According to the recommended browser settings on those pages it does.
In 1996 IE was included in Microsoft’s Internet Starter Kit for Windows 95, which retailed for 19.99 USD and included a how-to book and 30 days of Internet access on MSN among other features.
The first Internet Explorer was derived from Spyglass Mosaic. The license to Microsoft provided Spyglass with a quarterly fee plus a percentage of Microsoft’s revenues for the software.
It is malware, but not from Microsoft.
Googling brought me here, which leads ontohere.
One possible reason would be that it leads the uninformed to think that the problem is with Microsoft, thus leading you not to use their products.
Another would be that they designed their malware to work with a specific search engine, so they want to redirect you there. Heck, it may even be a fake version of Bing–a phishing site.
Finally, often times what alerts you to the existence of malware is not their intended function, but a mistake they made. Or two incompatible pieces of malware competing and thus causing a mistake.
Thanks! Although my issue was with Mi¢ro$oft, not Yahoo.
No more of this hijack, I desist from it, carry on as you were.
With all due respect, I am disgusted with ad-speak phrases like “enhanced surfing experience.” But I don’t like feeling that way, and I’d appreciate it if someone would convince me that I’m mistaken.
You see, it is my opinion that CookingWithGas and aaelghat are saying pretty much the same thing in these quotes. The difference is that aaelghat is explaining that the advantage to me is the ability to use certain specific websites, while CookingWithGas is trying to make me believe that the entire surfing experience will be enhanced simply by switching browsers.
I hate that kind of ad-speak. I wish the ads would be more specific about what I can expect to get out of them. A good example of the honesty that I like: QuickTime Player User Guide for Mac - Apple Support says: “What is QuickTime? Have you ever wanted to watch a video or listen to audio online, only to discover your computer can’t play the file? That’s why you need QuickTime.” With this short intro, I understand that if I never access video or audio, then I don’t need QuickTime, and can have a fine “surfing experience” even without it.
Or did I misunderstand what CookingWithGas posted?
Problem is, this is dishonest in different but similar way. QuickTime is one of may solutions to not being able to play content online. Apple is making it seem like you need Quicktime for audio and video, when it’s actually only needed for a few types of content specifically designed to work in Quicktime. And even that requirement can be eliminated if you know how.
(In fairness, they are pretty much the only inline MIDI player in town. There are other older ones or ones designed for Linux, but they are often glitchy.)
EDIT: Unless you use Internet Explorer. One of its features is hooking MIDIs into Windows Media Player, something the WMP plugin for other browsers doesn’t do, even though WMP can easily play MIDIs.
It may be something so simpla as Microsoft wants to implement some features to verify genuine copies and provide timely updates, and that function is built into IE but not your older version. Firefox is set as my default browser but can’t ditch IE because the auto-update uses it, as does much of my third-party software.
It’s easier to write update software for one browser than three or four. If you’re running a program on Windows, it’s known that IE is installed on your machine. All parties that want to apply advanced features to contact the web want you to be using the latest version.
Can you elaborate on the bit I bolded? To my knowledge, Apple has never done anything to stop me from using any browser I want to use.
What are the chances that, when you use IE, Microsoft collects info on where you go?
If IE can give Windows info like “10% of the page views at site X are followed by visits to site Y” they would have a gold mine of sellable information on surfing habits.
[Computer tech/Computer shop owner hat on]
There is no such malware built into your PC by microsoft. I would be far more inclined to suspect a manufacturer of putting something on due to a reciprocal agreement to default to a cobranded version of bing. Several major manufacturers do this.
All browsers do this by default. That’s how companies like Google collect advertising money. Sites can also look at all of the other cookies that you’ve collected, not just the last site you visited. This helps them determine who their competitors are, if they’re hitting the right segment of the market, and what other sites they should advertise on/partner with.
But what about Mi¢ro$oft?
:eek: They cannot have my eyeballs or any other balls I might have on my person!
Cite?
Chrome most definitely does not do that.
No, cookies have a domain associated with them. Websites outside of that domain do not get to see those cookies.
I believe that you are confusing browser technology with leadback businesses. There are third-party businesses that contract with websites to embed single-pixel images into some or all pages on that website. By making this pixel the same color as the background, the user doesn’t see the image, but because the image is there, the user’s computer connects to the third-party’s website. By contracting with multiple websites, and by knowing the interests those websites are relevant to (e.g., news or sports or families), they can start to get a user profile on that cookie. But the user’s browser never shows that cookie to any website outside of the third-party’s domain.
The only way for multiple websites to see the same cookie is for the cookie to be set to allow cross-domain viewing, but most browsers by default reject such cookies since they are inherently insecure.
This is incorrect, googles money comes from encoded links, googles computers can tell when you click on a google ad because that generates a request for information stored on googles computer. Google then knows that someone clicked on “AD FOR PRODUCT X”
Slaps Yoyodyne with a large trout.
Cookie security is a bit complicated.
Cookies are supposed to be only retrievable by the associated domain, but crap happens.
IE several years ago had a bug for quite a long time, over several versions, that allowed any web site to read any of the other site’s cookies. And it was exploited. Which was a problem with plain text cookes that had email address, logins, CC numbers, etc. in them. This is why plain text cookies containing private info still outrage people. There’s always bugs in browsers, every now and then a cookie reading bug is found. Eeech.
Also, the concept of domain gets blurred when a dozen domains get their cookies added to your machine when you visit a page. And each of those companies can and do share their cookie info with others, and then you visit a second unrelated page and one of the previous sites also has a cookie on this site and now they can combine a bunch of info by sharing data with the 2nd site’s partners. They aren’t reading the cookie directly, but they are effectively doing the same thing.
So, you can be picky and say cookies are limited to a domain and expose your data to who knows who, or you can just assume that there is basically no reliable security with cookies and practice safe and sane web surfing.
Apple’s iOS does not allow you to use other browsers. Or, to be more precise, Apple won’t add them to the app store. Any browser you download for iOS still uses Safari, and just brands it differently. And prevents them from using their much faster JavaScript engine.
That said, as far as I know, Windows RT will allow other Metro browsers–it’s just that none exist yet. They may not allow them in the Store, but Windows tablets are not to my knowledge locked to using only the Store to install applications.
Ah, thanks. I’m a Mac user, but don’t own an iPhone or iPad, so I wasn’t aware of the restriction there.