5 ms·

I will give it a try if the new browser no longer supports ActiveX and has better extension supports similar to Chrome.

UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
ActiveX isn't a major concern, in current IE if you look in the security tab in the Internet context, it is pretty locked down and damn near depreciated. Intranet is more liberal. But a lot of enterprises add their internal portals to the trusted list if they still depend on ActiveX (as a depressingly large number do). Chrome and Firefox's extensions are better. Although Firefox's extension model is a little clunky due to how old it is (or at least it was last time I used it).
- parag_c_mehta 12y ago
  Yes but a good browser with Chrome's features will be a great alternative. Right now Chrome has become a big memory hog and is slowly going to competition with old IE.
  - benaiah 12y ago
    If you're having memory problems with Chrome, check to see if you have AdBlock Pro installed - it often results in vast amounts of additional memory required for Chrome[0]. I recommend µBlock[1] if you're using Chrome - it works quite well in my experience. [0]: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/182428-ironic-iframes-adblock-plus-is-probably-the-reason-firefox-and-chrome-are-such-memory-hogs http://www.extremetech.com/computing/182428-ironic-iframes-a... [1]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/%C2%B5block/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/%C2%B5block/cjpalh...
- Animats 12y ago
  Chrome and Firefox's extensions are better. Although Firefox's extension model is a little clunky due to how old it is. New-style "Jetpack" add-ons in Firefox and add-ons in Chrome are very similar. I have the same add-on for both platforms, and there's about 80% code commonality. If Microsoft does something reasonably similar, that would be convenient for add-on developers.
- wideroots 12y ago
  If Microsoft kills ActiveX in the new browser, it will force everyone to stop depending on ActiveX. You would be very surprised how many websites outside of the U.S. still depend on ActiveX, and these are critical websites like banking and government. Hence, killing ActiveX support is important to me.
  - contextfree 12y ago
    "Metro" and Windows Phone IE already dumped ActiveX and extension support.
    - Silhouette 12y ago
      Given how unpopular both of those platforms are, I'm not sure you're making a very compelling argument there...
MichaelGG 12y ago
Lack of an addon architecture is what completely killed IE for me. No adblock is a no-go. (It's also the non-idealogical reason I use FF on Android: Chrome is locked down.)
- vcjohnson 12y ago
  Pretty sure IE has an adblock extension
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    Right but as I understand, it uses some binary hacking/undocumented APIs to go about it's job. I also use Vimperator, various tracking blockers, search redirectors (disconnect me for Google search), etc.
    - kalleboo 12y ago
      There are definitely supported APIs for extending IE (starting with IE 4.0 in 1997), but you do have to write native or .NET code, it's not "hack together some javascript and CSS" like Chrome/Safari/Firefox. First couple of Google results: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa744101(v=vs.85).aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa744101(v=vs.85).as... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5643819/developing-internet-explorer-extensions http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5643819/developing-intern...
      - bobbykjack 12y ago
        Why "write native or .NET" but "hack together some javascript and CSS"?
        emn13 12y ago
        Possibly because he knows JS+CSS, but not C, C++ or C#. Or possibly because the API's microsoft proposes are pretty horrible; I've worked on FF and chrome extensions, and I investigated IE support - but IE's extension model is truly terrible. Just take a look at that stackoverflow link you posted. What a mess. I wouldn't mind a clean C++ or .NET api, but the current API certainly isn't that.

ActiveX isn't a major concern, in current IE if you look in the security tab in the Internet context, it is pretty locked down and damn near depreciated. Intranet is more liberal. But a lot of enterprises add their internal portals to the trusted list if they still depend on ActiveX (as a depressingly large number do). Chrome and Firefox's extensions are better. Although Firefox's extension model is a little clunky due to how old it is (or at least it was last time I used it).

parag_c_mehta 12y ago
Yes but a good browser with Chrome's features will be a great alternative. Right now Chrome has become a big memory hog and is slowly going to competition with old IE.
- benaiah 12y ago
  If you're having memory problems with Chrome, check to see if you have AdBlock Pro installed - it often results in vast amounts of additional memory required for Chrome[0]. I recommend µBlock[1] if you're using Chrome - it works quite well in my experience. [0]: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/182428-ironic-iframes-adblock-plus-is-probably-the-reason-firefox-and-chrome-are-such-memory-hogs http://www.extremetech.com/computing/182428-ironic-iframes-a... [1]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/%C2%B5block/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/%C2%B5block/cjpalh...
Animats 12y ago
Chrome and Firefox's extensions are better. Although Firefox's extension model is a little clunky due to how old it is. New-style "Jetpack" add-ons in Firefox and add-ons in Chrome are very similar. I have the same add-on for both platforms, and there's about 80% code commonality. If Microsoft does something reasonably similar, that would be convenient for add-on developers.
wideroots 12y ago
If Microsoft kills ActiveX in the new browser, it will force everyone to stop depending on ActiveX. You would be very surprised how many websites outside of the U.S. still depend on ActiveX, and these are critical websites like banking and government. Hence, killing ActiveX support is important to me.
- contextfree 12y ago
  "Metro" and Windows Phone IE already dumped ActiveX and extension support.
  - Silhouette 12y ago
    Given how unpopular both of those platforms are, I'm not sure you're making a very compelling argument there...

MichaelGG 12y ago

Lack of an addon architecture is what completely killed IE for me. No adblock is a no-go. (It's also the non-idealogical reason I use FF on Android: Chrome is locked down.)

vcjohnson 12y ago
Pretty sure IE has an adblock extension
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  Right but as I understand, it uses some binary hacking/undocumented APIs to go about it's job. I also use Vimperator, various tracking blockers, search redirectors (disconnect me for Google search), etc.
  - kalleboo 12y ago
    There are definitely supported APIs for extending IE (starting with IE 4.0 in 1997), but you do have to write native or .NET code, it's not "hack together some javascript and CSS" like Chrome/Safari/Firefox. First couple of Google results: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa744101(v=vs.85).aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa744101(v=vs.85).as... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5643819/developing-internet-explorer-extensions http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5643819/developing-intern...
    - bobbykjack 12y ago
      Why "write native or .NET" but "hack together some javascript and CSS"?
      - emn13 12y ago
        Possibly because he knows JS+CSS, but not C, C++ or C#. Or possibly because the API's microsoft proposes are pretty horrible; I've worked on FF and chrome extensions, and I investigated IE support - but IE's extension model is truly terrible. Just take a look at that stackoverflow link you posted. What a mess. I wouldn't mind a clean C++ or .NET api, but the current API certainly isn't that.