Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Aug 2009 22:06 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 378452
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-12-05
The market share of a product often has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with the quality of that product. Add in the whole reason IE got popular to begin with, breaking antitrust laws by packing it in with an operating system that had/has a monopoly, and you get the point... it got where it was not by quality, but by piggybacking on Windows' monopoly. Using one monopoly to create another.
I say KILL IE 6. I don't get why Microsoft will upgrade the entire OS for a service pack, yet, when it comes to the browser... nooooo, that's a purely optional upgrade. Seriously, what the ****? Even Microsoft admitted (or was that just to thwart the judge to help with their antitrust lawsuit?) that IE is *part of Windows*. So why didn't they just ship upgrades as a part of the XP service packs? It would save those people's time who just want to be more secure (even if they never touch IE directly).
IE is the main reason I still don't think Microsoft cares about security as much as they say they do. Windows 7 is looking much better than XP at this point, though... but then, it thankfully comes with an up-to-date (and therefore, more secure) browser.