I Prefer Ie6 Over Other Browsers.

[demolaynyc 0]

I know most of you will say I'm crazy but I really have no complaints about IE6 and haven't experienced any obvious bugs. My IE browser is very stable and loads pages much quicker than the other browsers I have tried. Alright first let me show you my pc's specs maybe it might be the answer to why it's faster than the other web browsers.My PC specs:Intel PIII 1Ghz128MB RAM9GB Hard Drive - 1.28GB freeAnd now here are several browsers I have used and when I compared all of them to Internet Explorer the speed was incomparable:Avant BrowserFirefoxOperaTriton AOL Explorerand many othersOk, I'm wondering what makes my Internet Explorer faster and more stable and views virtually every page in its right layout? My IE6 is equipped with eSnips (i know wouldn't cause this speed) : Google toolbar : Yahoo toolbar (features tabbed browsing).Now I've heard people complaining about how IE6 does not offer tabbed browsing and Firefox does, well I downloaded a Yahoo toolbar and it gives me tabbed browsing. It's really helpful and fast. Please post all your complaints about IE6 so I may know why ppl move to other browsers.

[yordan 10]

I use IE6 because most of the sites I have to go because of my job, simply don't work with other browsers. Thigs asking for username and passwords are strangely hanging up if I don't use IE6. And of course, it's useful to know how to use it because it's still installed on each MS Windows system. So you don't have to take something else on a freshly installed system.

[nightfox1405241487 0]

I use firefox because it will block automatic software downloading. I found one site that was all blank on firefox except a "loading, please wait" message. I looked at the source and what was in there didn't shock me: VBScript to download some virus. Firefox can't read VBScript so it didn't download. Also, I've run across sites that try to install ActiveX controls without permission. On IE, the same site downloaded about 5 viruses.For those sites that don't work in Firefox (e.g. the way they're displayed, etc) I just use IE tab extension in firefox so I don't have to open an IE window. Click an icon and the page loads in IE right inside Firefox. That's the best method.[N]F

[KDEWolf 0]

I use firefox because it will block automatic software downloading. I found one site that was all blank on firefox except a "loading, please wait" message. I looked at the source and what was in there didn't shock me: VBScript to download some virus. Firefox can't read VBScript so it didn't download. Also, I've run across sites that try to install ActiveX controls without permission. On IE, the same site downloaded about 5 viruses.
For those sites that don't work in Firefox (e.g. the way they're displayed, etc) I just use IE tab extension in firefox so I don't have to open an IE window. Click an icon and the page loads in IE right inside Firefox. That's the best method.

[N]F

All my following statements are based on Firefox 2.0 (version I currently use, much better than current 1.5 in many aspects).

I agree completely with nightfox, and would like also to add some facts, like very useful extensions (irc chat, ftp manager, custom CSS styling, among many, many others), built-in download manager, much more control and less vulnerability against Javascript, built-in spell checker. Also it's almost 100% customizable.

demolaynyc, I used to use Internet Explorer 5/6 for quite some time (after the 'death' of Netscape 4.7). It isn't that bad to a regular user, but that's because like 90% of web pages are made based on it. The big problem is that Microsoft, knowing this happens, started to make their own 'web standards', and completely forgot the international organizations. For web developers, this is complete chaos. Making a site for 4 browsers is terribly painful, since what works on one doesn't on another, and even worse, there are conflicts between codes. I'm stating this to make a point on how important it is to comply with today's web standards, as Firefox does mostly (and even it isn't 100% compliant as Opera).

So basically IE isn't 'unusable', actually for someone who isn't a moron using computers, it can be pretty good, but there are plenty better options out there. I agree with your point about your computer being old, and Firefox really is heavier then IE. But there are other browsers like Opera that are much faster in loading pages than both, and isn't that much heavy.

And no browser is that perfect, after all.

[yordan 10]

I think the best way from surfing security point of view is booting from a knoppix CD. Then, everything you do will be done in live memory, every download will be done on /ramdisk.When you finish, if you still need a downloaded file from your home directory, you simply upload it to your Xisto account, and when you are back to Crosoft Windows you get it from your Xisto account, and then your antivirus has to manage a single file instead of a lot of hacker attacks. And, of course, when finished, remove this file from your Xisto account in order to save disk space.

[KDEWolf 0]

I think the best way from surfing security point of view is booting from a knoppix CD. Then, everything you do will be done in live memory, every download will be done on /ramdisk.When you finish, if you still need a downloaded file from your home directory, you simply upload it to your Xisto account, and when you are back to Crosoft Windows you get it from your Xisto account, and then your antivirus has to manage a single file instead of a lot of hacker attacks. And, of course, when finished, remove this file from your Xisto account in order to save disk space.

