TR Forums

Mastertech wrote:

Yeah I live at home, as I'm 17.

And you don't understand how Spyware works, nor Viruses.... Case Closed.

Mastertech, that was just idiotic. The computer field, more than any other, has the "boy genius" effect. Plenty of 17 year old kids know massive amounts about computer programming and security. Hell, most viruses are written by teenage kids. I'd say that is a good indication that they understand viruses?

just brew it! wrote:

Well, I do find it rather curious that both of the threads he's started are essentially plugs for a pair of web sites which appear to be related to each other...

What I like is that his webpage (in sig) is "Protected by copyright under the DMCA". But if you google for entire sentences, you will get some interesting results. The definition of spyware seems to be lifted from Wikipedia, and the overview of defragmentation is exactly the same as on the website of a defrag program.

Mastertech, can you shed some light on my popup problem with IE on Win2K? There's no XP SP2 as "an easy step" for me to block them. Note: I am not talking viruses here.

Yes the solution is Here

Mastertech, that was just idiotic. The computer field, more than any other, has the "boy genius" effect. Plenty of 17 year old kids know massive amounts about computer programming and security. Hell, most viruses are written by teenage kids. I'd say that is a good indication that they understand viruses?

Yeah right, you obviously do not work in IT either. The boy genius theory is way overrated.

Now that your arguments have been proven a myth you grasp at staws? Predictable. If you have some issue with the author of either site ask him about it. The information their is invaluable and proven, I've used it for months. The Firefox - A New Religion article I found here.

Right and the average user visits 99% of what you don't, data point noted. Now we some 817 million more responses to confirm the theory.

Wrong. While it won’t be 99% for everyone the lowest it can be is 85%. The author stated 15%, which he didn’t prove, so there is your percentage. The average is going to be much higher than 85% of course.

Sites that only cater to IE are blocking potential customers and readers. No self respecting site would do this. Self made personal pages are going to account for a lot of the 15%. That same 15% that the average person won’t be browsing.

Read his statement again:

15% of web pages aren't completely compatible with Firefox

So you mean on some kids self made homepage is a little off? That would count as a unimportant incompatibility. How many of those sites are actually worth visiting and how many actually have debilitating incompatibilities? I can tell you that number would suddenly drop well below 10%.

Another question is how many pages are completely compatible with IE Remember that IE doesn’t follow standards.

Remember that firefox itself isn’t responsible for the incompatibilities. Having a problem with a poorly coded site? http://ieview.mozdev.org/

Installing Firefox is another step. The steps involved for IE are simple.

That’s a MYTH if I ever heard one. You have to keep everything updated, that is a pretty involved proactive roll. In fact your site (the one in your sig) is filled with time consuming steps that aren’t required on firefox. You are trying to say its simple yet you spend enough time on that site you seem to know it inside and out and like it so much you put it in your sig. Seems like you have been pretty involved with fixing IE problems. They have entire sites dedicated to “fixing” IE.

I've chosen to solve the problem not run away form it.

NO, you have ignored the true problem but have just fixed the symptoms!

Why because I am providing facts? Hardly.

More myths you mean. If anything misguided opinions.

Fact is Spyware on IE is efectively eliminated with some simple steps. I know its hard to accept, you will need to find some other BS to peddle Firefox.

And with no steps spyware on firefox IS eliminated. Not effectively or almost, entirely. Simple? More Mastertech Myths! M.M.M., a good acronym. You will have to find some other BS to peddle IE.

In fact after this you have done nothing but insult people.

*If you read the comments on that article Andrew (the blog writer) links to this site:http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/OptimizeXP.html Does this sound familiar to anyone? Anyone? Is it just a little bit suspicious this guy shows up linking to the story with this same link in his name and then claims he came across the blog article at another site?

Wrong. While it won’t be 99% for everyone the lowest it can be is 85%. The author stated 15%, which he didn’t prove, so there is your percentage. The average is going to be much higher than 85% of course.

