You do realize that at least two of Yellowstone's previous eruptions are more powerful than every nuclear weapon we have times TEN. Or a "measly" 875,000 Megatons...
Check this out for some great comparisons of the relative power of volcanoes, nukes, bombs, etc...
Studies, by scientists who have studied Yellowstone for years, disagree. An eruption like the one 640,000 years ago, is expected to be a worldwide mass extinction event. The fallout effects (acid rain, no sunlight for years, etc) are also expected to be quite global. The effect to plant life is expected to be near extinction. The effect to animal life (especially when you realize there is little plant life to sustain the herbivores and omnivores) is thus near extinction.
Current estimates, by people far more knowlegeable than you or I, range from the 70-90% global mass extinction range.
Of course, that is assuming another catastrophic eruption. A lesser eruption, like some of Yellowstone's smaller ones, is likely to NOT have such catastrophic effects.
If this went off and killed, say 65% of the North American population (I won't go 90% because not even an all out nuclear exchange with the USSR would have killed 90%). Yes, there would be enough resources to keep things in check.
I wonder how correct you are... probably not at all. It's not just the explosion (to which our nukes pale in comparison - I mean, c'mon, really... nukes dont reduce mountains to nothing... Yellowstone has, on more than one occassion, leaving basins and lakes where there were mountains at one time).
It's much of the other factors that will kill off more than 65% of life worldwide (not just in North America). We've had smaller eruptions by other volcanoes that we are pretty sure have accounted for 65% worldwide extinctions... Yellowstone's previous eruptions make some of those eruptions look like a firecracker.
Once the ash falls there will be record agricultural output for years without need of fertilizer, the collapse of the fishing industry will lead to resurgent ocean stocks.
Not quite... the ash (which will fall across the globe, as it has in the past) will contain sulfides, and be falling in acid rain. It will first KILL most of the crops, vegetation and so on, that is on the planet... later, the plantlife will recover, but by then, how many animals (people included) will perish due to no food? Even meat eaters cannot survive when the plants that their meat-creatures eat are all dead - thus causing them to die too.
Actually, that's not quite true. An eruption of the magnitude of some of Yellowstone's earlier ones is believed to be a mass extinction event.
So, yes, it wont kill off all the large land animals... it will only kill off most of them (studies show figures speculating 70-90%). Sadly, I have yet to see a study that shows how much more of the human population will be killed off by each other in the fight for resources.
It is also believed that such an eruption will kill off most plant life on the planet, which will then take years to regenerate. While the initial explosion may only kill off millions or hundreds of millions, it is the subsequent damage that will cause the mass extinction event. Once the plantlife near entirely dies out, so do most of the livestock, and thus us (those of us who survive the initial explosion). In addition, our current infrastructure is not designed to filter out the massive amounts of sulfides that will rain into the water for many years... ie: very little drinking water for most. If you have drinking water provided by ground wells in deep aquifers, great! But most drinking water is provided by reservoirs, which will become highly contaminated.
Keep in mind, Yellowstone has had numerous "violent" (understatement) eruptions... most people forget about the truly "violent" ones such as the one 600,000 years ago.
Two of Yellowstone's caldera forming eruptions are among the largest eruptions ever known to have occurred on Earth. Smaller eruptions by other volcanoes have accounted for mass extinction events hitting the 65-70% extinction level.
Most people don't have the slightest clue just how explosive an eruption Yellowstone can have (or has had in the past). A simple look at the geography (or lack thereof) of the region that Yellowstone's caldera sits in and that the hotspot has moved through will reveal this though. As a matter of fact, that lack of geography is what originally led explorers to not notice the massive caldera... it wasnt until one realized that the lack of specific geological features (and realizing the massive lake he was observing were the rest of the geological features) was indeed the volcano itself.
For instance, what you will find missing along the Yellowstone hotspot's line of travel are... oh, such minor things as... an entire section of the mountain range it sits in.
Unlike "conventional" volcanoes, Yellowstone does not build mountains... it reduces them to near nothingness, leaving depressions in the earth where they used to exist. The hotspot alone is bigger than some of our smaller states, and the caldera is big enough to fit whole towns and small cities in it - or even decent sized cities/boroughs... like Brooklyn - IN the caldera. 34 MILES by 45 MILES in size... and that doesnt count the hotspot below it which is much more massive - that's just the size of the "opening" created in the last volcanic eruption.
I guess, technically, you are correct... it wont be the end of the world... but it will be the end of almost all land dwelling life on it. Then again, there are theories that a truly catostrophic eruption may be the end, or close to it, of the world, as the stresses shift the planet's orbit and/or create severe damage to the tectonic plates...
