×

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!

Browser Comparison - Firefox 2 b1, IE7 b3, Opera 9

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the fire-a-broadside dept.

528

mikemuch writes "The browser wars have heated up again, with Microsoft putting Beta 3 of Internet Explorer 7 out for all to download (not just developers anymore), Firefox coming out with the first beta of its version 2, and Opera releasing version 9. ExtremeTech has a shoot-out of the three browsers, with feature comparisons and tests of resource usage, startup time, and Acid2 standards compliance. Standout features are Opera's built-in BitTorrent support, Firefox's spellchecker for forms, and IE's Quick Tabs view. Firefox is still ahead in extensions, while Opera has some slick UI conveniences."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

528 comments

/.-ed in the first 5 seconds (-1, Troll)

Burlap (615181) | more than 7 years ago | (#15743898)

looks like Extremetech's servers have seen better days.

Re:/.-ed in the first 5 seconds (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15743972)

Here's a working link [extremetech.com].

Re:/.-ed in the first 5 seconds (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15744139)

I think the problem's on your end

Beta? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15743913)

Hardly seems fair to compare different browsers based on beta builds.

Re:Beta? (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#15743931)

Not really, if you're only comparing announced features. You probably shouldn't complain about problems that are clearly bugs though, and this article does just that several times.

Re:Beta? (3, Insightful)

Jerry Coffin (824726) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744133)

Hardly seems fair to compare different browsers based on beta builds.

Three points: First, which generates more revenue - fairness or page hits?

Second, by the time some products are released, everybody who cares has been using it routinly for months or (in a few cases) even years anyway.

Third, in a lot of cases, it's hard to tell the difference between beta and released software anyway. Let's have a quick show of hands of all the people who believe that IE 7 will have been officially released for an entire month before a major security hole is found. Hmm...I'm not seeing any hands...and I don't think the fact that I can't see any of you really makes much difference in that.

One Page (printable) version (5, Informative)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 7 years ago | (#15743925)

Entire report on one page. [extremetech.com]

Submitter did a nice summary. BTW, another table shows memory usage, and looks like Firefox Beta 2 comes in a bit heavier (compared to 1.5.04) at least for startup and an initial load of six tabs - unknown if the memory leaks that cause this to skyrocket when viewing dynamic sites (such as this) [watching-grass-grow.com] are fixed.

Also talks about the anti-phishing protection, but says they were unable to have this engage, so maybe it's not functional yet? That seems to be an area where more inovation could be done.

It's unfair (4, Informative)

Sohil (981376) | more than 7 years ago | (#15743937)

It's unfair to compare Beta versions with a completed version (Opera), besides IE has been out in Beta for ages compared to a few weeks on Firefox's side. And Firefox 2 doesn't pass Acid 2 because no work has been done on Gecko (it still uses 1.8, the same as Deer Park) Firefox 3 (which will use Gecko 1.9) will pass the Acid 2 Test.

Re:It's unfair (3, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744050)

It's unfair to compare Beta versions with a completed version...

Why? This is a comparison of features, not stability, compliance or even speed. Betas are supposed to be feature complete.

Re:It's unfair (5, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744058)

Firefox 2 doesn't pass Acid 2 because no work has been done on Gecko

Oh come on, don't be such an apologist. Are you seriously saying "It's unfair! They're only behind on that because they didn't work on it!" How is that unfair? They had just as much opportunity to fix things as Opera did, the difference is that they chose not to. That may or may not be a good decision to make, but you can't exactly call it "unfair", can you?

Firefox 3 (which will use Gecko 1.9) will pass the Acid 2 Test.

That doesn't matter, what's planned for Firefox 3 doesn't make Firefox 2 any better. When Firefox 3 is released, we can compare that with Opera 10 and Internet Explorer 8, which will both have moved forward too.

Re:It's unfair (3, Insightful)

El Tonerino (875866) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744209)

Internet Explorer 8, which will both have moved forward too.

Yeah... about that... really... quick... dev..el..op..ment.. time ... that ... i...e... is doing.....

Re:It's unfair (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744112)

And Firefox 2 doesn't pass Acid 2 because no work has been done on Gecko (it still uses 1.8, the same as Deer Park)

While i'm as much of a Firefox fan as the next guy (maybe more), this is not an argument, no one cares whether or not work has been done on Gecko, what's tested is the output, and the output is that Firefox doesn't pass acid2.

