Microsoft Says Firefox Not a Threat to IE

KillaKen187 writes "A CNET article claims that 'just days after the launch of open-source browser Firefox 1.0, Microsoft executives defended Internet Explorer, saying it is no less secure than any other browser and doesn't lack any important features.' It's also interesting to note that these statements made by Steve Vamos, Microsoft Australia's managing director, come with no knowledge of what Firefox has to offer as he admits not even installing or using Firefox."

Comments

The real reason it's not a threat

[Anonymous Coward]

The next version of Windows will only allow Internet Explorer to access port 80 remotely... as a security measure.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Gentlewhisper]

How can he say FF is not a threat if he hasn't even downloaded and installed it?

Many friends I know were reluctant about installing another weird name browser until I do it for them, and from then onwards IE is history

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[maadlucas]

Most people don't actually care. The vast majority of people simply don't know what a program is, what an operating system is, what a CPU is or whatever. To them, you click this little button to print, that little button to shutdown, and you click on "Internet Explorer" to "Explore the internet". That's why its such a great name for a web browser, and also the reason why Apple introduced a little "Browse the Internet" icon in MacOS 8 which launched your default browser. The real reason why Firefox is not a threat is because People Are Dumb.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Alapan]

It is for this reason, that the lab I administer has a Firefox link labelled "Internet" and all links to IE have been removed.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[AKAImBatman]

They don't care now, but they're starting to. To continue my story from yesterday, one of my coworkers who had asked me about Firefox got a virus. She didn't actually realize it until the IT people came by and told her that the antivirus program had just removed a virus from her machine.

All she'd known is that her machine had been running slow. She did some thinking and came to the conclusion that it had come from some lyrics site that had nailed her with popup windows. As I floated the word "Firefox" across the office, the coworker who had installed Firefox happily piped up, "I haven't seen a popup all day!"

Peer pressure, that's where it's at. :-)

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[dbretton]

Well, then, we need a simple solution.

Firefox will, from this point forth, be renamed, "Internet".

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[SuperIceBoy]

Most people don't care because they don't realize there is even a problem with IE. They are the same people that don't know that their computer is full of spyware and other sorts of malware.

They don't see a problem, they don't even realize they have a choice when it comes to browsers. They just use IE because that is what is on their desktop by default.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[DanielJosphXhan]

People are dumb, but in a different way that you're thinking -- people are dumb because they don't really know what they want until you give it to them.

Microsoft itself, for instance, became a success by giving people what they didn't know they needed, or by filling a void that no one realised was there.

The fact that they're now playing the "our customers don't want it" card is proof how much their corporate culture has stagnated: people don't want things like tabbed browsing, because they don't know they can have them.

I just find it strange that almost every person I've ever introduced tabbed browsing to has loved the feature, even those that still prefer to us IE.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[MoronGames]

Not only are people dumb, but they get used to using one browser. No matter what type of computer they are. For example, my school bought a bunch of iMacs this year. They all run OS X, and all of them have Safari. What browser to people use 90% of the time? Internet Explorer. Which browser is easier to find? Safari. It's in the freaking dock. Where is Internet Explorer? In the Application directory of the hard drive with OS X installed on it. People are so stupid and hooked on Internet Explorer that they spend extra time trying to find it. They don't understand that IE is not the internet.

I think if other companies want their browsers to be used, they should give them a name that has INTERNET in it. That way people will know that you're going on the internet. What the hell has Firefox got to do with the internet? Same goes for Netscape, Opera, and Safari.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[superpulpsicle]

So far I am sickly blown away by firefox. I figured by now, I would have some temptation to float back to IE, but nope. The only thing lacking (IF MOZILLA FOLKS ARE READING) is the bookmark management. Which is so hard to deal with in html format compared to the way IE has it all in a folder, and you are just moving folders in and out. Granted the bookmark management thing is compatible for every OS. It still seem slow compared to any native windows system explorer or file manager in linux.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[lpret]

No no no, try this:

The Internet: Extreme

It worked for Intel...sorta...

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Tim C]

The vast majority of people simply don't know what a program is, what an operating system is, what a CPU is or whatever... The real reason why Firefox is not a threat is because People Are Dumb.

I'm a programmer by trade, and I know all of these things, and I use Firefox. Am I dumb? Apparently not.

I know nothing about motor mechanics; if my car develops a fault, I take it to a garage. Am I dumb now?

I know nothing about building. If I needed an extension built, or a wall knocked through, or whatever, I'd go to a builder. Am I dumb now?

I know nothing about teaching. I may know the subject, but I know nothing about planning and preparing lessons, setting homework, or keeping a class full of students interested and engaged. Am I dumb now?

Because by extending your reasoning to other fields, I am, and so are you, and everyone else here.

People here need to stop being so elitist, and denigrating people just because they know less about computers than some arbitrarily determined minimum level below which the person must be "dumb".

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Zonnald]

People are dumb?

My uncle is a PHD in Physcial Education, Business Adminsitration, Philosphy and more, travelled the word advising in various counties (Malaysia, Turkey, USA) on such things as setting up Universities.

He is now retired - and quite frankly is not interested in become a POWER USER. So damn right he wants to be told what he wants.

He is quite happy that he can browser the internet, do video editing and do letter writing.
I may well approach him with some great new feature, but I really don't think that it is going to change his "exprience" enough to be worth the time to explain why he should change.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[hazem]

Where I most recently worked, XP-SP2 broke several important custom applications and there was no easy fix or work-around. So, it's not always possible to jump when Microsoft says jump. The IT folks are working on re-writing the apps, but that takes time.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[fireman sam]

I jumped when Microsoft said jump and it was the best day of my life.

They said jump to windows 95, I jumped to slackware 3.2. Mmmm fvwm

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Anonymous Coward]

somebody should make a virus that downloads FireFox, installs it on their computer, replaces IE and uses IE icons.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Fearless Freep]

If you drive your car into a tree because you don't know how to steer, you are dumb

If your car comes to a halt because you don't know to put gas in it, you are dumb.

If you cause a lot of damage to your car because you burn it out because you never replace the oil, you are dumb.

There is a certain minimal skill and intelligence level required to simply drive and maintain a car safely. Most people have it.

There is a certain minimal skill and intelligence level required to simply operate and maintain a computer safely. Most people don't seem to want to get it

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Afrosheen]

The best idea is to fool the users. Keep the E icon for Internet Explorer, but have it point to the Firefox executable. That's idiot-proofing.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[WoBIX]

It's more a matter of ignorance than stupidity. People don't know that running an OS without a firewall or some sort of basic protection from the outside world, or browsing random sites with a exploited browser is equivalent to parking your car downtown and leaving the keys in the ignition. It will take time, but eventually the youth of today will be the better users of tomorrow. Sure, there's always going to be buttheads, but they're the bread and butter of the IT industry :)

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[jacksonj04]

I've got an application on a pendrive I carry around which is just a one-click corrective action. Firefox, Spybot, loads of config changes, runs auto-update. Great.

It even works through my school's 'security'. Excellent :D

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Compholio]

But... But... I just got used to Firefox! We've already seen two name changes, no more please - I beg you!

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[0racle]

Those are basic usage things. Clicking on an icon labeled Internet is basic usage (steering), as is turning it on (Filling up and applying gas), getting email and playing a game (general driving). Defrag, popup blocking, anti-virus and knowing what program does what and how to replace them are not basic usage, just like changing the oil, getting a tune up and whatnot are not basic usage people take it to a garage for that. When i turn the wheel in a car, it turns, but I couldn't even begin to tell you how nor do I care, because I don't need to know how it works to do this. Just like clicking on a link to IE, I don't need to know how it does what it does, or what program it launches in order to use it, I need to know how to click it, enter a url and use google, thats it.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[mgv]

How can he say FF is not a threat if he hasn't even downloaded and installed it?

Well, clearly it isn't.

At least to him :)

Be happy that some people in M$ still don't see it as a threat. If everyone in M$ thought that firefox was going to destroy their desktop dominance for the browser... it might get a little tougher for mozilla.org.

Better that they don't know.

Michael

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Darth Coder]

That is all well and good but there are something like 200 million Windows users out there who aren't bound by the dictates of an all-powerful system administrator.

Well obviously they should be!

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Groucho]

And those in the blue states will claim to have invented it.

They, uh, did.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[niteice]

The Firefox link should read 'Porn' and the IE link should read 'Goatse'. For further effect (and to ward off users not knowing the horrors therein), set the IE home page to goat.cx.


Problem solved. ;)

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[RollingThunder]

I would personally call not installing unknown software equivalent to learning to guage an oncoming car's relative direction to yours and judging if it will collide or not.

There are a LOT of learned skills in driving - from assessing the feedback through the wheel, judging your inner ear, etc - things we just don't think about because we do them every day now. Computers have similar tasks, which people don't care to learn because they won't die if they fuck up.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[jhobbs]

I'm a programmer by trade, and I know all of these things, and I use Firefox. Am I dumb? Apparently not.

Congratulations.