One day someone needs to write a manual for/. to tell people where to find certain discussions...
As a for instance, to find:
- "The Evils of the US Government" one would look for articles on "Border Patrol Abuses Author"
and so on... and of course to find "Bad Car Analogies" one would simply look at any article with more than 100 posts attached...;-)
My only remaining question is where do I find posts on "Border Patrol Abuses Author"?
That aside, Microsoft actively, knowingly, willing, and with statements that indicate they do; sell people's information to their "Business Partners" - which amounts to almost anyone using a paid MS service for advertising/spamvertising, etc. (check their service EULAs if you want confirmation)
In this case CoralCDN was effectively acting as a proxy - the IP address wasn't being falsified. Although these guys did appear to have some luck with falsified IP addresses: Why My Printer Received a DMCA Takedown Notice
Well, he was wrong about one thing...
...he surmised that these "content providers" (the RIAA/MPAA) would actually change and upgrade their "investigation" methods.
That's proven to be untrue... ah well. All the more cannon fodder against them.
I have to disagree with that. Malware problem is usually because of user stupidity.
I have to disagree with you.
The term "malware" can be used to denote various types of harmful software; viruses, spyware, adware, etc... including the spate of.NET exploits and related things I have been cleaning off systems for quite some time, that required no user interaction other than visiting a website.
Heck, I am still uninstalling that idiotic plugin from Firefox on 90% of every system that comes in the door to my shop with a virus or other malware issue. Most of the infected customers swear they installed nothing... quite a few of those admit to going to "pr0n sites" - of which, guess what I found on said sites? And please dont tell me that choosing to view porn online is thus the proof of your claim of "user stupidity"
By definition, the German Govt is considering handling all of those types of issues (viruses, spyware, adware, trojans, etc) and make no differentiation as to the attack or infection vector.
Not exactly, it just means that we will treat you nice (for the most part) regardless of whether or not we actually like you. The knife in the back is completely optional.
Contrast with New Yorkers, who are more than happy to hand out unsolicited "fuck you's" for just being in their presence.
While true, at least we're pretty universal in handing out those "fuck you's";-) And sometimes with the best and most pleasant of intentions!!!
So, fuck you all!!! And I mean that in the nicest of ways!;-)
Why? Do they all work on the GA? I know I see a lot of them being installed...
...but interestingly, track records for Vista and XP show that with those two, those updates usually get "repaired" with later ones to fix stuff that "didnt work" in the first updates. Kinda like the half dozen.NET updates for the same issue.
I just learned the other day on some TV commercial that they will protect my chicken from the metal band Dokken!!!! What other AV firm can claim their product does that?!?!?!?
Definitely incorrect. There are laws in many cities and states where if you do not at the least report a crime, you can be found contributory (in some locales, to the same extent as the actual perp). Inotherwords, lets say you witness a hit and run, and then do nothing... you can be found contributory to the crime - and if that person dies, in some locales, you can be charged with manslaughter (in addition to the actual person who committed the crime).
And as others have stated, some locales have similar laws pertaining to depraved indifference.
An independant study is not (a) one funded by Microsoft or (b) one performed by a company that Microsoft has a large financial stake in. Please point me to ANY independent study that does not fit into category (a) or category (b) or both.
That aside, such statistics are irrelevant when one takes into account that if a Firefox vulnerability is reported and fixed/not fixed, the whole world knows about it or can at least look it up on the Firefox dev sites... while in the meantime, if an IE vulnerability is reported, Microsoft tries to hide it, squelches as many references to it that it can, and has even denied that such an issue exists - at least until some half assed patch (that often does not fully address the issue -.Net anyone?) is released.
Had IE been standards compliant in the first place, without all of the OS specific hooks, many companies wouldn't be in this boat.
Well, I still have to test in IE8, because it still is not standards compliant in many key respects. Them citing that it's compliant is irrelevant to reality. When key CSS or Javascript features are not yet compliant, and they are highly used ones, then it becomes an issue. DIV placement is still an issue. XML requests still need to be handled differently. Various CSS attributes still need to be handled differently or they will not render the same as in any other browser. Table attributes (no, I am not going to get into the tables vs divs war right now either, so dont even go there) still dont get properly handled in IE8 (or IE7 or of course IE6).
For the most part, if I write it, it works in Chrome, Opera, Safari and Firefox without the need for changes... still not so with IE8 (or IE7 or obviously IE6).
