one thing i love about firefox is that it is because of firefox there is sooo much competition. And Firefox has become blessing in disguise for both IE & Opera.
One thing im unhappy about Firefox is that mozilla's priorities has changed, even though ff is open-source *they* are going deaf to the community, is it greedy to ask them to get better.
NOW security should not be their number one priority.
Their priority should be functionality & features.
I have searched my pc many times with Anti Virus and ad-aware, still found nothing!
Much of our system's resources are getting used up by cc
Even after all that our system can get infected, then nothing can really stop what is supposed to happen some day.
If antivirus,antispyware and firewalls are running in the background , then it simply doesn't matter whether one uses IE/FF/Opera, one should use what one likes best.
that is why their priority should be functionality & features.

Crapstertech,

You have posted so much crap and lies that I am just sick of reading. You have taken BN from a great place to voice opinions to the worst place to come in only a few days. Your lies and bull crap have made it clear to everyone that Opera may have at once been an option in the future to never at all with your lies and crap that you have posted. You have been banned from more sites that I have ever been to, and you still have no idea of what you are doing. I am sorry that you are one of those people that have less that a 70 IQ, but you need to learn that you can't go around spreading lies and thinking you will earn friends that way. Again, I am sorry that you feel this way, I have looked up a few places that might be able to help you find friend of your ability, if you are willing to meet them. I would be glad to help. Just email the admin at http://www.hearmerworld.com God bless people like you and I hope that I am able to help find your place in this world.

If we can fight for a BROWSER, i will repeat browser.
Then i can imagine what will happen if few of us are going to meet (physically).
i will admit that i too took part in that & i feel stupid about that still i LOVE opera, but is it soooooooo hard to tolerate if other guy does not like what we like.

Firefox is good, many LOVE it
IE is good(7),90% use it
opera is good too, I love it.

Everything you have typed can not be proven at true and such can not be proven as false. You pick these things to tell everyone to prove you wrong and knowing that they can't prove and opinion right or wrong, then you are propelled to push harder saying that the OPINIONS that you try to pass as facts are proven, when the fact here is that you can not prove an opinion, only support one, and all you have done is turn millions away from Opera with your lies and opinions that you claim are fact, just because you paid a 13 year old child to post it in a site for you.

I have a suggestion: let's have a contest. All the fanatics of FF, Mozela, IE, and any other browser or OS agree to try to break into one another systems. The one that succeeds will advance the cause of their OS or browser. The only condition will be that no personal info will be revealed. Afterall, setting aside the bells and whistles, security is the name of the game when in comes to computers. So to all you fanatics, I say put-up or shut-up. I may not be the smartest but I'm smart enough to now that and build a secure wall. So, Anyone of you little kids willing to take up the challenge or are you afraid that all your little ranting oabout this browser or that browser or this OS or that OS is just a cover for your ignorance. Like I said, there's always someone smarter than you and someone knowing that will always beat an arrogant fanantical a**wipe.

No need for a hacker contest tscar12. There are more than one security site destined to test and count security vulnerabilities in each product everybody is flaming. Secunia is one of the most serious. Taking scores from there:

Micro$oft internet exploited: 21 security holes, various critical: http://secunia.com/product/11/
Mozilla Firefox has 4 security holes but none critical
Opera has 0 vulnerabilities.

So, anyone using IE have serious chances of being attacked. Microsoft is also patching monthly and without success for years now.
Isn't that enough? Ok, is your computer.
Of course, you can still browse safely in disney.com, cnn.com and maybe, microsoft.com. EOF.

Debunking the Debunking of Mozilla/Firefox.

The evidence is very clear. I can see where people are very adamant about coming up with a new technology, and ignoring the present one. MS has been around for over 20 years, its old! Not really, but youngsters ALWAYS want their era to be heard. Its this way with music, art, clothing, and its no different with software. If you go back in history, its the parents that complain about their children's choice in music.

Parents thought at one time, Classical music, which by today's standards is about as tame as you can get, was "devil music". Religion egotists back in the 17 and 18th century actually referred to Bach as the "demon spawn", yet historians proclaim him as one the founding fathers of the great composers. Years later, people thought Elvis was also "noise", and he has been considered by many as the founding father of rock and roll, which as we all know, is SATAN music... right? Metallica, AC/DC, sex, drugs rock and roll, we have all heard it.

So here we have software, MS is a bygone era from the "parents" of today. Children, REFUSE to acknowledge that era as having anything good, because well, its old! Its not old, MS employs people of all ages, young AND old. They are not simply a company full of old farts and people that grew up with the Dos prompt.

There are those of us, contrary to popular belief, that can progress. Do not confuse those hard headed people that can't see the usefullness of new products, with those of us that can and do. We ALL benefit, so why this contant bickering and bad mouthing?

I get into with people when their comments are OBVIOUSLY biased. I am not really biased, but I do take a biased stance, when people are simply being argumentative, or make statements like "Firefox is cool, MS sucks". That has no place.

So I contradict, on the same level as the apparent intellect with whomever I am dealing. I can be articulate, and I can be petty. I am not going to waste my time on some moron that is obviously immature, and only posts to start a flame war. So, I antagonize and attack. I get real tired of people that think their comments won't be challenged.

Well, *I* will challenge you EVERY chance I get. That being said, IE. Its a browser. Its part of an OS. Its also a MS product. Firefox, not without its problems, is a VERY SMALL COMPANY. Let's put that into perspective.

GM, makes what millions and millions of cars each day? So they have a recall. How long does it take to recall 500,00 vehicles? Before that happens you have to notify each and every GM Dealership. We aren't talking a few, we are talking hundreds of thousands of dealerships. So you have to notify them FIRST, you have to get them time to prepare, they have to get replacement parts, AND get trained on what needs to be done.

A small car company, an upstart, like Scion, has a new product. Its a very small car company, only 3 models to support, not many dealerships sell Scion, and since its still new, they have no history, no worry about previous upgrades or problems with other cars, they start fresh. They issue a fix for a car, its relatively simple, a few hundred dealerships, only a few thousand on the road.. its only going to take a few days to get the problem resolved, done.

GM. Let's be realistic. People are the problem, not the company. GM has to deal with not only customers, but bone head dealerships that don't follow instructions correctly, or follow timelines. So knowing this GM, issues a declaration of a recall. The dealerships can't simply be brow beaten into doing the fix, they have to be given an allowable time to prepare, so that could be 6 weeks, maybe longer. So GM says the recall will take place in 3 months.

In the mean time, EVERY customer get's notification that their car needs a replacement. How many people (and don't like, because I know how people are, and its already been discussed about how people are complacent and resistent to updates) pay attention to those notices? Its only after some dork fails to read owners manual, and their tire pressure is low, and their SUV rolls over, and then it comes out that GM coincidentally has a recall on something that is close, but not exactly the tire, and it affects this one family, a member gets killed, now you have a lawsuit, and GM is to blame. Yes, I know that was Ford, but still..

Scion, doesn't have this lasting history of cars on the road (which GM STILL has to be accountable for - parts, manuals, documentation, etc...).

Now. MS. Same identical thing. Replace GM with MS and scion with firefox, and you tell me that's its adequately feasible to update millions upon millions of customers (each one running not only Office, Windows, and a host of other MS products, but IE as well). Maybe every IT shop doesn't want to address those issues right away, because they have NO IDEA the impact that even a small security update with do.

Even if it is proven to be a huge security leak, many companies are slow (again its the people) to update, because a patch isn't going to fix one thing in the MS world. They choose to roll-up fixes into a service pack.

As a sideline, MSDN subscribers (of which I am one) we get updates, EVERY SINGLE DAY. This constant BS about Firefox coming up with fixes every so often and more often than MS is a TOTAL CROCK. I am tired of that c*** and bull story, and it needs to cease. Its abosolutely NOT true. You can get plenty of updates for IE each and every day and WHEN they become available.

The problem is, notification. Why notify about 1 security fix, when you can announce for a SP that is coming out to address these issues (which if you actually READ the damn announcement it clearly states - FIXES *ARE* available via windows update OR from the download site).

Firefox ONLY has to be accountable for their part, which amounts to a SINGLE product, of which 1 or 2 updates fixes it, now they can sit on their laurels and laugh at MS.. because their piddly updates didn't take long.

MS has to account for whatever library is shared in IE (It may share with Office, the OS - which is why many people *incorrectly* mistake that the IE is integrated into the OS - MS did mention this, but it was their feable attempt to snow the judge, so they didn't have to do something with IE. Its easier to say its combined with the OS, so they could make it appear to be a monumental problem, rather than trivial - Anyway, I digress.) that may affect OTHER products. Firefox doesn't care. As long as their product works "its MS problem". That, sadly, is part of the main reason why many products in Windows *SUCK!*. I am a programmer, and some of these companies disgust me with the way the manipulate windows, and then it appears to be a MS problem (one I keep proving time and time again is the registry. I can change a single registry entry and it would crash windows, now I ask you, is that TRUELY a MS problem? HELL NO!). If I go and release air out of your tires, and you fail to check them before you drive the vehicle... whose fault is that? Firestone? Ford? NO, its the customers fault. ITs your car, YOU take care of it. PERIOD!.

We have a huge responsiblity problem, parents want to complain about content on TV, turn the damn TV off! Parents want to give their kids drugs, rather than address their energetic children, umm.. its called find something productive for them to do, and quit whining about how you have no time to watch or spend time with your kids!

The point of this rant, is the show that Firefox has a simple update plan. MS can't feasibly update the whole world in a short amount of time, even with the internet.

Hell, I send an email to many companies daily, my average response time is a week. Yes, a week. Its totally rediculous. And when they do get back to you, its some automated response which has nothing to do with my question.

I know we have a communication problem, but the youngsters today WILL NOT see the benefit in using something their Parents used 25 years ago.

That's just historical fact. Firefox is the new age, and kids, young people, and new techs are going to do ANYTHING to discredit the incumbent, because they want THEIR era to be noticed.

Take it with a grain of salt, when it comes to security and updates.. but just remember 2 things.

MS is a multi-billion dollar company, that uses THEIR own product line. They didn't get their by producing or using crap. MS has been PROVEN to work, otherwise 80% of the global companies wouldn't use them.

Firefox is still new, doesn't anyone remember what happened even in '99 and '00? We had a dot com crash.. Everyone has a very short memory.. Firefox is the last of a few new companies that managed to survive the dot bomb.. So conceivably, they could be gone tomorrow. You want to invest your future in a product that has no track record? Go ahead.

I am sticking with MS. I have drivers, I have support, I have a company with ESTABLISHED history. If firefox crashes, and blows up and your bank account is compromised because of it.. Opps! Sorry. They will have no accountability.

I don't care what you think about MS, Banks, Fortune 500, Government, Games, they ALL rely on it, and to quote a very famous saying..

billions of people CAN'T be wrong. There is a reason MS has survived this long. Its no accident.

MS is a multi-billion dollar company, that uses THEIR own product line.

In fairness they did only switch from using Apache webserver on several of "their own" sites (Hotmail for example) last year.

Ummm that was like done a year after they bought the service.

What the ****K Are you talking about you stupid son of a biotch??? We all know they are a profit company and his post NEVER once said anything about that.

It's not anger, it 100% awe at how stupid you are!

As I was saying Masterlies, it is you who choose the sites to get your misquotes from. Perhaps you'd care to clarify to readers why they are posted in such a butchered & contextually incorrect way?

"...all web sites are IE compliant, use a browser with IE engine & tabs, & a fully patched system = 100% security." - FreewheelinFrank (MrFlibble)
Actual comment - "This includes 1 of Mastertech's typical phrases designed to suggest he is not the author ('Makes interesting reading') but then goes on to use the first person. Strange- that would be the first time for Mastertech. The notions are his: all web sites are IE compliant, use a browser with IE engine & tabs, & a fully patched system = 100% security."

"I'm not a big fan of evangelism or hyperbole, so when a page called "Firefox Myths" entered my radar recently, I was very interested." - Tre
Actual comment - "I’m not a big fan of evangelism or hyperbole, so when a page called “Firefox Myths” entered my radar recently, I was very interested. Then sadly disappointed. Rather than a balanced analysis of some of the folklore surrounding Firefox, it is merely a stream of weak arguments against imaginary “myths” supported by misquoting or deliberate misreading of sources. I’m not even going to reference the page".

"...Good stuff - give it a read." - Asa
Actual comment - "Robert Accettura has a nice response to the poorly constructed & mostly worthless article Firefox Myths. Good stuff - give it a read".

"It's an interesting read..." - Robert A. (Mac User)
Actual comment - "Someone looking for their 5 minutes of fame (obviously not worth 15 minutes) decided to post some Firefox Myths. It’s an interesting read, though has a few oddball statements, that really don’t make sense".

"The sources & data are convincing..." - Ryan J. (Editor note - this should start "...the sources")
Actual comment - "Even though the sources & data are convincing, I see nothing pro-Firefox there - notice no links about IE's insecuity I wonder why."