I know nothing about motor mechanics; if my car develops a fault, I take it to a garage. Am I dumb now?

Knowing nothing about the mechanics of such an expensive piece of machinery is a quick way to get ripped off. Even compared to a JiffyLube for $20, you can save half by doing it yourself. I may be a network consultant, but I am quite comfortable seeing to the needs of my own automobile and have in the past changed everthing from oil, to spark plugs, to alternators, to oxygen sensors. None of which are as difficult as I or other might have imagined. Pick up a tear-down manual for your car at AutoZone for about $14 and knock yourself out.

I know nothing about building. If I needed an extension built, or a wall knocked through, or whatever, I'd go to a builder. Am I dumb now?

Construction is another area of greatly marked up labor. Basic engineering principles are easy to master and will save you thousands. I learned most of mine working on a low-slope/commercial/industrial roofing crew in the summers in college. I have also picked up carpentry, mansonary, and electrical along the way. Trust me, DIY projects will save you loads of cash and are not difficult to master. Start small, work you way up. That hole in the sheetrock you have a picture hung over is a nice small place to start learning. The most satisfying project I have completed are the two walk-in closets in my master bedroom complete with loads of built-ins.

I know nothing about teaching. I may know the subject, but I know nothing about planning and preparing lessons, setting homework, or keeping a class full of students interested and engaged. Am I dumb now?

I am not a "teacher" but I tutored people in college and also created the format for a 2-week summer computer camp that introducted K thru 4th graders to basic computer concepts. I can say without a doubt I learned more while teaching other people than I ever learned while other people were teaching me.

Because by extending your reasoning to other fields, I am, and so are you, and everyone else here.

People here need to stop being so elitist, and denigrating people just because they know less about computers than some arbitrarily determined minimum level below which the person must be "dumb".

It is not elitest to say someone is far from well rounded. Specialization is the autobaun to obsoletion. My social circle includes no other "computer people" but I have taken the time to learn wines (nice course at a local university), cigars (even though I don't smoke them more than VERY RARLY, being able to talk to an aficionado is a great way to start a conversation with them, a possible future client). I am not inclined to follow pop culture but I read People, US, etc., so I have something to chat up those interested in it about. I have picked up on while living in Miami Beach, Haute Couture, Haute Cuisine, styles of Architechture (followed that through with an Architechture Lecture at a local university, facinating stuff, Miami Beach is the only place you will find Tropical Deco), furniture design, more sports than I can count, and having a best friend that is a film festival coordinator I have learned a load of things (namely occupations) that I never imagined existed. I never knew existed. Computer People need to expand thier world to other things (and that doesnt mean reading about it on the computer, that's cheating, get outside) and non-Computer savvy people most definatly need to learn more about computers as they are a tidal wave on the horizon that will (more than now even) infultrate the very fabric of their existence. I by no means think that I am even close to well rounded, I have a long ways to go before I can begin to consider resting. It is, however, unforgivable for a person to *choose* to remain ignorant.

Leonardo Da Vinci never announced "I'm an artist, what do I care about engineering?"

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Wizarth]

I actually did this to my parent-in-laws machine. However they noticed that it was a different browser (Firefox needs an IE look-alike skin as well). And then they figured out that the Windows Update link (which had to be left as IE) was "the old browser" and if they hit stop, they had their old browser.

At this point I decided to refuse any future requests for tech support.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[tacensi]

I actually did this to my parent-in-laws machine.
Because of the comment just above (not the parent, but the one shown in my thread view) I thought for a moment that you had set the goatse as ie's homepage at your parents in law computer... THAT would be funny!

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[WhiteBandit]

The best idea is to fool the users. Keep the E icon for Internet Explorer, but have it point to the Firefox executable. That's idiot-proofing.

A friend of mine who is in charge of a bookstore had a similiar experience. He installed Firefox on all the machines, then deleted all the shortcuts and references to Internet Explorer. Shortly after, he had employees asking him where IE was, despite an icon on the desktop that clearly read "Mozilla Firefox Web Browser".

Eventually, some users would go back and find ways to run IE (whether through MS Word or Start -> Run). They spent more time trying to find/"reinstall" the IE rather than simply starting Firefox, simply because they were too scared to try a new program!

Finally, he kept all the IE links and icons, but changed the executable to point to Firefox. No complaints since then. ;)

The main thing is that people are stubborn and too timid to bother learning a new program. I guess it can be an intimidating thing, so I don't blame them. Ultimately, I think we'll get a decent market share, it will just take time. It's taken a bit of prodding, but I've eventually gotten many of my friends and even my parents to switch to Firefox exclusively.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[fbg111]

The best idea is to fool the users. Keep the E icon for Internet Explorer, but have it point to the Firefox executable. That's idiot-proofing.

And if you really want to mess with your users, skin Firefox with an IE theme (once the Firefox 1.0 version theme is released).

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[DoraLives]

Computers have similar tasks, which people don't care to learn because they won't die if they fuck up.

Evil Vision

Whatta ya sa we just run a special wire from the power supply to the user's chair. Have it get activated whenever the user fucks up. We could even rig it up with variable voltage/amperage depending upon the nature of the fuckup. That oughtta sort things out in a hurry, eh?

/Evil Vision

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[AstroDrabb]

I bet our admins WISH they could script the uninstalling of IE. Remember, if you "uninstall" IE, you really just remove the front-end iexplorer.exe program and not the REAL IE (all the DLL's that really make up IE and that is "integrated" into MS Windows). So MS Windows desktops are still at risk to IE vulnerabilities even if you "uninstall" IE.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Trejkaz]

Actually, it's worse than that. When you "uninstall" IE, it leaves iexplore.exe on your computer and merely sets its hidden attribute. You can still run the program itself, as well as like you say, all the DLLs which are the real problem.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Abjifyicious]

The best idea is to fool the users. Keep the E icon for Internet Explorer, but have it point to the Firefox executable. That's idiot-proofing.

Clever idea, but it can backfire if they depend on a site that only works on IE. I tried something along those lines with one of my relatives, and his banking website wouldn't work. He was horribly freaked out because he thought I had "broken" his "bank account" and he thought he wouldn't be able to withdraw money while he was on a vacation he was leaving for in several days.

Well I explained what was wrong, but he didn't believe me so I spent about an hour on the phone trying first to explain how to open the site in IE, then trying to explain how to change the default browser to IE, then even trying to get him to simply delete Firefox. Unfortunately he was too stupid to figure it out, and I had to drive to his house and fix it for him.

As you can probably guess by now, I'm not going to install Firefox on people's machines anymore unless they know what I'm doing. If a luser is too thick skulled to figure out what a web browser is, then they deserve to be stuck with IE.

Not that I'm bitter or anything... :-P

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Fragmented_Datagram]

You could go one step further and get the IE theme as well.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Richard Dick Head]

Info and download here.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Max Romantschuk]

You forgot to mention the most important thing: Did you contact the bank and inform them that their web app only works on IE?

Sites, especially banking sites (read: conservative sites), won't improve unless they get enough feedback to do so.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[sigemund]

I considered doing that where I work (school), but I did one better. To get to the web, you have to use a proxy server. Well, not only did I remove all mentions of IE anywhere, but I didn't put the proxy settings in. And the user can't change them. So you can try to use IE all you want, but it doesn't work. But Firefox works great, and it's got no fewer than four links on the computer. Plus I set up a firefox roaming profile for users so the bookmarks/etc. travel with them.

I'm so happy with this setup :) Not only do the users HAVE to use Firefox, but they see the name a lot, which, in additon to the good user experience, is marketing for the browser.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[jonabbey]

Microsoft itself, for instance, became a success by giving people what they didn't know they needed, or by filling a void that no one realised was there.

<harshing on Microsoft>

Really? When was this? Bill Gates and Paul Allen did a good turn with BASIC back on the Altair, but they were copying the innovation of John G. Kemeny and Thomas E. Kurtz in doing so. DOS was a rip of CP/M. Windows was an attempt to block VisiCorp's VISION and Digital Research's GEM, not to mention IBM's TopView, Quarterdeck's DESQ/View or, say, the Lisa and Macintosh. Flight Simulator came from Bruce Artwick's subLogic. Word came after dozens of other Word Processors. Excel was Microsoft's second attempt at a spreadsheet app after Multimate, which in turn was after Visicalc and Lotus 1-2-3.

The web browser? Tim Berners Lee and Marc Andreesen's team at NCSA, among others. Powerpoint? Purchased from an outside developer. Visio? Purchased from an outside developer. FoxPro? Purchased from an outside developer. C#/.NET? Closely imitative of Java, without all of that icky non-Windows-bound aspirations.

I'm rather looking forward to seeing Microsoft become a success by giving people what they didn't know they needed, myself. Microsoft Bob surely wasn't it.

</harshing on Microsoft>

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[xtremee]

I've worked as a tech support agent (on the phone) for over 4 years now and one thing i figured out is that people is not STUPID. They are COMPUTER IGNORANTS which is very different, believe me, once you teach them how to do something they'll never forget (unless it's a really complicated thing for them like changing TCP/IP settings).
What firefox needs is a new name like "Firefox Internet Navigator" and to execute a tutorial on how to use it on the first run.

