5 ms·

Chrome and Firefox both work fine on my copy of XP. So those new features can't be very important.

• dangrossman 14y ago
  Here, learn why so you can form an informed opinion. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/04/why-microsoft-did-the-right-thing-in-ditching-xp-for-ie9/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/04/why-mi... IE10 and Windows 8 are even stronger on the security points. Think of PC security as somewhat akin to vaccination. It only works for everyone when enough people are immunized. Herd immunity, it's called. Your sticking with objectively less secure browsers on objectively less secure platforms hurts us all. It's not something Microsoft should be encouraging, not just from a business or marketing standpoint, but a moral one as well. Oh, and IE10 is objectively faster than Firefox too, thanks to the integration with DirectX 10 which is already compositing everything else on the screen in Windows 7 and 8.
  • digisign 14y ago
    Haha, I use a modern Linux 95% of the time these days, but keep an old box around for testing. I run a very tight ship and that box has never been owned (except for the one morning in ~2004 when the dcom exploit hit). Your implication that I'm a security threat is amusing. The nice technologies the article mentions are operating system level and don't "have to" be tied to the browser. They are using fancy terms to describe security features from the 80's (on more professional systems). "Browsers can't write to the OS to install rootkits"... wow. MS decided not to backport to further corporate goals, fine. But, the idea that IE has to be part of the OS was debunked a decade ago.