Report: Internet Explorer 9 Doesn't Suck

Recommended Videos

Aeshi

New member
Dec 22, 2009
2,640
0
0
Does this study take moddability into account? I mean Firefox alone has several dozen security add-ons, I'm pretty sure NoScript alone would close the gap quite a bit.

Can't really speak for the others as I've never used them.
 

Outlaw Torn

New member
Dec 24, 2008
713
0
0
Maybe this is because circa 99% of IE users believe that they have won yachts from the internet fairies in competitions they had no idea they had entered? Everyone else has common sense.

Even thought they say that they are independant the fact that there is such a huge gap between IE and everything else is suspicious considering that most people who use various browsers every day haven't announced their own applause for how much safer IE became. And that they supposably used old versions of the other browsers is sort of like comparing the performance of a current day Ferrari and a Ford Model T...
 

esperandote

New member
Feb 25, 2009
3,605
0
0
Finally being reluctant to change pays off.

Also, 13 versions of chrome in about two year, that's a version every less than two months, wow.
 

Tharwen

Ep. VI: Return of the turret
May 7, 2009
9,144
0
41
Maybe I'll accept it if they make it more responsive. Opening a new tab in IE8 always takes a few seconds as it waits for the page to start loading. It shouldn't really do that...
 

Daemascus

WAAAAAAAAAGHHH!!!!
Mar 6, 2010
792
0
0
I hate IE9. They moved my buttons around, hided my menus, and it crashs way too damn often, saying its protecting me!!!! And all the other browsers look the same, so thats no help to me. But atleast they dont crash.
 

theheroofaction

New member
Jan 20, 2011
928
0
0
Yeah, I'm calling bullshit, user reviews always rate IE as the Least secure browser and honestly, I'd rather trust 2 million reviews over one unreliable study.

As well, I've run into exactly 12 malware warnings and had exactly zero malwares get past the radar using firefox.

I'm sure chrome and opera users have had similar results. (as you don't hear people whining about the security on those)
 

mParadox

Susurration
Sep 19, 2010
28,598
0
0
Country
Germany
UrKnightErrant said:
I dunno. My firefox has been getting kind of hinky lately. I still use it for work because I'm something of a plugin junky, but in my spare time I find myself looking more and more to Google Chrome.
I like Chrome for the elegant and shiny design it sports. :3 Thankfully, that particular theme is also available for Firefox so my FF looks like Chrome and works like FF. :D

I don't use that many add-ons to begin with. Too many add-ons can eat up memory and clutter up the program. 3:
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,224
0
0
The difference in speed, accessibility and convenience are far too great to warrant me giving up Google Chrome.

And my anit-virus does the job so I'm pretty good thanks.

EDIT: Although I do remember having a major problem with Chrome before, where it simply refused to load anything but my new tab page. No one could figure out what it was, but they fixed it eventually.
 

crepesack

New member
May 20, 2008
1,188
0
0
Aeshi said:
Does this study take moddability into account? I mean Firefox alone has several dozen security add-ons, I'm pretty sure NoScript alone would close the gap quite a bit.

Can't really speak for the others as I've never used them.
This is exactly what I'm thinking. I'm using FF6 Beta and Aurora right now anyways.... Also chrome has the same add ons as firefox.


EDIT: Read through the case study a bit. This is the most bullshit test I've ever seen. Looking at it, it seems each of the other browsers were used as they were downloaded: no changes in anything including no "no script" and no "ad block plus". While on the other hand IE9 received:

It became obvious from this worldwide test and our recent European and Asia-Pacific tests, in comparison to our earlier global tests, that Microsoft continues to improve their IE malware protection in Internet Explorer 9 through its SmartScreen® Filter technology and with the addition of SmartScreen Application Reputation technology. With SmartScreen enabled and Application Reputation disabled, IE9 achieved a unique URL blocking score of 89.5% and over-time protection rating of 96%. Enabling Application Reputation on top of SmartScreen increased the unique URL block rate of Internet Explorer 9 by 10.4% (to 99.9%) as well as the over-time protection by 3.2% (to99.2%). Internet Explorer 9 was by far the best at protecting against socially-engineered malware, even before App Rep?s protection is layered on top of SmartScreen.
The significance of Microsoft?s new application reputation technology
Not only did it have its settings toggled with, they turned on all the security settings making it probably 100% unuseable for casual browsing. When you block 99% of internet traffic no shit you're going to have 99% of things blocked. We can ignore this "study". Nice try microsoft.
 

