Is this registry key necessary for SuperAntispyware?

[Nick Skrepetos]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <1162186501.862987.318910@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
> nskrepetos@yahoo.com says...
> > What needs to happen is education - not the, typically uneducated,
> > propaganda of saying "ActiveX is bad". I think this will make a great
> > blog topic for this weeks security blog:
> > http://superantispyware.blogspot.com
> >
> > Understand, I am not targeting you here - it just is time that people
> > truely understand the facts and properly educate instead of just
> > reiterating a canned "ActiveX is bad"
>
> ActiveX is a sign that the website developer didn't follow the standards
> for browser compatibility. Don't get me wrong, I have written many AX
> controls, but I don't do it any more.
>
> There is no need for ActiveX, in fact, while ActiveX is not the real
> problem, it's the common delivery method. That's like saying that
> Gasoline is not a threat, but people still get killed in fires started
> with it.
>
> I will tell people that ActiveX is bad for now, as there are too many
> people using it to make malicious code, and there are a LOT of people
> not using it any more, because of that fact.
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

This is not a personal attack but I am trying to make people understand
the actual dangers, not the propaganda....

"ActiveX is a sign that the website developer didn't follow the
standards for browser compatibility" ??? There are two browsers in use
by 99% of the surfing public. That's yet even more uneducated
propaganda (you should no better than this) - There are basically two
platforms used to surfing the web by the "average" user (yes, I know
Opera, Safari, etc. etc.) - IE and Mozilla/Firefox - so sites that want
to do things such as our File Research Center, Online Virus/Spyware
scanning, etc. should use those technologies (ActiveX/XPCOM) to create
that type of software. The alternative is writing things in Java - but,
in my opinion that would be a waste of our resources - it is slower and
we would have to rewrite our complete engines. Java can infect the same
way ActiveX/XPCOM can.

Why not educate people to look where they are surfing and learn how to
see if a site is good or bad vs just telling them "ActiveX is bad" - if
people were not surfing porn and trying to steal software, and get
everything for free 99.99% of infections would not happen. It's like
having unprotected sex - bad things can happen if you don't take safety
precautions and learn what you are doing....

This is why we get people saying our site (and others) is/are bad -
because people tell them ActiveX is bad. Do you tell people Cars are
bad? Planes are bad? Gasoline is bad? Java also can infect a machine
just as easily as ActiveX, do you tell people Java is bad? What about
videos......those infect machines - do you tell everyone videos are bad
too?

This is very interesting to me - people are completely misinformed -
this is why education of the public is so important - and people in the
front lines with "techical backgrounds" should educate the people as
you have the power to do so and should understand the facts and truths
and not just say "ActiveX is bad"........we, the technical users are
the ones that can make the difference.....so why not start?

Nick Skrepetos
SUPERAntiSpyware.com
http://www.superantispyware.com

[Ron Lopshire]

Nick Skrepetos wrote:

> Leythos wrote:
>
>>In article <1162186501.862987.318910@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
>>nskrepetos@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>>What needs to happen is education - not the, typically uneducated,
>>>propaganda of saying "ActiveX is bad". I think this will make a great
>>>blog topic for this weeks security blog:
>>>http://superantispyware.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>Understand, I am not targeting you here - it just is time that people
>>>truely understand the facts and properly educate instead of just
>>>reiterating a canned "ActiveX is bad"
>>
>>ActiveX is a sign that the website developer didn't follow the standards
>>for browser compatibility. Don't get me wrong, I have written many AX
>>controls, but I don't do it any more.
>>
>>There is no need for ActiveX, in fact, while ActiveX is not the real
>>problem, it's the common delivery method. That's like saying that
>>Gasoline is not a threat, but people still get killed in fires started
>>with it.
>>
>>I will tell people that ActiveX is bad for now, as there are too many
>>people using it to make malicious code, and there are a LOT of people
>>not using it any more, because of that fact.
>
> This is not a personal attack but I am trying to make people understand
> the actual dangers, not the propaganda....

