Firefox Myths

[DavidCar]

Well... anyone that has ever used Ubuntu knows firefox and almost any slashdotter think of it as the web Panacea; personally I disagree because it's memory-leaked hungry application.
Today in the google operating system blog I found this entry...

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html

It's worth of checking... but please... before posting any comments leave any passions, fanatism and wrath behind.

[Shay Stephens]

I have never bought into the hype. Firefox is slower and crashes more often than any other browser I have used. But I just don't trust IE and firefox works good enough. Plus I like the tabs ;)

I am hoping 2.0 will be more stable and faster.

[DavidCar]

I think you're right! Firefox is not as good as many people think is, but comparing it with IE is way toooooooo better. :KS

[aysiu]

Firefox's strengths come from its extensions.

I went to the supposed IE extensions page, and all the downloads for those add-ons are dead links.

[Shay Stephens]

Another thing I like about it is the cross platform capability. I have been trying to transition to cross platform apps. It gives me freedom, and I like that :-)

[meng]

Personally I use Firefox almost exclusively. I think the important point is that Firefox is a choice, and if it's not your preference, you can get rid of it. IE is not a choice, it's mandatory.

[aysiu]

Recently, I had to use IE6 on a library computer. It was painful. Painful. Does it technically take less time to load one page in IE than one page in Firefox? Maybe. Does it matter? No, because in Firefox, I can be loading about 20 tabs in the background while I'm viewing and reading one tab in the foreground.

Since IE7 hasn't been released yet, it doesn't make sense to compare it to Firefox 1.5. Compare IE7 to Firefox 2.0 or Firefox 2.5 or whatever Firefox version is out when IE7 finally gets released.

Is Opera faster--hell, yes! Do I care? Again, no. I'm on high-speed internet. That fraction of a second doesn't matter to me, because, as I said before, I load a whole bunch of tabs in the background.

Also, some sites just don't work on Opera (like my bank's website). Firefox is getting more and more support these days and seems a good balance between IE (supported by everything but sucky) and Opera (supported by not much but great).

And I have to say the extensions matter. NoScript, Adblock, Tab Mix Plus, FireFTP, Blogline Notifier... and those are just the extensions that matter to me. There appear to be hundreds of extensions that fit other people's needs.

Opera has a great set of features--there's no denying that, but if they don't suit your needs or if it seems as if there are too many features or too many toolbars... well, get hacking. I like that Firefox starts pretty vanilla, and you can add on as you see fit.

I love the "I'm feeling lucky search" from the location bar. I love the searchplugins and much prefer it to Opera's letter searches (one letter for each kind of search engine).

I also like the way that tabs close left-to-right or right-to-left. No matter what options I try out in Opera, I can't get that behavior. (It doesn't matter if I do Cycle in tab bar order, Cycle in recently used order, or Cycle without showing list.)

I'm not arguing that Firefox is the best browser for everyone. I'm just saying it has a legitimate place in the world and does have a lot to brag about.

That page makes it sound as if Firefox is crap. It's not.

I will say this, though: Firefox is a memory hog (I have 512 MB of RAM, so I don't care), and it is unstable--add the wrong combination of extensions, and Firefox will crash. Luckily, I've found the combination of themes and extensions that I like, and I've had a stable Firefox for quite a while now.

One big pet peeve that I haven't experienced for a while (I don't know why) but others seem to run into is the "Firefox is already running" dialogue, which doesn't seem to go away, even if you do killall firefox Firefox certainly has its fair share of annoyances, but it is also a quality browser in other ways.

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=62406
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=133730
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=165576
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=126854
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=204410

[DavidCar]

Well, firefox has some very good extensions, but I think that its extension system is something like the eclipse plugin system; I mean, it is everyone's kitchen, anyone can go there and make the buggiest code possible and publish it; I think it would be great some official advisory on firefox extensions.

I think that the firefox's success is due to advertising more than the browser's real quality.

[aysiu]

Well, firefox has some very good extensions, but I think that its extension system is something like the eclipse plugin system; I mean, it is everyone's kitchen, anyone can go there and make the buggiest code possible and publish it; I think it would be great some official advisory on firefox extensions.

I think that the firefox's success is due to advertising more than the browser's real quality.
Well, you can see which extensions are the most popular or have the highest ratings. Obscure extensions can be very buggy, but I've had good luck with the popular ones.

[RAV TUX]

I was just trying out Morphix combined light GUI tonight and what do you think they had as the default browser?

nope not Firefox but Firebird with links to Phoenix, the two former names of Firefox, or the evolution of Firefox-----from Phoenix to Firebird to Firefox.

[Soarer]

Its the old 'Straw Man' technique - put up a largely irrelevant argument & then demolish it. For example: 'the Toyota Yaris won't do 150 mph, and is therefore worse than a Ferrari which will'.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, I know which I'd rather go to work in every day, especially if I had to carry 3 passengers.
Firefox is not perfect, is not especially fast and does use a lot of memory. So what? I have ADSL & 512 MB (1.2GB on my work XP machine) so these don't sway me. Useability though, which is not even mentioned, is far superior in Firefox, especially with extensions.
And to complain that Firefox & Opera (another great browser) don't render pages ESPECIALLY CODED for the non-standard IE5 & 6 is just stupid.

[DavidCar]

Its the old 'Straw Man' technique - put up a largely irrelevant argument & then demolish it. For example: 'the Toyota Yaris won't do 150 mph, and is therefore worse than a Ferrari which will'.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, I know which I'd rather go to work in every day, especially if I had to carry 3 passengers.
Firefox is not perfect, is not especially fast and does use a lot of memory. So what? I have ADSL & 512 MB (1.2GB on my work XP machine) so these don't sway me. Useability though, which is not even mentioned, is far superior in Firefox, especially with extensions.
And to complain that Firefox & Opera (another great browser) don't render pages ESPECIALLY CODED for the non-standard IE5 & 6 is just stupid.

Well, well, calm down friend, I think that no one wants to start a slashdott-like polemic here; we're just giving our opinions. About what you say, I congratulate you about your astounding machine, its 512mb and the ADSL connection, but I think that a tool planned for an enviroment like the web has to be open to a wide variety of public as Tim Berners Lee says and low-end systems (aka pentium mmx with 32-64mb of ram to pentium III with 128Mb) are still a significant share of web surfers; It's good that firefox works for you, it also works for me, altough sometimes it takes up to 128-140 Mb of memory (NO KIDDING!!!), but the point that I try to argument is to say that it is not as good as "fanboys" say.
Also, if you look carefully at the tests, they never compared heavily browser dependant subjects like the jscript and javascript handling, the tests were always about W3C Recommendations and Standards.

[hizaguchi]

I use Firefox for one reason, the Gecko engine. It renders just about any site in a readable fashion, fairly quickly, and is compatible with online registration at my school and all of my online banking.

The extensions are nice too, but it's Gecko that makes me choose Firefox over Konqueror, or even Dillo.

In Windows it's a different story. Gecko is still nice, but IE renders pages decently well too, and is secure enough if you tighten the loose screws (which is also necessary for Firefox these days). In Windows, it comes down to usability. Tabs, extensions, built-in searches, etc. For most people (myself included), those are what makes Firefox superior to IE. That's why I worry about the future of Firefox when IE7 copies all the tangible benefits.

[Footissimo]

Its the old 'Straw Man' technique - put up a largely irrelevant argument & then demolish it. For example: 'the Toyota Yaris won't do 150 mph, and is therefore worse than a Ferrari which will'.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, I know which I'd rather go to work in every day, especially if I had to carry 3 passengers.
Firefox is not perfect, is not especially fast and does use a lot of memory. So what? I have ADSL & 512 MB (1.2GB on my work XP machine) so these don't sway me. Useability though, which is not even mentioned, is far superior in Firefox, especially with extensions.
And to complain that Firefox & Opera (another great browser) don't render pages ESPECIALLY CODED for the non-standard IE5 & 6 is just stupid.

Great post.

I love the way that he's done it on a single (and ad-filled) page so that counter-arguments can't be made. The whole thing is weak..but if this big-ole troll gets him his beer money then, good for him.

[DavidCar]

Yeah, the gecko engine is a wonderful piece of software, (I particularly like its XUL support), altough it is not from the Mozilla guys I think they have improved it.

[maddog39]

Wow, how can they say that IE6 is faster than FF, its much slower in anything I do no matter what. I totally hate it, hence I use firefox, lol. :D

[DavidCar]

Wow, how can they say that IE6 is faster than FF, its much slower in anything I do no matter what. I totally hate it, hence I use firefox, lol. :D

Hmmm... personally I think they're right, at least in Winblows firefox rendering engine is a little slower than IE's but I don't notice it when using ADSL at college.:D

[Rhapsody]

That site misrepresents several things (bear with me, this message is pretty messy).

Starting with "Requirement Myths", I would dare this man to get my first PC (a 486 DX2/66 with 16MB RAM) install Windows 98 and IE6 on it, then start comfortably browsing sites. According to the requirements, this should work, but I don't see it happening. I just think the Firefox developers are being honest about what you need, while Microsoft are just stating the minimum their OS can run on (I can clearly remember that Windows 98 will refuse to install on less than a 486 DX2/66) and assume IE will work too.

The speed section states that "The argument that components of Internet Explorer may load during Windows Startup is nullified by Opera's start times. Which means there is no excuse for this except poor coding on Firefox's part." which is just fallacious. The startup speed of Opera has no bearing on comparisions between Firefox and IE. The only way to test if the preloading of IE components makes a difference would be to try a startup without preloaded components, which Microsoft have made impossible. This makes such benchmarks invalid.

The Security section is my favourite. It lists a lot of security vulnerabilities, but following the links provided shows that the vast majority of those listed have already been fixed! The Secunia site is particularly revealing. Currently:

"Mozilla Firefox 1.x with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by one or more Secunia advisories rated Less critical"

while

"Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.x with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by one or more Secunia advisories rated Highly critical"

Of course, Opera is more secure, but ayusi already noted that many sites don't work with Opera. So given a choice between the two best supported browsers, Firefox is the one to go for on this criteria.

Continuing...

Internet Explorer add-ons aren't nearly as plentiful or well-known as Firefox extensions (I used IE for years without even knowing they existed) making that comparison unfair.

