Print - Boycott IE 7? Not Exactly

It's amusing but disconcerting to me that what I write can be so widely misunderstood. In an article earlier this week about Microsoft's plans for improving the Web standards compliance in Internet Explorer (IE) 7, I repeated a recommendation I've been making to Windows users for years: Boycott IE.

This recommendation was completely misunderstood by a number of people. Some misread it as "Boycott IE 7." And some were amazed that a Windows advocate like me would take the "bold" step actually calling on Windows users to stop using a Microsoft product. And clearly, describing IE as "a cancer" was a bit strong. But allow me to explain what's really happening here.

First of all, put out those torches: I'm not leading a charge on Castle Frankenstein. Years ago, when Microsoft added the buggy and unproven IE code to the core of Windows NT 4.0, I felt that it was the worst decision the company had ever made. And since then, I've been proven right time and time again: IE has become the number one vector for malware intrusions in Windows, as shown by the vast number of security exploits this product has suffered over the years. As a result, one can make only a very weak argument about the benefits of fusing IE with Windows. But one can make a much better argument about the benefits of leaving the browser code separate from the OS.

IE's security ills were so bad for so long, in fact, that Microsoft stopped even thinking about new end user features for the product for several years. The version of IE included with Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) in 2004 fixed some of the security problems, but as even Microsoft acknowledges, it was just a step down a long road towards making IE truly secure (if that's even possible).

In any event, I've been calling on Windows users to try less-often-hacked browsers such as Mozilla Firefox for years. Other browsers, like Opera 8, are probably equally acceptable, though I just don't have as much experience with that product as I do with Firefox. My Web browser recommendation applies to the here and now: Today's IE, even with XP SP2, is just not secure enough. Too, IE 6 doesn't offer the broad feature set found in most modern browsers, so IE users are likely not even aware of the incredible functionality you can get with other choices. I most thoroughly explored these differences in my Target IE series on the SuperSite for Windows last year.

As for IE 7 specifically, I've analyzed what Microsoft is planning to do with this product and would like to clear up some misconceptions. First, there are really two versions of IE 7: The standalone version that will ship for XP SP2 (and Windows XP x64 Edition, and Windows Server 2003 with SP1), and the version that will ship in Windows Vista. The Windows Vista version of IE will be a superset of the standalone version, offering security features that are impossible to implement on previous generation Windows versions.

If you simply must use IE for some reason, you would be crazy not to upgrade to IE 7 when it comes out. On both platforms, IE 7 will offer crucial anti-phishing technology and a number of end user features that look interesting, including tabbed browsing and better add-on management. However, on Windows Vista, IE 7 will be even more powerful, offering a new protected mode in which the browser runs without any add-ons, allowing you to get work done if an electronic attack does infect the system. I'll write more about this in my upcoming IE 7 Beta 1 review on the SuperSite for Windows.

That said, I still have my concerns about IE's compliance with Web standards. Many of you don't realize this, but I have a Web development background tracing back over a decade, and I developed or helped develop some of the first database-backed Web sites on the Internet 10 years ago. In fact, WinInfo was one of these sites, back when it was hosted on the Internet Nexus in the mid-1990s. Since then, I've scaled back on Web development work to focus on writing, but I've also written and contributed to a number of books focusing on database-backed Web development, Visual Basic, and databases over the years. I understand the issues Web developers face, and I watched as Microsoft exerted its dominance and pushed its proprietary technologies over true Web standards. While Microsoft can truly claim to want to deliver a good "Web experience," it's equally true that the company is working to ensure you can only get that experience with its own products. Microsoft is not interested in a level playing field where users have a choice of browsers, all of which offer equivalent user experiences.

Folks, that's OK. It's called a competitive advantage, and it's something all companies seek to get. My issue with this is that I don't personally care what's good for Microsoft. I care about what's good for the people that use its products. And sometimes what's good for Microsoft and what's good for its customers are completely at odds with each other. Windows Genuine Advantage, Product Activation, and, yes, bundling IE with Windows are three obvious examples.

Finally, I spoke with the IE team this week and while it was a somewhat tense discussion--I did, after all, refer to their product as "a cancer"--I think we reached a workable understanding. IE Lead Program Manager Chris Wilson, for example, continues to insist that the Acid2 test I mentioned previously is "not a compliance test." And technically, he's right: Passing the Acid2 test doesn't mean that you've reached compliance with any particular Web standard (such as CSS 2.0). My beef with the Acid2 test is that Microsoft, alone among the browser makers, has publicly shown no interest at all in passing the Acid2 test, which was designed to "help browser vendors make sure their products correctly support features that Web designers would like to use. These features are part of existing standards but haven't been interoperably supported by major browsers." I commend the company for seeking to fix the IE issues that Web developers say are most onerous. I'd still like to see them do more, however.

Gary Schare, the Director of Product Management for the IE team, discussed with me the security features Microsoft will be adding to IE 7, and while I've highlighted a few of them above, I'll be writing more about this in my IE 7 Beta 1 review. The long and the short of it is that IE 7 will be better than IE 6. The question is whether it will be good enough. In the meantime, I will still use and recommend Firefox today. That's because IE 7 isn't here yet, and I can't possibly make a recommendation about an uncompleted product one way or the other.

Link
IE 7.0 Technical Changes Leave Web Developers, Users in the Lurch

a slight retraction there but fair play for clearing up the issue. I bet the IE team were cussing you to kingdom come especially when they saw the /. krew invasion . Well it made me laugh anyway.

