Their software also doesn't need to run on Java or .NET, like MS Office and so many open source office suites, so it makes their software very small, efficient, and easy to use.

http://www.ssuitesoft.com

Their software also doesn't need to run on Java or .NET, like MS Office and so many open source office suites, so it makes their software very small, efficient, and easy to use.

http://www.ssuitesoft.com

The problem would be that, by implementing the (windows only) sandboxing features, browser developers would be shoehorning in yet another windows-only feature that really should be enabled by default on all applications, without the developers having to put yet more money and effort into one single platform. Admittedly, I can understand why it isn’t being used even for windows-only browsers – sandboxing properly AND retaining compatibility is an extremely hard thing to do, and Microsoft’s biggest trump card is the fact that Windows can still run programs from many, many years ago – not the same for mac and Linux (Linux, of course, can simply have stuff recompiled, though).

Effectively, what I’m saying is: Chrome has developed it’s own sandbox, so that it can be used across multiple platforms, to have only one major codebase to branch from to create separate versions for Windows, Mac, and Linux. Firefox will be unlikely to ever implement such a feature, as it would break almost all extensions, and extensions are Firefox’s biggest advantage (That’s the reason why addons such as downthemall are not available on Chrome; the sandbox prevents them from being able to write to insecure directories).

As I said, I am not criticising your choice of browser, all modern browsers are more than capable of functioning for day-to-day usage. I was simply criticising the reason you gave for doing so, as it was based on inaccurate data.

What I mentioned is iPod Touch which is way different from an out-of-dated iPod. Not sure if you ever used, but if you haven't you definitely should get your fingers on it.

As for email, not sure if you have extensively used Gmail or how long ago you gave it up, but yeah, if you gave it up for quite a while I suggest that you give it a try again.

Cheers.

You obviously haven't used Zune HD before since you brought that up comparing to the outdated iPod which is boring and can't innovate or change since they introduced in 2001 as for every of their products that they create.

I have used Gmail and Yahoo before and I gave up Gmail and Yahoo for one good reason is that it's not as integrated as Windows Live Mail in term of services that's provided from Microsoft like cloud storage, Windows Live services and many others.

As for anti-virus I currently don't have one installed on my PC at my living room because I haven't gotten any virus on my 2 year old PC and I scan my PC from time to time to check. I have used Microsoft Security Essentials since the start and I found it really good since it's light and user friendly for any individual that doesn't like complicated security software.

-Dan-

I've used all of the main browsers, including Opera but decided in the end that IE8 was best *for me*. Firefox, brilliant as it is, almost seems to encourage you to use plug-ins and themes, all of which will slow the browser down. I'm not sold on this approach as I believe that once you begin opening a browser up to third-party plug-ins you are essentially compromising part of your security.

Chrome has taught the browser world a lot about security but if you want something as simple as easy and quick one-click access to a large number of internet favourites, as I do, you're best with another browser.

As I said though the main reason for choosing IE (as a power user who knows what I'm doing online) is to avoid software bloat. Installing any other browser unless completely necessary runs contrary to this goal. Though obviously if I felt the same way about IE8 as I do about WMP and Windows Photo Viewer, i'd be running Firefox 100% of the time.

Obviously the choice of one browser over another will always be controversial, you just have to try them and think which one is best *for you*.

a paid product like Norton Antivirus 2010 over some other better and free ones?

Live mail over Gmail or even Yahoo?

Zune over iPod touch?

Come on. wake up.

IE of course
Norton Anti-Virus 2010….does that bog down your resource? sure did to me 2009.

2 things to fix

Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera? Something other then IE

Dump Norton and go something basic antivirus. I dont think you need all that extra features like e-mail scanner, firewall and such. Whats the point when you have webmail and windows firewall. Also Norton drags your pc to death.

“In the end I stick with Internet Explorer 8 for two very good reasons. First is the special sandbox mode that it runs in under my 64 bit version of Windows 7. No other browser has access to this useful Windows feature, and it’s certainly a major security help.”

This is no reason to be using Internet Explorer. IE8 uses Protected mode on Windows Vista and Windows 7 when UAC is enabled, and it does a bang up job. You completely disregard the fact that Chrome and Chromium has had a (Far more effective, I might add) sandbox protecting not just the browser, but all plugins, all extensions, and each and every tab. It makes full use of ASLR, DEP and SafeSEH that Internet Explorer doesn't, out of trust in the sandbox it uses.

Internet explorer relies on its sandbox so that it can “ignore” more complicated security practises that are designed to be used in conjunction; not one over others. Internet Explorer uses Software DEP (Which is circumventable easily), it uses botched ASLR (only randomising its address to a 30-bit address space even on the 64-bit version of the browser, rendering it susceptible to heap spray attacks), and it's SafeSEH support is non-existent – if the browser crashes, it relies on the sandbox to make sure nothing can be exploited through it.

This is security through obscurity, and every security researcher reading this will be screaming at you regarding your claim that IE is MORE secure than the other browsers because of this, and yet IE only requires this because it's so insecure in the first place.

Chrome had the benefit of being developed recently, allowing them to implement this from the ground up despite it not really requiring it – which is why Chrome/Chromium is the most secure browser available on any platform, bar none.

I'm not suggesting that you are wrong in your choice to use Internet Explorer – it's a fine browser; I'm simply pointing out that you're just completely wrong in your reason for doing so. I don't care if you prefer it – after all, preferences are just that – to each his own, but I would hope that an editor to a fairly popular website such as this would do his homework before writing up potentially inflammatory posts – as browser debates usually are.

You haven't used Opera, obviously.

It means I can't recommend Kaspersky to anyone, especially not non-technical users.