digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at blogs.chron.com

Ah, the Irony! Microsoft says Safari isn't Safe on Windows

blogs.chron.com — Apple's been making hay in its Mac vs. PC ads about Windows' security & malware problems. But now that Apple's playing in Microsoft's sandbox with a Windows version of the Safari Web browser, the worm has turned. According to Microsoft, the Windows version of Safari has a bug that's been dubbed the "carpet bombing" flaw.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • SniperZero, on 06/01/2008, -139/+7I was expecting it to be firefox not safari...
    • hungryduck, on 06/01/2008, -0/+39Why?
    • Hefelumpman, on 06/01/2008, -0/+19Did you read the title???
    • jabberwolf, on 06/01/2008, -3/+8Firefox is actually safe!
      The is a point that PROGRAMS can be made to leave gaping holes in even the most secure OSes.

      A badly written program is what MS is complaining about - yes ironic - but true on BOTH sides.
      • t0x2c, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2Actually, Ironic means something completely the opposite of what was expected. In this case, it is NOT ironic.
    • SniperZero, on 06/02/2008, -3/+1Well because microsoft would do anything to get firefox out of the picture safari isn't as popular on windows as firefox is.
  • 10goto10, on 06/01/2008, -37/+800This is bad news for all eleven Safari-on-Windows users!
    • nevermind13, on 06/01/2008, -27/+92It would have been eleven if Apple hadn't forced it on every person who had itunes.
      • Ajajadude, on 06/01/2008, -21/+6Don't like it, switch to something else like Winamp that's perfectly capable of interacting with the iPod. Want to download music? Use another service like Amazon's.
        • nevermind13, on 06/01/2008, -5/+32Who said I have it installed? I use neither itunes or safari, but I've seen many PC's with Safari on it and the user has no idea how they got it, that's the problem.
        • oneoverzero, on 06/01/2008, -5/+4Honestly though, Amazon's service kinda sucks.

          Not that iTunes is much better.

        • jakem1, on 06/01/2008, -3/+9The point is that you shouldn't have to. I also think that that's expecting quite a bit from iPod users...after all, they're not the most thoughtful people are they.
        • haydesigner, on 06/01/2008, -5/+5@nevermind13: "I've seen many PC's with Safari on it and the user has no idea how they got it, that's the problem."

          Doesn't that say MUCH more about the user, and not Apple?
      • V3NOM, on 06/01/2008, -2/+32I just denied the Safari download when Apple Update tried to give it to me. It hasn't tried to install Safari since...
      • winampman2, on 06/01/2008, -5/+6Well, to be fair, now they've changed it to two categories: "Updates" and "New Software", and Safari is listed under "New Software" so every user knows what they're installing.
      • bkemper, on 06/01/2008, -15/+6They didn't force it on anybody. Anyone who says they did so is either lying or a complete moron.
    • azbmr, on 06/01/2008, -1/+36As a web developer, I have Safari installed for the brief moments that I need to make sure it is rendering my pages correctly.
      • tiberone, on 06/01/2008, -26/+7I honestly don't care if my pages look terrible in Safari...if they want to use the internet, they can get a half-decent browser.
        • iDiggIt42, on 06/01/2008, -7/+11Actually, on Macs, Safari is a half-decent browser. That's mainly since Firefox runs fairly slowly (although FF3 is a lot better at that), though.
        • skidooer, on 06/01/2008, -4/+18WebKit has pretty much become the defacto standard for rendering engines. Even if you don't like Safari, there are hundreds of other browsers that use the exact same engine.
        • nevermind13, on 06/01/2008, -9/+1If you want to blame the user then fine. But don't pretend for a second that Apple didn't realize that by auto checking the box 99% of people were going to hit the update button and install it, not realizing they were getting a new piece of software. That is deceitful and companies should know better.
        • azbmr, on 06/01/2008, -4/+9@iDiggIt42 - Safari is/was the largest known vulnerability of OSX. It was how that guy hacked the Air in 2 minutes. You know, during that contest a month or three back.
        • dood, on 06/01/2008, -0/+16Be aware that a significant number of people use Safari. The stats I am looking at put Safari at #3, with about 3.5% of the hits. That may not sound like much, but ask your boss if it's OK to ignore 3.5% of the population, heh.
        • tiberone, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Ah yes if I had a boss then of course I would consider the Safari users; I'm not saying they count for an insignificant portion of internet users at all.

          But I just make sites for ***** and giggles, so it really doesn't matter in my case.
      • WhereAmI, on 06/02/2008, -3/+2I don't even do that for my web pages, I just use Konqueror. Not the same thing but what I'll piss off 10 people that use Safari anywhere?
        • azbmr, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1Wait, what? Your website(s) must not actually be consumer oriented. You would risk alienating a large portion of (most) Mac users? I use Linux and Windows, but I understand that there are some that use Macs.
    • soopertoll, on 06/01/2008, -2/+6it's at LEAST 48 "S.O.W."-Users! AT LEAST!
    • Lutremi, on 06/01/2008, -3/+18I'm one of the eleven. Shoot me.
    • cynicalcheeto, on 06/01/2008, -5/+5And they all go to the same Apple store wishing their parents hadn't bought them Dells.
      • geoken, on 06/01/2008, -2/+8No, they sit in their rooms writing emo poems about how lame their parents are.
      • aznpwnzor, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1and pretending that by having a mac you know how to use one and are very exprienced in technobabble
    • drakethegreat, on 06/01/2008, -4/+3Make that 12 cause I use it for testing without having to load up a seperate mac....
      • quantumstatejim, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1But do you browse the web with it. I can hardly see any security problems with it when I check out compatibility in the latest website I have been writing, Unless I have been writing a carpet bombing script of course :p.
  • estvir, on 06/01/2008, -64/+374At least this is /real/ and not full of lies like Apple's ads.

    For the petty people who will try and paint Microsoft as doing something wrong here and to release Apple of all blame, here's a third-party source speaking of why Apple must fix the flaw immediately:

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1212
    • thushan, on 06/01/2008, -6/+48what i found even more absurd was the response their "security pro's" gave back:

      src: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/31/microsoft_ ...

      "Apple's security pros, upon learning of the so-called carpet bombing vulnerability, said they didn't see it as a significant threat. A researcher in Cupertino wrote to Dhanjani that it may get fixed at some point down the road as "a further measure to raise the bar against unwanted downloads," but said it could take a quite a while, if ever, for that to happen."

      Sounds like a Mactard of a researcher... I think Apple needs a kick in the pants for such an attitude.
      • oneoverzero, on 06/01/2008, -16/+3Microsoft hasn't exactly been stellar when it comes to fixing security issues in a timely fashion.

        Not that that's any defense for apple. Just because your competitors do something poorly doesn't give you the right to do the same.
        • jakem1, on 06/01/2008, -4/+17Actually, Microsoft are now very good at correcting security flaws as quickly as possible and they have the stats to prove it. They generally trounce Apple and, to a lesser extent, the Linux community
        • usingpond, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2ahahahahahahahaha the fact that you have any diggs at all pretty much sums up the entire comments section of this post.
      • gsmaverick, on 06/01/2008, -5/+7Security by obscurity, only works for so long. But they don't get that that time has now expired.
      • celkin, on 06/01/2008, -2/+6A pro-MS anti-Apple Digg?

        Fair enough. I guess 2007's been over for quite some time.
    • Clark, on 06/01/2008, -13/+8Apple ad's aren't lies, per se. They're more like stretched truth or sweeping generalizations about the Mac platform.
      • usingpond, on 06/01/2008, -11/+1Yep, so when Microsoft says it, it must be true.

        Hey here's a CRAZY IDEA: These companies just want your ***** money so they all lie to you, pretty much all the time. Get a ***** grip.
      • jabberwolf, on 06/01/2008, -2/+12Deception or telling part of the truth - is in the end - a LIE!

        And apple does this feverishly to try and sell the next tards that take the bate - their LIE!
        • otbeverly, on 06/01/2008, -2/+0Take their bate? As in mastur(bate)?
    • Rekoil, on 06/01/2008, -3/+18Apple fanboi here, and I'm not impressed with how Apple is handling this issue. I can partially understand how this is not a security issue since on the Mac platform they don't have to worry about virii. But when it stretches over to the Windows platform the problem should be immediately escalated in my opinion. An option to have Safari ask for approval would be nice, and if implemented, should be default.

      I use Firefox by the way, and forcing Safari on Windows users was another dick move by Apple.

      Please stop disappointing us like this Apple! =[
      • Laminarcissus, on 06/01/2008, -2/+10The first reason the Mac doesn't have as serious a virus problem as windows is because it has a 4.5% market share. No one bothers.

        And I think we're finding out the second reason. When a security flaw is discovered, Apple just says it isn't one and ignores it.
        • jeriqo, on 06/01/2008, -9/+3I don't think this is true. Macs are probably as much targeted as Windows machines : making the first Mac worm would make you much more famous than making Windows' 38th worm.
        • Laminarcissus, on 06/01/2008, -1/+12This isn't 1993, fame is not the issue. Viruses are written for monetary gain - to steal identities and build botnets. When money's at stake you spend your time coding for the 96 percent, not the 4 percent.
        • xtraa, on 06/01/2008, -7/+2It is not about the marketshare, and I will prove this to you quick:

          There were lots of virii for OS8 and OS9. Today, you can add the internet, double the users and there is still no virus for OSX.