A web standards compliant website would be a good starting point, Mr. Paul Web Expert Thurrott. :)

IE7 will be nice - I've tried the Vista Beta and it's a nice change. I like how things have been rearranged from the traditional IE6/Opera/Netsacape/Firefox layout.

Paul, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I don't know how you can say your are mis-understood. You were pretty clear in saying "don't use this product, it's a cancer. boycott it." Not much wiggle room there buddy.

Exactly what did you expect your readers to think? I quote from your article "My advice here is simple: Boycott Internet Explorer" ... "It is a cancer on the Web and must be stopped" ... "which makes it unworkable for both end users and Web content creators". You have only irritated your readers when you received some "heat" from this article and then blame your readers that you were "widely misunderstood". Lesson number one: If the majority of your audience is confused or misunderstands you, then you need to take a look at yourself and not blame others.

Ha ha I agree with the above reply "not much wiggle room there buddy" Mr. Paul really shot himself in the foot! But hey, well, most all of us have a day here or there where we rant and shoot our mouths off but don't really mean it.

Mr Paul writes: " IE has become the number one vector for malware intrusions in Windows" WRONG !!! The biggest instrusion point is the user opening and running email attachments they shouldn't and users downloading and running code that they shouldn't. Simply browsing with IE usually isn't enough to catch anything anymore and it's been that way for a long time now. And especially so if one bumps up the IE Internet zone security level just a bit - then it is pretty much impossible. If you are looking to catch something from simply browsing use Firefox as it is new raw and full of holes and vulnerabilities and oversites. IE is hardened code and needs at most only an occasional patch anymore.

*applause* Paul, this is the most evenhanded thing I've ever seen you write. I wish you would advocate for ALL computer users, not just "what's good for the people that use (Microsoft's) products", but it's a start. The way MS has hijacked the web and, by extension, computing in general, is despicable. But THIS article wasn't. Bravo.

Thats the trouble when your on a pedestal, people always want to shoot you down.. BANG BANG , She Fellover!!!

Quoted from IE Blog at http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx "We fully recognize that IE is behind the game today in CSS support. We’ve dug through the Acid 2 Test and analyzed IE’s problems with the test in some great detail, and we’ve made sure the bugs and features are on our list - however, there are some fairly large and difficult features to implement, and they will not all sort to the top of the stack in IE7. I believe we are doing a much better service to web developers out there in IE7 by fixing our known bang-your-head-on-the-desk bugs and usability problems first, and prioritizing the most commonly-requested features based on all the feedback we've had." They never said Acid2 was useless or that they would'nt try to render it correctly, it's not their priority, that's all. IE is so far behind the rest of the browser pack that they need to get back the 4 years that they've lost, they can't afford to be innovative at the moment. Since no browser on windows pass Acid2 atm I belive it's asking too much of IE to do it. Microsoft, with the IE team, is beaking out of their secretive and proprietary habit like we've been dreaming for years. Is it perfect, no but it's a hell of a lot better. Imagine you've had a car accident and you now have to relearn how to walk. After 2 days the doctors tell you "What you can't run already, go back to your wheelchair loser" Francois Gagnon Webdesigner and proud user of Firefox

Sounds like Paul is back on the Kool-Aid, he couldn't take the heat from the Micro$oft fanatics and is now pathetically trying to retract his boycott statement! Lame... "Boycott IE. It's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped." - Paul Thurrott

Windows Vista? More like Windows VISA for its cost, and Windows Waster for its processor usage! And I agree we should boycott IE until it becomes a real browser. And we should complain bitterly to all webmasters who don't test their crappy web sites against browsers other than IE.

"It's amusing but disconcerting to me that what I write can be so widely misunderstood." Well, maybe if your original article was better written?? This article is much better, much clearer and actually looks like you have put some thought into what you wanted to say, rather than just a rant off the top of your head. Your previous article made you sound like one of the idiots that can only post "yawn".

I guess its safe to say Paul T is a definite hypocrite. I think Microsoft should get patent that prevents Paul Thurrott from previewing or reviewing their products.

quote Simply browsing with IE usually isn't enough to catch anything anymore and it's been that way for a long time now. tell that to all my friends who have told me there computer has slowed to a crawl. I don't get it what's with all the IE love here, IMO it's not all about security but having to patch code so it will work right in IE. Which is unfair just because Microsoft did not want to comply with Web Standards. I am just not keen on being manipulated into extra work...

As a subscriber I would appreciate a response to this article http://www.extended64.com/blogs/rhoffman/archive/2005/08/02/1121.aspx Particularly wrt Pauls experience and incentives. The quality of articles is poor, to say the least, and has deteriorated over time. I have been reading this mag for a couple of years (when it was Windows and .Net Mag) and am considering, with the current poor articles, whether to continue my subscription. Please respond.

"As a subscriber I would appreciate a response to this article http://www.extended64.com/blogs/rhoffman/archive/2005/08/02/1121.aspx Particularly wrt Pauls experience and incentives. The quality of articles is poor, to say the least, and has deteriorated over time. I have been reading this mag for a couple of years (when it was Windows and .Net Mag) and am considering, with the current poor articles, whether to continue my subscription. Please respond." In other words, Paul Thurrott is telling it like it is about Micro$oft's ****-POOR software quality, and you as a brainwashed Windows zealot don't like to hear it. Have fun running as an admin account for the next two years, LOL!