Ewyx

New member
Dec 3, 2008
375
0
0
I for one, hope it's true. Microsoft needs to get back into the game. The more competition, the better the user experience.
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat 🐐
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 31, 2010
7,172
150
68
Country
🇬🇧
Gender
♂
Deshara said:
I've never understood why people hate IE. I like IE. Especially 8. 8 was very conventient, and I kinda miss it
I like IE too, personally I think a lot of the hate is just people trying to be "cool" by being alternative and not using the mainstream browser. I have IE, Firefox and Chrome installed on my computer and there's no noticeable difference in speed between them, and IE has the best layout for me so I use that.
 

ultimateownage

This name was cool in 2008.
Feb 11, 2009
5,346
0
41
I guess I can stop bugging my idiotic friend to switch to a different browser for a while then, even though practically everything else about it is done better in other ones. Knowing him he probably still uses IE6, though.

crepesack said:
Aeshi said:
Does this study take moddability into account? I mean Firefox alone has several dozen security add-ons, I'm pretty sure NoScript alone would close the gap quite a bit.

Can't really speak for the others as I've never used them.
This is exactly what I'm thinking. I'm using FF6 Beta and Aurora right now anyways.... Also chrome has the same add ons as firefox.


EDIT: Read through the case study a bit. This is the most bullshit test I've ever seen. Looking at it, it seems each of the other browsers were used as they were downloaded: no changes in anything including no "no script" and no "ad block plus". While on the other hand IE9 received:

It became obvious from this worldwide test and our recent European and Asia-Pacific tests, in comparison to our earlier global tests, that Microsoft continues to improve their IE malware protection in Internet Explorer 9 through its SmartScreen® Filter technology and with the addition of SmartScreen Application Reputation technology. With SmartScreen enabled and Application Reputation disabled, IE9 achieved a unique URL blocking score of 89.5% and over-time protection rating of 96%. Enabling Application Reputation on top of SmartScreen increased the unique URL block rate of Internet Explorer 9 by 10.4% (to 99.9%) as well as the over-time protection by 3.2% (to99.2%). Internet Explorer 9 was by far the best at protecting against socially-engineered malware, even before App Rep?s protection is layered on top of SmartScreen.
The significance of Microsoft?s new application reputation technology
Not only did it have its settings toggled with, they turned on all the security settings making it probably 100% unuseable for casual browsing. When you block 99% of internet traffic no shit you're going to have 99% of things blocked. We can ignore this "study". Nice try microsoft.
Nevermind, ignore what I said. Gonna continue bugging my friend to switch, like usual.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,846
0
0
crepesack said:
EDIT: Read through the case study a bit. This is the most bullshit test I've ever seen. Looking at it, it seems each of the other browsers were used as they were downloaded: no changes in anything including no "no script" and no "ad block plus". While on the other hand IE9 received:

It became obvious from this worldwide test and our recent European and Asia-Pacific tests, in comparison to our earlier global tests, that Microsoft continues to improve their IE malware protection in Internet Explorer 9 through its SmartScreen® Filter technology and with the addition of SmartScreen Application Reputation technology. With SmartScreen enabled and Application Reputation disabled, IE9 achieved a unique URL blocking score of 89.5% and over-time protection rating of 96%. Enabling Application Reputation on top of SmartScreen increased the unique URL block rate of Internet Explorer 9 by 10.4% (to 99.9%) as well as the over-time protection by 3.2% (to99.2%). Internet Explorer 9 was by far the best at protecting against socially-engineered malware, even before App Rep?s protection is layered on top of SmartScreen.
The significance of Microsoft?s new application reputation technology
Not only did it have its settings toggled with, they turned on all the security settings making it probably 100% unuseable for casual browsing. When you block 99% of internet traffic no shit you're going to have 99% of things blocked. We can ignore this "study". Nice try microsoft.
Figured as much. Extra settings enabled for IE9 plus old versions of other browsers with no extra settings enabled = of course IE9 blocks more stuff.

Hey guys, I have a computer running Windows 7 with no antivirus, firewall, or Windows Updates and a computer running Windows Vista with an up to date antivirus, firewall, and all the proper OS updates. I bet my study will show that Windows 7 sucks and Windows Vista is the best thing ever!
 

ResonanceSD

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 14, 2009
4,536
5
43
So you're saying that unless I click on links that any idiot can recognise for malware, I'm better off using the faster, moddable browsers that don't have such a bad legacy? Amazing.
 

GeorgW

ALL GLORY TO ME!
Aug 27, 2010
4,804
0
0
This study seems extremely skewed, I'll stick with good ol chrome.
 

smeghead25

New member
Apr 28, 2009
421
0
0
Woodsey said:
They'd need to send me a whore-a-day to get me to start using Internet Explorer.
But then you'd just be getting even more virusses. Real ones.

OT: I have always used IE and never had a problem. It's functional for me.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,548
0
0
smeghead25 said:
Woodsey said:
They'd need to send me a whore-a-day to get me to start using Internet Explorer.
But then you'd just be getting even more virusses. Real ones.
At least the means through which I receive them will be more pleasurable.
 

Kurai Angelo

New member
Oct 12, 2009
421
0
0
I'm sorry but this isn't evidence that IE is the better way to go...
It's evidence that people are retarded and despite all their better judgement will still believe they are genuinely the luckiest bastard alive in winning the Nigerian lottery without even having entered.

Also, if that discount viagra sounds too good to be true... yeah, you get the picture.