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."
Mozilla rises from the dead (or at least a deep sleep) and goes mainstream rather quickly. Impressive :)
...that I should stop running Internet Explorer using wine, and try Firefox?
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
Out of habit and ignorance, I have used IE for years. I think it is time to make the change to Firefox. Thanks for the article.
"IE's slow rendering engine " :(
Sad but true. The review page has been loading for almost a minute now
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.
IE 6.0 got a 4 out of 5 on their reviews site. Click on "more reviews" and it lists all their reviews.
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? The last mention we had from the Slashdot admins was that Slashdot was 90% Internet Explorer, is this on the decline? Are these stats publicly available?
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
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.
They Gave IE 4 Stare, but was choosen Editors Pick. Go and figure! Andy
Emphasis mine.
Now explain this? It's got boatloads more functionality (find as you type, tabbed browsing, popup blocker, livemarks [0.9+], etc etc.)... but it 'doesn't include many functions'.
Now how does IE rank? Please don't tell me feature rich. That's like calling is secure.
Considering I'd give IE a 0.5/5.0, there's no debate. The point is to use either of these before you use IE. The failure to patch IE after the Russian hacking debacle was the last straw. All users at my work are now on Firefox or Opera.
Also, I have a lot of "non-techie" friends. You should see the amount of adware/spyware littered on these computers. It makes me sick, and it's all IE's fault (pop-up > get scared > *click* > install > forget > go back to "pop-up"... go to site > install under users' radar > repeat... I'm sick of it). IE sucks.
-n-
I install Firefox for everyone I help with PC's, and no one has ever complained or needed additional help to use it. I had one person tell me they need their old bookmarks, but I showed them where you can see IE's imported bookmarks in the menu.
I'm sure some of you already do this, but for those that don't, next time you're running ad-aware for your non-techie friends, install Firefox, show them the desktop shortcut, and tell them to click on that one for their Internet. They'll thank you for it when they stop getting pop ups and strange home pages and toolbars.
"Sorry, this browser does not support automated installation of trojans and other malicious applications, please upgrade to MSIE to further risk your computer security"
love slashdot. populate it. use it. abuse it. hate it. kill it. miss it. stop following links, they only kill servers.
In the days of 256+ MB RAM and 40+ GB HD space, having an extra 10 MB app doesn't hurt you. I have both Firefox (0.8 because I can't get TabBrowser Extensions to work on 0.9) and IE on my work computer, for the increasingly rare site that requires IE to work.
Now that the Mozilla Foundation is a 501(c)3 organization I think I may have to insist that the family/friends make a little donation.
I was not touched there by an angel.
I guess PC magazine has loss some funding from Microsoft. They seem be being slightly less "Window Is the Best" in their views. And starting to see that there are alternatives and they can be just as good.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I'm curious; Microsoft has really given up on IE development over the past few years. The last major release was version 6, and that was well over 3 years ago to the best of my recollection. Could it be that MS no longer sees web browsers as a viable resource for their future strategy? I really have no speculation on what they might have up their sleave, but MS hasn't been one to necessarily drop the ball like this. From a security standpoint, one could say they really screwed the pooch, but as far as releasing a snazzy new version or anything to gloss over the problems under the hood, they've kept their hands off.
--
Is it me, or did it just get fatter in here?
The browser isn't perfect, however. Firefox does not render nonstandard DHTML properly, nor does the Mozilla Organization have any intention of releasing a browser that does.
Well, good for them!
Durrrr!
Linux might not be ready for general public acceptance on their desktop, but using Open Source software such as Firefox, Open Office etc is the first step towards that acceptance. If you don't NEED Windows to run a program, it becomes alot easier to switch the underlying OS.
this is the one thing i MISS about IE. firefox is definately slower at rendernig, and before you say it, yes ive done all the speed tweaks. anyone saying this hasnt done tests and is just spewing anti ms fud. other than rendering speed firefox is better in almost all other aspects i find.
the only downside to firefox I've found are problems with web sites designed ONLY to work with IE. I've only had the problem with a few web sites and hopfully as firefox gets more well known and excepted people will stop that kind of stupidity.
Does this mean there are 3 bitches to every star? Are we talking Hollywood here?
DHTML is HTML with Javascript. Its just a buzz word, why do these PC magazines keep touting it as the latest and greatest thing???
The browser isn't perfect, however. Firefox does not render nonstandard DHTML properly, (emphasis mine).
Hello!! You said it yourselves! NONSTANDARD. Its websites that aren't perfect, not the browser. *head explodes*
The Anti-Blog
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.
The BBC are running a similar story too:
Firefox doesn't have troubles with DHTML...
"Firefox does not render nonstandard DHTML properly, nor does the Mozilla Organization have any intention of releasing a browser that does."