Your not following, it was 99% of what he doesn't use, not 99% incompatible. Roughly 15% are not completely compatible. Sites don't "cater" to IE they only test with IE so get off your crazy theories. This is just reality, no site is trying to lose market share. You have some 99% of the web rendered properly under IE and some 85% in Firefox, that is a BIG difference when you run IT for a company or provide technical support for customers. What do you do for a living, since Firefox Fanboy is not a real job? The fact is people that recommend Firefox using unfounded scare tactics don't work in the business. They read sites like Spreadfirefox.com and believe it as if it was the gospel. It is not just personal pages, it is corporate pages. Just because you visit a fraction fo the web pages available online does not distort the true reality. Oh and 99% of pages are completely compatible with IE. The poorly coded site argument is SO OLD. All people care about is if a site works period, not standards.

There is no Myth involving IE and making it Spyware resistant only the FUD spread by Firefox users such as yourself who can not even comprehend how Spyware works. How hard is it to install SP2? No very. I know you'll never admit your wrong, it is part of the fanboyism, but people can try it for themselves and fix the problem without any more uneducated advice from 17 year olds telling them to use Firefox.

If you have a problem with the Author take it up with him, stop trying to change the subject because you lost the argument a LONG TIME ago. Facts speak for themselves, people who do the simple procedures have no more auto install spyware problems period. You can't stop people from discovering the truth, I suggest you go back into your Church and whip up a new bible.

Mastertech wrote:

Mastertech, can you shed some light on my popup problem with IE on Win2K? There's no XP SP2 as "an easy step" for me to block them. Note: I am not talking viruses here.

Yes the solution is Here

Great, my head hurts already reading all that stuff. I have to do all that to avoid popups? Not that the kind that pops out of no reason, but those auto pops when you move into or out of a site which cannot generate proper ad revenues on its own merits. Other than Google toolbar that can do it I don't see anything else.

But I want my Microsoft solution to this, I don't trust a third party. Are they going to bring XP SP2 features to an SP5 on Win2k? No, they already said they are not even going to give us an SP5, just a little "security rollup pack".

There is no Myth involving IE and making it Spyware resistant only the FUD spread by Firefox users such as yourself who can not even comprehend how Spyware works. How hard is it to install SP2?

It is not hard to install SP2, but what about my poor old Windows 2000 that I pay dearly for? Or the thousands (if not millions) of people that are still using Windows 98/ME? Not all people can afford continous upgrades.

If you talk about FUD, what about the FUD about all those pages not renderable on FireFox? Heck, apart from Windows/Office update, Microsoft's site itself is pretty good on FireFox. Both sides have their own share of "FUD" if you want to term it that. Anyone trying to ignore one side and attack on their own strong side is just kidding themselves.

I don't think you need me to recommend a popup solution for IE, Google Toolbar is very simple. If you want a trusted Microsoft Solution for Windows 2000 get the MSN Toolbar. It is Microsoft tested and Approved!

No one in their right mind should be using Win9x, ME OSes anymore.

Your not following, it was 99% of what he doesn't use, not 99% incompatible.

No I am following, I didn't say that 99% were incompatible. Your whole argument that JBI isn't the norm and that we need 817 million more people to chime in isn’t realistic. Looking at the figures provided you can get a very good idea what the real % would be. That’s where the 85% came in.

Sites don't "cater" to IE

That is my point. A self respecting site is going to make sure their site works with other browsers. While at first the site is going to be tested with IE and left how it is. Once firefox browsers start to complain then a self respecting site is going to fix the problem. Otherwise they are going to be blocking potential customers and readers. Professionally designed webpages are going to test with other browsers right off the bat.

All people care about is if a site works period, not standards.

Why thank you, that means the majority of the 15% of incompatible firefox sites simply don't matter!

The poorly coded site argument is SO OLD.

The firefox compatibility argument is SO OLD.

How hard is it to install SP2? No very.

How hard is it to install firefox? Even less. People should be using sp2. The problem is you act like this is a normal thing for IE, it isn't. Vulnerabilities are constantly coming out, this isn't a "install sp2 and forget it" type of deal. If you were any older than 17 you would know this is only a calm. There are more rough seas ahead for IE.

I know you'll never admit you’re wrong, it is part of the fanboyism, but people can try it for themselves and find there is a better browser out there without any more uneducated advice from 17 year olds telling them to use IE.

If you have a problem with the Author take it up with him

Oh I have been and so have many other people on this forum. We have been debating with him since Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:48 am. You keep dodging the question. Contacting the author isn’t going to do anything if you two are one in the same. Or if you are one of his lackeys trying to bring in hits.