Just my $0.02

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Mant]

Da Vinci was probably one of the smartest human beings in history. He did both things he needed to do for money (like we all do) and what interestead him.

Intreset is the key, learning about things takes time. I know about computers, becuase they interest me. I know all sorts of histroy and science triva, because it interests me. I know little about cars and DIY becuase they don't. You see, time spent learning these things is time lost to me doing I something I don't enjoy. I value my time so I choose to spend my money having someone else do it.

I choose to remain ignorant about these things, becuase I can. You know what? I don't care about it being "unforgivable" in your eyes. There is too much in life for any human being to do, so choosing to prioritse your time, placing a value on it, is the only sensible course.

If you enjoyed the various activies you have done, great, good for you. Saving money though isn't always everyone's priority, sometimes circumstances may force people there.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Oddly_Drac]

"It is not elitest to say someone is far from well rounded."

No, it's a fairly mealy way of saying that they're dumb in a way that they may not understand immediately. Being well-rounded, or diversifying in your interests and behaviours to the point where you can do almost anything is a couple of steps higher on Maslow's hierarchy than most people get; you should be applauded for your achievements, but at the same time understand that you are not _average_ by any stretch of the imagination.

Further to that the vast majority of people using computers out there do not have an interest in them. They want to know about the stuff on the internet, but not about the internet.

"It is, however, unforgivable for a person to *choose* to remain ignorant."

Now that is elitist. For one thing people don't necessarily choose ignorance as the direction of their life, and may not believe that Gilbert & Sullivan are anything more than a couple of old guys. To decry a person on the pleasures that they maintain is to completely misunderstand humanity as a whole.

"Computer People need to expand thier world to other things"

You'd be surprised by the breadth of knowledge shown by 'Computer People' over the age of 24. After you've mastered the basics, it leaves a lot of room for other things.

"Specialization is the autobaun to obsoletion."

You do know that 'species'...oh, never mind.

Generalisation means you never achieve true competence. Mention that around the next Vineyard you visit, as you'll find that they're extremely specialised.

"Leonardo Da Vinci never announced "I'm an artist, what do I care about engineering?""

He also never said 'Midgets make me laugh'. What conclusion are we to draw from that?

"Trust me, DIY projects will save you loads of cash and are not difficult to master."

But building an extension is a different matter to covering a hole in sheetrock. America appears to do much better in this regard than countries that like their buildings to consist of more than one storey, brick construction and have foundations, but I'm guessing that you still have building codes to adhere to.

"The most satisfying project I have completed are the two walk-in closets in my master bedroom"

Congratulations on mastering stud partitioning. I'm sure that you can comfortably create your next dwelling.

Re:The real reason it's not a threat

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, no. She's stupid. And so are all these other users that the previous poster said weren't stupid. They are.

They're stupid not because they're ignorant (which they also are). They're stupid because they refuse to learn. That's stupid.

I'm not saying it's stupid to refuse to learn just anything, like string theory when your profession is teaching English. But refusing to learn about the tools you use every single day to do important tasks that you depend on to live is stupid. Refusing to educate yourself about alternatives that may make your life much easier, especially when other people more knowledgable than you have recommended these alternatives, is stupid.

Suppose you're buying a new car, and your old car is a Chevy and has given you nothing but trouble and cost you a fortune in repairs. Would you ignore all other brands out there, refuse to do any research about other brands and models, and simply go to the same Chevy dealership you got your last lemon from and buy another Chevy from the same salesman that screwed you on the last car? Any person like this is stupid. They can claim all they want that they're not car experts, don't know about cars, etc., but no one's asking them to build the thing. It's a tool you need to function in society, and refusing to educate yourself about which products will best serve you is absolutely stupid. The same is true with computers and software tools.

As for this person who refuses to learn to use a TV, that's stupid too. She doesn't need to become an expert on every function and learn to use picture-in-picture, zoom in on DVDs, program the TiVO to record various shows, etc. But to be so helpless that she can't even turn on the TV to her favorite channel and watch it without help, even when someone is showing her how, that's stupid.

I'm sick and tired of all you apologists claiming people aren't stupid. They are. Not all IE users are stupid: maybe a few have tried Opera, Firefox, etc., and found that they don't work with their crappy intranet sites with Active-X controls or whatever, and thus are forced to stay with IE. But all the people who simply refuse to try anything different, despite the constant problems with IE, are stupid.

Bottom line: refusing to learn to do simple things that can greatly simplify or improve your life is stupid.

Great quote to take out of context

[SuperKendall]

There are plenty of products out there with features we don't have. We have plenty of features that our customers don't use.

Indeed they do!

Re:Great quote to take out of context

[JoshuaDFranklin]

And tell me... where is this address where users let Microsoft know what features they really want?

Re:Great quote to take out of context

[Tackhead]

> And tell me... where is this address where users let Microsoft know what features they really want?

Can't speak for you or him, but I use www.mozilla.org...

Tabbed browsing not important

[arbi]

From the CNET article:
English reiterated that features such as tabbed browsing are not important to IE users.

You can mark my word that IE will have tabbed browsing within 12 months from now.

Re:Tabbed browsing not important

[Blamemyparents]

In the Longhorn builds that have leaked out onto the internet, IE does in fact have tabbed browsing. However, it also has some STUPID new crap, like a redesigned bar at the top that has....a pointlessly MASSIVE back button. However, it still has just as just as many issues as current IE.

Re:Tabbed browsing not important

[Sardak]

Or perhaps correctly rendering Portable Network Graphics.

Re:Tabbed browsing not important

[Coneasfast]

if firefox starts to take a good chunk of the market share, IE will have tabbed browsing, if it takes a bigger chunk, IE will have proper png support.

it's time for microsoft to step up and get out of denial, firefox is a viable alternative now.

Re:Tabbed browsing not important

[MC Negro]

Back when I actually needed to use IE to access certain websites, I would always use the free AvantBrowser mod. IIRC, AvantBrowser simply sits on top of IE, so it is actually IE at the core. Regardless, it's got lots of features - tabbed browsing, pop-up blocker, flash filter, key bindings and a bunch of other stuff. Pretty nifty if you _must_ use IE.

Re:Tabbed browsing not important

[lazlo]

But it's such an idiotic statement to begin with. Of course tabbed browsing isn't important to IE users. If it were important to someone, they would cease to be an IE user. It would be a similar statement to say that "Features such as high gas mileage are not important to Hummer users." While the statement is true, it has no bearing on whether or not high gas mileage is important to users of cars. Similarly, tabbed brwosing is important to many browser users, but not all. Probably, most of the browser users out there for whom it is important are using Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, etc., while some of the users for whom it is not important may be using IE (unless there is some other feature that IE lacks and other browsers have).

Re:Tabbed browsing not important

[Greyfox]

Not only that, they'll issue a patent application for tabbed browsing, start claiming they invented it and point to it as one more way that Microsoft Innovation is making users' lives better. 3 Years from now, people will believe them, except for the very few of us who are immune to the Microsoft Mind Control Rays.

Re:Tabbed browsing not important

[jd]

English reiterated that features such as tabbed browsing are not important to IE users.

Well, duh! This is like claiming that snow isn't important to people living in the middle of the Sahara. If you can't use something, have no access to it, have no knowledge of it, then you won't consider it important, because you won't know about it to consider it important!

Re:Tabbed browsing not important

[Xerp]

That may be so, but his statement is correct.

I'm trying to think of something similar... hmm...

James reiterated that a feature like having a handle on both sides of the door is simply not important to someone who is only on their way out

Actually its a great statement. It covers most classes of Microsoft software users:

1.) The stupid ones

They couldn't use tabbed browsing even if they tried. No. Its true. I tried it with my mum (bless her) and she simply couldn't understand the concept. Sure, opening loads of browser windows everywhere was also confusing and cluttered the desktop, but hey.

2.) The ignorant ones

Is there any other browser than IE?

3.) The Microsoft zealots

If IE doesn't have it, then it isn't worth having.

4.) The wannabes

They just discovered computers and don't want to look different by using a browser that isn't pre-installed... until someone else does and tells them its cool.

5.) Those who just don't care

They have a browser installed. Why have another one? Heck, the whole OS stinks, so why try to polish a turd?

Re:Tabbed browsing not important

[Beatbyte]

There are a lot of users that have no idea what Firefox/Mozilla are. Much less tabbed browsing. It's like the latest greatest thing to come to the Internet. Once people take notice of it (whether it be hearing about Firefox/Mozilla or IE integrating it), they will start using it and learn to love it.

Re:Tabbed browsing not important

[anon*127.0.0.1]

Idle, somewhat connected question... has anybody seen any statistics on browser usage for people who have actually tried an alternative browser? I've introduced quite a few people to Mozilla/Firefox, and I don't recall any of them saying "Well yeah, but I still like IE better."

