G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

mozilla.org

http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

a better browser that is more secure than internet explorer.

more features.

no hijacking from activex controls.

just a more safe browsing experience.

use internet explorer for windows update.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

firefox SPAMMER wrote:
>
> a better browser

That's entirely a matter of opinion and taste.

> that is more secure than internet explorer.
>

There's no evidense of this, at all. A 10-second Google search
found:
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA04-261A.html
http://cybercoyote.org/security/vul-firefox.shtml
http://secunia.com/advisories/12712/

... and a lot more.

> more features.
>

How so? You have to download and install a 3rd party "extension"
just to sort the Favorites/Bookmarks, or others to perform many other
functions already build into IE. The presence of tabbed browsing does
not make up for the other feature omissions.

> no hijacking from activex controls.
>

A mixed blessing. No ActiveX controls at all, so many web pages
will not work as designed.


> just a more safe browsing experience.
>

Only until Firefox gains a large enough user base to make it
worthwhile for a significant number of malefactors to start exploiting
its vulnerabilities.

I've tried Firefox several times, throughout its evolution. It's
not a bad product, but it's a long way from the panacea you claim it
to be. Nor do I think its quite "ready prime time," yet.And, so far,
it's noticeably slower that IE on every machine I've tested it on.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having
both at once. - RAH
 

martin

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
1,031
0
19,280
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

firefox supporter wrote:
> mozilla.org
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/
>
> a better browser that is more secure than internet explorer.
>
> more features.
>
> no hijacking from activex controls.
>
> just a more safe browsing experience.
>
> use internet explorer for windows update.

I agree with you, and MS update is the only thing I use IE for as well.
Firefox _is_ a lovely browser
 

Tony

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2001
1,944
0
19,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Why is it preferable/advisable to use IE for windows update rather than another
browser?
Thanks
Tony

Martin wrote:
> firefox supporter wrote:
>
>> mozilla.org
>>
>> http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/
>>
>> a better browser that is more secure than internet explorer.
>>
>> more features.
>>
>> no hijacking from activex controls.
>>
>> just a more safe browsing experience.
>>
>> use internet explorer for windows update.
>
>
> I agree with you, and MS update is the only thing I use IE for as well.
> Firefox _is_ a lovely browser
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Tony wrote:
> Why is it preferable/advisable to use IE for windows update rather
> than another browser?
> Thanks
> Tony
>


The Microsoft Update site requires ActiveX controls, which Firefox
lacks.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having
both at once. - RAH
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

"Tony" <webmaster@spacecovers.com> wrote in message
news:%23cKOE$AxEHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Why is it preferable/advisable to use IE for windows update rather than
> another browser?

Microsoft have made it like that.
You have to have IE5 or higher to use it.

I use Firefox - the only time I use IE is for badly written pages that will
not 'work' on Firefox, and the Windows update site (they may not be mutually
exclusive).

--
Trish
Dublin, Ireland
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Trish wrote:
>
> I use Firefox - the only time I use IE is for badly written pages
> that will not 'work' on Firefox, and the Windows update site (they
> may not be mutually exclusive).
>
> --
> Trish
> Dublin, Ireland


Those pages aren't necessarily "badly written," it's just as
likely that Firefox simply lacks the features to properly display
them. A critical lapse is the lack of ActiveX controls that are used
on a great many web pages.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having
both at once. - RAH
 

martin

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
1,031
0
19,280
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Bruce Chambers wrote:

> Trish wrote:
>
>>I use Firefox - the only time I use IE is for badly written pages
>>that will not 'work' on Firefox, and the Windows update site (they
>>may not be mutually exclusive).
>>
>>--
>>Trish
>>Dublin, Ireland
>
>
>
> Those pages aren't necessarily "badly written," it's just as
> likely that Firefox simply lacks the features to properly display
> them.

If a site can't pass the world wide web consortium's validator, it is,
by definition, badly written.

>A critical lapse is the lack of ActiveX controls that are used
> on a great many web pages.

I agree that there is no excuse for that, just as there is no excuse for
java script. If an author can't do it without needing scripting, it
shouldn't need doing.

At least with java script it's an open rather than closed standard, so
there is some excuse in using it. There is no excuse for ActiveX, ever.
>
 

martin

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
1,031
0
19,280
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Trish wrote:
> "Tony" <webmaster@spacecovers.com> wrote in message
> news:%23cKOE$AxEHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>>Why is it preferable/advisable to use IE for windows update rather than
>>another browser?
>
>
> Microsoft have made it like that.
> You have to have IE5 or higher to use it.
>
> I use Firefox - the only time I use IE is for badly written pages that will
> not 'work' on Firefox, and the Windows update site (they may not be mutually
> exclusive).
>

But of couse you can get a little add-on for FF that gives you a right click
option to "Open with IE"

--
Best Wishes from Martin

So many questions, so few answers.
 

martin

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
1,031
0
19,280
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Tony wrote:

> Why is it preferable/advisable to use IE for windows update rather than
> another browser?
> Thanks
> Tony

It isn't

Have you ever tried using a non-MS browser to do an update? There was a
time (in the not so distant past) that MS deliberatly sent bad/different
code to non-MS browsers. Now they (MS) do it using closed-source ActiveX
which no-one in their right mind would leave open on any browser. There
was even a time (in the further distant past (5 years?)) that MS tried
to impose its own standards (MSN) and kill the Internet.

Go back a couple of months and check CERT and NIST for MS IE exploits
and you'll see why people prefer not to use IE :) You might even find
out why SenderId was shot down in flames by the IETF.

Sorry guys, I know this is a Microsoft website, as well as being a MS
partner, I'm also an open source bod