And because of not-so-complete uptake of IE7 or IE8, it means I have to test for all three major IE variants - and then either Firefox or Chrome or Safari (and occassionally all three just to be sure - though that is rarely a need and more out of choice).
So, though what you say about previous versions is true, it still does apply to a decent extent to IE8 as well. Perhaps one day, there will be an IE release that is actually standards compliant. But we aren't there yet.
Yes, because we all know the omni-secure firefox NEVER has a security vulnerability. At least IE runs sandboxed.
Why you aren't marked troll, on a site with relatively technologically savvy people (and a decent collection of trolls making up the rest of it's populace) I don't know.
The differences between IE and Firefox when it comes to security issues is... deep space and day on Earth.
Why you ask?
Start with no such software tends to truly be secure.
When someone finds and posts about a security vulnerability in Firefox, it gets acknowledged and addressed. When someone posts about a security issue in IE, Microsoft sends takedown notices and threat letters, and then, if no one else has noticed the posts or issue, they pretend it isn't an issue or isnt serious until they get "taken to the mat" about it by the Internet populace.
When the Firefox team fixes an issue, it is usually fixed... when Microsoft "fixes" security issues, they resurface numerous times afterwards because they were truly not fully fixed. As an example, I cite the.Net fixes, the most recent one (the one noted due to the Firefox plugin snuck into a.Net update) which was the SIXTH MAJOR attempt to fix the same issue. FIVE years and SIX MAJOR attempts (and who knows how many minor attempts) and this time they promise it is truly fixed. Really. They promise.
Microsoft often takes months (and sometimes years) to release patches for vulnerabilities... the Firefox team is much quicker and usually (though not always) takes days or weeks.
Should I go on?
Every decent sized piece of software has problems. The key points that makes Firefox and IE bad comparisons aren't the number of issues (though in that respect, IE still has had far more as is evidenced by the security sites NOT owned by Microsoft (which are dwindling))... the key points are how they are dealt with.
Software that cannot be patched (because the patches dont exist or take months or longer to be released) creates massive problems on the Internet (or a massive third party security suite market - or both) that encompasses large amounts of time (months of bots and such beating away at other machines). Software that can or is patched quickly minimizes such a scenario. That is simply very basic math. Take the number of infectable machines (even assume that IE and Firefox's market share is the same for this), multiply by the amount of days a patch does not exist, multiply by the amount of machines each can infect per day... now, with Microsoft's long time period between acknowledging and fixing such issues... which browser is better?
As for IE being sandboxed... we have already noted (as numerous of the new vulnerabilities have proven) that such "technology" has not worked in either IE7 or IE8. So who cares that it is sandboxed? It doesn't work, thusly it doesn't matter.
For business users, their companies may still insist they use older browsers until they are able to migrate certain software to the new version.
Or upgrade hardware - we have a variety of customers who's machines are too old to run IE7 or IE8 efficiently, and who have no plans (or budget or whatever) to upgrade their hardware until it dies or is very near death.
You are aware, that (1) as someone else said, OS/2 version *1* was co-written, and IBM took over development for v2 to v5.
You are also aware that the Workplace Shell is an entirely IBM component, correct (patent and all)? You know... the WPS that MS tried copying and blundered on for Win95? You remember, the one that IBM released in 1990 in the OS/2 2.0 betas and alphas? That one.
Once again, someone compares straight AV protection (the free even less feature complete version, I am guessing, right?) to a full Protection Suite.
PCMag rates Security Essentials as "GOOD" (3/5) - which in the AV and AS and AM world translates into "sucky as all hell, as good dont cut it!"
On the other hand, AVG Internet Security Suite is rated a 3.5/5 - still only a "GOOD" but at least better - and nto consistent with your experiences - again of course assuming you are not comparing AVG Free AV to MS' entire security suite.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that at least two of Yellowstone's previous eruptions are more powerful than every nuclear weapon we have times TEN. Or a "measly" 875,000 Megatons...
Check this out for some great comparisons of the relative power of volcanoes, nukes, bombs, etc...
Studies, by scientists who have studied Yellowstone for years, disagree. An eruption like the one 640,000 years ago, is expected to be a worldwide mass extinction event. The fallout effects (acid rain, no sunlight for years, etc) are also expected to be quite global. The effect to plant life is expected to be near extinction. The effect to animal life (especially when you realize there is little plant life to sustain the herbivores and omnivores) is thus near extinction.
Current estimates, by people far more knowlegeable than you or I, range from the 70-90% global mass extinction range.