          Marketshare has nothing to do with it. Also, you took the complete market, means industry. Check out the marketshare for the low-brow homeusers, which are not hardfirewalled behind a dmz. And still there is no virus.

          The question is: Is there a thread that we do not know or is this just wishful conspiracy thinking of some security windows-fanbois?
          eot
        • Laminarcissus, on 06/02/2008, -2/+5I'm afraid you're making my point. From CERT and elsewhere:

          "Apple has released Mac OS X v10.5.3 and Security Update 2008-003 to address multiple vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities affect a number of applications, libraries and the kernel. Exploitation of these vulnerabilities may allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code, access the system with escalated privileges, obtain sensitive information, conduct cross-site scripting attacks or cause a denial-of-service condition."

          The kernel (kernel!) was wide open for God sake, yet, as you say, not one virus.

          Why? It obviously isn't because the OS was secure. It's because no one is paying attention. No one is probing it for vulnerabilities. Everyone is looking to where their time is best spent -- the other 96 percent.

          It's like leaving a cabin door unlocked in the middle of the woods. Security through (market) obscurity.
        • supermanred, on 06/02/2008, -5/+1You clearly have no clue what Unix is. By your logic, all major banks and credit card companies would be running Windows Server.

          Not bloodly likely. Most run some flavor of Unix, in fact many banks run OS X server.
        • chris1012, on 06/02/2008, -3/+3The reason there are no outcries of viruses on mac's is because almost every mac user doesn't have an anti-virus installed and so when there is a virus, they never know about it.

          My girlfriend uses a mac and when ever it comes to discussion about viruses she is always quick to point out that macs don't get viruses. I am always quick to reply saying something along the lines of "no, you don't have any anti-virus to point out and tell you that you have one or not, you're system is in the dark and could be loaded with viruses and spyware and you may never know it until it acts weird and even then will probably blame it on something else".

          Anyways my point is, there are viruses out there for mac but no one lets on or knows because mac users cant be bothered with preemptive action against any threats... one day mac users will fall because they apparently don't give ***** about security vulnerabilities.

          I also hope the mac guy from the commercial gets run over by a car, i hate those ads so much.
        • Laminarcissus, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2@supermanred:

          Banks using OS X? Really? Are they installing it on their iMac farms? Tell me, why would they use a server OS that even Apple describes as for "small businesses and workgroups" to run their systems?

          Or maybe you meant that it was for their workgroups? Well heck that could be true, since we all know that if there's one industry Apple has high market share in it's banking. Apple is huge in banking.

          Or, if they wanted FreeBSD why wouldn't they use the version that's, well, free? Or Redhat Enterprise? Or Debian, all of which the big boys actually do use?

          Or the more important question: why do I have to type this stuff?
      • bkemper, on 06/01/2008, -9/+4This notion that Apple forced Safari on all iTunes users is urban legend. They offered a choice, with plenty of opportunities to avoid the choice.
        • estvir, on 06/02/2008, -1/+6Urban legend? Wow. There was a thinly veiled 'choice' which most people would not see and it was offered with a software UPDATER, not a software INSTALLER.
      • Archer007, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2There's no such thing as "virii".
        • Laminarcissus, on 06/01/2008, -2/+4You can't say that definitively. Virii has been in common use on the Net for some time now, it's not specifically etymologically incorrect (because the etymology of "virus" is indistinct at best), and it's not like variants of the base word have a long and distinguished history - "viral" was only used for the first time in 1948.

          So I wouldn't be so quick to appoint yourself He Who Locks Down the Language quite yet.
      • DarkShroud, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5Vista users can just keep UAC turned on and nothing will be able to execute at least. So that solves half the problem there.
        • aaron552, on 06/02/2008, -2/+1ummmm...
          I think you'll find that UAC isn't as secure as you think. UAC prompts only appear when administrator rights are required. What if the malware in question runs as a normal user? No UAC, that's what.
          Also, who ever really pays attention to UAC prompts?
        • DarkShroud, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1When UAC is turned on it blocks ALL installations. That's it's purpose, to be a stop all to give users full control over what installs into their system. On accounts that do not have Administrator status it then requires an Administrator account & password.

          Recent tests showed the UAC was able to block all rootkits from installing as well.

          So why don't you do some research next time instead of spouting off stupid things like this.
        • pyrates, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2@aaaron552 And OS X's permissions based escalation prompt behaves exactly the same way as UAC. If something doesn't need admin privileges, then it just runs without asking as the user who is logged in.
    • Laminarcissus, on 06/01/2008, -2/+4It occurs to me that there's only one reason Apple wouldn't pledge to fix this the minute it was discovered: they want it for something.

      Apple clearly has something in mind that involves putting links on the desktop whenever they want, and patching Safari to prompt users would get in the way of those plans
      • ekula, on 06/01/2008, -4/+1/sarcasm
      • jeriqo, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3You're stupid.
        They already got a program running on your computer. They ***** don't need to exploit safari if they want to install things on your computer.
  • mikefitz2, on 06/01/2008, -77/+60Why is this ironic? Windows is one of the safest operating systems out there. This is what you get for putting a second rate browser on a decent OS.
    • JEWestbrookJR, on 06/01/2008, -34/+22HAHA! That's hysterical.

      I'm not going to defend Safari on Windows, because yes... it is *****. But Windows is in the ***** pile too.

      Whether you're using Windows, Mac, or Linux, Firefox FTW. But Safari on Mac is better than IE on Windows any day of the week.

      But I run all three OS's and use all three pretty much equally and safari and IE are both McLame compared to Firefox.

      Oh, also... please tell me where Apple lies on their ads and site your sources pour favor.
      • Vich, on 06/01/2008, -4/+24Apple just make sweeping statements that don't make sense like "windows is for business, not fun" despite the fact that windows is pretty much the only pc gaming platform. And that "everything just works on a mac" when they have an exclusive and restrictive set of hardware and software.
        • JEWestbrookJR, on 06/01/2008, -12/+5Right, I think you kind of missed the point of the "windows is for business" campaign. They were implying that Mac is better for creativity, not necessarily all aspects of "fun". And they are specific in talking about web design and photo management.

          And when you say "...'everything just works on a mac' when they have an exclusive and restrictive set of hardware and software." You aren't contradicting their statement. They say everything works on a mac, not mac software works on everything else. All of my periphs integrate with my mac and my linux box in a pretty streamlined way. With windows, even if it detects the hardware, a lot of time you still have to download a driver to get full functionality. When you will only allow your OS to be run on machines that contain hardware that you have vigorously tested, you are going to end up with a lot higher hardware reliability.
        • Optimaximal, on 06/01/2008, -3/+12"They were implying that Mac is better for creativity, not necessarily all aspects of "fun". And they are specific in talking about web design and photo management."

          Which we all know is bollocks anyway. Macs have been no 'better' than a Windows PC for productivity since XP became a stable OS all of 4 years ago and Adobe/Macromedia started putting out hybrid discs. It's just the graphic design industry showing off that they are all overpaid.
        • Syphon8, on 06/01/2008, -3/+8The point of it was trying to use blatant lies to people they want to switch. They never show off the features of Macs (excluding Time Machine, which is a feature Vista already had.) instead saying Windows doesn't do these things and just sweeping around saying Vista is bad.
        • JEWestbrookJR, on 06/01/2008, -2/+8I can see what you people are saying, and don't get me wrong, I'm not just some apple clone. I genuinely use and enjoy all three OS's. I just understand all three of them have their strong points and their weaknesses and "being safe" definitely isn't the advantage of Windows. It's primary advantages are probably gaming, familiarity, and compatibility with most of your peers.

          I can agree that some statements in the apple ads are a little over-dramatic, but I wouldn't really say that they lie. I don't think macs are "just the graphic design industry showing off that they are overpaid". I work with Adobe creative software on both systems. They run a lot smoother on my basic macbook than they do on my dual core 64 bit 5900+, 6gig of ram, XP pro box. I know you can do that stuff on Windows, it just isn't as reliable for that functionality. And tablets seem to work much better with Mac than Windows.
        • GawtMilk, on 06/01/2008, -3/+4Yeah, Syphon. I agree. Time Machine is such a hyped feature, but I customized this second hand Dell M1530 by installing a 320GB 5200RPM hard drive myself. I think pretty much every file that's ever been on this computer, regardless of whether of deleted it, is still here.

          As you probably know, when you "delete" a file on a computer, it's not really deleted. It's just hidden, and the space on the drive is marked "okay to overwrite". With Vista, the parts that are overwritten first are the ones that are the oldest.