Re:Tabbed browsing not important

[ForestGrump]

when someone directs you to goat.cx, you need a really big back button. All that panic, you can't be expected to hit a small one right?

Re:Tabbed browsing not important

[ShinmaWa]

You make some really good points. However, most people aren't the average Slashdotter and don't know not to click Yes on Active X controls. They don't know a bad URL when they see one. They easily fall for tricks that would send them to sites that contain trojans and buffer-overflow exploits.

Just as a jackhammers aren't very dangerous to knowledgeable professionals, they can be very dangerous when used by masses who don't know any better.

Even with experienced people, accidents can happen. I've actually been hit by a nasty piece of spyware because I had two windows up, hit enter on the other window just as focus switched to the Active X popup, thus essentially clicking Yes.. D'OH! That was a mess.

Uh-huh.

[GMFTatsujin]

And when *I* dream, I have a pony.

Re:Uh-huh.

[EnronHaliburton2004]

And when *I* dream, I have a pony.

That poor, poor pony...

They can now see the Web sites that IE chokes on

[Anonymous Coward]

This will probably be offtopic, but during recent presentation on shares source initiative in Ukraine, the Microsoft representative started getting corruption messages from Powerpoint, and had to run the entire PPT file in OpenOffice, which he conveniently had on the laptop. photo1, photo2, the caption says "Microsoft Shared Source Initiative".

Catch 22

[RobertB-DC]

In a previous Slashdot article (a few months ago, I can't seem to find it at the moment), a Microsoftie was quoted as saying he had installed Firefox (among other browsers). Of course, we Slashdotters razzed him for it.

Today, we have someone from Microsoft who says they haven't installed Firefox. This is decried as shameful -- how dare he criticize the application if he hasn't tried it?

Poor Microsoft. They're damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Damned if I care, though; I use Opera, myself.

Preaching to the choir, but ...

[magefile]

He says if consumers wanted more features, they'd tell Microsoft, using the example of tabbed browsing. I would argue that if consumers knew what features they wanted, that would be true - but innovative features have to be created somewhere. Sounds like someone's got a bad case of the NIH syndrome to me ...

Re:Preaching to the choir, but ...

[maximino]

This is a perfect example of why you want competing products in the world. The Microsoft rep is being disingenuous when he says that their customers don't want new features; the Microsoft way is to wait for customers to decide what they want, then make something just like it.

A resurgence in the browser wars will just serve to make both browsers better, and that's the way customers get better products. Since Firefox is an open project, there is no central company for Microsoft to destroy this time. We'll have to see how it all works out, but no matter what, it's good for the user.

Re:Preaching to the choir, but ...

[Darth_Burrito]

Sounds like someone's got a bad case of the NIH syndrome to me ...

The Knights who say Nih demand a sacrifice!
We want ...
tabbed browsing
...
and a shrubbery!!!

Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also interesting to note that these statements made by Steve Vamos, Microsoft Australia's managing director, come with no knowledge of what Firefox has to offer as he admit not even installing or using Firefox.

Did the former Iraqi Information Minister find a new job?

Nice market share you got...I think I'll take it.

[Dr. Bent]

Microsoft executives defended Internet Explorer, saying it is no less secure than any other browser and doesn't lack any important features.

I only hope that the mangement at Microsoft continues to believe this statement for the forseeable future. Nothing could help Firefox more.

Say what you may

[a3217055]

Say what you may, I use Firefox on all my ( windows, Linux, OSX, AIX, Solaris ) systems. I have taught other people such as relatives and firends the joy of Firefox, and they too have switched over too the new browser. Firefox is a revolution of people getting what they want from the web back. With a search bar, adblocking and pop up blocking, and support for all the major plugins ( like flash and java etc ...) Firefox is now the most nicest browser out their. And many websites are fixing themselves to work with FireFox.

Still using IE here

[Anonymous Coward]

Still using IE... never had any problem with these so-called "threats" that are constantly and tiresomely reported ad naseum here on slashdot. Never had a problem, never had a security issue, never had a cra

Re:Still using IE here

[Anonymous Coward]

At least IE was nice enough to click the "Submit" button for you before it crashed ;)

sometimes you gotta wonder

[jcern]

They claim that tabbed browsing is not a feature that their clients want, yet if you go to the windows page at microsoft http://www.microsoft.com/windows/default.mspx they have an option there that says "Want Tabbed Browsing, Search Toolbars, and More?". All those options suspiciously being features incorporated into firefox. Maybe they do see it as a threat after all.

Re:First they ignore you...

[GMFTatsujin]

No more of this quote. Please. Ever.

Both sides ignore and laugh at each other anyway. Who wins?

This is nothing new

[A beautiful mind]

They can just keep repeating that they aren't afraid just to reassure themselves and their business partners. The statement that IE is not less, secure, well, is known false. The security is compromised the same moment they integrated the browser into the OS so tightly. Btw, the mere fact that they react on firefox shows its effect on the market. I think in the future firefox will steadily get a nice share of the browser market, when more and more users learn about its features. IE is just an ancient application, deprecated, and insecure (CERT says so, not me, before someone starts accusing me).

This is not news

[theblacksun]

This is just propaganda. What else are they going to say? "Wow this browser is so great we're going to have to revamp IE to compete!"

Of course they're going to play it down. It should be expected.

Well, then

[dshaw858]

Then Microsoft appears to be wrong. While it's likely true that Internet Explorer is no less secure than Firefox (come on, professional coders at Microsoft probably know what they're doing), the fact is that the Mozilla Project is better at getting fixes. When there was a security vulnerability in Firefox 0.9.3 (I believe) a few months ago, the patch was released within a few short hours. Flaws in Internet Explorer often run rampant for days, sometimes weeks. So while Internet Explorer's code may be no less secure, it is effectively the weaker browser. Saying that Firefox poses no threat to Microsoft is either naive, egotistical, or idiotic.

- dshaw

Re:Lets face it

[Leroy_Brown242]

Browsers come and go, but firefox is making a serious impact here.

I was flipping channels, and saw some news show (damn if I can remember which one) was talking about it briefly. Something like a open source browser being TV worthy is something.

Heck, even a lot of the non-geeks at my work have heard through the grape vine that Firefox is the way to go. They are installing it, and loving it, and spreading the word.

Of course, you were only trolling.

Feed Mania

[SuperKendall]

This guy is a treasure trove of wit, here's another good one I noticed after re-reading a second time:

We take user feedback very seriously. If you have that feedback, then you should feed it back to us because we will feed it to the product team.

It inspires a poem:

Feed us the feedback double-quick!
When we've digested the feed then lickey split
Your browser we'll enance to make it more slick
But keep you safe from all harm? Well that's quite a trick...
Instead look at XAML - it makes buttons you click!

Re:First they ignore you...

[Repton]

And that's if you even make it to stage 3. Not everyone being ignored or laughed at is a righteous prophet.

They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

-- Carl Sagan

...they would have told the company about it

[femto]

I've news for you Steve. Most small customers don't bother with feedback as the perception is that it will be ignored.

First MS will lose the small 'at home' and business customers. Once these people are comfortable with the competition, the competition will seep into the big MS customers, for whom the 'small customers' are employees.

No, I'm not going to post this directly to you Steve, as I reckon you will ignore it.

That's a really good point

[SuperKendall]

How much more blantant could Microsoft be in saying they are not really an innovator?

"If you don't ask for it - we can't think of it!"

XUL

[darnok]

XUL is potentially a huge advantage that Firefox (and other Mozilla-based browsers) have over IE.

Using XUL, you can develop full-blown user interfaces that aren't limited to HTML-style text boxes, radio boxes, drop-down boxes and so on. Instead, you get access to trees, grids, menus, groupboxes, SOAP and XML-RPC client access and so on; a sizeable subset of what e.g. VB has to offer. It also understands CSS, so you can make XUL interfaces visually attractive if you're unlike me and actually have the patience to do so...

It's quite easy to develop XUL code as well, if somewhat time-consuming because there isn't yet a good, stable IDE available.

MS knows there's a market for this stuff, because it was developing XAML which meets broadly the same requirements. However a solid XAML implementation is currently a few years away at least, so XUL has a window of opportunity.

In case it's not obvious, here's why you'd use XUL instead of e.g. VB to develop application front-ends:
- easy to deploy to clients (i.e. install e.g. Firefox, and that's it; no mucking around with DLL versions)
- easy to maintain (i.e. tweak the code on a server rather than tweak and redeploy to every client)
- already cross-platform (Windows, Linux, Solaris, Mac, BSD, ...)
- no dependence on ActiveX or Java to give the "rich client experience"
- supports CSS and works with HTML, so competent Web designers should be able to pick up XUL without great difficulty. Someone please please please create an IDE to make this easy!
- works with existing Web servers (e.g. Apache, IIS) without difficulty; after all, XUL is just XML text and Web servers have been serving text since day 1

IE attacked because it's common

[Profane MuthaFucka]

They say IE is a target because it's everywhere, not because it has holes. Well then, Apache is everywhere. Why don't we hear about a new buffer overflow or mishandled JPG in Apache every two weeks?

