Slashdot Mirror
Browser Comparison - Firefox 2 b1, IE7 b3, Opera 9
mikemuch writes "The browser wars have heated up again, with Microsoft putting Beta 3 of Internet Explorer 7 out for all to download (not just developers anymore), Firefox coming out with the first beta of its version 2, and Opera releasing version 9. ExtremeTech has a shoot-out of the three browsers, with feature comparisons and tests of resource usage, startup time, and Acid2 standards compliance. Standout features are Opera's built-in BitTorrent support, Firefox's spellchecker for forms, and IE's Quick Tabs view. Firefox is still ahead in extensions, while Opera has some slick UI conveniences."
I've been impressed with what I've heard about IE 7, it really seems like they are making some good moves with it finally. Being a Linux user I'll probably never see it but it seems that I wouldn't be that annoyed using it these days. IE will never be as good as Firefox because of the extensions, there just aren't that many good programmers who would be willing to give up their time to MS for free; so Firefox still has the edge.
I wish they would all get their act together and pass the ACID2 test though.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
I'm with you here. I'd use Opera much more if it actually looked like the desktop environment it runs under.
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
I am a firefox user but have all three installed. I like the firefox spellcheck since I am a lousy speller and the Opera torrent downloading since there are times legal downloads are only available in torrent and I do not want the full install. For some reason, msie just seems cleaner. Forget netscape.
The only problem I am having with any of the three is with the firefox beta 2.0 crashing with Vista. The last alpha version did not.
Its going to be an interesting battle.
I think one major feature that is lacking in Firefox is good printing support.
MSIE: Yes
Firefox: No
Opera: No
wtf is a "Favorites button" button? Is it like a bookmark button?
Not really unique. In Opera, just hover over the tab for a second or two...you get a thumbnail of the page.
Constitutionally Correct
The facts that exceptions don't install under the hood without telling you helps a lot, I guess.
The fact that it takes you 2 clics to list your extensions and 2 more to delete an offending one also helps.
The final reason is that Firefox' extensions are actually extremely useful and add wonderful flexibility to the browser thanks to XUL. They also allow the Firefox dev team to see what the users want (they just have to check the most popular extensions and find out why they're popular in the first place).
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
You have choices, a Lexus, Acura, and a Ford.
Ford's come from the factory broken, and continue to break down over time, requiring numerous trips to the dealership, so it's safe to say NO!
Acura's are fancy, and have the speed side down, [Think NSX] and the reliability is good, but there isn't much you can do to the car, unless you buy aftermarket accessories.
Lexus's are really nice, and have tons of options. While they may not be as quick as Acura's, their choices and reliability are almost unbeatable!
In the end, it all comes down to what you want and need [Which is NOT the Ford] - so you choose accordingly.
I think Nintendo decided to go with Opera for several reasons. 1) Being they've developed versions of Opera for mobiles, pocket pcs, etc.. 2) If you use Opera you should try out mouse gestures (it's built in). I guess Nintendo imagined people surfing the internet with Wiimote gestures or Stylus gestures, or whatever..
"I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes" ~ Laughing Man - GITS:SAC
As a person who has done some personal testing on the same matter except for Opera I have some comments. It is nice to see the results on a more formal article but I am afraid the depth isn't there. Firefox 2.0 beta is not the same kind of release that IE 7 is. Where as FFox2.0 has been in the works for 6 months. They have been working on IE 7 for what 2 years now. So in that way not really a fair comparison. A better comparison would be to look at the nightly builds and ahead to version 3.0 which will arrive much sooner than any updates to IE7 will.
But I digress. My testing is as follows. Please note that I am currently using Firefox and Flock.
IE 7
-------
Pros:
Much better improvement over IE 6
Tabbed browsing is done very well and better than firefox IMO
Security remains to be seen but hopefully better
RSS integration and better search integration
Cons:
CSS is still broken - IE6 was horrible, IE 7 is just bad
Supports Active X - this continues to be the main reason for their flaws and I don't see how this will change things
Similar load times to IE 6 (isn't this supposed to be better)
Tabs take up more memory
Not liking the New UI (personal)
FF 2.0
-------
Pros:
Like the article says incremental improvements - better search ui, better buttons, rss glow
Better Security until IE 7 is tested
worse -> bad memory management
Cons:
Firefox was at 1.x releases forever and now they decide to do huge jumps
Memory Management is still bad
All Firefox browsers are still part of the same process so when one dies everything dies
XUL, XUL, XUL
So overall IE seems to have fired a good shot but falls short in some aspects especially more complex site rendering. Firefox is good as always and the changes are incremental and good.
