×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PC Magazine Reviews Firefox, Opera

simoniker posted more than 9 years ago | from the alt-webber dept.

Mozilla 700

prostoalex writes "PC Magazine reviews Mozilla Firefox 0.9.1 and Opera 7.51, noting: 'Security concerns aren't the only reason to seek an alternative [to Internet Explorer]. IE's slow rendering engine and dearth of privacy features may plant the thought in some iconoclastic minds that it may not be the best browser for everyone.' 4 stars for Firefox and 3.5 for Opera, so looks like a Firefox win, although the editors do point out FF's troubles with DHTML as well as Opera issues with JavaScript."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

700 comments

Alright Mozilla (2, Interesting)

bigberk (547360) | more than 9 years ago | (#9676961)

Mozilla [mozilla.org] rises from the dead (or at least a deep sleep) and goes mainstream rather quickly. Impressive :)

Re:Alright Mozilla (1, Flamebait)

warriorpostman (648010) | more than 9 years ago | (#9676983)

It's a shame that that had to happen only because of the recent FUD about IE.

Re:Alright Mozilla (3, Informative)

no reason to be here (218628) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677053)

isn't FUD usually just speculation and half-truths.

All the recent stories concerning IE's horrible security have been demonstrably true.

Re:Alright Mozilla (0, Flamebait)

warriorpostman (648010) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677157)

I agree that the hubbub about IE is not speculation or half-truth, but for the average non-technical end-user it's still effectively FUD.

All I was saying was, it's too bad people couldn't choose Mozilla or Opera without it being a knee-jerk reaction.

Re:Alright Mozilla (5, Funny)

Trigun (685027) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677065)

But all the FUD was created by IE anyways.

I fear that I will have my personal information stolen.
I am uncertain that the IE Developers are competent programmers.
I doubt that I will switch back to IE in the near future.

Re:Alright Mozilla (1)

SquadBoy (167263) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677072)

I think the word you are searching for here is "facts" they both start with a f hope this helps. :)

Re:Alright Mozilla (2, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677095)

It ain't FUD if its true.

Re:Alright Mozilla (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677152)

Killing babies is not synonymous with abortion. Abortion is the terminiation of a pregnancy. Not the same thing.

Re:Alright Mozilla (2, Interesting)

TastyWords (640141) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677111)

If they're going to chop away a few stars for those things, then they're going to have to knock IE to ** because of security and constant patches. That is, until the Microsoft people send Guido to proofread the newsprint before it's sent and strongarms them into changing it.
Seriously, I'd be interested to see how they'd rate IE is against them, head-to-head-to-head...

What about IE? (1)

deutschemonte (764566) | more than 9 years ago | (#9676962)

How many stars does IE rank agianst them?

It would be nice if they included that.

Re:What about IE? (5, Informative)

marnargulus (776948) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677001)

IE 6.0 got a 4 out of 5 on their reviews site. Click on "more reviews" and it lists all their reviews.

Re:What about IE? (2, Insightful)

andyk62 (545075) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677017)

They Gave IE 4 Stare, but was choosen Editors Pick. Go and figure! Andy

First post! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9676964)

First Post!

Re:First post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9676989)

YOU FAIL IT!!!

IE User (5, Insightful)

enforcer999 (733591) | more than 9 years ago | (#9676977)

Out of habit and ignorance, I have used IE for years. I think it is time to make the change to Firefox. Thanks for the article.

Re:IE User (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677018)

As if the 5 /. headlines a day of pure Firefox lovin' couldn't change your mind.

Re:IE User (5, Insightful)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677025)

Out of habit and ignorance, I have used IE for years

You have just spoke for a billion people.

I GIGGLE EVERY TIME NEIL BLENDER SAYS SPOKE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677147)

Re:IE User (2, Informative)

Stingr (701739) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677139)

I switched to Firefox a little less than a year ago and let me tell you the difference then was incredible. After I got used to the new UI everything was smooth sailing. The only complaint I had about it back then (.7 at the time IIRC) was that, compared to IE it was a little sluggish when loading pages. However this was fixed in .8 and keeps getting better and better with each new version. The only complaint I have now is that some webpages will only work properly in IE. (I know it's not Firefox's fault but it's still annoying.) However there is an extension you can download that will add an "Open link in IE" option to the context menu which makes this problem a lot easier to cope with. All in all I say go for it!