That's Not How it Works With Microsoft

[Greyfox]

First they downplay you, then they issue FUD about you, then then strongarm vendors who want to bundle your software, then they buy your company and incorporate your technology into their OS.

If Ghandi had been going up against Microsoft, he'd be one of those happy friendly cartoon search agents now, like that puppy or that paperclip.

Site developers are hindering Firefox adoption

[Radi-0-head]

Too many sites still require IE/ActiveX to function properly. Vistaprint.com comes to mind. I always make it a point to write and/or call when I encounter a site that doesn't work and let them know it's "broken", and that they're about to lose a customer since I refuse to use IE.

On the other hand, when I encounter a site that supports Firefox and encourages its use (Wells Fargo, for instance) I always send an email to whoemver contacts I can find praising their decision to support a more secure browser.

The more people that do this, the faster IE can be banished forever.

Who's side is he on?

[StikyPad]

Steve Vamos, Microsoft Australia's managing director, says "There are plenty of products out there with features we don't have. We have plenty of features that our customers don't use."

Good job Steve, you just convinced me not to use MS products.

Re:First they ignore you...

[M.C. Hampster]

First a famous quote is used, then it's overused, then you get modded up.

XUL already under assault by XAML!!!!!

[SuperKendall]

Microsoft already has teh XUL killer under development - XAML, a very simialr technology.

What needs to happen?

Make a XUL plugin for everything that browses!! But espceially makea n XUL plugin for IE that lets you run XUL stuff inside IE, basically a sort of embedded Mozilla engine. Then work up a few killer apps to make people download and use the plugin.

If a few good uses of XUL can become widespread over the next six months or so, it has a good chance to take a hold before XAML can squash it. And with enough visible support big companies like IBM might jump on the bandwagon.

Developers are customers too...

[_newwave_]

"I don't believe it is a true statement that IE doesn't have the features that our customers want,..."

As a web developer there are plenty of features I would like to see along the lines of CSS/XHTML/ECMAScript standards compliance. I would say that my payment of sweat and tears with workarounds to these problems more than qualifies me as a customer.

It's very simple...

[dcr]

The reasons why Microsoft is not worried?

1) Firefox will never be integrated to the OS (or Office). There will always be functions that Windows or Office will call IE for.
2) The vast majority of people will not use anything other than the software bundled with their system. I have had no end of trouble convincing people to try either Mozilla or Firefox. When I tell them that the programs are made by the same people that made Netscape in the past, some will be willing to give it a try.
3) They'll figure out a way to kill Firefox, legal or otherwise, and will stall and wheedle in the courts long enough to make sure that the dagger is good and twisted. Until our legal folks realize that Microsoft is a monopoly and it has no incentive to play fair with competing products, it will continue to destroy the competition.

Or standards-compliant CSS rendering

[Doctor O]

Or standards-compliant CSS rendering. You know, stuff like getting the fucking box model right and implementing at least FUCKING CSS 1 DAMMIT.

Sorry, forgot to take my pills. I'm off to the nurse.

no features? just as secure?

[pr0vidence]

"Microsoft executives defended Internet Explorer, saying it is no less secure than any other browser and doesn't lack any important features"

And yes, I realise most everyone who has replied to this post has commented on this phrase alone. But hey, who am I not to jump on the bandwagon?

I got two words for "doesn't lack any important features" and those are Tabbed Browsing, and just one word for "is no less secure" and that is SPYWARE

I work for a university fixing computers for students. These days, "fixing computers" generally means "get computer, run virus scan, run spyware scans, clean up the mess, return to student". After a month or so of seeing the same students time and time again for the same problems I got fed up and started installing Firefox on their computers. When they show up to pick up their computer and I tell them about Firefox, explain to them that Firefox does not allow spyware to get onto their machines (at least the ones that would normally go through IE), and show them tabbed browsing, they are SOLD. Now I get students coming in with their computers regularly asking me to install Firefox for them. Not one of the students whose computer I installed Firefox on has returned to me for virus or spyware related problems. Not one.

On an only slightly related note, some have asked me if there is a way to get tabbed chatting for their AIM conversations, at which point I simply uninstall AIM and install the windows port of GAIM. Again, once I show them tabbed chatting, and the ability to see their "buddies" away messages by just hovering the mouse cursor over the buddy name, they will never turn back. It doesn't take much to convince a user to switch, just show them the little things that kill and they will go for it.

One Day I switch that out

[headbulb]

One day I went to visit a old teacher from my highschool while there I saw a kid take Put IE back in the dock (I took it out). When I asked the kid what he was doing.. He told me that he made web pages and he knew what he was doing. Further investigation showed was one of those people that would take any microsoft product over something else. (Sheeple I like to call them)

So I come back a awhile later to help the teacher with some new computers.. Still seeing kids using IE.. So what did I do.. I installed firefox. Put it in the dock. I changed the Icon to the internet explorer one. Then promptly deleted IE. No one ever noticed. (I only did this on one mechine. The rest have safari. This was just a test mechine)

Oh the new computers.. Overkill.. Lets see iMac G5, Powermac G5, and a Dell pc. For each Workstation.. For a highschool. Wish I had that at home.

Re:One Day I switch that out

[glpierce]

Why do you think that having people believe that Firefox is Internet Explorer is a good thing? All you end up with are people who think that IE is better than it is, and perhaps a bit upset that their home version isn't as good.

Firefox vs. IE, missing features...

[rmdyer]

I've been a long time IE user. Personally I've never had the problems with IE that others have had because I sat down and learned how to setup and use IE from the start. I memorized the operation of every last setting under the Tools->Internet Options dialog and adjusted them accordingly. I learned how to browse as securely as possible while watching what IE does very closely. Of course I'm not your average browser. Almost every setting I could find is set to prompt me, as I enjoy absolute control over things. This also alerts me to how complex some websites are in their attempt to invade your privacy. Just watching all the dialogs pop up for scripting and ActiveX is amazing. Also the hitbox'es, doubleclicks, and adtechs are really annoying.

Yesterday I downloaded and installed FireFox 1.0. I wanted to look at it and find out if it would suit me better since I still consider IE to be a little too proprietary in that it hides what it really does. So I am looking for something a bit more open.

After looking at all the features of FireFox I was amazed at how few things it allowed me to adjust. It doesn't have any of the options I am used to using under IE. Here are a few...

* Changing the temporary cache path?
* No option to clear cache when done?
* Inability to prompt me if I want scripts to run?
* Prompted cookie setting control?
* Inline images are either on or off. Eg, no ability to prevent animations (gif or otherwise) from running.
(This is frustrating. I want to see the original images, but I absolutely hate animations of any sort.)
* No Zones feature so that I can configure certain security options for certain sites.
* Installed security is to save passwords, allow web sites to install software, save form information, and Java is enabled?
(Of course IE is probably even more open, but the point is that FireFox is supposed to be secure right?)
* Many other configuration options are missing that would allow me to be prompted if I want to execute or do something.

I notice that tabbed browsing ends up using even more desktop real estate. I've never needed tabbed browsing before, all my windows appear on my Explorer task bar...just like tabs. I suppose tabs would be useful for people whos operating systems don't have a taskbar enabled shell.

Other that than the above observations I found Firefox to work fine. It didn't crash at all, but was a bit slower to render than IE. Only once did it redirect me to a website I did not type in the URL for. I just shut it down and restarted to fix that problem.

I find that I don't think I'll be switching just yet because of the inability to actively control scripting and the in-line image problem. If those issues are taken care of in the future, I don't know why I would stay with IE. Until then.

+1

Re:Firefox vs. IE, missing features...

[gh]

You may want to look into typing the url about:config in Firefox. Some of the settings that don't have user interface elements can be adjusted in that page. I don't know if all your concerns are addressed, but some of them (ex. cache path, turn off animations) definitely are covered in that.

As for the benefit of tab browsing... What I find useful is that when you open links in a new tab, the page is loaded in the tab while you can still work on the current page. If you try to emulate that with IE by opening new IE windows, the original page's window becomes the furthest back window. Actually, more annoying is that to open up a series of links, you have to keep going back to the original window. In the case of tabbed browsing, you're in the original tab until you decide to switch off of it.

Re:Firefox vs. IE, missing features...

[plj]

* Changing the temporary cache path?

Personally, I don't see any real reason for this. But there may be some.

* No option to clear cache when done?

Sure there is. Firefox --> Preferences --> Privacy --> Cache --> Clear
(I'm on a Mac right now -- on Windows "Firefox --> preferences" is probably found as "Tools --> Options")

* Inability to prompt me if I want scripts to run?

You can turn the scripts off if you want. More fine-tuned controls would easily get rather confusing. Besides, you can control what window handling options you want to allow to be done by Javascript. You can't do that in IE.

* Prompted cookie setting control?

You can deny all cookies and make an exceptions list. An option for asking for every cookie isn't truly useful anyway, they're simply too plenty.

