Vista's security may be too tight for some Web sites and finding help isn't easy

By | July 24, 2007, 10:43am PDT

Yesterday, in a post about whether desktop operating systems will matter in 2010 (when the next version of Windows (codenamed “Seven”) is scheduled to ship, I mentioned how Internet Explorer 7 (the default in Windows Vista) is like putting a chastity belt on a browser. Using Firefox is one potential work around. But not all sites work with Firefox. One non-Firefox-supporting case in point that has really brought IE7’s overzealous security settings to roost in our home is Kodak’s online photo gallery (formerly ophoto.com).
‘I followed Kodak’s step-by-step and it worked for the administrative user. But not for the standard user.’
My wife, for whom I just purchased a new PC that came preinstalled with Vista, is a big user of Kodak’s gallery. Like other photosharing sites, you can download some software that makes it easier and faster to do bulk uploads of photos. She had no problem doing this in XP. But, until today, I was able to get it to work in Vista with IE7.

Before I handed the computer to her, I set her up as a standard (non-administrative user) on the system. So far, the number of things haven’t worked for her standard account the way they used to in XP/IE6 has been a major tax on my time. She tried to download some software from Kodak’s Web site. It wouldn’t download. Why? I couldn’t tell at first. But it’s apparently related to another problem her account is having: it can’t access IE7’s Internet Options. Not even to change something as simple as the browser’s start page. When I tried this, nothing would happen. My gut instinct tells me to login as an administrator, but once there, I have no idea how to fix the Internet Options for another standard user on the same system.

Until today, it was vicious cycle. Everytime she’d try something for the first, time, it’s “Daaaaaaavid!” It’s clearly VERY secure. But maybe too much so.

When something doesn’t work the way Kodak’s software didn’t work, there may be no telling why. I see a visual cue in IE7 that says “Internet Protected Mode: On” and I wonder if by turning it off, if some of her problems will go away. As any kind of user (standard or administrative), not only is Windows/IE absent of any useful information about what this mode is for, it doesn’t work right. If I dive into IE’s settings, it offers me the opportunity to turn the protected mode on when, in the status bar, it indicates that it already is on. Shoddy design.

Eventually, I gave up. She was all excited about getting the new computer (a Lenovo Thinkpad). Only to learn that she can’t do the one thing (upload photos) that she does more of than anything else (non work-related). A door stop would have been just as good. Not to mention how bad this is for marital relations in the Berlind household.

A few weeks back, I bumped into the fine folks from Kodak during a gadgetfest in New York City. I asked for help. That help finally arrived in my e-mail a couple of weeks ago and included the following steps:

  1. Open one Internet Explorer window. Close all other Internet Explorer windows.
  2. Navigate to any website other than the Gallery (eg: www.google.com).
  3. Click on Tools | Internet Options.
  4. On the General Tab, click on Delete under Browsing history.
  5. Click on Delete Files | Yes and Delete Cookies | Yes.
  6. Click on the Security Tab | Trusted Sites | Sites.
  7. Uncheck the box labeled “Require server verification (https:) for all sites in this zone.”
  8. Add kodakgallery.com, gallery.com, and ofoto.com to the list; click Close.
  9. Click on the Privacy Tab. Click on Advanced.
  10. Check the boxes that say “Override automatic cookie handling” and “Always allow session cookies.” First and Third party cookie should be on Accept. Click OK.
  11. Click OK on the Internet Options windows. Close this window of Internet Explorer.
  12. Click on the Start Menu | Control Panel (or Settings | Control Panel) | Add or Remove Programs. In Vista, this may be Start Menu | Control Panel | Programs | Programs and Features.
  13. Remove any version of the Easy Upload tool that you may have previously installed, including v.2.1 (current version).
  14. Start up Internet Explorer again. Go to www.kodakgallery.com and sign into your account.
  15. Click on Upload Photos (third tab), Continue, Install Easy Upload. Click on Run and then Run again.

Never mind the fact that it’s at least 15 steps before Kodak’s gallery software stands a chance of working (when I first started having these problems, these steps were not listed anywhere on Kodak’s Web site). Several of the steps involve making global changes to IE that have me wondering how far I must stray from IE7’s default settings before other things start to go wrong. Or before some malaise or malware sets upon my wife’s systems.

