Slashdot Mirror


PC Magazine Reviews Firefox, Opera

prostoalex writes "PC Magazine reviews Mozilla Firefox 0.9.1 and Opera 7.51, noting: 'Security concerns aren't the only reason to seek an alternative [to Internet Explorer]. IE's slow rendering engine and dearth of privacy features may plant the thought in some iconoclastic minds that it may not be the best browser for everyone.' 4 stars for Firefox and 3.5 for Opera, so looks like a Firefox win, although the editors do point out FF's troubles with DHTML as well as Opera issues with JavaScript."

23 of 700 comments (clear)

  1. Mozilla, Opera and Firefox... by shackma2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mozilla, Opera and Firefox, from my unscientific perspective, seem to load web pages quicker than IE, but what really bothers me is how slow the mozilla opera and firefox load times are. I can either get to the web quickly with IE, or wait a while with firefox for a minute page load time diffrence.

    1. Re:Mozilla, Opera and Firefox... by elbazo · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is because IE is part of the OS unlike Opera and Firefox. If you use WinXP or 2003 open the process manager and set the firefox/opera process to realtime, might do the trick.

      Baz

    2. Re:Mozilla, Opera and Firefox... by mopslik · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here.

      Mozilla, Opera and Firefox ... seem to load web pages quicker than IE.
      I can either get to the web quickly with IE, or wait a while with firefox for a minute page load time diffrence.

      Pages load faster in M/O/Ff, but they're a minute slower in M/O/Ff? I think what you're getting at is this...

      but what really bothers me is how slow the mozilla opera and firefox load times are

      If you're talking about clicking on the IE icon vs. clicking the M/O/Ff icon, and having the application pop up ready to roll, then keep in mind that IE loads on boot. That way, it gives you the impression of loading faster.

    3. Re:Mozilla, Opera and Firefox... by spectecjr · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is because IE is part of the OS unlike Opera and Firefox. If you use WinXP or 2003 open the process manager and set the firefox/opera process to realtime, might do the trick.

      1. IE is a set of components that provide HTML rendering support for the OS. It is not loaded with Windows.

      2. Setting Firefox/Opera to realtime will cause other system functions to slow to a crawl and/or possibly crash.

      3. Mozilla and Firefox can be loaded exceptionally fast on Windows. It's very simple. DO NOT install QuickLaunch, but allow the Mozilla build process to correctly bind and rebase its DLLs. When it's done, you'll have a version of Mozilla which loads AS FAST AS Internet Explorer.

      If the dll binding procedure did not make it into the Mozilla installer, that explains why people are still seeing it launch slowly.

      This crap about "IE runs faster because it's part of the OS" is a myth propounded by people who really just don't know anything about how Windows loads processes and DLLs. Any time you have an app that loads slower than its competitors, consider this:

      1) Is it loading ALL of its DLLs into memory at startup? Or does it dynamically load them as needed? (The latter is faster).

      2) Is it loading a lot of potentially unnecessary COM components at startup instead of as needed? (As needed is faster).

      3) Are its DLLs rebased correctly so that they don't need to be fixedup by the Application Launcher when they load? Does it have a clean memory map? (Most non-Microsoft apps do NOT take this step - which is fully documented in MSDN - which means that their load times will be 10 to 20 times longer than apps which DO rebase their DLLs).

      4) Are its DLLs bound at install-time? Binding DLLs reduces the time necessary to load and patch the import/export table of processes and DLLs, by pre-patching the import/export table and attaching a signature to it to catch if the external DLLs change. (Most non-Microsoft apps Do NOT take this step - which again is fully documented in MSDN - which means that their load times will be another 4 to 7 times longer than apps which DO bind their DLLs).

      Sloppy development practices lead to sloppy performance.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
  2. Re:What about IE? by marnargulus · · Score: 5, Informative

    IE 6.0 got a 4 out of 5 on their reviews site. Click on "more reviews" and it lists all their reviews.

