ThreadBoard ArchivesSite FeaturesActiveworlds SupportHistoric Archives |
Why not to use IE, and perfer Firefox.. (Community)
Why not to use IE, and perfer Firefox.. // CommunitythemaskOct 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. strike rapierOct 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] sw comitOct 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] syntaxOct 9, 2004, 9:56pm
the j0k3r ssOct 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 . ryanOct 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] rossyboyOct 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] jaguar hahnOct 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] joe.zipOct 10, 2004, 7:03pm
ryan you will always be a net n00b.
-- Brock, IceFlare Network Founder/Administrator http://www.iceflare.net [View Quote] joe.zipOct 10, 2004, 7:03pm
Quoted for truth.
-- Brock, IceFlare Network Founder/Administrator http://www.iceflare.net [View Quote] strike rapierOct 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] |