Re:IE User (2, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677140)

I was in the same situation as you... so I went to mozilla.org, and downloaded the full package and installed it.

A week later I realize that Mozilla and Firefox are different... I go "D'OH!" but I'm too lazy to download, uninstall mozilla, and install firefox, import my links, etc.

So I guess I'll be using Mozilla until years after people point out I should upgrade to whatever...

Opera... (1, Insightful)

justkarl (775856) | more than 9 years ago | (#9676993)

In my book gets 4.5 stars. But the java/javascript errors that come up constantly are a bitch and a half.

Re:Opera... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677041)

Odd. No script trouble using Opera for four years. Of course, I also use Proxomitron that tends to get rid of bothersome scripts...

Re:Opera... (1)

Lattitude (123015) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677101)

So "a bitch and a half" == -0.5 stars (assuming a scale of 0 to 5)?

A problem that severe ("a bitch and a half" sounds pretty nasty; messy even) deserves to impact the overall score a little more, don't you think?

Re:Opera... (1)

justkarl (775856) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677238)

Generally, yes. However, I think that the functionality of Opera is advanced enough that it makes it okay. Besides, most of the time, I have both Mozilla, Opera installed at the same time.

Re:Opera... (4, Informative)

Nakito (702386) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677213)

In my book gets 4.5 stars. But the java/javascript errors that come up constantly are a bitch and a half.

I give it 4.5 stars as well. I've been using Opera since version 3. My favorite features are the very simple things that let you browse painlessly even on poorly designed sites. For example, there is a button on the toolbar that lets you toggle images on and off without the need for changing your preferences. There is another button that lets you instantly override the color and font setting of a page with your own defaults. You can also turn off all plugins with a single checkbox. I tend to browse primarily for information, and nothing annoys me so much as poorly chosen backgrounds, graphics, and fonts that get in the way of reading the text. Opera lets me get straight to the content. It's a good browser, even though it is a bit flaky on javascript.

Proof is in the Pudding (5, Funny)

darth_MALL (657218) | more than 9 years ago | (#9676994)

"IE's slow rendering engine "
Sad but true. The review page has been loading for almost a minute now :(

Re:Proof is in the Pudding (0, Redundant)

supmylO (773375) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677061)

No, that's probably just cause the link was posted on Slashdot.

Re:Proof is in the Pudding (4, Informative)

Neophytus (642863) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677118)

If there's one thing that I couldn't fault IE on is the fact that it actually displays pages pretty fast.

Article Text (site seems slow) (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9676996)

Microsoft's Internet Explorer is the de facto Web browser on Windows PCs. As such, it is a prominent target for attackers relying on documented vulnerabilities in how IE renders both HTML and DHTML, runs both JavaScript and ActiveX, validates references to cached objects, and applies security settings to MIME types (see www.cert.org for myriad advisories).

But security concerns aren't the only reason to seek an alternative. IE's slow rendering engine and dearth of privacy features may plant the thought in some iconoclastic minds that it may not be the best browser for everyone. Here we evaluate the newest offerings from Opera Software, Opera 7.52; and from Mozilla Foundation, Firefox 0.9.1.

The two share some notable similarities. First and foremost, in our hands-on testing we noticed that pages load much faster in Firefox and Opera than in IE. And most pop-ups, if they're not blocked, open in separate tabs underneath the current page so they don't slow you down.

Another helpful feature is that both of these browsers can save a group of open pages as a session, which you can then open at start-up. For example, you might set a few of your favorite news sites as a session, then start up with those sites loaded in a tabbed interface. We also like that a Google search bar is present by default in each. While none of this will be enough to lure casual PC users away from IE, power users who suspect there is a better way should certainly take a look.

Mozilla, Opera and Firefox... (5, Informative)

shackma2 (685062) | more than 9 years ago | (#9676997)

Mozilla, Opera and Firefox, from my unscientific perspective, seem to load web pages quicker than IE, but what really bothers me is how slow the mozilla opera and firefox load times are. I can either get to the web quickly with IE, or wait a while with firefox for a minute page load time diffrence.