"I will still use and recommend Firefox today. That's because IE 7 isn't here yet, and I can't possibly make a recommendation about an uncompleted product one way or the other." "don't be put off by its 0.92 version number (the 1.0 release is set for September): Mozilla Firefox (Figure 4) is mature, full-featured, and secure. Here are some of the best features in Mozilla Firefox." "Firefox is awesome, and getting better all the time. Jump on the Firefox bandwagon, and I promise you won't be disappointed. I've been using Firefox full time since it was still called Phoenix, and I've rarely looked back. In fact, I now only IE when I absolutely have to, on those few Web sites I need for work that include ActiveX controls. If it weren't for that, I'd drop IE for good. And while I feel that you should as well, at the very least, give Firefox a look. It's an incredible product." So, what the heck does he means by "I can't possibly make a recommendation about an uncompleted product one way or the other"??? he is the most unreliable person on this planet when it comes to back up what he has said previously, the worst thing is that now he tries to unbiased and neutral :(

> "The biggest instrusion point is the user opening and running email attachments they shouldn't and users downloading and running code that they shouldn't. > "Simply browsing with IE usually isn't enough to catch anything anymore and it's been that way for a long time now." You've obviously never been the victim of a "drive-by download." Try misspelling a well-known URL or two and see what happens.

I used to like your articles. But one single article has destroyed all your credibility. Nothing you write to make amends will restore it.

To: 'tell that to all my friends who have told me there computer has slowed to a crawl.' And to: 'You've obviously never been the victim of a "drive-by download."' It is possible depending how you use IE to be open to virtually everything. But it is possible to have it protect against that sort of thing like Fort Knox protects its treasure. It's all in security zone settings and how one responds to choices offered. Don't agree to every activex control offered and consider bumping up the security level of the Internet zone. Do that, turn on Windows' automatic updating and IE is like an army tank secruity wise. Most of what people catch is because they say "Yes" to every Comet cursor type offering out there and say "yes" when their P2P content asks if you will let it install executables and activex controls. Duh, if www.pawrn.com offers you a special "viewer" do you really think it doesn't carry a special payload .. come on. Properly configured, IE is the most secure modern browser available. If you configure it incorrectly and accept everything offered on your drive-bys, well, no browser nor operating system can protect your computer then.

"Macs--for getting real work done. " And also appearently posting your BS comments 20 times. Name one thing you can do on a mac you can't do on a Windows machine?

I dont know about anyone else, but I write websites so they display right in any browsers, I dont give a [bleep] about the so called 'standards'

"Name one thing you can do on a mac you can't do on a Windows machine?" how about "Kenel Panic"? :-P http://www.dump.wuffle.com/images/computer/macosx-kernel-panic.jpg

"I guess its safe to say Paul T is a definite hypocrite. I think Microsoft should get patent that prevents Paul Thurrott from previewing or reviewing their products." That's not how Patents work. Perhaps you should look up what a Patent is. "I used to like your articles. But one single article has destroyed all your credibility. Nothing you write to make amends will restore it." By your logic, anyone who ever made a mistake has no credibility. I think that would be everyone... "Macs--for getting real work done. " Does real work mean trolling Windows sites and spamming the same thing 20 times in a row?

I would like to point out something wrong with your post. 33% + 18% + 9% Is Not 100%. It's only 60%. Where's the other 40%? Keep in mind that missing 40% is bigger than the 33% used for web browsing (I think web browsing includes looking at pr0n, so you can use that).

I would also like to point out another flaw in your statement. "IT'S OFFICIAL--WINDOWS ONLY GOOD FOR VIDEOGAMES AND WEB-SURFING" I don't recall you backing that up anywhere in your spams. You know, the part where you explained why it was good at those things... Why anyone like you who probably hates IE would try and say windows is good at webbrowsing is mind-boggling. I use firefox personally, but I find your statement to be quite funny. If you're going to troll, make sure you think ahead of time :P.

I'm with Paul on this one. Microsoft neglected IE for years feature wise and as for security - how many time have we all had to rebuild a machine because IE was so infested. IE 7 will be better but I doubt MS is putting in enough resources into the v7. And what happens after version 7 - will MS stop developing again after 7.5?

Will IE7 support HTML yet???? it doesn't support one of the tags !!! why leave out a whole tag???? inline quotations (element Q), if they had been supported would have meant there's be quotes.google.com by now what a shame imagine if microsoft had taken the it's-only-one-letter (Q) attitude toward the A element ?!?!?!

Paul, are you OK!? Can you speak?! Where are you?! How much money do they want?! Is Bill there? If he is, tell him the Firefox community is not gonna let him get away with this! Just stay calm-everything is gonna be alright. Where's the drop-off point?!

You make web's/appz for Internet Explorer or Windows. GNU/GPL and *NIX customerz are not customerz we want anyway. - Stay cool, love from Dani

Paul - keep up the good work. You're reply was absoluterly spot on. Besides, you're article are your OPINION - isn't that what freedom of speech and journalism is all about? Anyone with half a brain reads articles like yours and form their own judgement on it. If they don't agree it stimulates discussion. Besides make your "cancer" jibe will have made Microsoft listen. Perhaps it's the kind of language they should here more of!!!

Lol. I love the Mac BSOD. Maybe M$ should come out with a similar screen. Oh wait, then the Mac Zealots would start flaming articles about it and say that M$ stole it from their god Steve. http://www.dump.wuffle.com/images/computer/macosx-kernel-panic.jpg

You complain about the lack of web-standards support in IE. But see this: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.winsupersite.com 148 Errors. Not good. Even Microsoft.com has less. (None, actually) But your own site doesn't comply. What say you about that?

lol. I checked our school's website homepage. only 5 errors in the coding. Students built it.

Paul did not backtrack on anything. He merely clarified that he did not extend his original comments to IE7, since it was not released yet. That may be due to his talk with MS, but so what? He is at least thinking about what he says.

If someone can explain to me the how the browser is integrated into the OS in a way as to create security problems. From what I know, the only way its integrated, is that the html rendering system it used in Windows Explorer, the Windows Help system and other parts of Windows, URLs can be run from the Run window and shortcuts to URLs can be made (which is still true when running Firefox), and other modes of integration that concern the user experience and not the system's core functionality. I don't understand how having Windows Explorer use the html rendering system makes Windows less secure. The worst it can do is carry over malware to when the user is running Explorer and not browsing the Internet, but it doesn't introduce malware easier and doesn't make for greater insecurities in the core system functions. If someone can explain to me the ways in which IE is integrated which affects deeper Windows functions, please do

"And also appearently posting your BS comments 20 times. Name one thing you can do on a mac you can't do on a Windows machine?" - Copy an app to the /Applications folder to install it. Drag to Trash to remove. No registry. - Run without a firewall - Run without anti-virus software - Run without anti-spyware software - Run in a non-admin account - Integrated search via Spotlight, Smart Folders - Burn Folders - Hardware-accelerated windowing - Hit F9 for instant scaled tiling of all open apps - Hit F11 to shoot the windows out of the way and access the desktop - No need to reboot, reconfigure, or click through two "wizards" to network. Ever. It just happens instantly. - Ability to network two Macs together with a single non-crossover cable. - Sleep mode actually works, so Mac users never shut down their machines and wonder why Windows users still have to. - Built-in DVD, movie, and music creation software that actually works and competes on a professional level (Windows Movie Maker is hysterical). And on and on and on and on......

"Lol. I love the Mac BSOD. Maybe M$ should come out with a similar screen. Oh wait, then the Mac Zealots would start flaming articles about it and say that M$ stole it from their god Steve. http://www.dump.wuffle.com/images/computer/macosx-kernel-panic.jpg" Uh, wtf? All you have is a picture of a kernel panic? Any faulty driver or bit of hardare can cause a panic. You don't give a cause for the screenshot, so it just makes Windows users look even more idiotic and willing to worship the all-mighty Micro$oft Monopoly, who puts things out like Clippy Do you realize how many kernel panics Windows has had in its history? OMG

Why are Windoze users here in such denial about its crappiness? God, every other Windoze user I know freely admits that it sucks along with Micro$oft. Most of them plan to go Mac within the next twelve months.

"And also appearently posting your BS comments 20 times. Name one thing you can do on a mac you can't do on a Windows machine?" Hey, I've got some more to add. - Never reinstall every six months because the system magically gets slower as time passes like Windows does. - Run a full UNIX prompt with all installed UNIX software (without resorting to laughable crap like Cygwin). OS X is the superior system for UNIX admins, universities, and enterprises. What do you guys have? Vaporware called Monads or whatever. - Never have to defrag. OS X auto-defrags during file operations. - Automatically lower CPU speed if you're running off a battery. - Built-in spell check for every single input text field thanks to NeXTStep/Cocoa infrastructure. - Built-in dictionary lookup for any text at all thanks to NeXTStep/Cocoa infrastructure. - Dynamic typing and messaging thanks to Objective-C. - No auto-generated lines of GUI code as in MFC/.NET. GUIs are instanced objects saved as a NIB file and loaded at run-time. - Print anything at all to PDF thanks to Quartz adoption of PDF object graph for drawing. And much, much, much more. Read Vista's feature list. It's all stuff that's already in OS X! Many of it has been in OS X for years.

lol, no kidding...i don't know any windows user who doesn't think it sucks, including IT admins. in fact, most of them own powerbooks at home

It's true. Windows is just a videogame playing machine. So much that Vista actually has a "Games Explorer" (LOL). It's a Sims machine and nothing more. Oh, and it keeps computer techs having a job because they have to keep fixing the registry and spyware and crap. Not on OS X. It just runs (gasp, what a thought!).

Haha! Have fun running an admin account for the next two years, Windows kids, as you wait for the resource-sucking Windows Vista that requires 3Ghz and 512MB of RAM just to boot up. Awesome! Leave it to Microsoft to bloat requirements to sell computers. And you sheep buy into it. Amazing!

""And also appearently posting your BS comments 20 times. Name one thing you can do on a mac you can't do on a Windows machine?" Another thing. On OS X, you can move files, and the shortcuts to them auto-update. You can even move executables as the application is running. Try it on Windows, LOL. "This file is in use!"

You continue to bash (current) IE - based on problems from it's past. If you step out today to promote "Boycott IE", it should be based on what IE is today. Nothing annoys me more then when people bash a product (usually something from MS) based on facts that no longer apply. Sure IE sucked back in the days when it was built into NT4. But is that the same with IE6 today? Definitely not. I am certainly not saying that IE today is perfect, far from it. But get real, neither are FireFox or Opera. Let's just base what we say about IE on *todays* IE6. I am certainly not going to base my opinion of you Paul on something you did when you were 14.