Maybe I won’t have any problems. But I feel like I’m toying with something under the hood of a new car that I have no business toying with and that I could pass some point of no return.

Although I’m sure work arounds and third party utilities exist for targeting specific cookies for deletion, deleting cookies through IE7’s stock interface for deleting cookies is an all or nothing approach. I hate deleting all of a browser’s cookies because of the role many of them play in optimizing my user experience with certain Web sites. I don’t like starting from scratch. I wish it was easier to delete just some.

I followed Kodak’s step-by-step to the tee and it worked for the administrative user. But not for the standard user. Fortunately, the folks at Microsoft connected me with a support guy named Hal. By the end of the call, he determined that the standard user account that I had set up for my wife was corrupted and that the only way to recover was to create a new account, move any user files from the old account to the new one, and then eliminate the original account.

How, in a brand new Vista system, does a new standard user account become corrupted? Hal couldn’t venture a guess. But it does appear as though IE7’s functionality was somehow entangled with Vista’s security mechanisms since everything seemed to work just fine for an administrative user, but not a standard user. Hopefully, Service Pack 1, whenever it ships, will put an end to these random events.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

69
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

well,
xuniL_z 31st Jul 2007
Sure, it's Microsoft's fault for not making 3rd party software vendors and other programmers fall in line earlier. But before the web and security issues arose, this very useful and highly productive platform had so much code written for it, it was nearly impossible to turn back. They made a bad choice perhaps, not doing this sooner. But with Vista they did have to hold back from going to whole way to a unix style security model. There would be an even larger number of broken interfaces and programs if they had not. Plus it's not always a "workaround" but Microsoft still believes you can't allow security to entirely take control of your platform. they are working hard to get their SDL coding to a point where you can have both.

but this was a major shift for microsoft and there will be growing pains. SP1, or fixes sent seperately are going to address a lot of issues. You can't keep an OS in beta forever, you have to just let it go at some point. It was ready in my mind. Vendors had unprecedented access to info, tools, software..the works to get ready for vista. Vendors most like thought Microsoft would back down on the security model in the end....how else can you explain intuit nt working with vista?? That says it all....and that was entirely Intuit's fault.


And please stop and think here, if they had not put as much into security as they did and just had a revamped XP that was strictly compatible with existing bad code etc....you'd be in there with the rest of them bashing Microsoft for not doing anything about security. Would you not?
0 Votes
+ -
IE 7 on XP...
sordito 24th Jul 2007
Isn't much better. For example, I use MS Base Line Security Analyzer to scan my companies' network. With IE 7, everytime I want to view a report, I have to click on the yellow bar on top to allow an ActiveX control to run to view the details. Sure, there is some setting in there to change this, but do I want to? Why do I have to fiddle with this? Then, if I change this setting, the scanner hollers at me for non-safe settings! This is a case of IE 7 blocking MS software. Go figure!
0 Votes
+ -
MS better get that ironed out!
Linux User 147560 24th Jul 2007
Cause it's this kind of thing that will drive people back to Administrator privies and override the security model! devil
0 Votes
+ -
That is what's unique about Vista
xuniL_z 25th Jul 2007
Admin runs with standard user rights. It will elevate as needed and prompt for authorization as necessary.
0 Votes
+ -
Unfortunately not unique
admin@... 25th Jul 2007
The problem with Vista which unfortunately is not unique in MS products is that it takes lots of work arounds to make it work at all. Even then it doesn't work the way it should.
0 Votes
+ -
And why do you suppose that is? ?
xuniL_z 30th Jul 2007
Sure, it's Microsoft's fault for not making 3rd party software vendors and other programmers fall in line earlier. But before the web and security issues arose, this very useful and good platform had so much code written for it, it was nearly impossible to turn back. They made a bad choice perhaps, not doing this sooner. But with Vista they did have to hold back from going to whole way to a unix style security model. There would be an even larger number of broken interfaces and programs if they had not. Plus it's not always a "workaround" but Microsoft still believes you can't allow security to entirely take control of your platform. they are working hard to get their SDL coding to a point where you can have both.

but this was a major shift for microsoft and there will be growing pains. SP1, or fixes sent seperately are going to address a lot of issues. You can't keep an OS in beta forever, you have to just let it go at some point. It was ready in my mind. Vendors had unprecedented access to info, tools, software..the works to get ready for vista. Vendors most like thought Microsoft would back down on the security model in the end....how else can you explain intuit nt working with vista?? That says it all....and that was entirely Intuit's fault.
0 Votes
+ -
well,
xuniL_z 31st Jul 2007
Sure, it's Microsoft's fault for not making 3rd party software vendors and other programmers fall in line earlier. But before the web and security issues arose, this very useful and highly productive platform had so much code written for it, it was nearly impossible to turn back. They made a bad choice perhaps, not doing this sooner. But with Vista they did have to hold back from going to whole way to a unix style security model. There would be an even larger number of broken interfaces and programs if they had not. Plus it's not always a "workaround" but Microsoft still believes you can't allow security to entirely take control of your platform. they are working hard to get their SDL coding to a point where you can have both.

but this was a major shift for microsoft and there will be growing pains. SP1, or fixes sent seperately are going to address a lot of issues. You can't keep an OS in beta forever, you have to just let it go at some point. It was ready in my mind. Vendors had unprecedented access to info, tools, software..the works to get ready for vista. Vendors most like thought Microsoft would back down on the security model in the end....how else can you explain intuit nt working with vista?? That says it all....and that was entirely Intuit's fault.


And please stop and think here, if they had not put as much into security as they did and just had a revamped XP that was strictly compatible with existing bad code etc....you'd be in there with the rest of them bashing Microsoft for not doing anything about security. Would you not?
0 Votes
+ -
All too common
bmgoodman 24th Jul 2007
How will things EVER get any better when software is still so dependent upon admin rights? Come on, we're six years beyond the release of XP. NO productivity apps written in the past 3 years should require admin rights, and I'm being generous not expecting it to be 6!
0 Votes
+ -
Why did you give her Vista
jfp 24th Jul 2007
As someone who works in the field you should have known better then to give a non techie user Windows Vista before all of the bugs are fixed. The first think you should have done with that new pc is to wipe it clean and install XP.
0 Votes
+ -
Imagine the voice of Sam Kinnison...
Linux User 147560 24th Jul 2007
"Because he LOVES her!" devil
0 Votes
+ -
want the better security. I guess I wasn't prepared for this though.

db
0 Votes
+ -
David...
BFD 24th Jul 2007
How do you know that the genius squad at Kodak didn't screw this up in the first place?

There's plenty of examples that point that people know how to write applications that don't require admin privledges.

It sounds to me like this application that Kodak has is probably not suitable as a browser-based app in the first place.
0 Votes
+ -
indeed
Badgered 24th Jul 2007
How do you know that the genius squad at Kodak didn't screw this up in the first place?

This was my question as well.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: David...
none none 24th Jul 2007
How do you know that the genius squad at Kodak didn't screw this up in the first place?

I was thinking the same thing. They screwed it up when they made it IE-only. What's to say they didn't screw that up as well?


happy
0 Votes
+ -
Totally agreed!
CobraA1 24th Jul 2007
Completely agreed - sounds to me like the web developers that made Kodak's photo sharing site just wanted to get paid, and did a sloppy job. I'm finding that there are a lot of programmers in the business just to get money, and aren't really good at it.

In addition, I agree that this probably isn't something that should be browser based. I really don't think that 100% of our apps really should be webified. Just because it's cool doesn't mean it's the best way to do things.

Seriously, David: There are better options. Do some research, find a better photo sharing site.
0 Votes
+ -
Picking photo sharing sites
dberlind 25th Jul 2007
I agree. Had I been making the choice, I would not have picked something IE-specific. But it was my wife's choice and I suspect that when she made it a long time ago (1) Firefox wasn't quite the alternative it is today and (2) she was doing what lots of other people did, ... just looking for a solution that go the job done. In her eyes, IE was not a sacrifice. There are plenty of other people who do the same thing.

