Login:
Password:

Firefox 2.0 vs. IE7 in Vista: How Close?

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

October 25, 2006, 5:53 PM

PERSPECTIVE With Microsoft not having launched a new Web browser since 2001, nor a new service pack since August 2004, Internet Explorer arguably had the longest road to travel to be ready for Windows Vista. Firefox, on the other hand, has had much more frequent point releases, with version 1.5 made available in November 2005.

But users have been anticipating major new releases for both brands in time for Vista. IE7, which entered beta in July of last year, struck first, surprising many with a bold and distinct new approach to arranging functionality. The new Microsoft browser would be as different from IE6 as Nissan's 350Z is from the 300ZX.

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. So among those who chose Firefox as a more functional, secure, and adaptable alternative to IE6 in Windows, Microsoft may have helped raise expectations that the Mozilla Organization could deliver something similarly as sweeping.

Whatever Firefox 2.0 is, it isn't "sweeping," and nowhere does that fact become more evident than in a Windows Vista test environment. If you ask Mozilla -- and we have -- FF2's principal changes from version 1.5 are these: 1) a cleaned up, well-tweaked user environment; 2) a new integrated spell checker; 3) cleaner handling of RSS feeds, which is one of Firefox' hallmarks; 4) a Session Restore feature, which brings the browser back to the point where it last left off, especially after a crash; and 5) a tab bar that no longer gets cluttered. Firefox first delivered the tab bar, and it's taken IE this long to finally, officially respond.

One little secret about Firefox, though, whose relative dirtiness may only be appreciated by enthusiasts, is that a well-used version of Firefox is by definition a well-customized one. Thus a great many things about that well-tweaked user environment, such as the relative positioning of the "Back" button with respect to the "Forward" button (a serious point of contention among FF2 beta testers), will actually be covered over by the user's choice of theme.

Most every heavy user of Firefox (and I am as heavy as they come) runs under one of the cooler-looking, more functional themes, my favorite being Johannes Schellen's Modern Pinball.

IE7 FF2 VistaAlso, for well over a year, we've had the ability through Firefox add-ons to clean up the tab bar, and endow each tab with its own close box. The on-tab close box is a new feature of FF2, but for many Firefox users, it isn't a new feature. Session restore capability has also been available as a Firefox add-on for well over a year.

This is supposed to be one of the good things about community-supported software. But Firefox's official annexing of these features may remind some of the "feature assimilation" tactics that has previously characterized Microsoft, and that may have made it a contender in Web browsing to begin with. Although, that would be an unfair characterization, since Mozilla apparently has no commercial motivation.

But with three of Mozilla's major innovations for FF2 having been knocked down, only two star items remain: First, XML pages containing RSS feeds now show up as typeset pages in FF2 rather than as XML source code. This was a must-have feature that first appeared in the earliest IE7 beta last year, and Mozilla could not be seen as behind the times in innovating RSS handling, which has historically been one of Firefox' key advantages.

Second is the spell checker, which may indeed come in handy in situations where the browser serves as the front-end provider for distributed applications, which is certainly the case in more and more enterprises.

When you put FF2 and IE7 together side-by-side, though, at least today, it's the latter browser that commands the most attention. Microsoft's is the browser with the most to lose, especially with its gamble on a completely renovated usage model. But Firefox's safe bet, by comparison, has garnered some less than flattering results, including one from my friend and colleague, Angela Gunn, who this morning in her USA Today blog called F2 "the most disappointing browser upgrade ever," promising more comments soon.

Microsoft Windows users are more acclimated to the realm of commercial marketing, which means that browsers, like brands of detergent and sports cars, eventually become overdue for overhauls, just before they get "refreshed" with a new image and logo. These users' habits are more like consumers - they expect change even when and where change isn't absolutely necessary, almost as though commercial products had "term limits" imposed upon them.

Next: Microsoft : Mozilla :: Intel : AMD

Continued. . .
1 | 2 | Next >>

Add a Comment (141 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By batteryfast

edited Nov 10, 2008 - 12:59 AM

When you put FF2 and IE7 together side-by-side, though, at least today, it's the latter browser that commands the most attention. Microsoft's is the browser with the most to lose, especially with its gamble on a completely renovated usage model. But Firefox's safe bet, by comparison, has garnered some less than flattering results, including one from my friend and colleague, Angela Gunn, who this morning in her USA Today blog called F2 "the most disappointing browser upgrade ever," promising more comments soon.

Microsoft Windows users are more acclimated to the realm of commercial marketing, which means that browsers, like brands of detergent and sports cars, eventually become overdue for overhauls, just before they get "refreshed" with a new image and logo. These users' habits are more like consumers - they expect change even when and where change isn't absolutely necessary, almost hp ze2000 battery hp hstnn-db17 battery hp f1739a battery as though commercial products had "term limits" imposed upon them.

Score: 0

By nard26

edited Nov 27, 2007 - 8:37 AM

I visited a hundred sites but none of those sites telling that IE won. ALL FIREFOX!!!!!! GO MOzilla

Score: 0

By roj

posted Oct 28, 2006 - 11:51 PM

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

By sfpoet

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 12:10 PM

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

By jp_ext

posted Oct 30, 2006 - 7:15 AM

Stick to wines you whiner.

Score: 0

By hugh750

posted Oct 28, 2006 - 10:31 PM

I just downloaded IE7 fianl version and i've had no problems with it.

Score: 0

By Browser12

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 11:54 AM

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

By jp_ext

posted Oct 30, 2006 - 7:14 AM

Who even cares about that?

Score: 0

By alexweber15

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 9:08 AM

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

By BklynKid

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 8:44 AM

Opera FTW!

Score: 0

By Sokkus

edited Oct 25, 2006 - 9:58 PM

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

By Neoprimal

edited Oct 27, 2006 - 1:27 PM

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

By huttman

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 11:36 AM

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

By jp_ext

posted Oct 30, 2006 - 7:16 AM

Shows how little you know.

Score: 0

By JeremyP

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 8:10 AM

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

By peterj1978

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 5:09 AM

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

By TomA102210

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 10:50 AM

"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

By Neoprimal

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 1:10 PM

Oh snaps you got someone's attention. LOL

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

edited Oct 27, 2006 - 4:02 AM

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

By stuarti

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 1:42 AM

IE7 is much better browser that firefox, just wait and see

Score: 0

By Secret Agent Man

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 10:17 AM

It'd better be. We've been waiting long enough.

Score: 0

By utomo

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 11:47 PM

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

By kirkton

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 12:28 PM

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

By DaveBG

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 3:15 PM

LOL
Just look at the pic in the article.
Firefox is a bloated piece of spy/adwere! :D

Score: 0

By darkzero63

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 12:06 AM

How do you know?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 3:14 PM

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

By wincement

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 4:58 PM

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

By GhoS

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 9:28 PM

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

By acey99

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 1:59 PM

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

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 3:12 PM

*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

By THZGryphon

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 2:27 PM

"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

By anand_trex

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 1:05 PM

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

By tipsyboy

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 12:28 PM

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

By ds0934

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 12:42 PM

more perfect words have not been written

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 11:00 AM

IE sucks donkey balls. PERIOD. Only noobs use that MS crap

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 5:00 PM

Noobs at what?

Here's a suggestion for ya:

Stop watching PurePwnage

Score: 0

By DaveBG

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 11:55 AM

Well dont use it if you dont like it. Its that simple!

Score: 0

By DudeBoyz

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 11:36 AM

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

By Zackajaweea

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 11:11 AM

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

By The Man

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 10:53 AM

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

By nate

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 12:23 PM

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

By wincement

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 5:04 PM

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

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 5:16 PM

I learned one thing very quickly

Just one? Wow...you must be fun to work with.

/couldn't resist

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 5:33 PM

Yeah. Everything else took a little longer...

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 10:12 AM

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

By Randall_Lind

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 9:52 AM

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

By foreignwarren

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 9:49 AM

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

By Grazer

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 3:20 PM

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

By colonelpwnage

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 9:36 AM

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

By davewalden

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 8:59 AM

Scott M. Fulton, III = Microsoft Poster Boy

Just goes to prove there is no such thing as objective media this days.

Score: 0

By hurzxx

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 10:58 AM

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

By wincement

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 5:05 PM

Dude... just shutup.

Score: 0

By uberfly

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 1:17 PM

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

By wincement

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 5:05 PM

Exactly

Score: 0

By nate

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 12:24 PM

...except he uses Firefox as his main browser.

Score: 0

By davewalden

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 9:17 AM

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

By DJGM

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 8:52 AM

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

By Silentmaster101

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 8:11 AM

What is this article made just to incite a flame-war?

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 11:48 PM

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

By Secret Agent Man

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 9:13 AM

"will Firefox users be happy using their browser in Vista without the degree of changes they'd experience with IE7?"

Yes.

Score: 0

By Garth Limbaugh

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 7:19 AM

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

By uberfly

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 1:21 PM

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

By Metshrine

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 7:43 AM

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

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 9:58 AM

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

By Metshrine

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 10:34 AM

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

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 11:31 AM

After installation, it's just like a duck to us. :)

That's one hell of a talented hippo.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 12:09 PM

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

By wincement

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 5:07 PM

Since you can't use Firefox extensions in IE, wouldn't that be a *feature* exclusive to Firefox?

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 5:07 AM

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

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 12:35 PM

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

By Metshrine

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 8:57 PM

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

By Silentmaster101

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 8:09 AM

on the other side ie7 has a built in pop-up blocker. :-)

Score: 0

By Secret Agent Man

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 9:16 AM

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

By The Man

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 11:30 AM

mmmm...AdBlock...
:-)

Score: 0

By alecmg

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 5:25 AM

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

By p0rt1s

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 8:49 AM

I open over 50 tabs in FF all the time. Navigation is very easy and FF has been stable throughout.

Score: 0

By midnighter_9999

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 5:22 AM

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

By Zee333

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 4:27 AM

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

By DudeBoyz

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 4:43 AM

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

By bsf

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 3:56 AM

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

By DraconPern

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 6:36 AM

You need http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox

Score: 0

By bsf

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 10:32 PM

sincerely THANKS!
now I'll just have to toss that to the IT department and hope they'll use it..

Score: 0

By Indyan

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 3:53 AM

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

By wincement

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 10:32 PM

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

By GordieT

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 6:54 AM

"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

By DudeBoyz

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 4:03 AM

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

By DigitalSin

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 1:41 AM

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

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 9:46 AM

Man, I hate salmon...

Score: 0

By BadIronTree

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 1:23 AM

Opera ftw

Score: 0

By copperhead666

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 12:02 AM

i am using vista and tryed both and found i like deepnet explorer and slim broswer both better than ie7 or ff2

Score: 0

By DudeBoyz

posted Oct 25, 2006 - 11:25 PM

Opera was not really a true tab system. That whole MDI thing was wack.

Score: 0

By dyna

edited Oct 25, 2006 - 11:22 PM

"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

By Secret Agent Man

posted Oct 26, 2006 - 9:19 AM

Actually:

"BookLink Technologies pioneered [tabbed browsing] in its InternetWorks browser in 1994."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabbed_browsing

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Oct 25, 2006 - 11:30 PM

I think he was just talking about Firefox vs. IE, in which case, Firefox was first.

Score: 0

By DudeBoyz

posted Oct 25, 2006 - 10:44 PM

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

By Metshrine

posted Oct 25, 2006 - 11:00 PM

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

By AntiochMedia

posted Oct 25, 2006 - 9:13 PM

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

By the artist

edited Oct 25, 2006 - 9:03 PM

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

By Daddy_Spank

posted Oct 25, 2006 - 11:56 PM

Go Opera!!!

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Oct 25, 2006 - 10:46 PM

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

By SnakerDLK

posted Oct 25, 2006 - 9:02 PM

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

By Hellcat_M

posted Oct 25, 2006 - 8:34 PM

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

By sanawar

edited Oct 25, 2006 - 8:31 PM

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

By Tenoq

posted Oct 25, 2006 - 8:28 PM

Does IE7 have AdBlock? If not, I'll stick with Firefox. Can't stand ads and popups all over my screen.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Oct 25, 2006 - 10:08 PM

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