"...your web pages are actually pretty good: I personally link to Secure XP" - MrFlibble (FreewheelinFrank)
Actual comment - "What is clear is that Mastertech has unbelievable energy for incessantly persuing the same arguments over & over & over again, he is entirely incapable of admitting that anybody else has a valid point of view, let alone might actually have anything to add to the discussion that might contradict his pre-set notions, & will never give up until he has the last word on this subject, or until he finds the last internet forum on the planet to post in again & start up the whole argument again. Mastertech, I personally don't care if you have a bee in your bonnet about Firefox. I don't care if you see yourself as some kind of "Master Technician" come to save us from falacy. Personally I think you are becoming the "laughing stock of the internet." I don't care how many forums you post your articles/blogs/web pages in. Just know that you have attracted a lot of attention now, so posting 1 of your articles & talking about the author in the third person isn't going to work anymore. Admit authorship for what you write & post. Anybody Googling you past postings can see you have been dishonest. Some of your web pages are actually pretty good: I personally link to Secure XP, but as far as I am concerned you are a busted flush".

"Mozilla Firefox is a great web browser, but its praise is not without its share of exaggerations. ...Internet Explorer typically starts up faster than Firefox... Firefox is by no means perfectly safe. Users still have to use reasonable caution when downloading files & plugins from untrusted websites. Firefox ... does not yet have complete support for the current CSS, DOM, or even HTML standards." - David H. (Linux User)
Actual comments - "Internet Explorer typically starts up faster than Firefox the first time you double-click on the program icon. This is mainly because the core Internet Explorer engine is actually loaded into memory as your computer is starting up. Furthermore, not all components of the web browser are in memory when the browser window comes up. Some components, such as the favorites manager, are only loaded into memory when you access them, while Firefox loads everything at once.

Something as complex as a web browser will almost certainly have security vulnerabilities crop up from time to time. No major web browser has a perfect security record. There are some fundamental differences between the architecture of Firefox compared to Internet Explorer with regard to security, & Mozilla has shown a much better record than Microsoft at fixing its browser's vulnerabilities, as shown in this security summary, but Firefox is by no means perfectly safe. Users still have to use reasonable caution when manually downloading files & plugins from untrusted websites.

No web browser is 100% standards compliant. The web technology standards are very extensive & it often takes many years to implement all of the features of a standard, plus additional time to fix the bugs. In addition, the standards are always evolving & becoming more & more robust. Firefox (along with Opera, Safari, & Konqueror) is certainly a leader in the field of standards support, & is quickly adopting new emerging technologies, but it, like the others, does not yet have complete support for the current CSS, DOM, or even HTML standards. More information is available in this standards support summary".

"Any browser is more secure by not supporting... Firefox. All Browsers have vulnerabilities... No Browser can claim... to be 100% standards compliant" - Thomas (Editors note - This is actually me)
Actual comments (i.e. this thread) - "Any browser is more secure by not supporting ActiveX, not just Firefox.

All Browsers have vulnerabilities (& more will be discovered); what's more important than the number of vulnerabilities is how quickly they are patched & in that regard Firefox has a proven record of being quite secure much of the time, Opera also proved extremely responsive in this regard.

No Browser can claim (Or ever has claimed for that matter) to be 100% standards compliant. However, both Firefox & Opera clearly have made significant movement in this area while IE 6 lags well behind in all but 1 area".

"I'm tired of all of these Firefox fanboys who try to brush off the facts on your page... This is laughable. Your Firefox Myths page clearly says that it's dealing only with Windows versions of Firefox... Of course the fanboys refuse to look at the sources... I want to shove that... into their faces... This would be excellent ammo against the fanboys." - David H. (Linux User)
Actual comment - "Hey, guess what? It seems Mastertech has been watching this thread (a loophole in the ban system). I have removed him from all topic watch lists, so he should no longer be receiving notifications of new posts on these forums.

I also sent him the following e-mail:

Subject: Firefox fanboys spouting more lies

I'm tired of all of these Firefox fanboys who try to brush off the facts on your page. Someone on my forums tried to tell me that Firefox on Windows has never had an extremely critical vulnerability. This is laughable. Your Firefox Myths page clearly says that it's dealing only with Windows versions of Firefox, & it plain as day lists "1 Extremely Critical" vulnerability for Firefox, directly linking to Secunia's advisory page as the source. Of course the fanboys refuse to look at the sources, but I want to shove that vulnerability into their faces. I went to the source and started looking for the vulnerability, but I can't seem to figure out the Secunia website. Could you please give me a link to the extremely critical vulnerability Secunia lists for Firefox on Windows? This would be excellent ammo against the fanboys.

Thanks in advance!

I'm looking forward to his response. Wink

(& for historians who might wish to dig up this post, the contents of this e-mail are very much sarcastic & are purely intended to point out flaws in his article.)"

You mean, "Fanboy Misquotes".

dude I can contest many of your things, but like you said, I dont' want to spend the time.

This is your opinion, those myths have some merit.

You obviously like Firefox, so of COURSE you won't find fault with them.

I find it funny, that you complain about MT, but yet in your post, I ONLY see good things about Firefox.

A realist can see all in a product, the good AND the bad.

According to you, Firefox is perfect.. And that makes you full of s***.

Master, you have your own fan club..

I have a question, a previous post said you were banned on a bunch of website.. How do they KNOW those are you? Or did you admit to as much?

"How do they KNOW those are you?"

From his IP's:

http://www.webdevout.net...ic.php?t=38&start=0

Obviously you've failed to read my posts or anything I've been saying. Nowhere have I said Firefox is perfect. Here's some conclusions I've stated on Firefox Myths Debunked;
http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic44405.html
All Browsers have vulnerabilities (& more will be discovered); what's more important than the number of vulnerabilities is how quickly they are patched & in that regard Firefox has a proven record of being quite secure much of the time, Opera also proved extremely responsive in this regard.
Any browser is more secure by not supporting ActiveX, not just Firefox.
No Browser can claim (Or ever has claimed for that matter) to be 100% standards compliant. However, both Firefox & Opera clearly have made significant movement in this area while IE 6 lags well behind in all but 1 area; IE 7 offers some improvement over IE 6.

Where do I say it's perfect? Try reading before typing. Perhaps you've read the post I made last year when Firefox Myths was initially posted;
http://www.techspot.com/.../firefox-myths-debunked/
Noticed the site behind XP Myths has posted up a new article - Firefox Myths. Alas, while the former I think can be pretty useful in many instances this is not & offers a bias/misrepresented look at Firefox (Not to mention the fact that sources have been misquoted/misread). Do I say anything especially pro-Firefox there? Nope.

Or perhaps I should refer you to something I said last September;
Security (No Active X, although as popularity grows Firefox IS & WILL be exploited more & more...
& again;
Let it not be said that Mozilla is without security flaws.

Perhaps you'd care to re-assess your current belief that I am somehow a mindless fanboy who sees absolutely no problems with Firefox.

You means there's another Mastertech posting on Firefox myths who isn't you? As well as another Andrew posting who isn't you?

"They also think I post under various other names as well."

We are quite sure of it:

http://www.webdevout.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37

It's funny really, as the "Mastertech" that registered on TechSpot Forums also displayed an IP Address of 69.136.66.xx (Hidden for security) when I log into vBulletin admin console. Doing tracert on that address leads to a comcast domain. What's Mastertechs ISP? Comcast.

So believe as you wish rijp. You can believe that the same person has been impersonating Mastertech & promoting his articles on several forums for several months - right down to using the same IP address (& ISP) as the "legit" Mastertech. Or you can believe the "crazy" theory that he's used Aliases on multiple occassions while promoting the exact same articles in much the same way - hence the matching IPs. Now which of these seems the likelier?

Hey now, don't forget that I banned you from webdevout.net too.

You also got banned from Mozillazine, ban evaded, and got banned again. http://forums.mozillazin.../viewtopic.php?t=369823

Then there's Neowin, which you got banned from due to spamming the Firefox Myths page, trolling, and threatening to sue people because you didn't like what they were saying. http://www.neowin.net/fo...ndex.php?showuser=31164 (his user profile, which you'll need to be logged in to view; the thread that got him banned was deleted.)

You've also been banned from TechSpot due to spamming the Firefox Myths page. (http://www.techspot.com/...php?p=238896#post238896)

And let's not forget all of the sites you were banned from before the whole Firefox Myths thing. Why, here, I'll even let you spill the beans:

http://www.bamahome.com/...s/4/384.html?1003443229
http://www.bamahome.com/...s/4/524.html?1007277593
and then sometime after ranting about your bans on Forum bX, it seems you were banned on Forum bX as well: http://www.bamahome.com/...14/4537.html?1027205326

And don't try to pretend that you aren't Drew, because Drew=Mastertech was revealed in the replies to that first Forum bX post. Four and a half years later, you're still getting yourself banned everywhere you go. Perhaps the problem isn't just Firefox fanboys, since I don't recall there being many Firefox fanboys back in 2001.

Your site is so much like you full of lies that can never be proven seening how they are closer to opinions than they will ever be to facts. SHUT THE **** UP!!!!!

There are not a million ppl that use the last 6 that you could use, only 255.255 and seeing how that is beyond belief, even a court in any country would convict you for that bullshiat.

OOPS, my bad I mean 255. They have 3 out of the four that mean that only 255 ppl could be that out of the millions that would be more than enough!!!!

OMG! you just admitted to the bans, and are still trying to talk s*** to the admins that banned you. Damn you are a sorry sack of fish poop!

I banned you from TechSpot for spamming the forum, as you've done on countless others. I'm quite happy for others to criticise Firefox all they wish. Were you not spamming yourself on numerous forums you wouldn't have been banned regardless of how much others may like or dislike your comments. As I've clearly indicated here already, I've been quite reasonable & critical of Firefox over the months. Referring to us as fanboys is just a desperate defense as anyone can clearly see my checking my past statements.

On Evil Avatar you also "just posted a link" where you then proceeded to deny you were the author & refer to yourself in the third person (The poster, curiously, is a Mastertech);
"The author isn't debunking CSS" Mastertech
"He says that right here: "even without fully supporting XHTML yet"" Mastertech
"That is what he is getting at here." Mastertech
After several pages however your identity was exposed.

If you believe I intended to allow you to carry out similar spamming & deception on my forum then you were sadly mistaken.

Oh no, wait, this must be one of your impersonators again right?

On Evil Avatar you posted as Mastertech, referring to yourself (the author of Firefox Myths) repeatedly in the third person;
"The author isn't debunking CSS" Mastertech
"He says that right here: "even without fully supporting XHTML yet"" Mastertech
"That is what he is getting at here." Mastertech
You were finally sent packing from the forum after a member proved you were the author of Firefox Myths. How truly pathetic that is.

A page that is written by a 13 year old child filled with opinions are not facts.

Can you even read you retarded son of a crack wh***?

You have spammed your myth page about 60 times in the past week, maybe more. What the heck do you mean that you don't spam it?

If you do not know how many addresses can be in each octet of an IP address, then give it up. Just knowing the first three octets lets me narrow a potential location to a small area, like say a city. I can tell what he's talking about; it seems you don't. lowmrn01.pa.comcast.net sound familiar? Lower what in Pennsylvania?

Wow, it seems EVERYONE wants to be Mastertech!

I sure wouldn't want to be in your shoes, Mastertech. I would be quite bothered if I had been caught in as many lies as you (and you're the only one here who thinks you haven't), but you seem to thrive on making people sick of you. I don't get it. But looking through your past, it seems your mind has been in the gutter for a long time now and it seems you're beyond fixing. You've spread lies about all of us and then acted like we're making lies about you, and you think we banned you because we're stupid fanboys? Lots of people have said negative things about Firefox on my sites, but you're the only one I've banned. I even gave you several warnings beforehand.

Your site says "All Myths relate to running the default install of Firefox in Windows with no extensions."

You then say "Secunia - lists 97 security vulnerabilities in Firefox, 63 of which are rated as Highly Critical and 1 Extremely Critical."

But if you look at the only Extremely Critical vulnerability Secunia lists for Firefox, it says "This vulnerability can only be exploited on Unix / Linux based environments."

So Secunia does not list an Extremely Critical vulnerability that affected the "default install of Firefox in Windows with no extensions".

So your page lies.

QED

TO: tscar12, athome, GoodThings2Life.

What took you so long to bring these points up? I have been trying to encapsulate what you posted, so many times, yet I never seem to get support, until now. Where have you been?

There were all EXCELLENT points, I have wanted to illustrate, but couldn't find the right terminology, and in one morning, you managed to post the things I keep trying to reiterate.

I am glad to see there are 3 posts, all supporting the facts and personal choice. That's all this really comes down to.

You 3 should be commended.

Look, no browser is completely safe.It's all about critical mass. When a OS or browser reaches a critical mass, the hackers take notice and then put all their effort into exploiting the holes. Anyone that thinks their browser makes them safe should remember the old saying "their no such thing as an unsinkable ship." The Titanic was billed as unsinkable and what happen? it sank on it's maiden trip. Anyone who thinks they are automatically safe behind this OS or that one or this browser or that one, probablly would have been the first in line to buy a ticket on the Titanic.

Ha! I love it. Very good post.

