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."

Comments

Does this mean...

[Atmchicago]

...that I should stop running Internet Explorer using wine, and try Firefox?

Re:Does this mean...

[happyfrogcow]

depends.

Are you running Wine on Longhorn with SFU? If so, no. Otherwise, yes.

IE User

[enforcer999]

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.

Re:IE User

[Neil Blender]

Out of habit and ignorance, I have used IE for years

You have just spoke for a billion people.

Proof is in the Pudding

[darth_MALL]

"IE's slow rendering engine "
Sad but true. The review page has been loading for almost a minute now :(

Mozilla, Opera and Firefox...

[shackma2]

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.

Re:Mozilla, Opera and Firefox...

[D4Vr4nt]

The brutal part about IE being part of the OS is that people seem to be retarded about opening/closing their web browser.

I've heard that Moz loads too slow all the time... Waaaaa.. It's not as fast as IE.

Why don't people just realize that once you open your web browser you should just leave it open?! Why are you even on your computer? :P

Anyways.. back to my point. People will keep using IE simply because it's there, and the convience of being one of the fastest loading applications in Windows (oh wait.. I forgot about Calc.exe).

Oh.. And most people can't wrap their heads around tabbed browsing (or see the point of it). But tell them it blocks popups then they get excited.

Re:Mozilla, Opera and Firefox...

[spectecjr]

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.

Re:Mozilla, Opera and Firefox...

[SimplexO]

I guess if you are going to make me fact-check, I might as well go all out. When I said IEHTML, I meant MSHTML -- thanks for not acronym nazi'ing me.

"According to Microsoft, IE 4 contains nine components that interoperate for full functionality (see Figure 2). These components include five DLLs--Wininet.dll, Urlmon.dll, Mshtml.dll, Shdocvw.dll, and Comctl32.dll--along with two executable files, Explorer.exe and Iexplore.exe, and a security and a Java virtual machine component. Both IE 3 and IE 4 require these DLLs to function and without them could not offer the displays we expect and the features we expect, nor access the Internet at all. Wininet.dll offers Internet services and capabilities, including HTTP and FTP access, modem dialing, and browser caching. Urlmon.dll lets developers treat URLs as if they were programmable objects and thus build them into their applications (Microsoft's own Office 97 does this). Mshtml.dll is the component that lets you view your folders as Web pages: Choose a disk drive from My Computer, for example, and what you see is Dynamic HTML, Microsoft-style, relying on this particular DLL. Shdocvw.dll (Shell Document View) lets developers build browser capabilities into software, while Comctl32.dll (Common Controls) provides low-level support for menus, toolbars, progress bars, and many other controls used across Windows applications." (emphasis mine)
Source.

As you can see, at least 2 of the 5 DLLs IE needs are in use by windows. Sure, this is IE4, but it was the first in-depth analysis I found.

Firefox's chrome is very thin layer on top of gecko, so that doesn't take long. Loading up the static GRE is what takes it the longest time. MSHTML.DLL (as well as comctl32.dll) is already in use by the windows shell before anyone double-clicks on "The Internet".

Re:What about IE?

[marnargulus]

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

User-Agent stats?

[Exmet Paff Daxx]

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?

Re:User-Agent stats?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:User-Agent stats?

[JollyGreenLlama]

I would move that a diagnosis of IE vs. Mozilla on a site like Slashdot might not be the best test of marketshare. Many people access Slashdot from the office, where they are more likely to use IE because it is part of the base software package. Many workplaces, like mine, have rules against downloading and running software other than what has been installed on the system by the sysadmin.

Ingrained attitudes

[robogun]

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.

Interesting perspective.

[digitalgimpus]

Interesting note here:

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.

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. :-D

Install it for people

[blackmonday]

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.

Unimplemented feature

[riqnevala]

"Sorry, this browser does not support automated installation of trojans and other malicious applications, please upgrade to MSIE to further risk your computer security"

Re:Alright Mozilla

[Trigun]

But all the FUD was created by IE anyways.

I fear that I will have my personal information stolen.
I am uncertain that the IE Developers are competent programmers.
I doubt that I will switch back to IE in the near future.

Does MS really care anymore?

[Mitleid]

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.

Re:Does MS really care anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

After noticing that people generally hated web user interfaces, Microsoft started banking on network-distributed fat clients using XAML driving the sales of Longhorn. They deliberately didn't fully implement CSS, DHTML and XHTML because the less featureful web apps are in general, the more demand there will be for XAML applications (which btw, can only be consumed on a Windows machine).

Microsoft did put the IE features team back together last month as a response to the growing threat of Mozilla - I think they made a critical error in judgement and are now going to have to play catch up to Mozilla until Longhorn comes out. More than that, Microsoft has already started to reevaluate the selling power XAML will have because whether Mozilla beats IE in the next two-three years or vice versa, more sites will capitalize on new browser technology to deliver richer UIs that reduce the need for technologies like XAML.

Now if Mozilla just gets its act together and gets a strong managed framework backend for XUL....

Re:Does MS really care anymore?

[leperkuhn]

Well they worked on it till they had a browser monopoly, then due to simple economics, stopped working on it. I believe that is one of the fundamental problems with monopolies, sort of like communism.

Best Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Faster and More secure

[dhartman]

I have a few clients who had previously insisted on remaining with IE because "it works best with the other Microsoft programs". However, when I removed the latest pile of spyware/adware and insisted that they at least TRY Firefox they had nothing but good things to say. Their 13 year old even says that "Hey dad, this is like waayy faster than IE". There have only been a few sites which 'require' IE (some due to incompetent web page coders who determine on their own that "this page won't render correctly with Mozilla", then block access using Javascript).

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.

There is no such thing as DHTML!

[Christianfreak]

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*

Firefox and DHTML

[Mustang Matt]

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?

To Really Speed FireFox/Mozilla Up

[ironwill96]

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

Re:Alright Mozilla

[malfunct]

I am uncertain that IE Developers are competent programmers.

I'll bite, I can guarantee that some number of Mozilla developers are not competent programmers given the number of possible contributors to the project.

That said, I think MS realizes it has a problem now and is dealing with it, unfortunately it will take a year or two for it to really be dealt with. Mozilla knew (I hope and assume here) there was a problem right from the start and took steps to mitigate a lot of the problems that IE is plagued with (and netscape would probably have been plauged with before the complete rewrite of code). Its a new style vs old style mentality. Many applications (OSS as well as proprietary commercial) from the early to mid 90's are plauged with the type of problems that IE has. The problem is that MS rested on its laurels instead of continuing to push IE forward and improve it. They also were under the highly misguided impression that people didn't really care about security and weren't willing to pay for it. Hopefully the truth has come home to roost and we will see better products out of redmond.

Re:Alright Mozilla

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Here's a funny snippet of their Firefox review:

Con: Will not load ActiveX and VBScript

This should be under Pros, ActiveX is good for one purpose -- Windows Update. And I've never even heard of an real web site that used VBScript. Shall we detract points for not supporting every asinine scripting language ever invented?

Re:Alright Mozilla

[Smidge204]

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=

How to make Firefox render pages faster than IE

[Jack Zombie]

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.