          What does this mean? Even after you delete a file accidentally, it'll remain there for as long as possible due to the smart HDD management by Vista. I purposefully deleted my 6.1GB Crysis installation folder [ripped from the DVD] off of my desktop around two weeks ago, as I had already installed it. Two days ago, I decided to reinstall it on my other computer. I went to my account's folder in explorer, right clicked "Desktop", and restored the Crysis folder from the backup Vista made automatically. Not a single file missing, the install completed on the other computer. This is without the need for a second HDD in RAID or using an external and time-consuming backups. It's a truly awesome operating system.

          I use this computer for school, photography, web design, and gaming.
        • haydesigner, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3"They never show off the features of Macs (excluding Time Machine, which is a feature Vista already had.) instead saying Windows doesn't do these things and just sweeping around saying Vista is bad."

          Clarify for me please... are these advertisements we are talking about, or tutorials?
    • tschau, on 06/01/2008, -1/+16Saying something is one of the safest operating systems out there doesn't mean much... I mean unless we're counting linux releases (and like your general statement of "Windows" I also choose not to), there aren't really so many major OSs that it could not be "one of the safest."
      • JEWestbrookJR, on 06/01/2008, -9/+6Well the funny thing is that Windows is the LEAST safe. Nothing else is so vulnerable to spyware and viruses. There are UNIX viruses, but the chances of getting one are EXTREMELY slim.

        Don't get me wrong, I use windows every day. (about my only option for COD4). But it's definitely NOT the safest OS... not even close.
        • Syphon8, on 06/01/2008, -2/+1DOS?
        • Optimaximal, on 06/01/2008, -2/+5Vista is a lot safer than previous versions of Windows. Largely because they neutered Internet Explorer and introduced the UAC nag-console.
        • JEWestbrookJR, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3@Optimaximal I agree that it is safer, but I don't like my computer to treat me like it is babysitting a 3-year-old. They need to implement some sort of gauge where you can tell Vista your level of computer knowledge instead of just having the UAC on or off.
        • GawtMilk, on 06/01/2008, -2/+2I disabled UAC, but I don't know why it gets so much flak. When I was installing a shady program, although it could've been a more mainstream one like "Daemon Tools", it said something along the lines of "install mvp.dialer.32" confirm/deny. It does a great job of stopping threats, it's just annoying to have to confirm a drag and drop.

          There should really be multiple levels of UAC. There are some times that I'll voluntarily turn it on -- like if I'm installing or downloading something from a source I don't especially trust.

          Opening up that .exe you just torrented is another time I employ UAC. It's pretty much just common sense.
        • bluntphallus, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1JEWestbrookJR, try this:
          1) secpol.msc
          2) Local Policies -> Security Options
          3) Change "User Account Control: Behavior of the elevation prompt for administrators in Admin Approval Mode" to "Elevate without prompting."

          This way, you keep UAC enabled and bypass the Allow/Cancel prompts. This means you still get the registry and file virtualisation. Of course, if you're running on a standard user account, this won't work unfortunately.
        • Syphon8, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3@JEWestBrook, that is actually an awesome idea. Maybe have a little computing quiz while Vista is installing an automatically set it at the end.
    • czeman, on 06/01/2008, -7/+15You forgot the sarcasm tags, didn't you?
    • miguelandres, on 06/01/2008, -4/+3*****
    • waspbr, on 06/01/2008, -2/+12You can understand the irony if you consider that pretty much most of Apple's advertisements are about bashing windows and Microsoft.
    • championchap, on 06/01/2008, -6/+5So everyone missed the Irony of Mikes post then huh?
    • addictedd, on 06/01/2008, -5/+1lol.
    • cynicalcheeto, on 06/01/2008, -6/+0Oh, man. I am so sorry nobody understands sarcasm here.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/01/2008, -6/+3Actually - it is, so why is he being buried?

      Its not like it's an opinion - trials and hack competitions have shown that XP and Vista are fare more secure than OSX.

      Linux is safe but maybe that's because the 3rd party programs are not plentiful enough for gaping holes like there are for XP and Vista to worry about. - That's basically how Vista was hacked - an exploit through a 3rd party vendor/program.


      Why are tards so afraid of facts?
      • haydesigner, on 06/02/2008, -2/+3@jabberwolfjabberwolf: "Its not like it's an opinion - trials and hack competitions have shown that XP and Vista are fare more secure than OSX."

        Oh ha ha ha ha aha ha!
        Wait... you're serious? Really? Apart from the fact that you post NO evidence supporting that ludicrous claim, you are also apparently ignoring ALL the security experts and companies out there? Wow. Takes some real hubris.

        And then you top it off by actually typing "tards". Pathetic.
  • u8eR, on 06/01/2008, -36/+81I don't think this will last long on the front page of Digg.
    • goofygarber, on 06/01/2008, -0/+8That didn't work out...
    • u8eR, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1I'd much rather be wrong about it anyway.
    • ChillEnt, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1You're right. The Top 10 list is more suitable.
  • moocow1452, on 06/01/2008, -9/+47The use of words expressing something than their literal intention, now that IS irony!
  • AndrewDB, on 06/01/2008, -23/+239Anyone want to take a guess how soon until Apple says Windows isn't safe on PCs?
    • Optimaximal, on 06/01/2008, -5/+41"Windows is not compatible with our Safari Browser. Users are encouraged to upgrade to an Apple Mac iMac, Mac mini or Macbook and experience the web how we think you should...

      **WARNING** Not compatible with SSL Proxy Servers"
    • pantone286, on 06/01/2008, -3/+26"And the same thing goes for all of you windows users who are complaining about itunes and quick time. They don't really suck. You just need to buy an imac. " - Steve Jobs - inventor of the iphone.
      • ek3s, on 06/01/2008, -3/+6Office works flawlessly on my Mac.
        • supermanred, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2Here too. 18 months, no crashes. OS running faster than when I bought the damn machine (due to Leopard upgrade)...

          People really should try out Unix based OSes... I love linux, but I prefer OS X for its reliable drivers, etc.
        • quantumstatejim, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1@supermanred

          You mention OS X with it's reliable drivers. I have not heard of many problems with Linux drivers other than the ones which have not been written for some devices. And this cannot really count because OS X drivers have a very limited range of hardware. If you check out which hardware works with linux and buy that then you won't have any problems in the same way you buy hardware for a mac which works specifically for a mac.
      • aznpwnzor, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1That's the problem with macs Apple is so ffocused on making sure its software and hardware work seamlessly to fool inexperienced users into thinking that Apple software is a fix-all that Apple software has trouble with other software and hardware, once out of the pearly gates of the Apple specified/put together hardware, Apple software falls apart.
    • Archer007, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Now?
    • idavidtang, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/Wind ...
    • DesdinovaEL, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Theyve been saying that since they released boot camp.
  • alantocheri, on 06/01/2008, -45/+13Big surprise that Microsoft's solution is to add the option to ASK THE USER AGAIN if they're sure they want to download something.

    "Are you sure, you're sure? I'm really going to do it this time. I'm not joking. Positive?"

    Maybe a timed solution would work. 5 downloads started within 1 second of themselves makes Safari come up with a warning?
    • MrPig, on 06/01/2008, -2/+8That wasn't "Microsoft's solution" read the article.
  • AppleGeorge, on 06/01/2008, -8/+115I don't mind Safari on Mac, but on Windows it doesn't feel the same. I use Firefox and Safari on Mac, and Firefox on Windows.
    • nebkiwi, on 06/01/2008, -3/+37I agree, all the software that apple makes for windows seems to suck, and just be generally be buggy and horrible, whereas the mac counterparts seem to be quite nice..
      • JonLatane, on 06/01/2008, -4/+13Well, just remember, before you complain about *free* software made by Apple for a competing OS, that Microsoft's several-hundred-dollar Office for Mac, even the 2008 version, is a buggy, un-integrated, slow PoS. And this applies to pretty much all the other software they put out for Mac as well. Their Windows Media component actually has to TRANSCODE the video to a readable format before playing (or it can do it as the video plays, but you lose the ability to advance far in the video quickly). Thank heavens for VLC.
      • tama00, on 06/01/2008, -4/+1thats because apple use the c# with microsofts .net libaray to create the applications. This gives them the feel of an apple application because they can have more options to change the appearance of the window in the borders and colours etc.

        Now Microsofts c# is as slower than Java! (yes it is google it if you dont believe me) thats also because everything you code in c# is also turned into bytecode like java has! But java has more experience with it. Just fire up windows live messenger and see how slow and unresponsive it is on the latest core2duo.

        So apple programs plus c# in bytecode = slowness bugginess and lameness

        • mikehc, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Sir you have no idea what you are talking about.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/01/2008, -10/+1Yeah Quicktime can't play fullscreen on windows. You have to use VLC or "Quicktime Alternative".
      Which is probably why people don't P2P .mov movies.
      • hotsoda, on 06/01/2008, -1/+8QuickTime actually can play fullscreen now. That doesn't make it any less crappy though.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Lol I was talking about not updating quicktime on an earlier thread. Looks like I should have. Nice.
        • aaron552, on 06/02/2008, -1/+0ZOMG!!! *downloads quicktime*
          Now my life is complete!!!!!!111oen
          /sarcasm
      • zdiggler, on 06/01/2008, -9/+2Mine all itune free, quicktime free.

        Quictime is annoying. always want to update whenever I play a movie. I just don't like i tune. soo limited.

        I use a file manager to play my tunes and my MP3 player is DRM free, it shows up as USB Mass Storage and, right click and copy what I want.
    • Papajohn56, on 06/01/2008, -4/+3it just too bad the stable version of firefox for windows has a gaping huge memory leak
      • 0011002, on 06/01/2008, -4/+3FF3 is stable and no memory leak
        • Papajohn56, on 06/01/2008, -1/+4it's not the official stable release.
        • FlippinKris, on 06/01/2008, -1/+0I believe Papajohn56 was refering to FF2.
        • 0011002, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3I know he was and I was referring to FF3 RC1 it may not be final release but it works great
      • aaron552, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0Look at the alternatives to firefox:
        Internet Exploder
        SaFAILri
        and...
        Opera

        Which do you choose?
    • chukd, on 06/01/2008, -2/+1I personally don't like Safari and I am a long time Mac user. It functions but lacks some key things. The most irritating is the the limited adjustments you can make to the toolbar. How hard is it to add a new tab button for a toolbar?
      • supermanred, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2However, thats part of the reason it works pretty much flawlessly 99% of the time. Same for Mail.

        By the time I open up Outlook at work I would already have checked my email and CLOSED mail on the Mac.
  • 0260, on 06/01/2008, -20/+114not a security issue? what else is apple "not treating as a security issue" that they are not telling us?
    • xsidekick409, on 06/01/2008, -26/+7Your mom's backdoor.
      • AmnioticEntity, on 06/01/2008, -5/+2stop digging him down, it really is a security issue!
    • nedzalife, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2a lot. just recently there was that security company that found a severe hole in OSX, told Apple about it, in which Apple replied it'd be fixed in May. Now the security company has release the details of the exploit cause Apple failed to deliver on their word and patch the security vulnerability. if apple isn't careful about their lack of response to these security issues, they'll become the biggest hypocrite in IT since Comcast's P2P blocking lies.
  • superior1, on 06/01/2008, -22/+6the most important thing safari needs to have, if it doesnt already, is the _ [ ] X in the top right corner...any other design flaws can be ignored
    • notoneofus, on 06/01/2008, -4/+1In the upper left on Safari. I don't see the need, though. I never use the mouse to close a window anyway. The keyboard is so much faster.
      • olddirtycr, on 06/01/2008, -3/+13Just because you don't see a need, doesn't mean other people don't. Contrary to popular belief, the world does NOT revolve around you.
        • notoneofus, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2No, superior1 said it was the most important feature, and I disagree.

          And, if popular belief was that the world revolved around me, then wouldn't it be true?
    • TheCoreh, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5Just like the Windows version of iTunes, it does.
    • championchap, on 06/01/2008, -0/+6It already has this on windows?
      It always did.

      Stop commenting on browsers you have never used.
      • superior1, on 06/01/2008, -4/+0why would i use safari if there exists firefox (especially after this article)? next time try to detect the sarcasm in the comment.
  • SOS84, on 06/01/2008, -63/+60How long until Job's Mob is out in force and this article has a disclaimer attached to it? Apple is the punchline to a bad joke, always has been, always will be. OSX is no safer or more stable than Windows.
    • frogstomp19, on 06/01/2008, -14/+35actually, OSX's UNIX core is much "safer" then windows. What I don't understand about Apple is why people pay 1.2-1.5x the price for their proprietary machines when they can get a linux box -- which is built around the same UNIX core -- for .8x cost.

      Oh yeah, and when the apple fanboys start finding this article... prepare to be dugg down into oblivion.
      -(ubuntu ftw)-
      • SOS84, on 06/01/2008, -3/+17Unless I am playing a game, Ubuntu all the way. Love it.
      • bilbohicks, on 06/01/2008, -9/+16Uh because you can actually run industry-standard software on a Mac?
        • supermanred, on 06/02/2008, -3/+1Yes. Yes you can. And the drivers are awesome. And even a novice can install software on it without ***** the system up, unlike most flavors of "Linux"
        • aaron552, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1Since when can a novice "***** the system up" by installing software? Even my mum says that installing stuff in ubuntu is way easier than in windows
      • sudowrestler, on 06/01/2008, -4/+15Nothing against Linux, I've used it off and on since it was in its infancy (early 90s), but it doesn't compare to OS X. Unix core, sure, but all the stuff built on top of that core (Aqua, Cocoa, the Frameworks, everything that came from NeXT), the attention to both functional and aesthetic detail, the level of system-wide interoperability, and so on, put OS X in a class of its own. Not to mention the Mac software world, which generally produces nicer stuff than you can find on the other platforms. And the fact that the machines are well-made and attractive. So, if your question wasn't simply rhetorical, and you actually want to know why someone would be willing to pay somewhat more for a Mac, those are some of the reasons. My reasons, anyway. If OS X were completely open source I don't think there'd be too many people left running Linux.
        • Frustian, on 06/01/2008, -6/+1OSX will never be open source, and OSX is not better than Linux (You may prefer one over the other, but OSX is not 100% unarguably better than Linux)

          Not to mention you are completely missing the point about Linux.

          Also, I find the Linux interface to be a lot better than OSX's (both functionally and aesthectically), maybe you have only seen 10 year old versions of Linux.

          Mac if you want the computer to do everything for you, and everything you do/make to look the exact same as everybody else who uses a mac. (I find it funny how the 'creative' OS pretty much forces you to use the same templates that everybody else uses to burn dvds/effects in iMovie/etc)
          Linux if you like computers, and customizing everything for what you need.
      • oneoverzero, on 06/01/2008, -5/+10There was a point when i had a lot of fun with the whole 'oh! why doesn't this work, let me fix it!' kinda thing. but now-a-days, It just bugs me when things don't work quite right, so i use mac OS almost exclusively.
        • doctordbx, on 06/01/2008, -4/+1I have an iMac as one of my machines (in fact, I am using it now).

          I also use Firefox on it, as Safari IMHO, is a piece of stinking dog *****.
      • MtheoryX, on 06/01/2008, -4/+3OH HAI!

        [citation needed]

        KTHXBYE!

        /ignorant *****
      • linuxos77, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3While I love Linux (all the distros).... They just don't have the polish/finish of OSX, not to mention the software library. Sorry but Banshee is NOT an iTunes replacement.... GIMP, while great, doesn't have the power of Photoshop. Linux is awesome for a server... and likely the best OS in my opinion.... but once you start talking about the desktop experience OSX wins hands down. I don't have the time to tweak the linux desktop to work like it should anymore, it's Apple for our home machine now.
        • quantumstatejim, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1I personally prefer amarok to itunes nut this is more user preference than anything else. There is not so much difference in a lot of the applications as far as I can see. I agree that GIMP doesn't have the power of photoshop but you can now run photoshop on linux via wine. It isn't quite as good an experience as on OS x but it works. And with many of the modern linux distros you don't need to do a whole lot of tweaking before it will run.
      • noseeme, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4Darwin != Linux
      • Oea420, on 06/01/2008, -3/+2Sorry dude, Linux is only free is your time is worth nothing.
    • arkaycee, on 06/01/2008, -2/+13You're becoming right of late, at least as to "no safer or more stable than Windows." I'm not sure why you think it's merely "the punchline to a bad joke" though. I still find OSX to be the winner in ease-of-use, true standards compliance (rather than Microsoft's way of trying to force standards that have wiggle-room in them, and then using that wiggle-room to make their products stay proprietary), and ability to get things done with what's included in the OS.

      Plus, it's the BIG winner if you (like me) support linux and unix systems for a living. The solution to too many things on a Windows sytem is "run cygwin."

      And of the "big three" (Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux), the only one that can legally run the other two fully (well I've not hit any problems of late) is the Mac -- I have virtualized Windows XP and Ubuntu on my Mac and can run programs in all three under Parallels or VMWare (I have both, my jury's still out on what I like better overall).
      • brettmurf, on 06/01/2008, -4/+5The legal defense is dumb as hell. You can run the other two on your Mac because they have no problems with using it on any machines. It is Apple with OS X that won't let you run it on anything else. So that should be a point AGAINST your Mac, not for.
        • arkaycee, on 06/01/2008, -2/+0Perhaps dumb as hell in a philosophical sense, but smart as hell in an everyday sense when work provides the machine and you have to stay in legal compliance; people have lost their jobs for running improperly-licensed software, and businesses have been sued and lost money. And I like the MacBook Pro hardware just fine for my needs. I run Windows when I want to play a game or two, or test out some Windows-only software just for fun; I run linux when I want to test something written for linux to be sure it will run, and I mostly just run Mac OS X.
      • jakem1, on 06/01/2008, -3/+8Are you kidding me? Apple put the capital P in Proprietary.
        • arkaycee, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0and they took it back out again from everything but the GUI. And you can run open source apps without the GUI if you want to, in fact you can run with the free, open-source X Windows within (it's not installed by default, but it's on the installation DVD).
        • supermanred, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1More of OS X is open source than Windows.
      • zdiggler, on 06/01/2008, -3/+3LOL.. You're emulating to make your PC more useful.

