Next Firefox must be prepared.
now many people start having/found some problems, which need to be fixed by firefox in next version.
and many people still waiting for the comments about 1st version before they use if as default browser.
so I hope version 1.1 will be much better and make more people more satisfied.

i feel that it should be noted that the majority of IE users (ie: soccer moms, dental assistants, fill in any regular joe shmo that isnt obsessed with their computer running at maximum efficiency) really don't know or realize how bad IE is...and usually arent aware of alternate browsers. what do they do when cometcursor wants to be installed? they click ok. the same goes for all the other IE annoyances. i see it all the time, people asking me to fix their computer cuz they think they downloaded a virus. look at the system tray of an average windows user...i guarantee you that there will be rows and rows of icons for realplayer, quicktime, weatherbug, etc. and they wonder why their pentium3 machine with 128 mb of ram is slow. but i know that they just arent as tech savvy as i... so i tell them "dont use IE, use firefox...IE will always be there when u need it"

Sorry to rain on the supporters, but FF Is a niche app that has a strong fan base. It came along during one of the net's I.E. scares and so got some attention.

I play with software, like to try new stuff, willing to reinstall on occasion when new/shaky apps trash my system.

I have 1.0 installed here. I've gotten tired of sites that don't open with FF. No, I'm not writing indignant email to each company telling them that I will take my browsing elsewhere. I fire up IE to get to those sites.

The sole thing FF has going for it is the tabbed browsing feature. Without that, no compelling reason to switch to it.

The learning curve, the inability to use tools bought for IE, the refusal of some sites to work with FF have caused everyone in my circle of family and friends to run IE and click the 'Make IE the default browser' button. They aren't part of a holy war against MS, they want to enjoy the Web.

As for the extremely vain "finally helping the Web live up to its original promise" from Ross. Give me a break. The Web already lives up to its promise and more. But you'd know that if you'd been around when it started.

I wish FF users all the luck. But your dreams of replacing IE are not quite meeting the reality test.

People with argument "Firefox doesn't work with a webpage" newer give an example when asked. Can you give an example (or more because you say you have many such sites) where Firefox doesn't work. I bet one näkkileipä that you don't.

I don't know what a näkkileipä is, but you owe me a few of them...

http://www.skeeterbeater.biz/ - This site has some invalid CSS which causes most of the text to be white-on-white (meaning invisible) in all versions of Firefox to date. Go ahead and email the site. (All emails go to the site's designer, apparently because this small business -- like many small businesses -- doesn't have their own email.) These so-called professional designers don't care.

http://www.waycpa.com/ - FrontPage is perfectly capable of generating standards-compliant code if you set the options right. Unfortunately, this site is one example of many many many little sites which have been authored by a single individual who is not a web designer and really has no desire to become one. He probably feels that having a site which can be seen by "most" people today is better than having no site at all, and he's got bigger fish to fry in his life than listening to an explanation of what VML is, and why Firefox doesn't support it, and why he should have paid attention when FrontPage asked him to choose a compatibility setting instead of picking one at random.

http://www.movielink.com/ - OK, this is just one example of thousands of sites which use ActiveX and thus do not work with Firefox. You probably don't realize there are so many because most sites do not stop dead with an explicit error page like this one. In most cases, you might simply be missing some site functionality that you didn't realize was there for IE users. In some of those cases, the sites have provided alternative renderings. For example, there are webmail sites where you can drag-and-drop to move messages between folders in IE, but in Firefox you must click a checkbox next to the message, then click a Move button, then click on the folder. In your mind, you might think the site "works" in Firefox, but it doesn't work as well. There is a plug-in which some ActiveX sites can choose to use to support Firefox (example: http://www.pcpitstop.com/neptune_about.asp) but it doesn't work with all ActiveX capabilities and doesn't help Mac/Linux users of Firefox.

There are lots more of examples at http://www.computergripes.com/firefox.html (check the forums for the latest reports; also, many of the 8.x and 9.x reports still apply to 1.0).

By the way, I use Firefox 1.0 as my primary browser, so I'm not trying to dis Firefox, just responding to your claim that it's hard to find sites which don't work. If you browse with both browsers, it's very easy to find sites like Verizon Wireless and Sprint PCS which seem to work OK in Firefox but clearly work better in IE.

Personally I do not believe that FireFox is a niche application post beta. With it having a 7% market share after only a couple months of its release I would say its well on its way to becoming a browser that has a large portion of market share. Netscape is currently somewhere around 15% and its been around for years.

As for some website that will not open with FireFox, I personally have not come across one since the 1.0 release. Even so the only reason I could think that they wouldn't open is because of a JavaScript that some sites employ to check if your Browser is Netscape or IE which they wouldn't need if they stuck to the true HTML and other standards that the W3C puts forth instead of using 'special' tags that are only used and built into IE that Microsoft put there.

FireFox has more going for it than just tabbed browsing which in its own right is enough for me to switch. It has built in pop-up blocking and the feature to block ads inside web pages, not to mention you can skin it. As well as the option to add a bunch of extensions created by other programmers, and it has the Google Search field BUILT in and the option to add other searchs in the SAME box with the option to switch between them. In order to equal the amount of search boxes that I have in FireFox I would have to install 7 different toolbars which would take up half my screen, IF I were still using Intenet Explorer.

My family, which aren't the brightest poeple when it comes to using a computer, haven't had any troubles what-so-ever using FireFox. I do not know of this 'learning curve' that you speak of and I don't see where my family does either. As far as enjoying the web, I have had FAR few calls and yells from the other room with my family calling me over to look at some stupid pop-up window stating "You have a Virus, Please click here to remove" or some other nonsense and as far as I can tell they (and I know I most certainly) enjoy just surfing the web now A LOT more than I did before since I have switched to FireFix, and no thats not a typo (well it orginally was but I decided to leave it ;P ).

About the only thing that I agree with you on is the fact that Ross stated "finally helping the Web live up to its original promise" which other than a good (if not odd) slogan/advertising point doesn't mean much, this point is VAIN in itself.

I have been using other browsers, such as Opera, since the day I found out that there were others out there. About the only good thing that has changed about Internet Explorer since I started using it was this last release with XP service pack 2 where they FINALLLLLLLLY added SOME pop-up blocking, and I say some b/c it doesn't always work.

I love FireFox, I think it is the best thing to happen to the internet since the first GUI web browser was released. And until someone comes out with something better I'm sticking with FireFox.

Thank You,
Brandon Burton

Wow, those sites you listed aren't even HTML compliant in anyway. :O

For all you know, they were coded by professional kids in junior school.

With all due respect, these are some of the worst examples of IE-based webmastery I have ever seen. A quick View > Page Source (Ctrl + U) in Firefox with the brilliant HTML Validator extension shows them to be filled to the brim with proprietary IE attributes. (The Movielink site also doesn't allow website visitors outside the US from viewing their page (!), so I couldn't check that out).

Isn't it great though, that the whole idea behind firefox is STANDARDS? Instead of bagging Firefox for doing things RIGHT, you should be bagging Microsoft for trying to make the web proprietary, and increasing the headaches for all involved with their sloppy authoring tools and (now) extremely sloppy, out-of-date browser. CSS positioning and styling with IE is a pain, to say the least. IE is very selective in what it supports, and its broken box model (which varies between its different browser revisions!) is a huge headache. (Not so Opera and Firefox). Its bugs make any web developer who tries to push the boundaries miserable.

A great site for CSS-based information with open lists of browser bugs. It's no surprise which one tops the list to anyone remotely interested in CSS standards-based authoring:
http://www.positioniseverything.net/ie-primer.html
http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html
http://www.positioniseve...ing.net/op-omnibus.html
http://www.positioniseverything.net/gecko.html

So, why are we bagging Firefox again? For not following Microsoft's 'lead' of sloppyness and proprietary features and poor authoring tools? By not leveraging its market power to make the web its own, and Windows-only, in order to extract more money from the masses with their new OS?

If you take the long-term view, which is to code to standards, rather than web browsers, I think there'd be a realisation that Mozilla (and Opera) are simply being sensible and doing the right thing. I think it's a shame that so many see things short-term and think that Firefox should adopt Microsoft's crappy ActiveX and associated proprietary attributes and rendering bugs and hacks so their broken sites work with it 'out-of-the-box'. And when Microsoft moves on to their next-new-technology, they are forced to follow like sheep again?

No, standards are the future, and they start with quality browsers conforming to W3C standards. There is no shortcut.

http://www.skeeterbeater.biz/

Hmm, I disabled all styles and I saw the page exactly as the person who made it meant?

http://www.waycpa.com/
I thought wee were talking about html pages?

Movielink wasn't interested in my business so I think they are not interested in customers who are using other browsers than IE either.

And if you base your (or you think someone will) browser choice on such sites (selling mosquito related stuff, small accounting firm in Dallas?) there must be something wrong.

My experience says otherwise. I've set it up a couple times. I'm not a major PC person, so, all the systems, on the first go-round, got infected by viruses, penetrated by trojans, and had spyware and adware installed. On the second attempt, I installed firewalls (Outpost Free), removed Outlook Express, and installed Firefox. I also visited the antivirus sites so the DLLs for their products could be installed, to ease virus checking.

My goal was to create a computing experience for novice users that "works". I wanted it to be responsive, and have no unexpected surprises (like adware). The first complaints I got were about adware; the systems had been compromized by trojans, and had some mail viruses as well, but the perception of problems centered on adware popups invading their computing experience.

Thus, my goal was to guard against invasion by trojans, worms, viruses, and all the other clandestine malware, but, ALSO, to guard against unexpected installations of adware and spyware.

Firefox, particularly the popup blocker, helps prevent adware and spyware installations. There are other blockers out there, but FF's is simple to teach to newbies.

Firefox is good because it's similar to IE, and generally works well.

Secondarily, I install the Adblock and set it to block ads on sites they visit, if they wanted. This helps speed up their browsing experience, and also tends to decrease the opportunities for adware installation.

The last thing I did was create two user accounts: Administrator and User. They were given good passwords, and the users were taught to log in as User to use the system, and to log in as Administrator to install or upgrade software. This created another hurdle to installing software, putting it in the hands of the end user rather than an aggressive web marketing campaign.

I also tried to train them on the use of the firewall. Over time, users will learn that their actions will often trigger traffic -- so, they learn, over time, to make pretty good decisions about allowing traffic. (The firewall also needed to be configured to let more "active content" through, so some apps would work.)

The good news was that the systems remained virus free and responsive after a couple months.

A firewall, Firefox, and a little education about how to use the system more safely combine to make a good user experience. Users are rewarded for their good habits with a responsive system.

Could these results be replicated with Internet Explorer instead of Firefox?

No. (Not yet, at least.)

The reason is simple. Firefox's popup blocker (and ad blocker) help discourage the installation of adware. Adware is one of the reasons why computers slow down, and people start to feel like they are "infected".

An increase of adware or spyware traffic would also trigger the firewall alerts, and decrease the overall feeling of "security."

Of all the malware out there, adware is the most "safe". It's not a trojan, and it's not a virus. However, it causes systems to slow down, and generates unexpected traffic, leading people to believe their computer is "infected" and out of their control. Thus, it's pretty important to keep adware and spyware off the computer.

Though this security system sounds complex, it's not too difficult to set up and teach. I set it up and explained it to people who knew nothing about computers. I provided customized documentation which included their PC's configuration info, some explanations, and their passwords.

One question the interviewer did not ask was: NetCaptor, Maxthon, and IE all open in a flash on my desktop; so why does it take 12 seconds for Firefox to load?

PS: Neither Opera nor Mozilla had the first tabbed browser. That distinction belongs to NetCaptor.

Well, IE seems to load so quickly because many of its component DLLs are loaded at windows boot time, so IE actually slows down windows loading.

Firefox does not have the same integration, so it does take longer to load, but then it does not slow the windows boot process merely by being installed...

IE uses the native Windows API, that's why it loads faster. The components that are loaded at boot time aren't specific to IE, they are generic Windows components, so you can't say that IE slows down Windows loading.

Firefox doesn't use the Windows API to display its interface but XUL. XUL allows Firefox to be portable and extensible, but at a cost : user interface performance.

As a comparison, K-Meleon uses the same engine as Firefox (Gecko) for rendering pages but uses the Windows API for its interface, so it loads way faster than Firefox.

Concerning user interfaces, software developers often have to choose between portability and performance.

You can append "/prefetch:1" (copy it exactly without the quotes) to the target box in your Firefox shortcut. This causes Windows to cache some parts of Firefox so that it will start faster subsequently.

That is if you're using Windows XP, and you actually keep all the crud in the prefetch folder...

Theres really nothing to special about phoenix / fire-whatever they call it now, I just can't stand IE because it just auto-installs spyware and adware constantly, (which reminds me I real hope that doesn't start happening once the adware org's turn their attention to firefox). Mozilla is too bloated, I've run it on plenty of 2ghz+ P7 machines and its to sluggish for me, don't get me wrong its not very bad, just noticable enough to annoy me constantly..

Presonally I think K-Meleon is way better, been out longer then pheonix, same idea, unbloated browser based on mozilla so it'll render as many pages as possible without going IE, and I've found about one website that doesn't render well - microsoft.com. Anyway, the only problems with K-Meleon is its almost never updated, and alittle more buggy..it needs more then 5 minutes of devolpment each month qq - but it runs much better then firefox on older computers and uses the bookmark system built into windows (just like IE, so its an easy transition to or from if you stop using it) I'm still waiting to see firefox or mozilla do that..

The bad thing is that there's always a war between browsers users

The good thing is that there is several good browsers on the 'market': IE, Netcaptor, Opera, Maxthon and Firefox ... just try them and make your choice.

Personnaly, I've choosen Firefox as my main browser (for months now) and I use it with very few add-on extensions (TBE and flashgot). Netcaptor and Maxthon are in a corner of my disk drive ... just in case.

I'm tired of this Firefox propoganda.

I use firefox myself (just because it's a tad faster than Mozilla, although I've been using Mozilla for years).

Firefox offers NOTHING innovative.

The only browser that keeps innovative is Opera!
Firefox simply took Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine (which is better than Opera's) and that's its only advantage over Opera.
Opera has everything you would EVER need (and all the features that firefox has) without needing any plugins and it still weighs less than Firefox.

Opera may not be open source but you can use it for free and have *small* google ads on top (many people use it this way).

Anyways, Firefox is an Opera wannabe, and if it wasn't for the Gecko engine it wouldn't be where it is today.

while I agree with your assessment of Opera's superiority overall, the "firefox offers NOTHING innovative" statement I found to be a bit harsh, because I think it brings a lot to the table, and you mentioned the big one: the rendering engine. Arguably the best out there, and arguably the most standards-compliant. This is *THE* dream browser for standards-based web design to get to the masses and actually make a difference.

And the browser is COMPLETELY free, and very easy to recommend to newbies hooked on IE (lots of people will not tolerate ads, and will not tolerate paying for a browser to get rid of them, too). IMO, you can't discount those benefits.

I think that extensions such as HMTL Validator and Web Developer and FlashGot and FoxyTunes (and no doubt many others out there, and more to come) make choosing (or using) Firefox so much easier for many users too, so I think they put a lot of work into making the browser a decent platform for useful add-ons.

Finally, I think they have done a world of good in (arguably) not alienating Joe Average with their browser. It's all pretty easy to get your head around. All in all, I think they have done a world of good to offer a free browser like this that is very usable and friendly, yet pretty sophisticated for the more advanced users (and a dream for standards-based web developers), especially at 1.0 release.

"I think few people "choose" Internet Explorer; rather, they use it because it's integrated into Windows."

Now that is very very true!

*(However it is VERY interesting to note that this website is viewable in Internet Explorer but is NOT viewable in Firefox!!). lol

25% of BetaNews readers use a Mozilla-powered browser, including myself. BetaNews works perfectly with Firefox, Mozilla, Camino, etc.

Unfortunately it doesn't work perfectly well for me Nate. Only the BN logo shows on the tab but the website itself doesn't load. (And it didn't some months ago when I tried Firefox 0.9). No worries though, if it works for you and others, then it would seem I have the problem. :(

Previously:
>> "I think few people "choose" Internet Explorer;
>> rather, they use it because it's integrated
>> into Windows."
>>
>> Now that is very very true!
>>
>>*(However it is VERY interesting to note that
>> this website is viewable in Internet Explorer
>> but is NOT viewable in Firefox!!). lol

I am currently on this website using...you guessed it Firefox 1.0!!!!! It all looks good to me, especially with all of the ads gone (sorry BN), the adblock extension is sooooo nice!

Hmm definitely a problem my end then. :(

It works fine with Firefox 1.0 here :-)

I "Choose" IE simply because FireFox keep crashing, FireFox keep locking up and most of all I do not trust FireFox with my creditcard number. and yes I DO trust IE.

"Our users tell us that Firefox is the better choice ... or by offering innovative and time-saving features like tabbed browsing."

Mozilla/Firefox didn't invent tabbed browsing and they did not innovate it. Opera had it long before Firefox and some other company probably had it long before Opera.

The Firefox people are just like Microsoft. Stealing other people's ideas and marketing it as their own.

It is maybe true, but dont forget that firefox is an opensource software and opera is commercial product. If they do not have copyright it is their problem. And stealing ideas is today normal, except u live in a black hole without windows

They did not say they were the first to do tabs, they just said it was innovative - use a dictionary.

Calling them innovative kind of gives an impression that they were introduced by Firefox, doesn't it?

If you look at the "bragging" on the main Firefox page, Opera did just about all of those before Firefox... And things like "small download", Opera does better.

"Mozilla/Firefox didn't invent tabbed browsing and they did not innovate it."

Nor did they claim to. The selection of the interview you quoted is far from the credit-stealing claims you say it is. He isn't saying that they invented tabbed browsing or added some innovative feature to it, just that they OFFERED it. And no matter how long other browsers may have had it, or how "old news" it seems to us, to the millions and millions using Internet Explorer or other browsers that don't have it, it is definitely worth mention.

It doesn't give that impression to me but it obviously does to you. It just says that tabs are an innovative feature and Firefox uses tabs - which are an innovative feature. Whatever browser used them would be using an innovative feature. From the point of being innovative, it doesn't matter who came up with the idea when it comes to _using_ tabs. I acknowledge that Opera came up withe idea then if they did - I don't know. But it doesn't make Firefox any less innovative because it uses them. Are you telling me that if Internet Explorer used tabs that this wouldn't be innovative for Internet Explorer, regardless of who came up with the idea? Inovate and invent are two different words and he didn't claim that they invented tabs.

@Aires
The problem here is grammatical, not lexical. A dictionary won't help. Perhaps you need an English lesson or two.

"offering innovative...features"

The quote can be interpreted in two ways.

1. (offering innovative) (features)
2. (offering) (innovative features)

(1) implies they have innovated these features and are offering them.
(2) imples they are offering features which happen to be innovative.

The common interpretation of that sentence for the typical person is (1). Interpretation (2) requires knowledge about the origins of tabbed browsering for a person to be able to rule out (1).

With all due respect - crap. He was comparing IE to Firefox and it's features. Opera never got a mention in the quote and I think you're confusing things.

"I think few people "choose" Internet Explorer; rather, they use it because it's integrated into Windows. However, our millions of users have made the conscious choice to go out and get Firefox, so I'd rather tell you what they have to say. Our users tell us that Firefox is the better choice because it makes their lives easier, whether by reducing headaches like spyware, viruses and popup ads, or by offering innovative and time-saving features like tabbed browsing."

He was saying that users of Firefox prefer to use Fiefox over IE, because of it's features which he considers to be innovative. There is a difference between someone innovating a particular feature, and someone using a feature which is innovative.

Everyone here arguing about "innovative features" must have a Unix background. Bill Gates would have made another $10B using the feature by the time you get around to actually implementing it.

Spot on - well done and well said! lol

Maxthon is the best for people wanting Tabs and popup blocking. The ad hunter is much better then FireFox. The super Drag and Drop is also much better in Maxthon then the extension created for FireFox.

Agree, Maxthon/MyIE is the best NOW AVAILABLE. I can say, it is the best over the last year as well.

I may be even better if it can use Firebox engine.

To be honest, unless Microsoft really stop any development on IE6 SP2 or IE7, Firefox got little chance to have marketshare larger than 10% !

i will agree on some parts of this, maxthon WAS the best. actually, no.. MyIE was the best, then they turned in into Maxthon, and around that time i noticed it got really.. well.. disfunctional.

Maxthon use the Firefox engine? You want to ruin the browser? Then we'd be back to the totally head-in-the-sand approach of "It was invented by Microsoft so let's go 'nyah nyah nyah' and not support it even though the web is tailored to IE because it owns 85% market share. In fact, let's be completely unrealistic and expect the world to change to suit us rather than be pragmatic and recognize that open standards and a buck will get me a cup of coffee in the real Internet".

No thanks - leave Maxthon with the engine it has - that alone makes it superior to Firefox, never mind the additional features.

No "View in IE" button required.

And boy can you ever tell this kid is 19. The pie-in-the-sky-secure-in-my-own superiority and idealism is quite funny. If the Zilla team were really customer oriented, FireFox would support ALL IE extensions and quirks instead of trotting out the old hackneyed excuse of "we only support open standards". God forbid, that would be REALLY thinking about your customers and making it easier for them. But I guess that's the difference between a 19 year old kid who's a propellerhead and someone who works in the real world and has to be customer oriented because it contributes to the Bottom Line.

you're right, Opera and Mozilla should support all of Microsoft's proprietary attributes, simply because at this point in time, Microsoft is 'king' and we should all worship it and its buggy nature and work around its faults for hours on end, and our notions of a standards-based web that is secure, cross-platform and spyware-free (and that works the same in all standards-compliant browsers) is just an idealist's dream.
http://www.positioniseverything.net/ie-primer.html
http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html
http://www.positioniseve...ing.net/op-omnibus.html
http://www.positioniseverything.net/gecko.html

Firefox is a terrific browser and will only get better with an architect like Ross at the helm. The future of the web is so much brighter with Firefox on the scene.

and so much more of a pain for us developers ;). i don't care which one "wins" ... i'd rather develop for one though as opposed to two.

"Firefox is a terrific browser and will only get better with an architect like Ross at the helm."

He's way too confident in his superiority. If you compare this interview to the one with Microsoft, you can see the maturity difference. The proof is in the pudding, of course, but it is very clear in this interview that Blake Ross is very biased against IE, not in itself a problem, but he needs to learn more about why people use IE compared to FireFox. He cannot do that if he believes everyone will change now that a choice is available. Heck, I downloaded Firefox 3 times on 3 different PC's from their website (to check functionality between windows versions), and ALL of them have been uninstalled. There's 3 "ghost users" of Firefox. The real reason Firefox will fail on its current track is that Blake is not interested in swaying IE developers or "IE lovers" from using Firefox. Just look at his last comment. He implies and even says that few people "choose" IE, yet in the responses here we see that there are people that clearly choose Opera and ie OVER Firefox.

"Our users tell us that Firefox is the better choice because it makes their lives easier, whether by reducing headaches like spyware, viruses and popup ads, or by offering innovative and time-saving features like tabbed browsing."

What did he expect from HIS users? What about Opera users? Why DON'T Opera users choose Firefox? That is what the Firefox people need to find out. I use IE because it is truly the best experience and has the most features of any other browser. Just look at all the stuff you can customize on IE, heck you can use tabbed browsing, block popup ads, block maicious cookies and activeX controls (which will stop viruses, spyware, etc.). You got me, luserspaz...I seem to remember searching for ff extentions in the past and not finding any. I admit I was not very good at using search engines at the time, and I was actually using the FF 1.0 pre-release at the time...

"Firefox has very little room to be customized by third-party developers"

https://update.mozilla.org/

160 extensions listed for Firefox 1.0. Obviously it's not customizable. Also you're free to download the source code ( http://www.mozilla.org/source.html ), make any changes you want, and distribute your changes to anyone.

Yes, there are addons to IE that give you lots of the features that Firefox has, but since you're still using IE, you're still vulnerable to any existing security holes.

...you should care, because firefox does a better job of conforming to actual web standards published by the w3c. msie prefers to pick and choose which standards to support...then, they make up the rest. if more browsers like firefox showed a willingness to support w3c standards, you would only have to program for w3c standards, instead of different browsers.

http://secunia.com/product/11/
-or-
http://secunia.com/product/4227/

Security is just not a priority for Microsoft.

160 extensions and not a single one that allows me to remove search engines from the Search Bar? Yes, very customizable.

And yes, I can download the source code and make my changes IF I WERE A ROCKET SCIENTIST. If I could do that I would have written my own browser.

Hmmm... my take on the interview is that Mr. Ross feels very good in his skin.

I used to give all the breaks to Microsoft because I thought it was a Capitalism vs. Socialism argument, but their recent abdication of releasing a patch for the IFRAME vulnerability goes beyond any self-imposed ass-kissing that I can even muster.

Where's the outrage?

As an infosec specialist, I am totally convinced that the open source community can deliver fixes and patches much more effectively and timely than Microsoft.

Search engines CAN be removed, clicky the link. ;)

http://kb.mozillazine.or...ninstall_Search_Plugins

Now, on the subject of browsers...
IE: As much as I love the simple interface, it was/is too much of a security risk. In my time using Internet Explorer, I have had so much spyware installed onto my PC it would make your head spin! And this was with Google toolbar installed. :(
FireFox: My browser of choice, it's fast, it's free, and I have not had a single piece of spyware creep into my computer since installing it! I really hope this is the browser of the future folks!

I choose Maxthon and Opera over Firefox! I have experiemented with these three over some time and made the conclusion of which I like! I even put Maxthon and Opera buttons on my blog page! Blake Ross is too steeped in over confidence without really doing some market/consumer research before making such blase statements about hordes of folks using Firefox. In my opinion spreadfirefox has become nothing but a rebel base for restless folks who just want to vent.

> 160 extensions listed for Firefox 1.0.

This is nice and all, but how is one supposed to figure out which ones are good and which ones are crap? Doesn't it take some time to set up Firefox properly? Trial and error kind of thing?

(And don't you have to restart to activate extensions?)

> 160 extensions listed for Firefox 1.0.

This is nice and all, but how is one supposed to figure out which ones are good and which ones are crap? Doesn't it take some time to set up Firefox properly? Trial and error kind of thing?

(And don't you have to restart to activate extensions?)

"CAN" deliver fixes and patches more effectively, yes...

I've learned not to trust that web site--many of its "theoretical" claims have been disproven...of course I can't show you since they decide to take the content off their site. I guess I really don't know that's why they took it off, but it seems logical. I remember reading about some sort of "flaw" in SP2 the day after it was released. Shortly afterward when Microsoft downplayed the theory, it was taken off their site.
That's not the only reason...I would quote, but I would be violating their copywright infringments. Anyway, you will find that most of the vulnerabilities are not 'flaws'--IE is working as designed and intended. Sure, you can use IE to play online games, download viruses, view web pages, or whatever. Just because it has the capacity to download more trojans than another browser doesn't mean it's unsecure--it has ActiveX, which clearly gives security warnings before downloading content (at least when IE is fully patched), and if you're dumb enough to trust an unknown vendor, you'll probably get a virus.
Microsoft has had many hundreds of patches recently due to recent threats. Did you know MS took hundreds of their Longhorn programmers aside to test the compatability of windows xp sp2? Or that they delayed SP2 from December so they could finish the testing and ensure it was stable and secure? There are many, many ways Microsoft has put more focus on security in recent months. Hate IE all you want, or even microsoft, but you can't look at the work they've done in the past year and truthfully tell me they don't care about security!

yea, i totally agree. it's not fair 2 judge ms wif such statistics. hundreds, even thousands of patches r distributed via windows update.

if ms doesnt rili care bout security, i personally dun rili think tad they will spend so much time releasing such patches

you'd get exactly that if Microsoft could ever be bothered making a comprehensive, standards-based browser. But their money pot relies on keeping you tied to their brand of milk.
http://www.positioniseverything.net/ie-primer.html
http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html
http://www.positioniseve...ing.net/op-omnibus.html
http://www.positioniseverything.net/gecko.html

So FireFox makes the web fun? Gimme a f***** break. It's just a different coat, it does the same thing as IE and Opera... display web pages. I didn't realize that a different interface and some plugins, which are available for every browser out there makes things more "fun."

Also, just for good measure I think BetaNews should interview Opera, who is the biggest innovator in the browser world. This is like Bush and Kerry (IE and FF) running for president, nobody wants to let Nader (Opera) debate or participate.

Ha! It "does the same thing" as IE??? Obviously you haven't even tried Firefox. Yeah, yeah...Opera's great, but recent updates to Opera have added bloat and slowed down it's responsiveness. Besides, who's gonna pay for Opera when they can get Firefox for free?

Yes, FF has tabs over IE, but in the very very end... all browsers do the same thing, they take code and render it into something that can be looked at and can be understood. They all just do it a little differently and have a different coat (interface) on top. That's all. Yes I agree FF is better than IE, but Opera puts both to shame (in my very humble opinion).

Yes I agree on Opera being a little bloated with the 7.0, but it's gotten better with 7.5 and the latest pre-alphas. You're right, it's not free, but I actually finally got a legit license for it, just 2 weeks ago, AFTER FF 1.0 release. So yes, I would pay because IMO it offers better features and it's all integrated. But whatever the case with Opera is, whether it's free or not, whether it's bloated or not, it is still a contender in the browser market and I think it at least deserves an interview here at BN as IE and FF have received.

Oh and why the negative score on my comment?

Opera was a great browser till it became "shareware". Not to say that it isn't great, don't miss my words. But, FF and IE are free.
I wouldn't mind hearing from Opera's team, but just like a speech from "Nader" it's purely for a good chuckle, as i wouldn't pay for a web browser.

Does firefox make the web more fun?!?
i think yes. I say this becuase i know that any ad (with plugin) can be blocked. I know that popups and BHO's cannot be attached to my system,
I know that when push comes to shove and i finally drop Micro$oft from my system and use Linux... i can still keep my FireFox.

I am right now fighting to keep my FireFox where i work. they protest it. since everyone else uses IE. But, you would be amazed at the money we have spent here to keep
spyware and such off our users systems. I know with FireFox at the helm, we would be safe.

I also agree, cuase i don't know a single person, Who chooses IE. I know allot that like Myie2 or maxthon, but most of them have converted to FF. The others just don't want to
learn anything new. I hardly consider that IE though.

[i would like to thank my brother who got me into firefox allmost at the time of it's first release. thanks bro.]

IE is technically NOT free. You purchase Microsoft Windows OS to own the IE browser and quite a bit I might add. FF is free if you look at it from a stand-alone product standpoint. Yes, you would have to own Windows anyways to use FF on it but as a stand-alone product it can be used on a few other platforms such Linux (free).

"Besides, who's gonna pay for Opera when they can get Firefox for free?"

I would/did.

That said, I think Opera takes this "war" with a lot more cool than most browser warriors and people like Ross. This isn't their main market, and thus not really their war. The desktop browser is primarily PR, as I see it. If you look at their fiscal results you see they make the real money on the mobile front, and that's probably where their main focus is. I'm just satisfied they spend some resources making this excellent technology (including the SSR and ERA stuff), available on the desktop too... and I don't mind helping to pay for it.

I can get IE for free for the Mac without purchasing Windows.

Oddly enough, as a website developer, I don't want to write code for 3 browsers. I write for what the majority uses and last I checked, it appears to be IE.

I have Firefox on one of my test machines at home and I am not sure what the 'have fun' part is meant. Let's see... I go to www.betanews.com and it comes up fine. Boy, THAT WAS FUN!!! Okay, now lemme try it on IE. I open IE and type in www.betanews.com in the address bar and it... OPENS! THAT WAS FUN TOO!!!! WOW!!!!

And Opera was a good idea, until they decided to sell it (groan). Browsers should be free period. All future web browser designers, please make sure it's free.

>So FireFox makes the web fun? Gimme a f***** >break. It's just a different coat, it does the >same thing as IE and Opera... display web pages. >I didn't realize that a different interface and >some plugins, which are available for every >browser out there makes things more "fun."

>Also, just for good measure I think BetaNews >should interview Opera, who is the biggest >innovator in the browser world. This is like Bush and Kerry (IE and FF) running for president, nobody wants to let Nader (Opera) debate or participate.

I've used four browsers in the past few years. IE, Netscape, Opera and Firefox. I try to avoid IE because of the security holes and because I don't like some of the ways it makes you do things. Netscape was just too buggy. For a long time Opera was really the winner in my book. I didn't even mind the ads at the top of the page.

But there were too many sites Opera didn't handle well, forcing me back to either Netscape or (shudder) IE. I've since made Firefox my default browser. I've yet to find a site it doesn't handle correctly with the exception of Windows Updates (which I suspect MUST be done with IE).

Does it make the web "more fun"? I don't know. But it certainly makes it a lot easier!

IE for Mac is barely usable these days. Slow, poor rendering, and lack of any real updates since 2000 mean Mac users must look elsewhere.

I like to use IE and find that Crazy Browser is a very fast shell for it, but I'm very worried about IE security. (Even though elements of Crazy Browser are two years out of date, it doesn't make it any slower). Firefox is also a very fast browser - but only when it's been tweaked to the hilt. Trouble is there's the odd feature or two in Crazy Browser that I like, that aren't currently in Firefox. I last used Firefox 0.9 and have recently tried Firefox 1.0 in the last week. It's faster than I remember (much faster), but it still has the odd feature or two missing. For that reason alone, I can't swap browsers at the moment because I don't want to lose those features.

johlee_99 wrote...

> And Opera was a good idea, until they decided
> to sell it (groan).

In case you didn't know, Opera has *always* been a commercial browser. It has *always* been sold.

How is Opera less of a good idea just because it's being sold? It can be used for free, you know. Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question.

> Browsers should be free period.

Says who? If Opera can make a living selling browsers, who are you to say that it's wrong?

> Opera was a great browser till it became
> "shareware".

Opera isn't, and never was, shareware. It was demoware until version 5, and with v5, it became free, while fully functional. All it does now is to show a narrow ad strip.

"And Opera was a good idea, until they decided to sell it (groan). Browsers should be free period. All future web browser designers, please make sure it's free."

Note: Opera for the desktop has never been free. Before version 5, there was a thridy day tryout period. Since version 5, you can choose whether to use the ad-sponsored mode or to pay a few bucks.

Well I have read everyones rants and opinions..but no one mentioned Avant Browser. I know your gunna say it's just IE inna different skin. Well I have used IE (SUCKS) Opera (Getting slow, fat and boring) FireFox( Nice but now getting too slow. Avant has everything all of those other browsers offer and is much faster than all of them.
There is no perfect browser out there. I switch around to different browsers a lot to see what is new and to keep experimenting. So far, Avant has me using it the most.

How sad is this... I used IE to download Firefox 1.0 and then used Firefox to download Opera 7.54 and try it out. Now I'll probably use Opera to download IE and crash my whole system all over again. Yippee!

"... desktop browser is primarily PR, as I see it."

THANK YOU! Most people do not realize that Opera is mostly targeting mobile and low resolution devices. They are the leaders in this market with amazing technology.

The desktop Opera is less than 4Mb, has a good rendering engine, has an excellent skinnable interface, has a lot of tools and accessories already built in (but easily disabled). People claim that Opera is too bloated... but it is smaller than Firefox with more features. To them, I say Firefox is inefficient.

One of the guys I work with uses Avant and swears by it.. now that there is another person out there that says the same I will have to check it out.

But seriously, A browser is a browser, they all do the same thing, some better than others. I dont care which one you choose as long as you dont use IE. I see computers come in all the time with Adware, Malware and Spyware all over them so bad you can barely use them. And what do they use? Whats provided for them of course, IE.

The average user needs a browser that is set by default to protect them first then focus on the entertainment value. If everyone used something besides IE for surfing the web I would prolly go out of business...

And thus continues the love hate relationship with IE.

*g* I SO agree with you, the web is to find information, I do not need to be laughing while I do that wooohooo I am riding on a Fox whatever ...

and you honestly think that those other browsers do not have security issues? the only reason we dont hear about them is that they are not a huge coorporation like MS

I tried FireFox and it DOES do the exact same thing as IE *lol* surf the web, it cant even read RSS without the RSS is specially build for FF *lol* nice try.