Let's be fair: To be perfectly safe, disconnect your computer from the net.
Now, the main problem for the Titanic was (after the lie of saying it was unsinkable) that once the ship started going down, pleople on it denied the fact and sank with the ship.
The same applies to IE: If you don't start using Firefox, Opera or another product, you will go down faster than Titanic.
The spyware zoo destined to IE is bigger than any iceberg, and IE has more holes than Titanic and the WTC official story togheter.

Floodland- to set history striaght.. the Titanic sank because of the so called security features it built into the ship. When the fron of the ship starting filling up with water the bulkheads closed. what this did is make the front end heavy and as it went under water, it broke the ship in half. second, the ship didn't have enough liferafts. But more to your point, I have never said which OS i use or browser i use. I only said that they al have their problems. But I willissue a challenge to any of the fanatics on this site: Do whatever you want to try and break into my system and if you do, I'll come online here and acknowledge your Accomplishment and agree with your rantings. To make it even easier for all the fanatics out their, I use XP Pro and IE6. Good luck and put up or shut-up. As far as this Mastertech, he/she seems to be a nutcase so I tend to ignore the posts. By replying to his posts you just encourage him/her.

A page full of home made, 13 year old made crap that says little to nothing more that what you typed in.

None can be proven in the real world and none are facts!

To the general public, they don't care what browser they use to get to the Internet. In fact, they rarely even know what a browser is until you tell them. To say that one is better than the other is merely the techies/fanboys pushing their preference to these people.

Another fact, is that the people that are swayed to use a particular borwser don't know enough to update those browsers and therefore are no more secure for switching than they were in the first place - unless the said techie/fanboy tells them to do so. This will take some change in the way in which people use the Internet.

Usually, there is an event that happens to one's computer before even considering that there even is a problem and there are such things as updates. Most of the people I have come in contact with are shocked that SP2 will give them greater security than without. They hear that it causes problems with other programs and therefore have been told to not install it, when the only thing they use on it is Internet Explorer and Freecell.

Another funny piece of news that I often chuckle at is those that use the ISPs ATT/SBC, AOL, Netscape, etc, believe that they must use the browsers supplied by the said ISP to access the Internet.

I feel that in my position, I must provide the knowledge(educate) needed to perform the everyday tasks that the general user needs. Whether they use Firefox, Opera, Netscape, or IE they are all at risk. SP2 and all updates from Microsoft are necessary for security, but they may use whatever browser they wish is more secure and prefer - security is a state of mind. For simplistic reason, I will still tell them to use IE because the updates are automatic - Firefox is getting better with this, but all the extensions...

I really don't think that people care what they use as long as it takes them where they want to go and show them what they want to see. The browser wars will be fought by the techies/fanboys and not the general public. Those that are installing the plethora of browsers are not doing it for security reasons, but only because they are told to do so - even when applying updates. This gives statistical imbalance to the browser stat wars we hear all the time.

A long about way of getting my point across, and really not wanting to debate the issue with anyone. I just find it a bit comical to read the many points that are brought up here that relate to personal preference rather than security. As GT2L says, use what you like. Everything has risks, it is only a matter of time before it is exploited.

IMO

I look at these comments and can't help but think that there really shouldn't be this much discussion on the announcement that ANY product is getting an update for ANY reason.

Seriously... every company releases updates... you install them, or you don't... and who the heck cares what your opinion is on a product? Why does everyone feel a need to convince others that one product is better than another. USE WHAT YOU LIKE!

even though i too was acting like a fanboy,

but i agree with you.

If Opera is so good, then why is FF more popular? hmmm.....

I don't use FF because its "more secure" I use it because it does what I want it to. Opera doesnt, and I don't like Opera's UI. It also doesn't render a few pages properly, such as my ISPs one, and an IT store that I use. If Opera was so good i'm sure there would be alot more people using it.

because opera didn't use to be free,
it had ads.

Or...maybe...they just prefer to chose what ****ing browser they want to use, and prefer Firefox to Opera? You do understant personal choice, right? Or is that a completely foreign concept to you? Actually, scratch that, I know the answer, having seen you heckled off enough sites in the past. Do everyone a favor, quit spamming your stupid blog full of "myths". It's beyond tired.

Oh, and FYI, Diskeeper sucks, and the air force has some of the worst-skilled computer-related personnel I've ever seen. Have a good day.

Mastertech Debunked;
http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic44405.html
Perhaps Mastertech'd care to explain again the misquotes, lies, deceptive statements & bias throughout his page? (Instances of which I've thoroughly sourced & documented).

Try Googling "TSThomas" and "spam"- all references to Mastertech. Google "Mastertech" and "spam"- countless accusations for many sources that Mastertech has spammed his commercial web pages.

Spammer ehh? That's an ironic statement. Checking my logs I've been banned from zero forums/sites. Whereas you have been banned from...
Neowin - http://www.neowin.net/fo...ndex.php?showuser=31164
Digg - http://nanobox.chipx86.c...ch-banned-from-digg.php
Along with (To mention a few);
3dgpu
Anandtech
Forum bX
Geeks to Go
IntelZone
Lunarsoft.net
PCMechanic

For what? Oh yeah, spamming FirefoxMyths on their sites.

Too bad he's right.

Yep, Neowins a real Firefox fanboy site. According to your profile - http://www.neowin.net/fo...ndex.php?showuser=31164 - you registered on 20/06/2003 & had 796 posts at time of being banned. Yep, those fanboys pounced on you real quick.

Really? My mistake. Someone must have been impersonating you all those years on the site! Because, according to a search on Neowin "Mastertech" made repeated posts regarding Firefox promoting PopularTechnology & FirefoxMyths. You must be really irritated having a clone who goes around for 3 years promoting your work.

What are you stalking him? you obviously have waaay too much time so you can follow his career, are you threatened...

I find it truly amazing you claim he was banned, so following your own theory of debunking, you know this because....?

It's not a "claim" it's a fact. I didn't perform this however, others did;
http://www.webdevout.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=38

Any sources pointed out are met with responses of "That don't refute anything" without hesitation or consideration.
So why bother with that line when it far simplier to showcase your fraudulent, unethical character? This is something which is provable, irrefutable & verified by numerous sources.

It's because they were taking the first steps in the suit against you that ill put you in the poor house for the rest of your life as well as the next 1000 years of your families'.

Technically it would be yours as I don't need to spam my own articles.

You will see!

Firefox has an increasing percentage of users as people are realizing that IE, while convenient, does not have the stability of FF. Mozilla mobilizes quickly to patch FF as needed. Open source is another benefit to FF and many people are realizing that the open source movement is the way to go. The percentage of FF users will continue to climb.

Not according to these;
http://www.washingtonpos...11/AR2006021100217.html
http://bcheck.scanit.be/...page.php?name=STATS2004
http://www.cs.washington...e/papers/spycrawler.pdf
http://blogs.washingtonp...01/research_buggy_.html
http://bookofhook.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=387

Is it out yet?

I could care less if Firefox has 3239 vulnerabilities, if Mozilla fixes them before they are announced or mere weeks after being announced, then that's it. Whining is over, the problem is fixed. It's not like we're dealing with the 8-month-till-I-patch-a-dangerous-vulnerability Internet Explorer.

It seems like lately everyone is getting so patriotic about their browsers. If you're so worried about security, STAY OFF THE INTERNET. Mozilla claims it's a more secure browser, but that doesn't mean it's a fortress. By secure, i'm sure they mean "We actually patch our flaws in a timely manner".

Since Firefox now uses its nice update feature which only involves downloading the update code and not a new version of the entire program as existed in earlier versions, my thoughts would be "good".

What's the big deal?

Last I checked Secunia shows 6 vulnerabilities not fully patched:

http://secunia.com/product/4227

This one has not been patched since 8-20-04:

http://secunia.com/advisories/12403

if you really care about security, pick a browser with 0 unpatched vunrabilities, from a company that genuinely cares about security.

http://www.opera.com

No browser is secure. Opera has vulnerabilities as well. The difference is Firefox is open-source which is why they come out with fixes in a timely manner.

Opera only has 0 unpatched vulnerabilities because its user base is like..2% of all internet users. It has plenty of vulnerabilities, like all software. They will get found in time.

can I quote you on that. Opera really does take security seriously, I have no doubt that as it's userbase grows, the vunrabilities unpatched will not grow accordingly..

Opera has been out for more than a decade, yet has less than 2% using it. Version 9 still doesn't have a working wand. Why should we use Opera again? It can't render pages correctly (more than it should) no companies support it and all could careless. Why? I don't see the point in driving a car that you can't get fuel for and can't even keep up with a bike.

that is because it was not free for most of the decade.

& WTF are you talking about the wan, i have been using 9 ver from its first build and i have had absolutely no problem with the wand, may be your windows has some problem.

can you tell me how many pages it cannot render ? , compare that to size of the web.

And what kind of support do you really need ?

Most of us got on to the ff bandwagon because of the promise of the enhanced security, now after we all know those were empty promises, but now security is no a big deal to you guys.

If company support is really that big deal, and you want pages to be rendered properly then why not use IE ??????

IMO IE has more support than FF.(but i prefer opera)

rather than appreciating OPERA 9 you guys are like jealous that opera is getting better and even better every day

Opera also has an arrangement with Secunia to not post vulnerability advisories until Opera have released a patch. To say Opera has zero unpatched vulnerabilities is simply untrue.

Lets see how that compares to IE. 2003 Unpatched vulnerabilities;
2003-06-06 - http://secunia.com/advisories/8955/
2003-06-17 - http://secunia.com/advisories/9056/
2003-11-07 - http://secunia.com/advisories/10155/

2004 unpatched vulnerabilities;
2004-02-09 - http://secunia.com/advisories/10820/
2004-02-27 - http://secunia.com/advisories/10996/
2004-04-01 - http://secunia.com/advisories/11273/
2004-05-10 - http://secunia.com/advisories/11582/
2004-07-13 - http://secunia.com/advisories/7277/
2004-08-16 - http://secunia.com/advisories/12304/
2004-09-18 - http://secunia.com/advisories/12581/
2004-10-29 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13015/
2004-11-09 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13124/
2004-11-10 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13156/
2004-11-17 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13203/
2004-11-17 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13208/
2004-11-26 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13317/
2004-12-08 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13251/
2004-12-08 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13396/
2004-12-09 - http://secunia.com/advisories/13404/

While Firefox features 2 unpatched vulnerabilities from 2004, 1 of which applies only to Mac when using certain Plugins. Oh but wait, it's proven that vulnerability patches DO come faster for Firefox than with other Browsers;

http://www.washingtonpos...11/AR2006021100217.html
http://bcheck.scanit.be/...page.php?name=STATS2004

Never once did I say anything about FF or IE I was talking 100% about Opera. You are just trying to defend your unsupported non page rendering broke 10 year old browser that still is in it's first stages or beta even after 9 yes that is nine versions. You would expect it to work at least 90% and the Wand as in the information retention tool. It doesn't keep the information after you close the browser, I am not the only one that has brought this up. Opera's forums are full of this same problem in version 7-9.

I require TD resizing for a project. Could you verify that they have implemented that HTML 4.01 DOM feature yet? Nope, they haven't? Damn, guess I'll have to use Netscape 4 instead.

you haven't even tried opera, all your issues are unfounded.

that place feature of ff, it already exists in the 10 year old browser, the ten year old browser can pass ACID 2 etc etc.

Specify your problems,
Your post includes only your Opinion, and that does not make opera inferior to ff

We can all post links.

Firefox Myths misquotes;
http://weblogs.mozillazi...12/accettura_tears.html
http://www.webdevout.net...viewtopic.php?p=456#449
http://www.thingoid.com/...e-myth-of-firefox-myths/
http://robert.accettura....005/12/19/firefox-myths/
http://www.webdevout.net...viewtopic.php?p=137#137
http://www.webdevout.net...viewtopic.php?p=159#159
http://www.webdevout.net/firefox_myths.php
http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic44405.html
http://www.webdevout.net...viewtopic.php?p=646#646

Myth - "Firefox is Secure"
http://www.washingtonpos...11/AR2006021100217.html
http://bcheck.scanit.be/...page.php?name=STATS2004
http://operawatch.blogsp...o-be-released-soon.html
http://www.cs.washington...e/papers/spycrawler.pdf

Myth - "Firefox is More Secure because it does not use ActiveX"
http://msdn.microsoft.co...ts/activex/security.asp
http://www.sans.org/top20/
http://blogs.washingtonp...01/research_buggy_.html
http://bookofhook.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=387
http://en.wikipedia.org/...tiveX#Internet_Security
http://msdn.microsoft.co...security.asp?frame=true

Myth - "Firefox fully supports W3C Standards"
http://nanobox.chipx86.c...12/re-firefox-myths.php
http://www.webdevout.net...ser_support_summary.php

It's interesting to see you still use Poptech as a source considering you wrote said articles (3) yourself.

The latest instance of this being stated was on OperaWatch in March I believe;
http://operawatch.com/ne...o-be-released-soon.html
"Opera usually coordinates its browser updates with Secunia, so that Secunia doesn’t release any information about security vulnerabilities in the browser before a patch is made available." He then goes on to note additionally that "Opera 8.52 in the above languages was originally released with an insecure version of Macromedia Flash."

