Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[qwertyuiopas]

Stuff about how you "must" upgrade, spanning countless posts

You know what? I would rather WRITE MY OWN BROWSER than upgrade to IE7 or 8.

Maybe if they have a mode where you can install them and they will do nothing, not take over file associations previously claimed, nor edit any file IE6 uses, nor disable it at all, nor start any mere fragmet of itself when not explicitly started, much less the whole thing.

In fact, I have a little folder, just sitting there, titled WB. Guess what it contains? Just enough code to draw text, and a no-longer-in-the-flow-of-control function that retrieved web pages, and the whole thing mostly ignored.

Fact: Upgrading is not allways possible for these, and more, reasons:
-Cost
-Hardware
-Personal Prefrence
-Company Policy
-Backwards Compatibility
-Laziness
-Having to reinstall things
-Losing all of the little tweaks that made the whole sstem better, overall

Can you argue away that list? I doubt it. Maybe one or two, but the bulk of that list will remain.

[G-Flex]

Wait, your post starts off talking about upgrading IE, yet none of your points listed have anything to do with the choice to not upgrade your browser. It doesn't cost money, or new hardware, or even a lot of effort. Did your post silently shift topics midway through?

[Tarran]

...
How does it do harm?

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6121_102-0.html?threadID=229917
http://www.articlesbase.com/computers-articles/multiple-antivirus-softwares-for-windows-is-it-safe-1003055.html

Multiple antiviruses will conflict if more than one uses real-time scanning, and they might even if they aren't.

Think of it this way, AV1 and AV2, AV1 starts running searching for viruses, AV2 says 'hey! you are not allowed to do that! only antiviruses are!' and there the problem starts, AV1 does the same thing, and there comes something as if there were two hammerers who think the other needs to be hammered, and the barron is standing in the room trying to fix this mess.

Even if they don't conflict, they will eat up resources like mad, and will catch very little the other missed.

But there are advantages, yes, but it's, like you said, up to the user, but three? that might be overboard.

Stuff about how you "must" upgrade, spanning countless posts

You know what? I would rather WRITE MY OWN BROWSER than upgrade to IE7 or 8.

Maybe if they have a mode where you can install them and they will do nothing, not take over file associations previously claimed, nor edit any file IE6 uses, nor disable it at all, nor start any mere fragmet of itself when not explicitly started, much less the whole thing.

In fact, I have a little folder, just sitting there, titled WB. Guess what it contains? Just enough code to draw text, and a no-longer-in-the-flow-of-control function that retrieved web pages, and the whole thing mostly ignored.

Fact: Upgrading is not allways possible for these, and more, reasons:
-Cost - it costs nothing.
-Hardware if your computer sucks that much, then maybe it's time to get a new one.
-Personal Prefrence sometimes it's better to fight preference.
-Company Policy depends on where you are and what computer.
-Backwards Compatibility ha, sites that need that much compatibility are likely going to disappear soon.
-Laziness can't argue with that, that's an internal argument.
-Having to reinstall things its not that much work.
-Losing all of the little tweaks that made the whole sstem better, overall you can't redo that? what about dwarf fortress?

Can you argue away that list? I doubt it. Maybe one or two, but the bulk of that list will remain.

Heh, did better, my comments are bold.



Not trying to anger anyone, it's just what I think, you don't like it, just ignore it.

Now stop posting when I'm typing!

[qwertyuiopas]

Now stop posting when I'm typing!

If only the world would listen to such requests...

[Schilcote]

Multiple antiviruses will conflict if more than one uses real-time scanning, and they might even if they aren't.

I must be very lucky then! Perhaps it's just because I only have the expensive ones and the freeware ones.

[Tarran]

Multiple antiviruses will conflict if more than one uses real-time scanning, and they might even if they aren't.

I must be very lucky then! Perhaps it's just because I only have the expensive ones and the freeware ones.

Well, they must have fixed them because they have been around so long, it's just that there are some problems with having multiple AV software's, but then again, its also much safer.

Now stop posting when I'm typing!

If only the world would listen to such requests...

Try typing my post's size while everyone else is posting.

[Blacken]

Is that even available for XP, though?

Yes. Unfortunately, in many ways, because it encourages people to keep using XP well beyond its sell-by date. But it is available from Microsoft's site.

You have to have not stolen XP to get it, though.

[Blacken]

Stuff about how you "must" upgrade, spanning countless posts

You know what? I would rather WRITE MY OWN BROWSER than upgrade to IE7 or 8.