This does not have to be personal, Nick. But to assume that those who
choose not to use ActiveX, or Java, or IE, or OE, etc., do so because
they are misinformed or ignorant smacks of ... well, let's not go
there. [grin]

> "ActiveX is a sign that the website developer didn't follow the
> standards for browser compatibility" ??? There are two browsers in use
> by 99% of the surfing public. That's yet even more uneducated
> propaganda (you should no better than this) - There are basically two
> platforms used to surfing the web by the "average" user (yes, I know
> Opera, Safari, etc. etc.) - IE and Mozilla/Firefox - so sites that want
> to do things such as our File Research Center, Online Virus/Spyware
> scanning, etc. should use those technologies (ActiveX/XPCOM) to create
> that type of software. The alternative is writing things in Java - but,
> in my opinion that would be a waste of our resources - it is slower and
> we would have to rewrite our complete engines. Java can infect the same
> way ActiveX/XPCOM can.

Why do you IE fanboys [grin, let's keep this civil] continue to
fabricate statistics? But then again, 92,7% of all statistics,
including this one, are fabricated. That's what I told the idiot at my
bank's help desk when he claimed that 98% of their customers use IE. I
refuse to support a financial institution where the "technical" people
fabricate data. See Enron.

The fact of the matter is that IE's market share is now around 80%,
and falling. Google did not dump millions and millions of dollars into
Mozilla and Opera (the reason for Opera being freeware) for nothing.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
http://www.e-janco.com/browser.htm
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0

There is some contention, that these statistics are actually skewed in
IE's favor due to UA-spoofing necessary to view the contents of sites
developed by the ignorati. IIUC, most Opera users typically use an IE
UA out of necessity. But that said, these numbers are of no use to
you, Nick. They have absolutely nothing to do with your market!

In corporate America (same applies to rest of the Windows-using
world), _this_ is a typical Windows setup:

OS: Windows 2K/XP
Office Suite: Office 2000/2003 Professional
Browser: IE
Email Client: Outlook/OE
AV: Enterprise Edition of NAV/NIS or McAfee*
AS: None or MSAS/Windows Defender*

*When Vista is released, these may change, somewhat gradually, to
Windows One Care Live. See the bundling of IE with Windows and how
that worked out for Netscape.

I would be suprised if the market share for IE/OE/Outlook for the
Fortune 500 companies is less than 99%. These people (multi-million
dollar IT departments) do _not_ purchase third-party anti-malware
solutions. These people were schooled by MS, and MS contends that it
is not only not necessary, it is not recommended.

And of course, these people already have the best anti-spyware
protection in place. "If you as an employee of this company download
malware on your company laptop/desktop, your employment will be
terminated." There is no license fee necessary for this solution.

Your market, Nick, is the Home/SOHO market. This can be divided in to
two groups --- the clueless and the not-so-clueless.

The clueless bought an OEM Windows box with NAV or McAfee installed,
and haven't updated their AV definitions since. They don't know what a
browser or email client is. And they don't know enough to wade through
the FUD and snake oil. When their boxes get compromised, they pay the
local "computer expert" $100-200 or more to clean up their systems.
These "experts" then install freeware AV and AS apps that never get
updated again until the next time their services are needed. The
"I-can-fix-your-box-for-$150" folks do _not_ recommend apps that
require license fees. It cuts into their profit margins.

And then there are the not-so-clueless Windows users. This is your
true market, Nick. These people are savvy enough to wade through the
FUD and snake oil, and make their security decisions accordingly. And
these people practice safe hex.

http://www.claymania.com/safe-hex.html

And part of safe hex (Rule #3) is not using IE/OE/Outlook. Even if
IE's share were 90% overall, and it's not, it is _way_ below 50% with
this crowd.

> Why not educate people to look where they are surfing and learn how to
> see if a site is good or bad vs just telling them "ActiveX is bad" - if
> people were not surfing porn and trying to steal software, and get
> everything for free 99.99% of infections would not happen. It's like
> having unprotected sex - bad things can happen if you don't take safety
> precautions and learn what you are doing....

Are all four of those 9s significant? [grin]

> This is why we get people saying our site (and others) is/are bad -
> because people tell them ActiveX is bad. Do you tell people Cars are
> bad? Planes are bad? Gasoline is bad? Java also can infect a machine
> just as easily as ActiveX, do you tell people Java is bad? What about
> videos......those infect machines - do you tell everyone videos are bad
> too?