db
0 Votes
+ -
Sounds like it's time
sackbut 25th Jul 2007
to straighten your wife out. I have mine trained better than that.
0 Votes
+ -
Does it matter?
dberlind 25th Jul 2007
Really, think about it. I'm not sure how many thousands of people use Kodak's Gallery. But, under XP and IE6, it worked fine. My sense is that a lot of browser applications like this one need to be fixed to better accomodate IE7's security model..and this is in addition to getting some verbiage on to the Web sites that help Vista users deal with any stumbling blocks. Right now, in my estimation, between software that doesn't work on IE7/Vista and the lack of verbiage, the situation is unacceptable.

db
0 Votes
+ -
it's not an isolated incident? Just curious. I know there inconveniences in life, for instance you have to download and install quicktime and flash and thankfully IE has java support or your web universe would shrink quickly. Do you find needing 3rd party proprietary solutions just to use the web acceptable? What about the fact that Flash keeps in touch with the mothership everytime you bootup to check you have the latest version? Do you mind the flash screens that popup asking if you want to update in the middle of your work?

But mainly, i'm wondering if you experience is the same for everyone....let me know if you tested that out elsewhere. I know for years I've had to alter IE settings for given circumstances. At work I need to make changes so I can hit the intranet.

Wouldn't it be GREAT if Microsoft finally found a way to make sure you can hit EVERY SITE and your security settings AUTO ADJUST to the perfect Balance of security and USE?
Until that time, I suppose Microsoft's fate is to receive criticism no matter what they do.

Hey, you read about the Duke U. issue with teh iPhones? That would be a good article for zdnet. It's certainly headline material how the new iPhone is wreaking havoc across the entire campus. That's just one story on iPhone problems.
0 Votes
+ -
Vista IE 7 Problems
ken@... 24th Jul 2007
I was just wondering which arm had to be lifted and where you had to place your foot while performing this procedure. All of these things clearly point out to me that I was correct in installing XP Pro on my home built HTPC in March when Vista was available.
0 Votes
+ -
"IE7?s overzealous security settings"

Everyone has been whining that Microsoft isn't securing their OS. Now that they are people are whining that it's secured too much. Make up your minds and stick with it. Either you want security or you wan't compatibility. You can't gave both...the two are at odds with one another:

security = 1 / convenience
0 Votes
+ -
The thing about software is "It must work!", otherwise we could achieve 100% security by writing software that does absolutely nothing.

It looks as if IE7 on Vista has not yet cleared that "working" hurdle, especially for non-Administrator users.
...focused on usability over security until recently. Security and convenience are at odds with one another. To get more of one you have to sacrifice the other. They're in a no win situation. They'll get blasted either way.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh Ye of little faith.........
Ole Man 25th Jul 2007
Don't you believe Microsoft can reconcile
usability and security? After knocking
yourself out bragging about their
supernatural abilities?
We just call the thing "useless". And if David Berlind is likening a brand new Thinkpad running Vista to a doorstop then I'd say that Vista here is as close to "useless" as you're likely to get.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh, please
frgough 25th Jul 2007
All MS had to do was allow configuring system files by requiring an admin user name and password. Like, oh I don't know, Ubuntu and OS X do. But, then, that requires a true multi-user OS, not the hack job that is Windows.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh, please!
ye 25th Jul 2007
Vista is a true multiuser system no matter how much you want to pretend it's not. Vista provides the mechanisms. Take advantage of them.
0 Votes
+ -
Have Mercy!
Ole Man 25th Jul 2007
Oh, please! Oh, please! Oh, please!

Take advantage, Take advantage, Take
advantage!

Buy Vista todaaaaaaay!
0 Votes
+ -
huh??
xuniL_z 25th Jul 2007
Apple?? Yeah, they finally did years after Microsoft.
what's your point.
0 Votes
+ -
for years until they had a customer base big enough they could afford to inconvenience them with something better. Whether it is better or not - I defer to the experts.

As I have been getting used to the IE 7 fiddling, I am less inclined to gripe. I will take security over nothing anyday; besides I can always switch to Firefox if the site is not ready yet.
0 Votes
+ -
right?
0 Votes
+ -
Vista / IE7 security
mach37 26th Jul 2007
Wrong!!! There are only a few sites that don't work with FF.
0 Votes
+ -
If it doesn't I try something else...
JCitizen 26th Jul 2007
I just don't sweat the small problems.