Opera Watch was first to break several Opera stories in the past & has been featured in the press on countless occasions including The Inquirer, CBS Market Watch, Red Herring Magazine, InternetNews.com, Slashdot, Investors Business Daily, Neowin, & more.

We all eagerly await your "that doesn't disprove anything" response.

Fun fact #5 - Firefox Myths uses 10+ blogs as sources, yet the use of blogs as contrary sources is derided by the author as hearsay.

I have no probems with the wand, it works fine, retains it info between sessions.

Perhaps it's a user problem...

If the fact that you link to the Poptech blog/forum at the top of the OptimizeXP/Firefox myths site, post there as Andrew, identify yourself as Andrew at the bottom of the OptimizeXP/Firefox site, and say exactly the same things on both sites isn't enough to convince anybody that your are either a)schizophrenic or b)lying, here is the proof:

1) You have posted a reference to Firefox Myths on the Poptech forum, where one of the forum members identified you as the author:

http://standards.spiralmindsinc.com/misc/Priceless/

2) You refered to the OptimizeXP site as 'my' guide on the forum:

http://72.14.203.104/sea...uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

3) You used the name GeneralAres for an image folder on the Poptech blog site. This is the other name you use for posting pages from OptimizeXP/Poptech on forums like TomsHardware, PCMech and AnandTech, and is also an email address you use when posting as Mastertech.

http://images.google.co.uk/images?

After all of these facts were poited out to you, you tried to cover up the truth by deleting pages or renaming folders, but unfortunately Google retains a record of your guilt.

Give it up Mastertech. Wouldn't it just be easier to admit what you have said?

Apparently two of them have no idea they are the same person.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/

"Note: All vulnerabilities discovered by Secunia Research are reported directly to the vendors in a responsible manner, giving the vendor two weeks to reply with a confirmation and details about the expected release date for the security update. Secunia always wait for the security update - as long as the vendor keeps a reasonable time frame for issuing the update and actively co-operate with the Secunia Research team."

"Opera usually coordinates its browser updates with Secunia, so that Secunia doesn’t release any information about security vulnerabilities in the browser before a patch is made available."

In other words, Opera does what any other company can do.

From this we learn that if Secunia does release a security warning, the vendor has not kept a reasonable time frame, has not cooperated with Secunia, or the vulnerability information has been made public by the vendor or other security researchers.

In other words, Opera or anybody else can keep the information under their hat for some time if they so choose.

The statement I've pointed to is from a respected Opera news site. What you have in text in quotes without a source. Tsk tsk, I thought you knew better than to post something without sourcing it.
I could just as easily have said I emailed Opera & received the response that "We do have a special agreement with Secunia regarding disclosure of vulnerability information". Alas, people are more likely to have believed me as I don't actually have a current & verifiable record of deception & misrepresentation.
To save you time, we'll just assume your response is "here's the email address, contact them yourself".

Unfortunately, it was you who choose those sites to source your misquotes from, not I (& it's something anyone here can clearly see for themselves). Perhaps if you'd removeed them as repeatedly requested we wouldn't have to constantly cite your lack of ethics.

I'm not sure why your issue with Webdevout/Nanobox - it's your primary source for "Standards Compliance". Perhaps if you don't like the author of said site calling you own your errors & misrepresentation of the site you should simply stop using it;
http://nanobox.chipx86.c...12/re-firefox-myths.php

First you claim to be called Vincent....

http://techreport.com/fo.../viewtopic.php?p=350389

....now you claim you are two people called Andrew.

????

Well you'd better contact OperaWatch as they are the ones that stated this.

I've not stated any "lies" about Opera, I merely re-stated what OperaWatch said, I can't help it if they are apparently incorrect.

Then again, there's a difference between unknowningly repeateing someone else's incorrect statement & knowingly misrepresenting 9 others statements;
http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic44405.html
So you still "lose".

Calm down! Nobody said there was a secret pact. TSThomas calimed there was an "arrangement"- it turns out Secunia have the same arrangement with all vendors.

As I said, you chose where to misquote & misrepresent, not me.

Myth: "Opera usually coordinates its browser updates with Secunia, so that Secunia doesn't release any information about security vulnerabilities in the browser before a patch is made available."

Reality: this applies to any vendor.

You're overreacting, Mastertech.

They are not incorrect.

Opera watch said "Opera usually coordinates its browser updates with Secunia..." because they were talking about Opera. The statement applies to any browser.

Sorry, Mastertech. No conspiracy or myths for you to debunk here. Move along please!

Whereas you need to stop creating alternate ones.

So, why doesn't MS follow this lead, or hey maybe they do!

I think mastertech is right, you have baseless debunking.. your mama weaned you to early didn't she?

Wow this is like a rugby game, MT feeds, he sees an opening, oh intercepted by TS, fibble, takes the inbounds pass, over to.. now MT has the ball, he crosses the center line, he shoots, he scores..

Oh wait, due to a security falacy in Firefox, the scoreboard has to be reset.. so sorry folks, once we get the problem fixed, the game will continue..

Read your own link, Mastertech:

"All vulnerabilities discovered by Secunia Research are reported directly to the vendors in a responsible manner, giving the vendor two weeks to reply with a confirmation and details about the expected release date for the security update. Secunia always wait for the security update - as long as the vendor keeps a reasonable time frame for issuing the update and actively co-operate with the Secunia Research team."

No, I was quite contently sucking at her teat until puberty (Eye roll).

Only you could reduce a complex issue to spiteful and juvenile point scoring and myths about secret pacts. The fact remains that if a vulnerability is found by Secunia in any browser, we may not hear about it till the patch is released, so to say any browser is 100% secure is to say something we can never be sure about because we cannot know for sure what vulnerabilities exist in any browser.

"They don't have an "arrangement" with anyone."

As your link clearly states, they have the same arrangement with all vendors.

Um I have tried Opera, how do you think I know that it loads slower, doesn't even render BN right and that the Wand doesn't work. All are facts not opinions.

It is clearly an arrangement. Nobody used the word "special" until you did.

Nope. I've never needed to stoop to the level of impersonating myself / someone else online to make a point or promote anything. My IDs pretty consistently been TSThomas wherever I'm registered.

Facts were stated as from Operawatch, all your email proves is that it's not Opera alone with such an arrangement, rather all vendors. So technically I'm not wrong in any sense, just your chosing to interpret Opera as having a "special" relationship is.

That was the first time the word "special" occured.

You are a deeply sad and delusional character Mastertech, and your hatred for an internet browser is pathetic. Even more pathetic is your need to troll the internet bashing people over the head with it. Sadder yet is the fact that this is only your latest obsession- in fact you used to be an anti-Opera troll.

These things are sad, but your spamming if a commercial site, lying about your identity, repeated denials in the face of clear evidence and hateful attempts to put people down are deeply offensive.

Firefox has had vulnerabilities, but they have been patched before exploits emerged. However much you spout the number of past Firefox vulnerabilities, or tell us about the minor vulnerabilities which remain, it doesn't change the fact.

Nobody is a fanboy here: that's just a juvenile term you use to reduce the argument to your level. Some of us do try to counter your anti-Firefox propaganda. We do not bash Opera- It's an excellent browser with a very good security record and excellent standards compliance. But we do challenge you preposterous notions that Opera having zero vulnerabily warnings makes it a totally secure browser- it has had vulnerabilities in the past and may have more we don't know about- and that IE can be considered as secure as Opera and Firefox despite repeated instances where exploit code has emerged before patches have been made avialable. As has happened again now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20060501/tc_zd/177095

You are the one guilty of bashing and downplaying Opera. You are clearly a hypocrite, because you recommend Opera only because it suits your anti-Firefox campaign. In other places you have been as critical of Opera as you are of Firefox here:

http://my.opera.com/comm...show=0&perscreen=50

http://s4.invisionfree.c...?showtopic=544&st=0

The only time the word "special" is used is in the Secunia response.

All the claims are properly sourced, Mastertech. I'm sure you would approve!

Anybody can check out the sources.

Exactly which of the beneath is not properly sourced on my end? Anyone can check the links provided & see the Comments made as compared with what you stated. It doesn't get better sourced than this.

"...all web sites are IE compliant, use a browser with IE engine & tabs, & a fully patched system = 100% security." - FreewheelinFrank (MrFlibble)
Actual comment - "This includes 1 of Mastertech's typical phrases designed to suggest he is not the author ('Makes interesting reading') but then goes on to use the first person. Strange- that would be the first time for Mastertech. The notions are his: all web sites are IE compliant, use a browser with IE engine & tabs, & a fully patched system = 100% security."

"I'm not a big fan of evangelism or hyperbole, so when a page called "Firefox Myths" entered my radar recently, I was very interested." - Tre
Actual comment - "I’m not a big fan of evangelism or hyperbole, so when a page called “Firefox Myths” entered my radar recently, I was very interested. Then sadly disappointed. Rather than a balanced analysis of some of the folklore surrounding Firefox, it is merely a stream of weak arguments against imaginary “myths” supported by misquoting or deliberate misreading of sources. I’m not even going to reference the page".

"...Good stuff - give it a read." - Asa
Actual comment - "Robert Accettura has a nice response to the poorly constructed & mostly worthless article Firefox Myths. Good stuff - give it a read".

"It's an interesting read..." - Robert A. (Mac User)
Actual comment - "Someone looking for their 5 minutes of fame (obviously not worth 15 minutes) decided to post some Firefox Myths. It’s an interesting read, though has a few oddball statements, that really don’t make sense".

"The sources & data are convincing..." - Ryan J. (Editor note - this should start "...the sources")
Actual comment - "Even though the sources & data are convincing, I see nothing pro-Firefox there - notice no links about IE's insecuity I wonder why."

"...your web pages are actually pretty good: I personally link to Secure XP" - MrFlibble (FreewheelinFrank)
Actual comment - "What is clear is that Mastertech has unbelievable energy for incessantly persuing the same arguments over & over & over again, he is entirely incapable of admitting that anybody else has a valid point of view, let alone might actually have anything to add to the discussion that might contradict his pre-set notions, & will never give up until he has the last word on this subject, or until he finds the last internet forum on the planet to post in again & start up the whole argument again. Mastertech, I personally don't care if you have a bee in your bonnet about Firefox. I don't care if you see yourself as some kind of "Master Technician" come to save us from falacy. Personally I think you are becoming the "laughing stock of the internet." I don't care how many forums you post your articles/blogs/web pages in. Just know that you have attracted a lot of attention now, so posting 1 of your articles & talking about the author in the third person isn't going to work anymore. Admit authorship for what you write & post. Anybody Googling you past postings can see you have been dishonest. Some of your web pages are actually pretty good: I personally link to Secure XP, but as far as I am concerned you are a busted flush".

"Mozilla Firefox is a great web browser, but its praise is not without its share of exaggerations. ...Internet Explorer typically starts up faster than Firefox... Firefox is by no means perfectly safe. Users still have to use reasonable caution when downloading files & plugins from untrusted websites. Firefox ... does not yet have complete support for the current CSS, DOM, or even HTML standards." - David H. (Linux User)
Actual comments - "Internet Explorer typically starts up faster than Firefox the first time you double-click on the program icon. This is mainly because the core Internet Explorer engine is actually loaded into memory as your computer is starting up. Furthermore, not all components of the web browser are in memory when the browser window comes up. Some components, such as the favorites manager, are only loaded into memory when you access them, while Firefox loads everything at once.

Something as complex as a web browser will almost certainly have security vulnerabilities crop up from time to time. No major web browser has a perfect security record. There are some fundamental differences between the architecture of Firefox compared to Internet Explorer with regard to security, & Mozilla has shown a much better record than Microsoft at fixing its browser's vulnerabilities, as shown in this security summary, but Firefox is by no means perfectly safe. Users still have to use reasonable caution when manually downloading files & plugins from untrusted websites.

No web browser is 100% standards compliant. The web technology standards are very extensive & it often takes many years to implement all of the features of a standard, plus additional time to fix the bugs. In addition, the standards are always evolving & becoming more & more robust. Firefox (along with Opera, Safari, & Konqueror) is certainly a leader in the field of standards support, & is quickly adopting new emerging technologies, but it, like the others, does not yet have complete support for the current CSS, DOM, or even HTML standards. More information is available in this standards support summary".

"Any browser is more secure by not supporting... Firefox. All Browsers have vulnerabilities... No Browser can claim... to be 100% standards compliant" - Thomas (Editors note - This is actually me)
Actual comments (i.e. this thread) - "Any browser is more secure by not supporting ActiveX, not just Firefox.

All Browsers have vulnerabilities (& more will be discovered); what's more important than the number of vulnerabilities is how quickly they are patched & in that regard Firefox has a proven record of being quite secure much of the time, Opera also proved extremely responsive in this regard.

No Browser can claim (Or ever has claimed for that matter) to be 100% standards compliant. However, both Firefox & Opera clearly have made significant movement in this area while IE 6 lags well behind in all but 1 area".

"I'm tired of all of these Firefox fanboys who try to brush off the facts on your page... This is laughable. Your Firefox Myths page clearly says that it's dealing only with Windows versions of Firefox... Of course the fanboys refuse to look at the sources... I want to shove that... into their faces... This would be excellent ammo against the fanboys." - David H. (Linux User)
Actual comment - "Hey, guess what? It seems Mastertech has been watching this thread (a loophole in the ban system). I have removed him from all topic watch lists, so he should no longer be receiving notifications of new posts on these forums.

I also sent him the following e-mail:

Subject: Firefox fanboys spouting more lies

I'm tired of all of these Firefox fanboys who try to brush off the facts on your page. Someone on my forums tried to tell me that Firefox on Windows has never had an extremely critical vulnerability. This is laughable. Your Firefox Myths page clearly says that it's dealing only with Windows versions of Firefox, & it plain as day lists "1 Extremely Critical" vulnerability for Firefox, directly linking to Secunia's advisory page as the source. Of course the fanboys refuse to look at the sources, but I want to shove that vulnerability into their faces. I went to the source and started looking for the vulnerability, but I can't seem to figure out the Secunia website. Could you please give me a link to the extremely critical vulnerability Secunia lists for Firefox on Windows? This would be excellent ammo against the fanboys.

Thanks in advance!

I'm looking forward to his response. Wink

(& for historians who might wish to dig up this post, the contents of this e-mail are very much sarcastic & are purely intended to point out flaws in his article.)"

Exactly. The statement from Opera watch that"Opera usually coordinates its browser updates with Secunia" is perfectly consistent with the statement from Secunia that:

"All vulnerabilities discovered by Secunia Research are reported directly to the vendors in a responsible manner, giving the vendor two weeks to reply with a confirmation and details about the expected release date for the security update. Secunia always wait for the security update - as long as the vendor keeps a reasonable time frame for issuing the update and actively co-operate with the Secunia Research team."

You obviously got hold of the wrong end of the stick and started imagining conpiracies and secret pacts and went off to ask Secunia if they had a special arrangement with Opera, and they wrote back to say that they had no special arrangement. The first time the word "special" appeared was in Secunia's reply to your email. Everything else said before that is perfectly clear. If Secunia finds a vulnerability, it may be kept secret (with certain conditions.) Thankyou for establishing the point that this applies to all vendors; no thanks at all for going off at the deep end about "secret pacts."

You are the one who has twisted this into a myth of secret pacts between Opera and Secunia to put on your page.

Every piece of software has some bug or issue in it. That's normal everyday life. You find problems and fix them. If you don't like bugs in your software, then go back to pen and paper. Shsshhhh.

Remember that the 10% that do use FF are usually the ones more likely to find issues with it.

The 90% that use IE are generally people who don't know how to do much more than surf the net, and in most cases only use it because it came with their computer.

I dont agree with you on that,
"Remember that the 10% that do use FF are usually the ones more likely to find issues with it."

WHY ???????

Because IE comes with Windows. 90% of computers run Windows. Generally, the uptake of FF is more common with people who know their stuff when it comes to computers, such as programmers. These are the people more likely to find bugs with the software and to report them.

I couldn't agree with you more. These days, the only way to get average users to switch to Firefox is through Internet Explorer problems.

For example: Internet Explorer doesn't allow a user to attach files to an email for some miscellaneous reason. Show them Firefox, and then ask them to try again. It works, and they're interested.

This is such nonsense. I find more psuedo-tech types who "think" they know more who use Firefox.

There are plenty of ones with actual knowledge who use browsers such as Avant, Maxthon and Opera.

Stop trying to pretend the people who use Firefox are smarter when in reality the far majority either fell for or believe one of these Myths:

http://www.FirefoxMyths.com

Don't forget to read Firefox Fables:

http://nanobox.chipx86.com/FirefoxFables/

You forgot the bbcode [/shamelessplug] closing tag. :P

I agree - there's plenty of educated techs that use Avant and Maxthon. That's why I never trust "educated" techs.

The only ones I would trust would be people like FDV off MSFN. He's an Opera supporter that totally gutted IE out of his windows, and discovered that it dropped the at-boot memory usage roughly 20mb.

What, you think people aren't going to notice that your link diverts to your site rather than Firefox Fables? You think people won't notice a piece of shameless deception?

Go to the real site here:

http://nanobox.chipx86.com/FirefoxFables/

No, I think you bought firefoxfables.com and then set it to redirect to Firefox Myths at Comcast. Doh! Not really difficult to spot.

The real Firefox Fables is of course the parody of your web site which you tried to have taken down and now try to prevent people seeing with this deception.

Actually, he knows everything he's breaking, and he tells you with giant red warning text before you do it. :P

My point was that he's actually tried stuff - he has experience.

I didn't say that. I said that he has experience, and that he warns you what components you're getting rid of, and what they will likely break.

There's lists of what hundreds of common programs depend on. Use all the resources presented to you, and you're much less likely to screw up.

Microsoft makes hundreds or maybe thousands of products, problems are found mostly in application used by masses.
NO company would like their costumers to be unhappy, Microsoft would not like to intentionally slow down their speed in fixing problems in their programs, this thing have been further proved by FF ,as the user-base started growing so did the issues, same thing might happen to opera.

But IE has a user base of ~90%
and FF ~10%
what scares me is that at ~10% already there are tooooooooo many issues

Mozilla is for PROFIT so how are they different from Microsoft

The Mozilla Corporation may be for profit, but they donate nearly all of their profits to the non profit Mozilla Foundation.

Reid Hoffman is there for profit.
Business IS for profit
a taxable business unit IS for profit.
if they donate EVERYTHING, then what was the point in creation of a taxable unit ?
If they are so charitable , then why are they paying taxes ?

So that they can hire lawyers to beat off other lawyers in the future? :P

The primary use for these profits are to further development of free software such as Firefox and Thunderbird.

a venture capitalist must have profit as his priority,

"The primary use for these profits are to further development of free software such as Firefox and Thunderbird."

so how are they different from Microsoft ?
Microsoft also uses the profits to make their stuff better.

and at least they have guys with knowledge in software development as the head of Microsoft.

And mozilla have lawyers, and lawyers are good at Publicity.

The is Enterprise action, not MS Corporate ignore-the-client.

@MasterTech, you should have been complete in your tendentious Troll comment....securnia reported the 24 vulnerabilities AFTER Mozilla fixed them AND opposed to your bubble statement, IE integration into OS is even confirmed by MS as the dumbest thing they ever did, which is why they are scrambling to pull it out of Vista OS!!!!!!!!

Except for the fact that they are only fixed in the latest version 1.5.0.2. Many users are not updating their browsers and are vulnerable.

Considering Auto-updates are enabled by default that's highly unlikely. It's worth noting that none of those were exploited either. When was the last unpatched, exploited IE vulnerability... Oh thats right, this month.

Anyone using IE5 is vulnerable too, and it doesn't ask to update itself either. >_<

Windows Update requests it for IE5, but if people have IE5 they likely aren't visitting WU. Firefox 1.5 will pop up a box asking you.

...assuming they run Windows Update.

Like I said, if someone is still running IE5, they probably aren't updating via WU, which means they aren't going to get browser updates at all. Firefox and Opera's methods are better.

There is a BIG difference.

Notice how MOST of the firefox security issues 'merely' crash the browser, while A LOT of the IE security issues compromise the system itself?

I hope IE7 on Vista really does away with all that sht. I know for sure IE7 for XP just rehashes all the problems that IE6 has.

Oh you must have missed the recent whopping 24 vulnerability Firefox Secunia advisory rated as Highly Critical.

http://secunia.com/advisories/19631

Wow, nice link! Definitely bookmarking that.

And they promoted it as the safest browser.
imo security wise there is no BIG difference between ie and ff(looking at they fact how long both the products have been in the market) , therefore i think ie7 in vista will easily get its market share back, because security wise IMO IE7 will be lot more secure (than even FF), and the fact that ff is slower, and those who are using ie6 they have no problem even if they dont have tabs and extensions.

Bad days ahead for for FF

Who is to blame ?

many would like to crucify me for this post, please explain to me why was it different when Microsoft came up with numerous patches ?

Im happy that i had changed my default browser to opera because if i was one of those numerous ff user i would have spent toooooo many hours updating to new *fixed* builds, and even more time updating extensions.

Having been dependant on an extension and not being able to use it for days totally sux.

At least i dont have to go through all that.

I have a version of ff which i have not updated for many months (yes months) but when i need it i use it without much tension.

All of us have enough protection thanks to preventive softwares.

Still people are freaking about security.
If my PC will crash tomorrow/today or a month later, i will have to face that.
There is still no software which can prevent that.

But mozilla made promises, of the safest browsing experience and made us to dump ie for ff.

And now there are thousands of n00bs who think that ff might prevent those attacks.

FF is good so is IE and IE7 is much better, but IMO opera is at present THE BEST (IMO not everybody's).

FF will be always FAR safer than IE.
Mozilla doesn't hide the found bugs
as MS does. It is open-source, so
everyone in the world knows immediately
that a bug was found (and shortly after
it is corrected). So it's just the
fault in your perception of what
is called the security. All that big
projects always have bugs, Opera does
too. The point is, to fix'em fast.

IE is and will be far, far, worse
browser (engine) than anything else.
It cannot be compared to FF any way.

tell me something i dont know.
there is no such thing as perfect not closed nor open.
What matters is the user base ,and should i remind you that how much time both products have been in the market (and then compare the issues)

there is no easy and perfect way to compare them.
vandals want more and more destruction, so are they going to go for ~90% of people using ie or ~ 10% using ff ?

At least i dont feel so strongly about an object, and im not so opinionated if someone dont pays me in doing so.

If mozilla will pay me something little out of millions they have made i would love to do PR for them and in that circumstance i will also agree with you.

can you remind me what these guys promised us and how is that saying that FF is safer will make it safer.
if you guys are getting something for showing strong feelings about ff please tell mozilla that i would love to do the same thing for them , of course in exchange of something.

"many would like to crucify me for this post, please explain to me why was it different when Microsoft came up with numerous patches ?"

I seem to remember that IE left its users exposed to auto-installing malware for weeks, while Firefox fixed the vulnerabilities before exploit code emerged.

If you want to see auto-installing malware in action with Firefox, you have to be running 1.0.4, and if you haven't updated since then, you really deserve what you get, since virtually ever piece of internet-interactive software has had security patches since then, Firefox won't be the only thing full of holes- Java, Quicktime, Flash have all had security vulnerabilities.

http://sunbeltblog.blogs...firefox-exploit-in.html

many would like to crucify me for this post, please explain to me why was it different when Microsoft came up with numerous patches ?

The complaints about Microsoft were primarily due to the lack of immediacy when it came to releasing patches even in instances where exploits were "in the wild" (As we've seen again this past month) & the fact that in several cases the updates themselves were buggy. Note that in the past 6 months or so security agencies such as SANS/CERT have released unofficial patches for 2 or 3 Microsoft vulnerabilities as they felt Microsoft were taking too long also.

I applaud Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera or any other party who releases vulnerability updates & certainly don't much care whether a patch fixes 2 or 30 vulnerabilities so long as it fixes them. But as noted on Secunia, there are multiple vulnerabilities listed for IE dating back to 2004/2003 (& 2 for Firefox dating back to 2004). That I find pretty unacceptable.

""What was previously called 1.8.0.3 will s*** to 1.8.0.4. 1.8.0.4 will ship on a schedule slightly offset from the original 1.8.0.3 schedule to accommodate the new release in the middle," developers said on Thursday.

"The new 1.8.0.3 release is happening off of a mini-branch from 1.8.0.2 so no action is required to back out patches or stop landing patches for the next release."

The DoS problem affects the latest Firefox 1.5.0.2 build, which was released earlier this month to correct a slew of security-related flaws."

Am I confused or did I miss something? I don't track any of the releases for FF. Am I the only one seeing 1.8.0.3 and 1.8.0.4? Should they be 1.5.0.3 and 1.5.0.4? Just asking for info not flames this time.

I would assume those are the internal version numbers of the bon echo alphas.

I thought those were 1.6.X.X

I'm not sure. I know the Deer Park alphas were either 1.4.x.x or 1.6.x.x. If they were 1.6.x.x, then it'd be logical that Bon Echo would be 1.8.x.x.

I can't verify though, so...

I really don't know.

1.8 is the mozilla build number.

I believe they refer to the Gecko engine version. Firefox 1.5.0.x are built on Gecko 1.8.0.x.

Deer Park was 1.0.x.x (and later 1.4.x.x when it was decided to release as 1.5 instead of 1.1)

A brief explanation is called for methinks . . .

The 1.8.x number refers to the version of the Gecko engine used within the browser.
For those that don't know, Gecko is the name of the HTML rendering engine used
in all the Mozilla based products, not only in Firefox, but also in the Thunderbird
e-mail/news client, the SeaMonkey Suite (based upon the old Mozilla Suite),
plus Netscape (from v6.x up) and the Mac OS X only Camino Browser.

The Build number is the the long number that refers to the date when the build was
compiled. So a "nightly build" for today would have the build number 20060429.