Opera's UI is slick? (0, Troll)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#15743940)

"Opera has some slick UI conveniences"

I'd say Opera's interface is anything but slick, it's the MySpace of web browsers when it comes to looks. Even IE looks classier than Opera.. (firefox obviously taking the crown).

Honnestly, the only thing that stops me from using Opera is it's ugly interface.

Re:Opera's UI is slick? (3, Interesting)

tehshen (794722) | more than 7 years ago | (#15743988)

I'm with you here. I'd use Opera much more if it actually looked like the desktop environment it runs under.

Re:Opera's UI is slick? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15744051)

Personally, I prefer Firefox, but the one thing that made me keep Opera installed on my machine is the content blocker. Absolutely awesome for sites with flickering banner ads.

Re:Opera's UI is slick? (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744134)

Duh... Adblock Plus with the Filterset.G filter is above and beyond anything Opera currently offers...

Re:Opera's UI is slick? (1)

DarkDragonVKQ (881472) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744202)

*copies and pastes info from Filterset G into urlfilter.ini in my Opera installaton folder. Tada I do it vice versa, I use Opera as my main browser and Firefox as my backup so I'm always syncing their ad blocks and bookmarks.

Re:Opera's UI is slick? (5, Informative)

bartkusa (827611) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744062)

Opera's UI is extremely customizable [opera.com]. Skinnable interface and lots of flexibility with toolbar and button placement, on the output side. On the input side, you can set up your own keyboard shortcuts and mouse gestures if you don't like the default ones.

Re:Opera's UI is slick? (5, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744162)

The application should be clean and intuitive out of the box. It's good interface design.

Being extremely customizable is not always a good thing. Most people would never bother and some will probably be scared by excessively complicated customization.

I used to go out of my way to customize everything I can, and in some cases I still do so. I went as far as creating new visual themes for my Sony Ericsson phone. But more often than not it's a waste of time. Additionally, the vast majority of skins available for every application are unprofessional and sloppy.

Apple interfaces are successful not because of customization. In fact, you're usually stuck with what they give you. However, they clearly put a lot of thought into usability. Those interfaces work because they're clean. I don't necessarily like the visual style, but I appreciate the simplicity.

Re:Opera's UI is slick? (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744077)

Well you can make it look like what ever you like, just go to tools>appearance and pick a skin.

Of all the browsers, Opera has the smallest (most compact) UI of them. Just because it doesn't look like firefox (which I find to be a bit too clunky slow for my liking) doesn't mean it's an ugly interface.

Re:Opera's UI is slick? (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744078)

That's the nice thing about Opera -- you can slim it way down til it has hardly any interface at all. Me, I'd like to put my bookmark bar in the same place as the menubar in firefox, but that's not going to happen. Why? Isn't it supposed to have a super-flexible UI library for that?

Just use a theme for godsake. It's not like firefox isn't built on themes tool. Of all the things to bitch about, this one's ridiculous.

Re:Opera's UI is slick? (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744122)

Where's the option to turn off the theme and make the browser look like the system's default theme?

Like I need another winamp type app that refuses to use UI standards.

Re:Opera's UI is slick? (4, Informative)

bartkusa (827611) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744138)

Tools > Appearance > Skin > Windows Native

Re:Opera's UI is slick? (1)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744270)

How about the theme to make it look and feel like an OS X app? Beauty is more than skin deep. If themes can't give it a Mac-like Preferences window, integration with Keychain, Services functionality, etc., then themes can't make it a Mac application. I suspect the same is true for Opera's Windows version.

Re:Opera's UI is slick? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15744084)

You have the option of switching to the windows native skin. Or my favourite, PlastikOpera.
And just like Firefox, you can get rid of the bookmarks toolbar too. Not too much ugly anymore!

Re:Opera's UI is slick? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15744113)

Unbelievable. What's your definition of classy, legoland?

Opera? (0, Troll)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 7 years ago | (#15743960)

Opera releasing version 9
I didn't realize Opera was still a player (very understood the "pay for a web browser" bit), but BitTorrent is an interesting addition.
Firefox is still ahead in extensions
I don't run any Firefox extensions, but can someone explain why Firefox gets lauded for "lots of extensions" while IE gets dinged for lots of ActiveX controls?