  3. Ingrained attitudes by robogun · · Score: 5, Informative
    From the review of Mozilla/Firefox:
    CONS: Default installation doesn't include many functions; you have to download additional features via the Extensions Manager. Will not load ActiveX and VBScript; this prevents certain kinds of attacks, but also disables the normal functions of some sites.


    Those are PROs if I ever saw one. Drive-by software installs and buggy Active-X is the reason I spend ten hours a month cleaning up computers of friends and family. WHo subseqently receive Mozilla and are forbidden to run IE except for Windows Update forevermore, on pain of no more free computer work.

  4. Re:User-Agent stats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    our site was roughly 95% internet explorer 4 months back...we've started plugging firefox fairly often(has to be repeated - people that use IE are too slow to get it the first time, no?) and it's now at 30.3% moz/firefox users.

  5. Re:User-Agent stats? by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Informative

    Has anyone been tracking Firefox/Mozilla in the User-Agent stats for a large site to see if it is truly pulling browsershare from IE?

    Well, when I linked to a little-viewed page on my site (during a discussion of poker, really!), the stats showed a surprising number of non-IE visitors. It seemed to be about half IE, half Opera, Mozilla, and the like. An awful lot of visitors weren't using Windows, either.

    That means either 1) Slashdot visitors use alternate browsers and OS's, or 2) Slashdot visitors like to modify their browsers' User-Agent strings. With this crowd, I'd think both are equally likely.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  6. Re:Proof is in the Pudding by Neophytus · · Score: 4, Informative

    If there's one thing that I couldn't fault IE on is the fact that it actually displays pages pretty fast.

  7. Re:Opera... by Nakito · · Score: 4, Informative

    In my book gets 4.5 stars. But the java/javascript errors that come up constantly are a bitch and a half.

    I give it 4.5 stars as well. I've been using Opera since version 3. My favorite features are the very simple things that let you browse painlessly even on poorly designed sites. For example, there is a button on the toolbar that lets you toggle images on and off without the need for changing your preferences. There is another button that lets you instantly override the color and font setting of a page with your own defaults. You can also turn off all plugins with a single checkbox. I tend to browse primarily for information, and nothing annoys me so much as poorly chosen backgrounds, graphics, and fonts that get in the way of reading the text. Opera lets me get straight to the content. It's a good browser, even though it is a bit flaky on javascript.

  8. And from the BBC by driftingAimfully · · Score: 4, Informative

    The BBC are running a similar story too:

    Rivals nibble at Microsoft's IE
  9. To Really Speed FireFox/Mozilla Up by ironwill96 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The only issue I had initially with FireFox and Mozilla is how slow they seem to load picture-heavy sites such as www.cnn.com

    To speed up the load times of all sites add the following to your user.js file (if it doesnt exist - for Windows users, go to the run menu and type: %AppData% and then browse through the Mozilla folder and any sub folders until you get to your profile folder - inside of this create a new text document and call it user.js):

    // This one makes a huge difference. Last value in milliseconds (default is 250)
    user_pref("nglayout.initialpaint.delay", 0);

    // Change to normal Google search:
    user_pref("keyword.URL", "http://www.google.com/search?btnG=Google+Search&q =");

    // Instead of annoying error dialog messages, display pages:
    user_pref("browser.xul.error_pages.enabled", true);

    The other two changes are ones i've found useful as well - the second one changes the browser to do a normal Google search from the location bar instead of doing an "I'm Lucky" Google search (this is more useful in Mozilla than FireFox since FireFox comes w/ the Google search bar built in).

    The third change makes Mozilla and FireFox display error pages like IE instead of annoying dialog boxes when an error occurs (such as page not found). This helps a TON when doing tabbed browsing.

    Hope those tips are helpful for everyone else as much as they were for me. For more of them go to http://texturizer.net/firefox/tips.html

    --
    "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
    1. Re:To Really Speed FireFox/Mozilla Up by yeremein · · Score: 4, Informative
      As a warning: if you edit prefs.js while the browser is running, it will overwrite it when you exit.