You can’t blame us for wondering. Everything is just way too convenient. Also your TOTAL lack of ability to discuss the facts at hand and spending the majority of your posts insulting people makes a person wonder even more. It seems like you come back just to stoke the fire a little bit to keep things rolling.

Mastertech wrote:

I don't think you need me to recommend a popup solution for IE, Google Toolbar is very simple. If you want a trusted Microsoft Solution for Windows 2000 get the MSN Toolbar. It is Microsoft tested and Approved!

If I have to go look for those add-ons instead of letting automatic updates take care of it, then it is not as easy as you said. Remember I'm talking Win2K here, an OS that Microsoft has committed to support til at least 2007.

The point is: on Win2K, between finding and downloading a toolbar to install, versus finding and downloading FireFox to install, you can't really say one is easier than the other. So the argument about FireFox being "harder to get" on Win2K is not applicable here.

Mastertech wrote:

No one in their right mind should be using Win9x, ME OSes anymore.

You just classified thousands (if not millions) of people in the world as nuts. Not a bad day's work.

Hrmphh....im surprised the head honcho hasnt locked this puppy yet...its been done for a lot less...he must be going soft in his "old" age.

Mastertech..what works for one doesnt always work for the other..if you are as bright as you think you are..you would realize that one size doesnt fit all..let it go and set in your chair and have a cold one

Convert I'm the 17 year old, not mastertech...

I know, I was simply turning his argument around. Just a way of showing that what he preaches applies to his side as well.

Also, there is nothing wrong with being 17 or younger.

Ah okay, I get it now.

And with no steps spyware on firefox IS eliminated

And that is the biggest myth of them all.

Firefox is a1 /2 a$$ed product. The only reasion you are less likely to catch malware when using Firefox is the Mac syndrome. Nobody wants to waste time on only 5% of the market. As soon as Firefox gains, and it already has, more and more malware writers will target it. It already has some extremely serious security issues.

And on the performance side Firefox is a joke compared to IE.

And that ( performance comparison ) is absolutely not debatable. Firefox is an inferior browser.

User error can account for spyware on either a firefox or IE system. In the context that statement was used we were NOT talking about user error. Malware does not affect firefox directly, you can only dl it manually on your own.

Firefox is a1 /2 a$$ed product.

Prove it. You are a half assed poster. IE is half assed. Just because you can wildly spout off nonsense and point fingers it doesn’t make it true without PROVING it.

The only rasion you are less likely to catch malware when using Firefox is the Mac syndrome.

And how would you know. How do you know firefox just isn’t more secure? You don’t. Stop trying to argue a year from now with nothing more than possibilities, argue in the here and now with facts.

As soon as Firefox gains, and it already has, more and more malware writers will target it.

No duh but that doesn’t automatically mean it will have more or the same amount as IE.

It already has some extremely serious security issues.

Way to spout myths. Name a *extremely serious* security issue and I will show you extremely horrendous ones in IE.

And that ( performance comparison ) is absolutely not debatable. Firefox is an inferior browser.

Thats funny because firefox is faster, on every last machine I have ever put it on. It can launch slower, as in the first time you open it. After that firefox wins hands down from what I have seen. There are a couple performance tweaks too if it really bugs you that it starts up slower.

No I am following, I didn't say that 99% were incompatible. Your whole argument that JBI isn't the norm and that we need 817 million more people to chime in isn’t realistic. Looking at the figures provided you can get a very good idea what the real % would be. That’s where the 85% came in.

It is very realistic, you can't make any determination of what the average user visits period.

What large sites test with now "may" change to include Firefox, it is far from guaranteed. The one thing that is certain is that all the sites have been tested in IE.

Why thank you, that means the majority of the 15% of incompatible firefox sites simply don't matter!

Huh? Of course they matter, if they don't work with Firefox people will use IE.

The firefox compatibility argument is SO OLD.

Not when 15% of web sites do not work with it.

It is a pretty much install SP2 and forget it type of deal with Spyware. The security improvements, especially the three mentioned in this article effectively eliminate the spyware problem in IE.

If you were any older than 17 you would know this is only a calm. There are more rough seas ahead for IE.

