Yet another Microsoft MSIE lie...

[SirWinner]

* Rant Start *

I'm not against Microsoft but gee whiz... what in the heck were they thinking?

Leave it to the Worst Internet Browser from Microsoft to rate itself at 4 out of 4 and yet the MORE secure Firefox and Chrome Browsers at 2.5 out of 4.

http://www.yourbrowsermatters.com/#/browser-score

I don't know what Microsoft has been smoking but someone needs to inform them about REAL Internet Browser Security!

No internet browser is perfect but at least Firefox, Chrome, and Opera do a MUCH better job of keeping their browsers up to date WITHOUT that damnable Windows Update reboot trash!

The Mozilla crew updates Firefox with the latest patches daily if needed when it comes to Internet Security issues.

Microsoft takes too damn long to fix KNOWN security issues in Internet Explorer.

I don't buy the 4 out of 4 score from Microsoft... that's Macrocrap that they expect the masses just to accept and go back to their browser!

* Rant End *

>:(

[Jeff250]

What is their agenda with Internet Explorer these days? Are they still trying to embrace, extend, and extinguish the Internet? Or is this just for the free Bing homepage hits?

[Sirius]

No idea. It doesn't directly make any money, and any kind of plot to hijack the internet is basically impossible with so many players in the game anyway. (Triple-E is not exactly something that MS has been in a hurry to attempt in the last decade with all the antitrust scrutiny, for the record.) It probably does help with Bing market share though.

Kind of expected this to be about the (IMHO ill-conceived, but I'm not much of a fan of the PR department lately anyway) anti-Google ads they were running... apparently not. It is a questionable rating system and probably conveniently doesn't include areas Internet Explorer doesn't support, but it's an MS-hosted advertising (well it is, isn't it?) page - what would you expect? Third-party sites are the only meaningful places to check on this sort of thing - I wouldn't put a lot of trust in Google or Apple to compare browsers fairly either. Mozilla, maybe, but it'd probably still be distorted by how they viewed the world even if they were trying to be impartial.

I do think that IE9 is more secure than most people give it credit for though; it'll have a few holes, sure - all browsers do, the issue is how quickly they're fixed and their severity - but it's a much stronger link than <insert your favorite Adobe plug-in here> when it comes to exploits. Has some useful ways to deal with social engineering attacks as well, which honestly are probably more dangerous. I would like Windows Update to require fewer reboots, but I have no idea how many are due to IE9... it's... not really like it'd make much sense not to use it for the purpose either. Not as much as it would make to improve WU to the point that IE9's use of it isn't really an issue. Having multiple separate auto-updaters would annoy me more.

I still don't use it very heavily though. Despite its (somehow still) largest market share, nobody seems to be making extensions for it - Firefox still seems to be the best show in town if you want your browser to do something really specific.

[TigerRaptor]

The classic give your own product a reward. Shits and giggles any one?

Like it or not Sirius is right about this one. Too many still take IE9 like IE6 and overlook the major improvements Microsoft has done. When it comes to blocking malware downloads and phishing websites. I think IE9 might have the upper hand here.

[Jeff250]

It's a lot easier to lose karma than to get it back.

[Krom]

Yeah, marketing is always hilarious. I've recently had some pretty good looks at how Microsoft and Intel do marketing and they both basically just endlessly spew complete bull★■◆● about how wonderful their products are and rarely if ever mention competitors.

[snoopy]

First thing I install on a new windows machine: firefox.

In the windows world, I don't really trust anyone to give me an honest opinion.... everyone is trying to sell something. One of the things I like about the open source world: it's easier to find the truth about how things actually operate.

[SirWinner]

Glad to see that I wasn't the only one that thought that this is "extremely poor marketing" from Microsoft.

On a New Windows Install, the first thing that I install is Firefox for me and others.

Then I install System Internals suite to run the AutoRuns program to root out certain programs from loading at Windows Launch. (Yes, I know the "Microsoft Collective" has merged in SysInternals just it like the "Borg Collective" in Star Trek the Next Generation.)

I use AutoRuns to not run programs such as that darn Java Update that is ONLY needed 1 time a month but runs for most people constantly.

My Windows XP PC is down to about 25 processes when idle due to weeding out a lot of unneeded trash.

[Isaac]

Screenshot-3.png (36.34 KiB) Viewed 1478 times

Wha? Just attack me and give me a score!

[Sirius]

But that would be illegal!

(Actually, probably not, but some of the stuff on their scorecard can't really be confirmed by an automated single-page test; anti-phishing protection is a good example of this.)

[Isaac]

If that's the case, then the user's knowledge and intuition should be what's in question, not what browser they use. Even the most secure linux system can be destroyed by the user.

[Heretic]

I always welcome the error between the keyboard and chairback. That keeps the money rolling.

[Sirius]

Well, the user is always a part of the equation, yes. You can't prevent someone from getting things stolen - the best thing you can do is increase their odds of noticing a scam before it's too late.

[SirWinner]

See these 2 links:

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/fe ... edsecurity
http://www.mozilla.org/security/

Point well taken on the security of data... many people forget to use their brains to prevent giving out their private data then wonder why someone hacked into their accounts.



https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/quest ... wer-306712

[Tunnelcat]

I don't buy the 4 out of 4 score from Microsoft... that's Macrocrap that they expect the masses just to accept and go back to their browser.

Maybe they dropped the decimal point. What they really meant was .4 out of 4 for their IE dog. Firefox is far superior, customizable and it's free, unlike the crap we pay for from Microsquish.

[Krom]

Internet Explorer is also free (aside from the fact that it only runs on Windows).

[Jeff250]

Assuming we're still talking about IE9, then most Windows users *would* have to pay Microsoft to use it.

[TigerRaptor]

Speaking of customizing. It is amazing what you can do under the hood using the about:config for Firefox.

[Sirius]

Assuming we're still talking about IE9, then most Windows users *would* have to pay Microsoft to use it.

Kinda sorta. I don't expect IE9 came into the equation for anyone deciding whether or not to upgrade. If the rest of the equation doesn't balance in Win7's favor, IE9 just doesn't exist.

[Jeff250]

I wouldn't expect them to upgrade for IE9 either, but IE9 certainly isn't free for them either.