Who runs windows and uses IE.... *barf* :)
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 08:31:22AM -0700, FORC5 wrote:
> I do :-[
> actually both
> fp
>
> At 08:22 AM 3/16/2011, Anthony Q. Martin Poked the stick with:
> >Who runs 32-bit windows anymore?
> >
> >Sent from my iPad
> >
> >On Mar 16, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Brian Weeden <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Good review of IE9 over at Arstechnica:
> >>
> >> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/reviews/2011/03/the-most-modern-browser-there-is-internet-explorer-9-reviewed.ars
> >>
> >> Once again, MS screws up it's own product strategy:
> >>
> >> "It's also a little disappointing that the 64-bit version is less polished
> >> than the 32-bit version. It can't be made the default browser, and it
> >> doesn't include the new, high-performance scripting engine. Microsoft has
> >> long argued that 64-bit browsing isn't necessary; most plug-ins are only
> >> 32-bit, and so, the argument goes, browsing must be a 32-bit activity. This
> >> is unfortunate. One, it leads to a certain chicken-and-egg problem: there's
> >> little incentive to develop 64-bit plug-ins since nobody uses a 64-bit
> >> browser due to the lack of plug-ins (though Adobe Flash 11 is likely to
> >> include first-class 64-bit support, resolving one of the big stumbling
> >> blocks). Making the 64-bit version first-class?the same features aand
> >> performance as the 32-bit version?and ensuring that, at least, Miccrosoft's
> >> own plug-ins (such as Silverlight) were supported would go a long way
> >> towards making 64-bit browsing viable. This is, after all, much the same
> >> route as the company took with Office."
> >>
> >>
> >> And there are good reasons why you would want to run the 64-bit version:
> >>
> >> "The reason that 64-bit is desirable is particularly because it offers the
> >> potential to strengthen certain anti-hacking mechanisms. Address Space
> >> Layout Randomization (ASLR) depends on the ability to change the in-memory
> >> layout of things like DLLs. In a 32-bit process there are only a limited
> >> number of random locations that can be chosen. 32-bit processes are also
> >> more vulnerable to anti-ASLR measures such as "heap spraying" (wherein a
> >> large proportion of the browser's memory is filled with malicious code to
> >> make it easier for an attacker to trick the browser into executing it).
> >> 64-bit is by no means a panacea, but it does strengthen these protection
> >> systems. For something that is as frequently attacked as a Web browser,
> >> this
> >> kind of defense in depth is desirable."
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, if you're running 64-bit Windows, you can't install the
> >> 32-bit version. You're stuck with the 64-bit version, which means no
> >> scripting performance improvement and far fewer plugins. Which means I'm
> >> sticking with Chrome.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Brian
> >
> >__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
> >database 5958 (20110316) __________
> >
> >The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
> >
> >http://www.eset.com
>
> --
> Tallyho ! ]:8)
> Taglines below !
> --
> Men, in general, are but overgrown children.
--
Bryan G. Seitz