You are correct. Java (and VBA, VBS, etc.) is just as risky. The
issue, of course, is default allow vs. default deny. No one should be
using Java or ActiveX with un-trusted sites. If your system is
supported by a multi-million dollar IT department, you can enable
anything that you want. On _any_ Home/SOHO box, however, both Java and
ActiveX should be disabled by default. I will leave it to the
interested reader to determine which of the above groups of Windows
users is qualified to decide when to allow either to be enabled.

> This is very interesting to me - people are completely misinformed -
> this is why education of the public is so important - and people in the
> front lines with "techical backgrounds" should educate the people as
> you have the power to do so and should understand the facts and truths
> and not just say "ActiveX is bad"........we, the technical users are
> the ones that can make the difference.....so why not start?

The best place to start, IMNSHO, is by not insulting your customer
base. I don't use IE, ActiveX or Java because I choose not to, not
because I am some ignorant, incompetent, misinformed buffoon. That is
one of the beauties of the current world. Being able to choose which
browser to use, which email client to use, and which sites are allowed
to have access to the data on my HD.

I haven't tried your ActiveX process utility, because 1) using it is
such a PITA with my setup, and 2) I have several other utilities that
do the same thing without ActiveX. IE is not my default browser, and
so your utility is not usable from your GUI. In order to use it, I have to

1) Open the page in FF.
2) Set IE's security to default settings (everything enabled).
3) Open IE.
4) C&P the link into IE.
5) Download the ActiveX control.
6) Run the utility.
7) Close IE.
8) Lock IE down again (Enough is Enough!).

As I said, a real PITA for a redundant utility. If I remember next
month when I use Microsoft Updates, I will try your utility before I
put IE away for another month.

I consider you, Nick, to be a stand-up guy and a friend, and I
consider SAS to be a great product. And I will continue to promote SAS
as a worthwhile AS solution, freeware and/or Pro. I don't care if you
develop ActiveX controls for your utilities, just please don't insult
those of us who choose not use them.

I would like you to do me a favor. When you post your blog about
"setting the record straight about ActiveX", take a poll among your
readers as to which browser(s) they are using. From my experience, I
would be shocked, absolutely shocked, if IE was exclusively used by
over 30% of those who frequent the security NGs and fora such as yours.

With the release of IE7, ActiveX is now optin. That means that by
default, for the first time in the history of ActiveX/IE, ActiveX is
disabled. I will leave it to the interested reader to determine which
of the above groups of Windows users is qualified to know how and when
to enable it.

It would appear that Microsoft has decided to go a different direction
WRT to ActiveX. Those who are interested can Google for replacing
ActiveX controls with user forms, .NET and several other options.
Justified or not, this would appear to be the reality.

Back in late 90s, before Firefox and Opera got their feet in the door,
this was the mantra.

The browser wars are over, and IE won. Get over it.

Allow me to be the first.

With the release of IE7, ActiveX is dead. Get over it.

Ron

[Andy Walker]

Ron Lopshire wrote:

>part of safe hex (Rule #3) is not using IE/OE/Outlook. Even if
>IE's share were 90% overall, and it's not, it is _way_ below 50% with
>this crowd.

I use Outlook and IE and have never been infected by ANY malware. Some
people are simply clueless when it comes to safely traversing the
internet...I am not one of them.

I agree with your dislike for ActiveX. Any site that requires me to
load an ActiveX object is quickly sent to the bottom of my list for
any revisit (the exception being M$ update). I don't care who vouches
for a sites security, they simply don't get to load their software on
my computer. I even went to Nick's site (out of curiosity) and then
immediately closed it after discovering it uses ActiveX.

[Ron Lopshire]

Andy Walker wrote:
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>part of safe hex (Rule #3) is not using IE/OE/Outlook. Even if
>>IE's share were 90% overall, and it's not, it is _way_ below 50% with
>>this crowd.
>
> I use Outlook and IE and have never been infected by ANY malware. Some
> people are simply clueless when it comes to safely traversing the
> internet...I am not one of them.
>
> I agree with your dislike for ActiveX. Any site that requires me to
> load an ActiveX object is quickly sent to the bottom of my list for
> any revisit (the exception being M$ update). I don't care who vouches
> for a sites security, they simply don't get to load their software on
> my computer. I even went to Nick's site (out of curiosity) and then
> immediately closed it after discovering it uses ActiveX.