Re:Mozilla, Opera and Firefox... (4, Informative)

elbazo (779536) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677024)

That is because IE is part of the OS unlike Opera and Firefox. If you use WinXP or 2003 open the process manager and set the firefox/opera process to realtime, might do the trick.

Baz

Re:Mozilla, Opera and Firefox... (5, Insightful)

D4Vr4nt (615027) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677158)

The brutal part about IE being part of the OS is that people seem to be retarded about opening/closing their web browser.

I've heard that Moz loads too slow all the time... Waaaaa.. It's not as fast as IE.

Why don't people just realize that once you open your web browser you should just leave it open?! Why are you even on your computer? :P

Anyways.. back to my point. People will keep using IE simply because it's there, and the convience of being one of the fastest loading applications in Windows (oh wait.. I forgot about Calc.exe).

Oh.. And most people can't wrap their heads around tabbed browsing (or see the point of it). But tell them it blocks popups then they get excited.

Re:Mozilla, Opera and Firefox... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677230)

I forgot about Calc.exe

IE + Notepad + Calc = the 4 fastest programs there are.

Re:Mozilla, Opera and Firefox... (4, Informative)

mopslik (688435) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677100)

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here.

Mozilla, Opera and Firefox ... seem to load web pages quicker than IE.
I can either get to the web quickly with IE, or wait a while with firefox for a minute page load time diffrence.

Pages load faster in M/O/Ff, but they're a minute slower in M/O/Ff? I think what you're getting at is this...

but what really bothers me is how slow the mozilla opera and firefox load times are

If you're talking about clicking on the IE icon vs. clicking the M/O/Ff icon, and having the application pop up ready to roll, then keep in mind that IE loads on boot. That way, it gives you the impression of loading faster.

Re:Mozilla, Opera and Firefox... (1)

shackma2 (685062) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677154)

Yes, IE loads on boot, is not part of the OS ect. It might be unfair, but the bottom line is IE loads faster.

I do believe, however, that eventually one of the open browsers will be able to catch it.

Re:Mozilla, Opera and Firefox... (1)

mopslik (688435) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677196)

I do believe, however, that eventually one of the open browsers will be able to catch it.

Hopefully. I read somewhere that Mozilla developers removed their "quickstart" feature as incentive to reach that goal. Good luck to 'em.

Re:Mozilla, Opera and Firefox... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677121)

Hmm, I wonder if someone could cook up a shell replacement for Windows that integrates Firefox. IE is not integrated into the OS, it's integrated into the Explorer shell.

Re:Mozilla, Opera and Firefox... (1)

Ruprecht the Monkeyb (680597) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677201)

Remember that next time you are bitching about the slow boot times in Windows, because you are starting IE at the same time. Try putting Firefox or Opera in your 'Startup' folder (Not really, I'm joking) and compare that way.

Kinda of a pointless complaint most of the time, though. Even on my slow laptop, Opera loads in under 30 seconds (and it has to read in the several hundred MB of email, too). Unless you are reboot constantly, load times for your browser shouldn't be much of a concern.

User-Agent stats? (5, Interesting)

Exmet Paff Daxx (535601) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677002)

Has anyone been tracking Firefox/Mozilla in the User-Agent stats for a large site to see if it is truly pulling browsershare from IE? The last mention we had from the Slashdot admins was that Slashdot was 90% Internet Explorer, is this on the decline? Are these stats publicly available?

Re:User-Agent stats? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677031)

our site [coattails.net] was roughly 95% internet explorer 4 months back...we've started plugging firefox fairly often(has to be repeated - people that use IE are too slow to get it the first time, no?) and it's now at 30.3% moz/firefox users.

Re:User-Agent stats? (4, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677047)

User-Agent stats are pretty much meaningless for Firefox, unless you include pages that say "This page only supports Mozilla Firefox" in the statistic -- many people browse using firefox with the UA set to IE so they can access the sites that would otherwise lock them out.

Re:User-Agent stats? (4, Insightful)

Goyuix (698012) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677131)

I doubt this is the case - I would venture to say those that are smart enough to change the User Agent string appropriately, are also smart enough to set it back when not needed so web stats are collected properly. Particularly with the explosive growth seen over the last few days/weeks - there are a lot of people using it now that I am sure don't have a clue how to change the user agent string.