        I have no desire to emulate Mac on my PC its already useful!

        My windows PC does everything I want to do! If it does't I can make it!

        • geniusj, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2Perhaps both of you do not demand the same things from your machines. Cygwin simply is not a good substitute for a real "Unix core" like what OS X has. If that's what he demands of his machine, I'm not surprised that he favors OS X as his primary OS.
    • fugazied, on 06/01/2008, -2/+3Stating that a UNIX based OS is no safer than windows just demonstrates your lack of knowledge in the area of computer science.
      • gcnaddict, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1How so? Back your statement up., because right now, there's no reason for the uninformed to believe you.
    • aznpwnzor, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2HEAR HEAR
      OSX is only "safe" and "crash-free" is because the hardware in the Macs are MADE to work with OSX while windows has to work with thousands of different hardware. That's real freedom. Screw your Mac's integrated Intel video card, WTF is this the early 2000s? Let's see how well OSX runs on a user determined hardware config and then I'll consider swtiching.
      • grumpyrain, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1Vista has never BSOD'd or otherwise unrecoverably crashed on me. I wish I could say the same about OS X (Tiger anyway, the thing just locks up)
    • aaron552, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1Exactly. To prove your point, look at any dugg mac OS X update. In the comments, there is always someone whinging about how it doesn't run on their "hackintosh"
  • jabela, on 06/01/2008, -17/+51To be fair, it is a real security flaw.... Just didn't expect MS to be the one to spot it ;-)
    • Nenb, on 06/01/2008, -11/+2True. It is a security flaw because the Operating System can not identify if the files downloaded are executables or not. If Windows could (like Mac OS X does) identify them this would not be a security issue but a very irritating nuisance, such as how embedded Java apps can circumvent pop up blockers.
      • Memnochxx, on 06/01/2008, -3/+13Oh, is that why this same flaw is present on the Mac version as well? Tool.
        • Nenb, on 06/01/2008, -1/+0Yes it is. Why am I getting dugg down for saying that?
      • mrbutter, on 06/01/2008, -5/+10holy ***** your intelligence is ***** astonishing.

        It's a security flaw caused by Safari - not Windows. And it's laughable that Apple's reply said that they would forward it to the dev team BUT HEY LOL JUST SO WE FOLLOW TRADITION...THIS ISN'T A SECURITY FLAW! APPLE DOESN'T HAVE SECURITY FLAWS!

        Goddamit it's so annoying.

        Also, if I am not mistaken this would be one of the cases where Vista might actually be of help? The article said that the potential downloads could execute automatically with the user's privileges right? Doesn't Vista force _ALL_ apps to start with standard privs as opposed to admin ones? Even if UAC is on silent mode (through TweakUAC) I believe this will happen.

        In short, apple can suck my dick.
        • Nenb, on 06/01/2008, -1/+0Did you even read my comment? Such as "True. It is a security flaw..."?
    • JNudda, on 06/01/2008, -1/+12Wasn't Microsoft
      "Security research Nitesh Dhanjani, who discovered the flaw"
    • tama00, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2Do people on digg even read the ***** article!
  • Banshie, on 06/01/2008, -19/+13Safari did cause a massive problem with my system, BSOD on boot and everything. (yes it was Safari :P )
    • Nenb, on 06/01/2008, -5/+10How did Windows manage to load Safari during the boot process?
    • waluigi14, on 06/01/2008, -6/+6Remember that guy who said Windows was the most secure OS?
      Yeah, you just invalidated that claim. A user program should not be able to cause a BSOD. EVER!
      ***** KERNEL PROTECTION SUCKS!
      • teh_techie, on 06/01/2008, -3/+4I'll fix that last part for you:

        KERNEL PROTECTION - ***** THING SUCKS!
  • etx313, on 06/01/2008, -11/+80No this is a real problem and Apple has basically been ignoring it. Pretty ***** of them to say the least.
    • estvir, on 06/02/2008, -2/+1No no, the REAL problem is what: what other security issues has Apple been ignoring that outsiders aren't aware of?
    • jeriqo, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Would you ***** please read the ***** article?
  • coolkatz321, on 06/01/2008, -17/+11The same company that brought me Internet Explorer? Bah. I'll stick to FireFox. They're probably right about Safari though...
  • duckyinc, on 06/01/2008, -12/+18Ahh irony.. uhh wait truth
  • slayernine, on 06/01/2008, -16/+238Look at any Apple software that runs on Windows, it bloated, its slow and its full of bugs. Why? Because Apple doesn't give a ***** about PC users.

    I use iTunes because I have an iPod, but if I had a better choice I would uninstall iTunes in a flash. It uses more memory and process cycles than Window Media Player, which is saying something because Media Player isn't exactly that efficient.
    • dn11, on 06/01/2008, -0/+25try using an alternative for iTunes. when I'm using windows I use the newest winamp. It syncs my ipod just fine - especially using the alternative ml_ipod plugin
      http://mlipod.sourceforge.net/
    • SOS84, on 06/01/2008, -18/+10Buy a Creative Zen. Not only does it work with several types of software including media player, which you have by default but you get a better preforming, better looking player that is expandable for a lot less money.
      • championchap, on 06/01/2008, -6/+7Better looking is down to preference.. but i wouldnt look twice at a creative zen.
        I bought my original Nano because i loved the way it looked, i loved the size of the thing, and i loved how it functioned.

        It was a fit for me, the Zen is a fit for you.
        My point is, who gives a *****? I couldnt care less what media player, operating system, browser or what your favourite brand of tea is and I'm sure you feel the same about me and my preferences.

        So stop ***** announcing them in the comments!
        • Lazydriver, on 06/01/2008, -5/+1I gave a *****, so shut the ***** up noob.
        • championchap, on 06/01/2008, -2/+4Noob?
          I've been here like 3 years longer than you.
    • etx313, on 06/01/2008, -1/+80I'm convinced they do it on purpose to make the PC experience cumbersome.
      • daggah, on 06/01/2008, -9/+3I don't think they do. I think they're just incompetent coders.
      • soopafly, on 06/01/2008, -13/+3You mean *more* cumbersome
      • UNCCEJ1010, on 06/01/2008, -0/+9And then they can point to iTunes, a program PC users are familiar with, and say "Look how smoothly iTunes runs on the iMac."
    • LoungeActx, on 06/01/2008, -4/+28I agree the statement that Apple doesn't care too much about Windows users. They just put out the software to be accessible to Windows users. It's all about $$$. But at least they do it. Microsoft with the Zune says, who cares about Apple users. Office on Mac is bloated and runs like ass, and it's always the last thing to get updated. Let's face it, they're both just in it for the $$$ not servicing our basic computing needs.
      • Joeyrev, on 06/01/2008, -2/+11Holy *****! Businesses are in it for the money, no wonder I've been getting ***** all these years...
      • opticwind, on 06/01/2008, -7/+3Here's the difference, Lounge. I can go down to Best Buy and see maybe 20 companies competing for my buy for a windows pc. You know how many companies have to convince me to buy a mac? Zero. Because Apple is the only manufacturer. Why should Windows be concerned about it?
        • LoungeActx, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1I get your what you're saying, I'm not advocating one platform or another. I'm just saying that they're in it for the money, and they really couldn't care less about anything else. They're both guilty of it, so calling the whole thing ironic is a stretch.
    • cliffr39, on 06/01/2008, -7/+13Sounds just like Microsofts crap for the Mac users. MS Office is bloated and slow there also... they both screw with each others world instead of trying to make them more blended and user friendly for everyone.
    • Fuj003, on 06/01/2008, -6/+5iPod = MediaMonkey not iTunes.

      http://www.mediamonkey.com/
    • tiberone, on 06/01/2008, -1/+10I agree. If WMP worked with iPods, I wouldn't even have iTunes on my computer. I really really liked WMP but I never use it any more 'cause I got sucked into Apple's trap.
    • Xiata, on 06/01/2008, -4/+2MGTEK Dopisp, it's not free ($20) but makes it so your ipod works flawlessly with WMP (tested with my 2nd gen nano).

      I use it and love it since I can't stand how bloody slow iTunes is.
    • Clark, on 06/01/2008, -4/+9OF COURSE IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!
      Why else would put iTunes on Windows? I think the reason why it's slow and bloated is because iTunes on Mac has access to core graphics/audio/animation/etc, which allows for simple, fast applications.
      Without universal tools such as this on the Windows platform, they had to rewrite them, making a slow, chunky program. They wanted the, um, experience to be the same, but the tools just aren't there.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6You mean they were too lazy to learn the tools that WERE there?

        Lots of Windows software runs great. A lot of that software looks a hell of a lot better than iTunes ever has as well. iTunes runs like ***** because Apple half-assed it just like all of their Windows software offerings.
      • aaron552, on 06/02/2008, -1/+0I bet apple thought: "Hey our software runs on x86 now. That means it should run on windows, right?"
        Then they realised the supporting libraries on mac weren't there, so they shoved them and the app into the installer and shipped it.
      • quantumstatejim, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Perhaps that is because they tried to make it identical to the mac version. Which there naturally aren't tools for. I open up itunes and I see that none of it fits with my windows interface. There are tools for windows but they decided not to use them. It is the same for safari as well.
    • flare1028us, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4About that iTunes problem... try YamiPod (yamipod.com). Amarok also has excellent iPod support.
    • LittleDas, on 06/01/2008, -6/+11Get a zune?
      Seriously
      they're pretty nice.
      • theblacknight, on 06/01/2008, -5/+6I know someone who did that. Now they're kicking themselves because they're locked into using Windows because the Zune doesn't work with Mac and doesn't work with Linux. Compare to iPod, which works on Mac, Windows, and Linux.
      • RoflcopterFUEL, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3Get neither zune nor Ipod. Get a creative, Cowon, Meizu, iriver, etc....

        Better battery life, look better, more features, more format support, open software (MSC protocol), and cheaper in price.

        Owner of zen vision:M, Cowno A2, and D2. I also own a zune 30gig, but i got it on woot for 70$, otherwise i would've never bought it.
      • slayernine, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I'm totally with you on the Zune thing, I would buy one but I bought an iPod like a month before the Zune came out in the US. Oddly enough ~2 years later Zune has finally just launched in Canada. Probably going to be my next mp3 player but I got to get some use out of this $300 iPod first.
    • Ramble, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Try Foobar2000 with the iPod plugin. Best music player there is.
      • mrraven200, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Ipod plugin hmm sounds interesting. Itunes is slow and bloated and database corrupts and doesn't auto update when I add files and doesn't support flac or ogg. IMO itunes jumped the shark somewhere around version 5. And no I'm not hater I am typing this from a dual G5 tower with 10.5.3 which I really like but Apple is fallible and human like everyone else.
      • slayernine, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Foobar takes way to much work to get it customized and working at the same level as other modern music players. Nice app though.
    • renegadeafk, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2Winamp supports ipods now as well, works perfectly syncing with my ipod video.
    • harveywalbanger, on 06/01/2008, -7/+1Winamp has security flaws. ANYTHING that runs on windows has a security flaw and ANYTHING with the Microsoft logo has a security flaw.

      Apple's OS will ALWAYS be more secure than Windows. Why? Because it has a file system that works - you have to enter a password to install anything. Microsoft is like a retarded whore that sleeps with anything and let's anyone install software onto it's hard drive.

      Wake the ***** up people - Microsoft is *****, it always has been and always will be - and no matter how well it's developed - if the end application has to run on an MS OS - it will run like *****.

      That's how Billy-boy got rich - selling us an inferior product for less. You get what you pay for Window's users.
      • estvir, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4ANYTHING created by man has a security flaw. Where are all these NTFS security holes? You have to enter a password to install ANYTHING? That's BS, you just drag and drop things into the apps folder. If Apple is so perfect why do they have to patch so many flaws, why do they ignore flaws, etc?

        The only 'retarded whores' I'm seeing are you and Apple's 'security pro' who claimed this flaw isn't a problem.
    • aznpwnzor, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0same here I tried mediamonkey too but that can't handle videos but does an exceedingly good job of audio. floola seems to be nice one that does videos but can't handle organization (neither can itunes) but yah iTunes is basically the only choice, no competition no quality.
    • sketching, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0I replaced my ipod firmwear with the Rockbox firmwear. I now use the foobar2000 audio software to handle all music on my computer and to move that music over to my ipod. foobar2000 also has a component that allows you to work with the ipod without replacing the firmware.
    • kevyn, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Its all about sharepod - http://www.getsharepod.com/
  • ThinkFr33ly, on 06/01/2008, -19/+179It's really only midly ironic.

    The fact of the matter is that IE 7 on Vista has been nearly invulnerable so far. There have been security patches issued for it, but none for issues that could have practically lead to the compromise of the machine.

    In fact, so far at least, the only way to compromise Vista via IE 7 was actually through Flash... and the only reason this exploit worked was because Adobe explicitly worked around the security model in IE 7 rather than write their software correctly to begin with.

    Apple loves to claim a nearly pristine security record, but it's really just spin and marketing. As Apple's software gets more popular, it will become a bigger and bigger target. Just a few days ago they released a patch for OS X that plugged over 40 security holes. Apple is just starting to harden their platforms. They haven't had the benefit of being the number 1 target for a decade.
    • Nenb, on 06/01/2008, -19/+5Many of those security holes that were plugged were for third party software such as the Flash vulnerability you mentioned, Ruby, CUPS, Apache and other software. In other words some stuff Apple has very little to do with but was kind enough to supply through the built in system update mechanism.
      • arkaycee, on 06/01/2008, -1/+9First off, I've become a BIGtime Mac user almost to the point of whoredom at times...

        But I must say...

        You provide it automatically as part of your software update mechanism to an operating system, and you MUST take responsibility for the errors within, and making sure that through whatever mechanism, they are as minimized as possible. "Sorry, you know, even though you got it as part of a Mac OS X update, it really was a Flash bug" doesn't cut it.

        Also, Apple releases the open source stuff as part of their operating system, but they don't seem to keep up as well as they should when vulnerabilities are discovered and patched. It's like Ford saying "well, AirBagCo made the airbags, and we had the 2003 airbags installed in our 2009 cars, and even though the flaw with those airbags was fixed in 2006, we didn't bother fixing our 2003 airbags, so as you can plainly see, it's totally not Ford's fault."

        Historically, Mac OS X has had a better security record than Windows. However, I'm finding that, of late, they have let too many security issues that are patched in the open source software they use go too long, and Microsoft is probably doing a better job. I can only hope that the latest Mac OS X 10.5.3 update that fixed so many of such flaws is the start of a much better record. I hate getting as many vulnerability reports as I do that show "Linux kernel 2.4 -- install this patch. Linux kernel 2.6 -- install this patch. Solaris -- install this patch. Windows 2000/XP/Vista -- install this patch. Mac OS X -- no patch at this time."
    • diggn_it, on 06/01/2008, -21/+13"Just a few days ago they released a patch for OS X that plugged over 40 security holes. "

      and therefore they suck at security? You don't really get how this works do you? Every system has holes, apple is just roughly infinite times better at plugging them than microsoft is (at least on their own platform). There has never been a single virus outbreak on mac. On PC, the number is 4 digits long. Security through obscurity is a crap argument when facing down the actual numbers.
      • Lazydriver, on 06/01/2008, -7/+5This is because of popularity...

        However, Microsoft got the hint and now they're following a closed-source security model...
      • cslawren, on 06/01/2008, -3/+9"apple is just roughly infinite times better at plugging them than microsoft is (at least on their own platform)"

        I direct you to this...

        http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archi ...

        read the chart and weep, as it turns out, microsoft is the best in the industry at patching holes for vista within the the time they are detected and the time they churn out a fix. apple takes almost twice as long as microsoft. maybe you should look at actual numbers before making judgments. and paul thurrott is a legitimate source who owns both PCs and macs, so i consider this pretty good info if he approves.
        • wTheOnew, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3In addition to that, there was a study a while back that showed Microsoft as being significantly quicker in fixing venerabilities than Apple. If I recall correctly Microsoft was almost a month quicker on average.
        • estvir, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1And in addition to those 2 things, most of the major security mishaps that happened with Windows were security holes which had patches available.*

          * Some of these patches were available YEARS before they were exploited, so basically half of the bad rep for security holes would've been avoided if dumb sysadmins and users updated their software.

          http://searchwindowssecurity.techtarget.com/news/a ...

          Also, here's another report showing MS is the fastest to issue patches:

          http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080410-repo ...

          Microsoft is what, 4x faster than Apple?
        • diggn_it, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah, that study is crap.
      • will27, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3Some of the holes which Apple "patched" a few days ago they had known about since February. The number of patched security holes in an OS is not an indication of how safe or at risk it is - but the time taken for critical patches to be made is.
      • jabberwolf, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3YES and take a look at the holes they patched.

        Apple takes a LONG ASSED TIME to fix things, and when those things are security, that is not good at all.
    • sudowrestler, on 06/01/2008, -10/+4"Apple loves to claim a nearly pristine security record, but it's really just spin and marketing." Well, so far they *can* claim that, unless you know something no one else does. What's "spin and marketing" about the truth? And by the way, Apple has been releasing security patches for OS X since it's been out.
    • tuxracer, on 06/01/2008, -7/+22"Just a few days ago they released a patch for OS X that plugged over 40 security holes."

      That was an OS update, somewhat similar to a service pack on Windows. It was an upgrade from 10.5.2 to 10.5.3. That type of update contains all previous updates that were already issued as well. So it was not an update that fixed 40 new security holes. I'm not saying OSX is flawless, but it is very misleading to word your comment like that.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/01/2008, -1/+4Super hacks have never really been the big issue, even when IE6 was really dangerous years ago before WinXP sp2.

