| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 42042 | 2004-01-30 05:50:00 | Browsers : Can opera be used as a total replacement for IE? | Term_X (560) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 211269 | 2004-01-30 23:34:00 | zqwerty u mention manipulation of favourites, welll ive set some favourites and ive havent had any of the problems you suggested none at all. you mention the importing and exporting of favourites, that really isnt a big deal as i mentioned previously im concerned with speed and security with alternatives to surfing with IE not cosmetics ;-) and from my very short experience with Opera, im finding it very good ! im finding this info very informative so thanks to all including zqwerty! |
Term_X (560) | ||
| 211270 | 2004-01-31 00:16:00 | Does anyone know if security is inherently better with alternative browsers, or is it just that Microsofts' IE is the prime target for attack? | Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 211271 | 2004-01-31 00:31:00 | No the other browsers are in theory just as bad security wise. If the people who spent their time finding security flaws in IE changed over to Opera or Firebird, they would probably start finding just as many security flaws as well. | PoWa (203) | ||
| 211272 | 2004-01-31 00:52:00 | good point powa but id say in most likelyness (is that a real word likelyness? ;-)) that the flaws in the other browsers arent exploited by nasty hackers as the ones in IE .. in that case alternative browsers are a good option ;-) |
Term_X (560) | ||
| 211273 | 2004-01-31 00:59:00 | remember the security flaw that was found in ALL browsers? netcape/mozilla/opera had it fixed within a day or 2, MS took weeks . "its not a flaw in the browser its a flaw in the OS" the other thing is mozilla/opera don't support activeX so they can miss out on a few features but also they miss out on a lot of the evil crap (hijacks etc) . personall some of the smaller features of opera is what i like most eg "open in background page" and also going back pages is so much faster than IE does (IE tries to download/check the page again while opera reads it out of cache) . |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 211274 | 2004-01-31 00:59:00 | Its been my understanding that ie is less secure because as mentioned it is tied in so closley to windows,is their any need for a browser to have activex capabilities built into it? | metla (154) | ||
| 211275 | 2004-01-31 01:10:00 | >is their any need for a browser to have activex capabilities built into it? yes and no. opera/mozilla etc use netscape style plugins which as less functional. activeX is powefull however due to it being so powerful it can be abused and used to do some serious damage. there are safe gaurds (sicurity permissions) however many a hole has been found. biggest thing i hate with activeX is the background downloading before asking to install (opera simply tells you a plugin is missing and its up to the web designer to specifiy what plugin to use, where to get it etc) in a perfect world activeX wouldbe best (background download and install minimal user input needed) but this isn't a perfect world and activeX's user friendlyness is its downfall. unfortunatly to use the automated windows update you need activeX. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 211276 | 2004-01-31 01:12:00 | > also going back pages is so much faster than IE does (IE tries to download/check the page again while opera reads it out of cache). Yea thats a big plus. I sometimes am writing up a big message on PressF1 or wherever and then I accidentally click the back button (I have 5button mouse) and it goes back a page. Now if I did that with IE I would have to go forward a page and then everything I typed would be gone - gone!! Now with Opera/Firebird etc you just click forward and its all there just as you left it :) |
PoWa (203) | ||
| 211277 | 2004-01-31 01:13:00 | aaahhh...well....i have neither flash or java installed,neither do i use windows update. Flash and java are both overated and best done without. Thats just my opinion of course. |
metla (154) | ||
| 211278 | 2004-01-31 02:05:00 | re: ActiveX Active is basically nothing more than a . EXE with an almost meaningless digital signature (more accurately, OLE + digital signature) . The reason its bad for security is once you hit accept an activex object can do anything it likes to you system . There is a better explanation of its faults here ( . webdeveloper . com/activex/activex_security . html" target="_blank">www . webdeveloper . com), and esp . the link to exploder authors page . Java at least includes some controls on what an applet could do . I'm not going to go into the other security problems . You can't just blame IEs faults on its high market share . To me it seems to be saying that the quality of a program is outside the control of the author(s) . re: Opera . As with the mozilla based browsers, yes it can replace IE . Personally I haven't really run into any sites that require IE, but I guess it depends on where you go . If you do run into an IE only site there is the simple choice: either fire up IE (its not like you can remove it anyway, but it does mean you aren't totally replacing it), or hit the back button and go somewhere else . I would choose the latter . Opera is quite different from IE (and NS/moz) and can take a bit of getting used to . But it is a good browser once you get used to it . Personally I started out with netscape 3 and have always found IE awful to use because of I'm used to the netscape . re: Favourites I don't use IE so I don't see a need to keep them in sync with the browser I use . If you aren't using IE regularly then its no real hassle copying and pasting an address into IE . |
bmason (508) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||