1  |   Order by index

Oct 9, 2004, 9:00pm

http://homepage.mac.com/raruler/.Pictures/SA/internet_explorer.jpg

Pictures are better then words.

Right? :>


--
Signed,
TheMask

:: Owner of Delusional-Minds Hosting ::
Free world hosting.. Just a T-Gram will do it.

Oct 9, 2004, 9:11pm

They are BHO's (Browser Helper Objects) and when you get the good ones they
are good (Google). Others install shite.

Firefox would simply deny the use of such things, reducing possible
functionality?

- MR


[View Quote]

Oct 9, 2004, 9:24pm

lmao at the picture. I hardly blame IE though. 99% of prevention is not
being such a net n00b *rolls eyes*


[View Quote]

Oct 9, 2004, 9:56pm

I couldnt function in life without the google toolbar,
--
Syntax
www.swcity.net

[View Quote]

Oct 9, 2004, 10:16pm

with SP2 you can easely remove them in the "add on" options menu , and you
have to install those toolsbars , they dont appear by just surfing the net .

Oct 9, 2004, 11:37pm

Firefox has a google toolbar plugin.

Ryan

[View Quote]

Oct 9, 2004, 11:38pm

Uhm, no. I don't think you'd consider me a "net n00b" but I ran across a
site accidently which did install a lot of stuff though I managed to
stop a trojan horse and a few of it from being installed...had to clean
up...

Ryan

[View Quote]

Oct 10, 2004, 1:36am

Skipping past these replies to encompass them all...

All arguments have been about how you can avoid the problem. Yeah, that
takes effort though.

Firefox also includes a popup blocker.

It IS possible to make IE more secure by changing the settings or using
3rd party programs. However, when an insecurity is brought about by an
actual SECURITY *HOLE* caused by a BUG, sometimes nothing will be able
to help you.

Firefox's security holes are being patched at a faster rate than IE's
are. The ones that are discovered are less serious than the ones in IE.

IE is not a browser. It is not compliant to Internet standards. It's a
marketing strategy. It's extremely basic in terms of features.

And the big deal with RadioactiveX? To be honest I can't see it.
Practically no sites use it. When a plugin is needed by something, both
normal Mozilla and Firefox alert you and provide a facility to search
for an installer for their browser. No need for automatic RadioactiveX
installations. Interactive features? I have to be honest with you. I
have never come accross a site that uses RadioactiveX for these. It's
always either Java or Shockwave.

[View Quote]

Oct 10, 2004, 5:53am

Exactly hehe... I use FireFox :D

--
Ry
www.zenithblu.net
[View Quote]

Oct 10, 2004, 1:13pm

Firefox: way more secure. Includes popup blocker and the little download
manager...not much but still handy and yeah you can have plugins for
toolbars. Very easy to delete cache and all. You can choose to delete just
cache and not saved passwords or you can delete it all. Much better than IE.
I just hate sites that aren't compatible with it >_< like AlphaBitPhalpha's
Crossword.

Jaguar Hahn - 348341


[View Quote]

Oct 10, 2004, 7:03pm

ryan you will always be a net n00b.

--
Brock,
IceFlare Network
Founder/Administrator
http://www.iceflare.net


[View Quote]

Oct 10, 2004, 7:03pm

Quoted for truth.

--
Brock,
IceFlare Network
Founder/Administrator
http://www.iceflare.net


[View Quote]

Oct 10, 2004, 7:57pm

IE or not if you had attempted to install most those toolbars you would have
got the spyware, IE or not.

Like you said, its all about knowing what things do when you install things.

- MR

[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index