The remark about Firefox not blocking all pop-up windows starts out weak (the only pop-ups that get through are ones I have never seen used for ads) and ends on a non-starter (I'm using Firefox and I didn't get a single pop-up while using eBaum's World). If anything, Firefox is too aggressive on pop-ups, as it blocked one of the four 'good pop-ups' on the test page.

IE may well be able to use tabs, but the MSN toolbar certainly isn't in use where my mum works, since she was amazed to see tabs on Firefox at home. Totally new thing to her! Also, would this guy seriously try to tell me that tabs in IE7 have nothing to do with Firefox popularizing the feature? Microsoft wouldn't have bothered if Firefox hadn't shown them why it was needed.

Using Acid2 as a test for "the more important W3C standards" is plainly ridiculous. Acid2 is possibily the most demanding CSS test ever made. Extremely few browsers can render it correctly. Also, Internet Explorer 7 will not support Acid2, while the Firefox developers are waiting for a change in Gecko before they can support it properly (which will most likely happen before IE supports it). Additionaly, it hits me that the person who made this seems to be an Opera fanboy, as he failed to mention that iCab, Safari, and Konqueror all beat Opera to the punch on this one.

Under "Web Page Rendering", he notes that "Firefox is not 100% Internet Explorer and ActiveX compatible." which seems to be stating the obvious to me. Also, I find it a bit sad that 'IE-compatibility' is now the gold standard for web browsers. Did the W3C disband or something?

"Web Page Rendering Differences" is a brilliant piece. His objection to IE not supporting progressive rendering basically admits that it doesn't in some cases! He can argue the pros and cons of this all day, but it makes me wonder why he took up this argument knowing that there's such a hole in his explanation.

Overall, I get the the page makes some good points, but seems far too determined to bash Firefox on even the smallest of issues. I also see hints of Opera fanboyism, which is certainly a rare thing.

[aysiu]

Internet Explorer add-ons aren't nearly as plentiful or well-known as Firefox extensions (I used IE for years without even knowing they existed) making that comparison unfair. Actually, as I pointed out before, the addons are for IE5, and the links to download them are all dead links.

The remark about Firefox not blocking all pop-up windows starts out weak (the only pop-ups that get through are ones I have never seen used for ads) and ends on a non-starter (I'm using Firefox and I didn't get a single pop-up while using eBaum's World). If anything, Firefox is too aggressive on pop-ups, as it blocked one of the four 'good pop-ups' on the test page. With the NoScript extension, I haven't seen any unwanted pop-ups in Firefox--Flash or Javascript. Is there a NoScript addon for IE?

Overall, I get the the page makes some good points, but seems far too determined to bash Firefox on even the smallest of issues. I also see hints of Opera fanboyism, which is certainly a rare thing. The only valid points are that Firefox is slower than Opera (a given, even to the most die-hard Firefox fans) and that it's a memory hog (not a problem for people with 512 MB of RAM and over).

[DavidCar]

Starting with "Requirement Myths", I would dare this man to get my first PC (a 486 DX2/66 with 16MB RAM) install Windows 98 and IE6 on it, then start comfortably browsing sites. According to the requirements, this should work, but I don't see it happening. I just think the Firefox developers are being honest about what you need, while Microsoft are just stating the minimum their OS can run on (I can clearly remember that Windows 98 will refuse to install on less than a 486 DX2/66) and assume IE will work too.
Actually, I ran IE6 in that system configuration, although it was slow as hell.


The speed section states that "The argument that components of Internet Explorer may load during Windows Startup is nullified by Opera's start times. Which means there is no excuse for this except poor coding on Firefox's part." which is just fallacious. The startup speed of Opera has no bearing on comparisions between Firefox and IE. The only way to test if the preloading of IE components makes a difference would be to try a startup without preloaded components, which Microsoft have made impossible. This makes such benchmarks invalid.
I think that what he means is that the startup times can be reduced by the Mozilla guys and puts Opera as an example of this; does IE components preload on the OS?? I think that yes, but that is other subject, the reality is that starup time can be reduced without preloading components.


The Security section is my favourite. It lists a lot of security vulnerabilities, but following the links provided shows that the vast majority of those listed have already been fixed! The Secunia site is particularly revealing.
Yeah, you're right, that's a big ugly hole in the article.:)


Of course, Opera is more secure, but ayusi already noted that many sites don't work with Opera. So given a choice between the two best supported browsers, Firefox is the one to go for on this criteria.
The point is, Opera is the more secure browser not Firefox, that's what the article arguments, he's not talking about support there, just security.


Internet Explorer add-ons aren't nearly as plentiful or well-known as Firefox extensions (I used IE for years without even knowing they existed) making that comparison unfair.
Yeah! That's another hole in the article, if people didn't know about IE add-ons it was due to bad marketing from MoneySoft and Firefox has been very successful at marketing and advertising.:)


The remark about Firefox not blocking all pop-up windows starts out weak (the only pop-ups that get through are ones I have never seen used for ads) and ends on a non-starter (I'm using Firefox and I didn't get a single pop-up while using eBaum's World). If anything, Firefox is too aggressive on pop-ups, as it blocked one of the four 'good pop-ups' on the test page.
I've seen popus in firefox, especially when entering "special" sites such as *cough*mscracks*cough*; and there's is a kind of popup that gets my nerve, the damn** flash popup; I hope that both, IE and Firefox learn to deal with those.