      You can type about:config in Firefox's URL bar to change these preferences while the browser is running.

  10. Now that you have changed your browser... by freeduke · · Score: 4, Informative
    would you go any further?

    Instead of using the default Windows software, as you have seen, other applications runs well under windows: Firefox and Opera are cool for browsing, but now that you are on the way to change your mind, give thunderfox a try, it is far better than outlook (or outlook express).

    Then, forget your included windows media player, and try alternatives like BSplayer and others. When you want to edit a picture, use Gimp for windows or replace your illegal copy of Word by OpenOffice.

    And if you enjoy what you are getting, and this new perspective of choices, jump in and join the GNU/Linux community.

  11. On Opera's ad... by Illissius · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...just want to point out that it's just a Google text ad in the toolbar. Completely unintrusive, and after two days unnoticeable unless you happen to be bored and want to look at what it's saying (which ranks up there with reloading /. on ways to waste time effortlessly).

    --
    Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
  12. Re:User-Agent stats? by prockcore · · Score: 4, Informative

    Has anyone been tracking Firefox/Mozilla in the User-Agent stats for a large site to see if it is truly pulling browsershare from IE?

    I work for a newspaper.. we don't do technology news so the people visiting our site are strictly Joe Blow. (Same dudes who read our paper).

    Here are our top browsers for July:

    68% IE 6.0
    6.2% AOL (IE)
    4.3% Mozilla/Firefox
    4% IE 5.5
    4% Netscape 7
    2% Safari

    all the others are webtv, opera, konq, etc

    I don't know why they count Gecko based browsers separate from Netscape 7.. it's just something Omniture does.

  13. Re:Out of the frying pan... by Derang() · · Score: 4, Informative

    And if that happens, where is the security update infrastructure to ensure everyone gets patched?

    As of 0.9, firefox has an automatic update checker thing to let the user know when new versions are availible. It seill has a few kinks to be worked out, but they're going in the right direction.

  14. Re:Alright Mozilla by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've always equated FUD with the use of disinformation to gain a competative advantage by invoking fear, uncertainty and doubt in the public about your competitor's product. In this case:

    1) The information ("IE is insecure" etc) is verifyably true and reported by many different people and organizations.

    2) The people behind Mozilla and Opera are not the one generating the reports about their competitor's (Microsoft's) products.

    3) The people involved with 1 and 2 (The ones finding and reporting the security issues, and the ones championing Moz/Opera) have no (apparent) vested interest in seeing IE lose it's market share.

    So I'm not convinced this article coutns as FUD in that respect.
    =Smidge=

  15. Re:Article Text (site seems slow) by realmolo · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you like CrazyBrowser, you really should be using Maxthon (formerly MyIE2):

    http://www.maxthon.com

    It's like SUPER CrazyBrowser ;) And it's updated constantly.

  16. Re:Mozilla and Hotmail by pydron · · Score: 4, Informative

    Use the extension MozEx, which allows you to select which apps launch when you click on a link.

  17. Re:Proof is in the Pudding by displaced80 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Umm... find out a little more about what the browsers are doing.

    There's always a trade-off between rendering speed and quality. Do you start to lay-out the page before all content has been fetched, thus incurring unsighltly redraws and reflows as new content invalidates the current best-guess display? Or do you hold off on painting somewhat to allow more content to arrive, and thus a better initial layout?

    Gecko-based browsers give you full control over this, so you can tune it to your network performance. By default, it always waits 250msec (or is it less now?) before displaying anything. Of course, it ain't twiddling its thumbs during this -- it's building the page, but not showing it to avoid ugly reflows. Jump into the prefs (type about:config and find initialpaintdelay) and set it to 0 to make it render immediately.

    It's psychological. That inital pause where nothing appears to be going on may make you think Gecko's slower than IE. But the time from initiating the load to a mostly-complete layout may well actually be smaller than IE.

    If you really want to learn about this stuff from a guy who's as close to being a guru as you're gonna get on this subject, check out this post on Dave Hyatt's (Moziila/Apple developer) weblog.