Non-standard DHTML isn't really DHTML is it?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Before FireFox becomes the target off major exploits. Hopefully Firefox will stand up against it, and the Open source world will respond as fast as expected.
The browser isn't perfect, however. Firefox does not render nonstandard DHTML properly...
So it is bad that the browser does not render bad source correctly?
Granted, the article does go on to mention that this is not Firefox's fault, but they way it is cast as a problem really rubs the wrong way.
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
Also used Opera for a while. I really liked Opera, but it did have problems with javascript. Interesting to see that they are still working on that.
As for Firefox, I still like plain old Mozilla better but looking forward to version 1.0.
For me, as things stand right now. I like Mozilla the best with Konqueror coming in second.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
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
// This one makes a huge difference. Last value in milliseconds (default is 250)
// Change to normal Google search: q =");
// Instead of annoying error dialog messages, display pages:
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):
user_pref("nglayout.initialpaint.delay", 0);
user_pref("keyword.URL", "http://www.google.com/search?btnG=Google+Search&
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
I agree. I am an Opera user since way back. It is still my main browser but I use Firefox extensively. Mainly because of Operas poor javascript implementation.
I can't read my Gmail with Opera, My online banking doesnt' work with Opera. I use add suported because if I need a second browser I am not paying for the first.
Fix that (or ignore that) and it is by far the best browser IMO. This is from someone typing on Firefox right now.
Opera even with all features integrated is leaner and faster. None of the features collide, which is a problem I have with some firefox extensions (to try and get Opera functionality).
Opera addiction. Opera seems to be the only browser with true page caching. Hit back 4 times as fast as you can and instantly you will be back 4 pages. No load times and seemingly no render times. It is totally cached. This is like browsing on JOLT. Once you get hooked on the speed it is hard to go back.
To me going to the slower browsers is like going from DSL to dialup. I need my speed.
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.
First off, you shouldn't totally uninstall it, else you lose access to Windows Update. Sure you can use the auto-update, but you lose a lot of control that way, and you won't get access to the non-critical patches that way.
On top of that, the benefit of freeing up the drive space IE requires is not worth the headahce of trying to remove the damn thing, especially since part of it is built into the OS. Instead, if you have the Service Patch installed, you can use the Control Panel uninstall, which simply removes access to IE. At least it'll keep IE "out of sight, out of mind..."
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is a tribute.
For one, IE does rendering many times VERY BAD.
CSS is nearly non-existant.
PNG, whats that? Alpha colors, we dont do em!
And then there's just plain rendering inconsistencies. What you see is NOT what you get!!
Mozila hopes to implement the STANDARDS, not be super-fast. After all, computers will just get faster as time goes on. Why not do it correct and not as fast. Its the Unix Way.
We've already seen significant security holes in Firefox, and this is with a negligible market share. Once it gets targetted directly, exploits may be just as common as they currently are with Internet Explorer.
And if that happens, where is the security update infrastructure to ensure everyone gets patched? Microsoft won't integrate Firefox into Automatic Updates. Sure, mailing lists and /. will carry the news of new Firefox security flaws, but will the average user see those announcements?
The problem with telling users to switch to Firefox for security reasons is that it's usually sold as a permanent fix to the problem, when in all honesty it never will be.
But the user, having been told that "Firefox is secure", probably won't bother checking the Mozilla site on a regular basis, if ever. Automatic update notification is supposed to be coming in the future, but that does little for anyone who's installed Firefox in the past couple of weeks and doesn't plan to touch it again.
I really think Opera's notes feature is going to take over bookmarks. If I hightlight your post here, right click, and hit 'copy to note', then a note is placed into the notes tab which is similar to bookmarks. It shows me the first line of the post, and if I click it, a small window appears showing the entire set of data I've copied to the note. If I double click on it, a window opens up to your comment on Slashdot. I've tossed bookmarks aside in favor of this. I'd rather the note be a quick summary of why I thought it was interesting, as opposed to the title of the page.
"Derp de derp."
...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.
1) Resources. I'm running Windows XP and from what I understand, there is no way I can remove Internet Explorer from my computer. Call me a space hog, but I don't like having un-used aps on my computer. I figure better to have an inferior browser on my computer, a little extra space, and less confusion then to load both of them. Can anyone solve that problem?
Yes, get your head out of your ass. Would you remove the seatbelts from your car to have "less confusion", or "a little extra space" ??
It's 2004, not 1994. A few megs isn't even worth thinking about on a desktop computer. IE trojans and exploits are real. Deal with it.
I recently installed Mozilla, but I still need my hotmail account... Even if Mozilla is set as my main browser and main emailware, when I click a link from an email in my Hotmail inbox, it opens IE... and when I click the "email" button in MSN Messenger, it opens Outlook.