Hahahaha this is kind of paranoid... I can't think of a way to break this scheme.
But come on, Firefox alone does the job for most people.

[iGuest 3]

There's only a small amount of people that make noise about IE, security experts, web developers (professionals), etc but it's quite a lot of noise if people are recognising these things.The general web users which make up the larger audience wouldn't really care as long as they can do what they want and as for stating not experiencing any bugs, that's highly unlikely, as I believe every user has experienced some mishap from browser rendering to malicious malware, and some unknowingly have problems which is why Service Packs were issued for it to address the problems, especially dealing with ActiveX which has raised big security threats over the past.IE6 came out 2001 and the most noticable difference with the service pack was their addition of a popup blocker and addressing security issues (though thinking it was fine to let people wait for major threats, then later releasing temporary fixes) and even then not everyone updated, which still leaves developers facing problems. The usage of third party software to give the browser added features is fine, but what people are asking for is it to be integrated and supported natively, rather than requiring additional software to do so.Looking at IE patterns, my personal opinion is they are strategically slowing development down and straying from the standards just so they can continue to dominate the market place. The less standard support, the more unique they can keep from other browsers meaning that people who develop for IE pages, can expect other browsers to make a mess of it. So if you suggested to someone to use another browser and they come across many pages that look wrong, they'll literally just switch back to IE.In all honesty, I wish the people would support the web designers, IE does not keep our development costs down, I could spend 20% of the time developing to standards and 80% of the time, making it look correct in IE. IE don't really care, it's not their expense but we must do our best to develop for every potential user, because that's what counts (I wish IE shared the same views). So for you to visit a site and says it looks good in IE, would then make me question where the developer had to put the extra effort to make it like that, or just work with IE"s quirk mode and made it look terrible for other browsers.Slowly but surely the market for browsers is changing, maybe due to people sick of having security issues, maybe due to how pages are now not looking good in IE but for whatever reason, if the scales do tip, you should see more action from the IE developers to regain their loss, but as long as they still maintain the market, they can just sit back and wait. That's why I believe people should switch, sort of like striking against IE until they fix the problems that have been known for years with their browser.IE7 is not a big improvement, designers are expecting 100% of the current web standards to be supported when it's released, but this will not be the case nor is there any intentions for them to do so, what they've been addressing I have no idea, they dilly dally around alot and implement non-standard features all the time and will continue to play this way. I use to think IE were playing catch up but now I believe it to be a business plot.Back to IE6 I can't honestly say I'm safe with using it (it's even worse knowing it's integrated with your operating system). Even if I'm running under a Limited User Account, I would never ever use IE for something that involved releasing personal/confidential information via it's web browser. The fact that I have many features turned off, sometimes means I can't get into the sites either, and this is similar with other browsers who don't implement the same features. Tracking cookies are always going to be stored, even if you limit the cookies privacy, they still manage to find their way through. Malware developers will continue developing for known IE exploits because it's what they do and probably get paid huge sums to do so.Things I will never understand, why was IE made near impossible to remove/uninstall, integrating it with your Operating System and making it part of the Core functions is not even part of or considered an essential operating system feature. It maybe what Users my require, but it should never have been a dependant program, removing it can ruin your system, crashing it can bring down your system. Either way it was not a move of users' best interest, and the fact that the IE development team (outsourcing involved too) is loosely part of their Operating System team suggests that you can expect problems with it's integration. The fact that the rollout of the browser usually needs to be intime with the Operating System, can mean that a lot of rush work goes on.Now I know people talk about IE security and think IE is the dominant browser, which is why more problems are found with it, etc. To some degree I do believe that is the case, but from my own experiences with security, we have reasons like, "IE users are not bright, if the person is using another browser, they're more clued up and aren't worth time or investment on trying to get them, as it's not as effective". So yes partly because IE is dominant, but more so that the users who use them, are more vulnerable are more likely going to play into our hands how we'd expect them to.As for speed issues, again this is where MS went against standards with how their IIS server responds by ignoring confirmations and just sending the data straight to IE browsers. Now it might be seem as a good thing, but these standards were implemented so that they could lower the risk of errors and make certain that the content is accurate and safe, skipping/bypassing acknowledgements, etc does not insure this. If they don't follow these standards, people will find ways to exploit it, because they pick these differences out.I think that's enough for IE.Cheers,MC