      The real problem was obvious security holes, where stuff could auto install, autorun activeX, launch apps, plugins could be easily silently installed, and the many shady toolbars, popups and popunders, scam email, fake websites.

      Since then they added:
      Defender: you can remove IE plugins, and other addons.
      Default deny: Blocks many scripts and asks if you want to reload page with them running.
      Anti-Phishing: People report bad sites, and suspicious activity.

      That covers most of the obvious problems, and most people don't have the skill to make a hardcore hack where the innards of the browser are exploited.
    • einexile, on 06/01/2008, -3/+1It's also only mildly ironic because the people responsible for IE's security problems probably aren't the ones issuing the security advisories. Never mind TFA somebody outside Microsoft found the problem.
    • Laminarcissus, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6But the core is completely secure.

      Wait, not that core, the smaller core inside that core.

      No, not that one, the smaller one inside there.

      Yeah, see that thing all the way in there that says "Hello world" on it?

      Totally secure. Everything else is third party ***** and you're on your own.
    • Archer007, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2"midly ironic"??
    • celkin, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1A decade? I don't think they were much of a target in 1998.
    • ecognito, on 06/01/2008, -6/+0"The fact of the matter is that IE 7 on Vista has been nearly invulnerable so far."

      Not to mention nearly unusable so far, as well.
    • harveywalbanger, on 06/01/2008, -6/+1You are a fool and an idiot. Invulnerable? IE 7?

      What the hell is wrong with people? You keep praising the world's ***** software.

      Save up and buy a Mac. IE 7 is the biggest bag of ***** I've ever had the misfortune of being forced to use.
      • estvir, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Well, we certainly aren't going to praise your vocabulary.

        Oh, and backup your claims, if IE7 and Vista are indeed the world's worst software, where are all the huge, massive security problems because of the 2?

        None? I'm sorry to hear that. Save up and buy a Mac? Hahahahahahahah.
      • aaron552, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1+1 to IE7 = *****
        Getting a mac is NOT the solution. I'm not going to pay $3k for a computer that's slower than my current $1.2k machine that works perfectly well.
        Fanboys like you give Apple a bad name.
        Windows MAY be less secure than Mac OS, but Microsoft at least responds quickly when security holes are found.
        Don't get me wrong, I love the build quality and styling of macs, but they're overpriced for what i want to do.
    • aznpwnzor, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I've been using the internets since 8 meaning 8 years ago. I've never had a single virus on my PCs all windows too. I've been all over the internets in the end its about recognizing sites and knowing when your computer shows symptoms. I've never had a single computer need to be fixed and I'm on the internet constantly through IE7 typically. I'm sure lot of you are the same so stop with the nonsense "OMG windows is virus-vulnerable" you're just an idiot that downloaded an .exe of limewire or a 32 mb torrent .exe thinking it was a game. Cmon people don't let the inexperienced users dominate the opinion
    • superjamie, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I couldn't care less about IE7/Safari or Windows/Mac, but I wish I had a million accounts on here so I could Digg you right up. This is one of the most intelligent and insightful comments to any story I have read on this site ever.
  • jaymcdaniel, on 06/01/2008, -19/+5/bash apple
  • redwallhp, on 06/01/2008, -35/+11I find it ironic that Microsoft is pointing this out. Fix your own bug-ridden browser, Microsoft!
    • Syphon8, on 06/01/2008, -4/+9They did, it's called IE7. It's still ***** but it's better than Safari.
    • estvir, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Where are the security problems with IE7?
      • aaron552, on 06/02/2008, -4/+0The security problems are this:
        1. Runs on Windows
        2. Developed by M$
        3. Based on an app called Internet Explorer 6
        • estvir, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2You're quite dumb, go back to YouTube and please do not reproduce, ever.
  • TheGreatBelow, on 06/01/2008, -30/+295Firefox 3 makes every other browser irrelevant.
    • shanesemler, on 06/01/2008, -4/+61That is exactly the kind of thinking that made IE so craptacular. While I'm not a fan of Opera (for example) the competition is necessary and good.
      • jjk7288, on 06/01/2008, -4/+18True, but IE wasn't open source either.
      • TheGreatBelow, on 06/01/2008, -4/+10Firefox is open though.
      • thedragon4453, on 06/01/2008, -3/+13I could be wrong, but isn't firefox non-profit making the competition argument irrelevant? I thought that FF's success came from being open source.
        • Goblinkiller, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2Open source doesn't mean that competition is irrelevant - it just means that progress in one project can be shared and ported into another project.

          Perhaps one open source project refuses to include a new feature while another open source project includes it. If it's a success then the first one can include it as well - either in it's own implementation or by just copying the one from the other project.

          Look at Webkit and Gecko - the two projects are certainly having some healthy competition between them and with Opera in the game it's even more interesting.
        • srg13, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Mozilla is not non-profit iirc. They make a killing on the google search bar in Firefox.
        • quantumstatejim, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Firefox's success comes from it being a good browser. I would argue that being open source was a significant factor in making it a good browser but its success isn't because it is open source directly. There are other open source browsers which have failed because they weren't any good. Being open source isn't a magic ticket to success.
    • Tippis, on 06/01/2008, -4/+14That's what the Netscape folks thought. That's why they lost.
      • TheGreatBelow, on 06/01/2008, -5/+5Firefox is open though.
        • Goblinkiller, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1It's source is open for access but not widely open for every insane contribution and sometimes the most insane contributions can be the greatest ones and Mozilla might very well reject those and if Firefox would be the only browser that insane, but great, feature wouldn't have any second chance - which it now can get in Webkit, Opera or IE.

          So "open" for access and use - but not entirely "open" for contributions - which is a good thing.
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Couldn't someone just release their own version of FF with said feature and present instant "competition"?

          Why do you need an entire other browser just for that?
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4Really? I thought they lost because MS muscled them out of the market by forcing IE on users while Netscape slowly curdled amidst a stale development environment.
    • arkaycee, on 06/01/2008, -3/+25I am so in love with my Minefield (FF3) on Mac OS X that I got drunk and had sex with it last night. But it's so awesome that I don't even feel a little dirty this morning. It's like it anticipated my every need and desire.
      • bluntphallus, on 06/01/2008, -0/+16Firefox isn't 18. You're getting FBI'd.
      • Nekiruhs, on 06/01/2008, -3/+2Why don't you have a seat over there....
    • p4r4d0x, on 06/01/2008, -7/+12It still kinda sucks on Mac.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2How so? Works great for me.
        • arkaycee, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0I did, until a very recent build, have problems with it consuming 100% CPU on the Mac if I had a lot of tabs open and one had enough/the right/the wrong/I dunno Flash animation on it. That seems to be fixed. I've heard a few sites have problems because of Apple's java implementation, but I've not seen that myself.
        • aaron552, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0I've had similar problems, but that's a flash problem because it happens in IE and opera too
      • mrraven200, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3How so? I am typing this repsonse on that combo myself right now, just as fast as Safai OsX + FF3+ adbock+ FTW.
    • pantone286, on 06/01/2008, -11/+0Only for PC. On mac there are no good browsers. Never have been.
    • gmprunner, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1I can't get it to work on my Mac (though I would love to), so no, it doesn't necessarily.
    • harveywalbanger, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1Yeah right. That's what they said about Netscape back in the 90's.

      You young'uns who think you just discovered Mozilla crack me up. Funny how history seems to repeat itself, isn't it?
    • Canadian0207, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2I'm IE fan, and i still have to agree to this statement. FF3 will set the new standard.
      • mossblaser, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1As a web developer I fell that people who knowingly use IE are dicks.
      • GrantTLC, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Oh, hey, the world's one and only IE fan visits Digg! How does it feel to be in an exclusive minority all of your very own?
  • Biohazard6601, on 06/01/2008, -11/+33now we need a microsoft commercial
    • SEANWOOKIE, on 06/01/2008, -1/+9Starring Hodgeman of course.
      • falafelkiosken, on 06/01/2008, -3/+5Why would he do that? Hodgeman is a die-hard mac user
  • segrev, on 06/01/2008, -21/+13Internet explorer isn't safe on windows.
    • Scottc320, on 06/01/2008, -2/+56? Yes. 7? No.
      • aaron552, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0IE7 is only reasonably secure. There have been security flaws found (and fixed via Windows Update) AFAIK.
  • KnightMareInc, on 06/01/2008, -30/+22Safari is garbage, even ie6 is better.
    • hungryduck, on 06/01/2008, -6/+11At least Safari displays websites correctly.
      • KnightMareInc, on 06/01/2008, -5/+3Most sites go out their way to work specifically with IE and there for it displays sites correctly. ggs
        • hungryduck, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1I guess you've never tried going to digg on IE 6 right?
      • tiberone, on 06/01/2008, -5/+1I don't think Safari has *ever* displayed a website correctly for me. Then again, I've only ever used it for like 4 minutes...
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3I'm going to have to call this for Safari. IE6 security vulnerability and no tabbed browsing.
    • aaron552, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0Now, I think that's going a bit far.
      IMO all IEs up to 6 have been the worst browsers out there. IE7 is better, but *still* not standards compliant
  • stutimandal, on 06/01/2008, -7/+62I used safari for a month and then I un-installed it.