Re:Opera? (3, Informative)

creepynut (933825) | more than 7 years ago | (#15743995)

Are you also aware that Opera has been free for some time? That is, Opera on the Desktop, their mobile versions still cost money.

Re:Opera? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744054)

Honestly, no. Opera dropped off my radar a while ago; just don't know anyone who uses it (and my target audience of corporate users is almost all IE and Mozilla/Firefox). However, I promise to check it out again.

Re:Opera? (1, Offtopic)

Amouth (879122) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744013)

opera for the desktop is free.. it has been for a while.. you only have to pay for it if you want it for moblie devices or phones and that such..

which by the way Opera on the PocketPC is worth the money it beats the crap out of all mobile browsers

Re:Opera? (5, Informative)

Troed (102527) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744094)

Opera Mini [opera.com] - a-less-than-100Kb Java ME application that makes web surfing on a bog standard phone a joy.

Free, of course.

Re:Opera? (2, Informative)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744019)

very understood the "pay for a web browser" bit

I guess you meant "never". And FYI, it's been a free download for a very long time. IIRC Ubuntu has it even in the package manager

Re:Opera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15744025)

I don't run any Firefox extensions, but can someone explain why Firefox gets lauded for "lots of extensions" while IE gets dinged for lots of ActiveX controls?


ActiveX controls put another entity (web developer, cracker, virus) in control of your computer; they aren't even limited to the browser.
Firefox extensions give you more control over your browser and the content people are stuffing in to it.



They're not the same thing.

Re:Opera? (1)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744074)

I didn't realize Opera was still a player (very understood the "pay for a web browser" bit),

It's very much a player in mobile applications. I have no less than three devices which were bundled with Opera, and for that Opera gets money. For the same reason that the most popular chip is the ARM (not x86 as most people would think), Opera might well become the most popular browser by numbers if not by mindshare.

(The three devices are a Nokia phone, the Nokia 770 and an early Sharp Zaurus).

Rich.

Re:Opera? (5, Informative)

14CharUsername (972311) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744099)

ActiveX empowers webdevelopers. FF extensions empowers users. ActiveX can be used by bad people to exploit your system because it allows remote sites to do stuff on your system. FF extensions are run only on your own system, most of them have nothing to do with the webpages you load. And the ones that do just filter out ads. Some are more complex, such as greasemonkey, but you only run those only on sites you trust.

Also extensions aren't installed by default, so there isn't any danger of a feature you never use compromising your system.

Re:Opera? (4, Informative)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744118)

FF extensions enhance the capabilities of the browser, and only the browser. ActiveX controls can affect your entire computer (hurrah for integrating the browser with the OS!.) Also, the "authentication" of an AX control is being "signed" by something as trustworthy as Verisign, an agency I wouldn't trust to make me a peanut butter sandwich without somehow setting my kitchen on fire and charging me thousands of dollars for the bread before feeding it to some random kid on the street.

Re:Opera? (3, Interesting)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744159)

The facts that exceptions don't install under the hood without telling you helps a lot, I guess.

The fact that it takes you 2 clics to list your extensions and 2 more to delete an offending one also helps.

The final reason is that Firefox' extensions are actually extremely useful and add wonderful flexibility to the browser thanks to XUL. They also allow the Firefox dev team to see what the users want (they just have to check the most popular extensions and find out why they're popular in the first place).

Re:Opera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15744283)

opera switched sides, so to speak.

They went to google and i haven't followed where they went from there, so, if you thought opera was out of the browser wars that would be the most likely reason why.

while this is an anonymous post, and will likely get modded down, it's still interesting to me.

I've seen better (4, Informative)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 7 years ago | (#15743962)

The "Features at a Glance" table is very inaccurate with respect to Opera. For one, Opera has very good theme support.

And the author mixes up kb and mb on another page.

Searching from the address bar (5, Insightful)

Tet (2721) | more than 7 years ago | (#15743969)

From TFA: the address bar is for URLs, not searches.

I couldn't disagree more. One of the things that kept me with the original Mozilla suite for so long, rather than switching to Firefox was the ability to trigger a search from the address bar. Now that Firefox can do the same (and not waste screen real estate with an unneccesary extra box), I've switched. What do you possibly gain by having a separate search box? I just don't get it.

