Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Oct 2006 14:38 UTC
Internet Explorer "We've gotten some questions here today about public reports claiming there's a new vulnerability in Internet Explorer 7. These reports are technically inaccurate: the issue concerned in these reports is not in Internet Explorer 7 (or any other version) at all. Rather, it is in a different Windows component, specifically a component in Outlook Express. While these reports use Internet Explorer as a vector the vulnerability itself is in Outlook Express." Meanwhile, Adam has published an article on IE7 on his blog: "IE7 is a major plus for anyone who understands the internet and networks, and especially for those who do web development. Read on for a lengthy review."
Thread beginning with comment 173704
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Please.
by umccullough on Sat 21st Oct 2006 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Please."
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

I assume you also try and pursade Linux users who find their OS comes with pre-installed with FireFox to install another browser too? Or are you just biased against MS?

Where do all you guys come from? -- it's like you're all in this combative, anti-anti-MS mode. If someone uses a fact to further their previous statements, you get all huffy and obnoxious.

My statements were not pro-FF or anti-IE - but for some reason the assumption is that they were. I was merely trying to point out that IE's marketshare was not necessarily because it was great. It was because it was there, and most computer users that buy a computer do not know how to change their browser. If Firefox was installed on every machine sold in the last 10 years, I would be using the EXACT SAME LOGIC.

Please don't take facts and statistics and try to prove they are wrong simply because you don't believe them.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Please.
by NotParker on Sat 21st Oct 2006 20:49 in reply to "RE[4]: Please."
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

was merely trying to point out that IE's marketshare was not necessarily because it was great. It was because it was there

And the point I was trying to make is that for the first 2 years of the browser wars, IE was not installed on any copy of Windows.

For the next 2 years of the browser wars IE was not installed on any shrink wrapped copy of Windows.

Only when Win98 came along was IE 4.0 installed on all copies of Windows.

And most people who tried IE 4.0 and Netscape 4. agreed IE 4 was the better browser.

If you read my earlier quote about Netscapes master plan, the reality is that if Netscape had not chosen to give away Netscape for free, it would not have had any market share either.

Something like 20 companies were building browsers on technology licensed by the University of Illinois to Spyglass.

Netscapes "giveaway plan" screwed all those companies (except for Microsoft who also gave away the browser).

The biggest myth of the internet age is that IE beat Netscape by giving away IE.

The reality is that Netscape stole the IP of Mosaic from the University of Illinois and gave away Netscape to screw all those companies that had licensed Mosaic technology from Spuglass.

Edited 2006-10-21 20:50

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Please.
by Shkaba on Sat 21st Oct 2006 22:06 in reply to "RE[5]: Please."
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

I suppose you would consider a myth the fact that IE is (was) integral part of windows. But that was established in the court of law, and considered monopolistic behaviour.
No matter how much you guys mod down my post, simple truth remains: IE was the biggest gate for malware, closely followed by IIS and outlook

Reply Parent Score: 1