Should I install IE10?

MoxieMomma said:

Hi:

No love lost between Redmond and me, especially when it comes to updating.

Having said that, Windows Updates (especially the SECURITY patches) are a fact of life with Windows.

If one does not update at all, then it's like locking one's front door, but leaving all the windows and rear doors open. Performance and stability issues aside, the system is extremely vulnerable.

Of course, it's entirely up to you.
But perhaps you might want to consider moving to Linux.

Good luck,
MM

P.S. I hope that, as an "IT guy", you do not encourage your customers to configure their systems to disable Windows Update or to run insecure browsers?

Just ranting.
I do agree with you on this point for using the recommended option.
As in the past, i chose to use manual, but there are problems, such as to chose which update is important or not.
Finally decide for Auto Update as it update on the "SECURITY patches" and nothing else.
Since then my Windows is smooth without any issue.
The issue is that most "IT guy" and those do not have the faith, this is where the problems on manual updates come in, such as problem in updating manually, as most issues in this forum.

This is where the fun begin.
Many just like this "IT guy" (no offense, with apology) did not have trust in using Auto update option;
BUT still using IE.
I also do not like IE, hence i am using Google Chrome, without any issue and or conflict.

IE 11 is still very active, meaning more prefer IE11 and any previous all versions.
Nobody mention IE10 and i wonder why.???

Ah, I'll give that a try and see if it makes any difference.

I also periodically use Secunia PSI to check security issues.
Anyone who has doesn't have the latest IE updates installed could try it and see what it reports.
My systems are up to date, so i don't get a warning for IE or any Windows security problems.

There's little point in discussing Windows Updates or No Windows Updates any further. A lot of folk are happy to allow MS to rule their computing lives, so if they're content with that, there's no argument. There's little else we can aspire to except peace of mind in our short sojourn here, and we all have different ways of achieving that.

A couple of quick points: In the 25 - 30 years I've been building systems for myself, I've never been disadvantaged in anything but the most minor way by having WUPs turned off. There's a mindset in computing, and most of our culture probably, that if it's not the 'latest', it's not worth having. It's a useful state of affairs for manufacturers, because their customers are already preconditioned to buy a new model of just about anything. Great for business.

Case in point: I do quite a bit of writing, in one way or another. I could easily use a later version of MS Word - I have a 2013 Office disc lying about somewhere that I was given. But I don't use it. Why? Because it has nothing to offer me when I write that I can't get from Word 2003. Actually, even that fairly basic word processor is over-endowed for my requirements, so I've customized the single Taskbar (right-click the Menubar -Customize) comprehensively to only offer around 20 options. It works perfectly, with no shortcomings.
More recent versions of Word not only have one Taskbar (or 'Ribbon') but around three of four. All chock-full of nice options.

What I'm saying is that computing doesn't need to be more complicated than absolutely necessary. More efficient, yes. But not cluttered. IMHO, the main reason that systems get bigger and more stuffed with rubbish (and more in need of constant updates and tweaks), is that the main feedback MS gets from their beta versions originate from geeks and supergeeks - the type of users that spend most of their lives hunched over their screens in darkened rooms, picking operating systems apart and obssessing over obscure byte-sized sections of the OS. Consequently, MS seems to assume that this small group of people represent main-stream users, when in fact, they do not.

However, MS has never made money out of fixing old systems. It either builds and promotes new OS's or heads for the wall.

Having said all that, if it wasn't for the forced updates, I might try W10. I've installed it for a few customers and it's not too bad. However, there's absolutely no way I'll give MS the opportunity to plonk any geek-inspired junk that it chooses into my system. If I can't select it myself, I don't want it.

BTW, in case anyone is curious, the incident that kicked off my quest for a better behaved Internet Explorer, was that I started getting messages suggesting that I needed 'ieframe.dll', which I patently do not. So, because there are no bugs in my system (due to comprehensive antimalware apps) I figured the simplest solution might be to update IE.

A quick heads-up:

I downloaded IE11, but, not wanting to get into a possibly drawn-out install, should 'prerequisites' prove to be an issue, I took the simplest course and installed IE10.

It works fine and the GUI looks identical to IE9, so it'll do for now. If there are any more issues, I'll install IE11 then.

Cheers, all.

teckneeculler said:

A quick heads-up:

I downloaded IE11, but, not wanting to get into a possibly drawn-out install, should 'prerequisites' prove to be an issue, I took the simplest course and installed IE10.

It works fine and the GUI looks identical to IE9, so it'll do for now. If there are any more issues, I'll install IE11 then.

Cheers, all.

I have a HP laptop, W7 HP, 64 bit, Intel I5 that didn't like IE11. Rolled back to 10 & it was fine. Then reinstalled IE11 and paid close attention to updates. Three MS updates to IE11 caused IE11 to freeze on certain sites. After uninstalling & hiding each of these updates, as they arrived & I had to deal with them, I am using Chrome for most browsing. IE10 will be fine and I certainly wouldn't be concerned with security risks. Vista users are still using IE9.