Replies

CD Player as a performance monitor, what a neat idea! I knew there had to be some reason it was added to Windows because it’s never made sense to me to use a $700 (or more) computer to emulate a $100 (or less) boombox.

I’ll admit that I don’t pay any attention to $$$ estimates-from anyone. I do read US-CERT vulnerability assessments & have found them to be fairly accurate. One item that particularly struck me about this one is that this administration has generally appeared favorable towards Microsoft-for them to recommend switching away from IE impressed me. But I suppose it could have been politics-who knows what goes on behind the scenes.

I do agree with you about AOL’s likely assessment of their own browser-that’s why I look for outside opinions. Better yet, ways of verifying for myself.

Thanks.

I’ll admit that I don’t pay any attention to $$$ estimates-from anyone. I do read US-CERT vulnerability assessments & have found them to be fairly accurate. One item that particularly struck me about this one is that this administration has generally appeared favorable towards Microsoft-for them to recommend switching away from IE impressed me. But I suppose it could have been politics-who knows what goes on behind the scenes.

I do agree with you about AOL’s likely assessment of their own browser-that’s why I look for outside opinions. Better yet, ways of verifying for myself.

Thanks.

Note that you can specifically assign drive letters in Win2K. If you have done so then those drive letters are saved-in the signature, I think. I’ve never looked into the matter so I’m not sure whether or not drive letters automatically assigned are also saved-but it would make sense to me to use the same mechanism regardless of how the drive letters are assigned.

Note that you can specifically assign drive letters in Win2K. If you have done so then those drive letters are saved-in the signature, I think. I’ve never looked into the matter so I’m not sure whether or not drive letters automatically assigned are also saved-but it would make sense to me to use the same mechanism regardless of how the drive letters are assigned.

And do you have any evidence for your statement that US-CERT generally puts out garbage?

And I didn’t suggest, by proxy or otherwise, that anyone should switch browsers. What I recommended is that the people I sent the message to should follow one or more of US-CERT’s recommendations. (I’ll admit that the details got lost in rewriting my original message, but they aren’t important to the question of whether or not the AOL browser is vulnerable, now are they?)

My last previous message (response to JScher) noted that what I’m interested in is whether or not the AOL browser is vulnerable. I don’t really care whether it’s based on IE or not-although that’s what I originally asked about. (As often as I run into a user who asks the wrong question you’d think I’d pay more attention to my own questions-but sometimes I don’t.)

And do you have any evidence for your statement that US-CERT generally puts out garbage?

And I didn’t suggest, by proxy or otherwise, that anyone should switch browsers. What I recommended is that the people I sent the message to should follow one or more of US-CERT’s recommendations. (I’ll admit that the details got lost in rewriting my original message, but they aren’t important to the question of whether or not the AOL browser is vulnerable, now are they?)

My last previous message (response to JScher) noted that what I’m interested in is whether or not the AOL browser is vulnerable. I don’t really care whether it’s based on IE or not-although that’s what I originally asked about. (As often as I run into a user who asks the wrong question you’d think I’d pay more attention to my own questions-but sometimes I don’t.)

And since it’s mostly the ActiveX that makes IE undesirable that’ll verify whether the AOL browser (branded as IE or not) shares the vulnerabilities.

Brilliant! Thanks!

And since it’s mostly the ActiveX that makes IE undesirable that’ll verify whether the AOL browser (branded as IE or not) shares the vulnerabilities.

Brilliant! Thanks!

Thanks. I know that you can ‘use’ any browser with AOL-just minimize their software once you’re connected & then start your other browser. It’ll use the existing Internet connection that AOL established. But in my opinion most people (including my idiot brother) are unlikely to switch if it’s the least inconvenient. Look at how many use IE because they’d need to download & install Netscape? (Like that’s difficult. But apparently it’s difficult enough to dissuade them from switching.)

Hopefully the Netscape for AOL is integrated with their dialer & email. At least it seems like it’d be worth a try. (Still wish it was Mozilla or Firefox, but that’s probably too much to ask with AOL owning Netscape now.)

Thanks.

Thanks. I know that you can ‘use’ any browser with AOL-just minimize their software once you’re connected & then start your other browser. It’ll use the existing Internet connection that AOL established. But in my opinion most people (including my idiot brother) are unlikely to switch if it’s the least inconvenient. Look at how many use IE because they’d need to download & install Netscape? (Like that’s difficult. But apparently it’s difficult enough to dissuade them from switching.)

Hopefully the Netscape for AOL is integrated with their dialer & email. At least it seems like it’d be worth a try. (Still wish it was Mozilla or Firefox, but that’s probably too much to ask with AOL owning Netscape now.)

Thanks.

Umm, US-CERT is part of the Department of Homeland Security. US Government agency. And did you bother to read my message? I’m not looking to change browsers-I currently use Netscape/Mozilla & am in the process of moving to Firefox. And I’m happy with that.

I do wish that everybody would run up-to-date AV & firewall software. But they don’t & probably never will. As for a fully-patched OS, that pretty much depends on how many problems the patches themselves cause-so far I’ve seen enough problems that I don’t recommend that anyone apply a patch as soon as it comes out except on a test machine. (I don’t necessarily recommend against it either. But if asked I always say ‘wait a couple of days & see how many problems are reported’.

Patches have gotten a lot better in the last couple of years but they aren’t problem-free. If they continue to improve at the current rate then I’ll probably change my advice in a year or two. But not today, sorry.

Umm, US-CERT is part of the Department of Homeland Security. US Government agency. And did you bother to read my message? I’m not looking to change browsers-I currently use Netscape/Mozilla & am in the process of moving to Firefox. And I’m happy with that.

I do wish that everybody would run up-to-date AV & firewall software. But they don’t & probably never will. As for a fully-patched OS, that pretty much depends on how many problems the patches themselves cause-so far I’ve seen enough problems that I don’t recommend that anyone apply a patch as soon as it comes out except on a test machine. (I don’t necessarily recommend against it either. But if asked I always say ‘wait a couple of days & see how many problems are reported’.

Patches have gotten a lot better in the last couple of years but they aren’t problem-free. If they continue to improve at the current rate then I’ll probably change my advice in a year or two. But not today, sorry.

I can understand, sort of, why Norton doesn’t uninstall McAfee during the installation process. Can anyone explain, please, why Norton won’t uninstall an earlier version of itself? Doesn’t make sense to me-if anyone should know how to uninstall Norton it should be Norton, right?

I can understand, sort of, why Norton doesn’t uninstall McAfee during the installation process. Can anyone explain, please, why Norton won’t uninstall an earlier version of itself? Doesn’t make sense to me-if anyone should know how to uninstall Norton it should be Norton, right?