    It had stored about 70 MB of worthless feed in C:documents n settingsusernameappdataApplesafarifeeds

    I never sign up for RSS feeds and I had deleted all their bookmarks, still some 70 MB of crap ~10000 files were lying in there. And when I un-installed Safari, the apple software installer didn't go. It is still lying in my computer, and does not show up in Add/Remove programs.
    • waluigi14, on 06/01/2008, -1/+19If you know it's there, why don't you delete it?
    • falafelkiosken, on 06/01/2008, -6/+4ever heard of "cache"? You can even delete it if you want
    • mikephimikephi, on 06/01/2008, -9/+2970MB is a big deal? I'd consider a hard drive built after 1995
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/01/2008, -3/+1210000 extra files slows down the computer some.
        • richardhenry, on 06/01/2008, -3/+3Yeah... 10,000. Right. That's a lot of porn to be caching.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4Added listings to the "Directory Structure" which is cached by the OS, and is read through when the kernel tries to open a file.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2Those liars!
    • thenonhacker, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3Truth to tell, I tried Safari, and within the day, I uninstalled it because I really missed Firefox and the useful Add-Ons I installed on it.

      Plus, I like ClearType rendering on Firefox/IE, and do not want Safari's blurry font text.
    • stankypimpslap, on 06/01/2008, -3/+0I hate Safari Firefox pwns
    • harveywalbanger, on 06/01/2008, -5/+2Have you ever looked at the GIGABYTES OF USELESS ***** Microsoft stores on your C drive? HA HA HA

      Try looking in IE's temporary internet files *****. 70MB's will look like the pimple on your forehead compared to the piles of garbage Microsoft IE keeps on your local drive.
      • quantumstatejim, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Microsoft does indeed store loads of junk on your computer however you expressed this in one of the worst ways possible which is why your comment is being dug down so heavily.
  • Myztry, on 06/01/2008, -24/+12How could any Safari flaw, real or imagined compare to Internet Explorer and it's ActiveX flaw.
    No other company supports Malware developers like Microsoft!
  • ishkur88, on 06/01/2008, -2/+17my only issue with Safari on Windows is the GUI. Take a look at iTunes in Vista, then take a look at Safari in Vista. I thought Apple had some sort of department devoted to making sure that everything looks exactly the same in terms of GUI.
    • MtheoryX, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4I took a look at both. And??

      Perhaps post some screenshots showing some discrepancy between "the look" on Windows Vista and Mac OS X? I cannot find one.
      • Ramble, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3That's the point. Safari should have a vista look, not a Mac one.
      • Echomote, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4In vista, itunes has vista-like-style minimize, maxmize, close buttons - while safari has grey small totally different buttons
    • harveywalbanger, on 06/01/2008, -5/+1It's Microsoft's fault. Vista is the biggest bag of useless driver's I've ever seen, well. At least since Windows 95. HA HA HA
      • aaron552, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0"It's Microsoft's fault. Vista is the biggest bag of useless driver's I've ever seen"
        the biggest bag of useless driver is I've ever seen?
        Besides, that is not Vista's biggest problem. Windows 95 *is* worse but it *IS* also 14 years old.
  • Demitaka, on 06/01/2008, -18/+32Personally I don't really like safari. It tries to coin off the brushed silver aesthetic that apple seems to hold onto so dearly like Targets bathroom section....To top that it's not as open source and customizable as Fire fox. I wouldn't want it on my windows machine anyways...

    Sigh... Well at least I can get dugg down by the legions of mac zealots..
    • waluigi14, on 06/01/2008, -0/+16Brushed metal (which is ugly) was left behind with OS X Tiger. OS X Leopard uses smooth grey for all its windows (which looks great). I don't use Safari on Windows (or Windows in general unless I have to), but last time I checked Safari's GUI wasn't brushed metal.
      • quantumstatejim, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1It isn't brushed metal but it is some ugly looking shade of gray with a flat gradient. It really doesn't fit with windows. I am not sure whether I prefer windows 95 look or safari.
    • baylat, on 06/01/2008, -4/+9Don't worry, MS paladins will protect you.
      • nakani, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4while those of us who use all platforms to actually get things done will sit back and laugh at the self-proclaimed "fanboi"s
    • sudowrestler, on 06/01/2008, -0/+7Speaking as one of the legion of Mac zealots, I think Firefox is a lot better choice on Windows.
    • weirdlookinguy, on 06/01/2008, -1/+4Target's bathrooms are always clean and smell minty fresh around here.
      • MtheoryX, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1Somewhere, there's a bunch of people involved in a discussion about major retailer's bathrooms scratching their heads and wondering why weirdlookinguy is mentioning Safari on Windows.
    • Sh00t3r, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2as another admitted mac fanboy, i really can't recommend safari on windows. firefox is infinitely nicer. i'd use it on my mac, but until firefox 3 can match the cleanliness of safari, it's not gonna be my daily browser.
  • pixeldust, on 06/01/2008, -12/+6I'm not defending Apple but I suppose i'm missing something, is the issue that it doesn't ask before downloading so theoretically a whole bunch of stuff could get downloaded to the desktop? Seems as though Apple should indeed just have an option as to asking before downloading but I fail to see how this is really that big of a deal. As long as the operating system doesn't execute code willy nilly this should be nothing more than a possible annoyance.
    • thailand1972, on 06/01/2008, -6/+2I'd like to point out that Safari on my iPhone crashes quite often (like a couple of times a day).
      • Joeyrev, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1My blackberry browser and opera mini crash a couple of times as well. In my opinion the blackberry is a better phone except when it comes to web browsing. This is just something you have to live with for the time being.
      • Clark, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6It crashes because you're going to a site with 1000 pictures on it and it doesn't have the space to cache it all.

        In other words: stop looking at porn on your iPhone.
        • thailand1972, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately not. It crashes on random sites - even on Google searches.
    • batmanz, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2Point is that lots of the time Safari doesn't ask. I tried it on my PC, i was just browsing, opened a random site and BAM-porn on my desktop, at least IE7 has the decency to ask if you actually want to download something.
    • Laminarcissus, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2You call your desktop filling up with a hundred porn links, that you then have to go back and delete by hand, a random annoyance? When all Apple would have to do is set it up so the browser would ask?
    • aznpwnzor, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0its also about the lack of care for pc users what browser this side of the millenium doesn't ask? I'd rather have the incessant vista security checks to 30 porn links on my desktop.
    • quantumstatejim, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1What is dangerous if if it drops an executable named My Computer.exe on your desktop with the my computer icon. And safari does download random exe files to your desktop without asking I checked myself.
  • suppah, on 06/01/2008, -21/+5stupid macheads
  • chamberlanderic, on 06/01/2008, -22/+9It's not a good browser even on MAC OS so it doesn't really matter.
    • jaymcdaniel, on 06/01/2008, -5/+13MAC OS?

      After that comment I doubt you have used a mac for more than the 2 minutes you messed with one in an Apple store. The 'technology educated' people I know agree that its comparable to, if not better than, firefox on leopard... but you wouldn't know.

      go ahead, -1 digg this comment if it makes you feel better about yourself.
      • Omek, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4amen... I'm sure that it isn't that great on Windows, but don't diss the Mac version. Firefox on Mac is slow and clunky compared to Safari.
        • aaron552, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0I'm sure safari is great for all you mac users. But you have more money than us PC users, and that means your comments are always right, right?
    • Clark, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4Ever heard of Webkit?

      It's dreamy.
  • shadowMJC, on 06/01/2008, -15/+2I have always liked safari until now, I think i will be switching to firefox before this exploit becomes a security threat.
    Its not a very reliable browser either, bring back IE for mac!
    • nebkiwi, on 06/01/2008, -1/+7no. lets not bring back IE back for mac.
      • aaron552, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0I second that. The less platforms IE runs on, the better
  • reechme, on 06/01/2008, -6/+24But it's true - Safari IS vulnerable to THIS flaw. Apart from it being malware (well, it was on my PC, tried to download and install itself, when I didn't have a previous download for it.)

    Yes, it's funny seeing MS mention this, but still - it's true!
  • R4mbini, on 06/01/2008, -17/+14maybe Microsoft could get internet explorer up to the standard of firefox or safari (without the floor that it has now) instead of moaning about apple releasing safari.
    • Trixrox, on 06/01/2008, -3/+6Check out IE8, it breaks the web because it is standards compliant. People will complain either way. Firefox just needs to continue to push IE to be better and better...and it is working.
      • cave, on 06/01/2008, -0/+9The web has been "broken" for years. IE broke it when it invented non-standards.
        • JMSantos, on 06/01/2008, -2/+2Internet Explorer was not the only browser pushing non-standard implementation. It was just the one that won.
    • geoken, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2Good idea. Microsoft should totally ignore all security issues and just focus on fixing IE.
    • AlienMushroom, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3IE is a fine browser.
      • aaron552,