# Mommy, Where Do Crappy Browsers Come From?



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Slideshow: Microsoft's Internet Explorer Testing Lab


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Oh that's cold.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

I'm not quite as pro-MS as some others here, but I appreciate a look inside nonetheless.


----------



## ShapeGSX (Sep 17, 2006)

Actually, IE9 is shaping up to be quite impressive:
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...w-gives-web-developers-first-taste-of-ie9.ars


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

ShapeGSX said:


> Actually, IE9 is shaping up to be quite impressive:


This sounds eerily familiar.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> ShapeGSX said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, IE9 is shaping up to be quite impressive:
> ...


Yes it does.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on building bad browsers. 
RIM makes a real crappy one for its Blackberrys.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

BubblePuppy said:


> Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on building bad browsers.
> RIM makes a real crappy one for its Blackberrys.


They're redoing that one as well. Supposed to be out this year, hopefully won't be like BES and OS 5.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Mozilla is trying to catchup in making a crappy browser. I am getting really sick of Firefox lately. Frankly IE9 could be better than Firefox if they keep this up, minus the lovable extensions and fanboys of course 

There are still cool things firefox does, like how they have the profile folders that are so easily moved from machine to machine (same as Thunderbird, etc.), but I have been getting a lot of crashes on MANY setups with firefox (fresh installs, new profiles, etc.) and general slowness and bloated feeling in newer versions.

O well, at least there are lots of options and all are free


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Grentz said:


> Mozilla is trying to catchup in making a crappy browser. I am getting really sick of Firefox lately. Frankly IE9 could be better than Firefox if they keep this up, minus the lovable extensions and fanboys of course
> 
> There are still cool things firefox does, like how they have the profile folders that are so easily moved from machine to machine (same as Thunderbird, etc.), but I have been getting a lot of crashes on MANY setups with firefox (fresh installs, new profiles, etc.) and general slowness and bloated feeling in newer versions.
> 
> O well, at least there are lots of options and all are free


Taking those out, there's not a lot left. Biggest option is Chrome, which is a nice browser. Personally, I refuse to use Safari on my PC.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

BubblePuppy said:


> RIM makes a real crappy one for its Blackberrys.


Yeah, but that's RIM's job.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Taking those out, there's not a lot left. Biggest option is Chrome, which is a nice browser. Personally, I refuse to use Safari on my PC.


Chrome is my browser of choice, but there are some web sites that don't support it so I have IE9 for those sites. However Google seems to have turned its back on Chrome as I don't believe I have seen an update for it since the release.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Chrome rocks. If only they had a 64-bit version!


----------



## ShapeGSX (Sep 17, 2006)

I can't really think of a reason to have a 64-bit browser. IE8 comes in 64-bit form, but nobody uses it because none of the 32-bit plugins like flash work with it.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

ShapeGSX said:


> I can't really think of a reason to have a 64-bit browser. IE8 comes in 64-bit form, but nobody uses it because none of the 32-bit plugins like flash work with it.


Yeah, I hate that!  I wish flash was in 64 bits...


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

ShapeGSX said:


> I can't really think of a reason to have a 64-bit browser. IE8 comes in 64-bit form, but nobody uses it because none of the 32-bit plugins like flash work with it.


Seccurity, just because the stuff doesn't work. I don't do it myself, I use Firefox with a plugin that prevents Flash items from playing automatically.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

dpeters11 said:


> Seccurity, just because the stuff doesn't work. I don't do it myself, I use Firefox with a plugin that prevents Flash items from playing automatically.


Same here. Flash has become a favorite delivery method for some nasty infections.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> Taking those out, there's not a lot left. Biggest option is Chrome, which is a nice browser. Personally, I refuse to use Safari on my PC.


There also is Opera and a lot of other much smaller browsers out there. But I use a mix of Firefox/Chrome/IE8.



BubblePuppy said:


> Chrome is my browser of choice, but there are some web sites that don't support it so I have IE9 for those sites. However Google seems to have turned its back on Chrome as I don't believe I have seen an update for it since the release.


They actually have been updating it. There also are the beta and dev channels if you want more frequent updates.

Biggest problem with chrome is that there still are sites that work weird in it (same with opera). So I end up having to jump over to IE or Firefox at times.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Grentz said:


> There also is Opera and a lot of other much smaller browsers out there. But I use a mix of Firefox/Chrome/IE8.


I've just not been a fan of Opera, except for the Blackberry version.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I've just not been a fan of Opera, except for the Blackberry version.


I can't stand the desktop version myself. Lots of stupid rendering issue and just not my style. But it does have a loyal, but small, following


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

BubblePuppy said:


> However Google seems to have turned its back on Chrome as I don't believe I have seen an update for it since the release.


From http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/ :


> Stable Channel Update
> Wednesday, March 17, 2010 | 10:06
> 
> The stable channel has been updated to 4.1.249.1036 for Windows, and includes the following features and security fixes (since 4.0):
> ...


Link to original posting

And, yes, my version of Chrome is at that version


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

At work, I'm recoding an internal web page from the ground up. My boss and I have a consensus.... the site must work natively with Firefox 3.5+, Internet Explorer 7+, and Safari. We will also be checking the browser ID and putting in the necessary hacks for IE6 compatibility when needed. (Like JPGs instead of transparent PNGs). 

Sorry, we're not giving up on IE6 yet.


----------



## Mustang Dave (Oct 13, 2006)

Marlin Guy said:


> Slideshow: Microsoft's Internet Explorer Testing Lab


Crappy browser, really? I have been in IT for 20 years, used and supported Internet Explorer of many versions at many different companies. I pretty much have never seen or experienced a significant issue with IE that would ever make me think it is a "crappy" browser or make me even considering switching to another.

My opinion....people in general are more inclined to hate winners and it is easier to hate than love. Think about why you really bash MS. When I see an anti MS post (on any forum not just here) I tend to think the poster has an inferiority complex of some sort and is trying to justify in their own mind their decision to switch browsers.

Anyone should feel free to post up more anti MS propaganda. I will keep feeling sorry for you.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

A. Hates his job
B. Hates Himself
C. Needs a vacation
D. All of the above :lol:


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Mark Holtz said:


> From http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/ :Link to original posting
> 
> And, yes, my version of Chrome is at that version


I had to check my version...Chrome just updates in the background, very quietly; I hadn't realized it had done several updates over the year I have had it.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)




----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

What does that show exactly? 

To me it shows that the latest version of IE vs. the latest firefox is a negligible difference in exploits. It also shows that Explorer is highly targeted. So overall IE seems to be the winner there.

7/6 are irrelevant as they are old and outdated, just as Firefox 2 and 1 are.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Mustang Dave said:


> Anyone should feel free to post up more anti MS propaganda. I will keep feeling sorry for you.


How does pointing out non-compliance to established web standards be "more anti-MS propaganda"?


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Mark Holtz said:


> How does pointing out non-compliance to established web standards be "more anti-MS propaganda"?


 they all are non-compliant.. they all do certain things differently..


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

houskamp said:


> they all are non-compliant.. they all do certain things differently..


That is one thing I wish more understood.

You have no idea how many hours I spent fighting with firefox a few years ago to get some stupid clear CSS menus to work. IE? Fine, Safari? Fine, Opera? Fine, Firefox? FAIL. Ugghhh, some long nights :lol:


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Grentz said:


> What does that show exactly?


The chart on the right shows that everything new is old soon enough.
As MS churns out newer browsers, their old ones take on larger shares of running exploits and doing harm to the web and its largely clueless masses.

Yes, people _should_ upgrade, but they don't. A lot of them don't.

MS abandons what was once their shiny new cutting edge wares and leaves them out there to propagate the most dangerous exploits there are.

On the right, you will notice that there is but one web browser in the targeted applications list.
The reason for this is quite obvious. It is because the same clueless lot who never upgrade or patch their systems, go through life thinking that Internet Explorer is the only browser out there. After all, it came with their computer and Microsoft has rammed it down their throats by making it an integral part of the operating system.

If the playing field were leveled, and users had the option of choosing from a number of web browsers when they initially setup their PC's out of the box, then perhaps over time the people who write the exploits would have to work three or four times as hard to get the saturation rates that make them profitable.

Yes, IE8 is more secure... for now.
Let's see where it stands when IE10 hits the market, and MS once again sells their newest product purely on the basis that it's much better than their old crap.:nono2:


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

so if I right my own browser and only a few people have it that makes it the most secure one out there? everyone elses is then junk and incompatible


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> The chart on the right shows that everything new is old soon enough.
> As MS churns out newer browsers, their old ones take on larger shares of running exploits and doing harm to the web and its largely clueless masses.
> 
> Yes, people _should_ upgrade, but they don't. A lot of them don't.
> ...


Lets clarify this a bit. Firefox does this as well. Where are the updates for FF1 and 2? Where are they on the graph? O left off, how convenient!

Also, firefox pumps users to upgrade a lot of the time when a new major version comes out. IE does it through Windows Update which a lot of users ignore.

Finally, most of these drive by exploits are not spread AT ALL by the browsers. They are running on web servers and worms/bots out there targeting browsers.