How old are you and what do you do for a living? I'm much older then 17.

without any more uneducated advice from 17 year olds telling them to use IE.

I agree no one should take advice from young uneducate Fanboys such as yourself. Considering I am not an IE fanboy, am educated and much older then you with real world experience, my advice should be taken. You do realize that just because someone defends a product against fivillous claims does not make them a fanboy of it?

Oh I have been and so have many other people on this forum. We have been debating with him since Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:48 am. You keep dodging the question. Contacting the author isn’t going to do anything if you two are one in the same. Or if you are one of his lackeys trying to bring in hits.

Are you brain dead or just incompetent?

You can’t blame us for wondering. Everything is just way too convenient. Also your TOTAL lack of ability to discuss the facts at hand and spending the majority of your posts insulting people makes a person wonder even more. It seems like you come back just to stoke the fire a little bit to keep things rolling.

I've more then proven the facts but it requires comprehension aparently beyond someone such as yourself for how these things work for you to understand it.

Mastertech..what works for one doesnt always work for the other..if you are as bright as you think you are..you would realize that one size doesnt fit all..let it go and set in your chair and have a cold one

It has nothing to do with that, this has to do with online fanaticism spreading FUD about IE. The solution to IE's spyware problem is provided for any rational person who can look past the Firefox fanboys FUD.

User error can account for spyware on either a firefox or IE system. In the context that statement was used we were NOT talking about user error. Malware does not affect firefox directly, you can only dl it manually on your own.

You know what is funny is cleaning client's computers of Viruses after they were told they could uninstall their AV because they started to use Firefox or showing them the 100+ spyware items that the Firefox Spyware remover missed on their PC.

Prove it. You are a half assed poster. IE is half assed. Just because you can wildly spout off nonsense and point fingers it doesn’t make it true without PROVING it.

Nothing like a halfassed product that works with 99% of the web. LMAO!

Way to spout myths. Name a *extremely serious* security issue and I will show you extremely horrendous ones in IE.

Myths? Are you in denial? Six security issues plus the one listed above. Propaganda only works for so long.

Thats funny because firefox is faster, on every last machine I have ever put it on. It can launch slower, as in the first time you open it. After that firefox wins hands down from what I have seen. There are a couple performance tweaks too if it really bugs you that it starts up slower.

This is not even remotely proven.

Mastertech: If you can't discuss the topic at hand without resorting to personal attacks, then don't post.

Kevin

I guess you missed all the personal attacks on me? Or did you receive a complaint email from someone?

I also guess it is ok for people to keep claiming things that are not true about me too?

Mastertech wrote:

Why thank you, that means the majority of the 15% of incompatible firefox sites simply don't matter!

Huh? Of course they matter, if they don't work with Firefox people will use IE.

The firefox compatibility argument is SO OLD.

Not when 15% of web sites do not work with it.

Sure, when users go to any site that use alpha channel transparent PNGs, they will probably ditch IE and go to another browser. So the compatibility argument is getting old on both sides. People will use whatever works for them, be it IE or FireFox or Opera, and they will switch when the site is not working and they want the content bad enough (pr0n? ).

Also, age != maturity/superiority. Claiming you are much older than someone does not make your argument more convincing than the other.

Moreover, you talk about the FUD against IE, what about the FUD against FireFox too? Both sides are guilty of FUD, if you want to call it that (IMO they are not even FUD anymore, just flames). If you are ignoring both sides, then you are as biased as the guy on the other side.

BTW I've looked through posts here at the Tech-Report and the Firefox fanboys have been allowed to run rampant on people seeking help for IE relating/Spyware problems, where on other well known forums they have had to institute policies preventing people from replying with Firefox as a solution to someone's Spyware/Virus problems. I work in the field and deal with these issues daily, this sort of irresponsible behavior allows for the proliferation of FUD and misinformation.

It is very realistic, you can't make any determination of what the average user visits period.

This shows me you don't even know what "average" means. It's funny that the trolls always state they are much older than the person they are arguing against and that they have far superior experience. Then they make statements like that.

What large sites test with now "may" change to include IE it is far from guaranteed. The one thing that is certain is that all the sites have been tested in IE.

It is inevitable that some will. It doesn't matter anyways. The whole "incompatibility" thing is confined to much less than 15% of important sites and even less that actually prevent a user from browsing the site. We are talking only a few % at the end of the day. If you do have compatibility issues then use this http://ieview.mozdev.org/

Huh? Of course they matter, if they don't work with Firefox people will use IE.

Learn to read, I said *majority* don’t matter. You said “All people care about is if a site works period, not standards.” So the majority of incorrectly coded sites are rendered in firefox only show unimportant differences that means it doesn’t matter. All people care about is if a site works. Not works perfectly because in order for it to be perfect the website would have to be coded to standards!

How old are you and what do you do for a living? I'm much older then 17.

I am older than you and I make more money than you do. That is all you need to know All of this is of course just nonsense BS, you completely ignored the statement.

I agree no one should take advice from young uneducated (you misspelled uneducated ) Fanboys such as yourself. Considering I am not an Firefox fanboy, am educated and much older then you with real world experience, my advice should be taken. You do realize that just because someone defends a product against frivolous (misspelled frivolous ) claims does not make them a fanboy of it?

See I can turn that argument around too. You make this too easy.

Are you brain dead or just incompetent?

I've more then proven the facts but it requires comprehension aparently beyond someone such as yourself for how these things work for you to understand it.

Dancing around the issues again.

This is not even remotely proven.

Who said it was proven on ALL audiences? No one did so stop making BS up. I said from what I have seen, I said this because the data conflicted with what Hellokitty said. He/she (no idea) said that firefox was slower.

Myths? Are you in denial? Six security issues plus the one listed above. Propaganda only works for so long.

Who said that they didn’t exist? No one, stop making BS up. The key words here are “extremely serious security issues”. I don’t know what he considers “extremely serious” but if that's how he rates moderate problems then I can show you some much more serious IE problems.

Nothing like a halfassed product that works with 99% of the web. LMAO!

Nothing like a half assed product that has a history of major security issues. LMAO!

You know what is funny is cleaning client's computers of Viruses after they were told they could uninstall their AV because they started to use Firefox or showing them the 100+ spyware items that the Firefox Spyware remover missed on their PC.

You know what is funny is cleaning client’s computers of Viruses after they were told SP2 eliminates all these problems so they could uninstall their AV and spyware tools. Or showing them the 100+ spyware items that got onto their PC from using IE.

This shows me you don't even know what "average" means. It's funny that the trolls always state they are much older than the person they are arguing against and that they have far superior experience. Then they make statements like that.

This is sad, now you resort to trying to discredit me as a troll. You must really be realising how bad you are losing the argument.

How important Firefox compatibility is with sites is totally dependant on the user. You can not make grand claims about such use. If a user uses 1 site that is not compatible for 90% of their browsing this becomes a big deal. I know I get calls weekly about sites not working right and the answer is to use IE! I haven't had these call in five years since Netscape went under, coincidence?

Learn to read, I said *majority* don’t matter. You said “All people care about is if a site works period, not standards.” So the majority of incorrectly coded sites are rendered in firefox only show unimportant differences that means it doesn’t matter. All people care about is if a site works. Not works perfectly because in order for it to be perfect the website would have to be coded to standards!

When a shopping feature or menu does not work it is not uninportant, don't think you use ever major site.

I am older than you and I make more money than you do. That is all you need to know All of this is of course just nonsense BS, you completely ignored the statement.

I highly doubt it, I've been in the business for over 15 years. If this was an english lit forum I might care about spelling errors.

Like I said people can test this for themselves. So we are in agreement neither is faster then the other?

Who said that they didn’t exist? No one, stop making BS up. The key words here are “extremely serious security issues”. I don’t know what he considers “extremely serious” but if that how he rates moderate problems then I can show you some much more serious IE problems.

Someone obtaining my credit card number I would consider EXTREMELY SERIOUS.

Nothing like a half assed product that has a history of major security issues. LMAO!

So half assed it works with 99% of the web sites in existence.

You know what is funny is cleaning client’s computers of Viruses after they were told SP2 eliminates all these problems so they could uninstall their AV and spyware tools. Or showing them the 100+ spyware items that got onto their PC from using IE.

Pathetic, no one said uninstall AV and spyware tools with SP2. Only that with SP2 spyware induced automatically from IE will be 0.

