Microsoft IE6 SP1 is the final standalone installation(?)

Microsoft Technet ^ | May 7, 2003

[Dominic Harr]

I think the impact of BHOs will be less than when Microsoft removed support for Netscape-style plug-ins from IE.

I agree, but only because I don't think any decent developer would choose an integrated solution like this.

But if it *did* work, if they *do* remove support for activeX, then that will shut out Java, the current solution the market has selected for rich-client apps.

The JVM runs as an activeX client in IE . . .

No more 'stand alone' IE apps also means they can gain a greater ability to 'disable' some competing technology like the JVM in a future 'Windows Update'.

MS is doing this hoping to create vendor lock-in. They specifically want vendor lock-in to do things like disable Java on Windows.

I believe they will again fail, but the sheer gaul of it is impressive.

[snooker]

Switch to mozilla. Nicer browser, more features no email viruses, no popups, tabbed browsing and java runs just fine.

Oh, it's free. Download here ... http://www.mozilla.org/

[Dominic Harr]

I use Mozilla as my primary browser on both Linux and Windows, actually.

But again, if MS is successful with these 'BHOs', this will seriously impact Mozilla and any other non-IE browser.

If MS is successful at convincing enough developers to use IE-specific content, it will be a very, very bad day.

[snooker]

OK, agree completely.

So what can you do.

Start with your state/local/any government office. If it does not allow mozilla to read the pages correctly, email and complain. Follow up with a phone call. Tell them you can't afford windows and are using linux. tell them they need to make sure their public pages and data is available to all citizens not just those that can AFFORD to buy windows.

It worked for me, the city is converting to open standards. Repeat with every gov page you come across which won't work. Call your congress critter and do same. Guess what? before long someone's butt will be on fire.

govs are real sensitive to this 'low cost can't afford windows' complaint. Especially as it pretains to gov data online. (Like the library)

[Dominic Harr]

Actually, I plan to take a more capitalist approach.

I'll continue to build and deploy solutions that make MS-only ones look like children's toys. I'm out there moving folks away from MS every single day, winning customers away from MS-only solutions.

A modern, platform independent, n-tier, Object-oriented, componentized solution beats the pants off of the integrated solutions being pushed by Oracle, MS, Lotus, and the rest.

We're cheaper, more reliable, more scalable, more functional.

That's the reason MS is resorting to such drastic means.

I believe this initiative by MS is doomed, for a variety of reasons. My biggest worry is MS crashing too hard, too fast, and taking a bunch of good people who were silly enough to believe the sales pitch with them.

[snooker]

" ... We're cheaper, more reliable, more scalable, more functional. "

Monopolies always turn into control freaks, that is exactly what is happening to ms. Their prices are going up and the functionality is getting stangnant. The ms innovation is wrapping all their products in a ms only wrapper.

I work with county databases. A lot of my clients have to access them to do their work. So when my Linux install comes in contact with proprietary ms only web pages, especially involving gov databaes, I go right up the food chain complaining. This has been quite successful. You finally reach someone who realizes that it could turn into a political liability, locking out the poor from access, so it gets fixed. It's a soft spot in the gov food chain.

I agree with the value add. It is easy to provide higher value for the client than a boxed solution. It is amazing how many have bought the boxed line and ended up with a disaster.

[zx2dragon]

I cut my Linux teeth on Mandrake. Reason was that everyone was going all ooooh and aaaahs over RedHat and I wanted to be different. :)

Their latest distro is decent, but I thought I had read somewhere that they were in danger of fading away.

[zx2dragon]

Konqueror is a browser in Linux. I first used it heavily in the RedHat 7.X distro.

[Lee'sGhost]

Help, please.

I recently let my subscription to McAfee run out. I've been told that Norton is better. Any opinions?

Also, I'm not up how the browser affects security if at all. If so, which broswer(s) is more secure? Am running Win XP.

[Clara Lou]

I use Norton and have never had any sort of conflict, problem installing anything, etc. It's smooth. From my own experience, I highly recommend it.