    --
    What's the frequency, Kenneth?
  18. the last non-IE browser i used was netscape 4.7 by waspleg · · Score: 4, Informative

    Until about a week ago when i was introduced to Firefox. Here I'll give my opinions based on years of browsing and although I've used virtually every browser out there from lynx to safari I primarily use IE and have for the last several years so I will compare Firefox to it. As I've read other posts comparing speed, I find both of them render comparably fast, are compatible with roughly the same media and are basically equal at this level. People complain about the load times compared to IE but I really don't notice it that much, and there is none with tabs, they're very fast. I was skeptical at first and it still has a few annoying things I don't like but they're fewer than what I do so I'll list them first:

    CONS
    1.) you can't just press enter like in IE after entering information eg login/password, searches anything you have to press tab THEN enter.

    2.) it doesn't pass off most wmv files to mplayer2 like it should and does with everything else fine

    3.) why can't i run exes? must it not only second guess me but lock me into a forced download/install/delete cycle when IE lets me just execute after the download is complete trusting me to make the right choice?

    PROS
    1.) easily installed (ctrl-d, i like hte mimiced funcationality as it makes migrating easier for me and i'm lazy) highly functional bookmark toolbar buttons which even show the related website graphic with the associated website such as the green /. i'm looking at right now.

    2.) multiple browser tabs easily opened (ctrl-t), i had heard about these before but i grossly underestimated just how useful these really are until i started using them, never again will i go hunt and peck for the right IE window at the bottom my ever cramped taskbar.

    3.) beautiful and extremely functional themes with details only someone who made it with love would think to include like red/yellow/green status lights for if a tabbed page is loading and separate forward and back list box histories (i'm using nautipolis from the site i found simply by clicking on "get themes")

    4.) extension plug-ins available that flawlessly install, notable examples include a tiny java vm compared to the huge sun download and resource hog, easily done macromedia flash without any bullshit of registering or clicking through 400 pages to install associated with a similar typical IE 3rd party install, these are all seamlessly integrated and the installs are smooth. My personal favorite and most important extension is the adblock extension, which allows me to block source sites for ads with a simple right click and a wildcard.

    5.) built in search and popup blocking, you take these things for granted if you have the google toolbar installed as i did but this takes up less realestate (almost none, a tiny google search thumb in the right corner) and is more functional and the google news button is easily emulated as per the buttons mentioned above.

    Overall Firefox is extremely impressive and I'm rarely impressed and not only is it a lesson to microsoft not to sit on their laurels, in regards to adding actual functionality instead of endless security patches but its really a testament to how free software should be, polished, easy to use, portable and easily added on to by others. It's software products like these that will undermine monopolies and I'm sure htey're not unaware of the threat.

    It's a pity there isn't a few billion dollars to market Firefox with or they would dominate. Even so word of mouth is powerful and it generates a momentum that is difficult to turn back.

  19. How to make Firefox render pages faster than IE by Jack+Zombie · · Score: 5, Informative

    To make Firefox render pages faster than IE, start by typing "about:config" in your FireFox address bar. Look for nglayout.initialpaint.delay and set it to 0 (zero).

    The initialpaint.delay is the length of time (in milliseconds) after the server response before the browser begins to paint the page. By default it is 250 milliseconds, and even though by setting it to 0 (like Internet Explorer) makes it _seem_ to display pages faster, it ends up taking more overall time than with the default value.

    You can also make Firefox faster by:

    1.) Setting network.http.pipelining to true
    2.) Setting network.http.proxy.pipelining to true
    3.) Setting network.http.pipelining.maxrequests to a number between 1 and 8

    Enabling the pipelining features allows the browser to make multiple requests to the server at the same time. The "maxrequests" is the maximum number of requests it will send at once. 8 is the maximum Firefox allows it to be, but it may bog down yours, or the server, connection, so it is best to leave these options on their default values.

    More information about these and other tweaks are available at the MozillaZine's Firefox Tuning Thread.

    --
    "You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka