browser installation help please..

[Robocop]

Ok I searched all over the net and here as well and found nothing to answer my question. I did find many opinions on which system is better for internet browsing however do not wish to get into that with this thread.

Basically I am planning on switching to Google Chrome from IE7 and need to know the procedure for installation. Do I have to uninstall IE7 first and then install Chrome or can I install Chrome first and then remove IE7?

I was a little confused if it were ok to have both systems loaded in my computer at the same time. I understand the basic install from searching around however no where could I find what to do with my current browser or the correct procedures in installation. It seems to me it would be best to try Chrome first and if I hated it I could always go back to IE7 if it were still installed......is this possible to do this way?

I do not care about tabbed browsing or add ons and only use my computer for surfing this forum and a few other police sites. I sometimes watch video clips on youtube and stuff however never download anything permanent so I have plenty of room left on my computer.

As a computer dummy I know nothing about browsers and was actually worried that if I uninstalled IE7 first I would not be able to connect online to get Chrome without any browser installed. If I remember correct my computer came with IE installed and over the years I updated to newer versions.

Ok basically what is the procedure to install a different web browser if I already have a browser.....thanks for any help on this and sorry if the answer is obvious and simple for I really am a computer dummy.

 

[Lynx_Arc]

you can have as many different browsers as you want.
You can have IE, FF, Google, and opera all serperate but only one can be default. I have run three different mozilla browsers at the same time for fun. You could run IE and google at the same time if you wanted. Installation should be just download and install and run like any other program.

 

[BB]

And, I am not sure you can, practically, uninstall/remove IE... Originally it was tied in pretty tightly into the Windows OS (and yes, a software engineer did remove IE to demonstrate that Windows could operate with IE--contrary to what MS was claiming).

And in any case, you still want/need IE to run the MS Windows/Office updates (the only time I run IE).

The other browsers, you can install/remove anytime you want. And run multiple ones at the same time (assuming you have enough memory).

The only "issue" is that one will be the default (say when you click on a link in an email).

Also, I would recommend looking at Thunderbird for email (or another non-Outlook email--if Outlook is not required by your job).

The really cool part of FireFox is the ability to load "extensions" or "add-ons"... A few basic ones really make your browsing safer (and many times, faster):

Adblock Plus (and install several of the filter extensions to block most ads, you can block specific images/groups of images too to make pages load faster/look cleaner)
NoScript (changes all pages to simple HTML--removes Java Script, Java, Flash, etc. -- almost all blinky/moving annoying, drive-by Trojan/virus downloads, whole page animations you must click to see what is underneath, etc.--unless you want to enable specific websites--like banking, CPF, news, etc.).

There are lots of neat add-ons out there too... But the above two are just about a requirement to keep control of your own computer and prevent infections from unknown sites (typically through ads and hijacked ads/webpages).

-Bill

 

[mechBgon]

Tangentially, if you like what NoScript does, you can also selectively block active scripting and Java using Internet Explorer's built-in Zones feature. That capability has been available since ca. 1999. If anyone is interested in the how-to, drop me a PM, as I have a screencapture movie demonstrating how to set it up, and discussing the pros/cons of it.

 

[NA8]

...(and yes, a software engineer did remove IE to demonstrate that Windows could operate with IE--contrary to what MS was claiming).

-Bill

Did they actually remove IE or was it just a cosmetic (GUI) removal with most of the functional code still there ? I recall there was some debate at one removal exhibition. There may have been many more attempts since then though.

 

[BB]

Browser wars goes back many years (Windows 95 and 98 versions)...

A detailed link here on some of the work/options at the time:

In its initial response to the preliminary injunction, Microsoft offered PC makers two versions of Windows 95 without the browser. One version excluded all of the browser files; as a result, it did not work. A second version dated back to 1995, before Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows; it worked, but did not include more recent enhancements. Predictably, DOJ was not happy with the company's response. Accusing Microsoft of a "naked attempt to defeat the purpose of the court's order," DOJ asked once again for a contempt citation and a $1 million-a-day fine.(11)

Microsoft replied that its offer of a dysfunctional or an obsolete system complied with the letter of the judge's order. According to the company, "Microsoft has done precisely what the DOJ requested and what the court ordered [but] now that the DOJ understands the implications of its prior position, it wants to play by a new set of rules."(12) True enough, while hearings proceeded on the second contempt petition, DOJ expressed a new willingness to live with removal of Explorer's icon from the Windows desktop -- an alternative that leaves most of the Explorer program still on the system. And Judge Jackson signaled that he too would be amenable to that solution -- having discovered on his own that a court employee was able to "uninstall" the browser in only 90 seconds.(13)

Consequently, to avoid a possible contempt citation, Microsoft agreed to comply with the preliminary injunction by offering computer makers two new options: (1) use the Windows 95 "uninstall" function to remove the Internet Explorer icon but leave related software in the operating system, thereby making Explorer harder -- but not impossible -- to access; or (2) remove both the icon and most of the related software, thereby making Explorer inaccessible to the ordinary user, but without impairing other features of the operating system.(14) Amazingly, neither the judge nor DOJ acknowledged what should have been obvious from the judge's own "uninstall" experiment: The immense power of the federal government surely need not be invoked to ameliorate a "problem" that virtually any consumer can resolve in 90 seconds.

From the skirmishing over the preliminary injunction, it seems that Microsoft intends to play political and legal hardball. The company might have avoided much of the confusion over interpretation of the injunction by seeking clarification from the court. But Microsoft decided, apparently, that it had no interest in or responsibility for coaching the government on how to inhibit its business practices -- and certainly no desire to have bureaucrats design its software. One spokesman acknowledged that the company's hard-line approach might be risky, might be pilloried by the press, and might be lambasted by some denizens of Silicon Valley. But Microsoft decision-makers evidently believe that the long-term health of the software industry justifies their aggressive stance.(15) Or they might just believe that DOJ's bullying attitude and tactics need to be resisted as "un-American.
...
On the surface, the most recent attack against Microsoft revolves around the definition of "integrated" as that term is used in the 1995 consent decree signed by the company and DOJ. That decree, however, is of little lasting import: the soon-to-be-released update of Microsoft's operating system, Windows 98, will include a browser that is "fully" integrated. Accordingly, no matter how the court rules on the current dispute, the new system should qualify under the exception in the decree that allows Microsoft to develop "integrated software products."

Regarding the demonstration:

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution
Copyright 1998 The Atlanta Constitution
December 12, 1998, Saturday

HEADLINE: Microsoft browser is removable, witness says
BYLINE: Andrew Glass

A forthcoming government witness at the Microsoft Corp. antitrust trial has committed what the company views as technological heresy by claiming in court papers unsealed Friday that he has found a safe way to remove the built-in browser from Windows 98. Microsoft does not provide any mechanism for removing its browser from the system, Edward Felten, an assistant professor of computer science at Princeton University, notes in his direct testimony.

In fact, users are repeatedly warned with desktop messages never to attempt such a risky maneuver. ''With the help of two young assistants,'' Felten wrote, ''I have developed a prototype removal program that demonstrates one way Microsoft could have done this. Obviously, Microsoft, with its more intimate knowledge of its own products, could likely find a better way to accomplish the same result.'' ...

In the end, lawyers and marketing folks arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

-Bill

 

[tx101]

Just tried it .....
Downloaded Chrome, installed it, tested it ... it works
Did NOT have to uninstall IE7

I also have Firefox, Safari and Opera installed on my PC
everything still works as it should including IE7

I would recommend to anyone who visits the net to use any other
browser BUT IE7, its just too vulnerable

 

[mechBgon]

I would recommend to anyone who visits the net to use any other
browser BUT IE7, its just too vulnerable

Actually, IE7 is quite good, particularly on Windows Vista where it has special security enhancements (Protected Mode, Address Space Layout Randomization, and optional Data Execution Prevention). After hunting malware and malicious websites* for thousands of hours with IE7 on WinXP and Vista, I've never had a successful compromise yet. Many have tried, many have died And if you have a vulnerable add-on in your browser, it can still be exploited regardless of which browser you've picked. Check out this article at ZDnet for a great example. Secunia's Personal Software Inspector is a good way to reduce your "attack surface" regardless of your preference in browsers, give it a try


That said, I recommend that all web browsers be run at low privilege level for daily-driver use. In practial terms, one of the best ways to do that is to use a non-Admin user account on Windows, or the equivalent low-rights account on Linux or OS X. Because every browser has vulnerabilities. Opera was just patched for extremely-severe vulns. So was FireFox. So was IE. In the next few months, you'll see them all get patched again for the next vulnerabilities to be discovered. So whatever browser you prefer to use, if you want it secure, take away the Admin rights for starters. Vista already does this by default with IE7, putting it in Protected Mode.



*disclaimer: if you're not an experienced malware hunter, don't go looking for trouble regardless of your browser

 

[MarNav1]

How does one restrict admin rights?

 

[mechBgon]

How does one restrict admin rights?

One method is to use a non-Admin account for daily work, and only log onto the Admin account when you really do need to use the Admin powers. I made a step-by-step guide to that here: http://www.mechbgon.com/build/Limited.html Short version: make a new account to be your Admin account, switch your usual account from Admin to non-Admin, and see if there are any issues that need to be addressed as a result.

If the non-Admin account works for you, then also consider a Software Restriction Policy if your version of Windows supports SRP. In combination with a non-Admin account, SRP is an incredibly powerful interlock against both known and unknown dangers. This is an essential part of my safeguards when hunting malware, since neither I nor an exploit could run a typical attack file with SRP active.