Of course, that is assuming another catastrophic eruption. A lesser eruption, like some of Yellowstone's smaller ones, is likely to NOT have such catastrophic effects.
If this went off and killed, say 65% of the North American population (I won't go 90% because not even an all out nuclear exchange with the USSR would have killed 90%). Yes, there would be enough resources to keep things in check.
I wonder how correct you are... probably not at all. It's not just the explosion (to which our nukes pale in comparison - I mean, c'mon, really... nukes dont reduce mountains to nothing... Yellowstone has, on more than one occassion, leaving basins and lakes where there were mountains at one time).
It's much of the other factors that will kill off more than 65% of life worldwide (not just in North America). We've had smaller eruptions by other volcanoes that we are pretty sure have accounted for 65% worldwide extinctions... Yellowstone's previous eruptions make some of those eruptions look like a firecracker.
Once the ash falls there will be record agricultural output for years without need of fertilizer, the collapse of the fishing industry will lead to resurgent ocean stocks.
Not quite... the ash (which will fall across the globe, as it has in the past) will contain sulfides, and be falling in acid rain. It will first KILL most of the crops, vegetation and so on, that is on the planet... later, the plantlife will recover, but by then, how many animals (people included) will perish due to no food? Even meat eaters cannot survive when the plants that their meat-creatures eat are all dead - thus causing them to die too.
Actually, that's not quite true. An eruption of the magnitude of some of Yellowstone's earlier ones is believed to be a mass extinction event.
So, yes, it wont kill off all the large land animals... it will only kill off most of them (studies show figures speculating 70-90%). Sadly, I have yet to see a study that shows how much more of the human population will be killed off by each other in the fight for resources.
It is also believed that such an eruption will kill off most plant life on the planet, which will then take years to regenerate. While the initial explosion may only kill off millions or hundreds of millions, it is the subsequent damage that will cause the mass extinction event. Once the plantlife near entirely dies out, so do most of the livestock, and thus us (those of us who survive the initial explosion). In addition, our current infrastructure is not designed to filter out the massive amounts of sulfides that will rain into the water for many years... ie: very little drinking water for most. If you have drinking water provided by ground wells in deep aquifers, great! But most drinking water is provided by reservoirs, which will become highly contaminated.
Keep in mind, Yellowstone has had numerous "violent" (understatement) eruptions... most people forget about the truly "violent" ones such as the one 600,000 years ago.
Two of Yellowstone's caldera forming eruptions are among the largest eruptions ever known to have occurred on Earth. Smaller eruptions by other volcanoes have accounted for mass extinction events hitting the 65-70% extinction level.
Most people don't have the slightest clue just how explosive an eruption Yellowstone can have (or has had in the past). A simple look at the geography (or lack thereof) of the region that Yellowstone's caldera sits in and that the hotspot has moved through will reveal this though. As a matter of fact, that lack of geography is what originally led explorers to not notice the massive caldera... it wasnt until one realized that the lack of specific geological features (and realizing the massive lake he was observing were the rest of the geological features) was indeed the volcano itself.
For instance, what you will find missing along the Yellowstone hotspot's line of travel are... oh, such minor things as... an entire section of the mountain range it sits in.
Unlike "conventional" volcanoes, Yellowstone does not build mountains... it reduces them to near nothingness, leaving depressions in the earth where they used to exist. The hotspot alone is bigger than some of our smaller states, and the caldera is big enough to fit whole towns and small cities in it - or even decent sized cities/boroughs... like Brooklyn - IN the caldera. 34 MILES by 45 MILES in size... and that doesnt count the hotspot below it which is much more massive - that's just the size of the "opening" created in the last volcanic eruption.
I guess, technically, you are correct... it wont be the end of the world... but it will be the end of almost all land dwelling life on it. Then again, there are theories that a truly catostrophic eruption may be the end, or close to it, of the world, as the stresses shift the planet's orbit and/or create severe damage to the tectonic plates...
One day someone needs to write a manual for /. to tell people where to find certain discussions...
As a for instance, to find: ;-)
- "The Evils of the US Government" one would look for articles on "Border Patrol Abuses Author"
and so on... and of course to find "Bad Car Analogies" one would simply look at any article with more than 100 posts attached...
My only remaining question is where do I find posts on "Border Patrol Abuses Author"?
That aside, Microsoft actively, knowingly, willing, and with statements that indicate they do; sell people's information to their "Business Partners" - which amounts to almost anyone using a paid MS service for advertising/spamvertising, etc. (check their service EULAs if you want confirmation)
So, how is moving to Bing a better move?
In this case CoralCDN was effectively acting as a proxy - the IP address wasn't being falsified. Although these guys did appear to have some luck with falsified IP addresses: Why My Printer Received a DMCA Takedown Notice
Well, he was wrong about one thing...
...he surmised that these "content providers" (the RIAA/MPAA) would actually change and upgrade their "investigation" methods.
That's proven to be untrue... ah well. All the more cannon fodder against them.
The CEO Virgin Atlantic doesn't just shake a dead chicken while dancing around in a circle mumbling.
Can you provide proof they dont?
And what about Sony/BMG? That's clearly how they choose some of their new "artists"...
I have to disagree with that. Malware problem is usually because of user stupidity.
I have to disagree with you.
The term "malware" can be used to denote various types of harmful software; viruses, spyware, adware, etc... including the spate of .NET exploits and related things I have been cleaning off systems for quite some time, that required no user interaction other than visiting a website.
Heck, I am still uninstalling that idiotic plugin from Firefox on 90% of every system that comes in the door to my shop with a virus or other malware issue. Most of the infected customers swear they installed nothing... quite a few of those admit to going to "pr0n sites" - of which, guess what I found on said sites? And please dont tell me that choosing to view porn online is thus the proof of your claim of "user stupidity"
By definition, the German Govt is considering handling all of those types of issues (viruses, spyware, adware, trojans, etc) and make no differentiation as to the attack or infection vector.
Not exactly, it just means that we will treat you nice (for the most part) regardless of whether or not we actually like you. The knife in the back is completely optional.
Contrast with New Yorkers, who are more than happy to hand out unsolicited "fuck you's" for just being in their presence.
While true, at least we're pretty universal in handing out those "fuck you's" ;-) And sometimes with the best and most pleasant of intentions!!!
So, fuck you all!!! And I mean that in the nicest of ways! ;-)
Comment? Can't we just call it trolling?
Sounds like it was a fairly nice place, based on the before-December-4th-troll reviews. :)
Why? Do we do that here?
I dunno whether to applaud this idea or cringe from it...
To my wife after the movie...
...And why do sparkly vampires get to watch teenage girls sleep, but I get in trouble for looking too closely at professional cheerleaders on TV?
To the first part (sparkly vampires/teenage girls/sleep), that's just disturbing and wrong...
To the second part (pro cheerleaders), because you are married... ;-)
Do all of the updates work on the RC?
Why? Do they all work on the GA? I know I see a lot of them being installed...
...but interestingly, track records for Vista and XP show that with those two, those updates usually get "repaired" with later ones to fix stuff that "didnt work" in the first updates. Kinda like the half dozen .NET updates for the same issue.
HEY!!!!
Symantec is WONDERFUL!!!
I just learned the other day on some TV commercial that they will protect my chicken from the metal band Dokken!!!! What other AV firm can claim their product does that?!?!?!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hsKsUu3Qeo
Norton & Dokken
That. Was. Awesome!
Bill? Bill. Shatner? Is. that. you?
Well...
(1) As I said, it only applies to certain jurisdictions... my point was the blanket statement above does not apply to all US (or even non-US citizens)
(2) I doubt such laws would apply to RIAA lawyers, as I doubt they could ever qualify as human by any stretch of the imagination.
(3) ;-)
Definitely incorrect. There are laws in many cities and states where if you do not at the least report a crime, you can be found contributory (in some locales, to the same extent as the actual perp). Inotherwords, lets say you witness a hit and run, and then do nothing... you can be found contributory to the crime - and if that person dies, in some locales, you can be charged with manslaughter (in addition to the actual person who committed the crime).
And as others have stated, some locales have similar laws pertaining to depraved indifference.
An independant study is not (a) one funded by Microsoft or (b) one performed by a company that Microsoft has a large financial stake in. Please point me to ANY independent study that does not fit into category (a) or category (b) or both.
That aside, such statistics are irrelevant when one takes into account that if a Firefox vulnerability is reported and fixed/not fixed, the whole world knows about it or can at least look it up on the Firefox dev sites... while in the meantime, if an IE vulnerability is reported, Microsoft tries to hide it, squelches as many references to it that it can, and has even denied that such an issue exists - at least until some half assed patch (that often does not fully address the issue - .Net anyone?) is released.
Had IE been standards compliant in the first place, without all of the OS specific hooks, many companies wouldn't be in this boat.
