Who loves IE7?

Question

I do. You know why? Here's why it's actually better than FireFox:

1. Loads up much more faster
2. More compatibility with sites
3. Is much more safer than previous IE's, and some news sites even report it's more safer than Firefox, especially with Vista.
4. More built-in search options
5. better tabbing capabilities
6. Phishing filter
7. Many sites are only IE compatible
8. Looks pretty simplistic enough, and even nice in Vista
9. Tons of free add-ons you can install on it from the site

People always assume that IE is the unsafest browser. Not IE7. Take a look at Safari, that's a dud.

Tons of free add-ons are also availiable: http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/category.aspx?bcatid=834&tabid=1/default.aspx

IE7 Pro includes some extra nifty tools not in IE7 and is pretty nice: http://www.ie7pro.com/ All the power users use it

Also FireFox isn't always what we think it is:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html

What do you think?

I also think most people haven't even tried IE7. They assume IE or Micorosoft is bad, and don't even bother trying.

IE6, I agree is awful, but IE7 isn't.

I like both IE7 and Firefox. They're both good at what they do. I just want to dispel that IE is all bad.

@Jim Maryland:

I picked you as best answer, only because you really put some thought, and thoroughness in it. I appreciate that.

I'll still continue to use IE7, since I've had no problems with it. I could care less about browsers. Most of your reasons were to defend FF on everything. Which could be subjective on info., and possibly bias against MS.

But it's nice to hear something new, and reasonable. Thanks for your thoughts.

Answer 1

I've used IE from 4.x through 7.x. I've also used Netscape 4.x through 8.x and Mozilla Firefox 1.x and 2.x.

Generally I use Firefox at work and home but I do like the latest Netscape version that had the ability to selectively render using the Gecko engine or the IE engine. The ability to render sites with the IE engine is needed as Microsoft corrupted the W3C standards enough that the more compliant (yes, even Firefox and Netscape have some compliance issues, just not nearly as many as IE) browsers can't display the site as the site creators intended.

1) Loads up much more faster
- Firefox has gotten a bit more bloat, but IE runs inside the OS space leaving the OS more vulnerable to exploits. Firefox needs to go on a feature diet and needs some optimization rewrites.

2) More compatibility with sites
- Misleading. As mentioned above, most sites would not meet the standard compliance test tools. As Microsoft has the majority of the market though, web developers have chosen to forget standardization and implement Microsoft specific tags. If you ever developed a website, you'd know that you would need to check rendering in multiple browsers. If everyone followed the standards, we'd have more variety.

3) Is much more safer than previous IE's, and some news sites even report it's more safer than Firefox, especially with Vista.
- Anything running on Vista should be safer, especially since Microsoft eliminated the ability to run as Administrator. FireFox should still be safer on the OS as it runs in its own application space.

4) More built-in search options
- You do recall that initially it only had the MS Live search option until other search providers threatened monopoly lawsuits against Microsoft?

5) better tabbing capabilities
- Sorry, the tabbing is not better, just different. This can only be stated as an opinion, not fact.

6) Phishing filter
- Can't comment on that one. Haven't encountered this to know if it works.

7) Many sites are only IE compatible
- Just like item 2, the compatibility issues are Microsoft's own doing. If only they'd have followed the standards set forth by international commities, we'd have no issues. Let's see how well Microsoft plays with the Open Document Format (wait, MS is already pushing Open Office XML over ODF).

8) Looks pretty simplistic enough, and even nice in Vista
- Again, just an opinion. In my opinion, the location of menu items is not intuitive. I am not a human interface designer but I could check with some friends who are at Booze Allen Hammilton (BAH) to get their thoughts on it. They haven't liked the interface changes in the more recent Media Players so I'm guessing they will dislike IE 7's interface too.

9) Tons of free add-ons you can install on it from the site
- Most browsers have add-ons. You can get the same from the Mozilla site.

I checked the Comcast link you provided and it brings up some points that are also misleading. Under the Reliability section it talks about how FF can be unstable with the plugins. Plugin stability is not a FF issue, it is a problem with the plugin. This would be like saying Microsoft Windows XP/Vista is unstable due to a third party driver for video cards.

Take a look at this site for another take on the browsers:

Answer 2

I tried it and couldn't view most videos with it....all I would get was a green screen.

Answer 3

your pathetic.... i dont even know what being objective means... you dont know very much about computers either... it's pretty apparent.