[Lee'sGhost]

I got frustrated with McAfee bec it seemed to bog everything down. Seemed like it was trying to do TOO much and wasn't very intuitive to my way of thinking.

Thanks.

[Clara Lou]

I'm not up how the browser affects security if at all. If so, which broswer(s) is more secure? Am running Win XP.
I was going to let the FR experts handle this. but they must be at work. I think that it's safe to say that almost any browser is more secure than Internet Explorer [for Windows]. As several above have posted, Mozilla (it's the basis for Netscape, it's free-- I'm using it right now) and Opera (I never could get used to it, comes with advertising unless you buy it) are two very good choices.

[Lee'sGhost]

Thanks nice person Clara Lou!

[zx2dragon]

In my experience, Norton is the better of the two, but it wasn't always like that. It took some long field time to bring me around to using Norton's. After seeing McAfee miss and Norton's hit on an infected system time and time again, I was a convert. I even helped roll out the Corp Edition at two different employers. Zero infection rate after that.

Browsing wise I would suggest Mozilla. It's free and most people are comfortable with the interface. It also has a decent password storage program with encryption, just don't forget your password to it. Opera is nice, but there are ads (tiny) unless your purchase it. You can't really go wrong with either one. Make sure to keep your system patched or it won't make a bit of difference, security wise.

[Lee'sGhost]

That's what I had heard about Norton. Thanks.

[Richard Kimball]

The only M$ program kind of, sort of, needed for the Mac is Office. Safari and Camino are far better web browsers (Netscape is IMHO, dead on both platforms).

[Nick Danger]

McAfree vs Norton

I second the comments about Norton. Had it for years. No complaints, and no viruses either. It finds two or three a day in my incoming email, and it makes them go away. Otherwise, it stays out of my way.

Browser wars

All browsers have security holes. That's why, if I'm a hackerCracker, I write my stuff to exploit holes in the browser that has 90% of the market: IE.

I don't think IE deserves 90% of the market. I do a lot of web site testing with IE, Netscape, and Mozilla. Any of 'em do a good job on 95% of the sites out there, and they all have about 5% (a different 5%) that they barf on. Netscape these days is basically Mozilla with some AOL adware tacked on, so take Mozilla over Netscape. I have all three. I use Mozilla unless I hit a site that doesn't work... I'll bring that one up in IE. Sometimes IE will work on a site where Mozilla won't, and vice versa. Having both is a Good Thing.

[Ichneumon]

NOTE: whenever you hear someone dissing "Legacy" anything, run for your life. What the speaker is promoting is a means to lock you into his cash flow.

No, not always. Often maintaining eternal support/compatibility with "legacy software" (i.e., "dinosaur software old enough to legally drink beer") "locks" the developer into an inability to fully modernize things.

Sooner or later, you pretty much *have* to dump support for some of the more ancient platforms/applications in order to free yourself to make full use of modern software tools, interfaces, and communication layers. The alternative is a creeping stagnation, as the multiple layers of the "legacy software" you must maintain compatibility with further and further constrain your development options.

There's also the issue of how cost-effective it is for a developer to spend a significant amount of time (equals money) ensuring continued compatibility with dinosaur apps/OS's which a dwindling percentage of his customer base is using. For example, is it worthwhile spending 40% of your time maintaining the "legacy" portion of your product when only 2% of your users still have "legacy" issues (and could upgrade if need be)?

[Ichneumon]

I got frustrated with McAfee bec it seemed to bog everything down. Seemed like it was trying to do TOO much

That's been my experience with *all* virus protectors in their "always on" modes -- the only difference is what kinds of operations each one bogs down, and under what conditions.

Personally, after close to thirty years in the computer field, I've never found a need to have a virus checker running 100% of the time. Computer viruses do make the rounds, but they're a lot rarer than most people think. I've only personally run across 4, total, after decades of "promiscuous computing".

I find it a lot more efficient to leave the virus checker *off*, then have it just do a scan in the middle of the night every few days to see if anything has snuck in and taken up residence in my computer.