To my friends on here

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Friday Jun 03, 2005

It looks like you may need another stick of RAM.

ToonaRockGuy · Post by **ToonaRockGuy** » Friday Jun 03, 2005

That's why I use Opera at home.

orangekick · Post by **orangekick** » Friday Jun 03, 2005

Firefox does indeed rock. That's what I use at home. I have no choice when I'm at work though...

Punkinhead · Post by **Punkinhead** » Saturday Jun 04, 2005

At work we switched from IE to Firefox as the default browser on all machines, finally. It's way better than IE...not perfect (what is though???) but, I'd use it over IE 100 times out of 100...

bassist4life2004 · Post by **bassist4life2004** » Sunday Jun 05, 2005

yea, ive been using Mozilla firefox, i love it. It doesnt kill you with all of the search bars and "tools" that eat up every MB of ram you have. Explorer has always sucked, and always had too many security problems as well, but if you dont have a firewall, and a damn good one, then i guess its no ones fault but your own.

Dunston540 · Post by **Dunston540** » Sunday Jun 05, 2005

Mozilla Firebox, the bomb diggit baby!

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Sunday Jun 05, 2005

What is so great about Firefox? I am sure Firefox can get just as screwed up as IE under the same circumstances.

I use IE every day and wonder why people would take the time to switch.

DMFJ03 · Post by **DMFJ03** » Sunday Jun 05, 2005

That is what I use as well.

I've never had a problem with IE.

However, I guess it all depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

Punkinhead · Post by **Punkinhead** » Sunday Jun 05, 2005

Dave wrote:What is so great about Firefox? I am sure Firefox can get just as screwed up as IE under the same circumstances.

I use IE every day and wonder why people would take the time to switch.

For starters, it's open source. Not sure if IE is but, guessing from Micro-anal-soft it most likely isn't. Open source means that there are lots of opportunities to make it better by many, many bright people. Making something open source generally means that it has a pretty good chance of being better, ala Linux to Windows. You get 50 viruses (if not more) that are threats to Windows to every 1 threat on Linux.

Secondly, it gets about 1/10 of the spyware that IE does.

Third, there have been a couple of cracks in Firefox but, nothing like IE has...and the latest crack in Firefox had an update out in less than a week to fix it.

Fourth, IE represents alot of what is bad in the technology business world, Microsoft.

Firefox is up to above 10% of the market in browsers (Microsoft has dropped below 85% somewhere) and continues to grow. It's better than IE and people who really need or want something better use it for a reason.

I'm sure there would be more too if I would take the time to think of it but, that's enough for now.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Sunday Jun 05, 2005

Punkinhead wrote: For starters, it's open source. Not sure if IE is but, guessing from Micro-anal-soft it most likely isn't. Open source means that there are lots of opportunities to make it better by many, many bright people. Making something open source generally means that it has a pretty good chance of being better, ala Linux to Windows. You get 50 viruses (if not more) that are threats to Windows to every 1 threat on Linux.

You are correct, IE is not Open Source, but anyone can still create add-in programs for IE and plenty of people and companies do. I don't agree with you on the virus issue. If you look at IE users, you get a wide range of users from hackers to 80 year old grandmothers using a PC for the firs time. I'd have to guess that the vast majority of Firefox users are much more experienced users. Experienced users are much better at protecting thier systems. So, it isn't Firefox users that are safer, it is experience users that are safer.

Punkinhead wrote:Secondly, it gets about 1/10 of the spyware that IE does.

I think my previous statment covers this as well.

Punkinhead wrote:Third, there have been a couple of cracks in Firefox but, nothing like IE has...and the latest crack in Firefox had an update out in less than a week to fix it.

The number of vulnerabilities in any software is directly proportional to two things. One would be the number of features and capabilites (complexity) and the other is the exposure. Hackers rarely attempt to exploit vulnerabilites in a product that has limited deployment. IE is probably one of the most common applications on the planet so there is a LOT of exposure. If Firefox had 85% of the browser market share then it would also have 85% of the hackers attention and you can guess what that leads to.

Punkinhead wrote:Fourth, IE represents alot of what is bad in the technology business world, Microsoft.

I know it is easy and fun to beat up the big guys, but in all honesty name another company that has provided more for any type of computer user from an Enterprise level company down to Grandma.

Punkinhead wrote: Firefox is up to above 10% of the market in browsers (Microsoft has dropped below 85% somewhere) and continues to grow. It's better than IE and people who really need or want something better use it for a reason.

