or Win 7. That makes it best for security in my world, yours may be different

+1

Dechah writes...

I prefer having 8 known vulnerabilities as compared to 80+

How old is IE8? You see the problem there. IE8 will have more vulnerabilities when people study it more closely. Being a Microsoft product that only a minority uses (most use IE6/7 which is extremely vulnerable) security holes will be discovered.

New products obviously has zero vulnerabilities. The number of vulnerabilities goes up, not down – the same goes for your age :)

Marty writes...

IE8 will have more vulnerabilities when people study it more closely.

I am happy to wait to see what might eventuate, and if need be, make a decision to change if/when IE8 no longer is the best choice. But given the facts as they stand today, IE8 has significantly fewer vulnerabilities than Firefox 3 (10 to 1 advantage) I agree this ratio may change over time, but I don't have a crystal ball, and neither do you. So as I said, based on the facts as they stand today, IE8 has significantly fewer vulnerabilities, AND also operates in Protected Mode on Vista or Win7. Protected mode is a significant boost to overall system security and integrity compared to alternative browsers available on the Windows platform.

Dechah writes...

Protected mode is a significant boost to overall system security and integrity compared to alternative browsers available on the Windows platform.

That's what you get for integrating proprietary software with a proprietary OS, but the fact remains – IE8 is the only latest version of a major modern web browser to date is not 100% patched.

You can say all you like about the vulnerability count (it only counts if they are unpatched) but tell me how much is IE8 is currently unpatched that isn't covered by Protected Mode on Vista and Win7?

If you can't answer that, well that's proprietary software with hidden agendas and lack of reporting of security issues. You'll have to thank external security consultants for such reporting before everyone will scream Micro$oft.

I found another promotion Microsoft is running: get a free Nickelback track with IE8.

http://www.ie8-nickelback.com/#getie8:WpzDHQktLo_

Talk about a lose-lose situation.

Marty writes...

That's what you get for integrating proprietary software with a proprietary OS

Enhanced security reliability and usability, I love it.

but the fact remains – IE8 is the only latest version of a major modern web browser to date is not 100% patched.

You are confusing 100% patched with known vulnerabilities. The Secunia website issues their own advisories. They have issued 15 against Firefox 3.x and 2 against IE8. Of the 15 Secunia advisories re Firefox, all 15 have been patched, of the 2 Secunia advisories against IE8, 1 remains unpatched (This is where the 50% comes from). If you read the details of that Secunia advisory, it relates to a "Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerability" on Windows XP. If I was still running XP, I would be using Firefox or Chrome. But on Vista or Windows 7, I use IE8 so that I get protected mode operation.

Separately to these Secunia advisories is the fact that Firefox still has 81 known vulnerabilities and IE8 just has 8. Those 81 vulnerabilities are real and unpatched.

You can say all you like about the vulnerability count (it only counts if they are unpatched)

Those vulnerabilities are real and unpatched, so they count. It is the Secunia advisories that are patched, but there is still 81 outstanding vulnerabilities in Firefox 3, and only 8 in IE8. As both Firefox and Microsoft issue patches/updates for their respective browsers, the Secunia number of vulnerabilities changes. A couple of weeks ago the Firefox 3.1 vulnerability count was 84, now it is 81, but that is still a 10 to 1 disadvantage to IE8. So people saying that IE8 is less secure than Firefox on Vista or Win 7 is really not being honest, or is totally deluded.

but tell me how much is IE8 is currently unpatched that isn't covered by Protected Mode on Vista and Win7?

If you have cared to look, the one unpatched Secunia advisory related to a vulnerability using IE8 on Windows XP. XP does not have protected mode, Vista and Win 7 do.

If you can't answer that, well that's proprietary software with hidden agendas and lack of reporting of security issues.

I just did. The Secunia advisory that remains unpatched relates to its use on XP.

Marty writes...

New products obviously has zero vulnerabilities.

Well now we know this isn't true from firefox 1.5's release...along with MANY others.

Dechah writes...