A typical user agent ID string for a Mozilla product looks like this:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.8.0.2) Gecko/20060404

Mozilla/5.0 means it's a 5th generation browser. (IE is still a 4th gen browser!)

Windows; self explanatory ... the U; part means it uses high grade encryption.
Windows NT 5.2 means it's running on an installation of Windows Server 2003.
(Windows NT 5.1, refers to Windows XP. Windows NT 5.0, is Windows 2000)

en-US refers to the language and localisation ... United States - English.
(en-GB would refer to British English, but you knew that already!)

rv:1.8.0.2 ... see my opening paragraph. (rv is short for revision.)

Gecko/20060404 means this particular build of the Mozilla/Gecko
codebase was compiled on 4th April 2006 ... FWIW: 25 days ago.

The version numbers that they were using (1.8.x.x) are the version numbers for Gecko, the rendering engine used by Firefox. Since the fixes that they are making are actually to Gecko, they used those version numbers in the quote because they were more accurate.

If you were wondering why Gecko's version numbers were higher than Firefox's, it is because Gecko was originially used in the Mozilla Suite (Seamonkey Project), which is currently at the 1.8 level.

5th gen browser?

Explain.

Firefox is fine.

Every piece of software will have/need patches now and then.

Microsoft on the otherhand needing them all the time is a tad nutz.

Consider the differences in

1.) The amount of code.

2.) The level of intereaction with the OS.

...and you have your explanation.

I agree, but then again people argue about how IE is faster than other browsers and what not...

I guess its just a matter of preference then? Speed or relative security?

"people complain about how IE is faster "

Complain?

I think they may claim that, but I doubt they complain about it.

Lol, sorry about that.
It's edited.

OH, so IE, what's that, snacking between meals?

I love how you give exception when its *NOT* a MS product..

Every is so eager to blame MS for their continuous updates, but Mozilla? HA! Its just a patch every now and then.. Yeah!

Umm.. I don't ever remember seeing ANYONE promoting IE as faster. Maybe more integrated, seemless, and convenient, but not faster...

This has been another war waged someplace else, Netscape proved it was faster than IE, back when Windows 95 came out.. IE has never really been a fast browser, but its easy to use, and its easy to attain..

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but IE 6 loads faster then either Opera or Firefox cut in half.

Firefox cut in half runs twice as slow as IE @ 100%? Interesting..

It could be that IE has not add-ins to support..

Be careful you are making a case for IE...:)

I know what I am saying. I still love the features of FF even with it's bug. IE is built into the OS, so yes it's faster.

It slows your boot time. Remove IE(difficult), and your boottime should drop about 8 seconds. For most new computers it's about a 20% startup speed boost.

I will take your word on that, but I need IE for all MS betas.

IE6 is also antiquated. :-)

a) IE7 is faster.

b) It is nothing wrong with patching security issues. In fact its needs to happen if we want to avoid evil attacks.

security flaw = weakness for a potential attack

Update and the security flaw will not affect you anymore.

I never observed Firefox attacks. I assume that you are even safe when you use FF 1.0, not against potential attacks but real world attacks.

In fact, I am glad that Microsoft is so responsible for fixing bugs in their products for 5 years or more. This is great in support.

But what pisses me off is that when exploits are made public, they do not react fast enough. The previous 0day exploit is a great example. I don't think QA is a good excuse.

Well, you shouldn't really. Whenever I remove IE I also gut out most services and things. Almost everything non-MS still functions, but my boot time is roughly quartered. Not removing IE results in a delay between logon and windows being ready. I've found that with IE installed, programs typically take much longer to startup during boot. With IE removed, I can start avast+kerio+trillian+firefox+Locate+thunderbird in about 10 seconds.

All in all, removing IE seems to yield about a 8 second quicker boot after programs are installed, so removing other things will have a bigger impact.

No Opera loads faster than both and IE 6 and 7 load faster than FF 1.x

http://mywebpages.comcas...xMyths.html#Performance

Disabling services improves boot times. You don't need to remove them, simply disable them. But never disable the Task Scheduler service since that affects prefetching.

It looks like Firefox needs them all the time too:

http://secunia.com/product/4227/

so true .

i wanted to post that !

It takes more than twice as long for Opera to load on any system than IE seeing how IE is always loaded unless you have removed it! Post your freaking stupid lies else where.

I, as well as every tech in the world disables the "Task Scheduler" it has been useless from 95 on! Prefeching has nothing to do with this service!

Yes, yes it is, has been for 8 years now, IE 6 is just IE 4 with a face lift and a few security patches.

No, that's not true. Firefox 1.0.4 is vulnerable to real world attacks:

http://sunbeltblog.blogs...firefox-exploit-in.html

But like you say, Firefox has proved resistant to attack, even in outdated versions:

http://www.cs.washington...e/papers/spycrawler.pdf

Seems your arguments are getting more an more desperate.

Please show us these benchmarks where Opera is not the faster graphical browser, in opening, rendering and javascript.

Task Scheduler is useful in Windows Server 2003. It runs performance and usage reports, among others. I also use it to back up the internal website.

You're an idiot if you think *any* benchmark fits *all* systems.

Opera may run faster on yours. Hell, it *may* even run faster on a vast majority. That still does not mean it does so on everyone's.

Besides, benchmarks, like statistics, are very rarely true.

Please prove this. I've timed it on various systems and Opera always loads significantly faster.

Please prove anything you claim. Benchmarks that use real world applications are accurate. When you use a stop watch to time how long an application takes to load it is true.

You are absolutely clueless. With the task scheduler service disabled prefetching is disabled.

I can prove this easily. Delete the contents of the C:\Windows\Prefetch folder and set the Task Scheduler service to disabled. Restart your computer. Now launch various applications. Look in the C:\Windows\Prefetch folder. If prefetching is still enabled you will see a .pf file for each of those applications you just launched.

You sir have no idea what you are talking about and have been crippling your system performance because you "think" you know what you are talking about.

No the Task Scheduler service is ESSENTIAL for Windows Prefetching to work in Windows XP.

Like I always say....the benchmarks aren't using the computer...the person is.

Hey, Mastertech showed up! :D

I have Windows 2000, so I remove it. Prefetching isn't important to me on XP either though, since with a 250mb windows dir it actually slows boottime, though may or may not speed up other programs loading.

He's right about it disabling Prefetching. Prefetching is really essential for decent speed when your windows is as bloated as default.

I like my time between OS select and being able to run programs(like Firefox) to be less than 10 seconds. Removing junk is the way to go for speed, assuming you don't care about breaking certain things. If you mess with gutting stuff for long enough(1yr+), then it becomes natural knowing what to remove and what not to, to get a fully functioning PC for yourself.

They're accurate for a standard install of windows. Removing windows components really turns those benchmarks upside-down, just like how using hacked drivers really messes with gaming benchmarks.

IE becomes the slowest starting browser if you remove most of its crud. System memory usage increases approximately 15mb until reboot after running it on a gutted system, which actually puts it above Firefox in waste.

Opera takes about 1 second to cold-start on my system, and 1 second to warm-start on my system.

Firefox takes about 3 seconds to cold-start on my system, and < 0.5s to warm-start.

You obviously didn't pay attention to what I was saying. I didn't comment on XP. My statement was that on Windows Server 2003 the Task Scheduler does certain useful things like certain reports and that I got it to back up the internal website. Please do not put words in my "mouth".

Hmmmmmmmm Seeing how my TS service is disabled and my prefetching works fine and does on the thousands of other computers out there that too have it disabled.

HMMMM There are all of my files, Checks, yep the service is still disabled! OK, you have proven yet again how you are crazy.

Except that they have much better performance where relevant.

I'm starting to think he's a bot. He responds the same way to every post. :P

Mastertech, quit acting like a moron with the generic responses. I said it was essential on a default install. I never said anything about disabling it. It's less required on an "optimized" install because things are already going so much faster.

...Didn't I just say that first part? I remove Win2k's task scheduler because Win2k doesn't have prefetching...why are you repeating stuff over and over? O_o

Have you ever tried an extremely lite windows? The startup time and application load times go down to insane lows. Let me try to describe something to you:

On a standard XP system it'll have lots of junk running, and probably 30+ processors all wanting CPU time. On a lite install you're looking at ~10 processes, and you don't need Firewall unless you want it or are worried about certain programs, because no ports are open by default.

You don't need antivirus either, since the only way you'll pick something up is by directly downloading it(or using MS software). Yes, I know Firefox has exploits, but most of them just crash it or screw up your profile, and if you're a true lite user then you already started using PortableFirefox and other programs which are less inclined to mess with your system.

Anyway, back to my point. Programs start FAST. On this computer with a single 50MB/sec HD, I can start 3-4 programs at once without slowdown(use scripts to run multiple at once). Since most programs start instantly, I'm not too worried. It's only things like Trillian + Opera + Firefox + Seamonkey + Thunderbird that leave you waiting for a dozen seconds. And at a dozen seconds* for those 5 programs starting at once, who gives a s*** about prefetching? It probably does improve performance, but by how much? To me it isn't worth it since everything already starts so quickly.

*XP is better at multitasking and starting multiple things at once, but I use Win2k mostly.

I wanted to thank you man. I got credits in school for systematically tackling and disproving 80% of the stuff on your Firefox Myths page. It was a 16 page report with oodles of sources, and tracked all the wording changes between different page versions, as well as delving into the reasons behind the selected questions. I know it'd make ya proud. ;)

You should post it online. Although Mastertech will normally follow any links to contrary sources with a statement along the lines of "irrelevent & doesnt refute a single thing".

Benchmarks can only account for vanilla installs.

90% of computer users after 6 months *NO LONGER HAVE* vanilla installs.

Various other programs loading at start-up, not to mention the multitude of "tweaking" utilities can severely affect the start-up / load-times of *any* program.

Benchmarks on vanilla systems, clean installs, etc...are completely irrelevant to the average user.

And if you believe that...

Have you *ever* used a computer to do anything other than post on forums?

Run benchmark on your fresh install of windows. Do it again 6 months later.

Big difference. Some programs may be faster, some may be slower. It doesn't "scale" for sh1t.

I cannot believe you posted that.

I call BS unless you've installed *nothing* on your system and made ZERO changes.

Even then, Windows itself slows down over time. Unless you're cleaning it up.

It's called disk fragmentation. Perhaps you've heard of it? An entire industry has sprung up around it. Raxco, Executive Software, O&O...the list goes on.

Of course, there are others: Temp files, cookies,...etc.

Are you a *complete* idiot, or is "No you're wrong, provide documentation" just your own special form of Tourettes Syndrome?

Here you go mister knows nothing but lies. This will teach you about the Windows prefetching that you think you know so much about.
http://www.hs-lab.com/Products/sp/
http://faq.storagereview...index.php?page=XPDefrag
http://www.jsifaq.com/SUBL/tip5800/rh5826.htm

The Task Scheduler service is used to monitor, but has NOTHING to do with the prefetching working or not and if the service is disabled the prefetching will still work.

There you go Kramy, Mastertechs saved you the time of needing to post your article. Without even seeing it he already is aware it's "a combination of rhetoric, conjecture and excuses".

No.

It won't.

Anyone who has ever used a computer could tell you that. I'd give you countless examples, but your replies would be on-par with your current line of simple contradiction.

Just because you say it ain't so, doesn't cut it when the experience of every windows user in the history of MS-Windows contradicts you.

As far as being off-topic? 'Fraid not. Why do you think they run benchmarks for games on clean installs? Because when compared to *the exact same pc* that's been in use for a year, the benchmarks would show an enormous difference.

We're done here. I've better things to do than argue with a troll.

Uhh...

Normal Windows -> Does everything.
Gutted Windows -> Does anything you customize it to and nothing else.

Gutted Windows -> Less than half the memory and process overhead.
Extremely Gutted Windows -> 5-10% performance boost(less DLL loading and calls to registry - proven dozens of times on MSFN!).

Extremely Gutted Windows vs Normal Windows with Programs -> 15-25% performance boost. Improved Boottime.

The catch is that quite often you have to reinstall windows to add a feature back in that you now need. Luckily, an extremely gutted windows only takes about 10 minutes to install, so you plop the CD in, pick a partition(keep 4-6 of these around :D ), and then leave until it's finished.

I say lite because it has a specific purpose, and can not go beyond it. There's plenty of knowledge out there on what the consequences will be, but most of it is gained through trial and error. If you say that you know the consequences, then you are a lying fool. The only people that could possibly know the consequences fully are all the people with access to the Windows source code. But based on the number of exploits that surface regularly, I doubt there's any of them that know how everything fits together.

Processes waste memory, but if you want proof about CPU time then go download process explorer. Tell me if your system idle ever fluctuates from 100% when you aren't doing anything? Even here typing into Firefox, my system is between 100.00% and 99.54% idle. Now, if it did fluctuate from 100.00% at all, then you're losing power to inactive processes.

Have you ever tried a Mac Mastertech? Apple's selling point seems to be that it's secure without AV/Firewall. On a hacked windows install with 0 ports open by default, that adds one aspect of Apple's methods to windows. With that, nothing will get in unless you let it in by manual means. So no, Antivirus can still be useful, but ( 0 Ports open + Brains when downloading) can keep you safe without.