As others have said on this thread I just think it is funny that everyone has complained about M$ security for years and now its "Oh No! It is too secure!"

After I got used to fiddling with IE 7 I like the extra layer of security but I also know that batting down the hatches too far can be counter productive.

To summarize my previous statement: Now that Microsoft has the market share it can afford to inconvenience its customers into a posture they should have taken already, without losing too much market share.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree with you
xuniL_z 27th Jul 2007
100% Not sure if you thought otherwise.

But i think MS underestimated how much Vista would break and how slowly third parties would react, in regards to new driver model and windows titles needing recoded. They have lost more share already than I'm sure they would have hoped. And it's not over yet. They need to get SP1 done, it needs to be significant and they need to reach mainstream people. I've yet to see a Vista commercial on any programming I watch (very little, but still we have on network channels often enough). I see very few XBOX commercials. When they talked about the 500 million dollar Vista ad blitz, it got by me. I didn't notice it. Other than less than great ads in specific tech magazines.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: xuniL_z ref-market share
JCitizen 27th Jul 2007
Unfortunately I watch too much TV and I see almost no advertising from Microsoft; now that you remind me this is rather odd. Intel virtually floods the airwaves with slick trendy ads; yet MS does little(that is notable) in that arena. They don't even defend themselves against those funny Apple ads that make them and anyone who uses it look like a goof.

Also unfortunately I need a copy of VISTA so I can support customers that will definitly be banging on my office door. I would rather buy it OEM as I need a new machine. I just keep putting it off because I can't stand the thought of migrating to it.

My scratchy memory barely remembers some Office commercials that came out a long time ago - I barely remember what they were about. Shows that for once Microsoft lost money!
0 Votes
+ -
Try IE Tab extension in Firefox
jonc2011 24th Jul 2007
Never used IE7, but Firefox seems to do most things OK. Some retrograde sites that require IE can be accessed OK through Firefox by installing the IE Tab extension. Could be worth a try?
His problem was in IE in the first place, so no that wouldn't really solve his problem with Kodak's website.
0 Votes
+ -
When XP first arrived it was pretty funky. It was hard to get drivers for anything, applications crashed left and right. The new XP user had the pleasure of seeing BOSDs that only W2K users had enjoyed up to that point. XP was slow, ugly (just my opinion) and as rickety as a wooden roller coaster. SP1 arrived almost a year later (September 8,2002) and a lot of the rickety-ness and some of the driver problems were much improved. SP2, which made XP really useful and more stable, didn't arrive until August of 2004 - 3 years after XP's birth!

Vista should be getting pretty good just about the time the next version of Windows (seven?) is ready to ship. Same thing happened to XP, so why is anyone surprised?
0 Votes
+ -
i remember...win xp was not that bad
jjarman 25th Jul 2007
in fact it benefited greatly from the stability of win2000
I've been using Firefox for years, and while "But not all sites work with Firefox." may have been the case a couple years ago, I'd argue that today more sites work for Firefox than for IE7. Frankly, the compatibility with Firefox is very high - I'd say in the high 90th percentile. I am encountering very, very few websites that work with Firefox.

Honestly, I don't think it's a good argument anymore. You just hit a rare exception.

And yeah, IE7's protected mode can be a bit too protective sometimes. And yes, Kodak should change their website so it doesn't require to be added to the "trusted" list in order to work. And yes, they should add Firefox support - and they should quit requiring a plugin.

Frankly, there are a gazillion better photo sharing sites out there that don't need to go through all of these hoops. I say dump Kodak for something better.

"Although I?m sure work arounds and third party utilities exist for targeting specific cookies for deletion, deleting cookies through IE7?s stock interface for deleting cookies is an all or nothing approach."

Guess what Firefox has, standard ;)? Sure, there's the one in a million website that doesn't support it, but for everything else it works fine. For the extremely rare site that supports IE - well, you can't really get rid of IE, so you always have it available. Plus Firefox does have the IE Tab extension - although that won't solve your problem if the problem was with IE in the first place.
0 Votes
+ -
Choices other than Vista
hgh9mrp@... 25th Jul 2007
David,

Thanks for the pointers. You are supposed to be a technical guru, and you have avenues of access to more technical expertise than the everyday user. We all know there are problems with the current shipping version of Vista. Why you media types insist on pushing Vista is beyond me. You could have gotten your spouse a great system such as a Mac, a Dell loaded with Ubuntu 7.04, or a current laptop loaded with XP. Why don't you return the defective system, get your money back, and buy one of the suggested alternatives.
"We all know there are problems with the current shipping version of Vista."

No more than any other OS upon first release.

"Why you media types insist on pushing Vista is beyond me."

It's a great OS, despite its problems.

"Why don't you return the defective system"

The system isn't defective. You can have similar problems with IE7 on XP.
0 Votes
+ -
Not quite
frgough 25th Jul 2007
If you read carefully, you'll find the real problem is Vista's security model. You can't change system files (including IE 7 settings) as a non-admin, and as an admin, you can't make user-specific settings.

It's simply an example of how, even with Vista, Windows is not a true multi-user operating system.

This would never be an issue on Ubuntu or OS X where settings are stored and read from each user's home directory.
0 Votes
+ -
Hmmm...
birdofire@... 25th Jul 2007
I could have sworn that the title of the article is "Vista's security may be too tight for some Web sites and finding help isn't easy" so i guess it is about Vista...
0 Votes
+ -
To many people
John Zern 25th Jul 2007
it's Linux that is the defective system, and many do not want to deal with the lock-in which is Apple.
0 Votes
+ -
The "Apple lockin"
techno_rob 25th Jul 2007
WTF? Is Windows not a "lockin" too. Sure, you can choose different hw vendors - but you can not choose a different Windows vendor.

The premise that this "system" (being hw & sw) is broken, get a different one is valid. If you don't like the design choices MS made in their OS - you can choose another OS.
0 Votes
+ -
Vista is going to take time to get most of the fixes done and some are likely to remain issues. Even now with XP, I still get popups asking me to send reports to Microsoft. This isn't bashing it's just the way it is as there are issues which still remain with no fix, patch or remedy. When a major fix comes out, it causes a whole new world of issues for some hardware, drivers and software.
This is going to continue, why ? Well, first MS still wants to sell and promote Vista in a lot of flavours and base all those flavours on two platforms, make those platforms backward compatible to some extent, increase security, have little or no control over third party drivers as most drivers have not been certified by MS because of what MS charges to have them certified
Now with all of this with the added bloatware and numerous ways of doing things with windows configuration it adds up to a lot of issues. I haven't even bothered mentioning user errors as that is another issue which can't be attributed to Windows so you can't fault Vista for this but everything else are things that Vista and Microsoft has to contend with. Too much, way too much to ask for and expect of any OS of this size which needs a lot more time to make better.
0 Votes
+ -
User Errors ...
mach37 26th Jul 2007
Error handling - lesson #2 in programming. Or is it lesson #1? The designers should get fined for bad error handling in their programming.
0 Votes
+ -
Media player and IE7 problems
rdappen@... 25th Jul 2007
Since installing vista ultimate I have been having problems with media player and voice files. I support a medical transcription company an the web site has the ability to show the word document and play the voice file at the same time. I have tried to set security in IE7 with no luck. Here is what happens. I try to download the voice file and the window that pops up closes immediately. If I save the file to my pc and try to open in media player I get codec error true speech dsp and can't listen to the file. I have to go back to my xp machine to do this. Very frustrating.
0 Votes
+ -
uhhh...about those cookies....
jebakk 25th Jul 2007
Okay, about those cookie settings. I had a BAD problem with malware hidden in cookies a while back, like almost had to take my computer to a Best Buy Geek Squad to have it cleaned bad, and since then I have had NO problems on ANY website setting first party cookies to "prompt", and third party to "BLOCK". Let me explain this: FIRST party cookies are the cookies that come ONLY from the domain of the website you are visiting. THIRD party cookies are from AFFILATED domains (Usually someplace that has an ad or application on the site you are veiwing.) a LOT of those third party cookies are spamware at best, and keyloggers at worst. If you absolutely HAVE to let some third-party cookies through, set that one to prompt as well, and really pay attention to what comes up on your next virus/adware scan on the high-security-threat section, then block those sites.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix