Posted on 01/25/2005 12:36:29 PM PST by FreeMarket1
I've never had a problem since I went cable and use a router. I also use Norton Anti-Virus, WinPatrol, ZoneAlarm Pro, and Spybot is set to monitor registry changes.
I seldom get a pop up and I have never had a virus, Trojan, or worm. Norton's Anti-Virus Report logs that it has caught and blocked 22 attempts to infect since Jan. 1, 2004 when it was installed.
I have run AdAware and Spybot, though it's been awhile. I have regular virus protection. But I work in IT, and can say confidently I don't have any spyware behavior -- slowness, unexplained popups, etc.
Dan
One thing good (or bad) about Avant is that it will not let you add but a couple of toolbars. google and roboform. A lot of malware uses the toolbar feature so to me this is a good thing.
Really? Is that a new tweak? Last I looked, there was no way, and regular users confirmed it was stuck at the top.
Dan
It's part of the TabBrowser Preferences extension, rather than part of the base program.
Heh--I only run six. And I thought that was a lot. LOL!!
I don't think it's ever happened in the history of the Universe.
I ran AdAware DAILY and still got them.
I could be wrong, though.
Don't worry the marketing bozo's at MicroSloth will figure it out and gain back share.
Try Opera. http://www.opera.com I've been using Opera for years. Sessions, Tabbed, Popup blocking, Multi-OS versions, ....
As for Microsoft share, browsers like Opera can identify themselves as MSIE 6.0 to fool the server. Some applications only run with MSIE. Any web browser survey will also be fooled. Actual MSIE market share numbers are probably lower.
There is a plugin for Mozilla/Firefox/Galeon to do the same thing.
I'd be surprised if Microsoft controlled 70 percent of the market.
I did, but only when I tried Firefox a couple years ago, and it wasn't quite working right yet....seemed as bad or worse than Netscape. I then tried it again late last summer. It worked great; I certainly have NOT gone back to IE since.
Good one. LOL. I honestly do not think anyone has ever gone to FF, and then gone back to IE. (Caveat: Assuming that the person's computer is running ok, that they are computer savvy and thus not confused by IE-bundled products that claim to use only IE,that they are not employed by MSFT, that they are not Bill Gates, that they are not Paul Allen, that they are not .....you get the drift). Seriously, anyone who would go back to IE from FF must have a really BIG reason to do so, or they just don't know what the heck they are doing.
Your hypothesis of "I only care that it works -- and IE works" is wrong in so many ways. Your logic about targets is flawed too, as both ShadowAce and cooldog have pointed out.
First, I really could care less what browser I use. And, I don't use IE because it doesn't "just work". IE, as I noted in my previous post, is not just tied to the operating system, it is bolted into the OS and, as a result, makes a potentially minor application hole a HUGE system hole.
So, even if Firefox was melted by malicious code, you could uninstall the app and reinstall the app and the only thing you would lose are your favorites. When IE melts, there is a good chance that your whole system is screwed. How is that "just working"? You mean IE works right up until the point your system gets a virus or worm embedded into the registery that you can't clean out, then you have to format your hardrive? That your definition of "just working"?
Second and a conclusion to the first point, Firefox runs on top of the OS (whether Windows or Linux), so it will never suffer from this vunerability. Even with the ever-retreating release of Longhorn (Microsoft's next generation OS), where the browser (at last reports) is interlaced with every aspect of the OS, don't expect the security problem to go away. A browser that is interlaced into every aspect of the OS will not remedy this problem. In fact, it will likely give even more opportunities for security weakness.
Third, as far as the "single digits" comment. It's cheap. And, after several posts where other FREEPERs are pointing out clear ways in which IE is an inferior browser to Firefox (or Opera for that matter), you don't seem like you want to face reality.
Comparing the market share of browsers and touting Microsoft as the "winner" is, well, stupid. In fact, any Microsofty that touts the market share numbers as evidence proves Netscape's point, only 6 years after the fact. Microsoft REQUIRES IE on every OEM install. You can't uninstall IE...well, you can, but your operating system will become virtually inoperable. Which is, essentially, what Netscape was saying. Unfortunately, at that time, Netscape didn't make the best browser for the best price. Microsoft did.
However, Microsoft has made a strategic blunder in the way they handled the browser. They started tying the browser to the OS to save their ass, legally, and now it is biting them on the ass. They also made the argument that they were including the browser free of charge and that it was part of the operating system. Now they are fighting against an "up-and-comer" that is selling their browser for, well, free too. That's called irony.
Now, go back and search my posts. You will find that I had been an ardent defender of Microsoft products and a relative skeptic about open-source projects. I had always maintained that open-source (Linux in particular) had to become more user friendly to become a viable replacement to the comparable windows offerings. If the open source community could inject discpline and get rid of their hang ups about being only for the technically savvy, then they would be the best product for the best price.
Well, in large part, they have done just that.
Well, Mozilla's Firefox dev team has done that for browsers. Mozilla's open source email effort, Thunderbird, is also a very good and powerful replacement to Outlook. It's junk filter makes reading my email a cinch. In fact, it's amazing that I have gotten just about every worm or virus in the last 6 months, but nothing happens in my Inbox. I just delete the line-item and it's gone. And, if you can swallow your MSFT pride for just two seconds, I would suggest the Xandros Linux distro for a new operating system. Note that Xandros' uses CodeWeavers CrossOver Office to run Windows programs, where most of the useful windows suites --Office, MS Project, MS Access, MS Visio, Adobe's Photoshop, Lotus Notes, Quicken-- run flawlessly. And, it isn't just their marketing, that's what I use to run MS Project and Quicken everyday.