So I don't expect too many sweeping changes. IE may get to keep some people who were sick of IE 6 and considering a move but it is not likely to attract the Firefox crows. This could stop some of Firefox's market share gains that it has been enjoying but we will have to see what Firefox 3 does.
Software Defined RFID - The Rifidi Emulator
Their memory usage charts cannot possibly be right:
Memory Usage Loading Six Tabs
Firefox 2 Beta 1: 73K
Internet Explorer 7 Beta 3: 70K
Opera 9.0: 52K
IE 6.0: 155K
Firefox 1.5.0.4: 56K
A single image on one of those pages could require more RAM than what the entire program is consuming. That's way, way off. What's even more amazing is, going by their charts, Opera actually consumes LESS ram with 6 pages loaded than when it first starts up! 53k -> 52k
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
What do you possibly gain by having a separate search box? I just don't get it.
Indeed, you don't.
If I have a host named "porn" on my network, and I type "porn" into the address bar, I better damn well get the host I want and not some search.
We have a host named "pegasus" and I can't tell you how many times I've been to the pegasus mail web site and didn't want to be.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I like Opera. I use Opera. I read the comparison, and Opera looks to come out favorably. Then I read the comments. Firefox compared to IE, again and again. Reasons why Firefox is better. Reasons why IE is better. Reasons why more people use IE. But there are fewer comments on Opera. I can't understand why. It has lots of things that Firefox needs extenstions for built right in (and without significant differences in resources), and some things, like bittorrent support, that aren't available in any extension. It has better standards compliance than the other two. It has Widgets (like extensions) if you want to expand it more. But yet, a 3-way comparison is treated as a 2-way comparison. I thought this would be more of an eye opener, "Wow, I didn't know Opera did all that and did it better than the other browsers!" But instead, the comments read like the posters glanced at the IE and Firefox pages of the article (if they read it at all) and hopped right back on the IE vs Firefox war. I find it sad that a competitive browser receives to little consideration, especially from a group that is supposedly early adopters.
Learn to love Alaska
why is that PNG IE7 still won't support PNG transparency? Besides of GIF(propietary) there is no other option for transparency in web development...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Well, everyone seems to be complaining about the size and speed of the Vista beta, so it's not like it's without precedent...
That aside, I've used the Firefox beta, and while I will no doubt end up using the finished 2.0, there's no way I can use the beta. I appreciate that it's slow because it's compiled in debug mode, hasn't had last minute optimisations applied, etc - but that doesn't change the fact that for me, on a P4 3GHz with 2 gig of RAM, it's slow enough to be unusable.
I don't use Opera or IE, and so have no interest in the betas, so I can't comment on them.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Well maybe some of us don't like Microsoft's idea of the web. Standards bodies are there to try to encourge innovation. At least they think of new ideas. What has Microsoft done with IE in years? Many of the new IE 7 features are just ripped off with a slight twist for MS to save face.
Microsoft has high marketshare but its not all one version either. A 90 percent defacto standard is one thing but when some people still use ie 5.x, it lowers the numbers. In some circles firefox is at 25 percent. That is just firefox not including netscape's gecko based browsers or the mozilla suite.
Another thing to consider is that a 90 percent statistic can't be right. If 90 percent of the desktops in the world run windows, and not all run IE6 how can IE have 90 percent marketshare? Granted not everything is on the internet either. I suspect those statistics are "created" by some online marketing firm or the posters mind. I almost never use IE in windows. It would be nice to see an os/browser breakdown for a change. I'd like to know what percentage of Windows users run IE, Firefox, and Opera. Similarly, I'd like to see what percentage of Linux, BSD, and Solaris users run Firefox, Opera, Konquerer, and so on. Lets not forget the mac either. Most mac users don't use IE anymore. Its been discussed recently on the apple web dev list. Safari and Firefox are very popular. Up until last month I was a mac systems administrator. My macs only had firefox and safari as a choice. I explictly deleted ie from the 10.2 systems and newer versions don't ship with IE. (maybe 10.3 did at release but not with my iBook)
Does anyone know of a log analyzer that can break up user agents by os version? (free or open source is better)
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
If I type a hostname into an FTP client I think it should assume ftp protocol.
If I type hostname into a web browser, the web runs on http, so of course it should assume http.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
If I have a host named "porn" on my network, and I type "porn" into the address bar, I better damn well get the host I want and not some search.
That's not a problem with the concept it's a problem with the implementation.
Konqueror does this right:
just type in something => url
type "gg:something" and you get a google seach for something
It's both unambiguous, and not wasteful of screen real estate.
Life is too short to proofread.
More to the point firefox should include a "print" option in their context menu for the page and the frame.
meh