How important Firefox compatibility is with sites is totally dependant on the user. You can not make grand claims about such use. If a user uses 1 site that is not compatible for 90% of their browsing this becomes a big deal.

How can "average" be that hard to understand. If you are not the average then use http://ieview.mozdev.org/

When a shopping feature or menu does not work it is not uninportant, don't think you use ever major site.

I never said a shopping feature was unimportant. Stop making stuff up. That would fall under debilitating. I didn't say I used every major site, stop making stuff up.

So we are in agreement neither is faster then the other?

You can look at it like that. The user will have to decide how it actually pans out. Since firefox is tabbed base you will only open it once per session. So you are subjected to one slow down as the browser first launches but faster browsing. Or subjected to faster initial multiple startups and slower overall browsing.

Someone obtaining my credit card number I would consider EXTREMELY SERIOUS.

The % of that happening is much higher on IE.

So half assed it works with 99% of the web sites in existence.

Yes... So half assed all it can do over firefox is render sites coded in/with IE non-standards. Way to support more problems!

Pathetic, no one said uninstall AV and spyware tools with SP2.

Pathetic, no one said to uninstall AV with firefox.

:roll: How can "average" be that hard to understand. If you are not the average then use http://ieview.mozdev.org/

Install an IE compatible plugin and admit defeat? What type of Firefox user are you!

I never said a shopping feature was unimportant. Stop making stuff up. That would fall under debilitating. I didn't say I used every major site, stop making stuff up.

No you never said either directly but you did say "So the majority of incorrectly coded sites are rendered in firefox only show unimportant differences that means it doesn’t matter." What you consider uninportant someone else does not.

The % of that happening is much higher on IE.

The same exploit exists in Firefox. Using the argument that one Browser has more security vulnerabilities then the other does not dismiss the ones that the other browser does have. You can have one browser with 14 security holes and another with 15, the one that has 14 can be said to be more secure but this is misleading.

Yes... So half assed all it can do over firefox is render sites coded in/with IE non-standards. Way to support more problems!

Menus and ecommerce features are not considered "problems"

Pathetic, no one said to uninstall AV with firefox.

No YOU did not others have.

You really dont get it do you?? WTF does someone have to say to you to get you to go to your corner and piss your pants????? Good lord...you are NOT the savior you think you are..if people choose to use FF..so be it..i use both..does that make me a bad person? Pffffffffffffft... i was willing to give you a chance..but at every post you seem to get more into yourself...and refuse to see other peoples opinons...i really dont give a rats a** how old ..or how much supposed knowledge you pretend to have...for christ sake ...GROW UP..or is that beyond your comprehension??? If you decide to come back with some smart ...silly ...remark..then you really are a troll..so use your head for a change..most goats do

Install an IE compatible plugin and admit defeat? What type of Firefox user are you!

I have already said there are incompatible sites. Just not as much as you or the author make it out to be. If you do come across one then no problem. If compatibility problems is all that you worry about when switching to firefox (this is actually your only argument) then there is a solution for you.

No you never said either directly but you did say "So the majority of incorrectly coded sites are rendered in firefox only show unimportant differences that means it doesn’t matter." What you consider uninportant someone else does not.

What you consider important someone else does not. This follows the *average* part once again. Plus you said people didn’t care about “standards” just if the site worked. Well a site that has a banner a pixel or two towards one side in firefox but not IE still works. This strengthens the overstatement of 15%.

The same exploit exists in Firefox.

Yes, and many more exist in IE and will continue to grow as history has taught us (firefox will grow too but IE will grow faster). Plus IE is much more popular as you have said, being popular and having many more open vulnerabilities makes your risk factor sky rocket.

Menus and ecommerce features are not considered "problems"

What? If you code for something that is flawed without following standards then you are only creating more problems.

No YOU did not others have.

You didn't say you should uninstall AV if you are using firefox either. I wasn't pointing fingers. What I was trying to say is that what a couple of crazy illiterate computer users telling another illiterate computer user to do something has no bearing on this conversation.

No YOU did not others have.

You didn't say you could uninstall AV if you are using firefox either. I wasn't pointing fingers. What I was trying to say is that what a couple of crazy illeterate computer users tell another illiterate computer user to do has no bearing on this conversation.

Insert fork. Watch steam rise from well cooked thread. This one is done.


Kevin