I prefer having 8 known vulnerabilities as compared to 80+

Real secure :)

Jul 6th 2009 at 7:35PM

You won't find many security software firms taking blame for not protecting your computers from this malware. So it's awfully refreshing that today, Redmond, WA.-based Microsoft (MSFT) thought it was in the best interest of those who use Internet Explorer, to issue an alert warning of a breach in security of its software.

['The company said that if you use its Internet Explorer browser on a computer operating on Windows XP or Windows Server 2003, hackers have the ability to take control. You get infected simply by visiting a Web site that has been hacked.']

While Microsoft just learned about this, apparently criminals have been taking advantage of the vulnerability for a week — serving up their malicious software on some 1,000 Websites, which then exploit a vulnerability in Microsoft's software which is used to play video over the Internet.

SANS Internet Storm Center IE 0day exploit domains

Sure, sure, blame XP not IE8 – me I'll stick with the 'fox :)

Peter Farrar writes...

Sure, sure, blame XP not IE8 – me I'll stick with the 'fox :)

As I have said previously, if I was still running systems with Windows XP, then I also would only use either Firefox or Google Chrome on those systems. But on Vista or Windows 7, I only use IE8 simply because it is the more secure option, primarily because it runs in "protected mode" on those operating systems, and also has fewer vulnerabilities than Firefox 3.x according to Secunia.

Dechah writes...

I only use IE8 simply because it is the more secure option

The tight integration of IE8 and Windows such that when a virus affects one or the other, it affects the whole integration. Everything basically disintegrates!

What is "Protected Mode" ?? It sounds fishy knowing that Microsoft comes with shonky wonky buzzwords!!

Marty writes...

The tight integration of IE8 and Windows such that when a virus affects one or the other, it affects the whole integration. Everything basically disintegrates!

If you stop and think for even a moment, you would realise just how silly that statement actually is. Viruses affect operating systems not applications. Sure a virus affecting windows will affect the running of IE, however it will also affect the running of any other program running on it, including Firefox, or any other browser you care to name. If the underlying OS is compromised, so are ALL the apps running upon it.

What is "Protected Mode"

Basically it means that the operation of IE7 or 8 on Vista or Win 7 with UAC left on causes it to run in a sandbox. Express permission is required to enable IE 7 or 8 on those platforms from making any changes to user or system files.

By ensuring the user consents to these kinds of actions, the likelihood of automated and/or unwanted software installation is greatly reduced. This feature also makes the user aware of what a website is trying to do to his or her system, thereby giving them a chance to stop it and take time to double check the trustworthiness of the website.

If you run a 32 bit version of Vista or Win 7, and want to enjoy the same security benefits of protected mode operation with a browser other than IE7 or 8, then you will require a third party program like Sandboxie. http://www.sandboxie.com/ Note that there is no 64 bit compatible version of that program.

Dechah writes...

Separately to these Secunia advisories is the fact that Firefox still has 81 known vulnerabilities and IE8 just has 8. Those 81 vulnerabilities are real and unpatched.

Where is this list of 81 vulnerabilities that are "real and unpatched"?

fxfighter writes...

Where is this list of 81 vulnerabilities that are "real and unpatched"?

Ask Secunia. A couple of weeks ago the number was 84, now it is 81

erm...

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/

Mozilla Firefox 3.5 has 0 Secunia advisories, and 0 vulnerabilities.

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/

Internet Explorer 8 has 1 advisory, and 8 vulnerabilities.

Am I missing something?

Now, no doubt that Dechah will come back with something like "Oh, well IE8's vulnerabilities are mostly fixed on Vista and 7."

My reply to that is that Firefox with NoScript installed on OpenSolaris blows IE8 on Windows 7 out of the water in regards to security, so your point is moot.

I believe that in a software area such as web browsers, a closed-source browser simply cannot compete with an open-source one in the long run.

ktzqbp writes...

Am I missing something?

The context of the foregoing discussion. It predated last week's release of Firefox 3.5.x. Previous discussions have referred to Firefox 3.4.x

Now, no doubt that Dechah will come back with something like "Oh, well IE8's vulnerabilities are mostly fixed on Vista and 7."

My reply to that is that Firefox with NoScript installed on OpenSolaris blows IE8 on Windows 7 out of the water in regards to security, so your point is moot.

The context of the foregoing discussions were in relation to the use of IE in comparison to mainly Firefox as well as other alternative browsers. Since IE is only available for Windows, that restricted the conversation to Windows.

I believe that in a software area such as web browsers, a closed-source browser simply cannot compete with an open-source one in the long run.

If/When that day comes, and assuming I still run Windows as my OS, then I will consider a change, just like I moved from Firefox to IE7 when I moved from XP to Vista.

ktzqbp writes...

Mozilla Firefox 3.5 has 0 Secunia advisories, and 0 vulnerabilities.

It's all of how many days old in comparison? These are loaded values. Also how many vulnerabilities are in the latest updated version of IE8 complete (not from launch) that would make it a fair comparison (due to Mozilla not patching but releasing new versions).

The OS isn't really relevant as I could say Opera 10 alpha on OpenBSD is completely safe with 0 vulnerabilities or advisories. In the case of Windows and IE8 then the underlying OS being fixed DOES make a difference.

Also in order for your FF vs IE8 debate to work you need to remember Win7 is unfinished code and you're installing EXTRA software in order to secure your browser. I could install extra software on Win7 to lock down the issues of script execution. Then of course any software plugin vulnerabilities need to be addressed (flash for example).

It's a pissing contest, always will be, knock it off.

Dechah writes...

The context of the foregoing discussion. It predated last week's release of Firefox 3.5.x. Previous discussions have referred to Firefox 3.4.x

Despite that since the release of Firefox 3.5, you've continued to compare IE8 to Firefox 3.0 (there never was a 3.4). I wonder why? ;)

Since IE is only available for Windows, that restricted the conversation to Windows.

No, it didn't. My point is that if you want to start comparing security on the major browsers (which I don't mind doing, because IE8 offers no competition to FF 3.5), we can go as far as you want before you admit that it essentially comes down to the OS that the browser is installed on.

Because of the fact that Firefox is cross-platform, I can utilise that feature, install it on FreeBSD or OpenSolaris and be safer than I ever can be on Windows 7 with IE8.

DiggeR writes...

It's all of how many days old in comparison? These are loaded values.

Months between the release of FF 3.0 and IE8: 9.

Months between the release of IE8 and FF 3.5: 2.

Therefore, I am far more justified in comparing FF 3.5 to IE8 than Dechah ever was in comparing IE8 to FF 3.0

Also how many vulnerabilities are in the latest updated version of IE8 complete (not from launch) that would make it a fair comparison (due to Mozilla not patching but releasing new versions).

Secunia actively updates the figures.

I could say Opera 10 alpha on OpenBSD is completely safe with 0 vulnerabilities or advisories. In the case of Windows and IE8 then the underlying OS being fixed DOES make a difference.

My point exactly.

Also in order for your FF vs IE8 debate to work you need to remember Win7 is unfinished code

Windows 7 has been in RC stage for a while now. They've essentially finished the programming side of things.

you're installing EXTRA software in order to secure your browser. I could install extra software on Win7 to lock down the issues of script execution. Then of course any software plugin vulnerabilities need to be addressed (flash for example).

Firefox's add-ons are a feature, so therefore I believe that comparisons can be made while utilising that feature (i.e., installing add-ons like NoScript), just as I think it's fair to compare to IE8 while taking IE7Pro into account.

Out of interest, what software would you install on Windows 7 to "lock down the issues of script execution"?

It's a pissing contest, always will be, knock it off.

LOL, so once a new version of FF is released that can be more fairly compared to IE8, you tell me to "knock it off". LMAO.

.

ktzqbp writes...

Therefore, I am far more justified in comparing FF 3.5 to IE8 than Dechah ever was in comparing IE8 to FF 3.0

Loaded values even still. I'm not debating the content of your argument with someone else. I'm saying it's loaded. It always will be.

Secunia actively updates the figures.

LoL good ole secunia. Unfortunately their values reflect the opposite of what I said. It's vulnerabilities/exploits since that version was released. It does not take into account patches UNLESS you read the advisory.

Windows 7 has been in RC stage for a while now. They've essentially finished the programming side of things.

This is wrong sorry, yes it has been in RC for a while, however since RC build (#7100) there have been countless updates made to the codebase (current build is around 7264, I haven't checked for a week or so though so it may be higher). Code will continue to be updated until it is labelled RTM.

Firefox's add-ons are a feature, so therefore I believe that comparisons can be made while utilising that feature (i.e., installing add-ons like NoScript), just as I think it's fair to compare to IE8 while taking IE7Pro into account.

I don't think either is fair as they are not base products. IE has application plugin ability for AV/Spyware scanners etc natively, I don't consider these features of the application but supplementals to the application.

Out of interest, what software would you install on Windows 7 to "lock down the issues of script execution"?

Bad wording you're right. There are ways of 'locking down' IE to be quite secure. Everyone knows it.

LOL, so once a new version of FF is released that can be more fairly compared to IE8, you tell me to "knock it off". LMAO.

Nothing to do with that. To do with loaded comparison mostly. If I take latest version of IE8 patches applied I have 0 exploits known WHEN configured correctly. So basically yes, it's e-peen and useless to compare the products.

DiggeR writes...

Loaded values even still. I'm not debating the content of your argument with someone else. I'm saying it's loaded. It always will be.

What do you mean by "loaded"?

Pretty funny how these values from Secunia only become "loaded" (whatever that means, according to DiggeR) once people begin to more fairly compare IE8 to FF 3.5, don't you think?

Unfortunately their values reflect the opposite of what I said.

The opposite of what, sorry?

It's vulnerabilities/exploits since that version was released. It does not take into account patches UNLESS you read the advisory.

I don't see your point? Results from Secunia's test show that FF 3.5 has no advisories or vulnerabilities, whereas IE8 has 2 advisories, but has patched 1, and 8 vulnerabilities. What aren't you understanding about that?

This is wrong sorry, yes it has been in RC for a while, however since RC build (#7100) there have been countless updates made to the codebase (current build is around 7264, I haven't checked for a week or so though so it may be higher). Code will continue to be updated until it is labelled RTM.

My mistake then.

I don't see your point though; because Windows 7 isn't a finished product, it's unfair to compare it to a release version of, say, OpenSolaris? Does it really matter? I mean, it's not as if when Windows 7 is released, that it will be superior to the major Unix distributions in regards to security.

This is getting way off-topic now, but my point is that it's futile to attempt to argue that IE8 is securer than Firefox, because IE8 isn't cross-platform. It's only for Windows, which due to its popularity, is subject to far more security vulnerabilities than most (any?) Unix distributions out today.

If you want security, browse with Firefox+NoScript on OpenSolaris. Don't try to argue that IE8 is securer (even on Windows it isn't, going on Secunia's figures).

I don't think either is fair as they are not base products.

Do you not agree that Firefox's add-ons capability is... well, a feature?

Or is it just because this is where IE8 falls on its knees to Firefox, that you're refusing to allow it to be used to compare the two browsers? ;)

To disagree that Firefox, coupled with NoScript (using its capability for add-ons – a FEATURE), is securer than IE8 is pure ignorance.

Bad wording you're right. There are ways of 'locking down' IE to be quite secure. Everyone knows it.

I don't – enlighten me.

Nothing to do with that. To do with loaded comparison mostly. If I take latest version of IE8 patches applied I have 0 exploits known WHEN configured correctly.

Oh, so now you're a security expert with experience in putting browsers through rigorous tests to search for vulnerabilities. You've used your new-found ability to discover that if you use IE8, with the latest patches applied, AND configured correctly (whatever that means), there is absolutely no way you can exploit the browser!

The internet's great isn't it? :P

ktzqbp writes...

Despite that since the release of Firefox 3.5, you've continued to compare IE8 to Firefox 3.0 (there never was a 3.4). I wonder why? ;)

Apologies, it was 3.0.x. This was the topic under discussion in the previous positngs

No, it didn't.

