Firefox vs. SP2's IE?

Anonymous Coward asks: "I was at my grandpa's house today, and I came across a somewhat unsettling issue. He is a user of Internet Explorer. I was talking about Firefox with him, and it turns out that he has had no trouble with popups since SP2 came out, he doesn't multitask enough to benefit from tabbed browsing, and he doesn't care about safety/privacy concerns. On top of that, I ran a test and found no difference in load/download speeds between the two browsers on his computer. This brought me to an interesting point. For someone like him, is there any benefit to be gained from using Firefox? On top of that, are there any people who are actually better off sticking with IE?"

Comments

Security/Privacy issues

[rogueuk]

The way I see it, if you don't care about security or privacy issues, then I don't think that there is a real reason for you to switch if you aren't going to benefit from any of the other enhancements that Firefox brings

However, once you get nailed with some bug/virus that exploits an IE security hole, then you will probably care enough to switch

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[LordEd]

I used to use IE with SP2 up until a few weeks ago. I went to the wrong website and wound up spending a day trying to remove a persistent spyware app off of my system. I had to drop down to a repair CD and physically erase specific DLLs that kept recreating themselves.

You may not have privacy/security concerns, but you start noticing it when your CPU is running 99% on spyware.

I haven't had any problems since switching to firefox.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[thegrassyknowl]

and he doesn't care about safety/privacy concerns

He may not care, but when he (and thousands of others) is infected with viri and malware and spewing out thousands of hits that clutter up my firewall logs I care.

There is no good reason for anybody to continue to use Internet Exploited. There are now at least three great alternatives for Windows; Firefox, Mozilla Suite and Opera. Each has certain advantages and disadvantages, but they all outshine the Microsoft POS browser.

IE was added to Windows as an afterthought, and it really shows. M$ wanted to jump in on this Internet thing that Bill Gates, himself, said would never take off.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[override11]

Once people stop coding their web sites using ActiveX and other IE only technologies, then there will be no reason not to switch. Until then, its a necessary evil.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[loteck]

the way I see it, i don't really care if you do or don't care about security issues. because when you get infected and unknowingly (and uncaringly) start spreading it, the internet and network admins across the country are the ones that suffer.

So, as i've told anyone who uses any computer that i have responsibility for, you'll use whatever software combines the most security with the most amount of practical usablitiy.

for now, as far as browsers go, thats Firefox.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[walt-sjc]

then you will probably care enough to switch

I doub't it. Some people never learn. Frankly, who gives a rip? If someone wants to run IE, let em. Some people still smoke too despite all the evidence of health problems, huge cost, etc. You can't cure stupidity.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[Dan Ost]

The number of sites using ActiveX seems to be on the decline. I'd like to
think that polite emails sent to webmasters is raising the overall awareness
of what technologies are acceptable to use in a web page, but I suspect that
it's happening because webmasters are starting to use non-MS web authoring
tools.

Either way, I like the trend.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[linguae]

IE was added to Windows as an afterthought, and it really shows. M$ wanted to jump in on this Internet thing that Bill Gates, himself, said would never take off.

Just one minor correction:

:s/IE was added to Windows as/Security in IE was/g

IE was added to Windows to kill Netscape. When Bill Gates saw that Netscape was making lots of money on the Internet and saw that the Internet and cross-platform standards might threaten the existance of Windows, MS bought Moziac Spyglass, molded it into IE, ordered PC vendors not to bundle Netscape, gave it out for free (browsers weren't free at the time), and finally soldered it into Windows 98 and subsequent Windows releases, which led to the death of Netscape.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[itwerx]

If someone wants to run IE, let em. Some people still smoke too despite all the evidence of health problems, huge cost, etc.

This analogy is unfortunately all too accurate. Not only does the rest of the insured/tax-paying population have to shoulder the health-care costs of smokers so too does the rest of the Internet-using population have to shoulder the cost of spams/viruses/wasted bandwidth etc. perpetuated by IE users.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[drsmithy]

When Bill Gates saw that Netscape was making lots of money on the Internet and saw that the Internet and cross-platform standards might threaten the existance of Windows, MS bought Moziac Spyglass, molded it into IE, ordered PC vendors not to bundle Netscape, gave it out for free (browsers weren't free at the time), and finally soldered it into Windows 98 and subsequent Windows releases, which led to the death of Netscape.

And of course the stupidity of Netscape in embarking on a complete rewrite at the time and the utter suckiness of their 4.x browsers had _nothing_ to do with it, right ?

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[shaitand]

As a former smoker, I can tell you never were one and thus should be silent on this issue since your talking out your ass.

Smokers continue to smoke because it is an addicition akin to that of the strongest narcotic drugs. Unless your counting teenagers, nobody smokes because they want to, they smoke because their addicted and quitting is something much harder than anything a non-smoker is ever likely to endure.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[Anonymous Coward]

you eavr suck some dick for some cigs?

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[shaitand]

Nope, don't know anyone who ever did for a Narcotic either. Hell most crack addicts I've known wouldn't either. I have known women who've gotten down on their knees for a smoke though.

Almost every smoker I know has smoked a butt out of public ashtray or off the ground in a parking lot at some point.

I know several who will stop in the middle of meal, stop eating and go smoke a cigerette.

Pretty much all smokers will stand outside when it's pouring, snowing, hailing, or just plain 30 below.

After going without Nicotine for 72hrs a smoker goes into condition similar to an extremely high fever. You have chills and it feels like little pinpricks all over your body, often vomitting comes at this point. After that every part of you SCREAMS I WANT A GODDAMN CIGERETTE again and again like a broken record for the next month non-stop. You get the chills and pinpricks thing two or three times a day.

After a month you start to have moments when you get your mind off of it, and as time goes on they are spaced farther and farther apart. After 10yrs or so you only feel a craving 3 or 4 times a year.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[ekuns]

And of course the stupidity of Netscape in embarking on a complete rewrite at the time and the utter suckiness of their 4.x browsers had _nothing_ to do with it, right ?

Netscape was their own worst enemy in a lot of ways and they made stupid decisions that hastened their demise. Otherwise, what the fellow you quoted said was accurate. The truth is that as long as IE was "good enough," only geeks were going to go through the trouble of downloading another browser over a 56k line when IE came bundled in. Gates knew that, of course.

Still, you're right that Netscape made a number of bad decisions that hastened the inevitable. Their 4.x browsers had a lot of bugs, tried to encourage use of Netscape-proprietary HTML tags, and had other problems as well. In addition to the time spent in a download or the cost ($30 as I recall?) to buy a boxed browser.

The person you quote is wrong in one other way as well. Netscape wasn't free ... unless you were in school. It was free for students and teachers. Many people did not have to pay for Netscape, and those were the same people who usually had decent Internet access. Ordinary home users, however -- the kind who determined the marketplace -- would have eventually made the same decision of choosing IE, as it came bundled and free, and Microsoft punished OEMs who added Netscape to their computers (for free) before sale.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[ottothecow]

But there are still plenty of stupid people who start smoking despite the risks.

Just wait until the IRC kiddies start using IE because it is badass..."s417 f00 I's 1337...I can stop the v1ru5"

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[shaitand]

Of course of course, far be it from me to claim that there is a shortage of complete fscking idiots in the world ;)

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[weicco]

Did you click that little button which said "Please click me, I'm gonna install some spyware up your a**"?

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[LordEd]

I think i was try to give it permission to show a single popup. Obviously i screwed up somewhere because the next thing i knew my system had 3 brand new items in the toolbar and it was at the Suspend/Shutdown/Restart windows prompt (But i definately didn't hit alt-F4 at any time)

I can't say for sure it was IE's fault, but i wasn't happy that the web browser allowed either an activeX or auto-installed a program as a result of wanting a popup.

-- guilty as charged
-- error 501: stupid user

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[SillyNickName4me]

> Not only does the rest of the insured/tax-paying population have to shoulder the health-care costs of smokers....

Now lets see:

Smoker pays insane amount of tax for smoking, so initially carries the cost for extra healthcare him/herself.

Second, smoker lives shorter on average, and people will get ill and will need healthcare and will die in the end anyway. Someone living shorter actually needs less healthcare on average.

Smoking has a direct and rather high cost to the snoker, it also causes problems for people around him/her due to passive smoking, but it is simply untrue that it causes higher costs for healthcare and in fact the opposite is true while smokers do pay a lot more.

This is all not to say that smoking is agoo,d it is a bad habbit and an addiction, but the argument that society has to pay more for healthcare due to it is simply bullshit and since there are also very good arguments to make, making this specific argument is counter productive, it makes the anti-smoking lobby look like they need to lie to get their way.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[Anonymous Coward]

next time you quit smoking, try drinking lots of water. a gallon a day. yes you see'll the bathroom plenty of times those days. the trick is you flush out the 'poison' from the cigarettes. Also, it keeps you from eating too much. Really works like a charm. I know at least 4 people (myself included) who stopped smoking this way.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox 1.0 has bugs. When firefox 1.0 first launched I was excited to hear all the hooplay on cnn and other news sites, stating IE was dying. Myself being a user of firefox and ie on the three main platforms. I find firefox useful for tabbed browsing, resistance to popups/adware. Using firebird and firefox v.0.9 I switched to v1.0 expecting to see some exciting new features for the ever so anticipated v1.0 Sadly I was not only disappointed in the lack of features in this monumental release, but firefox crashed unexpectedly the first time launching. This happened on all three OS's, (XP/2k, X10.3, FC3). First I thought it was an isolated incident, but then it happened on about 4 of my machines. I have not heard any other postings nor did I care enough to search for them, but if I had issues I'm sure many others did.
But I just wanted to say that I've seen bugzilla far more times than I've seen the Unexpected Quit error from IE. Not to mention that an extension I installed for xmms integration caused my entire menu bar to disappear and was only fixed by starting up in firefox -safe and figuring out I had to re-install. In my opinion firefox botched the Release. And I'd like to point out that on my mac there is no reason to even think about firefox because Safari is built in so well. On windows, my advice is to switch to firefox, but don't expect a bug free answer to your prayers, because you wont get that with any browser.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[itwerx]

Alright, for the sake of argument, here's a simpler equation:

smoker=secondhand smoke
IE=secondhand spam

'nuf said... :)

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[SillyNickName4me]

*chuckle*

Much better analogy indeed :)

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[emplynx]

Yeah... My dad has gotten some stuff on his computer that I cannot for the life of me get rid of. I can't figure it out. Curse spyware.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[LordEd]

The one I had was a hijacking spyware, so it placed 3 entries in the hosts (C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts) file constantly (sending browser searches to its own search engine). If i modified it, it was re-written within 2 seconds.

The stupid part about it is that the "app" was loaded even in a safe console mode in windows XP home. Safe mode should mean just that... load nothing! I couldn't even just pop in a normal boot disk because the HDD is NTFS.

The solution was to get an XP CD and go into a recovery console, and start shooting .dll files that were a specific size, AND had random character names, AND happen to have system and hidden attributes.

Spybot Seek & Destroy was able to get rid of the secondary spyware stuff installed.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[ShieldW0lf]

I smoke because I want to.

I've quit smoking for a long period for financial reasons and started again after I wasn't addicted.

Why did I do this? Because I like smoking.

I like leaving my project and going outside for a smoke. I like the way it tastes, and I like the way it goes well with my coffee. I like how it makes me feel. I like the social interaction of it. Cigars are good too.

Smoking rocks!

Nicotine is a kick ass drug. I was reading in some quit-smoking literature that it is a stimulant in large doses and a depressant in small doses, and that you can control your mood with it by automatically adapting how much you smoke. This is supposed to make you quit? Sounds like a kick ass drug to me!

And smoking makes you sick when you get old. Whah. Getting old makes you sick when you get old. Old people that dont die of lung cancer will die of something else. Big fuckin deal.

Smoking makes your breath stink and it costs way too fucking much. That is the start and the end of what is bad about smoking.

