PDA

View Full Version : [other] Firefox Myths: Are these refutable?



aimpau
September 23rd, 2008, 05:35 PM
I mean...I've been using both Firefox and IE7 and here's my experience.

I've installed onto a newly made PC a Windows Fundamentals XP SP2. Now, SINCE it came with the IE6, I used it to download FF, avast and Spywareterminator.

After I setup the AV and AS, I was still download FF. So I decided to check the integrity of the PC + the Antivirus/spyware. I tested the activex in a typical activex enriched site, and you know what, I was affected by a known virus known of it's symptom for restarting and looping explorer.exe and embedding countless .dll files onto c:/windows/system32

Now, I ran across this site:
http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html

and told me the FF and (indirectly)the OPEN SOURCE community that Firefox is a joke and is not even at par with IE or Opera.

Can someone please help me refute these or at least give an explanation. I mean, the developers of FF aren't that stupid nor any open source developers.

Therion
September 23rd, 2008, 05:46 PM
Disclaimer - This page originally came out in 2005 and thus the relevance of any Myth can change.
This does not mean they will be removed from this page.
That's one hell of a disclaimer.

Paqman
September 23rd, 2008, 06:08 PM
Some of those "myths" (such as the first five) are pretty idiotic, and he's quite right to debunk them.

However, some of his counter-claims are equally weak. His counter for the claims of faster page rendering in Firefox is to point out that IE6 & IE7 were faster in 3 out of 7 tests. That's a pretty poor point, and only serves to highlight that Firefox was faster in 4 out of 7.

He's also cherry-picked his security cases, and uses weasely terms such as: "Internet Explorer 7 has been more secure than Firefox 2 in 2007". Worse, the very sources he quotes to support this also say:

Firefox tended to get more patches, sooner, compared to IE.
Out of eight zero-day bugs reported for Firefox in 2007, five have been patched, three of those in just over a week. Out of 10 zero-day IE bugs, only three were patched and the shortest patch time was 85 days.


Overall, not a very well-written or convincing article. I give it 3 out of 10.

Therion
September 23rd, 2008, 06:21 PM
... weasely terms...
That puts it rather succinctly; thank you.

That article, if you read it carefully, is FULL of that "weasely" phrasing.

hyper_ch
September 23rd, 2008, 06:25 PM
lol, that page is funny... especially when he compares the requirements to run MSIE or FF... he keeps forgetting that MSIE is deeply knotted into Windows and hence a lot of things are running that are required by MSIE but not displayed by its process alone.

aimpau
September 23rd, 2008, 06:28 PM
And to think, he's site DO NOT endorse Firefox in anyway.

LowSky
September 23rd, 2008, 07:00 PM
Did you haer the my that Firefox will eat your babies and that Opera can defend them with its new plasma shield technology.
Or the one about IE being so amzing it can bring up the website you want by your brainwaves..
Did you hear how Google Chrome can travel through time and play football against Ditka's 1984 Chicago Bears Team and win.
Got to love Myths

aimpau
September 23rd, 2008, 07:16 PM
Do the Mythbusters perform software myths? Probably they can install IE7 and blow something up. Anyways, I'm reading on FF support page and they do have ways on how you could minimize memory consumption.

leg
September 23rd, 2008, 07:20 PM
I think he has very carefully chosen (or created) myths that he can use to put FF (fx?) down. I almost fell of my chair with the one about not supporting w3c standards. He is correct of course in that most browsers do not completely support the standards but he very conveniently doesn't mention IE at all in that bit. Also he states that all tests were done with clean installs and no extensions and then bangs on about extensions!

don't fall for fud like this and go with what you like the most, whatever it is.

DrMega
September 23rd, 2008, 07:38 PM
Can someone please help me refute these or at least give an explanation. I mean, the developers of FF aren't that stupid nor any open source developers.

It's on the internet so it must all be true.

Seriously though, I only scanned down it. I liked the myth about FireFox being "bug free". I'm not sure that anyone has ever claimed that. What he neglected to mention though is that every time you do a windows update, you will see that quite often the patches are to fix issues in IE. This happens goes on for years after a version release.

In any case, I can only speak from personal experience and some technical knowledge about how the Internet, IE and FF work in general. For example, I know that my Windows installation never gave me half as much bother since switching to FF. I also know that FF doesn't run ActiveX components by default, and that it is not so tightly integrated into Windows that a malicious page can knacker your whole Windows setup for hours (or much longer if your not a techie).

As for FF not being W3C standard, well ok, maybe not. But it is hardly a plus for IE. When I used to do a lot of web development, I used to ALWAYS develop for FireFox first, because it enforced more of the standards and so ensured better compatibility between my sites and whatever browser a user might have chosen. Then I would view it in IE and implement all the workarounds needed to make IE present my nice W3C standards compliant pages.

Incidentally, I can't remember the source but I remember that MS themselves admitted that IE isn't W3C compliant. In fact they pretty much ignored the standard (as they often do) and implemented their own standards, presumably to freeze out competition knowing that many lazy developers would just target the predominant browser.

While we're on with standards compliance, anyone here remember the JavaScript vs JScript carry on? Or here's a good idea, find developer who works on IE for MS, and mention just two words to him/her: "Box model".

twitch2197
September 23rd, 2008, 07:54 PM
lol, that page is funny... especially when he compares the requirements to run MSIE or FF... he keeps forgetting that MSIE is deeply knotted into Windows and hence a lot of things are running that are required by MSIE but not displayed by its process alone.

reminds me of a wikipedia article i read a couple days ago. the united states microsoft anti-trust case.
if i recall correctly, it was something along the lines of "microsoft is abusing its power as a monopoly by not allowing computer vendors to sell pcs without IE installed, and making a large amount of the applications rely on IE as well."
unless i completely misunderstood it. it WAS like midnight when i was reading it.
look it up on wikipedia and in the external links there are some video clips of gates. he uses rather 'weasely' terms as well when talking :lolflag:

Thelasko
September 23rd, 2008, 08:05 PM
Well, a lot has changed since that article was written. Firefox has changed it's code so it's less susceptible to crashing due to addons than it was before. Several of the browsers on the market have completely rewritten their code to make themselves faster.

When people say Firefox uses more resources than IE they forget that IE is tied to the operating system and uses quite a bit more resources than iexplore.exe reports. This is also a major security issue. (I know the site says it isn't but quoting Microsoft doesn't count.)

If Opera is now "100% ad free" what is Firefox? (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865) If you don't like the EULA use Iceweasel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceweasel).

I like how they cite Microsoft's numbers on performance.

The biggest security gain for Firefox, is ABP (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865). If you aren't using it, start.

Thelasko
September 23rd, 2008, 08:15 PM
Wow, I just ran an Acid3 test on both FF3 and IE6.
FF3 71/100
IE6 11/100.
Okay, it's not a level playing field, but I don't have access to IE7.

Honestly, there aren't as many sites designed for IE as there used to be.

P.S. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Desktop_browsers)a nice summary on web standards with pictures.