Tabs in IE

Hey.

I just wanted to know, how many of you are missing tabs in Internet Explorer?
I am using Maxtron for browsing (wrapper around IE), since it has tabs.
Several of the people I know (colleagues and friends) are switching to Mozilla or Mozilla Firefox, the main reason when I ask them is always, that they need tabs, since they are tired of having too many windows open.

So, since I know several developers are reading from this forum, I'd like to know if this is a plan (please before Longhorn ships).

I think it is a shame people are migrating away from IE because of this.

And to you other co-users, are you using IE (if you are, are you missing tabs in IE, and would it make you switch browser if its not added?), or some other browser (In this case, why are you using another browser?)

I'm using IE, and I'm not missing tabs in the least. More often than not I find tabs to be more confusing than helpful.

I prefer browsing using tabs, so I use firefox. Trying to browse the web with IE is almost impossible for me now, new windows everywhere and all of them steal focus and what not.

Also, some of the web development extensions are very valuable to me.

I primarily use Firefox for two reasons: performance, and tabs.

The extensibility and usability of Firefox is what makes it appealing to people. You can extend IE by using ActiveX, but you need to be an administrator to install, and pay for certificates if you are a developer. Plus IE is tied to the OS, so vulnerabilities can have a big effect (even if you do not use it). Firefox vulnarabilities cannot really compromise a whole system, making it unusable (unless there is a flaw in the OS it is installed on). I've not seen any vulneribilities that elevate rights for limited user accounts.

Tabs are less useful in Windows XP because multiple instances of IE collapse into their own taskbar item - sort of "tabs lite"

sbc wrote:

Firefox vulnarabilities cannot really compromise a whole system, making it unusable

Not true.  Vulnerabilities in any installed software can compromise a whole system.

Can you think of any software that compromises a system, without vulnerabilites of the base system being the cause? Firefox is an application on Windows, but IE is a component and tied in, used by many parts.

sbc wrote:

Can you think of any software that compromises a system, without vulnerabilites of the base system being the cause? Firefox is an application on Windows, but IE is a component and tied in, used by many parts.

Hi sbc,
Perhaps you can expand on your argument here. Internet Explorer is part of windows and is relied on by parts of the operating system and other applications. However there is no code in Windows that IE calls that cannot also be executed by any other application, with all the Windows APIs documented on MSDN http://msdn.microsoft.com/
Thanks
-Dave

DMassy wrote:

sbc wrote: Can you think of any software that compromises a system, without vulnerabilites of the base system being the cause? Firefox is an application on Windows, but IE is a component and tied in, used by many parts.

Hi sbc,
Perhaps you can expand on your argument here. Internet Explorer is part of windows and is relied on by parts of the operating system and other applications. However there is no code in Windows that IE calls that cannot also be executed by any other application, with all the Windows APIs documented on MSDN http://msdn.microsoft.com/
Thanks
-Dave

Good point. Thanks for posting this Dave. It helps clear up one of the "urban myths" about the difference between Firefox and Internet Explorer.

I was just wondering if it was actually technically possible for an application, developed by a third party could do damage to a system (i.e. deleting files in the system directory), while the user was logged in as a limited user. I'm thinking more of an application that uses a framework of it's own (i.e. not developed by Microsoft, like XPCOM).

I just think it is better not to rely on just one vendor, as there could be a bigger risk (a vulnerability in IE will effect people if they use Outlook and not IE). Competition helps by reducing prices for consumers and giving malicious individuals/companies a smaller attack vector.

Windows / Internet Explorer's security record is a lot better now than it was pre SP2. That still leaves Windows 2000 and earlier OS's vulnerable (as they doesn't get the XPSP2 features).

Applications should be run in sandbox mode, even if the user is logged on as an administrator. You would then have to approve anything (or have the application pre-approved) that could be damaging (changing registry settings that could effect the OS, like adding items to startup, or modifying files in the system directory).

I expect Longhorn will be a lot more secure than XP.

We certainly advise people to be logged on to their machines as limited rights users rather than admins. At the same time we have to recognise that we need to make it easier for users to actually get their jobs done in this mode. That's certainly a focus of some teams at Microsoft for future versions of the OS.

On the topic of security it is great to hear the feedback that we improved things with Windows XP SP2. We'll probably never be "done" with security as there will always be bad guys out there and we know we have even more work to do 

Thanks
-Dave 

the stupid part is the microsoft used to push the MDI (multi document interface) for all windows programs. Then they did a 180 with Offices and now you get a new window with each document. I hate it.

Bring back MDI ability everywhere letting the user do it both ways!

Jorgie

I wonder if this site should have an IE forum? Move IE related posts to it and this forum would probably get a lot smaller. Although often threads start off on a different topic and then end up as Firefox v IE (guess what I use )

Which Microsoft applications are non-mdi? I just opened Excel 2003 and Word 2003, they're both MDI apps.

I think that you're thinking of the Tools->Options->View->Show Windows in Taskbar setting that shows a Windows Taskbar entry for each MDI-child window.