Why is it better.....

Punkinhead · Post by **Punkinhead** » Sunday Jun 05, 2005

It's my opinion to use it. I think it's better. I like it's features and the fact that I don't get as much spyware when I use vs. IE (same with my friends).
You wanted to know why someone would switch so I told youl why I did.

I've had enough problems with Microsoft, especially in places where I needed their shit to work, to learn to go another direction. I don't "hate the big guy (although I hate the business practices, which I've said previously) that produces for us all". I hate using shit that isn't reliable when I need it to be. You may have not had this experience (more power to you if not) but, I have.

Besides the pic and this thread was meant as a joke. Not for a debate on who likes what.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Sunday Jun 05, 2005

Punkinhead wrote:It's my opinion to use it. ............................

Besides the pic and this thread was meant as a joke. Not for a debate on who likes what.

The pic was funny for sure. It really sums up where many people are today. I know you didn't intend it to be a final authorative statement on browsers.

I understand that you have had issues as well as many others. I am not saying that it doesn't work better for you, but is it that much better?

I guess a better way to put it would be..

If I didn't have any problems dealing with spyware, why would I want to switch?

Cheers!

Punkinhead · Post by **Punkinhead** » Sunday Jun 05, 2005

If IE works really good for you, the only reason to try it would be the features I guess. I really like the fact that it's super customizable, more so than IE is to me. The other things like using tabs to have a bunch of sites open instead of a bunch of windows (the way I'm familiar with doing it in IE, not sure if there is something better) is something I like alot for another example. I like the overall general feel of it as well.

I guess I would say to at least take a look at it if you're curious to someone who asks that question. You might like it better, it's different and it's a good browser worth checking out.

It's all good man too.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Monday Jun 06, 2005

The tabbed interface is something I really do like. I did look at Firefox a few months ago for that reason. I ended up not using it because it doesn't support Outlook Web Access (I wasn't really surprised).

From what I am hearing, IE 7 may include tabbed browsing.

bassist4life2004 · Post by **bassist4life2004** » Monday Jun 06, 2005

Punkinhead wrote:
Dave wrote:What is so great about Firefox? I am sure Firefox can get just as screwed up as IE under the same circumstances.

I use IE every day and wonder why people would take the time to switch.
For starters, it's open source. Not sure if IE is but, guessing from Micro-anal-soft it most likely isn't. Open source means that there are lots of opportunities to make it better by many, many bright people. Making something open source generally means that it has a pretty good chance of being better, ala Linux to Windows. You get 50 viruses (if not more) that are threats to Windows to every 1 threat on Linux.

Secondly, it gets about 1/10 of the spyware that IE does.

Third, there have been a couple of cracks in Firefox but, nothing like IE has...and the latest crack in Firefox had an update out in less than a week to fix it.

Fourth, IE represents alot of what is bad in the technology business world, Microsoft.

Firefox is up to above 10% of the market in browsers (Microsoft has dropped below 85% somewhere) and continues to grow. It's better than IE and people who really need or want something better use it for a reason.

I'm sure there would be more too if I would take the time to think of it but, that's enough for now.

Yea, i tend to like Open Source programs better. The biggest thing is that when there is an open source program/OS, people dont want to make viruses for it because they dont want to mess up something that they have worked on. If you sat there and edited Linux to your spec's, why would you want to make a virus that might end up hurting you as well after you put all that time into it. You will see somewhere in the vicinity of 60,000 viruses for windows, and somewhere around 50 for linux. Another thing i like about linux is that it is, for the most part, self healing. Its pretty hard to make an effective virus for unless you are really good with it.

Post by **Ron** » Monday Jun 06, 2005

Moved to tech sector.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Monday Jun 06, 2005

I think very experienced users sometimes forget that Microsoft is a many-headed beast. On one hand, Windows 95 made PC's so easy to operate that, although the internet and PC's were certainly available before that, when that program hit the street, internet use went from a million people to a billion in a few years. I was hooked in 1996, but only because my 6 year old neice knew more about the internet than me. On the other hand, Microsoft has built the most successful company in history by raping and pillaging the companies they could legally strong-arm, and simply buying the ones they couldn't. They started out with some really good products, and used the profits from that to become the "800 lb. Gorilla," and there's little that can be done about it.
I saw on the news last week that Third World countries will be uniting to embrace open source... they have many, many talented computer-types and will be sharing open-source code to strike back at MS, because they say a fully-equipped business computer workstation in Argentina or other developing country costs over $500 US in MS software, while open-source costs are negligible. Perhaps that will spill back into the US.---JMS

Post by **Ron** » Monday Jun 06, 2005

Punkinhead wrote: For starters, it's open source. Not sure if IE is but, guessing from Micro-anal-soft it most likely isn't. Open source means that there are lots of opportunities to make it better by many, many bright people. Making something open source generally means that it has a pretty good chance of being better, ala Linux to Windows.

Open source operating systems could be a time bomb for the general computer user. I have to develop a lot of code for Linux and µCLinux, and we have to maintain our own Linux repository. In other words, we pick and choose which modules out there go into our version of Linux, because there is a ton of potential for foul play. Much more than Microsoft, believe it or not. An open source OS is ALWAYS going to be more vulnerable than a closed source option. The reason we use Linux is it's flexibility and cost. It is also easier to get to the core of bugs because you have the OS source code to help fiqure out what's happening.

Punkinhead wrote: You get 50 viruses (if not more) that are threats to Windows to every 1 threat on Linux.

The main reasons we have seen more attacks on Microsoft OS's is because they dominate the market, and hardcore geeks tend to hate Bill Gates. Linux is actually much easier to write virii on than Windows. Think about it. The source code is there for anyone to see, use, and modify. For hackers it's the equivalent of giving a bank robber a map of the vault.

Punkinhead wrote: Secondly, it gets about 1/10 of the spyware that IE does.

As Firefox gets more popular, this will change. Especially since it has the add-in extensions that could expose the same security vulnerabilities that Windows Active-X plug-ins have.

Punkinhead wrote: Third, there have been a couple of cracks in Firefox but, nothing like IE has...and the latest crack in Firefox had an update out in less than a week to fix it.

Nobody really knows how many vulnerabilities are in any browser. I would have to say that Windows is quicker with updates as far as I've seen. Don't forget that the guy working on an open source browser fix may be the same guy who found and exploited the vulnerability in the first place. Sort of like the unscrupulous firefighters who get caught setting fire to buildings just so they can put them out.

That's some food for thought. If I'm a hacker who devotes hours upon hours of my time into writing open source code, and I find a possible security hole in the current version of software, there are a few things I can do.
1. Fix the security hole and get a pat on the back by a fellow geek.
2. Write a virus or hack that exploits the hole then be the first to fix it and gain instant notoriety. The nastier the virus the better.
3. Sit back and wait months or years for #2 to happen naturally. If it ever does.

Most of the browser exploits take advantage of overflows within the code. This happens when a number type such as a 'unsigned short' (which has a maximum value of 65,535) is set to a number greater than 65,535, causing it to spill over into the next variable, which may need to be set to zero for security sake. (example: the next variable in memory is a user id; If it's set to 0, you are unauthorized, but after the overflow you have a user id). If you look at IE's bug list and Firefox's bug list, the most severe bugs are usually overflow exploits, and any OS/browser combo is vulnerable to it. The only way to avoid these exploits is through solid software design, using an extensive testing/QA process, and by keeping any possible security holes hidden from public eyes.

Punkinhead wrote: Firefox is up to above 10% of the market in browsers (Microsoft has dropped below 85% somewhere) and continues to grow. It's better than IE and people who really need or want something better use it for a reason.

Actually I keep pretty close track of these trends, and those figures are a bit inflated. I've seen them as high as 20%. In real world usage stats, and those here, it's a right around 5%.

As an end to this rambling message, I don't really have a browser preference one way or another. I've tried just about every one on the market, and with the exception of some Netscape versions (v.4 was horrific, and v.8 is terribly designed IMO), they are pretty equal.
If you are using a non-IE browser just because you think it is safer, it may be today, but tomorrow may be a different story.

Staceman · Post by **Staceman** » Tuesday Jun 07, 2005

Ron wrote: The main reasons we have seen more attacks on Microsoft OS's is because they dominate the market, and hardcore geeks tend to hate Bill Gates. Linux is actually much easier to write virii on than Windows. Think about it. The source code is there for anyone to see, use, and modify. For hackers it's the equivalent of giving a bank robber a map of the vault.

The main thing that make *nix-based OS's a bit more safe, is that the user accounts are user accounts, and root is sacred. If a regular user account is comprimised, it should just affect the user's account only, and not screw up the whole machine.

While the NT-based versions of Windows (NT, 2K, XP) have a similar structure, it's pretty pointless on a home machine. On WindowsXP Home for instance, if you take admin rights away from your kid's accounts, they no longer can do simple things like play Java games online, and in some cases they can't even play games on the local machine that use OpenGL and such. The Limited accounts are just too limited, and you end up having to make their accounts Admin again. It shouldn't be this way.

XP Pro improves things a little bit, but still not good enough without some advanced Admin Tools editing.

Mac OS X does a good job in this department, however.

Post by **Ron** » Tuesday Jun 07, 2005

Staceman wrote: The main thing that make *nix-based OS's a bit more safe, is that the user accounts are user accounts, and root is sacred. If a regular user account is comprimised, it should just affect the user's account only, and not screw up the whole machine.

While the NT-based versions of Windows (NT, 2K, XP) have a similar structure, it's pretty pointless on a home machine. On WindowsXP Home for instance, if you take admin rights away from your kid's accounts, they no longer can do simple things like play Java games online, and in some cases they can't even play games on the local machine that use OpenGL and such. The Limited accounts are just too limited, and you end up having to make their accounts Admin again. It shouldn't be this way.

XP Pro improves things a little bit, but still not good enough without some advanced Admin Tools editing.

Mac OS X does a good job in this department, however.

Good points Staceman. A friend of mine has the best solution to that problem (besides moving to a Mac platform), and that is to have a seperate machine(s) for the kids. He installs all of their games and such on the machine, then installs a rollback program and lets them run hog wild. A few times a month he has to roll the thing back. He also installed spyware that logs every webpage they visit to a hidden, encrypted volume on the drive. His kids are pre-teens, so there's no way he is willing to share his machine with them. Way too much risk. Well actually he has 3 machines and his kids have 2. That's pretty cheap to do with Windows machines, but not too many people are willing to spend the dough for Macs.

bfoust · Post by **bfoust** » Tuesday Jun 07, 2005

Macs are cheap now. $499 for Mac Mini

Post by **Ron** » Tuesday Jun 07, 2005

I probably would buy a mini-Mac if it allowed more flexible video and drive options. As far as I've seen, you are stuck with a dedicated, on-board video card with 32M of DDRam.
A lot of new games out there barely run on a 64M card, if at all. On the Mac site, they say that it's 65% faster than a 3.0GHz P4, but that's if the P4 has the onboard graphics that uses system memory and processing power (the crappy built in Intel chip that should be tossed from the market IMO).
Any system that locks you into a single graphics option is going to have you in fits in a year or two. Expandability is key. Plus the lack of dedicated Mac software is still a low point. Software ported from Windows is going to run badly on a Mac most of the time.

bfoust · Post by **bfoust** » Wednesday Jun 08, 2005

Maybe, however it's good for a second PC for stuff other than games and such.

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Wednesday Jun 08, 2005

I use Maxthon. Tried Firefox a couple of times, .. They have to many issues for me to change over. I'm antisipating IE7's arrival ..

And I agree, Minimac rox - I been wanting to get one to use for a file server for quite some times. $500.00 is a good price concidering it's a mac also ..

This thing with Firefox being so high in the race. They included the upgrades with it. They don't take into account how many people also downloded it a couple of times ..

Some people think that just because it's a diff browser that they are safe from anything. Well they aren't. It don't matter what browser, or computer you use for that matter, you are volnurable to anything .. A lot of these firewall companies are coming out with things that hide your ip address when you are browsing a site. That is all fine and dandy as well, but the thing that people are not understanding is that it don't always work.

Firefox is a browser that was made by a 19 year old kid, who thinks he knows everything about safety and volnurability on the net. It is quite amazing how people believe him. Then it's the same way a snake oil sales man works .. Hype things up to get what you want. He is doing a good job with all the followers he has. But, he will learn as his browser gets more popular. Their will be more and more hack codes made for it .. And it will eventually turn out to be another IE.

The best way to stay safe with IE is to say no to java script pop-ups, stay away from porn sites, stay away from warez sites, and get a good pop up blocker. There you will see the most of the problems ...

In maxthon there is an option to turn activex off, block popups, turn web ads off. I know in firefox that is an option also. They have activex taken out by default, so they say - That isn't true though. The last time I tried I knoticed that it was in it. What I want to see is Smart ActiveX .. My personal belief though is that ActiveX is not a threat. The mozilla community is making it sounds worse than it really is. Then that can be the same snake oil sales man talk .. I been using IE/maxthon since I had a PC. I have yett to be attacked by a virus, trojan, worm, phisher, or anything yet ... that is a good record I think ... It all depends on you surf and what you say no to ..