Not to mention Sun's Java plugin complains to no end that Firefox initialized it but the User Agent is set to IE... that reminder keeps me honest as well.

Re:User-Agent stats? (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677218)

They do? Unless you use an extension you don't seem able to do that with Firefox, I know I've never needed to use such things in years of using Mozilla. I think people are just covering up for the fact that, well, it might not be just but Moz/Firefox does not have much market share at all.

Re:User-Agent stats? (2, Informative)

elbazo (779536) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677055)

I read an article on the register that indicates for the first time in ages Internet Explorer has gone down in usage "For the first time since Microsoft saw off rival Netscape in the 1990s Internet Explorer's virtual stranglehold on the browser marketplace has loosened. IE's share decreased slightly from 95.7 per cent to 94.73 per cent in the month up to 6 July, according to Web metrics firm WebSideStory." Baz

Re:User-Agent stats? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677069)

...Slashdot was 90% Internet Explorer

Maybe this is just flamebait, but this just confirms the thought I've always had in the back of my head that Slashdot is visited by a lot of hypocrites. I still love it though, just more as entertainment than anything else... Just like I listen to NPR to hear the crazies...

Re:User-Agent stats? (2, Informative)

lortho (700090) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677106)

There was a recent Slashdot post [slashdot.org] discussing a PC World report that IE's market share has decreased 1% in the past month.

Re:User-Agent stats? (4, Informative)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677116)

Has anyone been tracking Firefox/Mozilla in the User-Agent stats for a large site to see if it is truly pulling browsershare from IE?

Well, when I linked to a little-viewed page on my site [littlecutie.net] (during a discussion of poker, really!), the stats showed a surprising number of non-IE visitors. It seemed to be about half IE, half Opera, Mozilla, and the like. An awful lot of visitors weren't using Windows, either.

That means either 1) Slashdot visitors use alternate browsers and OS's, or 2) Slashdot visitors like to modify their browsers' User-Agent strings. With this crowd, I'd think both are equally likely.

Re:User-Agent stats? (5, Insightful)

JollyGreenLlama (795396) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677126)

I would move that a diagnosis of IE vs. Mozilla on a site like Slashdot might not be the best test of marketshare. Many people access Slashdot from the office, where they are more likely to use IE because it is part of the base software package. Many workplaces, like mine, have rules against downloading and running software other than what has been installed on the system by the sysadmin.

Re:User-Agent stats? (2, Interesting)

Grey Ninja (739021) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677159)

Just from one website catering to web developers of course, but here's some stats [w3schools.com] . It shows general trends at the very least. There was also a poll about it on gamefaqs.com a while ago, and about 20% of people claimed to be using Mozilla, or a variant of it.

Re:User-Agent stats? (4, Interesting)

SLot (82781) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677185)

While not a large site (5000-10000 hits per month) , I'm seeing 1.6, 1.4 & 1.7 mozilla references in the top ten user-agents for the first time in two years. To go from no instances to three of the top 10 in one month made me happy.

Yes (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677243)

This story [slashdot.org] reported a 1% loss in browser share for IE and a 26% increase in Mozilla use. The links are all there and the methods used. Lots of people track that kind of thing constantly.

This is a major undertaking for most users. I'll admit to using Konqueror now because it was set as the default browser for KDE applications. It also has features I love, like spell checking. I considered the effort to move to change those defaults not worth what I might gain. Sure, I still have and use Mozilla on occasion, but it's mostly when forced. The corresponding effort on Windoze is much greater, especially when exchange email servers are used. Of course, as the above article points out, the reasons for doing so are also much greater.

I recommend that people dump M$ all together but that's a different story.

Let the flame wars begin! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677003)

My . . . . . is better than your . . . . . . because of . . . . .

I have a bigger . . . . than you.

Ingrained attitudes (5, Informative)

robogun (466062) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677010)

From the review of Mozilla/Firefox:
CONS: Default installation doesn't include many functions; you have to download additional features via the Extensions Manager. Will not load ActiveX and VBScript; this prevents certain kinds of attacks, but also disables the normal functions of some sites.


Those are PROs if I ever saw one. Drive-by software installs and buggy Active-X is the reason I spend ten hours a month cleaning up computers of friends and family. WHo subseqently receive Mozilla and are forbidden to run IE except for Windows Update forevermore, on pain of no more free computer work.

Re:Ingrained attitudes (4, Insightful)

gid13 (620803) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677073)

Yeah even the extensions thing is beautiful. Anyone know why Winamp is still so popular? Plugins. If you're willing to put a little searching time in, you can make it work exactly how you want it to, no matter how picky you are. Extensions are THE way to go if you want to browse the web on YOUR terms rather than MS's.

For reference, I highly recommend the following extensions: Adblock, Flashblock, Googlebar, Context Search, Mycroft (pick and choose these though), All-in-one Gestures, and Tabbrowser Extensions. Wonderful stuff.

Re:Ingrained attitudes (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677084)

Yeah, it's like Car & Driver downgrading a car in a review because it's doors have locks on them.

Re:Ingrained attitudes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677199)

Ehh... More like Car & Driver downgrading a car because the doors are welded shut.

Re:Ingrained attitudes (1)

happyfrogcow (708359) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677206)

Seriously. That sounds like someone who knows or heard that there is a problem with IE but doesn't understand what that problem is.

BUTTONORDER (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677015)

They should correct the BUTTONORDER in FireFox.

Interesting perspective. (5, Insightful)

digitalgimpus (468277) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677036)

Interesting note here:
Default
installation doesn't include many functions; you have to download additional features via the Extensions Manager. Will not load ActiveX and VBScript; this prevents certain kinds of attacks, but also disables the normal functions of some sites.

Emphasis mine.

Now explain this? It's got boatloads more functionality (find as you type, tabbed browsing, popup blocker, livemarks [0.9+], etc etc.)... but it 'doesn't include many functions'.

Now how does IE rank? Please don't tell me feature rich. That's like calling is secure. :-D

Last Straw (4, Insightful)

thung226 (648591) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677038)

Considering I'd give IE a 0.5/5.0, there's no debate. The point is to use either of these before you use IE. The failure to patch IE after the Russian hacking debacle was the last straw. All users at my work are now on Firefox or Opera.

Also, I have a lot of "non-techie" friends. You should see the amount of adware/spyware littered on these computers. It makes me sick, and it's all IE's fault (pop-up > get scared > *click* > install > forget > go back to "pop-up"... go to site > install under users' radar > repeat... I'm sick of it). IE sucks.

Re:Last Straw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677104)

i totally agree. I rank IE 5.0/5.0, but for all my family and friends, it really SUCKS every time i sit at their PC and find so much CRAP, and the effort it takes to remove it all. I am now using and recommending Firefox, too. I am sad to see it grow too much, too fast, because I don't want it to become a target... (Maybe Microsoft should write some Firefox exploits. They probably already are!)

Re:Last Straw (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677144)

Now I may very well be feeding a troll here, but how can you blame an inanimate piece of software for user ignorance?

IE is by no means perfect, but let's properly assign the blame here. There's more than enough to go around.

Re:Last Straw (2, Informative)

bwthomas (796211) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677202)

it's a very nice thing to use a browser built on a framework which allows you to decide for yourself which components you want active. Obviously you can turn off Active-X and other IE only stuff, but it's annoying that something so easily exploitable is there, on by default, and used by website designers designing for IE. Basically, the thing overlooked by the review is that Firefox is, to some extent, everything to everyone (so to speak); it can be lightweight, it can be feature filled. IE is... well, it's IE. it's buggy, non-standards-compliant software.

Re:Last Straw (2, Interesting)

southpolesammy (150094) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677219)

Actually, you almost hit on what I think really needs to be done next to really get Mozilla into critical mass area. And that is to do current reviews of IE. For every new review and push towards Mozilla and/or Opera, we need to give everyone the reasons why this is beneficial.

OTOH, if an unbiased review of IE can produce comparable results, then at the very least, it gives the Mozilla and Opera folks a good idea of where to go next in developing the Uber-browsers. However, I have a hard time believing that IE can compare anymore, save for the annoying habit of web developers coding for IE only.

Legitimate Browser Questions (1, Troll)

Bryan Gividen (739949) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677042)

Alright, so I loaded the Mozilla suite and I loved it. But when it got down to it there were two big problems.