IE may well be able to use tabs, but the MSN toolbar certainly isn't in use where my mum works, since she was amazed to see tabs on Firefox at home. Totally new thing to her! Also, would this guy seriously try to tell me that tabs in IE7 have nothing to do with Firefox popularizing the feature? Microsoft wouldn't have bothered if Firefox hadn't shown them why it was needed.
What he says there is that Tabs aren't a Firefox original idea, it was taken from somewhere else like almost everything in IT; now if you like to give vague ideas about the philosophy and implementation of tabs, well, good luck!! but that's not the point in the article.


Using Acid2 as a test for "the more important W3C standards" is plainly ridiculous. Acid2 is possibily the most demanding CSS test ever made. Extremely few browsers can render it correctly. Also, Internet Explorer 7 will not support Acid2, while the Firefox developers are waiting for a change in Gecko before they can support it properly (which will most likely happen before IE supports it). Additionaly, it hits me that the person who made this seems to be an Opera fanboy, as he failed to mention that iCab, Safari, and Konqueror all beat Opera to the punch on this one.
Firefox doesn't has the best support for the W3C Recommendations and Standards, that's the point! Also, I think that non-geek people are more likely to know Opera than Konqueror or iCab.


Under "Web Page Rendering", he notes that "Firefox is not 100% Internet Explorer and ActiveX compatible." which seems to be stating the obvious to me. Also, I find it a bit sad that 'IE-compatibility' is now the gold standard for web browsers. Did the W3C disband or something?
Well, would you please point to the line where he says so? What he says it's that the Myth "Firefox is completely compatible with every Web Site" is way toooo wrong, and that's absolutely true although is due to close-minded developers that live in a IE world.


"Web Page Rendering Differences" is a brilliant piece. His objection to IE not supporting progressive rendering basically admits that it doesn't in some cases! He can argue the pros and cons of this all day, but it makes me wonder why he took up this argument knowing that there's such a hole in his explanation.
Yeah! Another big hole there:eek:

Well, the purpose of that page is not to destroy firefox but to make people aware that it is a common software like any other and not the "ultra security application that even replaces antivirus and best web browser with tabs" that many non-technical people thinks.

In my case, I use firefox for my Winblows work, but will stay close to Konqueror in the Linux amazing world.

[aysiu]

Well, the purpose of that page is not to destroy firefox Are you sure?

[DavidCar]

Well... I really don't know... in my humble opinion I feel some firefox wrath there, maybe is because of the perception that many people, especially winblows users, have about Firefox; they think of it as the ultimate application, (trust me, I've seen them...), people who uninstalled Spybot S&D just because they have Firefox... As I posted before, my intention with this thread is not bash and crucify Firefox but to express my opinion which is:
Firefox is a web browser like any other with some cool feautures for Winblows users that are not willing to pay for the Opera Internet Suite and are bored by IE, but it's not a cutting edge, all-in-one application, I think that we, the linux users, have better choices than Firefox.

[aysiu]

I agree that Firefox gets put on a pedestal, but--come on--that webpage is out to get Firefox. I mean, whipping the IE5 add-ons page, which no one knows about and whose downloads are all dead links, to try to downplay the usefulness of Firefox extensions?

[DavidCar]

Yep! I agree with you, that page has some very weak points, but I think that's the way you should deal with close-minded "fanboys".

[teet]

The site does seem to make some very valid points. I have never gotten the "firefox is faster" argument...it's ALWAYS been slower to load up than IE6 for me. However, once loaded, I can't tell much of a difference in rendering pages between Firefox of IE. In fact, Firefox may actually be slightly faster on my old 1.06 GHZ PIII laptop (512 mb of RAM) as the last few times I had to use IE (I avoid it like the plague), IE seemed to freeze or hesitate for just a moment when loading a page.

Anyway, I can read all the statistics and reports that they put out there, but at the end of the day choosing a web browser comes down to usability for me. I can simply get more done in a shorter amount of time using Firefox. I navigate to a news site...bam bam bam...I have all the links from the front page I want to view loading in new tabs. I start scanning through the tabs when I come upon a word I don't know...highlight, right-click, search web for "blah". I continue reading the articles and may do a few searches from the "searchbar" on IMDB, Math World, or Wikipedia. I finally get done reading the articles and close firefox, taking for granted the fact that my Adblock Plus was silently filtering out all the ads I don't want to see. I <3 Firefox :)

-teet

[macogw]

I use regular Mozilla. I don't like how the search is separate from the address bar in Firefox. Reasons for Mozilla over IE? Tabs, web-standards compliant. Reason for Mozilla over Opera? Opera doesn't like div classes, meaning a properly coded site can look like you opened it in IE, actually, worse. Because if the div is specified by class in Opera (rather than just id), the whole div disappears and leaves a solid white block. AT least it did in Opera 8. I haven't looked in Opera 9. I really like that "copy to note" in Opera, though. Blending the downloads into a tab rather than a separate window is also a nice feature of Opera.


Er, someone above mentioned something about paying for Opera. Opera's free. It certainly didn't ask me for cash when I tried it. And one of the guys I work with uses it specifically because it's not IE but it's still free.

