Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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
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.
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.
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.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
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.
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
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.
Four main benefits, in order, for Firefox over IE6
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.
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.
... because whenever something bad happens, he'll expect you to fix it!
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.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
You're unsettled that your favorite solution isn't the best fit for everyone?
"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).
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
Three Squirrels
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.
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
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.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.