Is it possible to castrate this annoyance?
as another poster said, this has been fixed, and if i remember correctly from the coverage on slashdot the other day, it's really an OS (Windows) issue. Moz. on other OSes wasn't affected and all browsers using the shell support suffered from this. Publicizing this as a Mozilla flaw is clearly just grasping at straws to try and drag Mozilla down. And the fact that there's already a fix for Moz. speaks highly for the developers.
NERDS!!!!
Opera has an option to start where you left off last time, Mozilla has the Session Saver extension.
My favorite Opera feature is the page view zoom, especially for printing. Unlike Mozilla's zoom feature, which only scales the text, Opera scales the whole page including the images, so the layout and placement look very much the same, only bigger/smaller as requested. It wouldn't surprise me if Opera's zoom violates a few standards here and there, but I wish every browser did it like that. Very handy, indeed.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
I'm sure every single 3D artist out there uses a web browser, but how many web browser users are 3D artists? Your analogy is crap. It's more like driving a car and not knowing that there are a number of models out there to choose from. I admit my ignorance in the realm of 3D modeling, but I'm also not insulted by this in the slightest.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Let me explain: We'll take the browser word as all of we are thinking, ie. a program that displays/navigates webpages. Web pages are HTML, transferred to the browser using HTTP. HTTP is a "defined" standard, and it marks as REQUIRED the compliance with some other RFC docs, one of them being the URI definition doc, in which is allowed the proto://user:pass@site/path that MSIE disabled in one of the latest 500 patches. Let's do some 1-1=0 MSIE doesn't support http, and then it shouldn't be called browser.
If you like CrazyBrowser, you really should be using Maxthon (formerly MyIE2):
;) And it's updated constantly.
http://www.maxthon.com
It's like SUPER CrazyBrowser
I've been using Firefox for a few months now and I absolutely love it. The popup blocking is great, tabbed browsing makes working with multiple open web sites easy, find as you type is a real time saver and so is the built in Google search bar. The compact UI is cool as well because more screen realistate is devoted to the website I'm lookking at.
I can't recommend Firefox highly enough. If you enable Automatic Updates in Windows, there's really no reason to use IE. I've only come across a site or two that required IE in order to display correctly and when it happened I fired off a note to the webmaster.
If you haven't tried Firefox and are using IE what in the world are you waiting for? The worst that can happen is that you decided you don't like it and uninstall it. When you compare that to just some of the annoying things that can and do happen when running IE (spyware, malware, constant pop-ups, constant security issues, etc) trying Firefox becomes a no brainer.
SPA w/NTLM was incorporated into Thunderbird at v0.5. I also believe it is in Mozilla.
:-) The only real answer is if you get to the point where an extra 50 Mb is needed, then worry about it. And...if you are in that much of a bind for 50 Mb, you've got bigger problems than deleting a browser.
As far as #1 -- you've probably gotten lots of answers on that.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Firefox and Mozilla love to hog up my memory. Again, I have to ask, why do they re-implement all their own widgets? It's completely insane. It's just a browser.
Opera is speedy, it renders Slashdot correctly (something Mozilla and Firefox still can't do), and it doesn't suck up all my memory just because some people wanted to reinvent the wheel. And all of Opera's best featurs have been ripped off and hailed as Mozilla innovations. Tabbed browsing? Mouse gestures? Pop-up blocking? It was all Opera first.
FF has an image zooming extension but AFAIK it won't scale text and images automatically.
"...personality goes a long way."
It's hard for me to explain, but I have permanently set it the way that I've described. Once you try it for a day, then you'll never turn back. You could always turn images on/off as you've described.
testing out my trending skills
--Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; Actually Mozilla Firefox - try it now!)
The beauty of the FireFox design IS the plugins - you can do this kind of thing.
Oh, and by the way, there are many other ways to do this, and you can also do it in Opera and Mozilla. Here's a comprehensive article on how to manipulate the User Agent strings.
--Brandon / Split Infinity Music
You of course are forgetting to realize that many of us are FORCED to use Windows and IE in our work environments. And how could one let the day go by without catching up on the latest slashdot news at least several times during your 8 hours of hell? :)
:)
PS - I'm posting this from work
Joseph?
I always thought that in order to use Firefox you needed to be able to think in Russian. I'm surprised you don't see microsoft pointing this out as drawback.
"That's not a feature that is unique to opera. I know for a fact that IE can do it and I am fairly certain that FF can do it as well. "
c ities/ca n/pages/CAON0512.htm
Actually having the option is not the same as having a speedy implementation of it. I just tested all three browsers.
I changed IE as you suggested. With firefox I used preferential to change the cache check_doc_frequency to never.
I then ran a series of web pages in each then stepped back and forward with buttons. Results:
Opera seems like you are flipping a static image cache it is that fast. No hesitation absolutely instant.