1) Resources. I'm running Windows XP and from what I understand, there is no way I can remove Internet Explorer from my computer. Call me a space hog, but I don't like having un-used aps on my computer. I figure better to have an inferior browser on my computer, a little extra space, and less confusion then to load both of them. Can anyone solve that problem?

2) I ended up using Outlook because the Mail Server I use requires SPA and a security plug that is used solely by Microsoft. Mozilla's mail program going to solve this for me?

Re:Legitimate Browser Questions (4, Insightful)

angle_slam (623817) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677091)

1) Resources. I'm running Windows XP and from what I understand, there is no way I can remove Internet Explorer from my computer. Call me a space hog, but I don't like having un-used aps on my computer. I figure better to have an inferior browser on my computer, a little extra space, and less confusion then to load both of them. Can anyone solve that problem?

In the days of 256+ MB RAM and 40+ GB HD space, having an extra 10 MB app doesn't hurt you. I have both Firefox (0.8 because I can't get TabBrowser Extensions to work on 0.9) and IE on my work computer, for the increasingly rare site that requires IE to work.

Re:Legitimate Browser Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677136)

What, are you using? A 500 megabyte hard drive?

Re:Legitimate Browser Questions (1)

Bryan Gividen (739949) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677192)

Even though I feel the sarcasm burning through me, I'll answer.

I have a 14 gig drive for applications. When you're running the Microsoft Suite, Macromedia Suite, Adobe Photoshop, Premiere, and various other utility programs, it adds up. I'm at about 4 gigs left of space. A lot, I know. But just the annoyance of having IE left on my computer is enough for me to stick to it. (Looks like Microsoft's tactics are working...)

Re:Legitimate Browser Questions (1)

mopslik (688435) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677165)

I figure better to have an inferior browser on my computer, a little extra space, and less confusion then to load both of them.

Don't worry, the Spyware/Adware that gets downloaded to your PC will be more than happy to fill up that space. And when the viruses strike, you'll have plenty of empty space on your disk.

Re:Legitimate Browser Questions (1)

Bryan Gividen (739949) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677232)

And yet I'm not an idiot. I have IE options set on a level that won't let any Spyware on without my permission, I run Ad-Aware and SpyBot on alternating weeks, I'm running ZoneAlarm, and I have McAffe.

Really, IE isn't that inferior of a browser to me. It's a decent browser. I'd prefer Mozilla, but it just isn't worth it to deal with conflicting apps.

Re:Legitimate Browser Questions (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677231)

Figure you save the space in non-downloaded spyware :) If you're looking for disk space, removing IE will break XP. If you're looking for ram/cpu savings, IE doesn't use much to any unless its loaded. Plus you can always alt-ctl-del and kill iexplorer.exe

Install it for people (5, Insightful)

blackmonday (607916) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677051)

I install Firefox for everyone I help with PC's, and no one has ever complained or needed additional help to use it. I had one person tell me they need their old bookmarks, but I showed them where you can see IE's imported bookmarks in the menu.

I'm sure some of you already do this, but for those that don't, next time you're running ad-aware for your non-techie friends, install Firefox, show them the desktop shortcut, and tell them to click on that one for their Internet. They'll thank you for it when they stop getting pop ups and strange home pages and toolbars.

Unimplemented feature (5, Funny)

riqnevala (624343) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677054)

"Sorry, this browser does not support automated installation of trojans and other malicious applications, please upgrade to MSIE to further risk your computer security"

Go Firefox Go (4, Interesting)

ErikRed1488 (193622) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677098)

Being the resident tech guy in my family and circle of friends, I'm tasked with supporting all their computers. I do it free of charge for my family and work for beer when it comes to friends. With all the malware that infects Windows PCs through Internet Explorer I've been quite busy. I finally decided to install Firefox on all their PCs. As a condition of ongoing support, they must continue to use Firefox. Since I've institued this policy, they far happier with their online experience, no pop-ups, almost no ads (Adblocker rules!), and it's faster. Not only that, but my time supporting their PCs has gone down to almost nothing.

Now that the Mozilla Foundation is a 501(c)3 organization I think I may have to insist that the family/friends make a little donation.

PC magazine seems to be getting less funding by MS (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677110)

I guess PC magazine has loss some funding from Microsoft. They seem be being slightly less "Window Is the Best" in their views. And starting to see that there are alternatives and they can be just as good.