And, I have been typing this post using Firefox running on Xandros Linux. Can you tell the difference? Surely not. And why does that even matter? Well, it proves that, for just about everything people use the web for (most importantly FREEPing), Firefox is just as good as (in fact, better) than IE.
You have to face reality. The times have changed and Microsoft is behind the curve.
And, that brings me to my last point. If you want to argue my point that "Microsoft is behind the times", then you need to take it up with your boy Bill Gates. In fact, he (and his cadre of flesh-eating lawyers) was (were) THE person (people) that made that argument. Gates said, on countless occassions and on the record, that technology moves fast and any superior market position today, doesn't mean they will have it tomorrow.
Well, on that point, he's absolutely right. Now if Bill, and folks like you would admit that, maybe we could make some real progress.
I started using the browsr provided by my ISP (SBC/Yahoo), when IE started performng poorly for me.
I don't know who created/produces it, but I've never looked back.........
I appreciate the information and discussion. I don't appreciate your gratiuitously combative, condescending tone.
Here's my perspective. I have used Windows XP now on eight computers, and I have not had one OS-level problem with it on any of them. It runs as well as I'd expect a manmade OS to run; better, in fact. And on six of those eight computers, I've used AvantBrowser, with no problems that I'd blame on the IE core.
So < shrug > I suppose I could switch... but why? You deride the perspective but, once again, as this isn't a moral issue, my stance is purely pragmatic. It works for me. Why would I switch?
Sure, Linux intrigues me, and if I were getting a brand-new PC, I might consider the flavor you mention. But I have at home three PC's already set up with WinXP, with no problems that aren't user-caused. What would my motivation be? It's not broke. Why would I fix it?
Further, as I say (but you dismiss it), once Linux and co. becomes much of a target, I suspect as many holes will pop up as the big dog currently has. To mix a metaphor.
Dan
And, your approach given your experiences makes sense. And, I don't know if you're lucky or have your systems set up properly (I suspect the latter), but that simply isn't the case for the most web browsers.
The fact that Firefox has had 20.8 million downloads since Nov 9, 2004 is sign of a problem. Even though you haven't experienced the security holes, the statements about IE's security aren't figments of the open source's imagination. That was my rather forceful point about acknowledging reality.
The spyware and malware is real. Firefox is a browser that at the code level has dealt with it. And, from even the most objective evaluations, Firefox has dealt with these issue much more handily than IE. Does it matter that IE is a big target? Sure. But, Firefox has been gaining considerable ground for almost a year and there have been attacks. But, those attacks have been 1) mostly ineffective and 2) dealt with very swiftly.
Comparatively, Microsoft on the other hand is very slow to responding to these issues. And, when they have responded, the fix opened up a whole new pod of holes.
That is fact. I'm not making that up. That was the "reality" that was alluding to when I was (rather forcefully) making my point.
And, I do note the mild interested in Linux. I used to be a fierce defender of Microsoft. I still maintain that some of their software is good (as noted, I use MS Project everyday). But, I do think that they are just a wee bit too full of themselves. They have made an enormous blunder in moving towards Longhorn and the manner in which Longhorn is purportedly being designed it will only open up even worse security holes.
And, if you want my honest opinion, I would actually think that a stripped down version of the Windows environment --kind of like doing Windows 95, but with some of the key advancements included (e.g., CD/DVD burning)-- that it would appeal to many who want a clean, fast OS.
And, I don't know that I mentioned this, but in addition to my Xandros Linux box (and my Fedora Core box and my Debian box), I have 2 XP boxes. I have stripped down the boxes and used every tweak possible to eliminate bloat. But, the code is still there and the code itself is what the hackers are currently and will continue to exploit.
Frankly, I think that Microsoft would benefit themselves and their users if they would slow down for a second, evaluated what people want and give them that. I don't think that Longhorn is what people want. Longhorn is being driven by technology, not user needs.
And, it is a fact (established by IDC, Gartner, etc.), that users use less than 20% of any application or operating system. Instead of loading up the OS with a bunch of stuff that never gets used, why not be minimalist and allow users to download the otherwise superflous extentions? So, the "basic" user gets only what they need, while the "power" user (who would use those types of tools) could download them?
Do I know what Microsoft has planned? No, not really. Might they be working on something like that? Maybe, but I doubt it. I'm just saying that a long features list might impress the marketing folks, but it doesn't mean squat to the end user.
There is plenty of reason to believe that open source will produce a better product than Microsoft. Part of the reason is due to the feedback they get. The other part is that they don't have time to allow for code bloat. Microsoft has grown into something that it wasn't when it started. Microsoft is now the 800 lb. gorilla that IBM was in the early 80s. And, from all accounts, Microsoft's attitude then, is hardly reflective of 1) its attitude or 2) its actions these days.
I hate to sound cliche, but Microsoft has really lost their edge. To use a sports metaphor, they really aren't hungry anymore. They talk about innovation and have the bucks to do it (and sometimes come through), but mostly they just grow and morph their existing stuff, adding more and more code.
And I note that the 1 area in my opinion where Microsoft has made a clearly superior product is in the gaming console. I have an XBox and I love it. It is, hands down, the best gaming console on the market. And, it should be duly noted, the 1 area where Microsoft isn't the dominant player.
It is fact. It is human nature. When you achieve a goal, you coast. When you don't have competition breathing down your throat, you coast. When your livelihood is in jeopardy, you fight like hell and usually are quite inspired.
Well, maybe the competition from Linux and the newly priced Mac mini (an obvious effort on Apple's part to take some market share) will spur Microsoft the get back to basics and make their OSs as good as the XBox.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.