[macogw]

Web Page Rendering

Myth - "Firefox is completely compatible with every Web Site" - Example

Reality - 10-15% of web sites aren't completely compatible with Firefox. Firefox is not 100% Internet Explorer and ActiveX compatible. Web sites that depend on ActiveX or were only tested in Internet Explorer (which there are many) will only render and work properly in Internet Explorer based browsers. Web site features such as Menus, Web forms or other content may not function or behave differently then intended. While Internet Explorer is completely compatible with 99.99% of all Web Sites. - Source

In a recent study by a UK based web testing firm SciVisum, 1 in 10 UK web sites failed to work properly with Firefox. - Source

Notes - Opera has the same problems as Firefox in regard to web site compatibility.


^^^^^
I'm confused. The problem isn't with Firefox rendering those sites wrong. What's really happening is that Firefox is rendering it correctly, and the idiot that coded the page wrote the wrong code. They wrote it for IE, and IE pretty much doesn't render anything right. It doesn't even support the :hover pseudo-class on non-links! That's why javascript keeps being used for dropdowns when CSS would make it a million times easier. So really, Firefox is showing the page exactly as it is coded. It's not Firefox's fault that somebody doesn't know how to use CSS properties correctly. My get-around is having one style sheet for web-standards compliant browsers, and then use a conditional comment to point IE to a separate stylesheet that is full of workarounds for IE's bugginess.

[asimon]

"Not for Profit" - Source is a blog entry from some random untrusted guy. Is there any serious source for this claim? "generates revenue in the tens of millions of dollars" sounds way too high in my ears. Anyway, seeing blogs stated as "sources" decreased the sites trustworthiness dramatically in my eyes.

It's also strange that there are some things presented as myth which are none. For example I never ever heard anyone saying that Firefox invented tabbed browsing.

The marked share issue: regarding who you ask you get very different values. The site just picks the one which suit best for their message, ignoring the other sources, which is not objective, because the exact marketshare is unknown to everyone.

IMO this site is not objective.

[asimon]

I agree that Firefox gets put on a pedestal, but--come on--that webpage is out to get Firefox. I mean, whipping the IE5 add-ons page, which no one knows about and whose downloads are all dead links, to try to downplay the usefulness of Firefox extensions?
Absolutely, with the techniques used on this site it's easy to do a "Myths" page for everything to make that look very bad. Marketing at it's best - deluding people.

[bruce89]

Opera is "more secure" because they don't release their source code, so people find it more difficult to find flaws in it.

I use Firefox for one reason, the Gecko engine. It renders just about any site in a readable fashion, fairly quickly, and is compatible with online registration at my school and all of my online banking.

I use Epiphany for Gecko, and the nice interface.

[aysiu]

Opera is "more secure" because they don't release their source code, so people find it more difficult to find flaws in it. Wouldn't that also make IE and all Microsoft products secure, since they're all closed source?

Or is that why you put more secure in quotation marks?

[bruce89]

Or is that why you put more secure in quotation marks?

Yes.

Wouldn't that also make IE and all Microsoft products secure, since they're all closed source?

I thought about that, and then realised that MS stuff is used a huge amount, whereas Opera has a small usage. Opera may not actually be impervious to attack, it's just not worth bothering to attack.

[Lord Illidan]

Firefox, Opera and IE all have their flaws. That's a fact. Firefox, for one, although it is my favourite browser, is a hell of a memory leak, that's a fact. However, I love it.

Opera may be smaller, faster, but I don't care.. I don't like it. There's got to be a reason for 10% of the population to switch to Firefox.

[aysiu]

Well, I have to say that I like Firefox, and it's not because of the marketing. I've tried just about every browser out there I could find--including Opera--and I chose Firefox.

Likewise, my wife (who would never use any software on principle; i.e., should wouldn't pick something just because it was open source) has tried Opera, Camino, Safari, IE5, and Firefox on her Mac, and she, too, prefers Firefox.

It makes sense if you've tried only one browser to say it's all hype, but if you've tried a whole bunch... one can only assume you had to have a reason to stick with the one you're using now. That reason may not apply to everyone, but there are many things Firefox has going for it that other browsers don't.

[Lord Illidan]

Well, I have to say that I like Firefox, and it's not because of the marketing. I've tried just about every browser out there I could find--including Opera--and I chose Firefox.

Likewise, my wife (who would never use any software on principle; i.e., should wouldn't pick something just because it was open source) has tried Opera, Camino, Safari, IE5, and Firefox on her Mac, and she, too, prefers Firefox.

It makes sense if you've tried only one browser to say it's all hype, but if you've tried a whole bunch... one can only assume you had to have a reason to stick with the one you're using now. That reason may not apply to everyone, but there are many things Firefox has going for it that other browsers don't.

I tried Firefox before the grand marketing campaign of spreadfirefox etc. I picked it up because of a great review in PcPlus, where it earned the best place, and was still at version 0.9

Nowadays, to be honest... I am struggling to chose between Firefox and Konqueror. Both are opensource (big clincher). Firefox works on more sites, but Konqueror is faster. Both have cool names. Firefox has cool extensions! Konqueror is a great file system browser!

So I use them both!

[aysiu]

Real Firefox Myths

The Mozilla Foundation is a for-profit organization
From the Mozilla Foundation webpage (http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/): Established in July 2003 with start-up support from America Online's Netscape division, the Mozilla Foundation exists to provide organizational, legal, and financial support for the Mozilla open-source software project and its mission to preserve choice and promote innovation on the Internet. The Foundation has been incorporated as a California not-for-profit corporation to ensure that the Mozilla project continues to exist beyond the participation of individual volunteers, to enable contributions of intellectual property and funds and to provide a vehicle for limiting legal exposure while participating in open-source software projects.

Internet Explorer 6.x is clearly faster than Firefox 1.x in 6 out of 7 measures of performance and is significantly faster from a cold start.
No one cares, as Internet Explorer 6 doesn't come with tabbed browsing. So while you're waiting for that one page to load in the foreground, I've got twenty tabs loading in the background in Firefox that will be ready to read once I close the page I'm looking at.

Internet Explorer has supported Extensions since 1999 in Internet Explorer 5 known as Add-Ons (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/workshop/browser/ext/extensions.asp)
There aren't that many add-ons.
Very few people know about them.
The download links are dead links, so for all practical purposes they don't exist.
The hard truth--Firefox has extensions-galore, and no other browser has anywhere close to the number of extensions Firefox has.

Internet Explorer 6 supports Tabbed Browsing when used with the MSN Toolbar extension in Windows XP
Great. And if we take extensions into account, you can do just about anything with Firefox--including blocking all pop-ups using the NoScript extension.

People use Firefox because it's hyped up, not because it's a good browser
The beauty of Firefox is its initial simplicity coupled with its extensibility. You can add on and add on and add on. You can also keep it simple. Even with its basic functionality, it still has a good integrated search and tabbed browsing.

It's free and open source and available on all three major platforms (Linux, Mac, and Windows). You can't say that for many other browsers out there.

When it really comes down to it, there's a double standard in that page (and in many critiques of Firefox). When it comes to judging IE, all of a sudden extensions count (oh, look at these non-existent extensions... look at the MSN toolbar that allows you to have tabbed browsing), but when it comes to Firefox, extensions don't count (no security, allows pop-ups, etc.).

Extensions are a major component of Firefox, and most people I know who use Firefox would not be using it if it weren't for extensions. Opera is a great browser, and I have to say it has some serious built-in features (zooming of pages and an easy click on/off for images are my favorite), but it seems pretty static... and a little bloated--the first thing I do when I install Opera is get rid of all the extraneous toolbars and buttons.

Firefox has a nice balance. It's simple, but it can be added onto. It's compatible with most sites, but it also has better W3C compliance than Internet Explorer.

[Koori23]

screw it.. I'm switching to lynx!

[egon spengler]

Yep! I agree with you, that page has some very weak points, but I think that's the way you should deal with close-minded "fanboys".

By using weak points and blatant inaccuracies? Well good luck with that, I think the rest of us will stick with trying to make strong points and using the truth.

You're clearly somewhat of a fanboy yourself, just of a different team is all. Either you're so easily swayed that you read that article and suddenly agreed that firefox is trash (which would make you no better than those who use firefox soley because of it's hype) or for whatever reason you don't like firefox and felt that some poorly written article lends an air of credibility to your opinion

[sanguinemoon]

I see "Mastertech" decided to come spread his misinformation here as well. He posted the exact some spam on the Opera Forums (http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=117825&page=1&skip=0&show=&perscreen=50) as well and has been banned from other sites for spamming. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=SJm&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=mastertech+banned&spell=1) I think he was even banned from digg.com, which is an achievment in and of itself. If indeed, this who I think it is, he has a habit of coming to forums and claiming to have "found" his own site.

I wonder what he's doing here on a forum for a Linux distro, since in the end he recommends a "browser" that's an IE shell, something that normally doesn't even work in Linux (I got Avant to work once under Wine, but after that it never started again) :p

[sanguinemoon]

Firefox is a web browser like any other with some cool feautures for Winblows users that are not willing to pay for the Opera Internet Suite and are bored by IE, but it's not a cutting edge, all-in-one application, I think that we, the linux users, have better choices than Firefox. Opera has been free for how long now? A year?

Yes, free as beer, not free as open source. but either way you don't have to pay for Opera :p

[sanguinemoon]

By using weak points and blatant inaccuracies? Of course not. He also has to "edit" other people's quotes to make criticism of his site sound like endorsements, just like here (http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=1443054)

[Iandefor]

I see "Mastertech" decided to come spread his misinformation here as well. He posted the exact some spam on the Opera Forums (http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=117825&page=1&skip=0&show=&perscreen=50) as well and has been banned from other sites for spamming. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=SJm&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=mastertech+banned&spell=1) I think he was even banned from digg.com, which is an achievment in and of itself. If indeed, this who I think it is, he has a habit of coming to forums and claiming to have "found" his own site.

I wonder what he's doing here on a forum for a Linux distro, since in the end he recommends a "browser" that's an IE shell, something that normally doesn't even work in Linux (I got Avant to work once under Wine, but after that it never started again) :p It's enlightening to see how utterly disreputable Mastertech is, but first, let's estalish that the OP is Mastertech, eh?

[aysiu]

It's enlightening to see how utterly disreputable Mastertech is, but first, let's estalish that the OP is Mastertech, eh?
Looking at DavidCar's posting history on these forums, I'm not convinced he's MasterTech.