Does MS really care anymore? (5, Interesting)

Mitleid (734193) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677133)

I'm curious; Microsoft has really given up on IE development over the past few years. The last major release was version 6, and that was well over 3 years ago to the best of my recollection. Could it be that MS no longer sees web browsers as a viable resource for their future strategy? I really have no speculation on what they might have up their sleave, but MS hasn't been one to necessarily drop the ball like this. From a security standpoint, one could say they really screwed the pooch, but as far as releasing a snazzy new version or anything to gloss over the problems under the hood, they've kept their hands off.

from one of the recent switchers! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677137)

after the last ie bug i switched to mozilla

i am very happy with it.

everyting works fine. I have also gone over to friends house and installed it.

i just change the location of the old ie icon to the
new mozilla and no one can tell the difference.

thankyou mozilla. you have just made a friend for life! now if i only could figure out hot to have the bookmarks open every time i start the browser!

Best Quote (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677145)

The browser isn't perfect, however. Firefox does not render nonstandard DHTML properly, nor does the Mozilla Organization have any intention of releasing a browser that does.

Well, good for them!

Durrrr!

Faster and More secure (5, Interesting)

dhartman (635124) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677146)

I have a few clients who had previously insisted on remaining with IE because "it works best with the other Microsoft programs". However, when I removed the latest pile of spyware/adware and insisted that they at least TRY Firefox they had nothing but good things to say. Their 13 year old even says that "Hey dad, this is like waayy faster than IE". There have only been a few sites which 'require' IE (some due to incompetent web page coders who determine on their own that "this page won't render correctly with Mozilla", then block access using Javascript).

Linux might not be ready for general public acceptance on their desktop, but using Open Source software such as Firefox, Open Office etc is the first step towards that acceptance. If you don't NEED Windows to run a program, it becomes alot easier to switch the underlying OS.

install it for strangers (1)

bigrat (25898) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677163)

I get lots of people coming into Bestbuy to get spyware/viruses cleaned off their machines. I'm very often asked about the best way to keep these problems away, and I often recommend Firefox/Mozilla.

Of course, this does nothing for the "But I gotta have my Kazaa/Weatherbug/Searchbar" types...

slow rendering engine? (2, Interesting)

VoiceOfRaisin (554019) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677166)

this is the one thing i MISS about IE. firefox is definately slower at rendernig, and before you say it, yes ive done all the speed tweaks. anyone saying this hasnt done tests and is just spewing anti ms fud. other than rendering speed firefox is better in almost all other aspects i find.

my only problems with firefox (4, Interesting)

spacerodent (790183) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677174)

the only downside to firefox I've found are problems with web sites designed ONLY to work with IE. I've only had the problem with a few web sites and hopfully as firefox gets more well known and excepted people will stop that kind of stupidity.

I just installed FireFox this weekend... (1)

supertbone (624441) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677181)

and I like it, but it is sooooo sloooowww. IE seems to render the pages faster. I like FireFox much better than Opera or IE or even Netscape for that matter. The popup blocker in FireFox rocks and is much better than the ones I had been using. I like the feel of it and it could be the IE killer. Unfortunately, I have to use IE at work, but at home it's FireFox all the way.

There is no such thing as DHTML! (5, Insightful)

Christianfreak (100697) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677191)

DHTML is HTML with Javascript. Its just a buzz word, why do these PC magazines keep touting it as the latest and greatest thing???

The browser isn't perfect, however. Firefox does not render nonstandard DHTML properly, (emphasis mine).

Hello!! You said it yourselves! NONSTANDARD. Its websites that aren't perfect, not the browser. *head explodes*

Re:There is no such thing as DHTML! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9677240)

"Lean and mean". Haha. Win98+IE is a thousand times faster on a 350 mhz/96 MB machine... even when running under Non-KDE/GNOME.

If something is nonstandard, how are you supposed to render it properly? Properly according to which standard?

Firefox and DHTML (5, Insightful)

Mustang Matt (133426) | more than 9 years ago | (#9677244)

Firefox doesn't have troubles with DHTML...

"Firefox does not render nonstandard DHTML properly, nor does the Mozilla Organization have any intention of releasing a browser that does."

Non-standard DHTML isn't really DHTML is it?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...