* Inline images are either on or off. Eg, no ability to prevent animations (gif or otherwise) from running.
(This is frustrating. I want to see the original images, but I absolutely hate animations of any sort.)

Does IE truly have such an option? Can you point me to that -- I wasn't aware of it, and most GIF animations are annoying anyway. If IE truly has that, I hope that Firefox developers will put it to their TODO.

* No Zones feature so that I can configure certain security options for certain sites.

There are good reasons for this -- large number of IE security holes have been cross-zone scripting related; such a system is fundamentally insecure. You can make exceptions for cookies, popups and images, though.

* Installed security is to save passwords,

I don't think that this is any worse than people writing passwords to post-it stickers stored under keyboard.

allow web sites to install software,

It is allowed per default for trusted sites -- BUT the list of trusted sites is empty!

save form information,

This does not sound a real security risk. Many forms are sent over unencrypted connections anyway. Forms sent over encrypted connections, on the other hand, are usually behind a login prompt.

and Java is enabled?

Java has a security system of its own. The security reputation of Sun's JRE is much higher than Microsoft's JVM.

* Many other configuration options are missing that would allow me to be prompted if I want to execute or do something.

Too hard to comment without more specific information. But one of the problems of IE is, that the various basically important prompts presented by it are too plenty. If you have to click "yes" to 9 prompts out of ten, it's hard to realise the 1/10 of boxes that absolutely require "no".

I notice that tabbed browsing ends up using even more desktop real estate. I've never needed tabbed browsing before, all my windows appear on my Explorer task bar...just like tabs. I suppose tabs would be useful for people whos operating systems don't have a taskbar enabled shell.

This is a valid point. I have a friend who uses Firefox under Windows, but hardly ever uses tabs at all. I can do pretty well without myself too. On the other hand, I couldn't live without tabs on a Mac.

But the stupid thing in IE is, that every time I open a new window, it:

a) opens it on top of other windows
b) opens my homepage on it, which is absolutely stupid, because I only want that page when I'm opening the first window of the browser.

So actually the greatest failures of IE on this matter are it's uncustomizeable window handling options, not the lack of tabbed browsing itself.

Re:Firefox vs. IE, missing features...

[Christianfreak]

* Changing the temporary cache path?
Uses a random folder name in your settings path for security. Though I believe you can change it in about:config

* No option to clear cache when done?
Privacy->Cache->Clear

* Inability to prompt me if I want scripts to run?
Uh it doesn't have Active X. Under Web Features->Advanced there are several things you can disallow or allow Javascript to do. about:config may have some more settings.

* Prompted cookie setting control?
Privacy->Cookies->Ask For Each Cookie. It even remembers what you said for each cookie so you don't have to tell it again for the same site. And there is an exceptions menu in the same place that allows you to go back and change what you said.

* Inline images are either on or off. Eg, no ability to prevent animations (gif or otherwise) from running.
(This is frustrating. I want to see the original images, but I absolutely hate animations of any sort.)
Its in about:config, and in regular Mozilla the setting is there. I agree this was a stupid one to leave out of the main menus.

* No Zones feature so that I can configure certain security options for certain sites.
Only Windows has the concept of "Zones" and its a stupid idea anyway. The browser should not be able to run code on your machine. You can configure Popup Windows, Images and Cookies per site though.

* Installed security is to save passwords, allow web sites to install software, save form information, and Java is enabled?
(Of course IE is probably even more open, but the point is that FireFox is supposed to be secure right?)
Firefox is trying to appeal to main stream users. Thus there is a trade-off. There are several prompts on the installing software stuff. Besides you can't install new programs with it, just add-ons and themes for your browser. And, as of yet no security problems have been discovered where someone can get around the prompts (unlike Active X)

* Many other configuration options are missing that would allow me to be prompted if I want to execute or do something.
Like what?

No offense but for most of these, it doesn't appear you looked all that hard before you gave up on it.

Re:Firefox vs. IE, missing features...

[NoMercy]

My use for tabbed browsing tends to be to allow greater flexibility in browsing, I can read though an article or page, and fire off every link I'm interested into a seperate tab, then once I'm finished with the original page browse each of the tabs.

Often I have mutiple windows open full of tabs, each one focusing on a diferent genere of my work, say one for slashdot, it's various topics and 1/2 written replies, one with some research I'm doing and the various aspects of that.

And of-course tabs for 'Open in Tabs' option at the bottom of a link-bar pulldown menu, ahh all the web cartoons loading as soon as I start the days uhh work :)

Re:Firefox vs. IE, missing features...

[dcam]

* Changing the temporary cache path?

I'm not sure I see a need, but fair enough.

* No option to clear cache when done?

Download the prefbar extension. One of the best things about the mozilla variants is the extensions.

* Inability to prompt me if I want scripts to run?
* Prompted cookie setting control?

I'd be surprised if there isn't an option to set this. I'm not a serious firefox/mozilla geek so I wouldn't know.

* Inline images are either on or off. Eg, no ability to prevent animations (gif or otherwise) from running.
(This is frustrating. I want to see the original images, but I absolutely hate animations of any sort.)

YOu can configure this

* No Zones feature so that I can configure certain security options for certain sites.

I've never liked the zones model, but each to his own.

* Installed security is to save passwords, allow web sites to install software, save form information, and Java is enabled?

If you don't like it switch it off. Remebber this is a discussion comparing Firefox to IE. Features/problems they both share are irrelevant.

* Many other configuration options are missing that would allow me to be prompted if I want to execute or do something.

Name them.

I notice that tabbed browsing ends up using even more desktop real estate. I've never needed tabbed browsing before, all my windows appear on my Explorer task bar...just like tabs. I suppose tabs would be useful for people whos operating systems don't have a taskbar enabled shell.

I switch that 'feature' of XP off as soon as I install. Tabs offer some organisation. For example you can have a work window open and a play window, both with multiple tabs. Don't like it, don't use it.

I find that I don't think I'll be switching just yet because of the inability to actively control scripting and the in-line image problem. If those issues are taken care of in the future, I don't know why I would stay with IE. Until then.

Each to his or her own. I switched to mozilla a little while back and have found it a very pleasant experience. As I said earlier the extensions are one of the best things about the browser, but even without them the firefox is a better browser.

Firefox is becomming the #1 browser where I work

[erroneus]

One-by-one as I clean machines with spyware and crap-ware of all sorts, I also install Firefox 1.0 onto their machines and if they want I spend about 3-5 minutes showing them the features that would be important to them. I show them pop-up blocking, tabbed browsing and how to install extensions such as Adblock.

I'd say 1 out of 10 or fewer people so far have wanted to go back to MSIE... and the reason is usually because they are just used to doing things a certain way but it doesn't take long to get used to the new one anyway.

These steps are important because my company's goal is to dump Microsoft and any product that depends on a Microsoft operating system. Moving people to Firefox, and getting people to use OpenOffice has, so far, been a welcome improvement for most of my users. (We need to write PDF files from time to time and only OpenOffice does that... sure we could buy and install adobe acrobat... expensive... no point in that when they get what they want for free with OpenOffice.) And once they are all used to seeing OOo and Firefox in their faces, changing the OS from beneath them becomes a LOT more trivial than it would be to go about it the other way around.

Truly, the migration path from Windows to Linux is in the applications... get the apps we need to run under Linux and we're golden. So far, OOo and Firefox is paving the way nicely and presenting a very favorable impression for using OSS in the workplace.

Re:Tabbed?

[oberondarksoul]

How come the tabs don't respond to the Tab key?

In Windows, Ctrl+Tab will cycle through taps from left to right, whilst Ctrl+Shift+Tab will cycle the opposite direction. Standard Windows behavior.

Why do I want downloaded files to automatically saved to my desktop - what's wrong with "My Documents/Fire Fox/Downloads" so I don't get clutter all over my desktop?

Go to Tools, Options, Downloads, and change the default download directory if you'd like it somewhere else. Alternately, you can have it ask where to download every time.

I do not load "harmful ActiveX controls" but I want to load "useful" ones. In fact as a smart user I wonder how to make them work in FF? If a client of mine tries to use my web form (activex) doesn't see it he will get the shits with me - not his browser.

There are third-party ActiveX plugins if you really want them, but remember not everyone uses Internet Explorer or Windows - if I want to use my Risc PC to browse an ActiveX-based website, I'm out of luck. Beware of alienating a potential audience.

Google is part of my toolbar.

Firefox comes with a search bar built in, not tacked-on as a third party add-on, and supports plugins for virtually any other search engine you could think of. From my browser, I can instantly search Google, Amazon, the IMDB, Wikipedia...

I have the "Features you are used to" because I got used to them in IE.

Virtually every feature you'll use commonly in IE is present in Firefox, many done in a superior way. Granted, some pages fail to render properly in Firefox at the moment, but for the vast majority there are no problems.

Meanwhile, 'Fox has many features that are a godsend in day-to-day browsing. Pop-up blocking? I've found many manage to sneak through in IE 6 SP2, whilst Firefox not only can block popups more consistantly, but also supports blocking images through a simple right-click.