Marlin Guy said:


> On the right, you will notice that there is but one web browser in the targeted applications list.
> The reason for this is quite obvious. It is because the same clueless lot who never upgrade or patch their systems, go through life thinking that Internet Explorer is the only browser out there. After all, it came with their computer and Microsoft has rammed it down their throats by making it an integral part of the operating system.


No, it is because IE has the greatest share of users still, especially general non-tech savvy users. Who would you write your malicious code for? The underdog or the main browser out there with the most regular users?

IE is also not integral to the OS, get your facts straight. You have been able to remove it for quite a number of years now quite easily. Explorer is integral, but is separate now and has been for awhile.



Marlin Guy said:


> If the playing field were leveled, and users had the option of choosing from a number of web browsers when they initially setup their PC's out of the box,


Hey, looky! :lol:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10466053-93.html



Marlin Guy said:


> then perhaps over time the people who write the exploits would have to work three or four times as hard to get the saturation rates that make them profitable.


Why? They would just target other browsers with security holes. Safari and Firefox are not far behind in fact at times even have more unpatched major issues than IE. They are just not exploited as much because of the point I made above "Who would you write your malicious code for? The underdog or the main browser out there with the most regular users?"



Marlin Guy said:


> Yes, IE8 is more secure... for now.
> Let's see where it stands when IE10 hits the market, and MS once again sells their newest product purely on the basis that it's much better than their old crap.:nono2:


Hrm, lets rephrase that.

"Yes, Firefox 3.6 is more secure....for now.
Let's see where it stands when Firefox 5 hits the market, and Mozilla once again promotes their newest product purely on the basis that it's so much faster and more secure than their old versions."

Is what I am getting at, they all do it. IE just happens to be a huge target because of its adoption in the general users segment that tend to not know what they are doing.

Frankly I find the whole browser ballot business complete BS. Why does MS have to offer alternatives in THEIR software? I don't see Apple having to provide Office for Mac, Firefox, Adobe Premier Pro, etc. on OSX? Can you explain that to me...


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Grentz said:


> Hey, looky! :lol:
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10466053-93.html


Dude, that's Europe.
They don't count. They were negated by freedom fries and never really recovered. :lol:


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Here is the history of MAJOR releases (x.0 and x.5). EOL is best determined by the final release of that version.

November 14, 2000 - Netscape 6 (EOL May 15, 2002)
December 6, 2000 - Opera 5
August 27, 2001 - *Internet Explorer 6* (EOL 2014)
November 29, 2001 - Opera 6
August, 2002 - Netscape Communicator 4.8 EOL
August 29, 2002 - Netscape 7 (EOL August 17, 2004)
January 28, 2003 - Opera 7 - Uses Presto engine
June 23, 2003 - Safari 1.0 (EOL January 12, 2006)
November 9, 2004 - _Firefox 1.0_ (EOL April 13, 2006)
April 19, 2005 - Opera 8
May 19, 2005 - Netscape 8.0 (EOL April 2, 2007)
September 20, 2005 - Opera 8.5
April 29, 2005 - Safari 2.0 (EOL January 10, 2006)
November 29, 2005 - _Firefox 1.5_ (EOL May 30, 2007)
March 22, 2006 - _Firefox 2.0_ (EOL December 18, 2008)
June 20, 2006 - Opera 9.0
October, 2006 - *Internet Explorer 7*
June 11, 2007 - Safari 3.0 (first release for Windows) (EOL May 12, 2009)
August 16, 2007 - Netscape 9.0 (EOL March 1, 2008)
June 12, 2008 - Opera 9.5
June 17, 2008 - _Firefox 3.0_ (EOL March 30, 2010)
December 11, 2008 - Chrome 1.0
March 19, 2009 - *Internet Explorer 8*
May 24, 2009 - Chrome 2.0
June 3, 2009 - Opera 10 
June 8, 2009 - Safari 4.0
June 30, 2009 - _Firefox 3.5_
October 12, 2009 - Chrome 3.0
January 21, 2010 - _Firefox 3.6_
January 25, 2010 - Chrome 4.0
March 2, 2010 - Opera 10.5

As you can see, between IE 6 and IE 7, there were three releases of Firefox (one EOL-ed during that period), two releases of Safari on another OS, and FIVE releases of Opera.

Also, in this timeline, Firefox 3.0 is about to hit EOL, with the latest being 3.5 and 3.6.

Yet, because of corporations applications, IE6 still has to be supported.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

You can all argue why you like your favorite browser .. speed, security, whatever. But it comes down to this .. browsers are boring.

--- CHAS


----------



## Satfreak (Mar 22, 2010)

I'm staring getting disappointed by firefox lately. I hate this supposedly "smart bar" over there. I hope Internet explorer 9 is going to be a nice browser. Or maybe I should switch to Opera. Who knows...


----------