Now if only they could fix Gecko's inability to render display: inline-block properly, it might become a halfway usable browser. Quite why it's taken so long is beyond me. It's was originally logged as a bug 7 years ago (it's bug 9458, if you want to vote for it). So, Mozilla Organisation, *please* stop adding more and more features that I really don't want, and fix your fscking layout engine. Wasn't that meant to be one of the original goals of Mozilla? To have a browser with a rendering engine that didn't suck? What happened to that concept?

Re:Searching from the address bar (4, Insightful)

creepynut (933825) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744028)

Also from TFA: in Firefox requires going through menus, or double clicking on the empty space to the right of the last tab (if you knew about that--usability is about making needed features obvious)

Having it in the search bar makes it practially hidden. Having a second bar, which by default has the Google icon, makes it a little more obvious that the browser has built in search capabilities, and where it can be accessed.

Re:Searching from the address bar (1)

zoney_ie (740061) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744101)

I'd like if there was a simple button to switch the text entry field between "URL processing" and "searching". I don't want some bizarre search just because I mistyped a URL.

And I *certainly* don't want the search to default to bringing me to the first result automatically.

Re:Searching from the address bar (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15744170)

Go to google or wherever, right click on the search box (where you type in your search terms) and select something like "add keyword for this search" and set the keyword to 'g'.

Now, to search with the address bar, just type "g searchterm1 searcheterm2 etc"

In conjunction with the alt-d "goto address bar" shortcut, this rocks.

--Murph

Re:Searching from the address bar (5, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744120)

Now if only they could fix Gecko's inability to render display: inline-block properly, it might become a halfway usable browser. Quite why it's taken so long is beyond me. It's was originally logged as a bug 7 years ago

Seven years ago, that was a proprietary Internet Explorer property. It's been added to the upcoming CSS 2.1, but that's still only a draft. It's not like it's been a missing part of CSS support for seven years, until recently it was totally non-standard, and technically it still is.

Re:Searching from the address bar (2, Insightful)

Tet (2721) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744206)

It's been added to the upcoming CSS 2.1, but that's still only a draft. It's not like it's been a missing part of CSS support for seven years, until recently it was totally non-standard, and technically it still is.

Agreed. However, it is an essential layout ingredient (to the point, where many layouts can't be implemented without it, short of resorting to tables). Also, the W3C is shooting itself in the foot by releasing specs so slowly. The last officially approved CSS spec was released in 1999. At this point, no one really expects any significant changes to CSS2.1 before it's approved, and there's not really any excuse for not implementing it fully in a browser released in 2006.

Re:Searching from the address bar (1)

Tx (96709) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744196)

I couldn't disagree more. One of the things that kept me with the original Mozilla suite for so long, rather than switching to Firefox was the ability to trigger a search from the address bar. Now that Firefox can do the same (and not waste screen real estate with an unneccesary extra box), I've switched. What do you possibly gain by having a separate search box? I just don't get it.

I'm totally with you on that. Although I can understand why newbs^H^H^H^H^Hsome people might want a separate search box, the convenience of being able to search from the URL bar is a boon for many.

Actually I type this I'm not sure if we're talking about quicksearches, or just the default "I feel lucky" google search when a non-URL is entered, but I'm a fan of both.

Re:Searching from the address bar (1)

riflemann (190895) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744219)

I couldn't disagree more. One of the things that kept me with the original Mozilla suite for so long, rather than switching to Firefox was the ability to trigger a search from the address bar. Now that Firefox can do the same (and not waste screen real estate with an unneccesary extra box), I've switched. What do you possibly gain by having a separate search box? I just don't get it.


I assume then that you've been on Firefox for a while now. Keyword based searches have been in FF for many years.

In the properties for a bookmark, setting a keyword means that entering " " loads the bookmark with the literal '%s' replaced with .

But I guess now the extra context menu item makes this easier.

Gain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15744244)

What do you possibly gain by having a separate search box? I just don't get it.

$$$ from Google, Yahoo &c for embedding their logos in the permanently visible UI.

Next question!

Spelling checkers (4, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#15743978)

Standout features are Opera's built-in BitTorrent support, Firefox's spellchecker for forms, and IE's Quick Tabs view.

How can Firefox's spelling checker be a "standout feature" when Opera, Safari and Konqueror already have it built in? It's more of a "catch-up feature" than a "standout feature".

Re:Spelling checkers (0)

yomahz (35486) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744201)

What exactly does the word standout mean to you? Does it mean the browser had it before anyone else had it? That's not what I take it to mean. My understanding from the context of TFA is that it stands out because none of the other browsers support it.