Tabbed browsing is something you have to experience to realise why you need it - if you're browsing along and find something you want to read later, just middle-click to open it in a new tab, still browsing in the same window. It just works.

People are not dumb....

[WebCowboy]

...it's just that geeks are just wired differently in the brain--we have different thought processes than normal "dumb people". Artsy types are also wired differently in the brain than normal people. While geeks and artsy types are usually polar opposites (left brained vs right brained, etc) they share common characteristics (much like how communist and facist dictatorships do in the political space). One such trait is the continual search for new and different ways of doing things--there is both left-brained and right-brained creativity.

Most people are in the "mushy middle"--they aren't dumb it's just that their intelligence is just spread out a bit more and are thus not quite as "creative" or curious. The average "mushy middle" person has the benefit of being more socially adjusted but is also a creature of habit and is not easily driven to deviate from his comfort zone unless circumstances make things annoying enough to disturb that comfort. This is the only theory I've been able to come up with explaining why IE and Outlook have been allowed to rot and fester and continue to enjoy market dominance even in the face of free competition.

It isn't a name thing as much as it is good marketing or else Excel would've flopped because it didn't have "Calc" or "Spreadsheet" in the name. Excel was part of the Office juggernaut and is now market leader so out of habit now "Excel==Spreadsheet". Hell, when I started in university the school had just implemented WWW directories on student's accounts so they could have home pages and I know for the first little while people would say "look at the Mosaic page I made"!

Things are changing though because "mushy middle" is becoming uncomfortable. They are afraid of the WWW and their inbox because the news and the experts are telling them it is swimming with nasties that will corrupt their machines, spy on them and steal their account numbers. Even mainstream media is now starting to emphasise "windows" and "internet explorer". That is enough to get them thinking. They are very easy sells when they become vicims one too many times.

Anyway, to help the creature of habit with the conversion, I install Firefox and Thunderbird, and use "Set Program Access and Defaults" to remove the icons for IE and Outlook in addition to setting the Mozilla counterparts to the default clients. Furthermore, I rename the Mozilla icons to the generic "Web Browser" and "Email". This has resulted in a pretty much universally positive reception. I believe it would be second nature for people to click on "the fox" and "the bird" if that's what they learned to do from the start, or have done it long enough.

More apt wording

[Mr. Cancelled]

would be "Steve Vamos, Microsoft Australia's managing director, come with no knowledge of what the competition has to offer as he admits not even installing or using"

Seriously... How can you be a succesful product manager if you're not aware of what the competition is doing?

I can't believe this guy is in the position he's in with statements like that, much less keeping that position after such an admission.

IE's Main Missing Feature

[Anonymous Coward]

An UNINSTALLER!!!

Managers != developers

[johnnliu]

I don't understand why managers goes out of their way to say silly stuff. I wonder if it comes with the job.

The Microsoft IE Dev team is pretty up to date - see their wiki here.

http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/default.aspx/Chann el 9.InternetExplorerFeedback

There's a lot less marketing junk - and the wiki format makes it easy to make comments and discussion constructively.

Well, Microsoft has a lot of employees. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

And they had to go all the way to Australia to find one of them dumb enough to make an ignorant statement.

MS tells lies like every other evil corporation/government? This is a sad truth, but a non-story.

-FL

bookmarks in FireFox

[Pandora's Vox]

i personally much prefer the management in FF, but perhaps someone could write an extension to simulate filesystem-style bookmarks management. i wouldn't like to see it changed wholesale - i think that it's very much a matter of preference - but this would be a good idea for an extension.

-Leigh

One major weakness of Firefox

[shirai]

One major weakness I've found for Firefox (and one that ticks me off to no end) is that there is no way for Firefox to load a local image.

I've actually offered a US $1000 bounty for anybody who can fix this and incorporate it into the main code base. See Link Here.

One thing that kills me about this is I spent 6-9 months developing software to work on MSIE and Mozilla. Mozilla would be a very small portion of my client base but I wanted to help promote open source. But since they made this change that disallows you from loading local images, all this work is gone to waste.

Anyways, I guess there are two things:

1. The fact that I developed on a 1.2 browser and the newer versions were NOT backward compatible. This sucks big ass. Imagine investing the time, money and effort on this and have it wasted. I know you could tell me I should have upgraded the browser but the point was that you always need to support the older browsers. I never even suspected that the newer browsers would purposely break something that worked in the older ones.

2. It's not a security issue. What damage can be done by loading an image that is on your computer. The most I could steal (info wise) is the width/height of that image and the fact that that image exists.

3. I wonder how my commercial incentive (the reward) plays out in an open source world. People are either going to be happy or hate it I presume. Either way, if you solve it and get it introduced into the release version, you get $1000.

Re:One major weakness of Firefox

[Todd Knarr]

Trust me, you do not want this behavior changed. You see, Mozilla and IE used to allow this. Then the bad guys figured out that you could ferret out the local filenames things were cached under, load your own malicious code into the cache in an innocuous way, then refer to it as a local resource in a dangerous way. Since it was a local resource it could do things a remote resource wouldn't be allowed to do. So Mozilla drew a one-way wall: local resources can refer to remote resources, but remote resources aren't allowed to refer to local resources directly. They looked at being type-selective, but concluded that if they did someone would always be able to finagle a way to turn that into arbitrary access, so the only safe thing was to block across the board based on the local/remote nature of the protocol.

IE tried to avoid this and be more selective. The result has been a fairly steady stream of zone-escalation exploits for it. To put it plainly, you can't open just one hole.

And frankly, if your page is remote, why are you assuming a local file exists at a particular location? You should be referring to your own resources, not someone else's.

Switch to Firefox, and stay?

[kuzb]

Firts let me say I'm a huge advocate of mozilla based browsers. In my opinion, they're the only group to get it RIGHT.

I've made it a requirement of friends and relatives that if they want me to look at their machine and fix them that they need to install and use firefox as their primary browser.

There is a problem with the whole thing though - many of them go back to IE because one site of another will not work due to IE dependancies. Of all the people I've converted, only a small percentage kept with it.

We've seen a big spike in FF/Moz usage over the last few months, however, if you'll excuse my pessamism, I think this will eventually drop off as people find one or two sites that don't function properly because they were designed only with IE in mind. A good example of this is my sister, who went back because her son couldn't play a couple of yahoo games which explicitly ask for IE.

I think this is the real reason they say Firefox is not a threat to IE - because despite the superiority of Firefox, most people don't care about the benefits of security. They just want page X to work properly, and when it only works properly in IE, they'll run back.

Re:Stone hatchet

[Finsterwald P Ogleth]

If you give a caveman a chainsaw, you'll hear similar complaints...

"Where's the wood handle?"
"There's no leather thong to hold the rock in place"
There's no ROCK!!"
"Whats this handle with the string running through it?"
"The flat thing sticking out is TOO uncomfortable...and I can't make a cut with the big yellow blocky thing at the end"
"And these points on the thin handle...way too sharp and hard on my hands"

on average IE is competitive enough

[jdkane]

I love using Firefox. It's my browse of choice because of its flexibility (e.g. posting from it now). However I have agree that IE doesn't lack any "important" features as far as home users are concerned (arguably the majority). I have to qualify my sentence further: in light of Windows XP Service Pack 2, the IE browser doesn't lack important features anymore that the home user can distinguish from using Firefox. Microsoft has really upped the security and even blocked popups by default with SP2 ... and that's what was most important to average users (the majority). Yes, MS did finally listen, and it took them a long time to get around to these features, but in the end they did it. Of course people using older versions of Windows do not have these new benefits which is a major stumbling block to IE. (Microsoft wants everybody on XP anyways). In some years every Windows user will be on a newer version -- out of necessity for security reasons if nothing else -- and the concerns about security, annoying popups etc will soon fade into the past if Microsoft keeps attacking the issues as they have been lately.

I went solely Firefox before XP SP2 because I was concerned about my security and hated the popups. However after SP2, just for jumping on the computer and doing some casual surfing, I have no problem with either IE or Firefox; whichever is the most handy will suffice. (Note however that I still miss tabbed browsing in IE so I'd have to say I'm still leaning closer to Firefox instead of standing in the exact middle of the road.)

However as developer or power user or whatever you want to call it, I prefer the flexibility of Firefox. Firefox is more likely to have a cult following than IE, but not among average home users.

If Microsoft keeps adding just the needed features to keep the average user happy and secure, I'm sure they will fend off Firefox with ease. It's unfortunate, but I believe it's true.

Re:Firefox vs. IE, missing features 2.0...

[rmdyer]

Thanks for the responses! The about:config really helped. Who would have guessed, a build-in XML type registry.

As for the answers to certain queries. I'll try to be more accurate in my statements:

* Changing the temporary cache path?

I like storing anything temporary on another drive, not my system drive. That way I can erase the whole thing at the end of my windows session if necessary.

* No option to clear cache when done?

The IE option is to "Emtpy Temporary Internet Files folder when browser is closed".

* Inability to prompt me if I want scripts to run?

