ActiveX isn't a major concern, in current IE if you look in the security tab in the Internet context, it is pretty locked down and damn near depreciated.
Intranet is more liberal. But a lot of enterprises add their internal portals to the trusted list if they still depend on ActiveX (as a depressingly large number do).
Chrome and Firefox's extensions are better. Although Firefox's extension model is a little clunky due to how old it is (or at least it was last time I used it).
Chrome and Firefox's extensions are better. Although Firefox's extension model is a little clunky due to how old it is.
New-style "Jetpack" add-ons in Firefox and add-ons in Chrome are very similar. I have the same add-on for both platforms, and there's about 80% code commonality. If Microsoft does something reasonably similar, that would be convenient for add-on developers.
If Microsoft kills ActiveX in the new browser, it will force everyone to stop depending on ActiveX. You would be very surprised how many websites outside of the U.S. still depend on ActiveX, and these are critical websites like banking and government. Hence, killing ActiveX support is important to me.
Yes but a good browser with Chrome's features will be a great alternative. Right now Chrome has become a big memory hog and is slowly going to competition with old IE.
If you're having memory problems with Chrome, check to see if you have AdBlock Pro installed - it often results in vast amounts of additional memory required for Chrome[0]. I recommend µBlock[1] if you're using Chrome - it works quite well in my experience.
Lack of an addon architecture is what completely killed IE for me. No adblock is a no-go. (It's also the non-idealogical reason I use FF on Android: Chrome is locked down.)
Right but as I understand, it uses some binary hacking/undocumented APIs to go about it's job. I also use Vimperator, various tracking blockers, search redirectors (disconnect me for Google search), etc.
There are definitely supported APIs for extending IE (starting with IE 4.0 in 1997), but you do have to write native or .NET code, it's not "hack together some javascript and CSS" like Chrome/Safari/Firefox.
Possibly because he knows JS+CSS, but not C, C++ or C#.
Or possibly because the API's microsoft proposes are pretty horrible; I've worked on FF and chrome extensions, and I investigated IE support - but IE's extension model is truly terrible. Just take a look at that stackoverflow link you posted. What a mess. I wouldn't mind a clean C++ or .NET api, but the current API certainly isn't that.
Because the latter is a lot quicker to get started with. I'm not making a value judgement.
With the IE model, you need to create a VS project, add a ton of boilerplate (see that stackoverflow example), and generally it's a ton of work just to get started. With a Chrome extension, you get an itch (some website has some jank, or you just want to hide all images with a certain dimension), you peek at it with the inspector, write some lines of JS or a custom CSS file, add an XML file and you're good to go.
Being able to write a quick hack to scratch an itch makes the Chrome/FF/Safari model more approachable. Once you have your foot in the door you're then more likely to make the step to write a full-featured extension (your MVP gave you a bunch of ideas).
It's similar to why PHP is popular. "I have this HTML page and I just want to add this one dynamic visitor counter. Do I want to build a Rails application, or paste in 3 lines of PHP and change the filename extension?"