I don't really care what you'd "rather." There is not a single reputable source in the world that advocates the continued use of IE6.

You rage about bloat. I point out that the features improve the browsing experience--yes, even yours; there's no downside to multiprocess browsing in IE8 or Protected Mode in IE7/IE8. But you ignore it, because it doesn't fit your preconceived, reality-averse ideas.

You rage about "graphical effects." I point out that you can turn all of them off. You ignore it, because it doesn't fit your preconceived, reality-averse ideas. Furthermore, third-party shells such as Maxthon exist for IE7/IE8 to wrap the standard interface so you don't have to see the big bad glass effects if you don't want to.

This has gone well into comedic territory. You have no facts or data to back up your claims, although you have many vague assertions. And that would be fine, if you were content to go sulk in your corner and cry that CSS2 and CSS3 don't work for you and your ever-shrinking minority browser (which doesn't support anything ratified, let alone suggested, after the year 2000), you could just sit there and let everybody else pass you by. But no, you're actually trying to argue that this is a good thing, and it's really kind of funny. This is not "computer security by the computer illiterate," sir. This is "computer security for the computer illiterate."

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

Maybe if they have a mode where you can install them and they will do nothing, not take over file associations previously claimed, nor edit any file IE6 uses, nor disable it at all, nor start any mere fragmet of itself when not explicitly started, much less the whole thing.

That would defeat the point of getting rid of the gigantic gaping security clusterfuck that is IE6. Let me put this in the most unambiguous terms I can: IE6 is not a modern web browser. IE6 is insecure. IE6 breaks websites. And IE6 is no longer the majority browser and nobody really gives a shit if anything works in it anymore. Continued use of it is foolish on quite literally every count.

In fact, I have a little folder, just sitting there, titled WB. Guess what it contains? Just enough code to draw text, and a no-longer-in-the-flow-of-control function that retrieved web pages, and the whole thing mostly ignored.

Uhm...bravo? That has nothing to do with anything related to this thread.

Fact: Upgrading is not allways possible for these, and more, reasons:
-Cost

Oh, please. What kind of idiot pays for a browser? IE7 and IE8 are free. As are alternative browsers such as Firefox or Chrome. Even Opera is free these days. This "reason" is irrelevant.

-Hardware

There is no computer that passably runs XP SP2 that cannot run IE7 or IE8. I run IE8 (and Chrome) without a hitch on a 1GHz Pentium III with 512MB of RAM. They run as well as can be expected.

-Personal Prefrence

Personal preference is well down the list on "things that matter," and that goes double for when you are an active danger to everyone else because of your own willful negligence. I noted above that it is rather trivial to deposit a JavaScript payload on someone running IE6. That trumps 'personal preference'. I noted that IE6 is essentially incompatible with much of the modern web, and your irresponsible continued use of it causes problems for essentially everyone, yourself included. That trumps 'personal preference,' unless you are willing to be the ignored little segment of the Internet that I know you aren't willing to be. And, perhaps most ghastly of all, your use of it puts other people at risk, because your computer is a bleeding entry vector for all manner of malware that seeks to spread to other systems.. That trumps 'personal preference,' too. This "reason" is irrelevant.

-Company Policy

The only even remotely good reason, and it is an indictment of the IT department. But you're trying to shift the goalposts now. You're going "oh, shit, he's knocking down everything I say, I'd better throw up something that's only vaguely related!" Because you and I both know we're not talking about business computers. We're talking about home computers. As such, this "reason" is irrelevant.

-Backwards Compatibility

The overwhelming amount of web applications will support IE7 or IE8. IE7 in quirks mode even renders essentially similar to IE6. Outside of the business environment, you will not find a currently-maintained web application that does not operate correctly with IE7 or IE8 (and few that don't work with another browser line). As you're attempting to move the goalposts again--guess what? This "reason" is irrelevant.

EDIT: I just did a quick check over my university's "IE6 only" web application. It works fine in IE8. Also works fine in Chrome. While ones that load ActiveX may not work outside of the IE line of browsers...they'll work for anything in that line. You just check a box to enable it.

Do you know what the funny thing is, though? Everywhere except in the cavernous recesses of your head, programming for IE6 is called "backward compatibility."

-Laziness

A single file download and execution? Please. This "reason" is irrelevant.

-Having to reinstall things

Settings port seamlessly from IE6 to IE7 or IE8. This "reason" is irrelevant.