Both IE and FF have noticiable delay, you can see the items drawn on the screen. In one page they took a long time. Firefox was the slowest and still seemed to be loading. Perhaps the option doesn't work.
This page was quite slow on both. All pages lightning on Opera.
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/
If I had to guess, I would say opera is caching pre-rendered pages, while the others store files but render when you load the page.
Whatever the reason, my original point remains, Opera is an Order of magnitude faster with cached pages. It is not contest. Once you get used to INSTANT, you can't go back.
I won't speak to people getting excited over a 1% drop in IE usage, because that just seems silly to me, but taking each of those FUD-sounding statements in turn I came up with the following:
"IE is insecure because of ActiveX"
According to Microsoft,"An ActiveX control can be an extremely insecure way to provide a feature...the control may be vulnerable to attack because any Web application on the Internet can repurpose it, that is, use the control for its own ends whether sincere or malicious.". There are numerous other sources for the "ActiveX makes IE insecure" opinion, but if I were making a case for it I'd start with something directly from the company responsible for IE. To be fair, the article goes on to discuss what you can do as a developer to make your own ActiveX components secure, but I refer back to the first sentence and think about the old adage concerning chains and their weakest links...
"Microsoft has said they will never support CSS2"
Again, according to Microsoft,"Stricter parsing is more consistent with the standards promulgated by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)--the CSS, Level 1 (CSS1) and CSS, Level 2 (CSS2) specifications.". This seems to imply that IE does, in fact, support CSS2, but if a dissenting opinion can be backed up with proof (i.e.- "insert this CSS2 compliant stuff into a simple HTML page and watch IE 6 vomit on it") I'd sooner believe that than the MS site. I'm just lazy and attempting to address each point using only Microsoft-approved information...so on this point, at least, I have to admit that it's FUD according to what MS would have you believe.
"IE runs faster than Mozilla because it's integrated in the kernel"
Again, Microsoft has an archived news story that says, among other things, "DOJ's Request for New Court Order Shows that Internet Explorer is an Integrated Feature of Windows". Granted, this is from 1997 and refers to Win95/IE 3.0, but I'm lazy and couldn't find anything more current WRT IE's integrated/nonintegrated status. Given the assumption that IE's relationship to the OS has remained the same, I think it's reasonable to suggest that an application that's part of the OS will run faster than one that isn't.
So, through some very cursory research, it would appear that there is some factual basis for at least two of those three allegations according to sources at the organization that is the target of the supposed FUD.
And so, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, if Chewbacca does not make sense...
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
Furthermore, the post you quoted simply stated that IE's horrible security record is demonstrable by evidence, also a fact without any real condemnation. None of these posts had any sort of condemnation of IE users, which is what you seem to have inferred. Perhaps you saw something in them that wasn't really there? It's still crap. Your analogy expects someone who doesn't use anything related to 3D modelling to know something about it, but this has no relation to the subject at hand. Instead, try asking someone for some basic knowledge about something they do use, like asking a 3D modeller using IE about Mozilla, since they obviously know and use a web browser. This actually applies, and as such it would make a better analogy than your own.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Let me just add that BSPlayer is an amazing program that runs much faster and easier than any current Windows Media Player version (admitedly, I have no problems with the 'unsupported' WMP 6.x but you can't get that from Microsoft anymore). I'm surprised more people on the Windows platform haven't heard it. In addition to a wide variety of features like subtitles, surround sound, faster seeking and... well actually I'm not very good at remembering which features WMP also has. But here's something really cool... BSPlayer can play incomplete files fairly well. That's right, corrupted downloads or badly compressed video is no longer a problem... as long as you have the appropriate codecs installed (still a necessary evil to install them manually, Gregorian Knot helps though)... you can view it. Even from unfinished P2P.
Having just pronounced my love for BSPlayer, let me just say that an open-source application named VideoLAN plays incomplete files even better than BSPlayer, but it falls short in many other areas. I believe it's original purpose is to view streaming media off of a network.
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:
/. i'm looking at right now.
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
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.
One thing not mentioned in the reviews is that, while both browsers allow the user to change the reported user-agent string (Firefox through an add-on extension), only Firefox does this correctly, while Opera reports the user-agent you specify, PLUS Opera as well.
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
Their "rating" is just a subjective opinion anyway. There's no info in either review to explain how the 3.5 and 4 ratings were given. In fact, there's no reference to the rating at all. I had a hard time even spotting the 3.5 and 4 scores that I read about, because it just looked like page decoration.
Basically, the scores are meaningless, and the reviews just say both are great browsers (which means I don't have to go trolling slashdot over how Opera should have scored better than Firefox).
Also, can someone tell me where this session management in Firefox is? I can't seem to see it. Is it brand new to 0.9.1, or is it an add-on I haven't installed?
This sig is part of your complete breakfast.