Contrary to your statement, opera does not have spell checking out of the box. It's available as a 3rd party add-on. If that was your criteria, the same could be said about firefox 1.x and the google toolbar plugin.

Re:Spelling checkers (1)

yomahz (35486) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744226)

let me clarify before the trolls have their field day:

My understanding from the context of TFA is that it stands out because none of the other (reviewed) browsers support it.

Re:Spelling checkers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15744256)

why on earth is having a spellchecker in a web browser a good thing ? is that color or colour ? aluminium or aluminium ? etc etc

if you are looking to add bloat to your application by adding huge language specific wordlists and cpu hogging lookups in a fsking webbrowser then i can't think of a better thing to do, other than add email but iam sure thats coming, we all know how software evolves

leave spellcheckers as an addon , an optional extra and concentrate on the core focus of the application BROWSING (not using it as a data entry wordprocessor hybrid bastard) iam getting pretty sick of integrating every latest RSS/Flash/SVG/PDF/JAVA/BUZZWORD2.0 into something that should be fairly simple and basic, if i wanted a slow bloated web browser thing i would use Mozilla and pretend its 1997

keep Firefox lean and mean and expandable, stop with the crappy default bundling of half assed implementations of seldom used features (hmm DOM explorer thats useful for my mom) and fix the bugs in the core (but fixing bugs is boring wahhh)

well, (3, Interesting)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#15743980)

I've been impressed with what I've heard about IE 7, it really seems like they are making some good moves with it finally. Being a Linux user I'll probably never see it but it seems that I wouldn't be that annoyed using it these days. IE will never be as good as Firefox because of the extensions, there just aren't that many good programmers who would be willing to give up their time to MS for free; so Firefox still has the edge.

I wish they would all get their act together and pass the ACID2 test though.

No new tab buttion? (4, Informative)

turbo_magic_hat (555235) | more than 7 years ago | (#15743998)

One peeve [about firefox]: Why isn't there still a one-click button for adding a new tab?

Not exactly rocket science to add one (Right-click > Customize > Drag the new tab button > Done) but I wonder why it's not there by default.

Re:No new tab buttion? (1)

ChristTrekker (91442) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744092)

I just use Ctrl-T (or Cmd-T on my Mac).

Re:No new tab buttion? (2, Informative)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744186)

I just middle click on my "home" button. *shrugs*

Loads a new tab for me just fine with only one click. Or did you mean a single keyboard button?

For that, I suggest "e" =D

Re:No new tab buttion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15744114)

better yet! right click on the toolbar >> Customize >> Drag the 'new tab' button to the toolbar position you want :)

What about extensions? (5, Insightful)

Blimey85 (609949) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744000)

I don't think comparing stock Firefox with anything is very relevant. You need to compare Firefox loaded with some extensions to show the true power of the platform. Same with the other browsers and their addons or widgets.

One example of not doing this is in the feature comparison table where it says that Firefox can't remember open tabs for the next session. My copy of Firefox not only does that when I want it to, it also has crash recovery so when I restart I can choose to reopen all of the tabs or not.

Re:What about extensions? (3, Insightful)

Blimey85 (609949) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744040)

Another example is the claim that Firefox can only zoom text and not images. There is an image zoom extension that does what the name implies.

Maybe the Firefox developers should do a build that has every (non-conflicting) extension that exists just so the comparison will really show the power of Firefox. How else will people know what it really can and can't do?

After reading this I would think that Firefox lacks a few features that I use, in Firefox, on a regular basis. Maybe the author of the article doesn't use Firefox on a regular basis. Otherwise you'd think he would know about this stuff. Not like these are real obscure extensions that you can't find on the main extension sites.

Re:What about extensions? (5, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744066)

The problem with FireFox is the extensions. People want a good browser, not fiddle around hunting for what exists. Power users do that, sure, but not regular users.

Zooming images accordingly with the text should be a basic feature on all browsers, zomming the text only makes no sense IMO.

Apples to Oranges? (1)

FSWKU (551325) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744001)

Disclaimer: No, I haven't RTFA yet.

So they're comparing the first FIRST of Firefox 2.0 to the THIRD beta of IE7 and the RELEASE version of Opera 9.0. Call me crazy, but wouldn't a proper comparison look at all three browsers after they have reached their final release versions?

Re:Apples to Oranges? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15744128)

bascially there never would be a review then...

Re:Apples to Oranges? (2, Insightful)

the phantom (107624) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744158)

As was stated above, they are comparing the features that the different browsers have. Betas are supposed to be feature complete, thus the comparison is fair. As long as they are not comparing render speed, memory usage, &c., there is no reason to cry foul.

my views (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15744014)

I am a firefox user but have all three installed. I like the firefox spellcheck since I am a lousy speller and the Opera torrent downloading since there are times legal downloads are only available in torrent and I do not want the full install. For some reason, msie just seems cleaner. Forget netscape.

The only problem I am having with any of the three is with the firefox beta 2.0 crashing with Vista. The last alpha version did not.

Its going to be an interesting battle.

Re:my views (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744175)

Since you're probably running Windows, you should check uTorrents for your torrents: you don't need to install it (it's a single small exe), and it's many times faster than Opera.

Overlooked: Printing (2, Interesting)

dduardo (592868) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744031)

I think one major feature that is lacking in Firefox is good printing support.

Re:Overlooked: Printing (1)

eipgam (945201) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744277)

What specific features is it lacking? (Not trying to criticise here, it fulfils all my needs in the printing department so I'm curious)

A bit off-topic, but... (5, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744045)

Will Internet Explorer 7 run on Windows 95/98/ME/NT4? If not, then MSIE7 won't be "95% of web users"... And with Nintendo going with Opera for both the Nintendo DS and the Wii, Opera's marketshare might soon explode beyond 1-2%.

Just keep that in mind before jumping into the "MSIE7 has nice proprietary features" train.

Re:A bit off-topic, but... (1)

edflyerssn007 (897318) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744173)

I really think it is time for people running those platforms to upgrade to something more modern, just for the reason of security. If they choose a windows platform (includes Intel Macs w/ bootcamp or parallels) then they can use IE7 also.

From the IE7 requirements page [microsoft.com] it seems it can run on a Pentium 233. So it may be possible to get the browser running on those old systems, even though it says it can only run on XP SP2, XP 64bit, and Win2k3 Server SP1. That or people with those older systems can upgrade to XP or maybe Server 2k3 (I read the other day about someone running it on some extremely slow hardware.) So that could be a choice if they want IE 7.

I'm not sure how well it is supported on Linux brands from the Wine side of things though.

-ed

Re:A bit off-topic, but... (2, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744281)

First of all I'm not sure Windows XP is more secure than Win98SE (though it is more stable).

Second, not everyone can afford to pay for a Windows upgrade and/or new hardware. They're not going to switch to Mac anytime soon.

And third but not least, "if it's not broken, don't try to fix it." A lot of people are still using Win95/98/ME because it works fine for them. They're not going to switch to Linux anytime soon.

Re:A bit off-topic, but... (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744228)

I read something about Firefox dropping support for older versions of Windows. Maybe it was Firfox 3 though.

-matthew

Re:A bit off-topic, but... (2, Interesting)

DarkDragonVKQ (881472) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744232)

I think Nintendo decided to go with Opera for several reasons. 1) Being they've developed versions of Opera for mobiles, pocket pcs, etc.. 2) If you use Opera you should try out mouse gestures (it's built in). I guess Nintendo imagined people surfing the internet with Wiimote gestures or Stylus gestures, or whatever..

Paste and Go (1, Insightful)

vonsneerderhooten (254776) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744098)

One thing i still miss from my opera days is the 'paste and go' feature in the address and search bars. It feels natural. very rarely do i paste something in to either bars and not want to just go there. the rare circumstances of not wanting to go there include the need to edit a url or just observe a url when the site has some annoying scrolling thing at the bottom of the window. Bring 'paste and go' to firefox!!

"Favorites button" (5, Interesting)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744106)

MSIE: Yes
Firefox: No
Opera: No

wtf is a "Favorites button" button? Is it like a bookmark button?

Re:"Favorites button" (1)

TheRequiem13 (978749) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744183)

I was wondering about this too.
I have folders of "favorites" in my bookmark toolbar that I "open all in tabs" regularly.
Clearly this is not a case of missing functionality, but rather of failure to "idiot-proof" it.
Sad, really.

Re:"Favorites button" (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744207)

I guess what they're getting at is that IE has a button to let you bring up the bookmarks toolbar, rather than having to go to the menu or use a keyboard shortcut.

Or maybe they're referring to the "Add..." button on the Favorites sidebar.

Either way, I'm sure that if anybody cared enough to create this feature it would be an extension. It sounds like the sort of thing you do as part of a tutorial titled "My First Incredibly Easy Extension". It hardly sounds like a feature on par with a pop-up blocker. And in fact given that it's a button I'd never use I'm just as happy that it's not sucking up screen real estate on the navigation toolbar.

It just goes to show you that one person's completely useless screen-clogging waste is the next person's critical can't-live-without feature.

Re:"Favorites button" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15744216)

It's that useless button that only the author of the article seems to use.

Quick Tabs vs Tab Thumbnails (2, Interesting)

ChristTrekker (91442) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744110)

One feature unique to IE7 is its tile view of your tabs, called Quick Tabs, accessible from an icon just to the right of the add favorites icon

Not really unique. In Opera, just hover over the tab for a second or two...you get a thumbnail of the page.

ie on acid (5, Insightful)

fuzzandwater (989789) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744116)

It's ridiculous that they defend IE by claiming "no pages seem horribly messed up." Clearly the author is not a web developer. If he were, he would know that the reason the pages display correctly in IE is javascript hacks, css workarounds, web developer headaches, Dean's IE7 javascript library, a separate stylesheet for IE, etc... It's not that IE is inherently displaying the sites correctly, it's that the site developers were forced to make them play nice with IE.

Spellchecker nice, but wrong direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15744174)

While it's nice that Firefox now has built-in spell checking for forms, it seems like a move in the wrong direction. I mean, a good move in that direction, but still.... I don't mean to sound like an OS X fanboy, but system-level spell checking seems like the right one. Without it, you have to manage separate spell check dictionaries for all the apps that you use. Want Firefox, Word, and any other apps you use all to recognize your name as spelled correctly? Well, add it once to each one.

Microsoft won the last browser war but failed. (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744179)

Well the last war MS won but failed to keep their browser up to date. Thus failed in their primary goal of compleatly controling web standards. With IE 7 it is more of a step forward to following the standards and a step back because they realized they didn't get what they compleatly wanted. Many of the features in IE 4,5,6 which I warned were stupid because of security ended up being bad for security. [Cough] Active X [Cough] But now with .NET making Web Apps more standards Based, things like AJAX being standard, CSS and Javascript there are more robust metods of doing things now and latly IE has been the thorn to web devleopers.

I am somewhat optimistic about IE 7, Vista... Microsoft sience IE 6 and XP has been getting a lot of heat and their stock shows it. Even a company Microsofts size can only make so many mistakes until bulk amounts people start switching. The Aditude has changed a lot sience then too. Before around Windows 95 and 98 Microsoft was (wrongly) considered the Technical Leader and their products were considered to be the best available. Now it is more of a deffeetest aditude of well I am stuck and I don't want to switch and it is not bad enough to switch yet but I am keeping my eyes open. I am not dumb though IE 7 and Vista will not be as great as the PR people make it out to be but it will be better then what they curently have. Much like Windows 2003 Server I havent seen any major problems with it nor do I see people wanting to switch to in in droves.

In the end, this is just like.... (2, Interesting)

TemplesA (984100) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744203)

Buying a car.

You have choices, a Lexus, Acura, and a Ford.

Ford's come from the factory broken, and continue to break down over time, requiring numerous trips to the dealership, so it's safe to say NO!

Acura's are fancy, and have the speed side down, [Think NSX] and the reliability is good, but there isn't much you can do to the car, unless you buy aftermarket accessories.

Lexus's are really nice, and have tons of options. While they may not be as quick as Acura's, their choices and reliability are almost unbeatable!

In the end, it all comes down to what you want and need [Which is NOT the Ford] - so you choose accordingly.

LIES ABOUT FIREFOX (0, Flamebait)

kasgoku (988652) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744223)

The study i would say is a failure and totally biased against firefox. It should be all "yes"s for firefox.

1) In firefox you cannot make "favorites buttons" but you can make "bookmark buttons" its the SAME THING!! i do it all the time...

2) Also, if you get the extension, you can make the browser remember all the tabs that were open on the last session. I HAVE DONE IT!!

3) There is an extension for searching torrent sites for firefox. i am sure after this study, an extension for bittorrent client is on the way...

In short, Firefox Rocks!!

sorry if i offended someone with the caps.

Re:LIES ABOUT FIREFOX (1)

DarkDragonVKQ (881472) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744299)

I think the author meant default functionality as in right when you install. For users like us, we can pretty much make Opera and Firefox do whatever the hell we want. Hell we can even do it with IE (well more like another browser coded with IE's engine). Technically most of the features in FireFox 2 that I find useful are already installed as extensions to my install. But I know plenty of users who never even tried one out. Though the author also got some things incorrect. He said that Firefox has skins/themes but Opera doesn't. But Opera in fact does.

Opera does have themes. Table says otherwise. (1)

delire (809063) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744249)



Strictly speaking the comparison table on page 2 is incorrect. Opera does have themes, many of them, albeit the browser isn't shipped with them as such.

Some Personal (2, Interesting)

unPlugged-2.0 (947200) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744260)

As a person who has done some personal testing on the same matter except for Opera I have some comments. It is nice to see the results on a more formal article but I am afraid the depth isn't there. Firefox 2.0 beta is not the same kind of release that IE 7 is. Where as FFox2.0 has been in the works for 6 months. They have been working on IE 7 for what 2 years now. So in that way not really a fair comparison. A better comparison would be to look at the nightly builds and ahead to version 3.0 which will arrive much sooner than any updates to IE7 will.

But I digress. My testing is as follows. Please note that I am currently using Firefox and Flock.

IE 7
-------
Pros:
Much better improvement over IE 6
Tabbed browsing is done very well and better than firefox IMO
Security remains to be seen but hopefully better
RSS integration and better search integration

Cons:
CSS is still broken - IE6 was horrible, IE 7 is just bad
Supports Active X - this continues to be the main reason for their flaws and I don't see how this will change things
Similar load times to IE 6 (isn't this supposed to be better)
Tabs take up more memory
Not liking the New UI (personal)

FF 2.0
-------
Pros:
Like the article says incremental improvements - better search ui, better buttons, rss glow
Better Security until IE 7 is tested
worse -> bad memory management

Cons:
Firefox was at 1.x releases forever and now they decide to do huge jumps
Memory Management is still bad
All Firefox browsers are still part of the same process so when one dies everything dies
XUL, XUL, XUL

So overall IE seems to have fired a good shot but falls short in some aspects especially more complex site rendering. Firefox is good as always and the changes are incremental and good.

So I don't expect too many sweeping changes. IE may get to keep some people who were sick of IE 6 and considering a move but it is not likely to attract the Firefox crows. This could stop some of Firefox's market share gains that it has been enjoying but we will have to see what Firefox 3 does.

Jumping to conclusions... (1)

Osiris Ani (230116) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744268)

From the article:
In one year, the open-source darling Firefox has pulled within a dead heat of browser the browser popularity crown, at least on the ExtremeTech site, where each browser claims just over 43 percent of our viewers.
How interesting. Percentage-wise, visitors to the ExtremeTech web site use Firefox as much as IE. Wow... who would have guessed that Firefox is popular among computer geeks?

Acid Test (1)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744278)

Whether you accept the validity of the Acid Test or not - I would have thought that Microsoft would have recognised the necessity of just passing that one simple test, even if it was even to have a simple 'if(acidtest)- then display this' in the code.

Everyone knows Opera does it and FireFox doesn't - if IE7 did it as well, however it worked, it would have silenced a lot of detractors, at least in the short term. It suggests not just that they are incapable of achieving proper standards compliance - but that in fact they are totally oblivious to the existance of said standards or the tests which prove them.

Pro IE 7 (3, Insightful)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 7 years ago | (#15744286)

IE 7 is cool. I think I'll switch to it for my Windows computers (despite having used Firefox since its first beta). What I like about beta 3: tooltips that show keyboard shortcuts, in fact an entire list of keyboard shortcuts is available from the option menu on newly opened tab. Also I like the option on shutdown to open up with the current tabs next time.

"But there are extensions for all that!"—In fact that gets me to what I hate most about Firefox. Extension hell. Every time I install Firefox on a new system I have to hunt down a list of extensions for it or my user experience is going to change radically. And all those extensions take up memory and processor time, and often have bugs or security flaws of their own.

Another thing I like about IE 7 is its sandbox mode on Vista. That should, I think, provide several security advantages over competing browsers. (In fact, IE 6 with ActiveX turned off was already reasonably secure.)
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...