Thanks, Andy. Having several browsers and clients to choose from is
the key. It makes it better for all of us. If the only games in town
were IE and OE/Outlook, it would be as much fun as dealing with the
telephone or cable companies.

Ron

[Nick Skrepetos]

Ron Lopshire wrote:
> Nick Skrepetos wrote:
>
> > Leythos wrote:
> >
> >>In article <1162186501.862987.318910@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
> >>nskrepetos@yahoo.com says...
> >>
> >>>What needs to happen is education - not the, typically uneducated,
> >>>propaganda of saying "ActiveX is bad". I think this will make a great
> >>>blog topic for this weeks security blog:
> >>>http://superantispyware.blogspot.com
> >>>
> >>>Understand, I am not targeting you here - it just is time that people
> >>>truely understand the facts and properly educate instead of just
> >>>reiterating a canned "ActiveX is bad"
> >>
> >>ActiveX is a sign that the website developer didn't follow the standards
> >>for browser compatibility. Don't get me wrong, I have written many AX
> >>controls, but I don't do it any more.
> >>
> >>There is no need for ActiveX, in fact, while ActiveX is not the real
> >>problem, it's the common delivery method. That's like saying that
> >>Gasoline is not a threat, but people still get killed in fires started
> >>with it.
> >>
> >>I will tell people that ActiveX is bad for now, as there are too many
> >>people using it to make malicious code, and there are a LOT of people
> >>not using it any more, because of that fact.
> >
> > This is not a personal attack but I am trying to make people understand
> > the actual dangers, not the propaganda....
>
> This does not have to be personal, Nick. But to assume that those who
> choose not to use ActiveX, or Java, or IE, or OE, etc., do so because
> they are misinformed or ignorant smacks of ... well, let's not go
> there. [grin]
>
> > "ActiveX is a sign that the website developer didn't follow the
> > standards for browser compatibility" ??? There are two browsers in use
> > by 99% of the surfing public. That's yet even more uneducated
> > propaganda (you should no better than this) - There are basically two
> > platforms used to surfing the web by the "average" user (yes, I know
> > Opera, Safari, etc. etc.) - IE and Mozilla/Firefox - so sites that want
> > to do things such as our File Research Center, Online Virus/Spyware
> > scanning, etc. should use those technologies (ActiveX/XPCOM) to create
> > that type of software. The alternative is writing things in Java - but,
> > in my opinion that would be a waste of our resources - it is slower and
> > we would have to rewrite our complete engines. Java can infect the same
> > way ActiveX/XPCOM can.
>
> Why do you IE fanboys [grin, let's keep this civil] continue to
> fabricate statistics? But then again, 92,7% of all statistics,
> including this one, are fabricated. That's what I told the idiot at my
> bank's help desk when he claimed that 98% of their customers use IE. I
> refuse to support a financial institution where the "technical" people
> fabricate data. See Enron.
>
> The fact of the matter is that IE's market share is now around 80%,
> and falling. Google did not dump millions and millions of dollars into
> Mozilla and Opera (the reason for Opera being freeware) for nothing.
>
> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
> http://www.e-janco.com/browser.htm
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0
>
> There is some contention, that these statistics are actually skewed in
> IE's favor due to UA-spoofing necessary to view the contents of sites
> developed by the ignorati. IIUC, most Opera users typically use an IE
> UA out of necessity. But that said, these numbers are of no use to
> you, Nick. They have absolutely nothing to do with your market!
>
> In corporate America (same applies to rest of the Windows-using
> world), _this_ is a typical Windows setup:
>
> OS: Windows 2K/XP
> Office Suite: Office 2000/2003 Professional
> Browser: IE
> Email Client: Outlook/OE
> AV: Enterprise Edition of NAV/NIS or McAfee*
> AS: None or MSAS/Windows Defender*
>
> *When Vista is released, these may change, somewhat gradually, to
> Windows One Care Live. See the bundling of IE with Windows and how
> that worked out for Netscape.
>
> I would be suprised if the market share for IE/OE/Outlook for the
> Fortune 500 companies is less than 99%. These people (multi-million
> dollar IT departments) do _not_ purchase third-party anti-malware
> solutions. These people were schooled by MS, and MS contends that it
> is not only not necessary, it is not recommended.
>
> And of course, these people already have the best anti-spyware
> protection in place. "If you as an employee of this company download
> malware on your company laptop/desktop, your employment will be
> terminated." There is no license fee necessary for this solution.
>
> Your market, Nick, is the Home/SOHO market. This can be divided in to
> two groups --- the clueless and the not-so-clueless.
>
> The clueless bought an OEM Windows box with NAV or McAfee installed,
> and haven't updated their AV definitions since. They don't know what a
> browser or email client is. And they don't know enough to wade through
