[JA] Re: Internet Explorer 7
- From: thepccat@xxxxxxxx
- To: juno_accmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:08:48 -0800
Microsoft previously said they would not update IE until there was a new
operating system, and felt proud about that [send us money or forget it].
Meantime their browser continues to cause people problems and fits on the
Internet as it is. Three years ago Microsoft said security was Job 1. If
you count the patches, it seems so ;-) .
Meantime, Netscape [I believe this came from AOL? and was the alternative
browser among the cognoscenti back in IE 4 days] got handed to open
source, and a pretty decent browser and OE replacement has been
developed, over a long time and many beta versions.
Some of the press have been touting this as it went thru painful [for
those who tried to use it, for example, me] beta revisions, saying it is
wonderful and IE is junk and everybody should get on the Mozilla
bandwagon [while the Mozilla bandwagon fell apart into Firefox and
Thunderbird RV's, and the browser was renamed three? times--thank you new
millennia copyright frenzy].
While Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird may not be perfect, or problem free, or
exactly what any person wants, they are configurable, extensible, and the
developers make a very good attempt to respond to security problems, and
a good attempt to respond to user needs [for example, a setting in
Firefox to disable the javascript context menu disabler used to, for
example, attempt prevention of saving links or pictures as]. This
tweaking needs some time and understanding. This browser is basically
secure as delivered.
On the other hand, IE [and to a lesser extent OE] can be configured and
added on so that is becomes a pretty safe and usable browser [and plays
web sites designed just for it to near perfection], if you have the time
and understanding. As delivered, it is the definition of danger.
Meantime the new O/S [Longhorn?] continues to slip, and becomes watered
down as to what it maybe will offer over XP. They are trying to get
people to buy XP, because it is so great [& they need the bucks], yet
they stated they would not upgrade the security of IE. Much of the new
O/S features will be offered for XP, they say, either for free or for
pay, stick around for the details, suckers [I bought XP so I am covering
my bets].
Well now Microsoft finally realizes they can't say security is Job 1 and
the browser will not be changed. Recall, it is *their* [proprietary]
browser/email client [IE/OE] and extensions [largely Javascript and
Active-X] which have been the entry point or enablers of the virus,
Trojan, spyware explosion we have witnessed since IE4. They have had help
[in making their belated decision] from public opinion, editorials,
government agencies, and [no doubt] stock market types. So [inhale and be
amazed] they state a new revision browser, for XP only, will be available
in 6 months, or so [anybody taking bets on how problem free it will be?],
which will have some security feature upgrades--no real info on what it
will do, or other usability areas important to end users. So if you do
not upgrade to the latest O/S you are out of Microsoft luck. I imagine
they will offer it to XP Home users even if the support is expired {when
is that currently set to happen?], to avoid a firestorm of criticism and
anger [regardless of the actual merits of the new browser compared to
others available].
And now some of the press are saying--Oh no!--Firefox is dead meat, with
the threat/promise of IE7. Well, banana oil, somewhat, in my opinion.
Many newbies will always use whatever comes from Microsoft with their new
computer system, because they imagine computing, emailing, instant
messaging, and Internet-ing is supposed to be simple and idiot proof. I
suppose I have to admit that the bulk of users would be classified,
therefore, as newbies.
Some people in the know will continue using Mozilla product, because it
is open source and $free, because it is the most extensible, because it
is designed and maintained with usability and security in mind. Firefox
does not render as fast as IE [and my impression of what I read so far is
that it may never do so, for good or other reasons], and many current
websites are made to run on IE and don't run well on a standards based
browser like Firefox. Whether existing and new sites will conform to
standards or to old IE is up to many factors I cannot evaluate [though I
imagine the IE compliant sites will have to rework their code to conform
to IE7--pity ;-) ]..
Who knows, some people might adopt Linux. I intend to have Linux running
sometime this year. I will also have XP Pro running for those
applications or sites which are not available or operable under Linux.
Linux kernel 2.6 is not universally adopted, though I understand it is
stable enough--2.6 has read and write support for NTFS file system which
is the preferred structure for XP. Ideally one would have one's data in
NTFS [most reliable storage] and, under kernel 2.6, accessible by both
Linux and Windows XP.
thepccat
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:04:36 -0500 "Billy Wong" <BHS1989@xxxxxxxx>
writes:
> With the recent thread here mentioning Firefox, its interesting
> now to
> mention that its impact the last year actually made Microsoft change
> their
> mind on having IE6 stand pat...
[...]
>
http://www.webpronews.com/news/ebusinessnews/wpn-45-20050215InternetExplo
rer7Announced.html
> Internet Explorer 7 Announced
[...]
To unsubscribe, send a message to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe juno_accmail" in the body or subject.
OR visit //freelists.org
~*~
Other related posts:
