RSSFirefox 2.0 vs. IE7 in Vista: How Close?
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published October 25, 2006, 5:53 PM
(continued from previous page)
Some months ago, I was speaking with a hardware analyst on the subject of Intel's massive Core 2 Duo upgrades, and how deeply they'd put a dent in AMD's CPU plans. It has always been Intel's growth pattern, he said, to develop new product lines in giant fits and starts. Each one is massively more functional and important than the previous one, though it takes years for Intel to reach the next stage.
Meanwhile, he said, AMD grows incrementally, perfecting its fabrication process along the way, sometimes in baby steps, often in ways that aren't always readily perceptible by the consumer.
Microsoft and Mozilla could fit that same model. It's genuinely worth asking whether Firefox 2.0 should have been called 1.6. Its more intuitively organized Tools | Options dialog box is a welcome improvement, but all of its improvements are along those same lines.
Meanwhile, Microsoft's IE7 is a very different beast, now adopting Firefox-style "add-ons," though its list of available items at present is somewhat scant. (In the RSS Feeds category, you'll find NewzCrawler, which -- while it's a good product -- is a stand-alone program, not an add-on.)
The inspiration behind Microsoft's complete rethinking of the browser controls is sensible enough. In retrospect, I've realized that the menu bar is easily the single least used feature of my current browser, so IE7's elimination of that feature could be a welcome act. What replaces it, however, should be as organic and intuitive to the act of using the Web as Common User Access originally intended the menu bar to be for all manners of programs.
So far, I don't see the organic nature, the logical flow, behind Microsoft's choice of control locations. The little star on the far left doesn't mean "recorded URLs" (favorites) to me; and things like tucking the "New Window" menu command inside a toolbar button marked "Page," seems spurious and last-minute, as though a designer just realized this had to go somewhere.
It's these little facts that I realize the moment I return to my ordinary, seemingly unchanged Firefox environment, even in 2.0. It's a little more well-worn and comfortable, and that comfort is a critical part of organic use. It helps substantiate Mozilla's case -- were it to decide to make this case -- that maintaining a consistent look and feel is essential to ease of use.
With browsers becoming the inline handlers of multiple orders and classes of media, rather than just embellished HTML and XML, they are fast becoming the bookshelves and entertainment cabinets of our digital realms. As such, they start to cease to be exciting in and of themselves.
Perhaps this is for the better, unless you happen to be a company whose commercial livelihood is dependent on your browser's name recognition and commercial success. Thankfully, unless your name is "Opera," this is unlikely, because neither Microsoft nor Mozilla find themselves in that position.
But in the short term, at least, Mozilla may find itself with a serious problem: Part of the key to its relative popularity, at least among its user base, is the feeling it gives them of having advantages in performance, functionality and security. If Microsoft is generally perceived to have narrowed or erased that gap, the resulting lull in the usual buzz surrounding Firefox could effectively squelch that organization's principal means of advertising.
While Microsoft does have a lot to lose in terms of usage share, it has little or nothing to lose as a company. If IE7 were to fail in the public mind, it wouldn't be the first version of IE to do so, and yet here's Microsoft still standing.
Mozilla's current code-name for its alpha versions of Firefox 3.0 is "Minefield." The organization may need to start exploring a new path down that minefield pretty soon.
They're browsers. Use what you like.
That being said, I must add that any rhetoric indicating that FF could ever command a user base even approaching that of IE is at best delusional.
Peronally, I use the IE7 core and Maxthon which I consider the best of all possible worlds for my needs. I realize most users won't go this route although Maxthon boasts about 70 million downloads (kind of puts FF's hype to shame, doesn't it).
At the end of the day, statements that MS has anything to lose are spurious at best. They own and will continue to own the browser market - period.
That renders the vast majority of the hype moot since they are not competitors. MS has long since won the day.
Score: 0
|This is an ill-conceived question, and rather a disservice to the non-IE browser community. If we were to somehow upgrade Gallo's $4 street wine to a half-way decent merlot, would we then feel compelled to compare this degree of change to that of an incremental refinement to an already oustanding grand cru? I think we'd hear howls from the wine community.
Score: 0
|I just downloaded IE7 fianl version and i've had no problems with it.
Score: 0
|Stick to wines you whiner.
Score: 0
|Its not close. Firefox is worlds ahead of IE. When IE has a 10th of a percent as many extensions, and the same for themes, than call me. But right now, to say its close, your a employee for microsoft, so stop posting that kinda crap.
Score: 0
|Who even cares about that?
Score: 0
|its hasn't really made much of a difference for me... i hate the new "go" button that can't be removed (yet) but overall my experience hasn't changed very much... the most noticeable thing is the spell checking which gets annoying when i type in other languages...
Score: 0
|Opera FTW!
Score: 0
|I'm sorry, but IE7 is way better than firefox. I support microsoft all the way with this one. It knock the heck out of mozilla with ram and cpu usage. Starts up quicker. Handles minimized mode awesome (minimize both and you will see, firefox taking up 40k ram, IE7 taking up 4mb). Also, firefox's look is not as cool as IE7 in my opinion.
Score: 0
|im not into look as much as functionality, you can change the look of firefox with themes, which you cant with IE unless you want to use windows bloinds or something like that.
I get different results than you as far as ram usage, It really depends on what you have added to it also. IE7 actually takes more time to load for me, longer than IE6 did. I also like my *right click* options more in FF too.
Score: 0
|The ram usage in both IE and FF vary. IE7 does however use less ram; in my recent observation IE7 runs with 2 betanews windows at 14mb while FF2 runs with 2 betanews windows at 40mb.....I have some FF2 extensions and all the typical add-ons loaded for IE (I have many more IE add-ons that FF2 extensions though).
With 4mb I'm assuming you're using a fresh IE or safe mode IE which loads no add-ons whatsoever. I like a couple things with FF2 over IE, and vice versa (themes, add-ons/updates on the fly and it's a tad quicker loading pages in general *or gives the illusion of it*), but IE imo is stable and reliable. Some pages load jumbled or I have to refresh a few times to load it in FF2, this never happens in IE. Also FF2 on occasion however rarely, crashes while I haven't had IE7 crash since it went final, also my IE7 loads quicker than FF2, just doesn't render the pages as quickly.
Score: 0
|Shows how little you know.
Score: 0
|Hmmm. My old version of Firefox says there are no updates available. So they may be smart, but they aren't that smart ...
Score: 0
|Who the hell is Angela Gun and who cares what she thinks?
I have never seen an article refer to such a crappy source of absolutely nothing.
Use whatever browser you like but don't listen to meaningless people with meaningless rumblings about something they have no idea about.
Score: 0
|"Who the hell is Angela Gun and who cares what she thinks?
I have never seen an article refer to such a crappy source of absolutely nothing."
--------------------------------------------
Pretty juvenile comment you made. I don't know who she is either but she has the attention of a lot of people which is more than you can say.
Score: 0
|Oh snaps you got someone's attention. LOL
Score: 0
|I agree with so many points here in the responses, the best one being, if you like F2, use it, if you like IE7 use it. I don't understand why people tend to have to have such vastly opposite views of a piece of software that does 1 thing - browses the web. Ofcourse to each his own but gosh, this FF sucks, IE7 sucks thing has gotten old and needs to die already. I find the same thing with yahoo/wlm/aim....people find the need to argue and get mad at each other because they find one super bloated or, FIILLLLLLED with adware/spyware etc. Gee whiz.
On that note, I like them both. Currently I have IE7 as the default, simply because F2 seems to jumble pages sometimes, something that never happens on IE7...but I like that F2 feels a tad quicker than IE7 with some sites. Incidentally, same thing with the messengers! Each brings something new/unique/different to the IM experience, so I have all 3! (and no, no gaim, only on my aging laptop)
In response to wincement, I don't completely agree (for once!, you and I usually think alike it seems) that people don't like change - I know for a fact most OLDER people don't, but I'm pretty sure younger generations actually look forward to change, something I think we pick up from the core of how society is in this day and age, ie: usually, change is good - things become safer, better, faster, stronger, etc...with change. Older people tend to think "if it's not broken, why fix it" and "leave well enough alone". And they have a right for this, as comparing 'today' to 'yesterday', so much innovation tended to go bad....see: electric lines cause cancer, pesticide causes cancer, etc. etc. causes illness.
Regardless of all of this, in a world where there currently exists 750gb hard drives...suffice it to say, I don't think it's a big deal to slap 2 12mb browsers in and use one or the other where one may tend to fall short of the other.
Score: 0
|IE7 is much better browser that firefox, just wait and see
Score: 0
|It'd better be. We've been waiting long enough.
Score: 0
|Microsoft need to include the IE 7 and most critical updates on their new Windows Xp CD.
by doing this will make user more convenient and will not suffer from downloading a huge update.
to mozilla, forefox need to make the user interface easier to use. example they need to add new tab icon as default, and others. learn from maxthon user interface, it is easier to use
just my 2c
Score: 0
|Big deal if Firefox 2 doesn't have as many changes than IE7. IE needed a major overhaul because microsoft got complacent because of their market share and stopped development.
Firefox in comparison was kept upto date more frequently, so didn't require the massive upgrade. I would rather have a few extra features that worked without breaking the security of the browser, than a sweeping change any day.
Score: 0
|LOL
Just look at the pic in the article.
Firefox is a bloated piece of spy/adwere! :D
Score: 0
|ok you Dork, Betanews has a lot of add ons on their FF.
It doesn't come standard with these, take a look at FF before you judge.
FF has no adaware/spyware.
is quicker than IE 6/7
Actually does things according to STANDARDS & not "Hey, let's do it our way, it's better"
There are w3c Standards for (x)Html, JavaScript,Xml & many others.
the Mozilla foundation sticks to them.
Microsoft does NOT.
example:
Standard CSS opacity:
.someClass{opacity:0.50; }
Microsoft's way:
.someClass{ filter:alpha(opacity=50); }
there are others.
Score: 0
|"Actually does things according to STANDARDS & not "Hey, let's do it our way, it's better""
You do know that a lot of today's 'standards' were from MS and their "Hey, let's do it our way, it's better" ways.
Standards come from use and acceptance, not the other way around. Regardless of "standards", they have a right to develop how they want, and people have the right to use and accept their "non-standard" code.
Score: 0
|*woosh*
Quick!! Run, drive, hitch, whatever it takes, man, to get yourself to the Sense'O'Humor Store!
Your model apparently didn't come with one built in...
Score: 0
|Seriously...
By God, did that guy have to install *every* damn toolbar he ran across? Christ, the damn crap's taking up half the friggin screen!
*laughs*
Gotta give the guy 10 for effort...
Score: 0
|I was thinking the same thing at first, too, but I figured I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was showing the most popular addons that you "could" add.
Who knows though. If it was a ploy to make FF look bloated, then that's absolutely moronic.
Score: 0
|The image makes the author seem biased towards IE7. Why would you show one browser basically as it comes and the other how no moron would use it with tons of toolbars?
I agree IE7 has much more improvements done to it, but it needed far more to even come close to FF and it still falls short. On Vista the interface I guess isn't so bad as most everything is that way, but on Xp its horrendous.
Score: 0
|How do you know?
Score: 0
|All that I see is new features being added to these browsers ages after they were added to Opera. Opera has had a minimalistic interface since version 8, tabbed browsing for ages, session restore also for ages, and is by far the best browser that I have ever used.
Score: 0
|I wonder who's got payed by whom here . . .
anyway, this is the worst waste of words I've ever stumbled over in my whole life.
who cares what "Scott M. Fulton III" has to say?
if you like IE7 - use it.
if you like FF - use it.
if you like it both - well, then, go ahead.
maybe you'll need five or six browsers, maybe just one. stop loosing words about this nonsense. it's not worth it at all.
Score: 0
|more perfect words have not been written
Score: 0
|IE sucks donkey balls. PERIOD. Only noobs use that MS crap
Score: 0
|I've used both, working on computers for 15 years and been through all the browsers. I would have to say that is the most ignorant remark I've heard yet. Provide reasons why IE7 is not better. I don't have any issues with the latest version and I do prefer it to Firefox at this time.
Score: 0
|Troll. lol...
IE 6 with Maxthon is a pretty awesome combo.
Plus, IE is what it takes for Windows Update to work, and there are still sites that ONLY work properly with IE, so it is a necessary evil, as it were.
Score: 0
|Well dont use it if you dont like it. Its that simple!
Score: 0
|Noobs at what?
Here's a suggestion for ya:
Stop watching PurePwnage
Score: 0
|maybe i missed something,
why does scott seem to think 2.0 should be a "sweeping" advancement?
i like the way firefox works. i also use IE7. i like both equally, and i wouldn't say either is a lot better than the other.
and the comparisson between intel/microsoft vs amd/mozilla is just wrong. intel doesn't move in bursts, did we forget about the 5 year P4 era. also the first P4's were slower than top end P3's.
Score: 0
|He doesn't think it *should* be, but he's saying users will likely be more apt to try IE7 because it is a bigger change, just like Firefox 1.0 was to IE6. But Firefox 2.0 seems more like a minor, and solid, update to the browser.
Score: 0
|users will likely be more apt to try IE7 because it is a bigger change
Really? I'm inclined to think the exact opposite. Working in technical support for 3 years, I learned one thing very quickly: People don't like change.
The users wanted it the way "it's always been" and they wouldn't be happy until then. I guess we'll see though...
Score: 0
|I learned one thing very quickly
Just one? Wow...you must be fun to work with.
/couldn't resist
Score: 0
|Yeah. Everything else took a little longer...
Score: 0
|Oh, for crying out loud. Why does every software release have to include "sweeping" changes? Is everyone on the Internet afflicted with software ADD or something? IE7 has plenty of new features, yes... all of which merely give IE7 feature parity with Firefox 2. Unless you're in love with Quick Tabs, IE7 doesn't offer anything over Firefox.
If you want something new and shiny, Firefox 3 is due out in March, and it includes a long list of geek-friendly features. New renderer, Acid2 compliance, Places, memory leak fixes, and so on.
Score: 0
|Firefox 2 is the worst upgrade ever? Is Angela Gunn smoking crack? IE 7 has a security hole found hours after release that can allow your personal data to be stolen.
Does Microsoft care? Hell no they blame Outlook Express. When is a patching coming all Microsoft can say is later.
So for a company that claim to be making security number 1 they are doing a lousy job by ignoring a major one.
Score: 0
|My comments on all three having used each (yeah..i'm bored sometimes)
1.IE7 - really a great re-thinking of IE. Improvements are mainly graphical (though quite innovative) however and other newly-added features are an attempt to catch up to the more forward thinking Opera and Firefox. I think the novelty will wear out as it is not as customizable.
2. Firefox - the most insightful comment from the writer was the observance that this was more of a 1.6 than a 2.0 in that Firefox simply co-opted some of the existing add-ons that everyone said should be by default (still should have had an easier way to add a new tab a la IE7..but i'm sure that's coming). Will continue to grow due to it's customizability...which is addictive to those who have used Firefox for any period of time. A true 2.0 should include a re-thought gui and be a bit revolutionary in terms of featured offerings (though integrated spell-check certainly counts as a good example.)
3. Opera - One wrong move by Mozilla and Opera will surely grow by leaps and bounds as it's only weakness is the lack of a large add-on developer base as exists for Firefox. If any small number of those individuals who habitually develop can't-do-without add-ons for Firefox ever start dabbling with Opera...who knows? I absolutely loved Opera right out of the box whereas I felt there was a lot of work and additional downloads to make Firefox (1.5) work the way I wanted it to. Opera is very intuitive and the shortcuts are truly helpful... the problem is also that it doesn't work with all sites...not sure why as I'm not a programmer.
Just my opinion.
Score: 0
|the problem is also that [Opera] doesn't work with all sites...not sure why as I'm not a programmer.
You don't need to be. Lots of sites are technically incorrect, some browsers are better at compensating for flaws in pages than others...and alot of websites are designed towards MS standards.
Score: 0
|Firefox didn't need a complete overhaul like IE did. Firefox 1.5 was extremely successful and needed little aesthetic improvement or added functionality. Besides, it was version 1.5 with frequent updates and it went up half a version number. IE 7 went up an entire version number with no update in 5 years, not to mention the countless numbers of security holes, so yea, they needed a complete overhaul.
Score: 0
|Scott M. Fulton, III = Microsoft Poster Boy
Just goes to prove there is no such thing as objective media this days.
Score: 0
|...except he uses Firefox as his main browser.
Score: 0
|Good god. 'Objective' to this guy would be slamming IE to hell and blindly praising Firefox. IT sounded pretty balanced to me.
I also found myself a lot more impressed with the changes in IE, but that's mainly because IE had a long way to go in updating. Still prefer FF and Opera myself anyway.
Score: 0
|Dude... just shutup.
Score: 0
|Exactly
Score: 0
|Just goes to show you do not know everything you think you do NATE...
I have several workstations where I work with various O.S.s on them. The Ubuntu station has Opera and Firefox. The Windows XP workstations have I.E.6 on one and I.E. 7 on the other.
I use whatever browser is necessary to view a web page. More times than not I just use whatever browser is on the workstation I am currently using.
The next time you decide to open your mouth and spew... engage your brain first. My initial post was not a Pro Firefox post. My post simply pointed out that Scott's post was Pro Microsoft and not very objective. If you or the others that replied to my post feel the need to argue with this, I suggest learning what objectivity really means.
Score: 0
|Yes, I agree. It seems pretty obvious that this article is not objective at all. I don't know the commercial relationships between MS and Betanews but I always noted a pro-bias. Simply ignoring that IE7 is just a tentative copy of FF which itself is a copy of Opera is weird. Many experts and test have already demonstrated that Opera is far in advance in terms of speed and Security ( see Secunia...)
Score: 0
|QUOTE:
Under the hood, IE was set to change as well, with Microsoft forced to base its new engine
upon a different intellectual property base than the ages-old Spyglass Mosaic code.
UNQUOTE.
IE7 does NOT have a new rendering engine, it's still using the old Trident engine from IE6.
And that engine dates back to the introduction of IE4 in 1997. All they've done with the IE
engine, is added a few tweaks. It has not, I repeat, NOT been replaced ... FACT.
Score: 0
|What is this article made just to incite a flame-war?
Score: 0
|"will Firefox users be happy using their browser in Vista without the degree of changes they'd experience with IE7?"
Yes.
Score: 0
|yep...*looks down the page*....yep.... I believe it was. Not unusual around here thought. If the title contains Firefox, IE, or both you can bet the war will be on.
Score: 0
|One glaring omission in this review article is the anti-phising capabilities of both IE7 and Firefox 2.0
Generally speaking Firefox has provided a much more secured browser to surf the Internet - from the free ad-block, faster response time to discovered weaknesses, and now the better designed anti-phising capabilities.
It is true that IE7 is a major overhaul, whilst Firefox 2.0 feels more like a "tidying up" exercise - but once we sum up the goods and the bads, the inescapable conclusion remains that Firefox 2.0 is the superior browser in ALL respects bar one - namely that many web sites optimised for IE does not appear well in Firefox.
Score: 0
|Why does everyone list ad block as a FEATURE of firefox when its an EXTENSION, not an included FEATURE. I wish people would get this one fact straight.
Score: 0
|on the other side ie7 has a built in pop-up blocker. :-)
Score: 0
|So does Firefox. It's just that AdBlock is so much more effective.
I don't know why people say it's a feature of Firefox. Maybe they use the term feature to mean "something that the competition doesn't have" as opposed to "an enhancement that comes with the product."
Score: 0
|I wish people would get this one fact straight.
I think we all do.
You'll have to excuse us when we don't specifically mention the ability is due to an extension each time we post about it.
Besides it gives ya something to b**** about. ;)
Score: 0
|Its not really a b****, more of an observation. I really dont care if people want to lie to themselves and call something a duck when it is clearly a hippopotamus.
Score: 0
|mmmm...AdBlock...
:-)
Score: 0
|After installation, it's just like a duck to us. :)
That's one hell of a talented hippo.
Score: 0
|So, To really rate firefox, you have to have a cludge of extensions? How about rating what the BROWSER is and isnt? Wouldnt that make sense? Sure, you can add every extension in the world to firefox and then claim other browsers are "featureless" compared to ff, but its not really an accurate comparison.
Score: 0
|Isn't it?
Why should extensions not be included, especially the most popular, when rating the browser? The trolls sure use holes caused by them to do so. Extendability is one of, if not the biggest, draw of firefox.
Adblock is the killer extension for firefox. Just from reading this very forum, you can see that it is a "make or break" factor for many users. It may not be a feature of the browser itself, but it is FACT that the extension is a major draw to the browser.
Extensions (Add-ons, whatever) are a possiblity now with IE as well. When someone comes out with a killer add-on for IE7, are you going to be making thew same complaint? How about when (if?) Opera ever catches up?
It's really just semantics. The features provided by extensions/add-ons may not be built in, but they are definitely there.
I'm getting the feeling we could argue this for days. Many folks see firefox's extendability (and it's extensions) as a feature of the browser itself. I think it's a valid view.
Score: 0
|Exactly. IE's update is just more obvious. That is why it's getting more attention. FF was already miles ahead. Even with the updates to IE, it is still an inferior browser as far as overall features go. In 2 years IE will still be like it is now and FF will again be that much more ahead.
Score: 0
|Since you can't use Firefox extensions in IE, wouldn't that be a *feature* exclusive to Firefox?
Score: 0
|Extendability yes, individual extensions no. I rate firefox a 5 because of the sheer fact that it cant be extended, but I wont rate it a 5 because of an extension that exists for it. On the other hand, I will rate an individual extension a 5 if the need warrants it.
Score: 0
|Yes, the capability to "extend the browser" (which you can do in IE via various addons that have existed since the IE4 days) is a feature, but the features added BY those extensions are separate and not a built in feature of the browser
Score: 0
|Sad, article was black-and-white, no Opera was even mentioned. I haven't seen either of these two. No reason to try. They can't be faster or more comfortable than Opera. Over the time they acquire all good parts of Opera, or at least try to.
To whoever commenting operas MDI before v6: did you try to open 10 windows in Opera and 10 windows in IE that time? No! Because no sane person would do the latter.
For sake of argument i could ask same question about Current versions of browsers. Can you open 100 tabs and be able to navigate without trouble? How about opening them in one mouseclick?
100 is exaggerated, but I often keep 30-40 tabs open. Launching 10-20 sites from one folder in bookmarks is a regular action.
Score: 0
|I open over 50 tabs in FF all the time. Navigation is very easy and FF has been stable throughout.
Score: 0
|Firefox = Highly Customizable....
We can make is much better that way
Firefox = Faaaaaaast!
I've tried almost all browser and believe me Firefox > Avant > Opera > IE7 (i know Avant might surprise you but its really handy!)
Score: 0
|Internet Explorer 7 is a lot better then Firefox, not just with features but with speed and also IE7 looks fresh, Firefox looks like a granpa
Score: 0
|Firefox supports themes and extensions, so it can look pretty much any way you want it to and have all sorts of functions added.
Speedwise, well, it may be faster. I'm not sure - I have not tested it.
It may look "fresh" to you, but to me it looks and functions unfamiliar.
Score: 0
|I believe that the bad part of the open source community is that although extensions are a GREAT idea, and they inspire a lot of genius developers, who makes insanely awesome stuffs. But the thing is, since they're doing it for fun, for free, you can't really expect them to work on it for years and years. Firefox is a great browser, some of the extensions awesome, but too often once in awhile, I'll find one of my most favorite extensions' developers saying that they're quitting updating because blah blah blah.. School got busy, interested in another product, whatever.
That aspect sort of make big companies hard to integrate firefox into their machines. Our school (a Japanese university) installed Firefox onto all the machines last year when 1.0 came out, since me and some other friends REALLY strongly pushed the school's IT department, but due to security and other reasons, we can't install many extensions. AND of course the school isn't going to update everytime, so like the version is still 1.06. Hopefully Firefox can overcome this problem, somehow unless they want to stay as a "geek's browser" forever.
Well, I'm using the Firefox mobile version on school computers, so I don't really care, but still ... it's good to have Firefox push itself more into competition. It's good for IE too because without a tough competitor, Microsoft's never going to move their butt improving IE.
Score: 0
|You need http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox
Score: 0
|sincerely THANKS!
now I'll just have to toss that to the IT department and hope they'll use it..
Score: 0
|That article is written by a tech illiterate, who couldnt bother to do even his research properly.
Firefox didnt deliver tabs first. It was internet works in 1994. Opera had MDI from the beginning and improved it in v6 to what it looks like in modern day browsers. Netcaptor which was launched in 1997(or early 1998, not sure) got tabs much earlier than Firefox.
I stopped reading that article after that statement.
Score: 0
|I think you have a good point, at least in part.
The writing certainly doesn't sound professional or well researched.
I wonder if he is being paid for this?
Score: 0
|"Firefox 2.0 vs. IE7 in Vista: How Close?" Is the title of the article. This article is comparing these two browsers only. So if another browser had tabs before these two did, that's fine. It does not make the article poorly researched. It makes the article accurate, because Firefox did have tabs before IE.
Score: 0
|Dude, seriously: C-H-I-L-L
As I said to someone else declaring war over the same misunderstanding: I think he was referring to IE vs. Firefox, in which case, Firefox did have tabs first.
Score: 0
|IE 7 on Vista has firefox beat in my opinion - and I'm a pretty devout FF fanboy.
IE 7 is just good where FF is getting a little rusty in my opinion.
Just my 2 salmon cakes.
Score: 0
|Man, I hate salmon...
Score: 0
|Opera ftw
Score: 0
|i am using vista and tryed both and found i like deepnet explorer and slim broswer both better than ie7 or ff2
Score: 0
|Opera was not really a true tab system. That whole MDI thing was wack.
Score: 0
|"Firefox first delivered the tab bar "
This is not true. Opera was the first. Firefox did with a plugin. In the same way, Maxthon was able to do multitab for IE.
Score: 0
|I think he was just talking about Firefox vs. IE, in which case, Firefox was first.
Score: 0
|Actually:
"BookLink Technologies pioneered [tabbed browsing] in its InternetWorks browser in 1994."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabbed_browsing
Score: 0
|IE 7 has just changed too drastically for me to be comfortable with. Sure, it has a ton of cool "catch up" features, but the User Interface changes, imo, totally suck.
I'm sticking with Maxthon.
I understand the want to make FF2 lean and clean, and appreciate that I can expand how well it works with extensions, but I do have to admit, it is a pretty boring upgrade in terms of "wow factor" type of features.
I do think the article basically was lame. Sorry, but I just do.
Score: 0
|While I agree with you about IE7, maxthon (in its current 1.5x STABLE version) feels kinda tacky. The 2.0 release beta's feel great, and once its finalized should make it a much nicer product. The interface and features in maxthon 1.x feel tacked on and awkward (like adding custom address bar search strings, its very painful and doesnt work very intuitively). I only recently moved back to maxthon from opera (after using opera for a year) and I tell ya, I never realized how much I could do with IE and maxthon that I couldnt do with opera (ROBOFORM IS BACK! YEAY!!!!)
Score: 0
|This article fails to mention that Firefox v2.0 included a huge amount of optimization and bloat reduction. They also didn't mention the Phishing protection, enhancements to the search toolbox, variable size tabs when space runs out, Javascript v1.7, SVG support, etc.
And FF3 is 'Gran Paradiso' - not Minefield. The Alpha Version is 'Dogfood'.
Score: 0
|The stupid who wrote this article is trying to placed FF's interface as hugely bloated (w or w/o plugins) in that picture, which is untolerable. And to put it clear, im no FF fan. I prefer Opera instead...
Score: 0
|Umm.... I think he was just trying to show all the great add-ons that were available for FF2.
I'm hoping no one's dumb enough to think that they have to have all those toolbars, especially when the article specifically emphasizes the customizability of the UI.
Score: 0
|Go Opera!!!
Score: 0
|Who cares ? I agree with the 'bourgeoisdude' but think that, like the IE 6, IE was good at first, but then lost its breath and FF took over...
The same will happen with IE7, wherein the 'FF extension' topic is important.
Where will you have more customized(special and ,most of time, useless) features? IE 7 or FF 2 ?
Of course FF2, since you have the large base of peeps who start writing stuff for FF....
Well, MS could start updating IE7 continuosly with new features, but as we all know (and love, or probably hate) MS and Windows, it will take some time before ALL the Bugs, Security holes and exploits will FINALLY be fixed...
So for now, IE7 MAY(again refering to 'bourgeoisdude') be better and have many changes but PROBABLY Mozilla will take over after some time when IE7 loses its breath...
(and yes... Im a hateful Windows user and Firefox lover...)
Score: 0
|For the past year I've been using FF and I like it because of the add-ons. I use to use Maxthon because it did almost everything I wanted in a browser, but with the add-ons I'm able to do that with FF as well. If IE used add-ons I like for tabbed browser to open tabs new tabs when clicking URL's and when typing in a new address in the address bar and search bar I may check out IE. Also there are some pages that don't support the new IE yet so thats a wait too. I've always liked IE because to me it seems faster than FF, but I look at how I can customize a browser. I would use Opera if it did what I wanted too.
Score: 0
|Firefox is the best and the safest. I feel comfortable knowing that I won't get infected by one of those pesky malware/adware/spyware just by browsing websites.
I am using Firefox 100% of the time now!
Score: 0
|Does IE7 have AdBlock? If not, I'll stick with Firefox. Can't stand ads and popups all over my screen.
Score: 0
|While not built in, it does have several 3rd party ad blockers. Firefox does not have it built in, so please dont rate FF higher because you can "Add ad blocking" when you can do the same with IE. Granted, its not free most of the time, but the ad blockers for IE (Such as Ad Muncher), work with ALL BROWSER AND HTTP AD ENABLED SOFTWARE so you are not tied to one application.
Score: 0
|lol... I just KNEW you were going to mention Ad Muncher. There was no way you could resist it.
Score: 0
|Well, he mentions ad block, I use ad muncher, what do you want? There are others like Super Ad block, proxomitron, Ad Eliminator, all of which are ok products but I dont think compare. The closest in comparison is Proxo, which has ceased development a while ago due to the authors death.
Score: 0
|Lol. It was just a joke. No offense intended.
Score: 0
|Firefox does not have it built in, so please dont rate FF higher because you can "Add ad blocking" when you can do the same with IE
True...but with FF you can do it for free. And it's easy, configurable, and automatic.
If you want that on IE, you'll be pulling out your wallet.
Sorry, no comparison.
That said, I *do* hope now that IE has some decent add-on functionality that someone takes the free adblock idea and runs with it.
This argument is getting old.
Score: 0
|Yes, free is a nicety, but that doesnt mean some people are willing to pay for better quality. I mean, as I said in previous posts, there are products which make ad block look very amaturish and plain. Just because most firefox fans believe all software should be free doesnt mean there isnt a place for commercial software. Rating a piece of software poorly because it costs money is like rating a car poorly because you have to pay extra for the mp3 enabled cd player or sirius addon.
Simply put, free does not always equate to a product being better. I can point you to several examples if you desire.
Score: 0
|Is Ad-Muncher better quality than Ad-block?
Never having felt the need to pay for something I get free, I've never tried Ad-Muncher, so this is a serious question.
Ad-block+ includes auto-updates of the filters, whitelisting, simple and quick configuration, removal of whitespace, etc...
What's Ad-Muncher got that would make me want to pay for it?
(I'm not trolling, it's a serious question)
Score: 0
|Lets see, you can use it with any browser on the windows platform you choose so you are not TIED to one. Filters that work in firefox work in opera and IE and any other http enabled ad downloading application.
The lists are HIGHLY scrutinized and maintained so that sites arent broken by a certain filter. There are numerous options to enable you to fine tune your ad blocking.
I personally prefer it and find it to definitely be higher quality than ad block. All I can say is try it out, judge it for yourself. I just dont like people who automatically assume freeware is better than payware just because it is free. Try out a product, give it a FAIR trial (dont go into looking for the product to fail), and then judge.
Score: 0
|Lets see, you can use it with any browser on the windows platform you choose so you are not TIED to one
I chose to use Firefox...so that doesn't count.
The lists are HIGHLY scrutinized and maintained so that sites arent broken by a certain filter. There are numerous options to enable you to fine tune your ad blocking.
Same. And you can choose the subscription (if that's the way you choose to go), or fine-tune it purely yourself for only the sites you visit quite easily.
Just not seeing anything here worth paying for. I'll look later, but off-hand, do you know if AdMunch has a trial period, or do I have to buy it to try it?
Score: 0
|30 day trial :) Trust me, try it and give it a fair chance. You will like it.
Score: 0
|There is one website in particular that I visit that has an ungodly amount of pop-ups (unfortunately, its the only site with the sheer amount of info that I can use). I tested it with Firefox, IE7 (in Vista RC1), and Opera, and frankly, IE7 is the only one that blocked ALL of the popups. I still prefer Firefox overall, but IE7 seems to moving in the right direction IMO.
Score: 0
|Don't take the flamebait, folks: WE WILL NEVER, EVER AGREE ABOUT WHICH ONE IS BETTER. Not even in a million years. Even if IE or FireFox is discontinued and its 10 years later--people will still swear that Microsoft or Mozilla had the better browser.
I can say my personal opinion, but really, who cares? If I use Netscape 1.0, who gives a rats? Use whatever is best for you, not what I say or even what he or she says. Know that FireFox definately does have better security than IE6 and before--although you could argue, I believe most objective users agree it is easier to get trojans from ie6 than FireFox 1.5/2.0.
Now, IE7 does seem to be a vast improvement over version 6.x. Even die hard FF fans for the most part can agree that IE7 is certainly better as far as security than IE6. I personally have not used FF 2.0 final yet, I plan to try it so I can compare the two, but I'm just used to IE7's interface. FireFox may have caught my attention more if it had been released two years before it was, but I learned every in and out to IE 5.5 and 6 at the time, and learning a new browser was viewed as a "pain in the ass" honestly.
So for me, I can't even say in all honesty that IE7 is truley better than firefox, because I haven't been able to spend all the time with it as I have IE. I'm just a tad lazy, and I personally can make IE 6 and IE7 just as secure as they need to be for me or my network, so FOR ME, there is no need to use up my time learning all the ins and outs of FireFox.
Use what suits you best. Die hard FF fans know Firefox much better than the new IE version and they will be more inclined to prefer what they are used to. That's fine by me...
Score: 0
|Couldn't have said it any better than bourgeoisdude does.
Score: 0
|What I find funny is that FF2 looks and feels more like IE6 than IE7 does. Some may actually find the FF interface more familiar.
Score: 0
|From reading the first four paragraphs of this story, I'm trying to figure out what the premise the author is trying to tell us?
Is it finally revealed at the end?
How absurd.
Score: 0
|I agree... I was more enthralled by bourgeoisdude's passive agressive approach to sharing his opinion.
Score: 0
|The problem with IE7 is the sheer number of bugs. One one of my PCs once I install it Maxthon crashes. So does Firefox with IETab. On another PC Maxthon works fine, but IE7 renders ABC News in a very screwed up manner, while on the "crashing" PC IE7 renders ABC News fine.
I don't want to switch between browsers on diff PCs simply because MS hasn't figured out the config diffs between diff. PCs. Eye candy is fine, but I want something that works.
Score: 0
|So...IE7 breaks maxthon and IEtab, two 3rd party programs that utilize IE. Sounds like they need to be updated to handle IE7's new code.
BTW, maxthon works just fine for me (default browser) in IE7 as does ABC News and IEtab in firefox.
Score: 0
|I like Firefox, but I no longer customize firefox like I used to, ever since version 1.5. Version 1.5 destroyed themes and extensions that I had used for many months, and left me with an unworkable firefox that I needed to hunt down answers for. It was extremely frustrating and I won't go through it again. I run no themes, and very few extensions, and things seem to be OK...
Score: 0
|That's what killed WinAmp for me back before AOL bought it. I would get skins and plugins I liked, and they would soon become incompatible. Customizability is great, but only if the customizations aren't so fragile. Its also the main reason I do not use plugins in FireFox now. I tried some interesting skins a couple months back, but forgot about them until (ironically) the FF2 told me they wouldn't work.
Score: 0
|If you get the Nightly Tester Tools extension, any FF extension can be made compatible in a matter of seconds. Besides extensions are being updated to support 2.0.
Score: 0
|That's just it, I really can't be bothered to maintain and hunt down updates to extensions to updated programs. I would rather be using the programs without the extensions or not at all.
Score: 0
|Update Notifier = my best friend when it comes to Firefox. =p
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2098
Score: 0
|FF 2.0 checks for the updates for you. For extensions, and FF updates.
...isn't that nice of them?
(I don't know anything about the themes as I have never used tham.)
Score: 0
|Minifox flat = the only addon theme I have ever used.
Saves a lot of space. I like that. =)
Score: 0
|Can you guys start marking OpEds as OpEds... this isn't news. This is "I like IE7". Respectable news sites split their news and their editorials. You should strongly consider it.
Score: 0
|I wholeheartedly agreed with you, Drumcat.
Score: 0
|I agree, but I think that's what the word "Perspective" in bold at the beginning of this article is supposed to denote.
Score: 0
|Yep, I see that. I really don't think it was there yesterday. It's a welcome edition, but I think it should actually be IN the title.
Score: 0
|Who cares, Opera rules the roost anyway, it both features, speed and useability.
Score: 0
|I must admit, I like Opera.
I installed IE7 recently thou and its also good, not as secure as opera I suspect but still worth an upgrade. Im not going back to firefox though.
For now i find im using IE7 for 80% of the time.
Score: 0
|you mean your roost and a few others. better maybe, ruling? hardly.
Score: 0
|Please show where you get this "Not as secure as opera" remark. Where is your evidence? Up until 2 weeks ago, I had used opera exclusively for about a year and I feel no less secure now using maxthon w/ IE7 than I did using opera 9.02 or 9.1 beta
Score: 0
|...and I feel no less secure now...
While the way you feel may be good enough for you, I doubt that's very reassuring to someone else evaluating their system security with various browsers.
I don't think anyone will dispute that IE is less secure if only for its market-dominance. A hacker is going to target an IE exploit before he targets an Opera or Firefox exploit.
Score: 0
|...but not market-share.
So who cares about Opera? Obviously, damn near nobody.
Score: 0
|Mark, why is it that it's always an absolute with you? You'd think Opera was somehow secretly funded by Sony the way you talk about it...
Score: 0
|