Smoke em if you got em :D

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[cabalamat2]

This analogy is unfortunately all too accurate. Not only does the rest of the insured/tax-paying population have to shoulder the health-care costs of smokers

Actually, smokers have less halth care costs over their lifetimes than non-smokers, because they die earlier. And that's before you factor in the savings to the taxpayer on reduced old age pensions.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's your fault. DON'T run as Administrator.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[homeobocks]

Not very much of an option. Because there aren't clear standards on Windows, individual program options are often saved to the program directory, not a user's home directory. This makes it so that, as an unprivelged user, settings won't be saved. Also, some normal apps (like Doom 3) can only be run as adminstrator.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a tech support dep for a large pc company.
The worst thing you can try to explain is why the antivirus dosn't blocks the "virus": "Sir, this is not a virus, the antivirus is not gonna pickup that spyware"
"No, madam, you actually installed the spyware on your computer when you installed Kazza"
"Sir, if you click on any pop up you see, (everybody knows that you're surfing on pr0n sites), then you're letting the spyware to run in this computer"

I just told them: "just go to majorgeeks.com and download Ad-aware"

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[JPriest]

I had the same problem on my brothers PC, it was a self installed little nasty called CoolWebSearch. It is a pretty common browser hijacker these days. I got around it with a removal tool called CWShredder and a windows update.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[Morlark]

See, this is the kind of thing that I just don't get. Why does Windows allow any old program to load itself in safe mode? Surely Microsoft must have known when they did this that it would get exploited? I can think of no valid reason for allowing programs to put themselves into the safe mode startup registry entry that is worth the inherent security risk that this represents.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[Vitamin P]

Frankly, who gives a rip? If someone wants to run IE, let em. Some people still smoke too despite all the evidence of health problems, huge cost, etc. You can't cure stupidity. Yes you can cure stupidity.... it is called education. Educate your users, in the early days of the internet; people typed in capital letters and the community made that a cardinal sin by saying you were shouting. It can be done but it is something that will be a challenge for someone that has little patience. If you even convert one person to FF over IE you have made your and their lives easier.

Re:Security/Privacy issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla/Firefox have supported plugins, which are native code, for years. Why are these supposedly any more secure than ActiveX components? They're not.

In the big scheme of things...

[erykjj]

I would say it makes no difference which browser you use if you do not keep up with all the security updates for the browser and/or OS.

Re:In the big scheme of things...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't seem to open your attachment. Could you resend? I'm using Firefox on Linux.

Re:In the big scheme of things...

[Anonymous Coward]

Works fine for me using IE6 on Windows. Maybe you should upgrade?

He's not alone on the net...

[AlexeiMachine]

If he becomes infected with a virus or a trojan that transforms his PC in a spam zombie, he then becomes a threat/nuisance/liability to others.

He might not care if he's infected with a bunch of crapware, but if his PC gets zombified and participates in criminal activities, he might object to that.

At least make sure he doesn't run MSIE as an Administrator on his PC.

IE XP SP2 is as safe as Firefox

[Elwood P Dowd]

IF YOU TURN OFF ACTIVEX.

Open Internet Explorer, go to the tools>options menu item, click the security tab, set security to "high", and customize the options so that it will not run activex, signed or unsigned, for any reason.

There, now IE is approximately as secure as Firefox. They might both have bugs, but now IE is as secure as Firefox by design.

Re:IE XP SP2 is as safe as Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you can't run Windows Update anymore without ActiveX... :-P

Re:IE XP SP2 is as safe as Firefox

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

There, now IE is approximately as secure as Firefox.

And approximately as useful as Firefox, with respect to ActiveX-requiring sites. Anything else can probably be rendered equally well by the two of them.

Incidentally, how do you plan on running Windows Update without ActiveX? And apparently Flash and so forth require ActiveX in IE...I had to manually lower security settings on a computer to get to a Flash game the other day. I think this comp had SP2 installed, and the installer got a bit overexcited.

Re:IE XP SP2 is as safe as Firefox

[Elwood P Dowd]

And approximately as useful as Firefox, with respect to ActiveX-requiring sites. Anything else can probably be rendered equally well by the two of them ... Incidentally, how do you plan on running Windows Update without ActiveX?

Glad we're on the same page.

I had to manually lower security settings on a computer to get to a Flash game the other day. I think this comp had SP2 installed, and the installer got a bit overexcited.

Whoops. This security thing starts breaking down when you turn it off.

Re:IE XP SP2 is as safe as Firefox

[Elwood P Dowd]

I don't know why you got modded flamebait. This is exactly the remaining reason that IE is insecure. But my point was that that is due to bugs rather than insecure by design. Firefox has had a few of those too. Between bugs, they're tied.

Re:IE XP SP2 is as safe as Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

So add windows update to the 'trusted sites' list.

Re:IE XP SP2 is as safe as Firefox

[dan_bethe]

And the reason why that fact makes IE insecure is that IE is artficially architected into kernelspace for the sole reason of becoming a smokescreen in antitrust court. Hence, IE is insecure by design and virtually everything else such as Firefox are not.

Re:IE XP SP2 is as safe as Firefox

[Elwood P Dowd]

Uh, no. It's because the current user tends to be an administrator and for no other reason. If you're properly set up and not running as a local administrator, then none of these IE exploits hose your system.

IE exploits are not kernel exploits.

Re:IE XP SP2 is as safe as Firefox

[jeffkjo1]

The obnoxious thing about turning off active X in IE is that EVERY DAMN time a page loads with even the tiniest active X control... IE pops up a warning box telling you about all the things you're missing.

Re:IE XP SP2 is as safe as Firefox

[relaxmax]

...now IE is as secure as Firefox by design

You know what I am going to say...

Re:IE XP SP2 is as safe as Firefox

[Frizzle Fry]

Well now I'm confused. One person makes baseless FUD against IE (that pages can somehow do something bad by getting into the Local zone) and you say it's not flamebait. Then someone else posts equally baseless FUD (that IE runs in kernel space) and you debunk it. Whose side are you on?

Re:IE XP SP2 is as safe as Firefox

[Elwood P Dowd]

I'm on the correct side. If both those comments were equally horseshit, then it's news to me.

Re:IE XP SP2 is as safe as Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

IE isn't in kernel mode or space. Perhaps you are confusing it with http services that HAS been moved to kernel mode for both IIS 6 on Windows 2003 server and IIS 5.1x on Windows XP SP2. But none of IE is kernel.

Re:IE XP SP2 is as safe as Firefox

[Frizzle Fry]

Ok. I have some news then: In XP SP2, the "local" zone is even more restricted in what it can do than the "internet" zone. The idea that ActiveX or anything else can gain the ability to do malicious things by putting itself into a more locked-down zone is, indeed, horseshit. You can go look up "local machine lockdown" on msdn for more info.

Re:IE XP SP2 is as safe as Firefox

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

I had to manually lower security settings on a computer to get to a Flash game the other day. I think this comp had SP2 installed, and the installer got a bit overexcited.

Whoops. This security thing starts breaking down when you turn it off.

This is the same computer that wouldn't follow through on this redirect page. I had put in 2 or 3 different redirects to the new SSI version of that page. Apparently, the computer blocked all the methods -- even the META refresh. This makes the computer about as "secure" as unplugging the cable.

Browser Benchmarks

[vasqzr]

Does anyone do these anymore?

I remember back in the days of IE vs Netscape, magazines would often publish page loading/rendering times. I'm not talking loading Yahoo, and hitting REFRESH while watching a stopwatch, but a real benchmark suite like you'd use for Microsft Office or a graphics card.

I'd also like to say that the newest IE is a lot better than the old ones as far as pop ups go. Tabbed browsing keeps me on Firefox even though there are ways to do it in IE. I've noticed Firefox hangs up on pages that IE handles fine, and I'm not really sure Firefox is 'faster', although it seems like it on slower machines.

Most people think Firefox is faster because they've got so much spyware etc infested in Internet Explorer. IE has always been 'fast'. A fresh install, at least.

Re:Browser Benchmarks

[sepluv]

The benchmarks I have read have suggested that Firefox is faster. It seems to be a lot faster too and takes up a lot less memory (you can have thousands of windows or tabs open where as MSIE usually crashes if you get close to double figures).

Also, so what if MSIE is not so slow initially? So is MSWindows XP--it usually is fast for the first day and then gradually declines until one usually has to reinistall after a few weeks. What is the point in having to re-install your OS (either becuase of IE problems inc. spyware or other MSW problems) on a regular basis. For this reason, if you have to use MSW reduce the risk of FUBARing the MSW installation by not using MSIE.

Most users care more about the browser rendering the pages correctly (let's face it--MSIE does not fully support any version of HTML and has no XHTML support at all) than millisecond differences in rendering times anyway. In fact, more than that, users want intuitiveness, security, privacy and useful features; that is where IE really falls down.

Re:Browser Benchmarks

[diegocgteleline.es]

Explorer is quite fast I must say. However firefox is not slow.

I guess people don't care about those benchmarks because:

o Some years ago, Internet wasn't "mainstream", people who used internet was interested in technical details, these days lots of people don't know what "render" means

o Browsers are fast these days. Some years ago it was "the start" of the "internet revolution". Browsers started to emerge and I guess there was a lot of field to build fast rendering engines. aslo computers are a lot faster so the difference between brosers is not very noticeable

o These days people cares more about things like popup blocking and tabs

Re:Browser Benchmarks

[rainman_bc]

Bullcrap. I use FF and love it, but it suffers from some serious memory leaks. I've had to terminate the FF process a few times. I've seen it hit 60MB of memory usage, hardly what I'd call good performance.

I love FF for its security, and peace of mind, and it's pretty much reduced the amount of calls I make to people's homes to do spyware removal, but it isn't a be-all-end-all solution.

Re:Browser Benchmarks

[ldspartan]

60mb, you've got it easy. I usually have to kill off firefox after it hits 200mb. This is 1.0 with the Coralize and Yahoo toolbar extensions.

--
lds

Re:Browser Benchmarks

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed Firefox hangs up on pages that IE handles fine, and I'm not really sure Firefox is 'faster', although it seems like it on slower machines.

I'm not sure if you're talking about bandwidth or computer power but IE is slower on dialup connections. It waits to render the entire page before showing it. On ad-laden pages this can take one minute or longer. In contrast, Firefox will incrementally "build" the page while it's rendering. While the page is loading, the text and ads pop into view. Coupled with tabbed browsing, Firefox is better for dialup users.

He doesn't care now.

[jestered1]

He'll continue to not care about security / privacy issues up until the point their compromised.

Go with Firefox.

Re:He doesn't care now.

[rainman_bc]

I somehow still contracted a nasty piece of spyware on my machine, and I was using FF. No clue where the hell I got it from though...

It rewrote my userinit registry key and I was unable to log on.

Luckily I was on a domain, and through computer management was able to turn the remote registry service on and get back in, and remove the infection, but it was still nasty.

Firefox isn't a solution to security / privacy, although it really does help. Truth is though, there are other ways to get spyware, for example ad-sponsored applications.

Doesn't care?

[esme]

...and he doesn't care about safety/privacy concerns

Right.

So you're telling me he's using a computer with no sensitive personal information on it, has a complete trusted offline backup, and he could easily wipe his machine, install from original media and restore his backup?

If he's not concerned about the safety/privacy problems of IE, then he hasn't given it much thought.

-Esme

Re:Doesn't care?

[77Punker]

Old folks are usually the type of people that don't use their computers for much more than information gathering. What's on TV in two hours? What's the weather tomorrow? With only that sort of stuff going on, that type of user really wouldn't have any problem with reformatting and cleanly installing from a rescue disc; it's just that the operation itself would be a hassle.

Re:Doesn't care?

[yuri benjamin]

If he's not concerned about the safety/privacy problems of IE, then he hasn't given it much thought.

Exactly. Most non-techies don't give it much thought and therefore don't care. Welcome to the real world.

You and I both know that they should give it some thought, because it does matter. Good luck with trying to convince the general public. I gave up long ago.

Probably not

[Satertek]

Extensions and themes are nice as well...But if he dosn't have any interest in tabs, he probably not find any of those useful either.

I'd still use Firefox anyway, as you never know when a new IE vunerability will be found.

Three main benefits

[Planesdragon]

For someone like him, is there any benefit to be gained from using Firefox?

Four main benefits, in order, for Firefox over IE6

1. When the web browser crashes, it doesn't kill part of the user environment.
2. Security holes are fewer, farther betwee, and quicker to be patched
3. Type-ahead-find is GREAT
4. The web pages are standards-based, which will make the web run better for everyone.

Re:Three main benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

Ive been using IE for years, and I can not remember when it has ever crashed. Can you honestly say #1 is valid?

Re:Three main benefits

[ClioCJS]

standards-based? WTF. Either it renders as the author intended or it does not. IE does a better job at doing this. Firefox didn't even render slashdot right for me -- the slashdot sidebar obscured the first column of text in the articles. Ugly. Not as intended.

Firefox will hopefully win in the long run, but clinging to "standards" too tightly means mis-rendering non-standard pages. It's an imperfect world and I think IE handles imperfect pages better.

Re:Three main benefits

[dpilot]

There is the usual disclaimer, Your Mileage May Vary.

You have never had an IE crash. I have no doubt your computer has never caught a sickness through IE, either. Nor would I be surprised to hear that you tried Firefox, and had all sorts of problems.

Good for you.

Actually, it sounds like this guy's father might be in the same boat as you, because he has been happy with IE. I wouldn't extrapolate your luck to the general population, though. At this point, and to keep the arguments reasonably logical, I won't even say anything about statistical likelihood of any given person having better luck with IE or Firefox.

I'll simply say that for you and some others, IE is just fine, and for others, it isn't. For others the opposite is true. Sometimes you just have to try it out for yourself.

To put it in other words, I'm reasonably happy with my 2nd-hand Ford Taurus. I think YOU should buy one too, because mine fits my needs and works well for me.

Re:Three main benefits

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

When the web browser crashes, it doesn't kill part of the user environment.

It does what? IE hasn't crashed recently in my memory, and I've never seen Active Desktop Recovery from an IE crash. Besides, you're always running IE in the form of Active Desktop and so forth.

Security holes are fewer, farther betwee, and quicker to be patched

He doesn't care. Who's going to hax0r his computer for the information on it? At worst, they'll try to stick an open relay on, but he should have a firewall anyway, since there are more attack vectors than just IE.

Type-ahead-find is GREAT

Typeahead find is great for hyper teens whose brains work faster than their connection. No insult meant, but I'm not sure he's going to appreciate the page being scrolled faster than he can read it. He'd probably read the whole thing top-to-bottom.

The web pages are standards-based, which will make the web run better for everyone.

Urm? Whose web pages? If your reason is "This will increase the market share of Firefox", I guess that's acceptable. Otherwise, your statement can be rephrased as "Firefox doesn't support the IE quirks that a few web pages use". I don't know of any web pages (other than CSS proofs-of-concept and XUL stuff) that work on Firefox but not IE.

Re:Three main benefits

[cloudless.net]

Your #1 is invalid.

When running on Windows 2000/XP, an IE crash does not "kill part of the user environment". IE runs as the same process as Explorer.exe in Windows 9x only.

Re:Three main benefits

[Otter]

There are other advantages I'd point to in Mozilla (I haven't used Firefox much): a better Find dialog, better bookmark handling, better cookie and password management...

On the other hand, this grandfather is unlikely to value a good cookie manager any more than the other features in which he had no interest. Look, if the guy values not having to relearn his browser over any and all of Firefox's features, that's his choice. So be it.

Re:Three main benefits

[Planesdragon]

Well, I'll be darned.

So, instead of being the same process that crashes your main UI element, it's a seperate process that crashes your main UI element.

Re:Three main benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know of any web pages (other than CSS proofs-of-concept and XUL stuff) that work on Firefox but not IE.

No, but I know plenty of websites that cost more to create because the developers had to put in umpteen workarounds for Internet Explorer. Guess who that cost gets passed on to?

I also know plenty of nifty effects that simply cannot be used because they would break in Internet Explorer. I guess he doesn't mind that the web is essentially stagnant because of the undead Internet Explorer - rotting but still moving around molesting people.

Re:Three main benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

Either it renders as the author intended or it does not. IE does a better job at doing this.

What is your basis for saying so? No website I've created in the past three years or so has rendered correctly in Internet Explorer without a good deal of hacking. Internet Explorer just doesn't do things right.

Re:Three main benefits

[Planesdragon]

. Besides, you're always running IE in the form of Active Desktop and so forth.

Active Desktop is rather easily turned off. In fact, for 2k and XP it's a good idea to go ahead and turn it off; even in non-NT systems, it's only left on because the user wants to be able to use compressed bitmaps for their wallpaper.

He doesn't care. Who's going to hax0r his computer for the information on it? At worst, they'll try to stick an open relay on, but he should have a firewall anyway, since there are more attack vectors than just IE.

A firewall won't stop you from an IE exploit, which will fill up your grandfather's PC with spam, pr0n, and generally make it run like crap.

Typeahead find is great for hyper teens whose brains work faster than their connection.

Wrong. TAF is for, you know, finding. It does nothing for a slow connection, but it does wonders to speed up the UI.

Re:Three main benefits

[itwerx]

5. Browse-alicious extensions!! :)

Re:Three main benefits

[TheCarp]

Ahem

So web browsers should be DWIM now? They should forget all that markup and html standards and render everything exactly as the author of the page INTENDED it, regardless of how he wrote it?

As a person who uses firefox almost as often as windows (I use galeon under linux and thats my main environment, but use windows for my laptop and when I game) I have never had a problem with it rendering slashdot wrong. Maybe your local install has something odd going on?

Anyway, intention is everything. And the standards are there so that the author can communicate his intentions. If he can't follow the standards, then HE Is the one not properly communicating his intentions. It may be the fault of his authoring software, or things he learned from broken browsers past, but thats not really the issue.

If you, either through bad accent or imperfect knowledge of english ask me to bring you some ghee when you want some tea, its not really my fault for not reading your mind.

-Steve

Re:Three main benefits

[itwerx]

If you're running Win2K/XP, have at least 512Meg of RAM, lots of free disk space, no other apps running, only ever have one IE window open, never copy and paste, never print, and only ever go to a small number of IE-friendly sites then yeah, it probably won't ever crash.
But you're part of less than 1% of the IE-using population of the world. :)

Re:Three main benefits

[zulux]

When running on Windows 2000/XP, an IE crash does not "kill part of the user environmen

Not on my XP box - Explorer/IE is responsible for the start bar.

Try this:

Fire up the Task Manager --

Kill the Explorer process.

Notice that your start menu and task bar are gone.

Re:Three main benefits

[itwerx]

No website I've created in the past three years or so has rendered correctly in Internet Explorer without a good deal of hacking.

No kidding! I design for FireFox/Opera first because that lets me work on the page and how I want it to look without any extra crap.
Only after the page itself is done do I then proceed to spend an equal amount of time getting it to look right in other browsers.
And lemme tell you, most of that time is spent futzing around with bugs in IE!

Re:Three main benefits

[NickDngr]

Kill the Explorer process.

The IE process is called IEXPLORE. The process you killed is the explorer shell. They are seperate.

Re:Three main benefits

[cloudless.net]

I guess you didn't quite get it...

On Windows 9x, IE runs in the same process as explorer.exe. So when IE crashes, Windows Explorer (the "main UI element") crashes as well.

On Windows 2000/XP, IE runs in a seperate process. When it crashes, it does not affect Windows Explorer. In fact it behaves the same way as Firefox crashes.

Re:Three main benefits

[wayne606]

explorer.exe is windows explorer - that's the desktop

iexplore.exe is internet explorer. It's a completely different process. Killing it doesn't affect your desktop.

Re:Three main benefits

[cloudless.net]

explorer.exe is Windows Explorer, the shell.
iexplorer.exe is Internet Explorer, the browser.

Get it?

Re:Three main benefits

[mebob]

It does what?

Yep it crashes. I've seen it many times. The high number of form object on slashdot's moderation has will crash it sometimes upuntil recent versions.

<i>He doesn't care. Who's going to hax0r his computer for the information on it? At worst, they'll try to stick an open relay on, but he should have a firewall anyway, since there are more attack vectors than just IE.</i>

He would if his computer stopped working, then guess who has to fix it. While a firewall is good its not going to help with this. The normal firewall set up is only going to stop in comming connections, give a user like this advanced firewall software and it will just piss him off or he's just click allow.

<i>
Typeahead find is great for hyper teens whose brains work faster than their connection. No insult meant, but I'm not sure he's going to appreciate the page being scrolled faster than he can read it. He'd probably read the whole thing top-to-bottom.</i>

Sorry firefox's find system isn't just for teenyboppers. Its a very useful tool for all ages.

<i>Standards</i>
Standards are important. I've into quite a few bugs that required little tricks or complete redesigns so that IE didn't screw up the page.
For instance inserting empty javascript blocks on pages not even using javascript just so weird table render bugs would not appear. The fact that IE does a better job a displaying very poorly designed pages is great but forcing people to use better would be much more useful. Nonstandard code doesn't only hurt firefox. If websites are forced to conform more closely to the standards, then it will be easier to develope the gecko engine and firefox. Just as it will be easier for any brower or application to continue development, this includes tools for the disabled, browsers in cell phones as well as other embeded devices and also the applications for web development or even just content managment.

I would love for IE to be more secure (it would certainly make my job easier) but it just isn't in it's default state. And whats so wrong with just using another browser anyway?

Re:Three main benefits

[mebob]

Here are some interesting display/development related bugs

Re:Three main benefits

[pen]

Actually, there are two circumstances when I prefer to use IE:

• When the computer I'm using doesn't have a lot of RAM. (In my experience, IE's footprint is about half the size of Firefox and Opera.)
• When I want to print something. IE's printing Just Works(tm). Opera and Firefox are a pain (cutting off edges, not printing things that should print, printing things that shouldn't print, refusing to print just the selected part, etc.)

Re:Three main benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

Right...there is an incorrect perception that IE can cause your entire system to crash. In actuality, the system crashes that people experience when loading a website in IE are caused by the various competing spyware applications that IE allows to be installed so easily.

Sheesh!!! It's like the Slashdot crowd is looking for a reason to blame IE...

Re:Three main benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. TAF is for, you know, finding. It does nothing for a slow connection, but it does wonders to speed up the UI.

Actually, it does squat. There's no speed benefit to it, beyond the user potentially not having to type as much if the specific portion they're looking for is uniquely identified by a particular search word. Usually this is not the case, and the bugs in TAF make it annoying to boot (like when it decides to capture your keystrokes when you're trying to type in a form). I don't feel I'm wasting a terrible amount of time by having to hit "enter" to kick off a search.

Re:Three main benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

The web pages are standards-based, which will make the web run better for everyone.

OK, now that's just retarded. My using Firefox does not magically make webpages standards based. I've been using Opera and Firefox for years, and people are not in any hurry to make their webpages compliant with anything but IE.

Re:Three main benefits

[HoneyBunchesOfGoats]

Even though in principle it's not, I've had IE bring the Windows Explorer down with it. I think this happens when Explorer is rendering "web content" and thus using the IE backend. I think you can specify in the Folder Options to "Launch folder windows in a separate process" which will stop this from happening, but the option is not enabled by default. Firefox is immune from these issues, and I believe it's a better all-around browser anyway.

Re:Three main benefits

[ClioCJS]

You guys are weird. *I* make a page in IE, then it takes forever to get it working in Netscape.

One example: The world is imperfect. It's conceivable that someone might forget to close a table cell with a TD or close a table row with a TR.

In all my experiences, when this happened, Netscape stops rendering at the point that this happens. IE stops rendering the table at the point that this happens, and dumps out the remaining cells to the page. Ugly, but the information intended to go to the user actually does.

And no, I'm not making any Firefox comparisons because I have little experience with it. But I like what I see, and it already "feels" as good as netscape. But it didn't render slashdot quite right for me, surprisingly.

Re:Three main benefits

[ClioCJS]

You seem to act as if what I said is what you said. It is not. I never suggested DEPARTING from standards. But rather, smart code that renders a page properly despite failures.

My example I tend to use is a table where row 3 out of 5 has a (/TR) tag missing. Woop de doo. I can render it in my brain, but it would break Netscape. Wouldn't it make more sense that if, when the browser hits a (TR), it assumes an implied (/TR) from the row before, rather than giving up?

Browsers should let you browse. Not give up at the first sign of non-compliancy to punish those forsakers who did not use the King's English.

(Never heard of DWIM. Do what I mean?)

I've been thinking about the slashdot rendering... I set my window borders to be 5 pixels thick instead of the default 1... and some programs don't properly compensate -- some CSS-P computations are performed on the edge of the window and THIS IS WRONG because window border thicknesses are configurable and should not affect anything inside the browser.

Re:Three main benefits

[itwerx]

You guys are weird. *I* make a page in IE, then it takes forever to get it working in Netscape.

I quit bothering with Netscape years ago. I actually use Adobe GoLive as a site manager/editor but I test under Opera initially because it's so damn picky. FireFox gets tested in parallel with Opera just because of the development oriented extensions that are so damn handy. :)
Once the page is "correct" in development terms then I add the code for working around bugs in other browsers.
The main reason for this is so that 5 years from now when nobody is using any of these browsers it'll be easy for the next poor schmuck (or me :) to understand what I've done and add/remove/change bug-specific code vs actual content.
[shrug] Different perspectives on the same problem...

Re:Three main benefits

[damiam]

I don't know what IE you're using, but I've had IE crashes on XP and Win2k3 Server take out the taskbar and desktop icons; I had to Ctrl-Alt-Del to Task Manager to get them back.

Re:Three main benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

*I* make a page in IE, then it takes forever to get it working in Netscape.

In my experience, the people who say this write bad code. Either nested tables twenty deep, or CSS that does the wrong thing, and HTML that kicks Internet Explorer into quirks mode. Not to mention avoiding any advanced CSS.

I don't think you are stupid or anything, it's the status quo. But really - are you writing code to spec, or are you seeing what works in Internet Explorer and then complaining when it doesn't work in non-broken browsers?

If you want your code to work across multiple browsers, then the way that causes the least amount of headaches is to use... well practically any browser but Internet Explorer as your reference rendering when developing. Avoid the bits you know break in Internet Explorer. Then, when you are done, come back and fix it for Internet Explorer. It's a real pain to get things working for Internet Explorer, but every other browser is a doddle.

One example: The world is imperfect. It's conceivable that someone might forget to close a table cell with a TD or close a table row with a TR.

Crikey. You rely on browser testing to find bugs like that? That's way too much effort. Just run it through a validator. Why waste time looking for bugs when a computer can give you a handy list of them automatically?

But it didn't render slashdot quite right for me, surprisingly.

It's a known bug that has been fixed for ages. Unfortunately, it was quite a tricky one to fix, so it only made it to the branch that will be released as Firefox 1.1.

Re:Three main benefits

[recursiv]

bwahahahahahaha!
hah!
ha

Where did you get this information? Because it's exactly wrong. It's true that firefox has a bug with table layouts, but it can't compete with the dozens and dozens of ridiculous layout bugs in ie. Since I suspect you'll dismiss this out of hand, check out http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html or just search google for more information on ie bugs. Believe me when I say web developers have to spend a significant amount of time coding around IE's bugs so that people like you will think it is "standards compliant". If you don't believe me, ask a working web developer.

Furthermore, it only tends to manifest itself in sites that are using tables for layout. (ahem, slashdot) Not saying it's ok, but any site that has been designed in the past five years should not be affected.

Re:Three main benefits

[ClioCJS]

I find it laughable that you seem to imply that just because some group of standards-makers got together and created some new standards, that the entire internet must be rewritten to comply. Your post seems to imply that it's okay if browsers can't render a 5 year old page, because of disdain against the developers for daring to possibly use and older, valid flavor of HTML. That's crap. Standards don't die, they fade away. They should be held onto as long as possible. If a browser can't render a table right, why would I even use it? Out of some psuedo-macho technical snobbery?

And my experiences are all from my own 2 eyes. I do a lot of weird things that put me in weird situations so I expect skepticism from the elitist crowd.

Re:Three main benefits

[recursiv]

I never disagreed with that point. If it wasn't clear, let me state it more directly:

Firefox has flaws. One of them is it's propensity to fuck up table layout flows, or whatever they're called. I also think that standards should be followed as long as possible.

Furthermore, all web browsers have flaws. You ask why use Firefox when it can't render tables right? Because it works better than any other browser I have tried so far. If you have found that not to be the case in your personal experience, go ahead and continue to use IE, but do not expect to be taken seriously when you say it is more standards compliant than Firefox. The link I gave earlier describes IE flaws mostly rendering CSS, but there are a boatload more, notably including PNG alpha channel support.

The only reason IE appears to work so well is that it has such a large market share, and thus developers must code around some of its more gaping deficiencies. If the ends justify the means in your mind, then you could possibly consider IE superior in this way.

If the market shares of IE and Firefox were reversed, you would see a lot more rendering anomolies in IE, since it's such a bitch to code for.

Re:Three main benefits

[SillyNickName4me]

> Never heard of DWIM. Do what I mean?

Which can only work if you express clearly enough what the hell you mean.

Humans are infinitely better at guessing the meaning of things then computers but even in the case of humans it still is guessing, which means that every so often they will get it wrong.

If you want your dwim, make sure you ewym (express what you mean) properly first.

Re:Three main benefits

[SillyNickName4me]

> Your post seems to imply that it's okay if browsers can't render a 5 year old page, because of disdain against the developers for daring to possibly use and older, valid flavor of HTML.

If it was actually valid html (unlike slashdot, and unlike your missing /tr example) it would be rendered properly.

You still don't seem to understand that the html was and still is broken. That it shows in some browsers and not in others does not change that. If the html were actually valid, it would be rendered correctly. A missing /tr is invalid html, regardless of html 3.2, 4.0 or xhtml

What is more, by actually handling tables according to the spec (the html 3.2 spec, so nothing new and fancy) the browser code becomes simpler and far less bug prone then when taking into account broken tables, unclosed tags and the like.

Re:Three main benefits

[BenjyD]

Firstly, that's not the table-rendering behaviour I see in Firefox (not Netscape - does anyone even use Netscape these days?). A missing TD , /TR , /TD has no effect on the display.
Secondly, why is response to broken HTML an issue? What kind of idiot publishes broken HTML on the web? Running validator.w3.org takes 30 seconds - you could even script something to check all of a site for you. If that's too much effort, HTML tidy will do a fair bit of checking and auto-fixing as well. Running tidy probably takes less time than ftping the HTML onto the server. You could even put a tidy run in your ftp script.

Re:Three main benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

the bugs in TAF make it annoying to boot (like when it decides to capture your keystrokes when you're trying to type in a form)

That bug is fairly recent because I didn't start seeing it until the 1.0 Preview Release. Tabs seem to be the culprit. A temporary solution is to open the form in a new window.

Re:Three main benefits

[TheCarp]

Yes dwim is do what I mean. Check out the Jargon file, its a good resource and provides a fine example of why DWIM fails. As such I quote:

Warren Teitelman originally wrote DWIM to fix his typos and spelling errors, so it was somewhat idiosyncratic to his style, and would often make hash of anyone else's typos if they were stylistically different. Some victims of DWIM thus claimed that the acronym stood for 'Damn Warren's Infernal Machine!'.

In one notorious incident, Warren added a DWIM feature to the command interpreter used at Xerox PARC. One day another hacker there typed delete *$ to free up some disk space. (The editor there named backup files by appending $ to the original file name, so he was trying to delete any backup files left over from old editing sessions.) It happened that there weren't any editor backup files, so DWIM helpfully reported *$ not found, assuming you meant 'delete *'. It then started to delete all the files on the disk! The hacker managed to stop it with a Vulcan nerve pinch after only a half dozen or so files were lost.

Your example, while not standards complient is a simple one and we can add a rule that says, if we hit a new TR but without first a new TABLE, then /TR is implied.

This has a problem. It provides positive reinforcement "Hey look, I don't need /TR at all" rather than negative "damn my table doesn't work, oh looks like I forgot a /TR"

Frankly, people should be testing and fixing their markup and thats hard to do without a standards compliant browser.

Also, yah I wonder if mozilla fixed some of the weird ways the old netscape browser exposed its internals. For example, you could open a H1 tag and close it with a /FONT and various other amusements. This was back in 4.x though.

-Steve

Re:Three main benefits

[ClioCJS]

Response to broken HTML is definitely an issue. If one browser can make sense of a gobblegook page while another browser can't -- the one that can is automatically more useful (for that situation).

Your indication of willingness to exclude those who can't code perfectly is unnecessary technical snobbery.

Re:Three main benefits

[BenjyD]

There's a difference between not coding perfectly and missing end tags! Given that there are free, easy to use tools to fix broken HTML before publication, you have to be pretty damn daft to allow seriously broken HTML out onto the public web. Don't many web page text editors include basic HTML error checking?

Re:Three main benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

Your indication of willingness to exclude those who can't code perfectly is unnecessary technical snobbery.

It's not willingness to exclude, hell he even gave suggestions on avoiding the problems.

The more workarounds and reverse engineering are needed to make sense of a page, the harder it is to write a web browser. How much quicker would Mozilla have got to 1.0 if it didn't have to emulate Internet Explorer's error handling? How much more money would Opera have to throw around if it took them less resources to build their browser?

Insisting that every browser is absolutely required to emulate the accumulation of over a decade's worth of error handling to the finest detail raises the barrier to entry by a hell of a lot. Raising that barrier to entry is what I would call unnecessary technical snobbery. There are plenty of people willing to help newbies fix their code, plenty of free resources like validators and linters. That's not snobbery.

Re:Three main benefits

[ClioCJS]

You're making an argument for lower functionality. I believe functionality should always be as high as possible. Why should a user care how hard it was to program his browser? He just wants it to work. There is nothing wrong with that.

Re:Three main benefits

[Secret Agent X23]

One example: The world is imperfect. It's conceivable that someone might forget to close a table cell with a TD or close a table row with a TR.

No matter how a browser might deal with that, you have to wonder about someone who'd let a page like that go live on the web. Wouldn't they look at it first? (...and yet, I see pages that make me wonder that on a fairly regular basis...)

Re:Three main benefits

[ClioCJS]

Well, with blogging, we have tons of pages that are being updated every day by people who have no knowledge of coding. "Average is retarded", remember.

Re:Three main benefits

[tepples]

The high number of form object on slashdot's moderation has will crash it sometimes upuntil recent versions.

I've done everything right according to what I've read of Slashdot's FAQ, "Excellent" karma and all, but I've never got mod points even once. Should I try waiting two more years until enough other users have joined Slashdot?

Re:Three main benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

Rejecting buggy markup is a feature. If you're working with a browser that will accept nearly any markup, it's difficult to get markup that's right. Even if it does accept flawed markup, there's no way to guarantee that anyone else will see the same thing. Even different versions of IE might render it differently, maybe even the same version on different operating systems, you don't know.

Now that doesn't mean that the tiniest error is unforgiveable, although that approach does work in other areas. A standard could be devised that properly handles all error conditions in the markup in a deterministic fashion and browsers could have selectable strict/lenient modes. (They sort of do already...) Unfortunately there is no such standard, so there is no way for all browsers to handle broken markup in exactly the same way. If two do, they probably use the same code.

So if you write broken HTML, don't complain about browsers that don't render it the way you intended. That's an unrealistic expectation. Maybe complain that HTML doesn't cover imperfect markup. Ultimately, though, it's your own fault. Use correct markup and you have a good chance of getting the same thing everywhere. (The HTML standard really is too vague in places...)

Re:Three main benefits

[ClioCJS]

Thank you for your sanity. A standard is an interesting idea. It IS an unrealistic expectation but one I have nonetheless. And yes, HTML is too vague at places. And so is CSS-P. (Still irked that making my window have thicker (4px thicker) borders affected layout (making some things 4px off), but only in Netscape not IE, if memory serves.)

Re:Three main benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

Still irked that making my window have thicker (4px thicker) borders affected layout (making some things 4px off), but only in Netscape not IE, if memory serves.

That sounds right. Borders are supposed to be included in width calculations. If you want a line around the box that obscures the content area instead, use outline and not border.

Re:Three main benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of bloggers use a CMS and don't hand-code.

Re:Three main benefits

[ClioCJS]

making my window borders thicker (so they are easy to grab, I have trouble with precise mouse selections sometimes) should not affect CSS-P placement of content inside the browser. www.whatever.com shouldn't look different just because I have fisher-price borders.

Re:Three main benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about CSS borders, not your browser borders.

Well...

[CliffH]

... this is the old perceived "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" type of situation. If it is doing everything that is needed and has not caused any perceived need to change, why change? If or when something happens that would not have happened if the party were using Firefox (or Opera or anything else not using IE), then maybe an upgrade will happen. Why maybe? Everyone knows that most people do not like change, hence the old addage up above. After all, if the systems are well looked after and kept up to date, you should be just fine sticking with IE (that's the same for all systems). None of us are immune to security issues and none of us should be lax in keeping our systems up to date. In any case, my mini-rant is done. Move along, nothing to see...

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

For someone like him, is there any benefit to be gained from using Firefox?

Internet Explorer is holding the web back. As long as a lot of people use Internet Explorer, nobody can get the benefits of advanced web development.

CSS 1? Eight years old and still broken in Internet Explorer. PNG 1? Eight years old and still broken in Internet Explorer. HTML 4? Six years old and still broken in Internet Explorer. HTTP 1.1? Five years old and still broken in Internet Explorer. CSS 2? Six years old and still broken in Internet Explorer. Nothing works properly in Internet Explorer.

If he's using Internet Explorer, he's part of the problem. Ask him to stop being part of the problem. Other people might still hold back the web, but at least he won't be.

Re:Yes

[itwerx]

Parent is not Redundant.
Moderators need to check timestamps...

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

CSS1 works fine in IE. Please post proof of the contrary.

Also, please remember that "must render like Firefox" is not what is written in the CSS1 recommendation. IE is compliant with the required portions of CSS1. If you choose to use CSS that is not enforced within the recommendation, that is YOUR fault, not IE's.

Re:Yes

[_QED]

IE has almost total market dominance now, that's a simple fact of life, so MS can't necessarily fix a lot of these things because it will break millions of existing websites.

At my work there's an intranet site that I need to use constantly that relies on non-standard IE DOM features. Naturally it's completely broken in Firefox. That means that, yes, Firefox supports standards better, is easier to develop for etc. but also means that nobody where I work can use it.

Standards compliance isn't the be all and end all. Why not put a compatibility layer in there (that you can switch off) to emulate the non-standard and broken behavior of IE so all these real life scenarios, as unfortunate as they are, don't stop people from migrating to firefox?

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

CSS1 works fine in IE.

Off the top of my head: fixed background images are broken.

Also, please remember that "must render like Firefox" is not what is written in the CSS1 recommendation.

Duh.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

MS can't necessarily fix a lot of these things because it will break millions of existing websites.

I hear this a lot. It's utter bullshit. Please show me which websites would break if they started supporting the PNG alpha channel. Or fixed the guillotine bug. Or the peekaboo bug. Or the 3px jog. Or justified text in caption elements. Or display: table. Or generated content. Or any of the other things people have been complaining about for over three years.

It's funny how Microsoft didn't have a problem with breaking websites when they released all the previous versions of Internet Explorer. Practically all of them have broken things.

At my work there's an intranet site that I need to use constantly that relies on non-standard IE DOM features. Naturally it's completely broken in Firefox. That means that, yes, Firefox supports standards better, is easier to develop for etc. but also means that nobody where I work can use it.

If you are writing Internet Explorer-only applications, I don't see what that has to do with Firefox. They are proprietary applications, not websites. Firefox can't run Access databases, Excel macros, or any number of different proprietary application scripts. Developing "web applications" for Internet Explorer only is the 11th biggest IT mistake.

Standards compliance isn't the be all and end all. Why not put a compatibility layer in there (that you can switch off) to emulate the non-standard and broken behavior of IE so all these real life scenarios, as unfortunate as they are, don't stop people from migrating to firefox?

You can emulate proprietary behaviour and still remain compliant with the specifications in many cases. And other browsers have put a tremenduous amount of energy into emulating all that crap. And most of it is done. But if browsers start ignoring the specifications and following Internet Explorer's behaviour, not only does that mean people writing to spec get punished for it - breaking interoperability in the process - but it effectively hands control of the web over to Microsoft.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you're referring to the background-attachment: fixed property, as displayed in the complexspiral demo?

Here's a relevant piece of CSS1:
CSS1 core: UAs may treat 'fixed' as 'scroll'. However, it is recommended they interpret 'fixed' correctly, at least on the HTML and BODY elements

IE handles fixed correctly, on the HTML and BODY elements, and no others. This is in compliance with CSS1 requirements. The support is not as extensive as it could be, but it is not wrong or broken.

The only downside

[AtariAmarok]

The only downside I see to Firefox is that it has bugs where some pages won't display correctly compared to MSIE (and I'm talking about basic HTML display glitches, not obscure MS-specific ActiveX junk). Plus side? Built in popup killing. Also, the Firefox folks seem like nicer guys to support than the MS folks.

Re:The only downside

[Anonymous Coward]

The only downside I see to Firefox is that it has bugs where some pages won't display correctly compared to MSIE (and I'm talking about basic HTML display glitches, not obscure MS-specific ActiveX junk).

I hear this a lot from newbie web developers that think that because Internet Explorer does something with broken code, that's the way it's supposed to work. Every time I have heard this complaint, upon investigation, I have found that Internet Explorer is getting it wrong and the other browser (in this case Firefox) is getting it right.

Do you have any concrete examples of Firefox getting things wrong and Internet Explorer getting things right?

Re:The only downside

[AtariAmarok]

"I hear this a lot from newbie web developers that think that because Internet Explorer does something with broken code, that's the way it's supposed to work" I'm not talking about my own crappy pages. I'm talking about others' sites. Yes, MSIE is indeed better in this respect if it can take broken HTML and display a good page out of it. "Every time I have heard this complaint, upon investigation, I have found that Internet Explorer is getting it wrong and the other browser (in this case Firefox) is getting it right" However, if MSIE is showing a good readable page and Firefox is showing some broken junk on the screen, it is pretty clear which one is getting it right. Obviously, it is the one showing a good page. "Do you have any concrete examples of Firefox getting things wrong and Internet Explorer getting things right?" The difference, as I hope I said, is small. Probably less than 1 out of 100 pages that Firefox can't handle. The last one I found was one that Firefox put about 30 blank lines at the beginning (before the content). MSIE started with the content. Oh, there is also the problem of displaying image files from my own hard disk in IMG tags. MSIE takes the actual image paths with no problem. Firefox displays ugly "bad image" icons. I suspect that this will be fixed soon on the Mozilla side. They've clearly done a lot of work to make Firefox able to display all web pages, but it does not look like it is quite as much as MS did (and, again, I am referring to real basic HTML, not Java, ActiveX, or other esoteric content).

Re:The only downside

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, MSIE is indeed better in this respect if it can take broken HTML and display a good page out of it.

I'm not really referring to that situation. I'm talking about when the code is supposed to do one thing, and Internet Explorer does another. For instance, text-align isn't supposed to centre block-level elements. Firefox gets it right, but is accused of being broken when newbies try and centre block-level elements with it.

The last one I found was one that Firefox put about 30 blank lines at the beginning (before the content). MSIE started with the content.

That's hardly an example. I'm talking about code.

MSIE started with the content. Oh, there is also the problem of displaying image files from my own hard disk in IMG tags. MSIE takes the actual image paths with no problem. Firefox displays ugly "bad image" icons.

I've found that Internet Explorer will pay attention to characters in URLs that it really isn't supposed to. A proper URL to files on the local system follows the format of rfc 1738 - can you give me an example of a URL that breaks in Firefox?

They've clearly done a lot of work to make Firefox able to display all web pages, but it does not look like it is quite as much as MS did

The difference is that they don't want to go against what they should do per specification, just to be compatible with broken abandonware.

Re:The only downside

[AtariAmarok]

"I'm not really referring to that situation. I'm talking about when the code is supposed to do one thing, and Internet Explorer does another"

I definitely see your point here. You will understand if I don't notice such problems if I don't expect the page to be a certain way: for example, if a buggy browser turns a top-of-the page H1 title text green even though the tag says red, and I visit the page, it looks "OK" to me, even though it is making an outrageously wrong interpretation of the HTML instructions.

"That's hardly an example. I'm talking about code"

It is an example of what I have noticed (pages not working well in Firefox/Mozilla). I think the "Webmaster" left out a greater-than or a closing tag. Not "code" as such, but part of HTML.

"The difference is that they don't want to go against what they should do per specification, just to be compatible with broken abandonware"

I don't think HTML is "broken abandonware". However, you are wrong here: they have already done a lot to make "Bad" html look good on the screen. If they were strict specification-nazis, they would not not done all this work so far.

"can you give me an example of a URL that breaks in Firefox?"

On a Windows system, find a graphic file. Any file, like c:\winnt\pyramid.bmp Next, place this file path as an URL. Check the page. It doesn't break, but you will see a pyramid on your screen in MSIE and an ugly no-image in Firefox.

Re:The only downside

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think HTML is "broken abandonware".

Neither do I, I was referring to Internet Explorer.

However, you are wrong here: they have already done a lot to make "Bad" html look good on the screen. If they were strict specification-nazis, they would not not done all this work so far.

There is a difference between guessing at the correct rendering when faced with broken code, and deliberately rendering something wrong when faced with correct code.

Generally speaking, all bets are off when they are faced with broken code, but deliberately ignoring the specifications when faced with correct code just because Internet Explorer gets it wrong and a few stupid web developers can't read a spec is something they are not likely to do.

Any file, like c:\winnt\pyramid.bmp Next, place this file path as an URL.

A file path is not a URL. A URL to a resource on a local filesystem starts with file:///. If that file path were interpreted as a URL, the procotol would be 'c'. Firefox doesn't know of any such protocol. That's because it doesn't exist. What you have is a URL with an unknown protocol, and Firefox shouldn't guess at things it doesn't know about.

Re:The only downside

[itwerx]

On a Windows system, find a graphic file. Any file, like c:\winnt\pyramid.bmp Next, place this file path as an URL. Check the page. It doesn't break, but you will see a pyramid on your screen in MSIE and an ugly no-image in Firefox.

This didn't work in the early versions of IE either. It was added when IE was "integrated" with the Windows file explorer.
Ironically, it is IE's ability to do this which has resulted in at least a couple of exploits. :)

Re:The only downside

[ekuns]

On a Windows system, find a graphic file. Any file, like c:\winnt\pyramid.bmp Next, place this file path as an URL. Check the page. It doesn't break, but you will see a pyramid on your screen in MSIE and an ugly no-image in Firefox.

This is a non-feature in Firefox/Mozilla/Netscape that is very unlikely to change. I opened a Bugzilla entry for this a long time ago (132479) and the decision made then was unyielding. (I'd include an actual link to the bugzilla page, but Mozilla.org rejects links to that page that come from slashdot.)

At issue is that Internet Explorer rewrites URLs containing a backslash into using instead a normal slash. On the other hand, Firefox and all its ancestors issue the URL unmodified to the server. If you take any normal web URL and replace random forward slashes with backslashes, the pages will still work under IE, but Firefox (etc) will no longer be able to find the page.

This is not because IE is better or because Netscape (et al) are missing that feature, but because it is inappropriate to rewrite a URL into your favorite canonical form before issuing the request. The remote system might have a very good reason to be using backslashes, and any such pages will NOT load correctly in IE.

Note, however, that URLs that contain forward slashes for a file:// URL will work using Internet Explorer and Windows. Try the following URLs using various browsers -- on Windows -- and see what works:

file:///c:/windows/Zapotec.bmp

file:///c:\windows\Zapotec.bmp

I'd make the links easy to click on, but slashcode appears to swallow all "/" characters on a file:// URL. Hmm. Anyway, cut and paste the above into your browser and you'll see both work under IE, so you can use the first form in URLs and it'll work everywhere.

Re:The only downside

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I guess the main problem in IE is when the HTML is properly formatted, that makes the pages show up crappy, while FireFox will show them as they are supposed to look.

Re:The only downside

[garwil]

That all depends on your definition of a "good page." A page that takes ages to download on a 56K modem because the layout is done in tables is not a good page. A page that cannot be accessed by the blind or partially sighted is not a good page.

The W3C standards exist for a reason - so that every website can be accessed by everyone. The continued use of MSIE by the masses is preventing this from happening.

Why? Because it cannot render W3C standard HTML, CSS1 or CSS2 code. These are the most basic building blocks for any web site, and yet all manner of tricks and hacks have to be used in order to get MSIE to display standardised pages correctly. Microsoft did not work to make IE "able to display all pages" - they completely disregarded the W3C standards (that are there for the benefit of everybody) and created their own out of sheer arrogance to increase its share of users.

Please start using a standards compliant browser.

Sorry, you lost me at...

[AnamanFan]

Sorry, you lost me at:

"... he doesn't care about safety/privacy concerns."

I'll bet he's also the guy who is OK with requesting someone's e-mail password over the phone, or just leaving his credit card for anyone to use. Not to mention he doesn't wear a seat belt, since he doesn't conern about safty either.

Are you serious?

[darthtrevino]

Hello, and welcome to 6 months ago. I'll take that snap-bracelet, and we'll get you some jeans to replace the hammer pants.

Re:Are you serious?

[Borgschulze]

What about the Yo-Yo?

Oh noes

[Anonymous Coward]

This is unsettling to you WHY? So you've found that that IE has less popup / security / spyware / speed issues, and this bothers you? Perhaps you should reevaluate your reasons for being a Firefox cheerleader.

Think of the future

[mopslik]

For someone like him, is there any benefit to be gained from using Firefox?

Well, IE seems to have some semi-major security issue every few months, whereas Firefox has them once or twice a year. Given that record, it sounds to me like you'd have less upgrade/update issues with the Fox.

Compare with this site

[titaniam]

Try comparing my site iconsurf.com using Firefox and IE. The difference is striking both in download speed and icon rendering.

Re:Compare with this site

[roju]

wow, you're right. Do you have any idea what it is about your page that IE has fubar?

Re:Compare with this site

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up!

Re:Compare with this site

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I meant mod THIS post up.

Of course he doesn't care about security...

[dscho]

... because whenever something bad happens, he'll expect you to fix it!

Re:Of course he doesn't care about security...

[TheCarp]

This is why when the issue comes up with people I know I tell them this:

"You can do what you want, but I recomend you use firefox, if you continue to use IE I will refuse to help you when your computer gets infected with viruses"

That said, everyone that I have had try firefox has loved it and begun using it exclusivly. Normally I just say "here let me do some setup for you", install firefox, take ie off the desktop and the start menu, and then explain the new web browser to them. Often I just tell them "I upgraded your web browser, its called firefox now"

I know to you or I this sounds very deceptive, but I realised something: its just abstraction. Forget the details of code base and who puts it out. I believe firefox is a better browser, these people don't even know what a "web browser" is. Thats why its called "The Internet" on the desktop shortcut and not "IE" - because "IE" or "firefox" is more detail than most people want.

If you try to tell them "I installed firefox, this is what to use now because ie is bad", then you have a few problems.

1. They don't know what you are talking about anyway so they are scared

This means they worry "oh god is this going to be harder to use?" You can try to tell them its not, but they wont believe you because they saw you do all these weird things and so they know your idea of easy and theirs is way different.

2. They may have used ie before and s far as they are concerned it is great. So when you say "its bad" (or however else you want to qualify or expound upon that) it doesn't jive with their experience, so they assume its just stuff they don't need to care about, or you are just being esoteric...they go back to point 1 and figure this is going to make their life harder for benefits that mean nothing to them anyway.

So all in all, you save both your you alot of trouble by abstracting away "firefox" and "ie" and just going to "I upgraded your web browser" and when they sa y "whats that?" you say "Your internet is better and more secure"

And yes I am being a little bit flip here, with my phrases but I also hate doing windows support and using it for anything other than gaming (tho it is fairly usable with a link to the cygwin port of X in the startup and xterm on the launcher menu)

-Steve

-Steve

Re:Of course he doesn't care about security...

[Gherald]

Exactly, that is what I do as well.

And I make sure I rename the "Mozilla Firefox" desktop shortcut to "Mozilla Firefox Internet" so they know what it's for :)

Re:Of course he doesn't care about security...

[revmoo]

I just change the IE icon to link to the Mozilla executable :)

Works best for breaking pesky habits..

Re:Of course he doesn't care about security...

[Gherald]

No... that will only encourage pesky habits. Joe dumb user will not understand that it's a new, different program.

Re:Of course he doesn't care about security...

[Dr. Spork]

My strategy? Ask people "Hey, do you want me to install a plugin that keeps you from downloading all these stupid ads that show up on web pages?" Believe me, nobody says "no" most are amazed that such a thing could ever work. Then I install Firefox and import my block strings into Adblock, making sure the user figures out that they will not be using IE anymore.

When I get asked about this, I try to look surprised and say "bah, you mean you thought Internet Explorer could do somehting this cool? No way! What you need for this sort of thing is an optimized browser - you know, optimized for speed and useability and all sorts of other cool things. You want me to show you some? Watch this... suppose I want to go back to the previous page [mouse gesture left]. Cool, eh? Wanna see how I did that?"

The lesson is: install some extensions as well as Firefox. It's mind-numbingly easy, and it gets new users really interested in customizing their Firefox further. Once they start with that, they'll never go back.

Re:Of course he doesn't care about security...

[new-black-hand]

You dont want to trick them into using Firefox - you need to explain to them what the benefits are (more resistant to spyware, ad blocking, tabbed browsing, consumes less resources, the plug-ins) and they have to remember that it is Firefox they are using. The main reason is so that person can then go on and become an evangelist themselves and spread the word further. It is only with this method that Firefox would be able to gain a large share of the browser market and momentum.

In my experience, most people assume that Internet Explorer *is* 'the internet' and when you speak of a better alternative they are all a bit stunned.

Re:Of course he doesn't care about security...

[Gherald]

See above... that is precisely why I don't trick them by using IE's icon. I simply add "Internet" so they know what it is for. Can't you people read? =\

Re:Of course he doesn't care about security...

[TheCarp]

I guess it depends who you are working with.

I mean if a person has moest proto-clue or shows the potential of developing it, fine. However when it comes to say... my mother.... thats another story.

When I speak of a better alternative, her eyes glass over (well the one that isn't actually a glass eye already does) and she just doesn't want to hear it. Every attempt at educating her has failed, so I just set it up the best I can and hope for the best.

I mean, standing behind her and trying to talk her through the motions of copying and pasting some text took 10 minutes and just about ended in me breaking down. We are talking about of very embodiment of "unable to follow directions, even very simple, step by step ones"

Believe me, she isn't becomming and advocate for nothing.

-Steve

Re:Of course he doesn't care about security...

[gardenwife]

You might have been a bit flip in your writing, but you've made some great points!

Load times? What about the other nasties?

[RevAaron]

Who cares about load times? I mean, while it's definately good to use a fast browser, I didn't know the difference between the current browsers was great enough to be teh main issue. No matter how fast IE is on desktop Windows, I wouldn't use it. What's at stake isn't the second you wait; rather, it's the life of your computer. There are exploits left and right, malware and spyware. They pretty much all come in through IE. That is the reason for not using IE.

Before I switched to FireFox, I was using CrazyBrowser (a very nice tabbeed browser, using embedded IE with other features). This was back before the spyware craze of recent times, though. I don't remember what version of FF I switched- 0.6 perhaps? This was a time when I didn't have any spyware removal tools. Hell, I didn't have any spyware. About the only thing I needed was a pop-up blocker, something Crazy Browser did well. A minor annoyance. Now a days, IE means not minor annoyances but medium to major security issues. Though I didn't use IE at home, where I had a Mac. Maybe the reason I didn't have problems at work running IE on a Win2k PC was the kinds of sites I went to, usually not the kinds of sites that have spyware even today.

One exception: I use and used IE on Windows CE 3.0 and 4.x. It's a nice browser, and with ftxBrowser you get tabs and lots of other nice features. Unlike the desktop version of 'doze, you don't run into the cornacopia of nasty spywares.

Re:Load times? What about the other nasties?

[Snaller]

Sure you are not just surfing suspect warez sites?

In the last year I've only gotte a suspect file once *knock on wood*

And this is on a not overly patched ie and XP - though there is a firewall stopping suspect tings from calling out.

There are 20 reasons/month it's not.

[dscho]

Those 20 reasons/month are called exploitable bugs.

Boo-hoo!

[TheRoss]

You're unsettled that your favorite solution isn't the best fit for everyone?

um, yeah

[theVP]

If he isn't concerned about security or privacy, he's an accident waiting to happen. Give him Firefox so that he won't HAVE to worry about security or privacy.

Security

[Gadzinka]

and he doesn't care about safety/privacy concerns

Yeah, my parents told the same things, so I've told them to look for paid tech support and disinfection for their computer.

It seems they got quite fond of Firefox, after that.

Robert

Re:Security

[rainman_bc]

Totally! I do that too! Truth is everyone I've used that tactic with is glad I moved them over, and didn't put up much of a fuss either. Only one person said "But I like IE..."

Sure, and I'd like to screw that hot babe with herpes, but I know better...

Why Dump IE?

[linguae]

The reason why he should dump IE is because IE is soldered into Windows's shell. If there are any holes in SP2's IE, an exploit would do more damage if he is using IE as a browser than if he were using some other browser.

Besides that, IE is outdated. Aside from some security changes in the SP2 version of IE, it is still the same-old browser that is was back in 2001. The world of webpages has changed dramatically since then. The usage of technologies, such as CSS and XHTML, has grown over the years. IE isn't standards compliant; I've heard horror stories from web developers trying to write modern pages that look the same on Mozilla-based browsers, KHTML-based broswers, and IE.

Finally, this may be flamebait, but I'll take the karma hit; IE simply sucks from a usability standpoint. Unlike the Mozilla browser and Firefox, IE doesn't have features such as search toolbars (unless you download a third-party one) and tabbed browsing. The Mozilla browsers are also very extendable; extensions such as Adblock have been very helpful to me. I have a much easier time using broswers such as the Mozilla suite, Firefox, and Safari than using Internet Explorer. The browser doesn't get in the way of what I want to do; the browser just sits there and wait for my instructions. Those broswers have been the easiest, most intuitive browsers that I've ever used. These browsers make browsing safe again. I cannot fathom using IE again.

Re:Why Dump IE?

[drsmithy]

The reason why he should dump IE is because IE is soldered into Windows's shell. If there are any holes in SP2's IE, an exploit would do more damage if he is using IE as a browser than if he were using some other browser.

What extra damage do you think can be caused and why don't you think an exploited firefox process couldn't do the same damage ?

Re:Why Dump IE?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Besides that, IE is outdated"

Like Unix, right?

Re:Why Dump IE?

[ScrewMaster]

It's not that Unix is outdated, it is simply dated, and unlike Internet Explorer has been periodically updated. Does that make any sense?

And why is my server making a grinding noise?

Take it From the User Perspective

[rueger]

The latest IE did in fact add a number of things like pop-up blocking that it had lacked in the past. SP2 also added a software firewall.

I think your grandpa is probably right - IE does everything that he needs and is built right into Windows. If his PC is more of an entertainment than a mission critical business tool there probably is no reason for him to change.

He has every right to to argue that IE works fine for him, is secure enough to suit him, and to not have a new browser foisted on him.

Despite all of the holier than thou talk on slashdot, it's his computer, and his choice of a user experience. Although I may find IE irritating and cumbersome, he is entitled to his own choice.

Re:Take it From the User Perspective

[hawkbug]

Yeah, I agree, mostly. But here are some good reasons to still make the switch:

1) The way pop-ups are blocked. Using Firefox, only *auto* popups like ads are blocked. A window you want to open by clicking a button or a link will still open, which is a good thing. In IE, even if you want the window to open by clicking a link or button, it will not. That's a really stupid way to block popups.

2) Stability. When Firefox crashes, it won't take your whole machine with it. IE will. That's bad.

3) Firefox is NOT tied into the OS, making it less risky to use when surfing the web. No matter how many bugs M$ fixes, people will always find more with IE. And since IE is tied to the OS, you're a greater risk just by using it.

So, while your Grandpa may not know this stuff, you might want to let him know these things.

Re:Take it From the User Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though I rarely use IE (Firefox is my main browser), I've experienced several IE crashes, and not once did it take down my XP box. As long as you only kill iexplorer.exe, and not explorer.exe, your entire system should not crash.

Re:Take it From the User Perspective

[lachlan76]

it's his computer, and his choice of a user experience

And I can see that you are not the person who has to clean up his machine afterwards.

Re:Take it From the User Perspective

[hawkbug]

Well, you're lucky then. Those of us in the IT support field running even the latest SP2 on XP Pro can tell you that an IE crash can and does take down your whole box. It all depends on what IE was trying to do before the crash.

So...

[Jebediah21]

So your grandfather doesn't care if his machine spews out spam? By golly, he must be a pillar of American society! If it doesn't affect him why should he care?

Sure... Adblock

[linuxkrn]

For anyone who doesn't already know, from the adblock webpage:

Adblock is a content filtering plug-in for the Mozilla and Firebird browsers. It is both more robust and more precise than the built-in image blocker.

Adblock allows the user to specify filters, which remove unwanted content based on the source-address. If this sounds complicated, don't worry: it's not.

Just add a few filters. Every time a webpage loads, Adblock will intercept and disable the elements matching your filters. See?- nothing to it.

http://adblock.mozdev.org/

Depending if he uses dial-up, this could make a huge different in performance as it doesn't take the time to load/render the banner ads/flash/etc.

Automatic Updates.

[Citoahc]

If anything for a user who doesn't pay attention to Security IE is better. Someone who knows what they are doing can set it up and he should stay reasonably patched. I still haven't seen any sign of Firefox wanting to patch itself, despite being set to check for updates.

That said I know a few people who just use the internet for web based e-mail. IE is fine for them.

Citoahc

Re:Automatic Updates.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Yes, it does check for automatic updates and it does patch itself. But it doesn't have a new security hole every week (like some browsers I know), and therefore you don't see so much automatic patching.

I know people who just use the Internet for email and research, and they use Firefox and Thunderbird. They are my parents. IE was fine for my dad, but I refused to clean off several years worth of viruses and spyware from his Windows partition, so he uses Linux just to be faster.

Re:Automatic Updates.

[Citoahc]

The rate at which vulnerabilities are discovered is irrelevant when they get patched just as regularly.

Firefox on the other hand may not have as many vulnerabilities, but it is a greater security risk because they are more persistent.

To put it another way I am currently testing Firefox. I installed it three months ago. Since I am lazy and in a relatively secure environment I haven't patched it manually. I'm still running 0.9 and it hasn't thought of mentioning that 1 is out. This means one venerability in firefox from three months ago is still a vulnerability. IE on the other hand has automatically patched itself in that time meaning that some of the vulnerabilities which were there three months ago aren't there anymore. Firefox is still just as insecure, IE has gotten slightly more secure.

In terms of speed the last time I did a comparison a standard install of Mandrake took nearly three times as long to boot as a standard install of Windows 2000.

Citoahc

Depends

[daigu]

I like Firefox. However, I have used Hushmail - a java based email service - for years. Firefox freezes up if I try to login and check email.

It is absurd to need to use two browsers -even though I do it. So if he frequently or even occasionally needs to do something that uses Java or other things that Firefox chokes on, it is better just to keep him on IE.

Tabs arn't just for multitasking.

[RustyTaco]

Sure they're great for keeping a bunch of different stuff quickly accessable but tabs are also invaluable for dealing with things one at a time. When I read a news site (TheRegister, cnn, slashdot) I always skim down and pick out the interesting looking headlines and open them in new tabs. When I hit the bottom I close the main page and read through the articles one at a time. No going back and forth, losing your place, skipping over something interesting because you had to rescan the crap laden front page (CNN), just middle-click click click, done.
- RustyTaco

Re:Tabs arn't just for multitasking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get me wrong, tabs are nice, but in IE you could just shift+click on each link to open it in a new window. This is essentially tabbed browsing, only the tabs show up in the task bar. Immediately adding an alt+tab brings the original window to the front again mimic'ing the background tab functionality.

I have to use both browsers for work and I use tabs when using Moz variants. They make things slightly easier, but not so drastically easier that I'd call them 'essential'. They're just a nice feature.

Re:Tabs arn't just for multitasking.

[Roguelazer]

Except opening a zillion more instances of IE will do the following:

• Eventually, group on your taskbar, adding an extra click
• Eat all your system resources
• Make it impossible to close all open websites with one click
• Revert you to the world where CSS 2.x was never released as a standard :)

Adblock

[GreatDrok]

Of all the great features that Firefox has over IE, the best has to be the adblock extension. I defy anyone who has seen a page rendered by Firefox with adblock installed versus IE not to pick Firefox. Install it and go to some of those obnoxious pages with loads of flashing ads and then show him how to remove them.

Re:Adblock

[curtisk]

adblock is a very good "selling point" and a jump off point for people to realize that there are scores of plugins available. That instills a feeling of confidence, in that, "if it doesn't have it, I or someone else can make it" Its enabling and gives a sense of having more control(which it does..)

MS is catching up in some areas, but firefox is leading on the tech side.

If it works..

[rf0]

why break it. OK so it might not work as far as your concerened but if you put on some auto running adware cleaner then it will, as far as he is concerned, be working well and good.

Rus

What if someone used his home without permission?

[KWTm]

"Grandpa, how would you feel if this were not your computer, but your house?

"You might say, 'I don't need to lock my doors --I know all my neighbours in this small town, and it's such an unnecessary hassle to have to lock the doors. No one else lives with me, I don't have anything worth stealing, and anyway, I only use basically the one bedroom and the kitchen.'

"Once in a while you come home from the grocery store, and the door is open or stuff isn't where you left it. Probably some nosy kids poking around, you think. What's that noise you hear from the basement sometimes? Probably just the furnace getting old.

"Then one day you hear on the radio that the police are looking for some drug dealers. They've been on the lam from the city cops for the past year for synthesizing drugs. The feds figure they're hiding in a small town somewhere around here, but they checked all the vacant and rental homes where they could be hiding, and can't figure out where they could be running their LSD-manufacturing operation.

"Still think locking your house is not an issue?"

I previously lived in a small town where everyone knew almost everyone else (population 10,000 --technically a "city") although there was a significant portion of population turnover due to seasonal/short-term jobs, etc. I would use the above as an explanation for why an unsophisticated Internet user should still install the necessary protective measures. I absolutely agree with the parent poster.

Mod parent up Was:Of course he doesn't care about

[IO ERROR]

Of course he doesn't care about security...

... because whenever something bad happens, he'll expect you to fix it!

If you actually provide technical support for this computer, then you should be concerned, even if he isn't. SP2 isn't the end of IE vulnerabilities, MS security holes, trojans, etc. You are just having a temporary reprieve while the virus writers catch up and find the new holes.

If you have to support this box, get IE off it now, before it causes your grandfather grief. He may not care about the web browser now, but when it's changed his homepage to http://goatse.cx/ and loads 37 popups with different porn, spyware and spam sites for every valid page he manages to load, then he will care. But by then it will be too late.

"Don't care"

[Refrozen]

How can you not care about securtiy/privacy issues, especially when they come in the form of a program that slows down your computer to the point that you end up bringing it to a slashdotter (as myself)'s house to get it fixed because it 'doesnt work'?

I know people who *love* popup ads

[digitalgimpus]

No joke...

- fun to try and close them all... like a game
- funny ads sometimes
- interesting products

To the point where they won't update to SP2 because they think even if you disable popup blocker it still stops some of them.

Favorite App: gator.

You'd think this was a joke, but some people actually enjoy it.

I have a friend who collects spam too.

Re:I know people who *love* popup ads

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a friend who collects spam too.

You need new friends.

Re:I know people who *love* popup ads

[lachlan76]

Look, no offence or anything....but I think maybe it's time to put some of your friends through rehab ;)

Unsettling?

[nwbvt]

Its unsettling that MS is finally starting to improve their browser? I would consider the addition of a pop-up blocker a good thing.

Re:Unsettling?

[Anonymous Coward]

For heaven's sake, Nick, it's called "humor." Go out, spend some time in the park, take a stroll down the street, make some friends, watch some films, read some literature and maybe, just maybe, you'll achieve a fuller understanding of the range of human emotion. On second thought, maybe it'd be easier just to put in for a personality transplant.
--
Sick of pompous windbags, especially those whose automatic defense mechanism is to lash out with bizarre and easily refuted accusations? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier to -1 penalty.

Re:Unsettling?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> it's called "humor."

I don't get it. Whats funny about IE blocking pop-up ads and a grandpa who doesn't want to switch to firefox?

Re:Unsettling?

[recursiv]

A great specimen too, really fucking hilarious. In my opinion, if this is what you call humor, then it deserves to ridiculed by calling its bluff. It sucks. Furthermore, I commend the parent poster.

Re:Unsettling?

[nwbvt]

Don't mind him, he is just some troll with a severe case of karma-envy who has been following me around the past few months. At first it was a little funny, but it got so pathetic I had to stop reading his posts.

Re:Unsettling?

[Anonymous Coward]

The humor may indeed have been terrible, but the fact remains that you revealed yourself incapable of picking up on the intended wit. Or were you just being deliberately obtuse? Either case demonstrates your failure as a human being.
--
Sick of pompous windbags, especially those whose automatic defense mechanism is to lash out with bizarre and easily refuted accusations? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier to -1 penalty.

Re:Unsettling?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>but the fact remains that you revealed yourself incapable of picking up on the intended wit.

I still don't get it. Whats funny about gramps using internet explorer?

Though I think your obsessing over people you meet on this website is a bit funny. No, wait a second, not funny. Whats that other emotion, you know the one that makes your cry? Yeah, thats it, sad.

Re:Unsettling?

[Anonymous Coward]

I said the wit was intended, if not necessarily a roaring success. Are you so stupid that you don't know the meaning of the word "intended"?
--
Sick of pompous windbags, especially those whose automatic defense mechanism is to lash out with bizarre and easily refuted accusations? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier to -1 penalty.

Re:Unsettling?

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard you. You are apparently the only one who picked up on the intended wit. Which probably means one of two things. One, you are an idiot and no such wit was intended, the author really did consider gramps using internet explorer an "unsettling issue". Two, you are the author of the article and intentially put the "wit" in there but you have such a horrible sense of humor no one else got it.


In either case, I still want to know what about "I was at my grandpa's house today, and I came across a somewhat unsettling issue" you think is supposed to be funny. Is there some pun hidden in there? Is it supposed to be some sort of inside joke with a reference only you know about? I like humor, and I want to know where the humor was intended to be in that sentence.


Or are you just full of shit?

Re:Unsettling?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of us has a horrible sense of humor, yes. That I am at least able to recognize subtle hyperbole is a strong clue that it isn't me.
--
Sick of pompous windbags, especially those whose automatic defense mechanism is to lash out with bizarre and easily refuted accusations? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier to -1 penalty.

Re:Unsettling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh where, oh where to start? Why don't we make a little list.

1. First of all, hyperbole and subtle do not go together. If something is subtle, it is not hyperbole by definition.
2. Second, hyperbole is not wit. It is a literary device used for emphasis. On occasion it may be used in conjuction with some wit, but I think it is fairly clear (at least to everyone but you) that this is not one of those instances.
3. Third, the quote in question said "somewhat unsettling". Not exactly an extravagant exaggeration the way "theres thousands of cats out there" is.
4. Fourth, hyperbole (when it is used) is a mere exaggeration, not the reverse of reality. You don't say "theres thousands of cats out there" if in reality there are no cats out there. So there would be nothing wrong with a post complaining that the fact that internet explorer is getting better should not be unsettling at all. What you are confusing hyperbole with is satire or sarcasm, and there is no reason to believe this article was either.
5. Fifth, the author then goes on to explain why he thinks the issue is "somewhat unsettling". You don't hear the little boy talking about thousands of cats going on to explain how he went about counting the cats.
6. Sixth, you are an idiot and you have no life. Oh, I guess we all already knew that.

Re:Unsettling?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll grant that you're correct--partially--and that I was partially mistaken. My misinterpretation of the wit as hyperbole resulted from the fact that I, already sensing the author's (intended) wit, neither needed nor bothered to pick apart the phrase in such excruciating detail as to which I shall now proceed. I sincerely apologize for failing to accommodate your linguistic underdevelopment.

What we have here is not hyperbole but its opposite, understatement, coupled with verbal irony. As a choice of words, "unsettling" was an understatement, but the implication that the issue should cause much greater grief was meant ironically. You're intelligent enough to follow this, yes?

In case not, here are a couple examples that you might find easier to (ahem) swallow. "Following the terrible, bloody assault on your oral cavity by the full twelve inches of my steely shaft, my offer of a trip to Disneyland probably seems a little inappropriate." That is understatement. "Shocking fact: You actually enjoy sucking cock." That is irony. And in the Slashdot submission--voilà!--we find the two combined.

Incidentally, an automatic understanding of this sort of verbal tomfoolery is second nature to those of us with the ability to interact with others in the world at large--a subset of humanity to whom you evidently do not belong, your commendable skill at listmaking notwithstanding.
--
Sick of pompous windbags, especially those whose automatic defense mechanism is to lash out with bizarre and easily refuted accusations? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier to -1 penalty.

Re:Unsettling?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>What we have here is not hyperbole but its opposite, understatement, coupled with verbal irony. As a choice of words, "unsettling" was an understatement, but the implication that the issue should cause much greater grief was meant ironically.

Or, you are full of shit, and the author simply meant what it was he said, as evidenced by the fact that the rest of the article (you did read past the first sentence, correct?) implied this is a distressing thing (in case you are new to slashdot, a product from microsoft gaining ground over an open source alternative is considered a bad thing). I actually find that more likely.

>>Incidentally, an automatic understanding of this sort of verbal tomfoolery is second nature to those of us with the ability to interact with others in the world at large--a subset of humanity to whom you evidently do not belong, your commendable skill at listmaking notwithstanding.

Now that I do find very funny. Good use of irony. A person who spends his life stalking someone he met on slashdot claiming he is able to interact with the world and then, despite his admitted complete inability to recognize what is or what is not hyperbole claiming an "automatic understanding" of figures of speech.

Re:Unsettling?

[fuck nwbvt]

That the author went on to explain his question doesn't imply that he hadn't intended to have a little ironic fun in the prelude. That you would fail to understand this, on the other hand, implies that you can't read people for shit. And there's really no shame in admitting that.

Neither is there shame in admitting you were wrong. One of your many problems, you ought to know, is that you suffer from a chronic inability to acknowledge any mistakes--not just here, but also in this thread, by your obstinate defense of a patently false claim; in this thread, by your peculiar refusal to acknowledge a strawman of your own construction (I say peculiar because pointing out strawmen is an obsessive pastime of yours); and in countless other comments I can't be bothered to dig up for the sole sake of your illumination.

My guess is that you're simply too proud to admit defeat, though you sense it. And therein lies the pathos of your situation. I am simply offering you advice, after all. Would that you'd learn to listen.
--
Sick of pompous windbags, especially those whose automatic defense mechanism is to lash out with bizarre and easily refuted accusations? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier to -1 penalty.

Re:Unsettling?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've officially gone schizo.


Let me know how they treat you in the crazy house.

Re:Unsettling?

[fuck nwbvt]

Whatever you say, Nick, you autistic genius, you.
--
Sick of pompous windbags, especially those whose automatic defense mechanism is to lash out with bizarre and easily refuted accusations? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier to -1 penalty.

Everyone benefits from IE!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just so damn sick of ctrl+ ctrl- to get Firefox to render things right!!! What kind of sick joke is it anyways to release FF 1.0 without fixing that very basic essential thing?

Security/Privacy

[nuintari]

...and he doesn't care about safety/privacy concerns.

I'm glad he's not on my network, I have enough moron's who don't care about security to deal with and make my life a living hell on a consistent basis.

Seriously, if you don't care about keeping your machine secure, then you shouldn't be on the net. The whole, "But I don't have anything of value on my PC" argument is total bullshit. Yes you do, its called bandwidth. You have a connection to the net, you are a viable host, a vector for the spreading of even more chaos onto the net.

Think your safe from crackers because you don't keep anything on your pc whatsoever? Think again, they will attack anything and everything that has an IP address. Even the lowliest 14.4 connection can still hand out the latest windows exploit like its free popcorn with extra butter, and spew forth a considerable amount of spam.

All you people who think you have nothing to lose, think again. I cancel service to people like you when your pc gets owned for the 50,000th time, and I get a pile of spam notices from AOL's spam feedback loop service.

You wouldn't buy a car and not care who else regularly drove it, yet so many people just bend over and take it up the ass from anyone and anything their pc may encounter while its on the net. Your just another source of random crap waiting to happen.

So, to answer your question and make my rant wothwhile, yes, you should still use firefox. Its one more stop toward your ISP never having to cancel your service due to an AUP violation.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Grandparent was just being an ass, cigarettes are not an "addiction akin to that of the strongest narcotic drugs."

Perhaps this will make him think twice

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.squarefree.com/pornzilla/?

I'd say it's a mixed bag

[jht]

Most of the people I have moved to Firefox love it. Some prefer IE. With SP2 (and with all the other patches, and with automatic updates on, and blah blah), IE is less of a risk than it used to be - but it's still not as good as Firefox.

On the other hand, there are legitimate uses for ActiveX (corporate apps, Windows Update and Office Update, legit uses by legit websites) that just can't be dealt with using Firefox. So if you avoid IE entirely, they are closed to you (I know, there's an ActiveX plugin - but that defeats the purpose of avoiding ActiveX whenever possible).

Basically, though, the arguments for Firefox are better speed (usually), much better security by default, and a nicer browsing experience for most users. If a user doesn't like that, oh well. But don't offer to clean up after them if they won't take the right precautions when using their PC.

Of course, I can say this - my whole family relies on Safari (we're all Mac users in our home lives). And a lot of the money I make in my support business is from folks who just won't listen to my advice, use IE, don't keep up-to-date, and then wonder why things work badly.

Auto-updates?

[menscher]

If you run the M$ software, it will automagically be updated when patches come out. What happens with Firefox? Does it check for updates and warn you when they're available? Or are you expected to remember to check for security patches regularly?

For the average person this is a huge issue.

Re:Auto-updates?

[jotux]

when there are updates available a little green arrow poiting up shows up in my icons in firefox. I click on it and it launches the update tool and updates. I'm more concerned with any software company installing software on my computer without my knowledge than I am about having to actually find updates myself and install them.

Re:Auto-updates?

[squirel_dude]

Well actually, yes it does. any new versions or updates are offered to you when they are available. And they are much more regular than IE, I havn't had an updtae for IE for around 10 weeks now whereas Firefox was updated very recently.

engineered pages

[SanityInAnarchy]

Ever read about how msn.com was engineered to make it look like Opera had a bug -- but only Opera? Ever notice how some pages refuse to work on Firefox, but work fine on IE?

If the pages were designed for IE in the first place, and not for the standards, they won't work well on Firefox. The hope is that Firefox will become popular enough that people can't afford to have a page that doesn't work on it, NOT that firefox will get some "be like IE" patch.

Re:engineered pages

[Dekks]

Mostly true, but I find firefox is slow loading any site with Java, which while the fault of the page, not firefox, I do wish they could somehow make the java plugin for firefox load quicker, or on startup or somtehing.

Obviously.

[SanityInAnarchy]

I agree with you totally. I mean, why buy a new computer? The one I've got works just fine.

In fact, I'll probably be using it years from now, just because it still works fine.

In reality, fixing things that ain't broke is called "progress".

Mom still using IE

[rhild]

I recently set up a new PC for Mom. She is still using a dialup connection. I intially set up the PC with Firefox as that's my browser of choice. But I found it didn't play nice with the dialup connection in two ways:

1. When running Firefox, while it kicked off the dialer and the connection was coming up Firefox wouldn't wait for the connection to be ready and would start trying to load the home pages and would time out before the connection was actually ready.

2. When closing Firefox it wouldn't ask if you wanted to close the dialup connection.

IE doesn't have either of these problems. While these may seem trivial, it was easier for me and less complicated for Mom to use IE instead so these things 'just worked'.

If anyone knows how to configure Firefox so it will play better with a dialup connection please respond.

Think about it.

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'm all for displaying broken pages so they look right, but you're missing the point. Certain things Internet Explorer does make it impossible to do something according to standard and have it work in IE. Accordingly, everyone does it in a subtle, slightly non-standard way so that it works in IE, but doesn't work in Firefox, when in fact they should be doing it according to standard, so that it would work in Firefox, but not in IE.

Now, why should Firefox change to be broken in exactly the same way that IE is? That would be like Wine trying to introduce a buffer overflow bug in just the right spot because it's that way in Windows and a certain program requires it.

And let's remember -- Microsoft is part of the World Wide Web Consortium. They don't even follow their own standards, in IE or elsewhere.

built right into the OS

[SanityInAnarchy]

Well, I've already posted a couple of times arguing for grandpa making the switch, but now I almost feel like sending him to a website I will create to "demonstrate" the latest IE exploit.

Sometimes the only way to make people this fucking retarted care about security is to flash their firmware with random bits.

security

[jotux]

"and he doesn't care about safety/privacy concerns."

Of course no one cares about safety until they're broswer is a mess of search bars and pop ups. My aunt had me come and "fix" her computer because IE was basically unusable. When I opened IE it was nothing but search bars and the pop ups were rediculous.

maybe he doesn't care about safety now, but give it a while and when the browser is barely usable he'll care about it.

Stupidity doesn't mean you're right

[l0rd]

Just because someone is stupid doesn't mean they're right. If someone want to jump of a building onto the sidewalk you don't just let them do it because "they just don't care".

Just tell hum "Install Firefox/Thunderbird or I will never touch your computer again". That usually makes people more open to change very quickly.

Stupid people need to be protected from themselves, and from the rest of us when there pc becomes infected with a trojan and becomes a spam bot because they use IE.....

Re:Stupidity doesn't mean you're right

[Anonymous Coward]

How about letting people run the software they choose to run? I'm all for OSS advocacy, but forcing the software down their throats isn't a very good way to get them to adopt it. A better way would be to kindly explain the advantages of using Linux/Firefox/Thunderbird/etc. If they insist that they're happy with their current software, that's their choice! Perhaps they'll switch at a later date.

Open source apps will never become mainstream if the community keep their "you use Windows and IE?!?! you're a damn idiot!!!! no more support for you, you retarded asshat!!!!" attitude. I think the OSS community is very arrogant, which hinders the adoption of Linux and Firefox.

Re:Stupidity doesn't mean you're right

[Vitamin P]

Stupid people need to be protected from themselves, and from the rest of us when there pc becomes infected with a trojan and becomes a spam bot because they use IE..... And you are an authority on stupid people? It is people like you that force manufactures to the extra expense of labeling their product with IDIOTIC sayings like coffe is hot, using this electric product in the bathtub is a bad idea. Darwin was right let Nature take care of natural selection.

Re:Stupidity doesn't mean you're right

[l0rd]

It's one thing when people install and sustain their own computer. Of course then they can do what they want.

But whenever someone asks YOU (the technical guy) to look at their PC which breaks time and time again because of their software choices, I don't see why you should just say "OK" just because they "don't care".

We all know people like this. How come this level of stupidity is accepted in computers, but not in other things. There is not one insurance company that will insure someone that doesn't have a door in there house because it's "their choice".

It just comes down to this, if someone else causes a problem again and again you have every right to refuse to help them. It's that simple.

BTW Even though I agree with you with the idiotic sayings (don't put dog in microwave) I just don't think we should accept global stupidity in a soceity. That's one of the reasons the cilised world has made such strited in eradicating illitaracy.

I deal...

[kcb93x]

I deal with it this way: I've got the "IE View" Extension installed, which adds a little thing to my context menu in Firefox, at the bottom, titled "View this page in IE" which, as expected, launches that page with IE. Works on links too, just right-click, and select "Open Link Target in IE"

Link for the lazy: http://ieview.mozdev.org

Ohh! What's this? A Firefox View for IE? Wonderful! (Same thing as IE View, but installs through Firefox into IE, allowing to view a page in Firefox that's loaded in IE)

Link for the lazy: http://www.iosart.com/firefox/firefoxview/

pop-up blocker

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me or is the firefox pop-up blocker just better. For example you go to some sites where you need a pop-up window to view a video or or some other thing of significance to the page in question and with internet explorer you have to turn off the pop-up blocker. In firefox however, things like that just get let through. I never noticed it till i really spent some time on sp2's IE. I could be wrong but it appears to me like firefox does a better job at deciding what actually is an ad and whats not.

Why I don't use Firefox

[rleclerc]

One of the main reasons I don't use Firefox is because I alternate between Explorer and IE all the time. Basically, it is the integration with the desktop that keeps me using it. If Firefox does begin to integrate with the filesystem i'll switch.

Faulty webpage

[phorm]

And indeed, quite often the issue is that the webpage is designed in a flawed manner. Sometimes the HTML/DHTML is non to-standard an IE compensates where FF does not. Other times it might be that it's coming from an IIS server which cheats in sending the page to IE.

Over time, I hope people will realize that the flaw is often in webpage design, not in the browser.

Trademark?

[tepples]

You made a shortcut to Firefox using Microsoft's 'Blue e' logo. Isn't that trademark infringement?

don't switch if you don't want to

[d1a1v1e]

I've been useing firefox (firebird) since back in it's .6 days. It's the best browser you can get. And it's somewhat good that everyone doesn't use firefox. Because if everyone did then the people who make a living off of making spyware would go out of buessness. Companies that charge monthly for browsers that go "5x's faster" wouldn't have anyone interested in paying, since they can fix up firefox to do the same thing for free. Virus scanning compaines stocks would go down. People that are paid to make anoying adds that continuously bother people wont have a job anymore. So... if your useing IE and telling people not to switch, good for you. As for me, I'm sticking with the 12 million people that made the better choice.

Of Course It's Not a Problem

[Stephen Samuel]

For some people, letting their kids play with real guns isn't a problem either -- until somebody ends up with a bullet lodged in their skull.

For another analogy, consider seatbelts. If you wait until there's a really good and obvious reason to use them, it's far too late.

BTW: I don't tell people that IE is bad. I just tell them that it has some severe security problems that make it very possible for nasty greeblies to take over their computer and cause them problems. That usually gets their ears perked. If they don't do an install then, most will do it after their next run-in with virus/spy/add ware.

I then tell them that there are only a very few sites that absolutely require IE, and that they should seriously think about whether it's worth starting up IE to go to those sites (those kinds of sitea are also most likely to get taken over by MS-script kiddies).

Like others have said... Once people start using firefox, very few look back.

this is consistent with my experience

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as bad as it was in the NN4.x, IE5 days, but there are still differences and it's mostly on the IE side.

In our shop we code against w3c standards. Either 4 strict or xhtml. No font tags, tables only for tabular data.

So how it goes now is we write the markup, styles and js to standard and it renders great in mozilla and khtml (safari,konqueror) the first time most of the time. Then we look at it in IE and it's always broken at least in some way. Coding up a template takes about 2-3 hours and making it work in IE after that takes about another 2-3 hours.

Literally, on the front-end production side, IE's lag in standards support is costing us half our budget for a given project. This cost is passed on to the client. If they were to catch up, we could cost half as much and do things in half the time.

And if they would at least fully support PNG transparency that would eliminate half of what we use flash for.

firefox security caters to 'geekish' needs

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the Mozilla developers can accept that most people let others share their computer, and use just one account for everyone, IE is probably better for non-geeks.

Sure ActiveX is disabled and there's less motivation to find exploits, this'll stop a few dialers, viruses and trojans. But common sense, practical ideas are ignored by developers who seemingly have no idea how 95% of people use their computers.

I don't mean to spam, but a good example is the storage of credit card card numbers in Autocomplete. Easy enough to write code so these aren't rememebered, but it is not done. I'm not sure why, but i suppose somehow it violates the 'purity' of the code with these little hacks.

The main issue is 188285 on bugzilla. A good example of geek arrogance is seen at BB's comment in 258031.

Re:firefox security caters to 'geekish' needs

[Anonymous Coward]

Incidently, if you want more examples, search for "credit card" in bugzilla, you'll see a number of duplicates of this issue.

Anyone who uses a computer...

[eno2001]

...and doesn't care about the privacy/security issues, shouldn't be using a computer.

IE problems?

[InfallibleLies]

I don't know where you people find all these problems with IE. I used to use Netscape in the late 90s, but after 4.7 it tanked, and I started using IE. I know this will be hard to believe, but I can't find one good reason to switch away from it. I think this is all a Linux zealot use-what-the-masses-don't kind of thing. An elitist thing.

windowsupdate

[Anonymous Coward]

I use firebox almost exclusively; the only exception being when I have to access the windowsupdate.com website; it insists that you use Internet Explorer.