Wow.... Back peddel any faster Paul and the wheels will come off... As for "try less-often-hacked browsers such as Mozilla Firefox"... it might be hacked less but that does not mean it is a more secure browser... I believe there have been more Fireforx vulnerabilites in the last 6 months that ie6????

Unfortunately, Paul's statements cost him a lot of credibility in my book. Even if he attempts to backtrack now, his earlier statements and even his restatement show that he, like the popular press, aim for sensationalism over accuracy. While I regularly read his columns, I am always surprised by his superficial handling and understanding of the inner workings of software. As someone once told me after criticizing everything I was doing - "Just remember it is a helluva lot easier to be a critic than it is to be a doer."

Stop blaming the users for the failings of the OS and applications. You people should start holding MSFT more accountable instead of acting like a bunch of nerds who blame users for bugs created by the developers at MSFT.

Too bad you couldn't link to some of the people calling for your head, as that might have helped your credibility a bit. Would have been nice if other could people could see what the people who think you're out of touch were saying. But your answer is a non-answer. You spent 1 paragraph talking about the actual issue, and like 8 paragraphs trying to explain to people how you think you should be regarded as an expert. You're right... we should have listened to you back in the NT4 days. When, oh when, will we learn the error of our ways? -Robert McLaws

Paul, you have ****** on your pants with your boycott IE article. You will never be trusted again.

Lets not give a hard time a boycott in the sense of the word is a good Idea. We the People must dictate what we want and by going with another browser. They will see it our way and make a good browser WE CAN ALL BE PROUD OF.(WISHFUL THINKING). Heck even bill uses mozzilla firefox. So tell your friends to tell MIcrosoft we are going to take it anymore. and make the witch today. at least til we see a better browser from redmond

Just as I thought you hadn't sold your entire soul to Microsoft, you now perform an acrobatic back-peddle. Is it that those Redmond boys have more sway over you then you'd like to concede after all? I'm curious as to why you felt the need to perform this back-peddle so soon after writing your initial article. Surely, if you were wrong, then the IE7 product would have proved that without your interjection. If people misunderstood your meaning then that is their issue. So why? I'll take my guesses that you felt the early scoops about Microsoft products, etc. skipping away from you, in response to your frank views. Either way, you'll forgive me for saying that as a journalist it harms your integrity and credibility immensely. Either you can't write to be clearly understood by all, or you are so prone to persuasion by the hand that feeds you, that there is no way on earth you can be unbiased. Logic dictates that one or the other must be true. A great shame.

IT admins. in fact, most of them own powerbooks at home -- wow.. i .. actually have to say.. i'm impressed. at least someone's admitting that ... you can't put food on the table being a Mac IT guy.. the guys who actually know IT use it to make $$ and when they're at home, they depend on OS X. Thank you. Me and the Macolytes will now STFU.

Well, for those moaning about VISTA's RAM useage, i'm running it now with DWM (Beta 1) at 310mb, with WMP, messenger, and IE with 3 tabs. So... i think you can stop that one there. Also, about IE7, the safer mode is already in the BETA1 version (switch: -extoff). IE7 is becoming much more secure. Beta 1 was a feature update, not a standards update. On XP, (and for some reason on the XP one only... slightly contradicting the view that VISTA IE7 will be more secure), we also have the anti-phising filter! For some reason, you are supposed to report phising sites, which is pretty damn stupid. Hopefully MS are doing a good enough job building that database up by themselves. IE7 is becoming more secure. Beta 1 is nothing to judge by. Paul, just admit it, though, you were talking crap yesterday. That was just one example of the codswallop that comes on to your articles.

I have been reading pauls thoughts for a very long time. The boycott stunt was meant to drive traffic to this site--nothing more. He does that from time to time, and it seems like making these stupid comments to draw attention and advertising buck (which is skyrocketing right now) is happening on a scale to grand to ignore. I for one tire of people who shoot off nonsense without thinking of it. By doing this paul grabbed a crap load of slashdotters, and buzz from everywhere, he was probably laughing his *** off. He's not a dumb dude so that's the most I can make of it, the only other thing I could think of is maybe he is bipolar. Laterz.

"I have been reading pauls thoughts for a very long time. The boycott stunt was meant to drive traffic to this site--nothing more." Easy answer to all this hassle ... Boycott Pauls articles ! Most of them seem to have an anti MS attitude anyway (That would be OK for a MAC magazine, but for a "Windows IT Pro" mag it is poor. Leave his articles to the Mac zealots who seem to have nothing better to do than browse a windows site and compare everything to the Mac.

Just a question - is there any browser that passes the acid test? Firefox doesn't... Michael

If you want to block those net nasties before IE7 arrives, check out the following: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm It does work, and is easy to implement. Although it's not relevant if you use a proxy server.

It is best to support the U.S. economy and President Bush, and capitalism by refusing to use open-source communistware. Firefox and the like are anti-capitalist products. They are products developed by terrorist-sympathizing anti-market communists. Support the corporations by buying a copy of Windows and using Microsoft (R) Internet Explorer (R) today. It is the least you can do to support our troops in Iraq. Remember, freedom isn't free. Neither should software be.

Gosh, being anti-Microsoft seems to be some sort of religion for some people. Heck, it's only one software company. Get a life.

Mac zealots forever turning their jealous eye to Microsot Windows. I think there are more Mac users reading PT than Windows users. Does Safari bore them or something that they spend so much time with Windows?

Yup, when it comes to computers whether one uses MacOS X, Linux, FreeBSD or whatever, it's all about Windows!

It's only one software company, one of thousands, so mind your *own* business and get a life. You spend so much time reading about Windows .. Why? Because your own platform doesn't do it for you!

Hey Mac Addict and Linux Zealot - Doesn't your own platform provide enoough interest for you? Obviously not, you're reading this!

A Mac Addict visits windowsitpro and winsupersite. Why? MacOSX doesn't provide enough interest for him. Isn't there enough happening in the Mac world for you? Obviously not.

The Linux user's jealous eye look at every event in the Windows world. Get a life. Doesn't your own platform do it for you? 'Guess not.

You tap dance like you understand the systems development lifecycle. Nice try. You're obviously admitting your wrong by coming out with some sort of explaination of what you've written. Based on this, you are likely ignorant when it comes do development and the internals of computer system lifecycles, a horrible journalist who has problems conveying exactly what he means to readers, or both. Probably both. In any case, your credibility has not passed the giggle test. Let's just boycott your web site from now. All problems solved.

Here's some links for Mac and Linux users. Spend your life at them why don't you: http://www.microsoft.com http://www.microsoft.com/windows http://msdn.microsoft.com http://windowsitpro.com http://www.winsupersite.com http://www.windowsmedia.com http://www.msn.com http://www.microsoft-watch.com

I totally agree with Paul Thurrott. I should also note that Microsoft should do more about IE or they'll soon lose the browser war. And then, I'll be seeing Firefox just like the way I see IE today: struggle with exploits and growing vulnerabilities. It's the way of life.

And after he loved IE5 so much. http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/ie5_1.asp "IE 5.0 is a world-class suite of Internet applications and a fine addition to any Windows system." "This is, indeed, the Web the way we want it." Now go to winsupersite and try to find the page that Paul linked to about other browsers. I can't find another link to it anywhere. couldn't find an IE6 review either. Probably removed it after his last couple of articles.

Integrating IE into the shell was the best thing they could have ever done. But we should be able to do that with Mozilla browsers.

I don't get this intergration business. While I like that one can program a window to use the IE engine, when I almost always use Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer as completely different apps. When I want to go thru the file system I don't type c: nor anything in IE's address bar, instead rather I start a separate instance of Windows Explorer [and vice versa for webpages]. The idea of mixing the two makes me feel 'unsafe' [as if I've explosed my computer's file system to some running JavaScript]. So while I don't bother with other browsers than IE, I almost always use IE *only* as browser and not as a file system explorer - and start a *separate* instance of Windows Explorer when I want to go through the files.

OK OK You may do that too. I guess you are talking about HTMLized folders which are cool, yup yup.

"at least someone's admitting that ... you can't put food on the table being a Mac IT guy.. the guys who actually know IT use it to make $$ and when they're at home, they depend on OS X." You can't put food on the table being a Mac IT guy because you don't need a Mac IT guy. Macs auto-network themselves via Bonjour zero-configuration technology. There's a reason so many of you Windows zealots are so vehemently pro-M$. You're trying to keep your pointless jobs. lol

"You can't put food on the table being a Mac IT guy because you don't need a Mac IT guy. Macs auto-network themselves via Bonjour zero-configuration technology. There's a reason so many of you Windows zealots are so vehemently pro-M$. You're trying to keep your pointless jobs. lol" You Mac dorks are truly hilarious. Nobody can read a single article on this site without some Mac-Head bashing Microsoft (oh, I'm sorry; I mean M$, Windoze, or Micro$oft). Do you really think networking a Mac in a corporate domain is as easy as plug'n'play? I don't think so. Peer-to-peer workgroups? Sure. But so would a bunch of Windows XP PC's with the default settings. So you think Steve Jobs wouldn't LOVE to rule the software world? Make billions and billions of dollars? Monopolize the market? Sure he would. I don't see Jobs giving BILLIONS to charities, yet he makes a ridiculous amount of money. Oh, I forgot, he once phoned the family of a poor kid who was killed for his iPod. Please, go back to your artsy, against-the-man, Sci-fi-loving, tree-hugging, solar-car-driving, vegetarian lifstyle and try to get a REAL life while you are at it (sorry for the extreme stereotype but I have Mac-head friends who are exactly above and know others who are as well). Enough browsing sites that are remotely similar to windows*.com and other Microsoft related sites. I really could not imagine myself browsing to, much less care less about, a Mac-based site. So tell us Windoze admins/users; why do you do it?

From the authors site www.winsupersite.com, in the home page source: Says it all really....

Nice backup Paul, you wussy. It's quite obvious that you are one of those sell out "tech" journalist. Now few things i don't still understand, first IE's poor security. I been using it now 6 years, and no viruses, malware or other junk. I mean you need to be total jerk to get those after SP2. And stability, well lets say my Firefox crashes more often IE(due the poor video plugins). Standards seem to be the Hip word of year and you seem to be another those believers that they solve everything. Let me tell something that makes you cry you wussy, they ain't! Some standards are just poor ****. CSS seems to be one of those too, too tight so most just leave them alone and go where is best to go. Why do you keep saying you are in public good when you try to get everything to follow standars? Maybe those standards that are in Acid2 are just something most don't want to use! Every thinked like that, you wussy. Your stuff is getting more and more crappy after you cryied about Longhorn Developer beta, it's a god damn Developer version you jerk!

George Bush says: "You're a Flip-Flopper!" Whats with all the anti-mac. OMG LOLZ a Kernal Panic. I just got a mac 2 months ago cuase I got tired of gaming and the upgrading costs associated with it. Solid platform. smooth and asthetically pleasing. XP is decent but for some Mac is a better choice. Everything is just alot more seemless and works right away.

Macs sort a make my skin crawl. The 'look' and 'feel' bothers me. I'm staying with the PC, thank you very much and will use IE to surf, thanks again. Why are mac users so fascinated with Windows? I have no urge at all to visit Mac sites.

I don't see Jobs giving BILLIONS to charities, yet he makes a ridiculous amount of money. Oh, I forgot, he once phoned the family of a poor kid who was killed for his iPod. ---- Buddy, there is a corner of Hell with your name on it. Wow.

I'm not for alot of MS bs...but I'm even less tolerant of yours as of now. I think I'm going to boycott you. Not that it will make any difference to you - but I can slowly but surely recover the minutes of my life I DID spend reading your rubbish. I don't think I've read anything by you that's actually constructive or useful. You seem to thrive on the attention of putting IE in a 'bad' light. IE is not perfect - no browser is, but I'm over it, and I'm over you. Signed: Neoprimal

"technically, he's right: Passing the Acid2 test doesn't mean that you've reached compliance with any particular Web standard ". Technically? Technically he's right? Can't you just admit you were wrong?

what's laughable (other than IE's standards compliance) is the 391 markup errors found on this page... http://validator.w3.org/ (wouldn't let me put the entire url...)

John Kerry, is that you? There was no misunderstanding Paul, you were very clear in what you stated in the previous article. Just because a bunch of people from MS and their goons spank you for what you wrote, doesn’t mean you do a complete reversal. You said what you said and it was the truth. It’s a shame you don’t have the gonads to defend that.

You are 100% talking out of both sides of your mouth. Maybe tomorrow the Director of Project Management for Opera will grant you an interview and you'll change your mind again.

So, finally the Gestapo breaks his back. Here's an excerpt from your article Mr. Let=me-clear-the-air --> My advice is simple: Boycott IE. It's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped. IE isn't secure and isn't standards-compliant, which makes it unworkable both for end users and Web content creators. Because of their user bases, however, Web developers are hamstrung into developing for IE at the expense of established standards that work well in all other browsers. You can turn the tide by demanding more from Microsoft and by using a better alternative Web browser. I recommend and use Mozilla Firefox, but Apple Safari (Macintosh only) and Opera 8 are both worth considering as well. Dude, man, sir: This is a spineless retraction of your article. In case you have forgotten, I have the entire article saved and I can mail it to you. Truth mother%$^$$, you speak it?

"Boycott IE. It's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped." - Paul Thurrott You're right on that, and I bet that'll become the famous quote for the spreadfirefox campagin. You cannot change your mind. You publicly wrote a rant, about a microsoft product, on a site where microsoft advocates gather in herds. Your mistake. Not ours for "misunderstanding" you; the statement above was quite clear. On a side note, how you put the quote above, quite nice. I commend you for that. To the IE team, you can't ******* whine at someone who tells people not to use your browser because your god damn web browser sucks balls. It does. Fix it, then we'll reconsider.

Balmer & Goons: Bend over ***** Paul T.: Yes sir Mr. Balmer sir. I'll never speak a bad word about MS again sir!

As long as IE relies on ActiveX, it will always be insecure and inferior to any other non IE browser. I read your article Paul, you meant what you said. Now you obviously are a sell out. Pressure, and im sure threats, from MS made you sell out. So much for trusting your advice anymore on anything. This will be my last visit to any website that you have your name on. Good luck and goodbye.

"The biggest instrusion point is the user opening and running email attachments they shouldn't and users downloading and running code that they shouldn't. Simply browsing with IE usually isn't enough to catch anything anymore and it's been that way for a long time now. And especially so if one bumps up the IE Internet zone security level just a bit - then it is pretty much impossible. If you are looking to catch something from simply browsing use Firefox as it is new raw and full of holes and vulnerabilities and oversites. IE is hardened code and needs at most only an occasional patch anymore. " Wow that's the biggest lie I've heard in a long long time... As everyone knows, you CAN get virus's just by surfing the web. You just have your head too far up your *** to admit it.

I still say people should look at Linux! The fine people at M$ are going to try and kill Open GL in Vista! They don't care about there old users! and if you use Win2k, ME, 98SE, or NT your only brower upgade is FireFox.. And if you choose not to install SP2 on XP your upgrade will have to be FireFox. This is a upgrade scheme people. So upgrade to Linux and FireFox.

Acid 2 is fringe testing, testing highly specialized tests, and comprised of some specs that are still in draft...Passing it is asking a bit too much. I would rather they concentrate on the core problems with CSS in IE.

Why try and clarify it... you were right the first time. I'm sick of Micro$not trying to Windoze everything to suit their payrole at the expense of the public. Look at the debacle with the marquee tag when it popped up, sure some said it looked good but it was NOT in the W3C standard. Rather than whinge about how hard people are on poor Uncle Billions, you're better off spending your time doing something useful like spreading the real news - GetFireFox.com (-:

The only reason every hates IE is because no one finds bugs in firefox or other browsers, they all lover to knock down Microsoft for doing such a great job

"The only reason every hates IE is because no one finds bugs in firefox or other browsers, they all lover to knock down Microsoft for doing such a great job" I'm an IDIOT! plain and simple IDIOT.. I don't even know what communism is but I am going to call Microsoft modern day communism. They want toatle power and control over every PC on this planet. They want total annihilation of any competitor and will only stop when everyone steps up and says i've had enough!!! http://www.spreadfirefox.com/ http://www.linux.com/

I agree with posters on this site that say IE is not the problem. I have been using IE, all through the virus, malware, adware, ???ware, etc and never got hacked, hi-jacked, etc. User education is key. As your beloved Firefox got the market share to be hacked, it promptly did, offering some bazooka sized holes to those in the know. Wave your flag in the direction of user education.