> the FUD and snake oil. When their boxes get compromised, they pay the
> local "computer expert" $100-200 or more to clean up their systems.
> These "experts" then install freeware AV and AS apps that never get
> updated again until the next time their services are needed. The
> "I-can-fix-your-box-for-$150" folks do _not_ recommend apps that
> require license fees. It cuts into their profit margins.
>
> And then there are the not-so-clueless Windows users. This is your
> true market, Nick. These people are savvy enough to wade through the
> FUD and snake oil, and make their security decisions accordingly. And
> these people practice safe hex.
>
> http://www.claymania.com/safe-hex.html
>
> And part of safe hex (Rule #3) is not using IE/OE/Outlook. Even if
> IE's share were 90% overall, and it's not, it is _way_ below 50% with
> this crowd.
>
> > Why not educate people to look where they are surfing and learn how to
> > see if a site is good or bad vs just telling them "ActiveX is bad" - if
> > people were not surfing porn and trying to steal software, and get
> > everything for free 99.99% of infections would not happen. It's like
> > having unprotected sex - bad things can happen if you don't take safety
> > precautions and learn what you are doing....
>
> Are all four of those 9s significant? [grin]
>
> > This is why we get people saying our site (and others) is/are bad -
> > because people tell them ActiveX is bad. Do you tell people Cars are
> > bad? Planes are bad? Gasoline is bad? Java also can infect a machine
> > just as easily as ActiveX, do you tell people Java is bad? What about
> > videos......those infect machines - do you tell everyone videos are bad
> > too?
>
> You are correct. Java (and VBA, VBS, etc.) is just as risky. The
> issue, of course, is default allow vs. default deny. No one should be
> using Java or ActiveX with un-trusted sites. If your system is
> supported by a multi-million dollar IT department, you can enable
> anything that you want. On _any_ Home/SOHO box, however, both Java and
> ActiveX should be disabled by default. I will leave it to the
> interested reader to determine which of the above groups of Windows
> users is qualified to decide when to allow either to be enabled.
>
> > This is very interesting to me - people are completely misinformed -
> > this is why education of the public is so important - and people in the
> > front lines with "techical backgrounds" should educate the people as
> > you have the power to do so and should understand the facts and truths
> > and not just say "ActiveX is bad"........we, the technical users are
> > the ones that can make the difference.....so why not start?
>
> The best place to start, IMNSHO, is by not insulting your customer
> base. I don't use IE, ActiveX or Java because I choose not to, not
> because I am some ignorant, incompetent, misinformed buffoon. That is
> one of the beauties of the current world. Being able to choose which
> browser to use, which email client to use, and which sites are allowed
> to have access to the data on my HD.
>
> I haven't tried your ActiveX process utility, because 1) using it is
> such a PITA with my setup, and 2) I have several other utilities that
> do the same thing without ActiveX. IE is not my default browser, and
> so your utility is not usable from your GUI. In order to use it, I have to
>
> 1) Open the page in FF.
> 2) Set IE's security to default settings (everything enabled).
> 3) Open IE.
> 4) C&P the link into IE.
> 5) Download the ActiveX control.
> 6) Run the utility.
> 7) Close IE.
> 8) Lock IE down again (Enough is Enough!).
>
> As I said, a real PITA for a redundant utility. If I remember next
> month when I use Microsoft Updates, I will try your utility before I
> put IE away for another month.
>
> I consider you, Nick, to be a stand-up guy and a friend, and I
> consider SAS to be a great product. And I will continue to promote SAS
> as a worthwhile AS solution, freeware and/or Pro. I don't care if you
> develop ActiveX controls for your utilities, just please don't insult
> those of us who choose not use them.
>
> I would like you to do me a favor. When you post your blog about
> "setting the record straight about ActiveX", take a poll among your
> readers as to which browser(s) they are using. From my experience, I
> would be shocked, absolutely shocked, if IE was exclusively used by
> over 30% of those who frequent the security NGs and fora such as yours.
>
> With the release of IE7, ActiveX is now optin. That means that by
> default, for the first time in the history of ActiveX/IE, ActiveX is
> disabled. I will leave it to the interested reader to determine which
> of the above groups of Windows users is qualified to know how and when
> to enable it.
>
> It would appear that Microsoft has decided to go a different direction
> WRT to ActiveX. Those who are interested can Google for replacing
> ActiveX controls with user forms, .NET and several other options.
> Justified or not, this would appear to be the reality.
>
> Back in late 90s, before Firefox and Opera got their feet in the door,
> this was the mantra.
>
> The browser wars are over, and IE won. Get over it.
>
> Allow me to be the first.
>
> With the release of IE7, ActiveX is dead. Get over it.
>
> Ron

