gizmodo.com — Though Internet Explorer has been panned for lack of web-standard compliance, many are forced to use the browser because of stubborn IT departments. Fortunately, Google has issued its latest "up yours" to Microsoft with the Chrome Frame plug-in for IE.
Sep 23, 2009 View in Crawl 4
cidinhoSep 23, 2009
Instantaneous if you use Chrome :DStill, no Adblock support. Mozilla must be paying developers <<to not>> develop a good adblocker for Chrome.
ohpleaseSep 24, 2009
The real reason an IT department would never let this plugin go in, IE6 or otherwise, is because of the reason I stated above, it would bypass any group policy based security restrictions as they pertain to Javascript. If you reread the article in it entirety you'll see that Gizmodo completely misses that point and thinks that IT departments should be deploying this.
spicychickadeeSep 24, 2009
Yep, I was able to install it as well--I've been using it as my browser for almost three weeks now.
culytSep 26, 2009
Netscape 4.0's code was released as what was basically a last ditch effort to combat IE shipping with Windows, it became Mozilla<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape#Open_sourcing" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape#Open_sourcin ...</a>Granted they redid the code base, so there is not really much Netscape in Firefox.Yes the modern version of Netscape are now Firefox befoure it died. Doesn't change the fact that the technology spawned Firefox.
stoperrorSep 28, 2009
Stubborn IT departments??? Screw you buddy! Try crappy vendor support and an IT department that isn't allowed to make business decisions. Ugh...
sdotbrucatoSep 29, 2009
Would love for me to be the IT guy and for you to say that to my face. As you stated WORK PC.
cozad4Sep 30, 2009
Well actually... yes.
tweeOct 4, 2009
I was using Opera for a few days after Safari kept crapping out on me.. I discovered that Opera can't do dynamic page updates on Facebook (i.e. after posting a comment I have to refresh the page to make sure that it was actually posted)
johnnysoftwareOct 9, 2009
I did a quick fact check - using Google search, of course - on your assertions that IE fixed CSS 2.1.One thing I and a lot of other web developer/programmers have been waiting for Microsoft to fix for a long time was their non-standard CSS box model. This article says IE8 has finally fixed that. <a class="user" href="http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=C9E77" rel="nofollow">http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid ...</a>On the other hand, other web browsers have had this right for ages. CSS 2.1 standard came out a long, long time ago. Many web developers were probably in high school or junior high when the CSS 2.1 standard came out.With all the revenue Microsoft collected for Windows+IE since the CSS 2.1 draft and final recommendations were published by the W3 standards organization, this compliance should have taken place long ago. Companies with far less income did a far better job a lot sooner.One has to wonder why this is the case.
johnnysoftwareOct 12, 2009
I would be interested in knowing what parts of IE and what ActiveX controls they were able to prevent from running. Seems like that is one of the major things about IE that Microsoft has been unable to address - the bad code that runs which has faults in it, which hackers use to carry off exploits against the computer and stuff t he user has - like his bank account.Two things that I would like Google to do to sort of qualify the success/efficacy of this, to show how big of a win it is, is a:1) How many of the CVEs in the last two years would have been prevented if the IE of the time had this Chrome plugin installed?2) Would this Chrome plugin have helped protect users who had money stolen from their bank accounts by that new trojan, that then covers up the losses by displaying fake amounts when they look in their bank account using their web browser.I think people want to know something more about this new component but Google needs to do more to show people, yeah, it is better if you use it. Microsoft (marketing department?) has issued a statement saying that adding more code to IE makes it more dangerous, implying that nothing you add makes it less dangerous.The ball is in Google's court to show what dangers they have removed They have to be pretty precise. A hand wave or generalization will not do it. If the current Chrome component from IE cannot address known problems, then it seems like a neat-sounding peace of technology. It might be able to do cooler things. But it's not a life preserver yet and people really want a life preserver.
xxnirvanaxxOct 12, 2009
@Black27696: It's not a good solution to leave out 90% of the browser market.
ethergnatOct 12, 2009
"You can't make almost 100% of your profits from ads."Of course you can. There might be limits to how much profit you can make, but you can still do it. "Broadcast companies are different."The only difference I see is that Google has a much more effective way to measure how successful their ads are compared to broadcast TV.