I still believe SP3 is a little bit late though
Huh? Sorry, but you just illustrated your biases
and a lack of understanding of the true facts. That's not meant as a criticism, just an observation and I applaud you for asking questions and discussing it. For, sadly, many misconceptions abound, even among experts (who cannot be experts in all things IT).
This thread is about IE - IE9 specifically, not the antiquated XP, or older versions of IE. But clearly, you are holding your prejudices with MS and XP against IE.
You need to let go of the past. Windows 7 is not XP. And XP has nothing to do with (and does not support) IE9.
- SP3 came out more than 3 years ago. More than a year AFTER Vista was released. XP has been superseded twice and you still are complaining about a 2-generation old OS. IE6 was released 10 years ago! And 3 generations back - but you are using XP and IE6 to rationalize your current position on HUGELY UPDATED AND REVISED products.
- XP SP3 was very much like Windows 7 SP1, that is, it was 95% a "roll-up" of all the previous updates. If you had kept your system updated to that point, SP3 made very few changes - although some were significant.
My biggest (only real) problem with the IEs I know, are the incredible hard-to-understand security settings for "untrained" users, especially people who don't speak English fluently.
That just illustrates a lack of familiarity with a product! It is human nature to be more comfortable with something we have become familiar with. Everything has a learning curve. If you were a regular user of IE, FF would seem unfamiliar. But more importantly, you seem to forget the vast majority of users are "untrained" and tend to leave what they don't know alone! And funny thing, have no problems! If you are untrained, you should NOT be dinking with your security settings. The defaults work just fine! But, if you don't understand a setting, Google is your friend.
I do however, disagree to you saying XP firewall is descent or even good, as it only monitors outgoing traffic, to name one
Well, sadly, you obviously believed the bashings and falsehoods of the biased IT media, and the misinformation expertly spewed by the marketing weenies for ZoneAlarm and Norton products. In order for there to be a need to protect from unauthorized outbound access attempts, the malicious code would have to make it all the way past your entire security defenses on the way in!
How could malicious code do that unless you, the user, failed to practice safe computing by not keeping your systems patched, updated, scanned and blocked???
That means the incoming firewall, hopefully a router, and the anti-malware solution all
FAILED to block the malicious code on the way in. How is that possible? Why are they not getting your blame? Well, because, sadly, you obviously believed ZoneAlarm's marketing hype and the fear mongering of the MS bashers.
The malicious code would then have to sit on your computer, totally undetected
for days, weeks, or even months! until activated. And then when activated, remain undetected while it does its dirty deed. And that's a outbound
firewall failing? I don't think so! Again, why not blame the anti-malware solution?
And finally, the vast majority of malicious code attempts to exploit "exposed" and known*
vulnerabilities. How are they exposed? By NOT keeping the systems patched and updated!
So you cannot blame Windows Firewall for failing to catch something THE USER and anti-malware solution clearly FAILED to protect against. That's just wrong. And a moot point anyway. Because Microsoft listened and catered to those complaining and starting with Vista, Windows Firewall has been two-way.
I really enjoy working to make Windows work the way I like it to, but I can imagine other people just want to surf, mail and enjoy themselves, in stead of constantly worrying about their safety.
And surprisingly (not!), Windows 7, IE9, and Windows Firewall, at their default settings
, allow them to do just that. Do NOT be unjustly swayed by what you see in the trenches
. I mentioned the Honda mechanic swamped by broken down Hondas. Same for Windows users. There are nearly 1 billion of them out there - the vast majority are running at default settings without problems.
Aren't we promoting FF & Chrome in most "you are clean" messages?
We better not be! I provided 5-years of proof
showing that would be a mistake and so it surely would be doing our readers a disservice. If that is the case, that needs to be changed. You cannot use security as an excuse to not use IE9. And you cannot use security as justification to use an alternative.
Choosing a browser today is simply a matter of personal preference for the look and feel. It is not about which is better, faster, or more secure. *
Yes, there are zero day exploits where a previously unknown vulnerability is exploited by brand new malware. BUT - how do you get infected by a zero day exploit? By participating in risky practices where badguys are known to launch their new malicious code - risky practices like illegal filesharing via torrents and P2P sites, and visiting illegal porn and gambling sites, or using pirated software. If you, the user, let the badguy in the door, the best and most current security system might as well be turned off.
Maybe I should put it like this: Not everybody is such an awesome TECH as you are Digerati
Ah shucks! Thanks, but you actually illustrate my point. You don't have to be a tech to remain safe. It is just like driving a car - if you keep your car properly maintained, you drive defensively, and you avoid risky practices, you will likely never get into an accident. But should an accident find you, your well maintained car will likely protect you. However, if you participate in risky practices and you visit the wrong parts of town where the badguys wallow, you increase your chances of getting into some serious trouble - regardless what you are driving.
Not to sound sarcastic but what gets my goat are the repeat offenders. They get infected, you spend valuable time cleansing them (well, I don't yet), you teach them and give them the tools to learn to prevent safe surfing practices and they come back blaming it on the world not them selves. I've seen this many times here at GTG and elsewhere.
That's not sarcasm, that's just a sad fact. And many sites refuse to keep wasting time on them after the second time.