Ron,

I am not trying to upset anyone - I am very thankful for all of the
support this, and other groups, have provided for me and my products. I
think my 99% issue was misread - I said "There are two browsers in use
by 99% of the surfing public" - Internet Explorer and Firefox - I
didn't say 99% used IE

For instance, our stats as of right now today on SUPERAntiSpyware.com
is 79.74% Internet Explorer, 19.2% Firefox/Mozilla and the balance
everything else, just FYI. The SUPERAdBlocker.com stats are about the
same with IE @ 82.1% and FireFox/Mozzilla @ 17.3%

I also didn't say, and I hope didn't imply, anyone was a "baffoon" or
"ignorant" because they did or didn't use ActiveX - I stated that
ActiveX was not bad - and simply have issue with the blanket "ActiveX
is bad".

My point is that ActiveX is not bad - neither is XPI/XPCOM - both are
great technologies that are useful. Any technology can be exploited.

I am not sure ActiveX will be "dead" with the release of IE7, as there
are still some native things that can't be done with the other methods
- but either way it will play out how it does

-Nick

[pcbutts1]

1. Microsoft Internet Explorer 75.75%

2. Netscape 15.15%

3. Opera/9.02 (Windows NT 5.0; U; en) 3.03%

4. Opera/9.02 (Windows NT 5.1; U; pl) 1.51%


You are correct about IE and Active X. The stats above run about the same
from all my sites.


--


The best live web video on the internet http://www.seedsv.com/webdemo.htm
NEW Embedded system W/Linux. We now sell DVR cards.
See it all at http://www.seedsv.com/products.htm
Sharpvision simply the best http://www.seedsv.com



"Nick Skrepetos" <nskrepetos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162249935.515677.214620@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>
> I am not trying to upset anyone - I am very thankful for all of the
> support this, and other groups, have provided for me and my products. I
> think my 99% issue was misread - I said "There are two browsers in use
> by 99% of the surfing public" - Internet Explorer and Firefox - I
> didn't say 99% used IE
>
> For instance, our stats as of right now today on SUPERAntiSpyware.com
> is 79.74% Internet Explorer, 19.2% Firefox/Mozilla and the balance
> everything else, just FYI. The SUPERAdBlocker.com stats are about the
> same with IE @ 82.1% and FireFox/Mozzilla @ 17.3%
>
> I also didn't say, and I hope didn't imply, anyone was a "baffoon" or
> "ignorant" because they did or didn't use ActiveX - I stated that
> ActiveX was not bad - and simply have issue with the blanket "ActiveX
> is bad".
>
> My point is that ActiveX is not bad - neither is XPI/XPCOM - both are
> great technologies that are useful. Any technology can be exploited.
>
> I am not sure ActiveX will be "dead" with the release of IE7, as there
> are still some native things that can't be done with the other methods
> - but either way it will play out how it does
>
> -Nick
>

[---Fitz---]

Does that include NASA.gov?

