Then why doesn't Mozilla include it in the installation of Firefox? That's one of my beefs about FF. If you install it just in it's default state with no addons, it is less secure than IE8 is in it's default installation. Users should not have to look for addons and plugins to secure their browser, they should be included by default. I wouldn't use the addon anyway probably because I wouldn't like dealing with having to manually allow parts of web pages to load. I want to see everything on the page. I don't even block ads , only popups and cookies which I allow selectively by site.
There are other things about FF that I don't like such as the download interface and the cookies management where I think IE8 is far better. I also have never found it to be any faster.
IE8 is a piece of crap, period, if you can't see it you got a problem, or problems 
Why Firefox doesn't include NS, well first because the NS developer doesn't work for Mozilla, and second even if there was an agreement most IE users like you would get lost with NS when trying Firefox.
As to IE being more secure than FF default config, what are you smoking FF doesn't write entries to the registry while browsing, FF does't use these freaking activeX things, one of the biggest source of potential malware on the internet, interacting directly with your operating system. Rare silently installed extensions in Firefox (previous versions >>> 2.0) from bad sites (became impossible now btw, while browsing), didn't affect the OS, just the browser.
There's something that I hat more than IE in this world, it's the guys promoting it and talking BS about Firefox. Firefox was, is, and will be the more secure browser of all times. Now ****, thanks.
ps:on a side note, FF might be currently twice slower than Chrome, but guess what, IE8 is twice slower than FF 
as to the interface if Internet Explorer, it's hardly better than what it was 10 years ago, everything in it is completely outdated, the whole interface is a failure, favorites, downloads, settings etc...
@ the others: I'm a long time NS user >>> NS is not for everyone, that's a fact. Live with it. Put NS in the hands of an average user is to some extent like doing the same with a HIPS (to some extent...). They wouldn't know what to answer.
I couldn't agree less. I would very well know how to use NS but just like HIPS, I don't want to be bothered with it. There also is nothing wrong with the interfaces of IE, they are more developed and useful than the comparatively rudimentary ones of FF and Chrome. Only Opera comes close in the UI aspect. The FF download process is hideous and Chrome is even worse and the favorites UI in IE is also the best and most easily managed. The favorites control in FF was one of the main things that has caused every version I have tried to last less than an hour on my machine.
Another thing is that cleanup utilities like CCleaner all work better with IE than with the other browsers and no other browser gives me the ease of cookie management that IE does.
Yes, IE8 in it's default installation is more secure than FF is in it's default. This is just proven fact. Firefox is no more secure and never has been as shown by the fact that it was rated as the most insecure program in existence for the year of 2008 and has had to be patched on a regular basis ever since. It gets attacked just as much as IE and so does Chrome.
There also is nothing wrong with Active X. It is one of the biggest boons to computer users and software developers that exists. It enhances the computer experience in the same way that things like flash, java, and the new html5 do. Hackers will find a way to attack anything that's in common usage but the vulnerabilities are quickly and successfully patched in ALL applications.
IE8 is no slower than FF for me in the way I browse, in fact in some instances it is noticeably faster and in none is it noticeably slower.
The integration of IE into the OS is not a mistake, it is a stroke of genius and again , a boon to computer users and developers. Programs that use internal updaters to keep them current all use the internal settings of IE to do so. This eliminates the need for their developers to write much more involved routines, keeps development time and cost down and in the end, benefits everyone, including the makers of the alternative browsers.
Yeah, things like HIPS, sandboxing, and NS might make you more secure or at least make you feel that way, but I choose to use none of them because I want to retain free, easy, enjoyable and uncluttered usage of my computer. In my 11 years on line, I have never been hacked by anyone, or infected by anything more serious than some harmless adware that was easily removed. I want to see everything that a website's developer has on their page without having to click to allow this or that. Sometimes the ads are more interesting than the page itself. Paranoia runs deep, but not in my house.
If was running a business, then yes, I'd want some of the other layers of security, but as a home user who just browses the same sites every day for the most part and plays the occasional game and receives a very minimal amount of email, I just don't need or want all that crap.
I am convinced that installing all these "layers of security" is the prime cause of complaints about broken applications and bad updates. I constantly see posts from people with all these things installed about incompatibilities and crashes and reformats. I never have any of those problems and I'm convinced it's because I keep my security software to a minimum and also because I use Microsoft applications whenever possible to do what I want to do. If there is something I want to do and there's a MS app that does it, I will almost always choose that option because I feel there will be much less chance of conflicts or instabilities. Give me IE, Media Player (with a few added codecs), Outlook Express/Windows Mail, etc. The only open source program I really like is 7-Zip. In fact I think it's the only one I use but I did change the hideous icons it uses to ones that are much nicer.
