Looks like the responses from many IE users in this thread have pretty much confirmed the OP's hypothesis.
But I suppose a flamey reaction should be expected to a perceived insult.
ElNeroDiablo said:
Internet Explorer isn't "installed" on every windows machine as much as it FORMS THE BASIS OF THE WHOLE FRACKING GUI WITH A DIFFERENT SKIN ON TOP!
Hell, when Microsoft got taken to court by the US Government shortly after the release of Windows 95 (yes, that friggen far back!) for default "installing" Internet Explorer in an attempt to push Netscape out of the market, Microsoft told them plain and simple that they could NOT remove the Internet Explorer code from the GUI and would have to rebuild Windows 95 from the ground up if they did when told they would have to remove it, as they used the IE kernel to drive the GUI and simply gave it a different coat of paint and name.
How very convenient for them.
It's not quite as fundamental a part of the OS as you suggest, but it is technically correct that some parts of the Windows "shell" (not kernel) depended on some modules which were claimed to be inexorably part of IE. There is no reason why this should be the case in a properly designed OS.
This once again came up when Microsoft got taken to court by the EU Government about Windows 7 coming with IE8 already woven in and Microsoft came up with the idea of the European-Only editions of Win7 having the Web Browser Installation Screen that would get (via File Transfer Protocol or FTP) an alternate browser (say, Firefox 4) and install it after the bulk of Win7 was already installed, JUST to please the EU courts so they could sell more copies of windows there.
So when you use a Windows machine (unless you're manually-building a system with a European-Only version of Win7), you get pretty much no say at all in the matter if IE is actually installed or not other than hiding the IE6/7/8/9 GUI as a choice of web browser.
Ever since it was released, Windows 7 has allowed you to easily and safely remove IE at any time without adversely impacting OS functionality, regardless of your jurisdiction.
The Browser Choice update to satisfy the EU antitrust regulators (not courts) simply made the user aware of the availability of other browsers, and offered links to their websites. No mention of FTP (as if a browser is the only kind of HTTP client that exists, sheesh).
You make out like Microsoft is the victim and the EU the bully, and that it was oh so difficult for Microsoft to decouple IE from Windows and they were really making a big concession to the EU by doing that, but the EU are a democratic institution voted for by me and my fellow Europeans; they are looking out for our rights (in between meals of lobster and caviar paid for by Steve Jobs, of course, they are politicians after all) and it was a trivial matter to add the browser choice window, Microsoft really did the bare minimum they could get away with.
imperialreign said:
I love how there's no shortage of people that want to beat IE into the dirt . . .
. . . oddly enough, 90% of the time they're over zealous FF users . . .
Maybe it's just confirmation bias but it seems to me that most of the flamey fanboys seem to be the IE users, and the users of other browsers are being quite reserved and pointing out the obviously silly application of IQ tests in the study.
IE's biggest problem is that it has a larger user-base, so more malware is designed towards it's idiosyncricies . . . FF has been slowly earning itself a larger market claim, and at the same time has been slowly earning itself a broader range of malware to go with it. Again, the browser in question has no sway on security if you don't keep your shit up-to-date.
Of course updates are essential, as security vulnerabilities are continually being discovered in all the main browsers, but Firefox, Chrome and to a lesser extent Safari and Opera have the advantage of being open source. This means there are many more eyes examining the code, and if a programmer finds a vulnerability then they can't hide behind the cloak of closed source and say they'll fix it later.
Firefox went through a period of relatively more vulnerabilities being discovered in it, due more likely to a period of more rapid development, rather than growing userbase (in any software project, increased rate of development equals more bugs introduced into the system).
Spare me the flaming and the bullshit propaganda replies to my post, as I don't intend to acknowledge them . . . unless you take the time to write out a REAL reply in a cordial manner while attempting to back up statements with facts (as I'm always up for a good debate), I'm simply going to pass it off as zealous blithering and babbling . . . otherwise known as fanboishness.
I'm not really up for a debate, just, like you say, putting in my $0.02. It could go on for days and we'd never have a definitive answer. It's true that IE has become more secure recently, but in my eyes Microsoft have ignored security for too long and can never regain my trust.
JezebelinHell said:
Why is it different? Firefox is open source. There are people that could be hackers looking for the holes in IE to exploit. With Firefox there are people looking for the holes for bounty. Yeah, if you find a security hole in Firefox it could net you $3k I believe it is up to now. The business development for IE is to hide the holes and hope no one finds them. There were security holes in IE that were used just a year or so ago to hack WoW accounts. Turned out to be a known issue going back to IE version 5. Between version 5 and 7 it was not fixed until it was exploited. That is the Microsoft model. When your security holes lead to millions of people being at risk, it is not the model to follow. That is why a lot of people working in the tech field do not use IE, it is not blind hate of Microsoft, it is past experience.
You crafty ninja, you.
Also:
real power-users use
.