"pcbutts1" <pcbutts1@seedsv.com> wrote in message
news:L5udncnh_74KDdvYnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> 1. Microsoft Internet Explorer 75.75%
>
> 2. Netscape 15.15%
>
> 3. Opera/9.02 (Windows NT 5.0; U; en) 3.03%
>
> 4. Opera/9.02 (Windows NT 5.1; U; pl) 1.51%
>
>
> You are correct about IE and Active X. The stats above run about the same
> from all my sites.
>
<SNIP>

[Ron Lopshire]

Nick Skrepetos wrote:
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>With the release of IE7, ActiveX is now optin. That means that by
>>default, for the first time in the history of ActiveX/IE, ActiveX is
>>disabled. I will leave it to the interested reader to determine which
>>of the above groups of Windows users is qualified to know how and when
>>to enable it.
>>
>>It would appear that Microsoft has decided to go a different direction
>>WRT to ActiveX. Those who are interested can Google for replacing
>>ActiveX controls with user forms, .NET and several other options.
>>Justified or not, this would appear to be the reality.
>>
>>Back in late 90s, before Firefox and Opera got their feet in the door,
>>this was the mantra.
>>
>> The browser wars are over, and IE won. Get over it.
>>
>>Allow me to be the first.
>>
>> With the release of IE7, ActiveX is dead. Get over it.
>
> I am not trying to upset anyone - I am very thankful for all of the
> support this, and other groups, have provided for me and my products. I
> think my 99% issue was misread - I said "There are two browsers in use
> by 99% of the surfing public" - Internet Explorer and Firefox - I
> didn't say 99% used IE
>
> For instance, our stats as of right now today on SUPERAntiSpyware.com
> is 79.74% Internet Explorer, 19.2% Firefox/Mozilla and the balance
> everything else, just FYI. The SUPERAdBlocker.com stats are about the
> same with IE @ 82.1% and FireFox/Mozzilla @ 17.3%
>
> I also didn't say, and I hope didn't imply, anyone was a "baffoon" or
> "ignorant" because they did or didn't use ActiveX - I stated that
> ActiveX was not bad - and simply have issue with the blanket "ActiveX
> is bad".
>
> My point is that ActiveX is not bad - neither is XPI/XPCOM - both are
> great technologies that are useful. Any technology can be exploited.
>
> I am not sure ActiveX will be "dead" with the release of IE7, as there
> are still some native things that can't be done with the other methods
> - but either way it will play out how it does

Thanks for the opportunity to rant, Nick. Keep up the good work.

The stats for SUPERAdBlocker surprise me, as I thought that SAB only
worked with IE, based on this:

"Super Ad Blocker supports Internet Explorer 5.0 and above, AOL 8.x
and above, and MSN on Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000 and XP!"

That's why I never looked into SUPERAdBlocker. BTW, I cannot imagine
ever using only one browser again. For your stats, my browser usage:

IE -> Microsoft Updates only, security settings at default, locked
down at all other times.
Opera -> Trusted browser. Javascript and first-party cookies enabled.
Firefox -> Default browser, locked down. Some toggling of settings used.
Netscape/SeaMonkey -> email/NNTP suites, browsers locked down.
Thunderbird -> my wife's personal email. She uses Office 2003
Professional (IE/Outlook) on her work laptop (Fortune 100 company).

This WFM, and I find something that I like/dislike about all of them.

Just based on a casual observation, the browser/client usages seem to
vary between NNTP and the Web Fora. In the GRC NGs, for example, there
appear to be tons of Opera users, perhaps even as many as the Mozilla
users. Particularly since it went free.

Ron

[Nick Skrepetos]