-Losing all of the little tweaks that made the whole sstem better, overall

You have not significantly "tweaked" IE6 in any meaningful way. I phrase it as I do because I know pretty well what can be done with IE6 (both from a programming perspective and a security perspective), and there's not a whole hell of a lot. You can enforce a number of group policies related to IE6, but they also pertain to IE7 and IE8. There's absolutely nothing here, so this "reason" is irrelevant.

Can you argue away that list? I doubt it. Maybe one or two, but the bulk of that list will remain.

You doubt? Oh, that's nice. How's it feel to be wrong?

I'm terribly sorry that you aren't the l33t h4xx0r you think you are, but you are not special and you are not somehow immune to the enormous mess of problems that is IE6. Use it if you like--I'm cheering for Conficker, anybody want to lay down any bets?--but don't try to pass it off as anything other than personal hardheadedness, because that's really all this boils down to. And you certainly should not advocate that others follow your bad example, because that is the height of irresponsibility.



So. Are you done yet, or do you have more nonsense to knock down?

[KaelGotDwarves]

I don't know how much weight my voice carries here, but I'll just throw out some advice from someone who has a side-job building, fixing, and maintaining personal computer systems for everyday individuals who are often extremely un-techsavvy.

The most secure computer is one that is not connected to the internet.

Oh, but you need to be connected to the internet? Okay, use a LAN.

Need to use wireless? I'll set up a WPA2 secured network. WEP can be cracked by script-kiddies easily. It takes much more work to bust WPA2.

Now the best anti-virus, that's 'Common Sense 2011'. Don't open emails from people you don't recognize. If you aren't expecting an attachment DON'T open it. If you don't need to download it then DON'T download it. If you don't know what an .exe is DON'T run it. Don't recognize a link- don't click it! I tell people that if they practice safe web browsing techniques they should not need virus removal.

I tell tech idiots that it's like eating. Would you willingly put something into your body that you're not sure about? So why would you put something on your computer if you're unsure or go someplace you don't know? Would you walk into a dark alleyway in Oakland filled with hobos on PCP late at night waving around wads of money? The goal here is prevention. Most people don't have common sense web browsing and will fall victim to "click here!" crap.

Guard yourself. You don't need to be paranoid but limit your chances. A massive amount of cyber-attacks are aimed at IE/Windows systems because of the sheer amount of them. If you are extremely worried and have had a past of needing to bring in your computer because you have a metric shit ton of viruses/wares on it, I will have no problem recommending a mac/linux/*nix operating system to the clueless. While this won't make anyone 100% secure against targeted attacks it'll cut down on the crapware floating around the internet that the "computer illiterate" people manage to get themselves into that is a majority windows/IE based. I've seen people on netscape and aol.

I install Chrome/firefox with noscript/adware on people's systems after telling them what I'm doing, and how it is beneficial. Old people have told me they had no idea there were alternatives to IE.

I show people basic maintenance like hard drive defraging and running malwarebytes. Lately spybot: S&D has turned into bloatware so I don't recommend running it unless you need to clear your system. Most anti-virus software are scams that rely on fear tactics to keep you subscribing or using it. I tell people if they use common sense they'll be fine. Usually they are, and thank me for saving them money - because of this I realize I get a slight hit on return customers but I get way more referrals.

I'm forgetting stuff but that's the most basic.

EDIT: oh yeah, one of the most important:
USE DIFFERENT PASSWORDS FOR ALL YOUR SHIT. JESUS, I CAN'T STRESS THIS ENOUGH. YOU KNOW HOW MANY IDENTITIES I'VE SEEN STOLEN (because some moron thought it'd be smart to have their myspace/facebook/randomforum password the same as their bank account/email)- AND DON'T HAVE THEM BE "QWERTY" OR "12345" EITHER. WRITE THEM DOWN SOMEWHERE.

[Tarran]

I don't know how much weight my voice carries here, but I'll just throw out some advice from someone who has a side-job building, fixing, and maintaining personal computer systems for everyday individuals who are often extremely un-techsavvy.

Good, someone who knows something more than me.

The most secure computer is one that is not connected to the internet.

Right, but you are missing out on 95% of the computing experience.

Oh, but you need to be connected to the internet? Okay, use a LAN.

Depends, if you have very sensitive data, and are in a populated area, then it might be a good idea, if you are like me where an extra truck on the side of the road is very strange, than you don't have to worry that much.

Need to use wireless? I'll set up a WPA2 secured network. WEP can be cracked by script-kiddies easily. It takes much more work to bust WPA2.

Again, it depends on how secure you really need it to be, WPA[1] is good enough for where I live, WPA2 also works if you want/need it.

Now the best anti-virus, that's 'Common Sense 2011'. Don't open emails from people you don't recognize. If you aren't expecting an attachment DON'T open it. If you don't need to download it then DON'T download it. If you don't know what an .exe is DON'T run it. Don't recognize a link- don't click it! I tell people that if they practice safe web browsing techniques they should not need virus removal.

It's amazing how many people don't have 'Common Sense 2011'.

I tell tech idiots that it's like eating. Would you willingly put something into your body that you're not sure about? So why would you put something on your computer if you're unsure or go someplace you don't know? Would you walk into a dark alleyway in Oakland filled with hobos on PCP late at night waving around wads of money? The goal here is prevention. Most people don't have common sense web browsing and will fall victim to "click here!" crap.

The 'happy-go-lucky' people are really easy to fool, they don't care what happens to their computer until something ruins it.

Guard yourself. You don't need to be paranoid but limit your chances. A massive amount of cyber-attacks are aimed at IE/Windows systems because of the sheer amount of them. If you are extremely worried and have had a past of needing to bring in your computer because you have a metric shit ton of viruses/wares on it, I will have no problem recommending a mac/linux/*nix operating system to the clueless. While this won't make anyone 100% secure against targeted attacks it'll cut down on the crapware floating around the internet that the "computer illiterate" people manage to get themselves into that is a majority windows/IE based. I've seen people on netscape and aol.

I'll admit, I'm not a linux fan, its likely because I never had a gigantic enough attack to scare me, but if I ever need it I'll use it.

I install Chrome/firefox with noscript/adware on people's systems after telling them what I'm doing, and how it is beneficial. Old people have told me they had no idea there were alternatives to IE.

Not only that, but WOT can prevent users from typing information to bad/fake sites.

EDIT: oh yeah, one of the most important:
USE DIFFERENT PASSWORDS FOR ALL YOUR SHIT. JESUS, I CAN'T STRESS THIS ENOUGH. YOU KNOW HOW MANY IDENTITIES I'VE SEEN STOLEN (because some moron thought it'd be smart to have their myspace/facebook/randomforum password the same as their bank account/email)- AND DON'T HAVE THEM BE "QWERTY" OR "12345" EITHER. WRITE THEM DOWN SOMEWHERE.

Use something like a file name or such, as your computer has hundreds of thousands of files, and if you forget the correct wording than you know where that file is, and a hacker that does not have a cracking tool then he has to search your entire system.



But, again, that's likely just me.

[ThreeToe]

I'm getting moderator reports because of this thread.  Tone it down, and end the personal attacks. 

[qwertyuiopas]

...

I find it hilarious that you devoted so much time bashing arguments in the context of "Upgrading IE6" that were written in the context of "Upgrading IE6, Windows XP, and just about any other program that is mildly outdated"

Truthfully, most of my arguments are worthless in that one post from my view as well, as long as the scope is assumed to be "IE6 only".

Cost. At this point, you should have at least considered that the arguments were for a more broad area than just browsers.
Settings/tweaks. Getting new ones for an alternate browser is much easier than for a new OS.
Backwards Compatibility. The web was designed for this. HTML is supposed to degrade gracefully where possible. Inter-OS backwards compatibility, not so much(although in the earlier days of windows...)

The sheer number of changes that has accumulated between XP and 7 is bordering on the diffrence between windows and mac, and that has well over a decade of arguments, since each side is easier to perople who are already there, and neither side will admit it.

Will you continue to advocate a world where everyone is on one OS, one Browser, one media player, one email viewer? All in the name of progress and "security"?

Diversity is the bane of viruses, as few people care to create a universal virus that can exploit flaws in all systems. If everyone was on windows 7, then the first universal flaw would be the end of everything. OS diversity is critical, but even diffrent OS versions helps. Although they may fix 10 bugs, there is a chance that 1 new one appears due to their efforts. Anyone exploiting that one new bug will only see results where the target has upgraded. If there was only one antivirus ever used, than virus makers would only have to design against it's strong points. Because there are multiple antivirus programs, one flaw is no longer a universal gateway in.

I don't mind you bashing my arguments, but as soon as you continue on to insult *me*, it becomes intolerably rude. Please refrain from incuring further uncivil debate by keeping the fight between arguments, and avoiding personal attacks.