[Iandefor]

Looking at DavidCar's posting history on these forums, I'm not convinced he's MasterTech. That was what I was getting at.

[sanguinemoon]

I guess we'll see. Either way, that site has been debunk throughly, and its author is known for dubious tactics in the source material for the site as well the promotion of the page itself. I wouldn't trust that site as far as I can throw, which through a website is completely impossible, obviously

[Mastertech]

I want to start off by saying that the Firefox Myths page only relates to Firefox running on the Windows Platform this was made clear to avoid posts like this on Linux Distro boards ect... Which means that if any of the Myths and/or the Facts don't seem to relate to Firefox on Linux that is because they were never intended to. Now with that being said, I have no interest in any discussion relating to Linux vs. Windows in any remote way.

On to the second point, people like Sanguinemoon give everyone here a bad name by making baseless accusations against not only myself but other people who show interest in my page. I don't know who DavidCar is but I find it absurd to start accusing him of being someone else, namely me. He obviously has his reasons for posting this here, most likely to discuss this topic. I don't think he intended to be slandered like this. Being consistently slandered online by fanboys like Sanquinemoon is what initiated this post. I can sure handle myself and don't like to see innocent people dragged into the slanderous accusations simply because they decide to post a page I wrote. I hope the moderators here can remove these slanderous posts from Sanguinemoon. Enough is enough already.

Sanguinemoon, people like you may not like the page, you may not like the content but that does not give you any right to slander people and make baseless accusations. I mean is this how you debate the points of the page? Why are you so afraid of discussing it openly? Thats right because I blew apart every point you ever had and will continue to do so.

[Mastertech]

Now to address some of the points posted here:

I went to the supposed IE extensions page, and all the downloads for those add-ons are dead links.
This is a classic one. The download links only work in IE!

Recently, I had to use IE6 on a library computer. It was painful. Painful. Does it technically take less time to load one page in IE than one page in Firefox? Maybe. Does it matter? No, because in Firefox, I can be loading about 20 tabs in the background while I'm viewing and reading one tab in the foreground.
With the MSN Toolbar extension you can do the same thing in IE. Even without it you can open multiple windows and load multiple pages at the same time.

Since IE7 hasn't been released yet, it doesn't make sense to compare it to Firefox 1.5. Compare IE7 to Firefox 2.0 or Firefox 2.5 or whatever Firefox version is out when IE7 finally gets released.
That doesn't even make any sense. You can compare any two browsers any time you want but this is NOT a comparison guide.

Is Opera faster--hell, yes! Do I care? Again, no. I'm on high-speed internet. That fraction of a second doesn't matter to me, because, as I said before, I load a whole bunch of tabs in the background.
That is completely relative. You can't make statements like this implying that every page takes the same amount of time to load. The time saved can add up to many seconds on more complex pages.

Also, some sites just don't work on Opera (like my bank's website). Firefox is getting more and more support these days and seems a good balance between IE (supported by everything but sucky) and Opera (supported by not much but great).
Firefox doesn't work on many pages as is noted on the Myths page. It is also noted that Opera has the same problem but there is no proof that Firefox supports more total pages than Opera.

That page makes it sound as if Firefox is crap. It's not.Really? I never knew that telling the truth about something would make it sound like something is crap. No statement to even imply this is made anywhere on the page.

[Iandefor]

I want to start off by saying that the Firefox Myths page only relates to Firefox running on the Windows Platform this was made clear to avoid posts like this on Linux Distro boards ect... Which means that if any of the Myths and/or the Facts don't seem to relate to Firefox on Linux that is because they were never intended to. Now with that being said, I have no interest in any discussion relating to Linux vs. Windows in any remote way. Fair enough. On to the second point, people like Sanguinemoon give everyone here a bad name by making baseless accusations against not only myself but other people who show interest in my page. Why everyone?

I don't know who DavidCar is but I find it absurd to start accusing him of being someone else, namely me. If you'll look at sanguinemoon's posts, he added that he wasn't sure, it's just that he thought it looked like it.

I don't think he intended to be slandered like this. Are claims that someone is you slanderous? Because that's all he really said, beyond mentioning the fact you have been banned from a multiplicity of forums and have discredited yourself multiple times. I did a little independent research, and it seems his claims are true. It strikes me that slander, by definition, is counterfactual.

Being consistently slandered online by fanboys like Sanquinemoon is what initiated this post. I can sure handle myself and don't like to see innocent people dragged into the slanderous accusations simply because they decide to post a page I wrote. I hope the moderators here can remove these slanderous posts from Sanguinemoon. Enough is enough already. I'll bring this thread to the attention of more experienced moderators than I. Is this acceptable?

[Mastertech]

Why everyone?
If posts like that stay up it just drags the whole board into this troll fest, where someone of his fanboy buddies will jump in.

If you'll look at sanguinemoon's posts, he added that he wasn't sure, it's just that he thought it looked like it.
That doesn't excuse it. He could EASILY confirm this through a moderator or with half an ounce of effort. The tactic is designed to discredit me and all of DavidCar's posts. This is consistent on any forum or blog where one of these guys posts. It is IMPOSSIBLE for this to be discussed without baseless personal attacks everywhere it is posted.

Are claims that someone is you slanderous?
Yes and it is to DavidCar. It is implying that DavidCar or Myself are not who we say we are.

Because that's all he really said, beyond mentioning the fact you have been banned from a multiplicity of forums and have discredited yourself multiple times. I did a little independent research, and it seems his claims are true. It strikes me that slander, by definition, is counterfactual.
I have also never discredited myself. Unless you count someone making that statement. All these claims are slander. Is your research looking in Google and seeing a post from one of these fanboys?

Nanobot AKA David Hammond, Nanobe
MrFlibble AKA Basil Brush, FreewheelinFrank
TSThomas

I'll bring this thread to the attention of more experienced moderators than I. Is this acceptable?
Please, I don't think anyone should have to defend themselves from baseless accusations like this.

[Iandefor]

Really? I never knew that telling the truth about something would make it sound like something is crap. No statement to even imply this is made anywhere on the page. You know what he means. Playing around is not liable to get you far.

[Mastertech]

You know what he means. Playing around is not liable to get you far.
No I actually don't know what he means. Please show me where I say Firefox is crap on the page? I know what alot of people jump to conclusions about. But Playing around? Playing around is putting words in my mouth. The problem with Myths about Firefox is they are all over exaggerated positives so the debunking will come off negative. That however is irrelevant to the browser being crap. As I make no claim and say nothing that implies that.

So what do you learn from my page? Here are some points: Firefox is not the fastest, it is not fully W3C standards compliant and it is not secure. What does this mean? Firefox is not perfect and it is not the best in many areas that are stated by the fanboys. However in not way does this mean it is crap. UNLESS of course you believe it to be perfect!

[Iandefor]

Why everyone?If posts like that stay up it just drags the whole board into this troll fest, where someone of his fanboy buddies will jump in. Personal attacks are prohibited. Please refrain from using them.

If you'll look at sanguinemoon's posts, he added that he wasn't sure, it's just that he thought it looked like it.
That doesn't excuse it. He could EASILY confirm this through a moderator or with half an ounce of effort. The tactic is designed to discredit me and all of DavidCar's posts. This is consistent on any forum or blog where one of these guys posts. It is IMPOSSIBLE for this to be discussed without baseless personal attacks everywhere it is posted. How would I, or any other moderator for that matter, know if DavidCar is really or really not you?

Are claims that someone is you slanderous?
Yes and it is to DavidCar. It is implying that DavidCar or Myself are not who we say we are. DavidCar never made any claims as to his identity. He never said "My name's DavidCar and I am ABSOLUTELY NOT Mastertech!" It can't slander on account of his integrity of character (ie, him claiming he's someone he isn't) because he never said who he was.

Because that's all he really said, beyond mentioning the fact you have been banned from a multiplicity of forums and have discredited yourself multiple times. I did a little independent research, and it seems his claims are true. It strikes me that slander, by definition, is counterfactual.
Is your research looking in Google and seeing a post from one of these fanboys? I have also never discredited myself. Unless you count someone making that statement. All these claims are slander. Yes, my research showed a post from a fanboy who said you were banned from multiple forums and internet sites, and I took him at his word.</sarcasm>

On multiple forums, you were labeled a troll by staff.

Please, I don't think anyone should have to defend themselves from baseless accusations like this. I was asking you if you wanted me to bring these "slanderous claims" you seem to take issue with to more experienced staff so they could handle it, because I'm not comfortable in my judgement as a moderator yet (I've only been one for a week).

[Iandefor]

No I actually don't know what he means. Please show me where I say Firefox is crap on the page? Aysiu seemed to be mentioning that, to him, the page was slanted against Firefox. He never said that was what you said.

[Mastertech]

I have no problem refraining from personal attacks so long as all the personal attacks against myself are removed. If you are a moderator you have access to IP Addresses ect... DavidCar doesn't have to make any statement for the one against him to be labeled as Slander. Simply me posting here proves it is. I am just happy that in the United States we have a REAL Justice System where you are innocent until proven guilty because online you are all guilty based on anyone stating so.

Aysiu seemed to be mentioning that, to him, the page was slanted against Firefox. He never said that was what you said.He clearly used these words:
That page makes it sound as if Firefox is crap. It's not.
I am still trying to figure out how telling the truth about Firefox Myths makes it sound as if it is crap? It just doesn't make any sense. Except of course if the "reasons" why many use it are not true.

[Iandefor]

I have no problem refraining from personal attacks so long as all the personal attacks against myself are removed. It isn't conditional. Personal attacks are not allowed. Period.

If you are a moderator you have access to IP Addresses ect... DavidCar doesn't have to make any statement for the one against him to be labeled as Slander. Simply me posting here proves it is. I do have IP address access, but, since the claim that DavidCar was you was made before you made your presence on these forums clear to me, I had no way of checking it. The forums don't prevent anyone from opening multiple accounts from the same IP address, so the fact that you're here posting means absolutely jack.
I am just happy that in the United States we have a REAL Justice System where you are innocent until proven guilty because online you are all guilty based on anyone stating so. I'm glad that you're satisfied with (what I can only assume to be) the legal system of the country in which you live. That's such a crucial thing.

[KiwiNZ]

I think I have seen enough here