People don't like IE because it's less secure than other browsers, it's slower, and it's less compatible with new HTML5 / CSS3 features.

Security these days is probably a wash; IE11 is a far cry from the old days.
(and given the number of huge gaping security holes in Android which have been discovered of late trusting Google's Chrome browser to be secure isn't high on my To Do List either...).

As for the rest... honestly... number of shits given = 0.

IE is used by so many people that it is not practical in IT in general and specifically in game development to completely avoid it. Obviously IE has advantages and disadvantages like all browsers have.

I actually use Firefox and Google Chrome when recommended by an application or software developer for certain issues such as in the area of add-ons. Also, Cookies handled by some browsers are known to have security problems, so there are a few secure websites which have their own recommendations on which browser to use. Given - much of this is the difficulty of end-users managing the browser settings, but a real security issue can exist at times. I have seen developers and websites recommending one or a couple of the major browsers in the cookie area alone. Webpage compatibility is another issue. We might see more reason to have 2 or 3 browsers installed in the future on the add-ons issue alone.

Proprietary means that all the browser developers have hold of part of the applications or solutions so a browser that does everything well won't happen. We are stuck once again with privatization blocking standardization. Instead of dealing with one central standard we have a mess of developer parties claiming to be standard collectively.

Who hasn't had many problems with browsers? As long as the USA government refuses to settle on solid industry standards for the sake of "free enterprise" and corporations each bring their own proprietary solutions to issues, we got one hell of a mess to navigate if we are professionals in general IT and especially web software sevelopment.

Download speeds are another pet peeve of many (among other browser obstacles). Sometimes the download speed with Firefox or Google Chrome is much faster than IE. At other times it is the opposite. I am not that advanced in IT to understand why exactly this is. Anybody know? Rumor in the internet is that security measures slow downloads but I doubt that. How can that account for the differences in download speed across browsers? I am quite a fan of torrents, by the way, because usually I can multiply download speed.

It is amazing to me that we don't have more of a mess, but for the many millions of dollars and hours spent with browser issues. One browser solution is clearly not a practical option.

People don't like IE because it's less secure than other browsers, it's slower, and it's less compatible with new HTML5 / CSS3 features.

Security these days is probably a wash; IE11 is a far cry from the old days.
(and given the number of huge gaping security holes in Android which have been discovered of late trusting Google's Chrome browser to be secure isn't high on my To Do List either...).

As for the rest... honestly... number of shits given = 0.

It's different, because in any extremely large piece of software (Android), there will be security bugs, but Google fixes them quickly. Microsoft is creating backdoors / security vulnerabilities on purpose to help the NSA.

Microsoft is creating backdoors / security vulnerabilities on purpose to help the NSA.

I believe that both Google and Microsoft are doing that. The fog about browsers also helps hackers such as the millions per day that come from China.

I feel like I am living in a glass house every time I get on the internet!

OP - would you describe how instalation fails?

Towards IE, it is a versionized software that does not (cannot) update. Even if it was faster than others, I would upon that still consider it a bogus internet browsing application.

Finding out that IE 11 still cannot play .ogg vorbis media, only exclusivly mp3, I stopped reading about it (I have created ogg media player in a day with only the official vorbis codec source). This gives me a feeling that Microsoft IE falls to tendencies of certain industry and market players in a large extent. I would not be surprised (absolutely not) if it was sending all your cookies to not only their creators domains, but also to NSA, KGB.

It's different, because in any extremely large piece of software (Android), there will be security bugs, but Google fixes them quickly. Microsoft is creating backdoors / security vulnerabilities on purpose to help the NSA.

And you think a browser ISN'T a large piece of software?
MS are also constantly and quickly patching bugs as they appear and are protecting the latest versions.
More to the point you don't know what has been added to the 'safe' software you use; just because someone hasn't pointed it out yet. Hell, I'd be more concerned that Google were simply selling things to the highest bidder than the NSA looking over my shoulder; Google are just as bad as everyone else.

If you are going to play the paranoia/hacking game then you have to apply it to everyone, not just the one company someone has called out in the news.

The way I look at it RIGHT NOW the biggest security problems going have been caused by Open Source software (and the OpenSSL thing continues to be a problem, it just isn't in the headlines) and the semi-open 'thing' which is Android which is used in FAR FAR more devices than Windows.

It's different, because in any extremely large piece of software (Android), there will be security bugs, but Google fixes them quickly. Microsoft is creating backdoors / security vulnerabilities on purpose to help the NSA.

And you think a browser ISN'T a large piece of software?
MS are also constantly and quickly patching bugs as they appear and are protecting the latest versions.
More to the point you don't know what has been added to the 'safe' software you use; just because someone hasn't pointed it out yet. Hell, I'd be more concerned that Google were simply selling things to the highest bidder than the NSA looking over my shoulder; Google are just as bad as everyone else.

If you are going to play the paranoia/hacking game then you have to apply it to everyone, not just the one company someone has called out in the news.

The way I look at it RIGHT NOW the biggest security problems going have been caused by Open Source software (and the OpenSSL thing continues to be a problem, it just isn't in the headlines) and the semi-open 'thing' which is Android which is used in FAR FAR more devices than Windows.

"Caused by Open Source software"

You've got to be trolling. There's no way you're serious.

Yeah, you might want to google 'heartbleed' to see what I'm talking about... and also why it's a problem still...

Hell, bits of Android are open source (sometimes after the fact) and yet every version out there right now (afaik, certainly enough to be a problem) has had TWO large security flaws in it (one a string length check, the more recent a "didn't bother verifying certificate" check, both of which are down right hilarious when you look at it...) which have only just been caught which has an impact on MILLIONS of devices WORLD WIDE, a large chunk of which will never see an update.

Open Source might well have it's advantages but I've never brought into the 'many eyes' security claims and Heartbleed seems to back that position up...

(edit: and FYI, I have released code under a real open source licence (zlib, not that tosh which is GPL) and would in the future too - ya know, before you go trying to paint me as some fiend who doesn't believe in that sort of thing...)

Edit 2: btw, for someone who recently complained about people not knowing how to use a forum, how about you take the time to get out of the annoying habit of quoting a whole post only to add TWO LINES when you are following on directly.. it's just noise which isn't needed... (also, selective quoting would be a good thing to learn... just sayin'...

Yeah, you might want to google 'heartbleed' to see what I'm talking about... and also why it's a problem still...

Your whole post is just anecdotal evidence. Also, I know what heartbleed is, I've had to patch servers because of it, that doesn't mean all open source software has more bugs.

The way I look at it RIGHT NOW the biggest security problems going have been caused by Open Source software

But Phantom, maybe I misinterpret this, but do you suspect that the security would be higher if software and protocols were not "Open Source"?

Reasoning for this escapes me greatly, no matter how well I try to think about this suggestion.

I believe heartbleed would remain unnoticed in such a scenario, or would have got discovered much later, without OpenSSL library fired out, as it is just SSL/TLS protocols open sourced.