IE 9 Question

I have a windows 7x 64 os . windows updates keeps nagging me to download SP 1 update & IE9.. Do I really need them? If I download IE9 can go back to IE8 if I want? I have had this computer for a year and half now, and it has worked perfectly. The BEST OS windows has ever put out .. I don't want to "fix something with there updates : when right now it is NOT broken..

Thanks, Rick

Discussion is locked
Reply to: IE 9 Question
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: IE 9 Question
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Yes and No Respectively

Yes you need SP1, it contains numerous security updates. Service packs should always be considered MANDATORY and to be installed within the first WEEK of being released unless you have an exceptionally good reason not to, like when HP borked their Windows installs so that XP SP3 caused an infinite reboot loop.

IE9 is optional, but if you're doing the supremely unwise thing of using IE to begin with, then you should always have the latest version to take advantage of improvements in security. IE has so little security to begin with, you need everything you can get. You can go back to IE8, but that would be a rather unwise decision. If you don't like IE9, a better move would be to try one of the other browsers out there. Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and Safari are all free, and all lack the security issues that have been hounding IE since version 3.0 introduced ActiveX which opened the pandora's box of malware unto the world.

So to recap: Service packs are mandatory, browser upgrades are optional, but generally a good idea. And if people never fixed things that weren't broken, we'd still be a nomadic group of hunter gatherers wandering around the African savanna's because there was nothing "broken" about that system. None the less, people found ways to improve upon things, and one thing leading to another, fast forward about 100,000 years, here we are today.

- Collapse -
Go to Chrome

I also said , test Google chrome. it's best for ever, But in some cases u can use such alternative browsers, some apps design and require IE. on that situation u should be work with IE,
in ur question u can downgrade IE 9 to IE 8

- Collapse -
I'd disagree

I'd disagee. Chome's extension API is nowhere near as capable as Firefox's, which means that to date Firefox is the only browser with NoScript, which is a very handy security enhancing extension. Chrome's NotScript is a very poor imitation, though it admittedly does a pretty good job with Chrome's limited API. You also can't do anything like a proper AdBlock Plus with Chrome, because Chrome's extension API doesn't let extensions interact directly with the rendering engine, so you can't stop the browser from even downloading some ad banner, you can merely hide it afterwards.

Chrome extensions all tend to require that the scripting engine be enabled, which then opens you up to cross-site scripting (XSS) issues.

Firefox isn't without it's flaws, but until Google does more than a half-arsed extension API, Chrome will never be capable of many of the things Firefox has been doing for years. As it stands, they seem wholly uninterested in that sort of thing. Some Chrome developers allegedly contacted the NoScript author like 2 years ago about porting it to Chrome, but in all that time they've still opted not to really flesh out the extension API.

I'm also personally far from a fan of Google's whole UI minimalism kick. First they get rid of the status bar (which could have simply been hidden by default) with this obnoxious floating tooltip that is very distracting because it comes and goes based on your mouse cursor. I'm not sure what the appeal of tabs on the top is, since it seems to break with almost all UI design tradition which was established to create a sense of continuity. Each tab being a separate process was a good idea, so they get big credit there. Now they want to get rid of the address bar, which is a handy anti-phishing tool. Other browsers should have been doing that since the beginning, though there are some tradeoffs to the idea, like increased resource usage. Their JavaScript engine is also pretty good, and has sparked something of a friendly competition among other browser makers to improve their JavaScript engines, which was sorely needed as more and more sites started using AJAX elements.

But Chrome still has some pretty glaring technical limitations compared to other browsers. It's better than IE to be sure, it's just not as clear cut a winner as it might seem when you look a little deeper.

CNET Forums