Also, when you complain about me deciding to use IE6, know this: I keep a fully upgraded copy of firefox, BECAUSE IT CAN COEXIST. If I must, I use it. If I knew that IE7 or 8 could coexist with IE6, I would have no problem with upgrading, but since I know that 7 or 8 will hijack file extension bindings and alter the registry for it's own process, I know that IE6 will be either damaged or disabled entirely in the process, so will not upgrade.

Can you argue against that? That IE8 won't displace 6, with no way to restore it if I prefer IE6? No, you can't.

~~~~
Unrelated:

Have you ever heard of how microsoft altered windows95 so that when you ran simcity, windows would refrain from freeing memory immediately, so that a *bug* in simcity that was harmless on previous versions of windows would not cause problems when the users upgraded.

Also, that up to VB6, you could impost code from any past project, evne between the virst version of visual basic _ever_, and the last released version ov VB6. Then .net came, and all that preciously maintained backwards compatibility was lost.

~~~~
Back to the discussion:

Read this, and then tell me how much *effort* was put into ensuring that users who didn't like IE7 or 8 could return to whatever version they had before. Come on, tell me. If you can point out an easy way to revert, in 3 easy steps not much harder than a click of a button, then I may actually upgrade.

If you can't, then just face it, that I am too dead set on my prefrences for your arguments to succeed, no matter how good they may seem to you.


Now, the part that matters:

I am doubtlessly not alone in stubbornly sticking to IE6. For me, it is prefrence despite liking the later ones(not as much as IE6, though, or I would have upgraded long ago), but others might be afraid of losing what little they know of their browser. Think of this as a test. If you can convince *me* that downgrading is at least nearly as easy as upgrading, and that no settings will be lost in either transition, then you have an argument that convince *them*, the people with less of an understanding, who remain behind because they don't know any better.

[G-Flex]

The sheer number of changes that has accumulated between XP and 7 is bordering on the diffrence between windows and mac, and that has well over a decade of arguments, since each side is easier to perople who are already there, and neither side will admit it.

Seriously? Things have not changed that. I've hardly ever used Vista, yet if I have to work on a Vista machine for a while, I don't get the least bit confused. It's still a Windows NT OS with much of the same look and feel.

Will you continue to advocate a world where everyone is on one OS, one Browser, one media player, one email viewer? All in the name of progress and "security"?

I don't think anybody suggested this. There's a difference between "there's no reason to use IE6" and "you MUST use Firefox". In fact, Blacken mentioned Chrome, Firefox, and IE8 as alternatives.

Diversity is the bane of viruses, as few people care to create a universal virus that can exploit flaws in all systems.

Yes, and there's still diversity. You do not need to use antiquated software for there to be diversity, in OSes OR in browsers. Or media players. Or anything else.

If everyone was on windows 7, then the first universal flaw would be the end of everything. OS diversity is critical, but even diffrent OS versions helps.

You are likely to face more severe security flaws simply from using antiquated versions of your software, especially very popular ones.

Can you argue against that? That IE8 won't displace 6, with no way to restore it if I prefer IE6? No, you can't.

There's no reason for it not to. There's virtually no reason to use IE6 instead of IE8.

Also, that up to VB6, you could impost code from any past project, evne between the virst version of visual basic _ever_, and the last released version ov VB6. Then .net came, and all that preciously maintained backwards compatibility was lost.

Massive overhauls require that sometimes. That's life. .NET is pretty damn different from plain ol' regular Visual Basic 6.

I am doubtlessly not alone in stubbornly sticking to IE6. For me, it is prefrence despite liking the later ones(not as much as IE6, though, or I would have upgraded long ago), but others might be afraid of losing what little they know of their browser.

Huh? It's not like learning to use IE8 is hard or anything.

[Schilcote]

Can you argue against that? That IE8 won't displace 6, with no way to restore it if I prefer IE6? No, you can't.

There's no reason for it not to. There's virtually no reason to use IE6 instead of IE8.

Well... there is one reason. IE6 uses up considerably less resources than IE8, simply because it's simpler (heh). That's only a really good excuse if you need a web browser for a server or something and you want to have bare minimum CPU time being devoted to things that aren't servery. But then, you might as well use a text-based browser.

I do agree that Windows is turning into Mac though. Windows still has the properties that make it Windows, but if they go much further it might be Linux time for me...

[KaelGotDwarves]

Considering youtube and many other web 2.0 sites are considering blocking IE6 access, and microsoft itself has lately urged IE6 users to upgrade to IE8 because of security flaws and how it's technologically "holding back" the internet - it ought to carry some weight when the company itself is telling you not to use their old product anymore