Like I already said - I don't need prefetching. People have already proven in the past that Windows 2000 is faster than Windows XP, so I choose not to upgrade and aquire this new feature when it hurts the other things I do(like gaming).

Every non-tech in the world has experienced their system slowing down over time. When I present them with a Pentium II 233mhz and ask them to try it, they're shocked that it can open the XP startmenu quicker than their own systems, and boots in only 30 seconds.

Perhaps "quicker" or "faster" aren't the right words. Hacked installs are far more responsive. If opening anything(like a folder with 600 pictures) takes any time to do, then something is wrong.

You still haven't read the pages I posted that PROVE a FACT that you are a stupid lying little s*** that doesn't know anything about computer and you might work for the Geeks squad!!!!! You freaking retarded Son of a BIOTCH!!! I wish your mom had swallowed so you wouldn't be here to freaking piss us off with your lies and stupidity!

Did you even read these? LMAO they even tell you that it's for defragging the prefetched files and deleting them when they get over 128, but clearly stated that it will still work with the service disabled!

Windows 2000 checks if other programs require CPU time, less. It also blatently ignores programs when it's really busy doing something. Examples of this would be when loading a map in a game and attempting to start a program(like Trillian). The program will not start loading data off the HD until the map in the game is finished being loaded.

Windows XP will instead start up the IM program while the game is loading something.

From personal experience, I have found that alt+tabbing improves loadspeeds in Win2k. You can't pull cycles from nowhere, but for games that support loading while alt+tabbed, you can pull cycles out from the loadscreen rendering and put them into loading data. :P

For WinXP, it multitasks too well, and loading usually takes about twice as long. That means alt+tabbing while loading games will actually let you do stuff in XP, but Windows 2000 is definitely loading the game faster.

Okay... That was so idiotic that I'm forced to conclude that the reason you use the handle of Mastertech is so people are deceived into thinking you're some sort of master tech. From reading all your posts (that I have managed to read so far) it's obvious that your perspective is very limited and that you are not above deception, rhetoric, name-calling, generalizations, stereotyping, and making things up. BetaNews really needs an Ignore feature.

When it comes to deciding between PC_Tool and you, it's an easy decision. PC_Tool has done quite well at backing up his statements. You have twisted and distorted statements and I consider you to be untrustworthy. You're the kind of person who would glue RAM in and declare that it was a good thing.

I would challenge you to a match of who was better skilled; however, it would be a waste of my time and you still would not concede defeat. You remind me of a guy in college who kept insisting that various things were impossible to do on the computer and/or the Internet. I would do these things in front of him and he would *still* claim that they were impossible. Even with the evidence in front of him. Maybe you should change your handle to Earthworm. That way, I can compare you to him easier.

Are they fixing the CPU issue? (For those who don't know, 1.5.0.2 has a problem of running the CPU at 100% for no reason while sitting idle.)

Really? Never seen it happen. Of course, I have WorldCommunityGrid installed, so it's *always* at 100% unless I disable / snooze it.

It doesn't happen on my wife computer either, but it does on this one and on my test computer. I still use it, there is no way I would give up all of the features for a minor bug. Heck even the memory leak is worth still using it. I only have a gig of ram, but I am not doing a whole lot when I am looking at a site (maybe a little VNC and then Outlook is always open).

Out of curiosity, what do you have running on that machine?

(msconfig - services - Hide all MS Services)

Also might want to check your start-ups.

(msconfig - startup)

You should never see more than 5 (checked) in either. The second one is kinda hard, sometimes..(I have 12 or so now... Damn Logitech G15 keyboard starts like...4 of 'em.) ;)

Time to do some housecleaning.

http://www.hearmeworld.com/misc/running1.jpg

That should help a bit if you need more intel let me know.

It's a little more than 5, but I run two virus scanners. Have for a while now.

EDIT: I know 31 Processes are a lot. I use to only have 23, with Avast, but I got a little paranoid lately.

31 is low for XP, but if you want you could gut stuff out of windows and never encounter an error with non-MS programs again. I have 6 processes running when I boot, and my services list is almost a dozen items long. :P

PAH...I don't need networking!

Well I have 6 computers on this network that use my backup drive so I keep my server and other services that are needed for such operation, and I use two virus scanners; Avast Pro 4.7 and Eset Nod 32. Nod has a lot of processes.

EDIT: I have seen Avast by passed by viruses so I use both Avast and NOD. I believe that NOD is the best and Avast is second.

I take it you don't have both do real-time scanning. You want to make sure they don't step on each other's toes. That would be asking for problems.

"31 is low for XP"

I have 23. The most I've had on this system (when idle) are 28.

Zero problem and yes they both are running real time scans. It's not like I am using McrAppee and Sumcraptec that can't even work with themselves let alone with another virus scanner.

Again people like you have no idea. So you would trust everything to one virus scanner? KNOWING that nothing is perfect. I bet you use Norton too.

You've got TWO programs open doing constant I/O on every single accessed file, and you're saying HE has no idea? Really, disable one and do scans every few days or so.

I never have to do a scan if I know that there are no infected files getting in and my system isn't a freaking 486 so it doesn't slow me down to know that I am 100% more secure than you.

But you know what you're doing. I fix computers for people as a hobby business, and most people have ~6-8 programs starting up at boot. Now lets say their AV + Firewall each create multiple processes, and you're looking at a dozen or more.

Now you add the browser on, an instant messenger for talking with friends or family, and suddenly you're nearing +16. [XP Default]+16 is quite high. I know of some people that have hit 40+ when doing things.

Why? I/O isn't bad(except during boot :P ). It's not like they'd be reading megabytes per second. New or old HDs will take it just fine, and any new processor probably won't notice.

You, just posted the other day that you don't work. Stop the lies man.

That's nothing. My Wife just got a new HP Pavillion for work. That thing *came* with over 40 processes running and about 8 programs in the system tray at start-up.

Couldn't believe it. And of course, they don't give you the OS CD anymore, so the only option is to F'ing uninstall every usless piece of garbage on the damn thing.

AVAST is hurting you.

Download the NOD32 trial and Google "nsane NOD32 FIX".

It handles anti-virus/anti-spyware/ad-ware crap, and only adds one service.

**Once you start using it regularly, and decide you like it...buy it. It's pretty cheap, compared to some of the others...more-so when you look at re-upping the subscription)**

I have both Avast and NOD32.

http://www.betanews.com/...ets_Torrents/1145551104

"By Mastertech

posted Apr 21, 2006 - 7:27 PM

Worked for who? I don't work for anyone. I see you found another fanboy link of lies. Good work. Now trying arguing a single fact."

There isn't a third good one. ;)

LOL Sad, but it's almost true Bitdefender would be nice if it wasn't so bloated.

No! You posted it. I didn't not do anything to it. You are trying to take it out of context much like you do all of your posts and every one else's!

I just copied what you typed. I am only doing what you do.

Opera 9 is winning somewhere......????

so true

I saw somewhere 1.5.0.4 is planned to come out in the end of May. I'm guessing this is released real soon? I wish they gave a timeframe.

Wow this article is sure to start the same old fanboy wars. Hey where is Mastertech? I can literally visualize him sitting somewhere with a smirk on his face and as he reads this article and yelling "SEE I TOLD YOU FIREFOX HAS FLAWS". Funny no comment by him yet.

There are plenty of the rest of us that can put up proxy comments on his behalf, believe me..

We all *KNOW* Firefox has flaws, I said it from day 1 when Firesux was first introduced.

I said then, it has flaws, but people are not using the browser enough to show their vulnerabilities.. IE has flaws too sure, but what really scratches my chicken, is when people pretend that OTHER products don't.

You're safer with Firefox, even if it's only because less people use it.

I prefer to think it's because they update it regularly to remedy problems, and because they haven't pissed off hackers yet.

Every software has flaws. It is the consequence the flaw brings that really matters.

I am right here. Firefox has plenty of Security Flaws:

http://mywebpages.comcas...efoxMyths.html#Security

But it works! Go back to bed Michael Moore.

That would be the same "10-15%" of sites that don't render correctly in Opera, and yet you're now recommending Opera to everybody now?

http://s4.invisionfree.c...?showtopic=544&st=0

And don't try and deny that is you speaking Mastertech aka Andrew. Here's the proof:

If the fact that you link to the Poptech blog/forum at the top of the OptimizeXP/Firefox myths site, post there as Andrew, identify yourself as Andrew at the bottom of the OptimizeXP/Firefox site, and say exactly the same things on both sites isn't enough to convince anybody that your are either a)schizophrenic or b)lying, here is the proof:

1) You have posted a reference to Firefox Myths on the Poptech forum, where one of the forum members identified you as the author:

http://standards.spiralmindsinc.com/misc/Priceless/

2) You refered to the OptimizeXP site as 'my' guide on the forum:

http://72.14.203.104/sea...uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

3) You used the name GeneralAres for an image folder on the Poptech blog site. This is the other name you use for posting pages from OptimizeXP/Poptech on forums like TomsHardware, PCMech and AnandTech, and is also an email address you use when posting as Mastertech.

http://images.google.co.uk/images?

After all of these facts were poited out to you, you tried to cover up the truth by deleting pages or renaming folders, but unfortunately Google retains a record of your guilt.

Give it up Mastertech. Wouldn't it just be easier to admit what you have said?

LOL!

He must be the one that posts at another site as MasterBaiter, but that may have been a fishing related website.

That's quite a ludicrous comment considering Opera (& other vendors) have agreements with Secunia to not post vulnerability advisors UNTIL patches have been released. Opera may well have less public exploits than Firefox & IE but it does not have no unpatched vulnerabilities. All Secunia indicates it has no unpatched public advisories. Your statement in simply untrue.

You are the one who is deperate to avoid people finding out what you really think on the subject so you can continue the hypocrisy of spouting about how wonderful you think Opera is while in private rubbishing it.

Yes, you don't imnce your words about Opera:

"It just proves my point as to why I tell people to use IE."

"I use IE (AvantBrowser) most of the time and never have a problem."

"I love things that work and IE works. Everytime I have to switch to IE to see or use a page properly is a waste of my time. I have to do it EVERY day. How can I possibly recommend this [Opera] to anyone? When they could simply use IE or preferably Avant Browser and never have to switch to anything? The argument isn't their. I don't sacrifice for things that don't work. My time is my time. Why "put up" with something when you don't have to? For an idealistic dream? Get back to me when Firefox or Opera renders all of the Web correctly. Neither is ready for prime time as far as I'm concerned."

http://s4.invisionfree.c...?showtopic=544&st=0

I don't know...you go by just "Andrew" all over the place. The chance that two different people go by just "Andrew" is good, but in this case is also slightly lower than the chance that they're all the same Andrew.

I have noticed that you only pick topics that can not be proven either way and then you tell everyone else to prove it. You offer a poor quality home made web site with a bunch of names and numbers on it and claim them all to be proof, however none have been proven.

No, he uses Michael Moore when he has the backing... He makes up a lot of lies and forces his s*** that even his own children (if he could have any while getting it on with the same sex could have) would tell him to grow up and get a life! He will die a poor lonely man, living off of the tax dollars we pay to support his fat sorry @ss.

You know what? Opera may have less (3 less) than FF, but FF does more than million times as much and is able to do billions more. Shut up with your lies and cries. FF and even the junk IE beasts Opera. It will never be more that 3% (if it ever gets that high) and that is due that the lack of support from third parties and the options that still can not work after 10 yes count then ten years!!!! I mean hello NO ONE IS THAT SUPID, oops you are.

Ok, I will use one of your own posts on this; Prove to me that there is a site that will hack or use one of the ff or eve one of IE's "security advisories". Didn't you, your self ask this just the other day? Do I need to bring yet another link proving your lies or will you admit to this one?

It's not just that the two people are called Andrew, it's the fact that the SupportCD site links to Poptech, Poptech links to SupportCD, both the Andrew's work for an OEM, both have the same obsessions (Firefox and prefetching, as on this page) and Mastertech posts links to both sites where ever he goes.

If that circumstantial evidence wasn't enough to convinve anyone, there is also the fact that Andrew on Poptech called the SupportCD OptimizeXP page "my" guide, that members at Poptech know Andrew as the author of the Firefox myths page, and that one of the directories at Poptech was the name Mastertech also uses for his email address and as an alternative posting name. All of this evidence was deleted when pointed out to Mastertech, which in itself is incriminating. Unfortunately for him, records remain, for example in Google caches.

If that's not enough to convince you, just register as a user at Poptech and ask Andrew if he is Mastertech: you will just get banned.

Why is this remotely interesting? Because Mastertech reveals his true motives at Poptech. He hates Firefox, and also is pretty disparaging about Opera. He is revealed to be a hypocrite, only praising Opera in an attempt to drive users away from Firefox to another browser. He is a one man crusade against a web browser, not some sort of truth seeking myth buster as he likes to claim.

The link refers to Firefox 1.0.4, loooong since updated.

You are just like him. I am sure his Mother, and friends (if he has any) would think you are him.

But Michael Moore is smart... :P

Hack my computer and I'll join your cause.

Well, I'm happy they're updating, but I use an extension called NoScript. Technically I'm not affected by this vulnerability, unless ofcourse I'm foolish enough to allow JavaScript on a malicious website.

Do I think they still have to update Firefox? Yeah, because not every user has NoScript, or even knows about it. And even so, waiting for a third party developer or having a third party fix is usually not the wise thing to do. Users make mistakes, so you must solve the problem at every angle.

Though, I am happy I can use such extensions on versions of Firefox such as PortableFirefox 1.0.7, whereas the new PortableFirefox 2.0 Alpha 1 (Bon Echo) is quite large. Am I still safe? Relatively.

No wonder I see no problems with that page in my Fx.

But a public exploit is a public exploit, and when it is public, it needs to get fixed real soon.

They've had years to get a simple thing like a browser working well and secure. What a lot of crap!

Oh, sorry. I thought this was an I.E. flaw...

Gee, isn't it great that open source is patched as soon as the flaw is made public! Man this is the best! Can't wait to turn my whole life over to open source!!! Because, you know, it's open!

well that is better than your mind, which is closed as tight as a frog's ass.

Yeah its open alright, so open, your common sense and logic just fall right out.

Dude, I have MSDN. Patches are released immediately for IE also, but they don't give them to the whole world.. that would be like SEVERAL a day, but you can login get the patches and test them, they get feedback, rather than just release them willy nilly, and they have more problems.

Yes, I am aware that occassionally some patches will cause breakages in other products, but get real..

How many products does MS have? 100? 200? 300? Do you REALLY think they can adequately test EVERY combination of EVERY software on EVERY platform? That's not even feasible.

The patches are there, YOU don't see them, because you are just a jo schmo with no concept of testing and sheer volume of product, by the time it gets disseiminated to the public, it takes a few weeks, because they want to make it available to EVERYONE at the same time..

With Firesux you are talking 1, yes, 1 product.

How many kids do you have? You shop for presents? How many brothers and sisters do you have? Cousins? Try shopping for all your cousins, nieces, nephews at once, if they all had the same birthday, and now do the same thing for your ONLY child? you think it would take the same amount of time?

If the answer is YES, you are complete moron. Doing the SAME thing for multiple people, is VERY time consuming.

It would be easier if they de-integrated everything from eachother. :P

Yay, no more conflicts between programs! :D

This has now reached the status of a Myth.

This flaw has been made public since 8-30-2004:

http://secunia.com/advisories/12403/

... and is still not patched. Sorry to burst the open source security Myth bubble.

Taa....raaah!!

Another myth is born!

Sadly this one cant't go in Firefox Myths because "All Myths relate to running the default install of Firefox in Windows..." and this advisory is for Mac:

"It has been reported that this issue relates to a known behaviour in Apple's implementation of Java."

But that didn't stop you mentioning the "highly critical" Firefox vulnerability whichs turns out to have been on Linux.

Getting a browser working well and secure is not a simple thing. Please don't display your ignorance.

God help us!!!

There you go folks. Despite clearly stating that "Firefox Myths" relates solely to "Firefox on Windows" he'll still include vulnerabilities & statements relating to non-Windows Firefox installations; implying they apply to Windows. The usual response to these being pointed out is "Why should I cover them up?" A more pertinent question is - "Why should I follow my own statements that I'm only covering Firefox in Windows".

That's an Apple Java problem...

Apple seems to do a piss poor job keeping older OS's up to date and secure...heh, sorta like MS. :D

Oh well, at least their new releases are cheaper price wise.

But you do cover up the security issues of IE:

"Earlier this week, I blogged about a site doing a bunch of different exploits, depending on what you are running. One of the things the site will do is detect if you have Firefox, and attempt to exploit it, using the InstallVersion.compareTo() vulnerability. There are actually a number of sites running this exploit, and one of our researchers, Adam Thomas, was kind enough to take some pictures. Going to a site with an older version of Firefox got him just a bucket-load of Spyware." - Source

Notes - Internet Explorer with Windows XP Service Pack 2 installed provide the same level of Spyware security as Firefox. SP2 includes a built-in Pop-up blocker, a Download installation warning system and removes MSJVM from the system. This eliminates all the known security exploits some Spyware applications used to auto install themselves. Anyone who claims Internet Explorer cannot be secured from Auto-installing Spyware either doesn't know how or is lying.

(From Firefox Myths.)

So Firefox is insecure because old versions allow installation of spyware but IE is secure despite instances of the current version being infected by malware like last month?

Take a look at what you are saying- it makes no sense to anybody without you Firefox phobia.

There is your bizarre myth that IE is totally secure, which you proclaim on Firefox Myths:

"Anyone who claims Internet Explorer cannot be secured from Auto-installing Spyware either doesn't know how or is lying."

Firefox and Opera are relatively much more secure than IE. Opera is great. I'm happy you're recommending it.

"Anyone who claims Internet Explorer cannot be secured from Auto-installing Spyware either doesn't know how or is lying."

That's a direct quote. We recently had two weeks of IE exposed to auto-installing spyware.

Nope. I merely express the point that for someone repeatedly stating that their article deals solely with Firefox on Windows that info. not relating to Firefox on Windows should not be present. Including such info. without indicating "this doesn't apply to Firefox on Windows" implies that it does apply to Firefox on Windows, which is deception. Were you to state your page refers to just Firefox, then there would be zero contradiction & thus no deception.
But hey, this is your own logic that's the issue, not mine.

It gets better though. On FirefoxMyths Masterlies states;

"Some even openly admit to being unable to stop something as elementary as Malware infection when using Internet Explorer - hardly reputable sources to dispute anything!"

I'm highlighting the lunacy of being arrogant enough to believe that you can protect 100% all the time, which you're implying. Within the past 2 months we've seen IE affected by an auto-install vulnerability (Not the first either). Do explain how you can achieve this mythical level of protection in IE (With 2 dozen odd unpatched advisories), yet Firefox with half a dozen or so unpatched advisories is beyond hope?

No, I can't stop auto-installing spyware on IE when there is an unpatched vulnerability with exploit code in the wild. Sorry, I'm just not a Mastertech like you. I had to resort to browsing with Firefox or Opera.

Dude, get a freaking DOMAIN FOR $9.20 at godaddy.com and host it for $7.50 at http://www.servage.net/?coupon=CUST11006
and then someone MIGHT thing you are more than the biotch that you are!!!!

Go here and look up a program that you like any that you like to see, and see if your Opera is secure. I know for a fact that three viruses will be on you computer the second you are done searching. Shut your lies up! http://www.keygen.us
I know for a fact that that I wrote one myself!

You don't need to download a file other than what I made you to do, and only your virus scanner can save you from that!

If he did that he couldn't remain anonymous, which is not what he wants- he likes to hide behind his host.

Over the past 6 months or so 2 or 3 third party patches have been released by security vendors to fix unpatched Microsoft vulnerabilities. Perhaps you ought to inform them Microsoft patches quick

An anonymous re-referer to Comcast. T**t.

I went there with Firefox and immediately got a virus warning from avast! Don't go there unless your browser is 100% up to date.

Don't play Mastertech's silly game: we all know that there are web sites with auto-installing spyware, and more exploits emerging all the time:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20060501/tc_zd/177095

You should install a virus scanner!

Mozilla sure is competing with microsoft ...
patches and everything :P

Yes, because correcting mistakes and discrepancies is a bad thing, right?

I love Firefox, but I accept that human programmers have created it, therefore there are flaws in it. "Patches and everything" are a necessary part of programming. Even with extensive testing it is difficult to find every error, especially with the nature of the Internet. People will be complaining next time a new type of attack/flaw appears on the Internet because FF/IE/O aren't protected from it.
Security on the Internet is one glorious game of cat and mouse. A program is made, a flaw is discovered, a flaw is exploited, the flaw is fixed and so the cycle continues. It will always be this way in programming and on the Internet.

I love Firefox, but I accept that human programmers have created it, therefore there are flaws in it....

So true. But does this same sentiment apply to Microsoft, or just everyone but Microsoft?

lol

yes azazel, it is (teehe, that should get the fanboys rolling)

Funny - same thing I was thinking... :-)

Of course, everyone but Microsoft =) ... I use Windows and Linux both though, and both with the idea that yes, we do not livei n a perfect world ... not even MS. I usually don't complain or gripe about the product itself, I gripe about the way they do business ... I can't say that I'm up for the DRM crap though ... we need to squash that in it's infancy ...

I don't mind buying stuff legitimately, but that's another topic ...

The difference here is that Mozilla is FIXING a flaw when it was found. Microspud makes you wait until the next Update Tues, or even longer. Even this last "emergency fix" in IE was only done because people complained long and loud about what what happened to their computers after the "fixes" were installed.

Wow that was going to be my commment..

OH, so ALL those MS programmers are just sitting on their a** playing Xbox? Are you this incredulously stupid, or are you demonstrating this so you can be the next contestant on Fear Factor?

They don't make you wait, there are many products, it takes time to update ALL events for each of them. Maybe the fix had to be tested first? Yeah you call patching a product, within hours, without regard for whether or not its complete, fixing? You need to work for the Army Corp of engineers in LA, they can use someone like you.. That was their philosophy too.

MS has many users and many products, who exactly do you expect them to be able to account for every hardware and software that's out there?

If I install Windows, then I install FireFox. Maybe Firefox itself doesn't have bugs, but because Firesux fixes problems for their product, they don't give a damn about what happens to the OS, as long as their product works.. but then you didn't realize that did you, country bumpkin? nooo.. But MS, they have to CONSIDER the possibilities (endless as they are) about what it will affect, Office, OS, Programming Tools. Firebog only cares about Fireslug, period.

They will blame MS if something doesn't work, and that's where the bad information comes in..

Because you will believe EVERYTHING about a product you don't like, and you could care less about products you DO like, because they must be good.

Yeah, that's just brilliant there, pipe_dreams.

Someone calculated the patching time for Internet Explorer 6 and Firefox in 2005. They found that Firefox exploits are on average patched within ~34 days, Opera within ~44 days, and IE within about ~467 days. IE users had system-compromising vulnerabilities for 98% of the year. Firefox was down around ~27% if I remember right.

Please, no excuse boy. Does Firefox 1.5.0.2 has QA problems? I don't think so.

Blame IE to be so tightly integrated into Windows such that a flaw in IE brings down the whole system, and a fix in IE needs to be tested so much.

Will you STOP spreading this Myth. IE integration has nothing to do with security. IE does not expose you to anything special that any other program running in Windows can not expose you to.

http://blogs.msdn.com/dm.../2005/03/22/400689.aspx

You guys keep spreading these same Myths over and over.

some one hooooooooo , uuuuuuuuuuu ?
some one say that is bulls*** !

Actually, non XP-SP2 users had IE6 vulnerabilities 100% of last year, 100% of the year before, 100% of this year coming up...

MS has a quite a few vulnerabilities only partially patched(in other words - XP SP2 only):
http://secunia.com/advisories/12304/
http://secunia.com/advisories/9056/

The article you linked doesn't mention the fact that integration has nothing to do with security, rather that Firefox itself and other browsers aren't entirely disintegrated themselves. It does make security sense to keep the parts of code that can interact with the operating system and file system seperate from the parts that interact with the web page. If the web page can make changes to your operating system then that's a critical security issue.

Firefox seperates this with the concept of chrome space and content space, and any internal use of content space (like many extensions do) should be used via a XPCNativeWrapper to prevent code injection from the web site. Therefore a critical scecurity bug is one that links the two spaces together. IE6 has similar approaches but because of the integration there is a bigger attack surface for critical security bugs issues.

IE7 is an improvement because it is less integrated then IE6 reducing the attack surface. However, they've gone one better in Vista by implementing a proper user account scheme like the one Linux/Mac have enjoyed for a number of years now. With that the operating system can limit what the entire browser can do, to just accessing a few folders and portions of the registry which is all that it needs to operate. So any critical security bugs will now become moderate. Something other browsers won't be able to boast. Unless Microsoft has opened up the user account scheme for them to set up something similar on install.

Actually I'm not sure if it is any less integrated or not. That was just based on my experience with a small application I've written where I use api's to render some HTML. I had to work around a positioning bug with the rendering engine and I still seem to require the workaround now that I've installed IE7. So I just assumed the IE6 rendering engine was still being used. But I should check whether in fact IE7 does fix the bug and if it does whether it's under some IE6 compatiblity mode.

Shrug, security issues don't bother me too much because I keep up to date and if they are exploited the majority of cases are by worms or viruses and I have an antivirus package. And in the very unlikely event it's a hacker there's nothing really valuable on my computer that could cause me grief if they got a hold of anything.

One thing I'm grateful for is that the IE team were finally allowed to add tabs. The only thing I miss with Firefox is the fact there's a free adblock tool. Anyone know of a free IE equivalent?

"And in the very unlikely event it's a hacker there's nothing really valuable on my computer that could cause me grief if they got a hold of anything."

I encounter this piece of ignorance fairly regularly. Look up what zombies and botnets are. The use of your computer is useful to many people. They can use your computer to attack other people and you get the blame. I was at Interop in Las Vegas yesterday and the first session I went to was about zombies. www.interop.com