I am refering to any scripts, all scripts, whatever scripts. A TV or newspaper isn't capable of running scripts, neither should a browser...in my humble opinion. Yes I love the FireFox Javascript fine-tuning control. I really wish IE had that. Of course I unchecked all the options for Javascript on FireFox. :)

* Prompted cookie setting control?

Yea, I missed the "Ask me every time" option. Thanks. It wasn't obvious that it was under that dropdown because it is labled "Keep cookies". The word "Keep" gives me the impression that the cookie had already been set.

* Inline images are either on or off. Eg, no ability to prevent animations (gif or otherwise) from running.
(This is frustrating. I want to see the original images, but I absolutely hate animations of any sort.)

Yes apparently FireFox doesn't have this option, even under about:config. The specific IE option is "Play animations in web pages". I have this turned off.

* No Zones feature so that I can configure certain security options for certain sites.

Zones are nice for intranet stuff where you know you are completely in a secured development environment. The restricted and trusted sites are also nice. I think the thing I like about zones is that it completely adjusts every browser setting for each zone. In fact, I would argue that there should be more zones, more user creatable/definable zones. Zones that users can setup and name. Zones are the limited equivalent of sandbox type controls.

* Installed security is to save passwords, allow web sites to install software, save form information, and Java is enabled?
(Of course IE is probably even more open, but the point is that FireFox is supposed to be secure right?)

I don't know about you, but when I end my browser session, I erase everything. I erase history, cookies, temporary internet files, passwords, form data...everything. I even erase the sites in my blocked lists. In fact, whenever I start my browser, I want it to startup as if I had never used it before. In many ways Firefox should have the option to browse similarly, like in Apples Safari browser where the browser does a complete privacy reset when done. I would love that!

* Many other configuration options are missing that would allow me to be prompted if I want to execute or do something.

Obviously I don't want to name them all. Just open up any IE and choose the security tab, then choose a zone. All the promptable settings are there. And yes I can be prompted to prevent active x controls to run. I just wish META refresh was promptable. Arguably it needs to be.

Firefox is a good start. I really don't want to download Mozilla to get more advanced options. I mean what is the point of FireFox then? I want to use FireFox, I just need more browsing control. I do not like a broswer that does things for me. One other annoying thing about FireFox, even though it isn't a biggie...the fonts don't look right on some sites. I hope they fix that.

Thanks for your input. I'm just that much more informed now!

+2

Re:Firefox vs. IE, missing features 2.0...

[Anonymous Coward]

Changing the temporary cache path?
I like storing anything temporary on another drive, not my system drive. That way I can erase the whole thing at the end of my windows session if necessary.

Yes, I can see, this does not exist exactly as this in firefox. You can set browser.cache.disk.enable to false and browser.cache.memory.enable to true. Firefox will not ever make a disk cache, and insted will cache in memory (which it already does during the session) In this way, you lose your cache when you close firefox.

Inline images are either on or off. Eg, no ability to prevent animations (gif or otherwise) from running.
(This is frustrating. I want to see the original images, but I absolutely hate animations of any sort.)

Its the option image.animation_mode, set it to "none" (minus quotes of course) Animated images will appear but not animate, you can also set it to "once" to cause a single animation. "normal" is default animated mode.

Alternate cache storage location I may be able to get for you, it appears it may be an option thats not listed, so I'll need to try testing it abit, but if you leave on only memory cache, there won't be an offline cache to worry about! :)

Re:Firefox vs. IE, missing features 2.0...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh yes, I have it now,

To modify the cache location, it is browser.cache.disk.parent_directory
The value must use two backslashes (\\), insted of just one. Example: C:\\my\\cache\\folder\\is\\this

Yeah the double is wierd for some people, but thats a coding convention to use double backslashes since a backslash followed by some things means special characters like tab and new line.

Enjoy!

Sorry there's no zones, but there can be LOTS of problems with cross-site scripting. IE suffers from its hidden 'my computer' zone getting used to execute whatever people want. Not that firefox may neccessarily have those, but its a vunerability point, just like ActiveX, which is why its not readily available in Mozilla-based browsers. (If you're really crazy about ActiveX, there's a special plugin to use ActiveX, but be careful with it)

The ayatollahs of open source

[westlake]

It's taken a bit of prodding, but I've eventually gotten many of my friends and even my parents to switch to Firefox exclusively.

For all the talk of the cathedral and the bazaar, there are a lot of folks here who seem to believe in the success of conversions driven by submission to secular authority, personal influence or techno-magic.

Don't tell me how Grandad, your kid sister, your lab rats -- one, a young woman, divorced, with two kids and a job to protect -- have all come to love Firefox.

Don't tell me how clever you've been, the tricks you played that make it all seem so easy.

Instead, prove to me that you can make it out there alone in the cold, cruel world of Windows. 300 million users world-wide. Nine million OEM systems shipping each month with IE6 as the default.

From Word????

[gstoddart]

Eventually, some users would go back and find ways to run IE (whether through MS Word or Start -> Run)

You can laungh IE from Word??? God, no wonder it takes forever to launch the damned thing.

Next they'll be putting flight sims into Excel or something. ;-)

IE is tied to the SHELL, and not to the OS

[SenseiLeNoir]

IE is not JUST iexplorer.exe. That is only a small stub file that loads certain COM components associated with Web browsing.

Same with EXPLORER.EXE, it is only a stub that loads the COM controls that deal with file browsing.

There are other COM modules available, such as Network browsers, Picture viewers, and in Win95, there was the easter egg COM module.

the stubs can load any of these COM modules dependent on the content being displayed. Indeed it IS possible to make a HTML COM component based on Mozilla, and the COM/ActiveX component IS available. however, it is stil not possible for the Mozilla COM module to replace IE and its trident engine in this context either.

The point I am making, is that IE is NOT tied to the OS itself, its only tied to the SHELL of the OS.

If you REALLY want to stop IE from starting, even on a Windows XP box, use Program Manager as the shell! It does work.... its progman.exe located in c:\windows\system32

I use progman.exe and Mozilla as the shell on my "guest" account of my XP box, and it works VERY nicely! ;)

The guy does raise some valid points.

[TiggsPanther]

I don't agree with him, and I don't think his answers tell the whole story (besides, the anti-IE ones don't exactly tell the whole story either), but they don't stop his points being valid.

"Because IE is ubiquitous, you hear a lot more about it, but I don't think that Internet Explorer is any less secure than any other browser out there," English said.

Up to a point I think he's right. OK, I admit I'd debate the "any less secure" statement, but I do agree that a major part of it is that IE is still so common so it's an easier target.
Though I certainly get the feeling that MS might well be counting the definitive version of Internet Explorer as being IE6 under XP SP2. And that is more secure - just not necessarily the major version of IE being used quite yet.

He also (undurprisingly) doesn't touch on the issue that IE bugs reach further than simply IE. "This bug affects you even if Internet Explorer is not your default browser" always irritates me no end. If I'm not using it then why should the flaw still matter? But the "integration" with Windows is the problem in this case. And if there's a flaw and no current patch you can't even uninstall the software until an update version comes out.
So regadless of the quantity of issues, the nature of the IE flaws is totally different.

"I don't agree that just because a (competing) product has a feature that we don't have, that feature is important," he said. "It is not. It is only important if it is a feature the customer wants. There are plenty of products out there with features we don't have. We have plenty of features that our customers don't use.

This is another point. There aren't a great deal of features that customers "want" that would attract them to switch. Firefox's real strength (in my opinion) is that it has features you that you never thought about, but that keep you from switching back
Up until recently not many non-geeks had probably heard of it, except maybe mentioned by a geek-type. But it's starting to be mentioned more and more in the media, so MS are understandably wanting to stop people making the initial switch.

Besides, many Windows users simply equate "The Internet" with "Internet Explorer" - or, more likely, with "The Blue e Icon". They're not looking for anything different because they don't even know that there are alternatives.

The real danger for those of us interested in the non-IE alternatives is to dismiss anything that comes from MS. Just because they don't say things the way we see them doesn't mean that their poitns don't have merit. Plus we do have to see things from their perspective to be able to validly counter their claims. Because the "M$ are fulla BS" approach isn't really going to get people interested in alternatives. But a reasoned argument about why a Microsoft statement doesn't tell the whole truth might at least get someone to listen.

Not at all

[TheConfusedOne]

IE didn't compete with Netscape.

IE arrived on every computer, was installed with every Windows OS and had it's icon shoved onto the desktop whether you wanted it or not. (In fact, it was difficult to get it OFF the desktop early.)

Corporate IT groups standardized on IE because "it comes with the OS" and they didn't want to pay for and install a different browser.

Heck, MS had to threaten to revoke Compaq's OEM license (at the time they were the #1 PC seller) to get them to stop installing Netscape.

The fact is that MS "competed" by outspending Netscape, giving their product away for "free", paying bounties to ISP's and IAP's, threatening OEM's, and "leveraging the Window's asset" all in an effort to "cut off Netscape's air supply".

So no, it's not interesting at all.