MyIE2, skin, WIN or winner?

[Mike S]

We keep reading about the security holes in Internet Explorer. So when I read Steve Bass’ article on a “Super Browser” (PC World p113, June 2004) I decided o give it a go, and installed ‘MyIE2’. Steve refers to “crashing IE’s beach party” and compares MyIE2 favourably with Mozilla, Netscape etc. The whole tenor of the article suggests a alternative non-Microsoft easy-to-drive replacement for IE.

I thought my wisdom in installing MyIE2 was subsequently confirmed by the latest article by Stuart Johnston in September’s PC World ‘Bug Watch’ column; he encouraged us to ditch IE - and I thought I had. That is until I read Laurianne Mclaughlin’s article on page 54 of the September issue. She refers to MyIE2 Lite as an “Internet Explorer add-on shell” (I assumed the Lite version is a pared down version of the non-Lite).

I’m now confused.

The possibilities seem to be:
· Both MyIE2 and MyIE2 Lite are skins – mere embellishment add-ons to IE.
· Both MyIE2 and MyIE2 Lite are stand-alone programs which will obviate the need for IE with all its’ inherent security risks.
· MyIE2 Lite is an add-on skin, but MyIE2 is the full-blown stand-alone program that doesn’t contain any bug-prone code from IE, so we can therefore uninstall IE.

Can anybody please lighten my darkness and remove just one of my numerous computer worries.

Mike S

[PaulD]

MyIE2 (Maxthon) and similar browser shells Avant, Netcaptor etc are based on IE. MyIE2 did have an option to use the Gecko browser but I don't think this is being developed further.

The may be security risks but MS has built functions into IE that aren't as well developed in the generic interface to windows that other browsers must use.

[Murray P]

MyIE as far as I'm aware is still IE, ie: a skin with some addons or extensions rather than a new stand-a-lone browser.

IMO, it's along the same lines as slapping on an extra layer of sun-screen lotion in the middle of summer so you can get another hour or two of sunbathing in rather than putting some clothes on and heading for the shade. You get a vague feeling of security, enough to allow you to ignore the warm tingling feeling on your back. Sooner or later you will suffer for your reliance on the flawed strategy that something that looks like it's good is. If you admit it out load, you would say "this is kind of risky but, what the hell".

A partial prevention to getting regularly fried is to use a browser and email client that is based on entirely different engines. Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox, Opera to name a few.

Cheers Murray P

[metla]

My ie2 is a skin,nothing more,you are still open to the same holes,hacks,hijacks and other such filth as you were before.

Myie2 is also reported to sink its claws in deep,always a bad sign.

I would hope whomever wrote those articles have had their errors ponted out to them.

[Mike S]

Thank you people for your light-speed replies.

All is now clear. Easy decision: I'll try both Mozilla and Opera and see which one suits me.

Mike S

[PaulD]

You go on as if virus/trojan infestation is inevitable with IE & OE. I suspect people who currently get caught will still get caught, the only difference will be the exploit. Knowing it's risky should go with all web use.

[Murray P]

> You go on as if virus/trojan infestation is
> inevitable with IE & OE. I suspect people who
> currently get caught will still get caught, the only
> difference will be the exploit. Knowing it's risky
> should go with all web use.


True, there are common exploits that are inherent to just about any functional email client or web browser (or web app full stop). What makes the IE, OE & Outlook vulnerabilities harder to guard against is that they are so tightly intergrated into the (MS) OS and other applications like Office, Exchange server, etc. Outlook for eg can't function without IE at some level, you can't get rid of IE from win XP, only cripple some of its functions and hope for the best. That doesn't mean you should leave the door open though with you silverware in full view.

Cheers Murray P