Well, I still have to test in IE8, because it still is not standards compliant in many key respects. Them citing that it's compliant is irrelevant to reality. When key CSS or Javascript features are not yet compliant, and they are highly used ones, then it becomes an issue. DIV placement is still an issue. XML requests still need to be handled differently. Various CSS attributes still need to be handled differently or they will not render the same as in any other browser. Table attributes (no, I am not going to get into the tables vs divs war right now either, so dont even go there) still dont get properly handled in IE8 (or IE7 or of course IE6).
For the most part, if I write it, it works in Chrome, Opera, Safari and Firefox without the need for changes... still not so with IE8 (or IE7 or obviously IE6).
And because of not-so-complete uptake of IE7 or IE8, it means I have to test for all three major IE variants - and then either Firefox or Chrome or Safari (and occassionally all three just to be sure - though that is rarely a need and more out of choice).
So, though what you say about previous versions is true, it still does apply to a decent extent to IE8 as well. Perhaps one day, there will be an IE release that is actually standards compliant. But we aren't there yet.
Yes, because we all know the omni-secure firefox NEVER has a security vulnerability. At least IE runs sandboxed.
Why you aren't marked troll, on a site with relatively technologically savvy people (and a decent collection of trolls making up the rest of it's populace) I don't know.
The differences between IE and Firefox when it comes to security issues is... deep space and day on Earth.
Why you ask?
Start with no such software tends to truly be secure.
When someone finds and posts about a security vulnerability in Firefox, it gets acknowledged and addressed. When someone posts about a security issue in IE, Microsoft sends takedown notices and threat letters, and then, if no one else has noticed the posts or issue, they pretend it isn't an issue or isnt serious until they get "taken to the mat" about it by the Internet populace.
When the Firefox team fixes an issue, it is usually fixed... when Microsoft "fixes" security issues, they resurface numerous times afterwards because they were truly not fully fixed. As an example, I cite the .Net fixes, the most recent one (the one noted due to the Firefox plugin snuck into a .Net update) which was the SIXTH MAJOR attempt to fix the same issue. FIVE years and SIX MAJOR attempts (and who knows how many minor attempts) and this time they promise it is truly fixed. Really. They promise.
Microsoft often takes months (and sometimes years) to release patches for vulnerabilities... the Firefox team is much quicker and usually (though not always) takes days or weeks.
Should I go on?
Every decent sized piece of software has problems. The key points that makes Firefox and IE bad comparisons aren't the number of issues (though in that respect, IE still has had far more as is evidenced by the security sites NOT owned by Microsoft (which are dwindling))... the key points are how they are dealt with.
Software that cannot be patched (because the patches dont exist or take months or longer to be released) creates massive problems on the Internet (or a massive third party security suite market - or both) that encompasses large amounts of time (months of bots and such beating away at other machines). Software that can or is patched quickly minimizes such a scenario. That is simply very basic math. Take the number of infectable machines (even assume that IE and Firefox's market share is the same for this), multiply by the amount of days a patch does not exist, multiply by the amount of machines each can infect per day... now, with Microsoft's long time period between acknowledging and fixing such issues... which browser is better?
As for IE being sandboxed... we have already noted (as numerous of the new vulnerabilities have proven) that such "technology" has not worked in either IE7 or IE8. So who cares that it is sandboxed? It doesn't work, thusly it doesn't matter.
old != unpatched.
For business users, their companies may still insist they use older browsers until they are able to migrate certain software to the new version.
Or upgrade hardware - we have a variety of customers who's machines are too old to run IE7 or IE8 efficiently, and who have no plans (or budget or whatever) to upgrade their hardware until it dies or is very near death.
You are aware, that (1) as someone else said, OS/2 version *1* was co-written, and IBM took over development for v2 to v5.
You are also aware that the Workplace Shell is an entirely IBM component, correct (patent and all)? You know... the WPS that MS tried copying and blundered on for Win95? You remember, the one that IBM released in 1990 in the OS/2 2.0 betas and alphas? That one.
Actually, Win95 copied OS/2 largely, followed by Mac and Amiga. And managed to get it all wrong.
Once again, someone compares straight AV protection (the free even less feature complete version, I am guessing, right?) to a full Protection Suite.
PCMag rates Security Essentials as "GOOD" (3/5) - which in the AV and AS and AM world translates into "sucky as all hell, as good dont cut it!"
On the other hand, AVG Internet Security Suite is rated a 3.5/5 - still only a "GOOD" but at least better - and nto consistent with your experiences - again of course assuming you are not comparing AVG Free AV to MS' entire security suite.