Ron Lopshire wrote:
> Nick Skrepetos wrote:
> > Ron Lopshire wrote:
> >
> >>With the release of IE7, ActiveX is now optin. That means that by
> >>default, for the first time in the history of ActiveX/IE, ActiveX is
> >>disabled. I will leave it to the interested reader to determine which
> >>of the above groups of Windows users is qualified to know how and when
> >>to enable it.
> >>
> >>It would appear that Microsoft has decided to go a different direction
> >>WRT to ActiveX. Those who are interested can Google for replacing
> >>ActiveX controls with user forms, .NET and several other options.
> >>Justified or not, this would appear to be the reality.
> >>
> >>Back in late 90s, before Firefox and Opera got their feet in the door,
> >>this was the mantra.
> >>
> >> The browser wars are over, and IE won. Get over it.
> >>
> >>Allow me to be the first.
> >>
> >> With the release of IE7, ActiveX is dead. Get over it.
> >
> > I am not trying to upset anyone - I am very thankful for all of the
> > support this, and other groups, have provided for me and my products. I
> > think my 99% issue was misread - I said "There are two browsers in use
> > by 99% of the surfing public" - Internet Explorer and Firefox - I
> > didn't say 99% used IE
> >
> > For instance, our stats as of right now today on SUPERAntiSpyware.com
> > is 79.74% Internet Explorer, 19.2% Firefox/Mozilla and the balance
> > everything else, just FYI. The SUPERAdBlocker.com stats are about the
> > same with IE @ 82.1% and FireFox/Mozzilla @ 17.3%
> >
> > I also didn't say, and I hope didn't imply, anyone was a "baffoon" or
> > "ignorant" because they did or didn't use ActiveX - I stated that
> > ActiveX was not bad - and simply have issue with the blanket "ActiveX
> > is bad".
> >
> > My point is that ActiveX is not bad - neither is XPI/XPCOM - both are
> > great technologies that are useful. Any technology can be exploited.
> >
> > I am not sure ActiveX will be "dead" with the release of IE7, as there
> > are still some native things that can't be done with the other methods
> > - but either way it will play out how it does
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to rant, Nick. Keep up the good work.
>
> The stats for SUPERAdBlocker surprise me, as I thought that SAB only
> worked with IE, based on this:
>
> "Super Ad Blocker supports Internet Explorer 5.0 and above, AOL 8.x
> and above, and MSN on Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000 and XP!"
>
> That's why I never looked into SUPERAdBlocker. BTW, I cannot imagine
> ever using only one browser again. For your stats, my browser usage:
>
> IE -> Microsoft Updates only, security settings at default, locked
> down at all other times.
> Opera -> Trusted browser. Javascript and first-party cookies enabled.
> Firefox -> Default browser, locked down. Some toggling of settings used.
> Netscape/SeaMonkey -> email/NNTP suites, browsers locked down.
> Thunderbird -> my wife's personal email. She uses Office 2003
> Professional (IE/Outlook) on her work laptop (Fortune 100 company).
>
> This WFM, and I find something that I like/dislike about all of them.
>
> Just based on a casual observation, the browser/client usages seem to
> vary between NNTP and the Web Fora. In the GRC NGs, for example, there
> appear to be tons of Opera users, perhaps even as many as the Mozilla
> users. Particularly since it went free.
>
> Ron

Ron - interesting data on the NNTP vs Web. I bet the NNTP stuff varies
quite a bit as not as many non-techie users do the newsgroup thing.

We do support Firefox with SUPERAdBlocker - have for over a year - it's
on the home page, product page and the logo is everywhere. Where did
you see that other text, I will promptly correct it!

-Nick

[Ron Lopshire]

Nick Skrepetos wrote:
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>Nick Skrepetos wrote:
>>>
>>>For instance, our stats as of right now today on SUPERAntiSpyware.com
>>>is 79.74% Internet Explorer, 19.2% Firefox/Mozilla and the balance
>>>everything else, just FYI. The SUPERAdBlocker.com stats are about the
>>>same with IE @ 82.1% and FireFox/Mozzilla @ 17.3%
>>>
>>Thanks for the opportunity to rant, Nick. Keep up the good work.
>>
>>The stats for SUPERAdBlocker surprise me, as I thought that SAB only
>>worked with IE, based on this:
>>
>>"Super Ad Blocker supports Internet Explorer 5.0 and above, AOL 8.x
>>and above, and MSN on Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000 and XP!"
>>
>>That's why I never looked into SUPERAdBlocker.
>>
>>Just based on a casual observation, the browser/client usages seem to
>>vary between NNTP and the Web Fora. In the GRC NGs, for example, there
>>appear to be tons of Opera users, perhaps even as many as the Mozilla
>>users. Particularly since it went free.
>
> Ron - interesting data on the NNTP vs Web. I bet the NNTP stuff varies
> quite a bit as not as many non-techie users do the newsgroup thing.
>
> We do support Firefox with SUPERAdBlocker - have for over a year - it's
> on the home page, product page and the logo is everywhere. Where did
> you see that other text, I will promptly correct it!

Nick,

I believe that I got that info from this page, but it appears to have
been corrected.

http://www.superadblocker.com/produc...adblocker.html

Quote: " Super Ad Blocker supports Internet Explorer 5.0 and above,
Firefox, AOL 8.x and above, and MSN on Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000 and XP!"

Good thing that I quoted the original. Otherwise I might think that I
was imagining things.

BTW, no problems with Firefox 2.0?

Ron