Yes it did. This whole thread is related to IE8, and that means Windows

My point is that if you want to start comparing security on the major browsers

That is your point, but it has nothing to do with the discussion that was already underway regarding IE's alleged security failings in comparison to alternative browsers, predominately Firefox.

"which I don't mind doing, because IE8 offers no competition to FF 3.5"]

IMHO, from a security standpoint, on Windows Vista or Windows 7, IE8 offers a significant advantage over FF 3.5 courtesy of its default sandboxed operation. that is why I am using it.

we can go as far as you want before you admit that it essentially comes down to the OS that the browser is installed on.

There is no need to admit anything, it is quite clear that my posts were referring to IE8 running on either Vista or Win 7. If I used another platform, I would not be able to use IE.

Because of the fact that Firefox is cross-platform, I can utilise that feature, install it on FreeBSD or OpenSolaris and be safer than I ever can be on Windows 7 with IE8.

If I needed/wanted to operate cross platform, then I would consider using another browser. But I just use Windows, in fact I just use Win 7 release candidate on my three machines.

ktzqbp writes...

What do you mean by "loaded"?

Times being what they are, and hackers being what they are then a value showing an older product has more exploits with an older code base is 'loaded'

Pretty funny how these values from Secunia only become "loaded" (whatever that means, according to DiggeR) once people begin to more fairly compare IE8 to FF 3.5, don't you think?

Not at all, I take Secunia's results with a grain of salt. Sometimes their advisories aren't even accurate and do not apply in all circumstances. A long time of watching them I guess. Of course they don't necessarily have the full list of issues with any piece of software, afterall the hacker/vendor may not disclose to them.

I don't see your point?

My point is that the numbers are bendable. I could say that in a certain environment all those issues are resolved, meaning there are 0 exploits/vulnerabilities in that product.

What aren't you understanding about that?

Nothing, I'm right on track ;)

I don't see your point though; because Windows 7 isn't a finished product, it's unfair to compare it to a release version of, say, OpenSolaris? Does it really matter? I mean, it's not as if when Windows 7 is released, that it will be superior to the major Unix distributions in regards to security.

It's an irrelevant playing field was my point. If you want to talk multiplatform them you might as well throw in all the 3rd party vendor problems that can be accessed through a browser, which is a share of IEs issues. Keep it to windows, as it's an unfair comparison when it doesn't exist on the other platforms.

This is getting way off-topic now, but my point is that it's futile to attempt to argue that IE8 is securer than Firefox, because IE8 isn't cross-platform. It's only for Windows, which due to its popularity, is subject to far more security vulnerabilities than most (any?) Unix distributions out today.

The cross platform nature I'm ignoring, totally, it's irrelevant. If it wasn't I'd be saying that IE5.5 on MacOS is the most secure browser ever (I'd be wrong but I'd still propose it as safer than FireFox on windows, either way it's apples and oranges). I'd go as far as to say redhat would have more security issues than windows. IF you install it fully.
Unix being a product which no longer exists being a moot point of course.

If you want security, browse with Firefox+NoScript on OpenSolaris. Don't try to argue that IE8 is securer (even on Windows it isn't, going on Secunia's figures).

Nah thanks, personally I don't use firefox as I find it a bit, well, outdated and frankly putting extra bits into a browser to make it finished annoys me. Let alone the fact it doesn't work with 90% of the technology I need in a professional capacity.

Do you not agree that Firefox's add-ons capability is... well, a feature?

Or is it just because this is where IE8 falls on its knees to Firefox, that you're refusing to allow it to be used to compare the two browsers? ;)

It is a feature for sure, but IE allows extra applications to be installed to work with it so I don't see it as anything mindblowing ;) It's got nothing to do with what I personally think, none of this does. I personally think IE and FF are as rubbish as each other. Relying on 3rd party apps/plugins is a danger though. Very easy to slip unauthorised code in.

To disagree that Firefox, coupled with NoScript (using its capability for add-ons – a FEATURE), is securer than IE8 is pure ignorance.

Not really ignorance, more annoyance that the browser needs someone else to look after it. It's the same for both in their real states. Although if you add in apps to mind their p's and q's you'll share similar experiences with both.

I don't – enlighten me.

Check out any whitepapers on 'best practice' etc ;) Lot of articles out there on stripping IE down to be 'safer.'

Oh, so now you're a security expert with experience in putting browsers through rigorous tests to search for vulnerabilities. You've used your new-found ability to discover that if you use IE8, with the latest patches applied, AND configured correctly (whatever that means), there is absolutely no way you can exploit the browser!

Not what I said....although I've worked in IT for years, network security is a large part of what I do at times. What I said was 'no known' exploits (worded clumsily I'll grant).

The internet's great isn't it? :P

Surely is. Less time spent vilifying a company for putting value add into a product and more time spent helping it be better would serve the internet well, instead of relying on petty debates.

Dechah writes...

From a security standpoint, on Windows Vista or Windows 7, IE8 offers a significant advantage over FF 3.5 courtesy of its default sandboxed operation.

Really? You're a security expert too, huh?

But I just use Windows, in fact I just use Win 7 release candidate on my three machines.

Right, so instead of comparing browsers and their features (that is, cross-platform vs. Windows-only), you've retreated to comparing browsers only while using Windows.

Not that it matters, because with the release of FF 3.5, it's now securer than IE8 while on Windows anyway, according to Secunia's figures.

ktzqbp writes...

Really? You're a security expert too, huh?

Not at all, but I don't need to be one to be able to recognise that default sandboxed operation is a very powerful security feature on my chosen OS platform.

Right, so instead of comparing browsers and their features (that is, cross-platform vs. Windows-only), you've retreated to comparing browsers only while using Windows.

We were never talking about cross platform until you arrived. That would be a separate discussion. My comments to date have always been, and remain, 100% in reference to using IE8 on Windows, particularly Vista and Win 7. You are the one characterising that as a retreat, when the fact is that territory was never covered in order to then retreat from it.

Not that it matters, because with the release of FF 3.5, it's now securer than IE8 while on Windows anyway, according to Secunia's figures.

Well as already pointed out, those figures are a bit scewed given that FF 3.5 has only been in the wild for about a week. If FF remains low and IE8 were to blow out then I would reconsider my position and consider using an alternative browser on Windows. Most likely that browser would be Chrome. But as already stated, it would take a lot for me to forego "protected mode" operation on my chosen platform

DiggeR writes...

Times being what they are, and hackers being what they are then a value showing an older product has more exploits with an older code base is 'loaded'

IE8 is older by Firefox 3.5 by 2 months. I don't think you could get a fairer comparison. These values aren't "loaded" at all, I find them very easy to take in.

Unix being a product which no longer exists being a moot point of course.

Sorry, I was talking about all the Unix-like kernels – Linux, Solaris, BSD, etc. You'd think that as somebody who's worked in IT for years, you would've been able to infer that.

Check out any whitepapers on 'best practice' etc ;) Lot of articles out there on stripping IE down to be 'safer.'

I'm not going to read multiple security whitepapers to prove a point you're trying to make. In fact, your failure to specifically mention some methods by which users can "lock down" IE8 makes it seems as though you don't even know yourself.

My point is that the numbers are bendable. I could say that in a certain environment all those issues are resolved, meaning there are 0 exploits/vulnerabilities in that product.

It is a feature for sure, but IE allows extra applications to be installed to work with it so I don't see it as anything mindblowing ;) It's got nothing to do with what I personally think, none of this does. I personally think IE and FF are as rubbish as each other. Relying on 3rd party apps/plugins is a danger though. Very easy to slip unauthorised code in.

*sigh* It's like banging your head against a brick wall. I've had enough.

Dechah writes...

We were never talking about cross platform until you arrived.

Well, I scanned through the 10 pages before posting, and I thought that the discussion was comparing browsers, as opposed to browsers while on Windows. The discussion was specifically centred around security, because you'd linked some figures that glorified IE8 against FF 3.0, and had been using those figures to argue that IE8 is better than FF for 7 or so pages.

With those figures recently being updated to include Firefox 3.5, I proceeded to highlight the fact that Firefox has the potential to be securer than IE8 by a wide, wide margin, because of its cross-platform operability and its range of security-enhancing add-ons.

Specifically on Windows however, I'll concede that the margin isn't nearly large.

However, as the figures from Secunia have shown, Firefox 3.5 is still securer than IE8 on Windows.

Despite these figures, you've continued to argue, without providing any supportive sources, that using Vista's/7's "protected mode" probably fixes IE8's vulnerabilities.

I'm not going to bother arguing against hearsay, so enjoy using IE8.

ktzqbp writes...

However, as the figures from Secunia have shown, Firefox 3.5 is still securer than IE8 on Windows.

I would not refer to one week of release as "still" I would more accurately categorise it as "too soon to tell"

Despite these figures, you've continued to argue, without providing any supportive sources, that using Vista's/7's "protected mode" probably fixes IE8's vulnerabilities.

For most of those 10 poages or so you alluded to in your previous post, FF3.0x was the valid comparison. There was no hidden agenda here.

I'm not going to bother arguing against hearsay

Protected Mode is a key security feature of IE's operation on Winodws Vista and Windows 7. It is more than mere hearsay.

so enjoy using IE8

Thanks, I have done so since it was released.

ktzqbp writes...

IE8 is older by Firefox 3.5 by 2 months. I don't think you could get a fairer comparison. These values aren't "loaded" at all, I find them very easy to take in.

Of course the latest patched version is less than that, this was my point. I tried to get at it but I seem to have missed the mark. Never mind.

Sorry, I was talking about all the Unix-like kernels – Linux, Solaris, BSD, etc. You'd think that as somebody who's worked in IT for years, you would've been able to infer that.

I don't like to call Apples anything but Apples, it's how mistakes are made. That and previous employers who've worked on various kernels rap me on the knuckles for saying 'unix.' No need for snide remarks, call a spade a spade and we'll be fine.

I'm not going to read multiple security whitepapers to prove a point you're trying to make. In fact, your failure to specifically mention some methods by which users can "lock down" IE8 makes it seems as though you don't even know yourself.

I've better things to do is basically it. I'm not doing your work for you.

*sigh* It's like banging your head against a brick wall. I've had enough.

LoL It is isn't it. Your claim to brilliance and security is to wrap a 3rd party product up into your chosen browser, mine isn't. It's quite simple really. Never mind, we'll agree to disagree and continue on with our lives. BTW I use Opera if I failed to mention it.

No disrespect intended, I was trying to clear some points up, it seems either I'm not explaining it properly or you're missing the intention, either way, waste of time.

Dechah writes...

Since IE is only available for Windows, that restricted the conversation to Windows.

IE is not restricted to Windows. Mac has IE5.5 (a little outdated by now). Mac has Office 2008 (from Micro$oft too), but Mac OS X has significantly less viruses, security vulnerabilities and bugs than Windows.

That's saying something about Windows with Google OS planned for first release next year...

If people continue to make a baseless claim that IE8 is secure – look at Firefox 3.5 which has absolutely zero vulnerabilities. Yes, zero.

IE8 and Firefox 3.5 are both new browsers, now who's the winner in the new browser stakes with regard to the vulnerability count? Obviously, it's Firefox 3.5 with zero vulnerabilities... If you think this is silly.. Well that's what you get for arguing that IE8 is more secure than the older Firefox 3, which is like comparing apples with oranges..

Marty writes...

IE8 and Firefox 3.5 are both new browsers, now who's the winner in the new browser stakes with regard to the vulnerability count? Obviously, it's Firefox 3.5 with zero vulnerabilities...

Check again Sherlock

Firefox 3.5

4 Advisories and 18 Vulnerabilites

IE8

4 Advisories and 12 Vulnerabilites

Dechah writes...

Check again Sherlock

Firefox 3.5

4 Advisories and 18 Vulnerabilites

IE8

4 Advisories and 12 Vulnerabilites

Hahha, love it when Firefox fanboys get owned. =)

General Herpes. writes...

Hahha, love it when Firefox fanboys get owned. =)

Lol yea its like when Apple Fanboys get Owned.