Note to Paul: Why are you contradicting yourself? We didn't misunderstand you, re-read what you wrote; you wrote it quite clearly: IE isn't good enough for the web today. I appreciate IE's work of aiming for CSS1 standards and making honest effort, but quite frankly, it just doesn't cut it, especially for a corporation. Firefox is at CSS2, pushing CSS3 standards. On a side note, it's a bit too late for that "unignoring the standards"; Firefox has a growing population.

Microsoft has very little to do with communism and very much to do with freedom and free enterprise. That's why so many people dislike it and attack it. Red Star over Friefox anyone? Firefox's Mozilla creators have yet to shed their communist regalia - check it out for yourself: http://www.mozilla.org/party/1998/mozilla.gif

oh stfu. that's the n00biest statement I've ever heard. It's one thing to defend microsoft, that's OK AFAIK, but calling an open source application communist just because the source is freely available, good god. btw, this site uses apache most likely (it might use IIS... doubtful) and that is open source.... ! just because something is open source means it's communist? you'd better stop using the web then because without open source, 99% of it would not exist. I'm no communist, if fact, eBay, Google, Yahoo, Slashdot, all employ open source applications for everyday use, and they're obviously not about communism...

I didn't call it communist because it is open source - although, that's part of it - I called it communist because I am stupid and have no idea what communism is. Although, I will continue to talk smack about things I know nothing about. I am a moron and generalize things like how open source is communist and anti-American, anti-freedom and anti-free enterprise. Wow, is that the epitomy of a typical, dumb, Bush supporting American or what? I was also referring to the red communist drenched regalia that Mozilla sports. Because I don't get irony I say stupid things like: If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck: http://people.redhat.com/blizzard/mozilla/mozilla-word-large.png http://burntelectrons.org/media/moz-posters/hack-poster.png http://burntelectrons.org/media/moz-posters/party-member.png

This communist talk is really retarded. Umm, maybe they are just trying to produce trendy style posters? Maybe they are trying to make the assertion that you don't have to be spoon fed software from a "communist" organization like MS? Either way, surely the open source community is NOT communist. And surely, Microsoft is NOT, I repeat, NOT communist. How stupid can you be to think that? MS works with some monopolistic powers, but in the end, they work in a free market. All you Mac heads are always talking about how MS is dying. How can MS be dying, but also be a monopoly and communist all at the same time? Just because your precious Mac is having trouble gaining market share doesn't automatically mean that MS is an all evil communist empire. It means that they delivered products in several different areas, that people bought, got profits, and expanded further, without the help of the government. That is the epitome of ANTI-communist.

Article was good, especially when you are quick enough to realize that this is his opinion. With few exceptions the comments are worth exactly what the writers were paid to write them, absolutely nothing ………

I think the writer's main point is that his remarks should not be taken as "Upon the release of IE7, boycott it", but simply reiterating his previously stated position that IE -- in all its incarnations -- should be boycotted. Subtle difference.

Just FYI, IE has had landscape printing for some time now; you just need to go into page setup...

Brilliant, you've summed up my thoughts exactly. The message is simple: don't use any piece of software called Microsoft Internet Explorer, or based around any of its code. Use a modern, compliant and extendible browser. Mozilla Firefox, Safari or Opera are all far, far better.

Wrong. Don't use Firefox - it's raw as a spring carrot and FULL of security holes, oversites, and vulnerabilites. My brother put it on his computer and caught a virus through it - just from surfing - the same day. So far, NO browser is 100% fully W3C compliant. They all miss the mark to some degree. Nevertheless, several vendors - including Microsoft - are trying to come as close as possible. Safari might be a good browser [it does have its own set of problems], but it is hardly a choice for someone using a PC. Opera is fine if you like adaware - or paying cash to the Opera company so they stop spamming you through their browser. Currently, perhaps ironically but nevertheless, the most hardened browser is Internet Explorer 6. It needs only an occasional patch. This contrasts with Firefox which requires constant patching there's so many vulnerabilites. As a matter of fact there's so many needed they have to re-release the software every month. Internet Explorer, on the other hand, with a little tweaking is by far the most secure browser available these days if you use it properly.

"[Microsoft] has publicly shown no interest at all in passing the Acid2 test." That sums it up pretty well. It's good to see someone with guts enough to say the right thing. The web is 3 or 4 years behind where it could have been, if not for microsoft.

I can't believe I read all the comments. I wish someone would write something useful. You too Paul! Could you please go back to coding? Maybe you could write a browser that is secure; that meets the current set of W3C standards while helping to advance them; that blocks popups! -------------------------------------- Windows Lover Mac Hater, Mac Lover Windows Hater, Linux Lover Mac Liker Windows Hater. Bigot or Bigot or Bigot. What ever happened to the true computer engineer that liked what was good and saw how to combine those goods to make something better?