Firefox 4 RC Vs. IE9 RC: the First Duel

What?? by geek · 2011-03-07 05:25 · Score: 0

"which is expected to be the final version of Firefox as well."

What the hell is with the summaries lately?

Re:What?? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 05:31 · Score: 2, Funny

"which is expected to be the final version of Firefox as well."
What the hell is with the summaries lately?
You didn't get the quarterly /. memo? We're Google Chrome fanboys and girls now -- Mozilla is right out.
Re:What?? by Kylock · 2011-03-07 05:39 · Score: 2

That is possibly a reference to this.
Re:What?? by jdgeorge · 2011-03-07 05:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Poster misunderstood the changing Firefox release strategy
The expectation is an increased number of Firefox releases after version 4, but the changes between any two releases may not be as dramatic as the current approach.
Re:What?? by Dragonslicer · 2011-03-07 06:09 · Score: 3, Informative

"which is expected to be the final version of Firefox as well."
What the hell is with the summaries lately?
Maybe it's been edited since you saw it, but right now it says "which is expected to be the final version of Firefox 4 as well." I agree that it's pretty poorly worded, but it should be obvious enough that it means that the release candidate will become the 4.0 release (i.e. they aren't planning another release candidate).
Re:What?? by commodore6502 · 2011-03-07 06:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

QUOTE: "Ever wondered why Firefox is only just approaching version 4 after more than 6 years, when Chrome is up to version 9 in just over 2 years?"
No because I don't give a fuck about things that don't matter.
The new policy is pretty ridiculous when you think about it. Chrome and Firefox will be up to version 40-something by the end of the decade. IMHO it's more logical to avoid such large numbers by using decimal points. Release 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 this year, not 5, 6, 7.
Looks like marketers have taken over. "Bigger numbers seller better! Let's release Firefox 15 as soon as possible!"

--
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
Re:What?? by EvanED · 2011-03-07 06:37 · Score: 2

IMHO it's more logical to avoid such large numbers by using decimal points. Release 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 this year, not 5, 6, 7.
That's only a clear win if there's some notion of compatibility (either programmatic or user experience) that you're maintaining among the 4.x releases, and even then it may not be. E.g. I find the progression of Linux kernel versions to be increasingly ridiculous; I'd rather see "the current stable release is 37.2 and the current unstable release is 38-rc7" than "the current stable release is 2.6.37.2 and the current unstable is 2.6.38-rc7".
If you stick to the point releases when there's no discernible big jump in features or whatever in a new release, as is what Linux is doing and what Mozilla wants to do, you've just turned "Chrome and Firefox will be up to version 40-something" to "Chrome and Firefox will be up to version 4.40-something", because if there are no stand-out updates, when do you bump the major revision number?
Re:What?? by Kjella · 2011-03-07 06:45 · Score: 1

Looks like marketers have taken over. "Bigger numbers seller better! Let's release Firefox 15 as soon as possible!"
Ah, but the "big number" thing doesn't roll around, 9 sounds more than 11. The 6990 is a much faster and higher model than the 7230. Every time you get there, you like to reset your number scheme somehow, like for example OS X. Could they have continued with 11, 12, 13 etc? Yes, but it doesn't sound that good. Instead they just "froze" the version and technically haven't had a major version upgrade in 9 years. I'm sure you all realize that is bullshit though, that "10.6" is actually OS XVI. I wager that pretty soon both IE and Chrome will change version numbering, oddly enough Opera hasn't yet...

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:What?? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 08:12 · Score: 0

They should have gone with 95, that worked quite well for Microsoft.
Re:What?? by thegarbz · 2011-03-07 09:25 · Score: 1

No it just depends on what you expect from your release. Providing the feature upgrades are consistent I see no reason why going with your approach we won't end up with version 4.20 by the end of the decade. The only difference is if you take this approach eventually someone is going to expect that you will release a version 5 that is somehow the second coming of Christ.

You can always go down the AutoCAD or MS Office route and start naming your release by the year.
Re:What?? by Dan541 · 2011-03-07 10:55 · Score: 1

It's the same with Windows "7". Did someone lose count?

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Re:What?? by Aydsman · 2011-03-07 11:57 · Score: 2

It's the same with Windows "7". Did someone lose count?
Nope. Windows 7 is version 6.1 anyway:

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601] Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Re:What?? by TimSSG · 2011-03-07 12:01 · Score: 1

I hate the fact that Windows "7" is version 6.1; I can see future support people asking are you using version 7.0 or Windows 7?
Tim S.
Re:What?? by The+boojum · 2011-03-07 12:56 · Score: 1

Thats about the philosophy that Emacs adopted. The current version in development, 23.3, would have been 1.23.3 under the original numbering scheme. But then they realized they were probably never going to bump the major version again and so they might as well drop it. Makes a lot of sense to me, honestly.
Re:What?? by jrumney · 2011-03-07 13:06 · Score: 1

What is logical about using decimal points to avoid large numbers? It's all arbitrary.
Re:What?? by Dan541 · 2011-03-07 22:23 · Score: 1

I once told some "techs" at a computer store that I was running Windows version 6.1 it only confuses them.
Needless to say I lost all faith in computer stores

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"

Beta 12 vs RC by TaoPhoenix · 2011-03-07 05:27 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, Beta 12 introduced a crazy printing glitch on my local setup, so I hope by the RC they put enough stuff in order to make it go away again. I rolled back to Beta 11 and sent them a Feedback.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Re:Beta 12 vs RC by nschubach · 2011-03-07 06:27 · Score: 1

People still print? ;)

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Re:Beta 12 vs RC by BZ · 2011-03-07 06:38 · Score: 1

This was happening on Windows for users without hardware acceleration.
It's fixed in the RC, and has been fixed in the nightlies for a while now.
Re:Beta 12 vs RC by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 07:00 · Score: 0

...news to me.
Re:Beta 12 vs RC by tyrione · 2011-03-07 09:32 · Score: 1

People still print? ;)
More paper is consumed in printing today than several previous decades, combined.
Re:Beta 12 vs RC by sjames · 2011-03-07 10:42 · Score: 1

How else do you expect interns to print a copy of the internet for our Congressmen? Surely you don't expect them to master those newfangled computer things AND those pellytone contraptions all at the same time!

Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by Mike+Mentalist · 2011-03-07 05:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

After a while they just become samey and it's like arguing over which word processor is best - the one that loads 13% faster or the one that runs spellchecker 8% faster.

--
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'

Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by lorenlal · 2011-03-07 05:40 · Score: 2

Actually, I'm not. The more the browser makers fight over each % in market share, the better off we all are. I'd rather have 4 or 5 browsers continuously fighting it out than the situation we had back in 2001.
I still shudder when I think of the browser dark ages.
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by jellomizer · 2011-03-07 05:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

I agree they are only worth posting when there is a significant win one either side. Right now it looks like IE9 has a slight lead in some areas over Firefox. Which means nothing. Other then IE has gotten the Most Improved Award. Just as long as we have competing browsers that have a fair market share (EI, FireFox, Chrome and Safari) I am happy once either side gets a good win (Like IE 5-6 did) then that is where the trouble gets in where the winner separates from the standard and forces its own standards. And the others are trying to play catch up to support as many of the winners standards as well as trying to follow the prescribed ones. Thus creating problems again. Right now I think we are in a new golden age of browsers where it really doesn't matter which one you use anymore and you can choose a browser based on features and performance in particular areas vs. needing to render particular pages.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by amicusNYCL · 2011-03-07 05:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's a little like that. Right now most of the fighting is between Javascript and rendering speed. Javascript performance is definitely no longer a bottleneck, a lot of work has been done there by a lot of people and all of the current browsers are orders of magnitude faster than browsers 5 years ago. Rendering speed is still an issue though, it doesn't do any good if I can manipulate the entire DOM in milliseconds if it takes the browser several seconds to render what I did.
But don't worry, even if it's boring for you the end result is better browsers all around.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by Pausanias · 2011-03-07 06:25 · Score: 1

They are not the same. Extensions are the difference. Even if there are IE addons that replicate the functionality of flashblock/adblock/lastpass/xmarks, they don't perform as well.
Kind of feel the same about Chrome. Chrome has evil twins of all those extensions available, but when you install them, they're just not the same.
Plus in Linux, the latest stable build of chromium actually is PAINFULLY slow in GMail! Go figure. I haven't tested bleeding-edge.
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by rwv · 2011-03-07 06:40 · Score: 2

a new golden age of browsers
So circa 2004 when Firefox first emerged from the hollowed out husk of Netscape was the bronze age of browsers, then? Wake me up when we make it to the platinum age and Microsoft stops relying on security-through-obscurity and adds better support for Non-windows platforms...
In all seriousness, though, I'm glad Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla (and Opera) are all making improvements to the state-of-the-art.
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by Machtyn · 2011-03-07 06:42 · Score: 1

Good post, and I agree. It now comes down to requested features. In my case, extensions are a great thing. AdBlock Pro, No Scipt, Tab Mix Plus, and Slimsearch are all great extensions that are a must have. Others may have differing views / needs.
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by binary+paladin · 2011-03-07 06:48 · Score: 1

I'm also glad to see that IE is competitive again. It's not that I want it to dominate every again but I am so sick and tired of feeling like emerging web technologies are held hostage by Microsoft's unwillingness (it's clearly not inability as IE9 is demonstrating) to build a browser that doesn't swallow testicles.
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 06:54 · Score: 0

Once I got over the "it's not the same" feeling about Chrome, I found it to be the far superior browser in just about every respect. I still use Firefox on my personal desktop because my awesome bar history database lets me look up all sorts of things with a few keystrokes, and to avoid giving all my data to one company. But on every laptop and work machine I can, I use Chrome.
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by 0xABADC0DA · 2011-03-07 07:47 · Score: 2

once either side gets a good win (Like IE 5-6 did) then that is where the trouble gets in where the winner separates from the standard and forces its own standards.
Then I'd be most worried about Chrome. IE can only affect the Windows market, which is not even assured will be relevant in the not-so-distant future. Mozilla has a history of open processes and backward compatibility, for instance there was huge debate and rationale before switching to the awesome bar and you can make it 'less awesome' if you want to. Chrome on the other hand is already including custom junk like native client, SPDY (which is a crappy protocol btw), and like gnome they change the UI on a whim because they feel like it not because of user testing and discussion. Also there's no easy way to use a particular version of chrome and Google advocates a 'rolling standard' for HTML (another thing that's rolling is a treadmill).
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by Lennie · 2011-03-07 08:16 · Score: 1

IE might have improved a lot performance wise, it is still way behind implementing many parts of many of the specs the other browsers already supported in their previous versions like Firefox 3.6.
Here an example list:
http://caniuse.com/#compare=y&b1=ie|9&b2=firefox|4
http://caniuse.com/#compare=y&b1=ie|9&b2=firefox|3.6

--
New things are always on the horizon
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by Lennie · 2011-03-07 08:25 · Score: 2

You forgot one thing, many many people are starting to use mobile devices more and more to surf the web. Mozilla latest beta of Mobile Firefox is supposedly the fastest browser for mobile devices.
Having more competition in the mobile space is also a good thing because it allows webdevelopers to create websites which can take advantage of the new HTML5-API's for offline use. HTML5 is not only a new version of HTML but was specifically created to allow developers to easily create applications for the web (so for example you won't need an appstore/native apps in many different programming languages but just use 'one' open standard for all devices).
This allows a for example a webmail 'application' to pre-download messages to your phone for when you don't have an internet connection but still like to view your e-mails and reply. The reply message can than be saved and automatically sent when the internet connection works again.

--
New things are always on the horizon
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by Lennie · 2011-03-07 08:29 · Score: 2

Let's try that again because that was horrible. Here are the proper links, I hope: http://caniuse.com/#compare=y&b1=ie|9&b2=firefox|4 http://caniuse.com/#compare=y&b1=ie|9&b2=firefox|3.6 Although I think the site doesn't want to help either. whatever.

--
New things are always on the horizon
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by xtracto · 2011-03-07 08:41 · Score: 1

It's a little like that. Right now most of the fighting is between Javascript and rendering speed. Javascript performance is definitely no longer a bottleneck
It depends in what you want to achieve. I still perceive difference between running Google docs in Chrome vs running it in Firefox 4 b13pre (it is noticeably slower in the later). And currently none of the spreadsheet web programs have complex equations, references, macros, etc.
Not that I am in favour forcing software to run in a scripted environment (I prefer native apps) but hey, there is always a market for everything.

--
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by the_womble · 2011-03-07 08:58 · Score: 3, Informative

There are a lot of stability (e.g. multiple processes for crash isolation), UI, and extension differences between browsers and advances in all those areas.
I see performance problems with FF when scrolling very large pages, and when switching tabs with many tabs open. Will the improvements in FF4 help that.
I use Linux so IE9 is not an alternative anyway. Chromium will be once it has an extension to match Tree Style Tabs.
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by amicusNYCL · 2011-03-07 09:16 · Score: 1

I still perceive difference between running Google docs in Chrome vs running it in Firefox 4 b13pre (it is noticeably slower in the later).
Does "slower" indicate that Javascript performance is worse, or that rendering speed is worse? Firefox lags quite a bit at rendering speed (especially with Firebug running), I can notice that in my own applications. It will execute the code quickly, but it takes its time to update the display. It sounds like you're seeing an issue with page rendering speed, not Javascript execution speed.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by BZ · 2011-03-07 09:31 · Score: 1

If you have Firebug running, you're getting slow JS as well: the Firebug JS debugger disables the JITs.
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by BZ · 2011-03-07 09:35 · Score: 1

Firefox 4 should definitely make scrolling faster in many cases (but may depend on your graphics hardware and drivers, like so many other things with hardware acceleration).
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by kangsterizer · 2011-03-07 11:14 · Score: 1

if they're equivalent i'd always pick the one that is free as in freedom.
in fact even if it was slightly worse i'd take the freedom one so, it's win-win lol
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by haruchai · 2011-03-07 11:20 · Score: 1

Hey, that's a great link. Too bad you can only compare 2 at a time

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by RobertM1968 · 2011-03-07 11:39 · Score: 1

After a while they just become samey and it's like arguing over which word processor is best - the one that loads 13% faster or the one that runs spellchecker 8% faster.
I vote for spellchecker...
...oh, wait, was that a rhetorical question? Nevermind...

--
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by RobertM1968 · 2011-03-07 11:46 · Score: 1

I'm also glad to see that IE is competitive again. It's not that I want it to dominate every again but I am so sick and tired of feeling like emerging web technologies are held hostage by Microsoft's unwillingness (it's clearly not inability as IE9 is demonstrating) to build a browser that doesn't swallow testicles.
Competitive does not equal "Faster than Firefox, but slower than Chrome...: at least not in my mind. While speed increases play some part in the competitive nature of their offering, there are other things, such as... oh, I dunno... adherence to web standards, security, a plug-in mechanism that actually allows uninstalling unwanted plugins and extensions (as opposed to simply being able to semi-disable them), functionality, ease of use. unambiguous text indicating that numerous of the setup options (and the Bing Bar) make IE report anything from lotsa things to everything back to Microsoft (sorry, but "Help improve... (small print: click here to read this ridiculous legalese that says this means we track what you do)" does not satisfactorily portray that in my mind), and numerous other factors.
Since many of those factors are personal choice or based off personal needs (ie: ease of use and functionality), I'd say it's a bit too early to decide whether IE has become competitive. Let's wait until it's released and see (a) how it's adopted, (b) whether the final release actually adheres to web standards (like the last 3 releases have promised to do), and (c) see if they fix the other issues to bring it truly on par with the competition.

--
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by yxyband · 2011-03-07 11:58 · Score: 1

Actually try testing the current IE and FF using a satellite connection and 512MB system (older AMD A51, just used for browsing). IE is brutal compared to FF in both resource usage and loading times. What good is a Sandbox if it takes four times as long to get something done or that minor cross platform thing. Even on a more current dare I say Vista box(4GB RAM), IE crashes much more often and is more sluggish than FF. Can't understand why I use Gentoo for servers... Brings to mind something Gates would say from time to time...Shobby software... Hopefully IE is built correctly this time...

--
The more complex the task, the simpler the steps need to be.
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by RobertM1968 · 2011-03-07 12:02 · Score: 1

Which means nothing. Other then IE has gotten the Most Improved Award.
Which also means nothing. Considering where they came from, (and numerous broken compatibility and speed promises), it's really not too hard for them to earn such an award. It's actually more shocking that it took them this long.

Just as long as we have competing browsers that have a fair market share (EI, FireFox, Chrome and Safari) I am happy once either side gets a good win (Like IE 5-6 did)

Yes... but the playing field is a lot different now. Microsoft no longer has the leverage to ensure the clear win they had back with IE6, or the decent win with IE5. It's not like Netscape wasn't faster - and heck, even better - back then. This time around, it will be based on the merits of the browsers (and personal preferences on UI and features).
Making it worse for Microsoft, there will be a lot of people who wont run IE9 simply because, no matter what's been promised, Microsoft has had an abysmal track record for delivering as promised (security, standards, timely fixes for bugs and security issues, etc). Me personally, I'd choose Chrome or Firefox over IE9 based solely on the security, standards, ability to actually uninstall extensions/plugins (unlike IE's "disable" (kinda) feature) and timeframes to security patch releases.

then that is where the trouble gets in where the winner separates from the standard and forces its own standards.
Meh. Microsoft had their reasons to do such. The Mozilla gang and Google (or even Opera nowadays)? Not so much. Microsoft is STILL the only one who has compelling reasons to do such things - the same reasons why the web interfaces for numerous of their online "cloud services" are lacking on non-IE browsers, and the same reason that a variety of their business software that has web interfaces needs IE, and the same reason why much of their programming tools for browser based stuff needs IE for full functionality, and the same reason why Silverlight does not have feature compatible options on other platforms (and like most of the rest of these things, regardless of what was promised).
Inotherwords, in relation to the standards thing, there's a good chance that we only need to worry if Microsoft wins this round - they are the ONLY one who has vested interests in NUMEROUS other areas that require their browser and non-standards compliant stuff tacked on.

--
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Re:Anyone else slightly bored of the browser wars? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-10 07:45 · Score: 0

Where did you get that Firefox 4 mobile browser was so great? I've heard quite the opposite. Also, with Google, Microsoft and Apple all in the mobile phone market and the numbers of phones that will be running their perspective mobile OS's, Mozilla will find themselves at a big disadvantage in the mobile browsing arena.

I don't use Firefox for performance reasons... by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-03-07 05:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Or even compatibility reasons. And I'm definitely not an MS hater. I use it because of the well implemented and widely used plugin system. IE has something similar but it's just not as well done and doesn't have as rich an ecosystem. So I don't really care about a 10% difference here, or an 8.5% difference there that I will never notice anyway.

Re:I don't use Firefox for performance reasons... by Dan667 · 2011-03-07 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

so true with Firefox, i get a huge bump in performance with things like flashblock, no script, and ghostery.
Re:I don't use Firefox for performance reasons... by Iphtashu+Fitz · 2011-03-07 06:02 · Score: 5, Informative

I also use it mainly because I use a mix of Windows, Mac, and linux systems in both my day job and at home. I like having one common browser with plug-ins that work well on each platform.
Re:I don't use Firefox for performance reasons... by jgtg32a · 2011-03-07 06:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

I completely agree completely I need my plugins.

However, I've actually moved all my friend from Firefox to Chrome because they refuse to use any plugins
Re:I don't use Firefox for performance reasons... by clang_jangle · 2011-03-07 06:18 · Score: 2

Since I tried pentadactyl, firefox has become the only browser I can stand to use. The interface is worth the performance issues.

--
Caveat Utilitor
Re:I don't use Firefox for performance reasons... by ifiwereasculptor · 2011-03-07 06:46 · Score: 1

You completely agree completely? Suck much cock much?

Fuck! If you want to troll, at least don't miss obvious opportunities.
Re:I don't use Firefox for performance reasons... by sznupi · 2011-03-07 06:53 · Score: 2

However, latest IE is pretty much the only browser capable of smoothly displaying Slashdot...

It's like some cruel practical joke from MS.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:I don't use Firefox for performance reasons... by mugnyte · 2011-03-07 07:21 · Score: 1

Agreed. At this point, I'm willing to accept rendering quirks to have the plugins I rely on.
Nothing has helped more than NoScript & AdBlock to skip the HTTP requests for junk at sites I visit often. When I try enabling them, there is a noticeable lag in page completion. Chrome and IE do not block those requests, but can skip the render, last time I checked.
I'm almost happier that IE holds a share of the browser market, it lets web publishers still think their ads are working for them. If everyone used client-side script to tailor their channel, we'd probably see a lot more work to consolidate the domain sources for content (and other tricks), making it harder to exclude them.
Meanwhile, many FF users seem to enjoy a clutter-free web and streamlined pipe. This is way more important to me than ensuring a flash block has a great frame rate.
Re:I don't use Firefox for performance reasons... by Bucky24 · 2011-03-07 07:22 · Score: 2

Or from slashdot... It's a lot easier to tune a website to work better with a certain browser than to tune a browser to work better with a certain website.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:I don't use Firefox for performance reasons... by BeardedChimp · 2011-03-07 07:33 · Score: 1

Hadn't seen this before but been a long time vimperator user. From the addon page it looks like some of the developers fell out with the creator of vimperator and forked it.
Re:I don't use Firefox for performance reasons... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 09:33 · Score: 1

I totally agree with you. Firefox's very powerful extension api and customization options are the main reasons why I still use it (3.6 even) over other browsers. I think that Firefox's userbase will shift to more advanced users who want more control over their browsing experience, even though Chrome might capture the majority of web users since it's simpler.
Re:I don't use Firefox for performance reasons... by slickepott · 2011-03-07 10:31 · Score: 1

Pretty much the same. I tried alternatives with Chrome but it's not the same at all and a browser without vimperator/pentadactyl is not pleasant to use anymore.
Re:I don't use Firefox for performance reasons... by trewornan · 2011-03-07 10:50 · Score: 1

Same here, ABP, noscript and flashblock are essential plugins. Ironically slashdot keep offering me ad free as some kind of perk but I don't see the ads anyway, almost makes me feel guilty - almost.
Re:I don't use Firefox for performance reasons... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 19:06 · Score: 0

IE has something similar but it's just not as well done and doesn't have as rich an ecosystem.

Having recently written the same plugin for Firefox, IE and Chrome - I can tell you writing the IE plugin was like writing code back in 1999. Firefox and Chrome were a snap, but to create the IE plugin I actually had to go buy Add-In Express (takes care of lots of nasty details for you, like an installer for example). Firefox and Chrome's plugins are easy to write, easy to package, easy to distribute. Firefox and Chrome both automatically check your server for an updated version of your plugin.
Internet Explorer? Not so much. The plugin installer itself is nearly 8MB. Mind you, my code was only 30 lines of JavaScript that the plugin is supposed to embed onto a web page if the URL matches a certain regexp.
Re:I don't use Firefox for performance reasons... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 01:08 · Score: 0

However, latest IE is pretty much the only browser capable of smoothly displaying Slashdot...
Citation Needed.

Quick, run the Fishtank Test by cyclocommuter · 2011-03-07 05:32 · Score: 3, Informative

The last time somebody tested these browsers using Microsoft's Fishtank, Firefox 4 Beta won. I wonder who wins the Fishtank test this time.

Re:Quick, run the Fishtank Test by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 05:54 · Score: 0

Is this test bullshit or is it bullshit? Chrome is running 1 fish at 40 fps and sucks harder than a Thai hooker on 1000 fish.
Re:Quick, run the Fishtank Test by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 06:03 · Score: 2, Informative

The fish tank test is basically a test of "do you have HW acceleration?". Chrome releases don't actually have it turned on by default yet.
Re:Quick, run the Fishtank Test by SirMasterboy · 2011-03-07 06:04 · Score: 3, Informative

Huh? Chrome runs 1000 fish at 60fps for me... Maybe you have GPU acceleration turned off?
about:flags to enable it.
Re:Quick, run the Fishtank Test by metalgamer84 · 2011-03-07 06:14 · Score: 1

I'm down to 2 FPS with 1,000 fish, FF 3.6.15 and a 1280x819 window size.
Re:Quick, run the Fishtank Test by BZ · 2011-03-07 06:32 · Score: 1

Right this second, likely IE. There was a last-minute security fix that introduced some undesirable lag into drawImage in Firefox and makes the fishtank a bit slower. Making it faster again isn't going to make Firefox 4, but will make Firefox 5 in a few months.
Re:Quick, run the Fishtank Test by kjdrtgxf · 2011-03-07 06:35 · Score: 1

And I had to reboot Windows 7 to have it apply, restarting the browser made for no impact. Now 50 fish at 60fps where as before 1 fish was at 40 fps.
Re:Quick, run the Fishtank Test by SheeEttin · 2011-03-07 07:37 · Score: 1

With 1000 fish: Firefox 4b12 gets ~18 FPS; IE9 9.0.8080.16413 gets about 1.
Re:Quick, run the Fishtank Test by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 08:47 · Score: 1

Here's an interesting take on the Microsoft Fishtank benchmark. Essentially, it's not that relevant because it's testing Canvas in a way that it wasn't really designed to be used and at the same time, the same problem could be solved more elegantly using WebGL.
http://muizelaar.blogspot.com/2011/02/drawing-sprites-canvas-2d-vs-webgl.html

How it is by metrix007 · 2011-03-07 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

IE is ahead in security(say what you like but vulns are at parity, and IE has support for sandboxing and WIC which FF lacks) and resource usage.

FF wins for flexibility, configurability and extensibility, the things that matter to most people on this site.

Things like speed and standards compliance are becoming irrelevant, as all 4 modern browsers are more than good enough. It's things like interface and how you can extend and configure the browser. In this Chrome is last, then IE, the Opera with Firefox coming in first, which is why it will be in the lead for a while.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.

Re:How it is by Xtifr · 2011-03-07 08:03 · Score: 0

IE is ahead in security [...] and resource usage.
If not running at all on my system counts as increased security, then I agree, but it doesn't make me want to use it. As for resource usage, it's hard to beat won't-run for consuming minimal resources, but again, that's hardly a plus. It may date me, but I find the whole idea of saying that something which requires me to install Windows is "ahead on security" to be curiously ironic.
I agree with your general assessment, though. If I wanted to maximize security, I'd probably run Chromium on OpenBSD. Since I'm not using either of those, it's pretty clear that security is not my top priority.
Re:How it is by the_womble · 2011-03-07 09:29 · Score: 1

Comparing vulnerabilities is tricky. Have you taken severity, and the level of disclosure by the developers into account?
Chrome has low resource usage, and has quite a lot of extensions now - although it cannot match FF. Chrome also has a great UI.
Re:How it is by metrix007 · 2011-03-07 10:14 · Score: 1

Chrome also doesn't let you configure a fucking thing.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.

Sunspider and IE9 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 05:33 · Score: 0, Troll

Just remember this: http://digitizor.com/2010/11/17/internet-explorer-9-caught-cheating-in-sunspider-benchmark/
Oh and that Sunspider is redundant test for modern browsers.

Re:Sunspider and IE9 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 05:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

Sunspider is a redundant test -- as are Kraken, V8, and the rest of them. Synthetic benchmarks are inherently flawed and we should all pay far less attention to them, but they happen to be easy to convey and chart (much like flawed compliance "tests" like Acid3 and html5test).
That said, there was almost certainly no cheating. That was a valid optimization. What was identified was a boundary condition in the JIT, which took two syntactically identical statements, which were not lexically identical, and showed that only one was optimized out. People who don't have any idea how to make an optimizing compiler decided that the only way this could happen was cheating, leaving out mistakes or intentional heuristics.
The problem with that theory is that it would be more difficult to develop a cheating optimizing compiler with the characteristics it had, for that situation, than to actually come up with an optimization, so it's outright absurd. The guy who discovered the discrepancy never called it cheating.
The RC scores the same in those tests now. I bet it was something simple like doing a quick one-line dead code elimination pass before the full dead code elimination heuristics decided whether to bother trying.

One final test... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 05:35 · Score: 2, Informative

For 100 points, does your browser run on the huge installed base of WindowsXP?

Dang, we'll be limited to IE8 features until at least 2013...

Re:One final test... by Merk42 · 2011-03-07 07:30 · Score: 1

April 8, 2014. That's when extended support for XP ends. Of course that's just when IE6 will finally be unsupported. IE7 and IE8 would still have years of support to go
Re:One final test... by dotwhynot · 2011-03-07 07:32 · Score: 2

For 100 points, does your browser run on the huge installed base of WindowsXP?
Dang, we'll be limited to IE8 features until at least 2013...
Windows XP is very much like IE6 -- both are decade old systems that should have been left behind a long time ago. If not for lack of features so for lack of modern security.
Re:One final test... by xtracto · 2011-03-07 08:46 · Score: 1

Unless you want to use a computer that does not have 4GB of RAM and need a platform 100% compatible with Microsoft OS. (e.g. quickbooks, vegas, etc).
I installed Win 7 in my 2GB Netbook and its performance was awful. As soon as I reinstalled XP SP3 it became a charm. (I Installed Ubuntu but it sucked battery like crazy).

--
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Re:One final test... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 09:18 · Score: 0

Unless you want to use a computer that does not have 4GB of RAM and need a platform 100% compatible with Microsoft OS. (e.g. quickbooks, vegas, etc).
I installed Win 7 in my 2GB Netbook and its performance was awful. As soon as I reinstalled XP SP3 it became a charm. (I Installed Ubuntu but it sucked battery like crazy).
Don't doubt your experience, but don't think 2GB RAM was the main problem. I run Win7 fine on two different systems with 2 GB RAM. One 5 year old Dell XPS M1210 laptop, and one brand new Shuttle XS35GT (dual core Atom).
Re:One final test... by thsths · 2011-03-07 09:30 · Score: 1

Isn't it funny that Firefox has better Windows support than Internet Explorer 9? :-)
That being said, the upgrade to Windows 7 is certainly worth it, not just for the better browser.

Looks like bad benchmarking by gazbo · 2011-03-07 05:36 · Score: 2

The Flash text benchmark is highly suspicious. IE9 posts by far the worst score for that benchmark on one machine, then beats FF on the same test on another machine. Without any description of testing methodology, I can only assume the benchmarking procedure is totally broken (e.g. maybe they only ran each one once) and so the results are best taken with a pinch of salt, even if they're not entirely useless.

HTML5 Support: Firefox 4 = 86%, IE9 = 59% by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 05:38 · Score: 1

Firefox 4 has 86% of HTML5 features while IE9 only has 59% of HTML5 features.

Chrome 9, which is released already, not beta support 87% of HTML5 features.

Source: http://www.caniuse.com/
(Go to bottom of page for the summary caniuse.com should've put at top of their page)

IE9 Firefox by GnomieHomie · 2011-03-07 05:45 · Score: 2

Microsoft always cares about being number 1 in everything. Sometimes they stick their noses where it doesn't belong. They can't accept to lose in something. Yet if they really cared they would put more thought into their products before they released them and focus more on fixes rather than trying to constantly come out with a product to trump someone else.

IE and WebGL by Foofoobar · 2011-03-07 05:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't know how IE has an HTML5 advantage since they have to do a WebGL conversion to DirectX which causes all renders to take 3X as long. You can hear it talked about in this demo from Fractallab(http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/07/tom-subblue-reddard.html#comments) an online fractal generator built in HTML5 using WebGL.

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.

Re:IE and WebGL by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-03-07 06:48 · Score: 1

IE9 doesn't support WebGL at all. But then WebGL is not part of HTML5 spec.
Re:IE and WebGL by Foofoobar · 2011-03-07 07:28 · Score: 1

Well you got me on a technicality; it's supported through the canvas tag (part of the HTML5 spec) and WebGL is an open standard with it's own spec and is supported by all browsers... except IE. Making it the lone hold out and a throwback. This is SVG and CSS all over again. Where other browsers advance, IE stands back and waits and as a result, gets lapped by progress.

So those who use HTML5 and want 3D applications will just all be converting to Chrome, Safari or Firefox as a result. No harm done.

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Re:IE and WebGL by bloodhawk · 2011-03-07 08:16 · Score: 1

That is hardly a technicality, WebGL is not part of the spec full stop, hence it has no place in a test for HTML5 standards support.
Re:IE and WebGL by t0y · 2011-03-07 08:28 · Score: 1

Firefox is using opengl->directx conversion by default using google's Angle library. There's a pref to turn native support ON but it's not enabled by default and, at least in my case, it's not working.
Re:IE and WebGL by tyrione · 2011-03-07 09:35 · Score: 1

Facts are not technicalities. They are just facts.
Re:IE and WebGL by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 10:25 · Score: 0

Firefox (and Chrome) also convert WebGL to DirectX calls on Windows (not on Mac/Linux for obvious reasons). The reason being that on Windows Direct3D drivers are virtually guarenteed to be installed and of decent qualty, whereas OpenGL drivers are often not installed or are just piss poor. The conversion is done by Google's ANGLE library.
Incidentally on Linux (not sure about Mac) Firefox WebGL will only be enabled for systems with the nVidia binary drivers installed, as the free software drivers for nVidia and other cards are too crashy.
Re:IE and WebGL by Foofoobar · 2011-03-08 06:24 · Score: 1

You're right, testing the HTML5 canvas tag for support of 3D should not be allowed. What was I thinking?

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Re:IE and WebGL by Foofoobar · 2011-03-08 06:25 · Score: 1

Technically you would be right. But Factually you are wrong.

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.

Re:chrome wins by Urza9814 · 2011-03-07 05:46 · Score: 1

Actually, I recently switched from Chrome back to Firefox around 4b9, and Firefox performs _MUCH_ better, especially (for some strange reason) with Flash content. Running Flash on Chrome used to make my entire system slow to a crawl.

I don't think it matters by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2011-03-07 05:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

The people that actually care about this have either made the switch already or have stuck with IE through it all, for whatever reason. Most of the end users I deal with that are on IE either don't have a clear concept of what a browser even is, or basically state they hate change and they've always used IE because "it's good enough" (likely because of all the IE workarounds we web developers have been forced to employ).

Don't get me wrong - from a web development standpoint I'm ecstatic Microsoft is trying hard to improve IE's standards support and functionality. But I just don't believe IE 9's performance is going to make a significant impact on people's perceptions of it.

--
#DeleteChrome

Re:I don't think it matters by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-08 13:06 · Score: 0

You hit it right with the "end users I deal with that are on IE don't have a clear concept of what a browser even is" statement. A good number of the times I have installed Firefox or Chrome for somebody and told them not to use IE I go through the laundry list of questions. "Is Facebook on this other internet? Are you sure I can still get to the internet that Hotmail is on? I pay $40 every month for internet. How much is the Firedog internet?" Ugh.
Sometimes I wish they named it "Internet Firefox" or something, as I usually have to create a desktop shortcut and rename it as such anyway.
To be honest though, it has started to matter less and less. The biggest reason I used to steer people towards Firefox was because I was constantly asked for help cleaning Malware/Virus infestations. Windows Vista/7 computers running IE 8 (or IE 9 Beta/RC) seem to be a lot easier to keep clean. I deliberately have been surfing the web (including some seedier portions) with a Windows 7/IE 9 setup just to see what the user experience is. That computer is still uninfected and has been for some time. I still prefer Firefox as my main browser because of plugins and customizations....but I no longer can claim a real strong opinion that everyone needs to get away from Internet Explorer.

Ugh. by goontz · 2011-03-07 05:48 · Score: 0

Yet another Firefox vs. IE article. (note that either browser in this statement can be switched out with yet another competitor)

Re:chrome wins by metrix007 · 2011-03-07 05:50 · Score: 1

When chrome allows for even basic customization, then it might be in the race.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.

Re:chrome wins by pyalot · 2011-03-07 05:52 · Score: 0

I've got both chrome and firefox on my 'buntu, and I can't be bothered to use FF, it's so slow I get the killall firefox reflex everytime I attempt to use FF.

--
Experiments and other stuff

Re:chrome wins by AndrewNeo · 2011-03-07 06:02 · Score: 1

Chrome, Firefox, Opera, whatever. IE loses.

Having played with both, plus Chrome and Opera by CodeShark · 2011-03-07 06:07 · Score: 2

My conclusion is "FINALLY".

IE till lags Firefox and Chrome in some of the larger "real world" benchmarks, but compared with prior iterations of IE, the improvements to V9 are nothing short of stunning. Similarly Firefox 4 Beta 12 cooks over 3.6.15 -- but even 3.6.15 has improved dramatically over prior 3.6 versions. The big stunner for me is how close all of the browsers are becoming in performance, while taking slightly different directions in browser tabs, menus, etc. -- but that most of the "nasty trick tests" I know for XHTML and CSS through what we sorta call "2.1" don't fail in any of the new browsers. (I've been stuck in VB land for the last year, so I can't claim enough knowledge to test either HTML5 or the CSS 3.X stuff at this point).

Anyway, what that means for me as a professional coder is that now I can concentrate on cross-PLATFORM applications, instead of cross-BROWSER. Which is nothing short of the best news I've had this year in terms of IT work.

--
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...

Performance is one thing... by FlapHappy · 2011-03-07 06:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

...but as a developer I just hope IE 9 conforms to standards. Firefox will. Javascript/CSS is all happy and fun until you need to account for IE's quirks.

Re:Performance is one thing... by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-03-07 06:50 · Score: 2

It does conform, though to not as many standards as Firefox.
IMO, the important part is that it actually conforms to those standards it claims it does - unlike the previous versions, where you had to use various hacks to do "conditional interpretation" of HTML & CSS because the same feature would be interpreted differently by IE compared to other browsers. With this release, there is a decent subset of HTML5 that you know you can code against, and have it render/work correctly in IE and everywhere else.
Re:Performance is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 07:11 · Score: 1

SVG and printing are all happy and fun... until you need to account for Firefox's quirks. Seriously, there are bits of the SVG and CSS specs that haven't been implemented for nearly a decade and look like they never will be. I only noticed because I tried to use them. I'd be delighted with less of a focus on the new shiny and more of a focus on getting existing specs finished. Which reminds me, is Firefox's XML viewer still confused by namespaces?
Re:Performance is one thing... by RobbieThe1st · 2011-03-07 12:11 · Score: 1

Oh, yes. I ran into that myself when developing a small SVG-based comic editor/assembler: Speed was excellent, but the fact that it doesn't support SVG glyph fonts just made me sad. *sigh*
Re:Performance is one thing... by paulkoan · 2011-03-07 16:27 · Score: 1

It does confirm to standards, just not very many of them: http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/ie9/
Of course this is a mozilla blog, but facts are checkable

--
This signature intentionally left blank

How will this be a market share battle? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 06:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

Last time I checked, IE9 won't work on Windows XP... which is still the OS with the most market share. Many users like myself won't be abandoning XP any time soon, unless it is for a Mac or our Linux partitions. Since modern PC games suck and they contain more malware than gameplay), gaming is no reason for me to "upgrade the OS". I do not buy mainstream PC games any more.

So, can someone tell me why I should go with IE9 over Firefox, especially when I don't even have that choice unless I shell out for an OS upgrade?

Re:How will this be a market share battle? by geek · 2011-03-07 06:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is it suddenly slashdots job to sell you on IE and Win7?
Re:How will this be a market share battle? by hduff · 2011-03-07 07:29 · Score: 1

So, can someone tell me why I should go with IE9 over Firefox, especially when I don't even have that choice unless I shell out for an OS upgrade?
They won't tell you that because they can't, at least not with a straight face.
TFA concludes that while FF has better javascriopt performance and IE has better hardware acceleration, they are essentially equal for the average user.
Therefore, choose the one from the developer who accommodates you the best and offers you the most flexibility and consistency regardless of OS choice. In most cases, I suspect that will be Firefox.

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Re:How will this be a market share battle? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 07:52 · Score: 0

The longer you wait to upgrade the more painful it will be.

Re:IE9 only support 59% of HTML5 features. by TheCycoONE · 2011-03-07 06:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Since you posted twice I know you're trolling, but I'll bite for anyone that doesn't know better. HTML 5 is in a draft state, much of it's functionality is still in flux with some parts being more stable than others. At this point we can't fault a vendor for not wanting to be stuck with an implementation that's broken later because they implemented an earlier draft.

DPI-Awareness still missing. by jjsm · 2011-03-07 06:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

I am using the Firefox 4 RC 1 and my native screen resolution is 1920x1080 (DPI adjusted to 150%). Firefox still ignores my DPI setting (Windows 7 OS). Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Opera and Safari are already aware of DPI settings. Why not Firefox?

Re:DPI-Awareness still missing. by Rockoon · 2011-03-07 07:06 · Score: 1

Probably because there is no definition of "DPI aware."

Probably what you want is for firefox to scale only its UI elements.. and it can... it just doesnt do it based on an OS setting that doesnt have a clearly defined meaning (ie, should the displayed document also be scaled, or just the applications UI elements? Maybe text in the document, but not margins?) .. remember that your DPI setting in all probability doesnt actually describe your monitors physical DPI.

My guess is that as you read this, that you dont even know your monitors physical DPI and have just used that setting to make the largest set of "DPI aware" programs that you use "look better" at the distance you use your computer from, while making some of them look worse with that same setting. Thats the crux of the "DPI aware" problem, and why many UI programmers say "fuck that, I'm going to let users do it independently of a global OS setting whose name itself is a fucking lie."

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:DPI-Awareness still missing. by ljw1004 · 2011-03-07 08:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

Windows has had a very well-defined meaning for DPI, and has done since XP. EVERYTHING is supposed to scale with the DPI setting. Everything does scale in most Microsoft applications. Yes, that includes documents and margins and UI elements.
If you want the UI elements to be larger but not the body, then you've ALWAYS done it by setting larger sizes for UI elements in the DisplayProperties control panel. Not by setting DPI.
There is no "DPI aware problem", apart from the UI programmers you mention -- and they're just being ignorant or lazy.
Re:DPI-Awareness still missing. by Rockoon · 2011-03-08 12:57 · Score: 1

Windows has had a very well-defined meaning for DPI, and has done since XP. EVERYTHING is supposed to scale with the DPI setting.
Its simple to prove that you are full of shit. Win7 -> Display properties control panel -> DPI setting -> there is a checkbox which enables "use Windows XP style DPI scaling"

How can it have a well defined meaning since XP given this simple observable fact? Seriously.. you are full of shit, and have greatly over-estimated the complexity of the bullshit that is the clearly not well defined DPI setting.

--
"His name was James Damore."

Re:chrome wins by jgtg32a · 2011-03-07 06:17 · Score: 1

Only if you don't use any Firefox plugins.

Re:chrome wins by metalgamer84 · 2011-03-07 06:18 · Score: 1

Slow when? doing what? FF is plenty fast on my 10.04 x86 box and my 10.10 x64 box doing general browsing and with Flash sites.

"An epic battle" by QuietLagoon · 2011-03-07 06:23 · Score: 2

Good grief, give the drama a rest, will ya. It is only going to be an epic battle in the minds of those who count up page hits as a measure of self-importance.

Re:"An epic battle" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 12:59 · Score: 0

Yeah, I think it's funny. They act like getting people to use non-IE browsers is somehow taking money out of MS's pocket.
We have MS to thank for browsers not costing $50 or more, as we do with so many common pieces of software these days.

It's not about the browser by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's about open standards. The reason we root for firefox is because Mozilla's goal is not to dominate the web, but to push open standards that can be used by everybody (including Microsoft).

Microsoft's goal, obviously, is purely to dominate. The only reason we see them adopting web standards now is because IE's market share has dropped like a rock over the past 5 years. They have no choice, and we can thank Firefox for that.

RC1 is not even out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 06:26 · Score: 0

If you don't see a folder for it, then it's not the final product.
http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/

Uh.... by Kjella · 2011-03-07 06:29 · Score: 1

So you pit the two browsers currently losing market share against each other? Granted IE far more than Firefox, but the standard to beat right now is Chrome. Look at the graph. There's only browser going up is Chrome. Maybe IE9 and FF4 can stop their customers bleeding away, but they have a long road to get on the offensive - particularly IE.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:Uh.... by mugnyte · 2011-03-07 07:10 · Score: 1

No, they pit the two browsers currently comprising 75% of the market - because when one publishes a report on performance one doesn't include fanboi rants about trends. Chrome will indeed get included on many comparisons, but TFA made clear that they are just comparing two emerging versions of largest segments.
Re:Uh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 19:39 · Score: 0

>Look at the graph.
Did *you* look at the graph? Firefox has been at the 30% mark for the last 2 years. IE on the other hand is continually losing market share. They lost almost 20% in the same time span.

Re:chrome wins by nschubach · 2011-03-07 06:33 · Score: 1

I've been switching back to Firefox for my primary since I can't seem to run Chrome on my other monitor in Win7 while also running a "fullscreen windowed" game at the same time without the whole machine completely locking up.

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.

Firefox 4 leaks like a sieve by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 06:39 · Score: 0

Firefox 4 leaks memory like a sieve. I wonder how long til they fix every leak...

Firefox is also MORE insecure compared to IE9 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 06:43 · Score: 0

They still don't support a low integrity sandbox. Something that Chrome and IE have had for YEARS.

Re:HTML5 Support: Firefox 4 = 86%, IE9 = 59% by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-03-07 06:46 · Score: 1

They count e.g. support for specific video codecs (H.264, WebM or Theora) or WOFF fonts as "HTML5 features", which they aren't. Neither are MathML nor WebGL.

The RC Is Expected to Become the 4.0 Release by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 06:46 · Score: 0

For most companies, Release Candidate, means that this is a copy of the software we think is finished, we are running final checks on it and if there are not any show stopping bugs, this will become the final software release for this version.

So what is being referred to is that the Firefox 4.0 and Firefox 4.0 RC1 are expected to be the exact same code.

Unlike Microsoft who treats Release Candidates more like Beta releases that will be close to the final version, but are never intended to be the final verion.

I just don't get it. by JustAnotherIdiot · 2011-03-07 06:59 · Score: 0

Why are people starting to take IE seriously?

--
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?

Re:I just don't get it. by erroneus · 2011-03-07 07:47 · Score: 1

Because "the blue e" still spells "internet" for a huge portion of the users out there.
Re:I just don't get it. by JustAnotherIdiot · 2011-03-07 08:03 · Score: 1

This is the exact reason most IT personnel I've met have advised I NOT use IE.

--
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?

Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 07:04 · Score: 0

All browsers are awesome now.

This sort of stuff mattered when IE6 was the dominant browser... but now we have a healthy ecosystem. I don't care who is in the lead, as long as there isn't a browser taking up 60%+ market share.

IE9 is awesome. Great job MS.

FF4 is awesome. Great job Mozilla.

Chrome is awesome. Great job Google.

Opera is awesome. Great job Opera devs.

IE9 Fails to install and run by hduff · 2011-03-07 07:08 · Score: 0

I tried installing IE9, but it refuses to install and run. Firefox4 installs and runs with no problem.

I using kernel 2.6.36.2, so that can't be the problem.

That means it's Firefox for me. And IE9 looked so cool. 8(

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert

Re:IE9 Fails to install and run by Bucky24 · 2011-03-07 07:27 · Score: 1

You do realize that IE is not supposed to run on Linux? (Which I assume you are using, given the inclusion of the kernel number in your post)

Forgive me if your post is meant as sarcasm-I've been dealing with a lot of dumb people lately.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:IE9 Fails to install and run by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 07:55 · Score: 1

I tried installing this "Linuz" colonel on my XP box, but it just wouldn't install. Bummer.
Re:IE9 Fails to install and run by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 08:10 · Score: 0

I tried installing IE9 .... using kernel 2.6.36.2
HURRRRR DURRRRRR
Re:IE9 Fails to install and run by mikechant · 2011-03-08 01:41 · Score: 1

Just be a bit patient...
http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/news/55

Re:chrome wins by pyalot · 2011-03-07 07:12 · Score: 1

I don't use any FF plugins, obviously :)

About the only one I really needed was firebug, and that comes builtin for chrome, and stuff like adblock etc. there's plenty going around for chrome, even the web-developer toolbar has been ported (not that I need that much).

--
Experiments and other stuff

Odd conclusion by Jugalator · 2011-03-07 07:12 · Score: 1

Firefox 4 could possibly stop the market share bleeding, but it does not have the unique feature set and appeal to win users back from Chrome

Strange conclusion, when they didn't compare the browser to Chrome in the article, but IE 9. I'm not showing a preference for either of these browsers involved - I just thought it was late in the article to start talking of a completely different web browser...

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!

Executive Sumary by hduff · 2011-03-07 07:23 · Score: 2

Paraphrased somewhat with an additional comment.

Both browsers are fast JavaScript browsers and the differences are unlikely to be noticed in average browsing today.

Firefox 4 and IE9 are substantially upgraded browsers when compared to their predecessors and show few weaknesses in any benchmark.

It is obvious that Firefox has a great JavaScript engine.

IE9s hardware acceleration engine is the one to beat.

Firefox's only real competition is Chrome for the standpont of what the author calls and unexplained "unique feature set" which IE9 appears to lack altogether.

So it's a draw on performance. No evaluation was done from the very important security standpoint. The most striking difference not commented upon but highlighted by the results is the poor performance of the Intel graphics chipset in both browsers.

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert

From the Department of the Bleedin' Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 07:24 · Score: 0

but is about to release the first release candidate, which is expected to be the final version of Firefox 4 as well.

Yes, that's what they say about all release candidates. Oh wait, they don't, because that's literally what "release candidate" means and it would be repetitively tautological.

MS is still unwilling by SmallFurryCreature · 2011-03-07 07:36 · Score: 2

Don't forget the countless people on older Windows software that won't be supported. MS fanboys claim that this because IE9 needs the unique features of late Windows versions, despite Chrome, Firefox, Opera and Safari having the same features and can run on older OS'es some can even run on Linux.

What does that say about MS? Either they are not as capable as their competitors or not as willing.

Make no mistake. MS has NOT changed its attitude. It will simply do IE9 hoping it can dominate again, then ignore it. MS still hates the open web.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:MS is still unwilling by Haedrian · 2011-03-07 07:49 · Score: 1

Meh, isn't it obvious? MS wants XP to disappear and everyone to move onwards with 7.
It doesn't gain anything if it ports IE9 to Linux, Mac or whatever, the way I understand it is "You're using IE8, would you like to get better features? They only work on 7 though, switch today!"
Re:MS is still unwilling by Lennie · 2011-03-07 08:10 · Score: 1

Switch browser vendor I would say ! :-)
Actually Microsoft just recommends people to upgrade to IE8:
http://www.ie6countdown.com/

--
New things are always on the horizon
Re:MS is still unwilling by BZ · 2011-03-07 09:27 · Score: 1

The thing is, the other browsers do NOT have the "same features" when running on XP.
For example, Firefox only does 2d hardware acceleration on Windows at the moment, and only on Vista/Win7. It does 3d hardware acceleration everywhere, though.
Now I think the MS decision is not the right one, but is it qualitatively different from Mozilla not shipping a Firefox 4 on PPC due to the lack of a JIT backend for that architecture and hence not being able to deliver equivalent JS performance?
Quantitatively, it's different: there are way more WinXP users than MacOS users on PPC hardware. But qualitatively?
Re:MS is still unwilling by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 09:41 · Score: 0

Of course the decision is the right one. Who else supports 10+ year old software with new feature updates? Does Apple? No. Do Linux Distros? Of course they don't; it would be stupid. Just because XP has a lot of people still using it doesn't mean it should get new features forever.
Re:MS is still unwilling by smash · 2011-03-07 11:41 · Score: 1

Software support expires. Get over it and move on. Linux 2.2 doesn't cut it these days either.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.

AAARRRRRGGGGGHHH!!!!!! by jensend · 2011-03-07 07:37 · Score: 1

I thought that IE 9, with its much-improved standards compliance, was also going to support MathML. After seeing your post I did a quick search and found that it turns out that IE 9 doesn't even allow good MathML support with the proprietary (but free) MathPlayer plugin. Since this is one of the few features I have a reason to care about, I'm quite disappointed.

Re:IE9 only support 59% of HTML5 features. by Merk42 · 2011-03-07 07:38 · Score: 1

How about IE9's relatively shit CSS3 support?

Any concerns of broken implementation could be alleviated with the -ms- prefix.

Granted it is much better than IE8 and below, but for stuff like text-shadow, there's really no excuse not to have it at this point

AAARRRRRGGGGGHHH!!!!!! (second try) by jensend · 2011-03-07 07:41 · Score: 1

Whoops, left out a delimiting quotation mark, should have previewed. Trying again:

I thought that IE 9, with its much-improved standards compliance, was also going to support MathML. After seeing your post I did a quick search and found that it turns out that IE 9 doesn't even allow HTML5+MathML support with the proprietary (but free) MathPlayer plugin. Since this is one of the few features I have a reason to care about, I'm quite disappointed.

I predict no surprises by erroneus · 2011-03-07 07:45 · Score: 1

Firefox will continue to be standards compliant and MSIE will continue to be a standard complaint.

Microsoft has too much invested in its old tech and backward compatibility. Furthermore, it still has too much to gain from "everyone else's browsers seem broken while MSIE works just fine" which is still a pervasive perception among users.

(This has a chance to change, though, as MSIE9 will be clearly unavailable to WinXP users, web sites will begin updating to support MSIE9 leaving MSIE8 users less supported and they just might try out an "alternative" such as Chrome, Firefox, Safari or Opera.)

In the end, it is not in Microsoft's interests to write a standards compliant browser and so they won't. They will "make efforts" but they will not fix the problems that make all other browsers seem broken by comparison. I see nothing that can or will motivate them at this time.

Still, I want to see a 100/100 score on the Acid test. Yes, I know it means less than I think it does, and the main reason why is Firefox's lack of support for SVG fonts, but I still want that 100/100 score. (But I would also like to see the Acid test site update itself to randomly selecting "test questions" so that Microsoft can't simply write their browser to appear to score higher when it actually doesn't in practical usage.)

Thanks for posting on Slashdot by Sits · 2011-03-07 08:02 · Score: 1

Your replies on Moz stories are appreciated.

Re:Thanks for posting on Slashdot by BZ · 2011-03-07 08:41 · Score: 1

You're quite welcome!

Hidden preference? by Sits · 2011-03-07 08:09 · Score: 1

Does changing layout.css.dpi make any difference?

Everyone is using HTML6 on the iPad3 already by WillAffleckUW · 2011-03-07 08:57 · Score: 2

God, slashdot is so 2008.

Get with the program - 3D HTML6 is the way to roll!

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:One key missing point or no IE here by WillAffleckUW · 2011-03-07 08:59 · Score: 1

I can't get IE to install on my iPad.

How come?

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:IE9 Firefox by TheRedDuke · 2011-03-07 09:34 · Score: 1

Not sure how trying to build a better product in an area MS has had enormous success in constitutes sticking "their noses where it doesn't belong". Besides, the existence of MS's shitty browser (along with the shittiness of our old friend Netscape) was one of the catalysts for the development of Firefox in the first place. Competition is a good thing.

Re:chrome wins by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 10:41 · Score: 0

If you try firefox 4 on ubuntu you'll be blown away then. It's about as much faster than chromium for linux as chromium is faster than firefox 3.6.

Interesting set of dubious tests by akayani · 2011-03-07 16:19 · Score: 2

When I test IE9 under Kraken it goes bottom up and crashes the page. Maybe that is just the 64bit version. They aren't 'very close' a all. On some scores they are similar on others IE9 is over X10 slower. Do your own testing and don't believe anyone.

still in danger of losing the war by Onymous+Coward · 2011-03-07 16:37 · Score: 1

The average joe doesn't understand how Microsoft's ownership of the browser market was a serious setback for technology, for user experience, for productivity. For five years MS had nothing better to offer than IE6 because they owned the market. They didn't need to rev their browser because they weren't competing. Five years, from 2001 to 2006. The Great Languish. Or maybe The Great Rot. How many Windows systems did you have to clean up for friends and family? How fun was it coping with all the standards noncompliance? Thanks a lot, Microsoft. I don't ever want that again.

So, for one thing, I will fight Microsoft's domination of the market by being against them so long as they're over, say, 1/3 the market. (I don't think the platform (OS/browser) is really a commodity until it shows greater signs of market variance.) And for another, I will push for the best and most standards compliant alternatives to cover whatever ground MS loses.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Internet-explorer-usage-data.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Web_browser_usage_share.svg

We're not quite there yet. The browser wars aren't over.

If the people who in effect vote by their choice of browser don't know what kind of effect they're having, it's my responsibility as a technology aware friend and netizen to encourage their better choices.

Firefox 4 RC vs IE9 RC vs K-Meleon 1.6b2 by luk3Z · 2011-03-07 19:10 · Score: 0

Title should be: Firefox 4 RC vs IE9 RC vs K-Meleon 1.6b2

--
Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)

Market share by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-07 19:12 · Score: 0

Chrome may continue to grow until they reach 25-30%.Then they may be in a situation where they cannot make radical changes frequently considering their user base and start to lose its market share.This is what actually has happened to firefox; but they have been doing their best to stop its share from dropping down in my opininion.

Slashdot Mirror

Firefox 4 RC Vs. IE9 RC: the First Duel

176 comments