Firefox vs. Internet Explorer

Never going back to bloatscape. I have yet to see a higher version of software actually get less bloated and crappy. Unfortunately even Opera suffers from this crap with mail and chat integration. Bleh, who needs it.

I blame Microsoft, for putting everyone into this "ONE PROGRAM TO DO EVERYTHING" mindset. What's wrong with 3 or 4 programs to do everything? Why the hell did we go to the trouble of developing multi-tasking OSes if we're just going to have one "uber" process manage everything?

Sorry, but the SIMPLE fact is that as software gets bigger and more complicated it gets buggier, harder to maintain, slower, and bloated. The whole purpose of the object oriented programming paradigm is to keep unlrelated stuff *separated* to reduce complexity--yet one could argue that adding more and more features to newer software, rather than just doing ONE thing and doing it well, goes against the concept. You could probably argue that it breaks encapsulation at the highest level of design.

OK, unrelated rant over. I don't know where that came from, really!

I use MSN Explorer for everything, i'm not sure if that's essentially the same as IE, but it works well for me with a lot of the features that Firefox has (that I used, at least.) Firefox was ok, but it loaded sooooo slowly I got annoyed with it.

I'm willing to bet that the reason IE "starts so fast!" compared to Firefox and Opera (etc) is because part of IE is starting with the OS itself at boot time. So essentially, you still pay the price in wait time, it's just hidden with the slow bootup bullcrap so nobody knows. Can anyone confirm this theory?

It could be better phrased: IE has a LOT of loopholes. Firefox has SOME.

But what's even better, IF there is a loophole in Firefox, a fixed version is rushed out most of the time, and you even get a warning (a red upgrade circle) that you can just click and download the fixed, new version.

FireFox is the way to go!

Icon, you rock. Valid markup and styles are the future and there's no going back.

But, unfortunately, most non-web developers don't care about standards. The site either works or doesn't work, and since IE comes installed on all Windows PC's, it's got a leg up and there's not a lot of reason to switch. It's sometimes more of a philisophical debate: closed, proprietary formats or embrace open standards. But what does my mom care about that?

But as more sites, like wired.com and espn.com switch to valid markup it will more and more important to have a browser that properly supports these standards, and IE will make more and more sites look "broken" when they're actually very much fixed.

A quick question - how is Microsoft including IE evil, but Apple including Safari a good thing? Just curious.

I personally use Maxthon - which uses IE as its rendering engine, but offers tabbed browsing and other features that I like. I tried Firefox, but it just never grabbed or impresed me. To each their own. I also use a Tablet PC with a pen extensively, and Firefox does not work well with it at all.

This is true- IE is an integrated component of the Windows operating system and is used by the OS aside from just web browsing. This is one of the main reasons why IE exploits are a deal more dangerous- by hacking the web browser, you're hacking a hole into to the OS. You're right though- due to the fact that IE is loaded upon bootup is the reason why it seems to load quicker than 3rd party browsers like Firefox and Opera, when in actuality, IE is a much bigger program and hogs more system resources.

Thought so, but I never bothered to research it. I just figured it based on the fact that it's heavily integrated.

You miserable sunuva...

*snatches Cris' Tablet PC*

I want one of those so badly

The 'Fileplanet download manager' won't work, it's dependant on IE I believe, but you can still DL stuff.

If it's the sma esituation I get, a box pops up saying fileplanet can't open the download manager or something similiar, but there's a line that says 'Begin Download'. I hit that and it starts downloaded right away.

*Runs right behind Garoad cheering 'OPERA! OPERA!'*

Hey, one thing I can say about Opera that DOES make it better than Firefox is: Apparently Firefox is more commonly used--therefore which browser will idiot "hacker" types start targeting more and more as it gains popularity?

Meanwhile Opera, at least hopefully, is incompatible with alot of exploits and it works fine with 95% of the websites you visit.

Can Firefox zoom in and out with + - hotkeys? Customize the GUI interface so you can disable/enable java/cookies/javascript with one click? (Not saying it can't, I don't know.) If it can't then it suxxxxxxxxxxxxxx lol..

*runs away*

Safari is standards-compliant.
It is built on an open (as in source) rendering engine.
You can remove it.
It's not full of security holes.
Apple has never been convicted of violating anti-trust laws. (Not being a near-enough-for-government-work monoply helps)

Basically MS bundles a shitty browser and Apple bundles a good one.

I started using Opera at work since it's starting to gain a little ground -- and yes, Firefox can do all that.

My fav new Firefox feature is greasemonkey -- a scripting interface that lets you add your own features on top of websites you view. Basically, client-side customization without a whole lot of hassle.

Hm. Well I can't say it's lacking features (unless I just decide to tell lies about it, but never mind that!)

But the "lack of widespread usage" relatively speaking is a possible benefit.

I've been using Mozilla for day to day browsing since M18, and I switched to firefox recently.

I only use IE for one site that won't work with anything else and which, by the look of it, was programmed by a team of monkeys.

I love how people talk about STANDARDS! Lets see who really is standard. The old stuff or the new stuff. IE is the #1 used browser (you have to count AOL in that because they use IE in there program) They are so #1 that they are more then the rest combined. That would mean that every one else is not compliant to the standard of the Average. Just a thought.

Hmmm... could this be because Microsoft packages it with all of their OS's, thereby making it a default? Which in turn gives an amateur the impression that they do not have a choice. Not all computer users are savvy enough to explore other options. Many people are afraid of messing with anything that is 'default'.

Just another point of view (from a die-hard Firefox user)

for what it's worth, famous ex-hacker, Kevin Mitnik was interviewed by Art Bell (American late nite am radio show host) and Mitnik said the simplest thing you can do to prevent hacking, is don't use IE, he even said use FF.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

There are many standards that IE doesn't properly support.

If I'm dealing with a fresh install of Windows, I use IE long enough to get to Mozilla.org.

Opera is ok, but there are a few sites that make it stumble. Before I started using Firefox, Opera was my default browser.

Free Kevin! Free -- oh, wait, he's out of jail now, isn't he?

It's true.

And IE7 still will not support them...

I have no idea what's going through the mind of MS engineers, but for pete's sake --

if everyone stuck to standards, we could move along and maybe software development could catch up with the hardware guys.

hehe yeah! Kevin is legit now and helps corporations with cyber security (of course)!!!
*reads 2600 mag*

this is an issue with javascript. In the interests of security there are some js calls firefox ignores. IE prettymuch lets you do anything with js.