| 5:57 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
BigDave - Those are exactly the types of trends in numbers I remember from the days of Netscape vs IE back in the day.
| 7:40 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|if it ever does get mainstream, do ppl even bother to think of the consequences. When the s___ hits the fan, who we gonna blame? Volunteers? With what money? |
First and foremost ~15% of the market (including mozilla and netscape) *is* mainstream, thats 1 in 7 people that use Mozilla or FireFox, and ignores those who use Mozilla but have changed their browser identification (this is a not necessarily uncommon way to handle "incompatible" webistes and might tack on a point or two). I think 1 in 7 people is a very respectable number, particularly given that the number has grown with such ferocity of late.
Secondly, if (or perhaps when) major vulnerabilities occur, from Mozilla, FireFox, or open source in general we will see discloure and analysis of the problems, and prompt resolution. The performance of MS would seem a study in antithesis, nondisclosure in order to prolong the release of a patch (or non disclosure with no release of a patch). Nowhere in Microsofts licensing agreement have I found a clause that reads "when you contract spyware due to our shotty code, send your computer in and well take care of it". IANAL, but I believe rather that most of the agreement limits the consumers rights and disclaims microsofts liability, and this support form the vendor amounts to that provided under the GPL.
While you could argue that MS has the resources to fix problems faster, you also have to factor in the caliber of problems you unleash when you allow a browser administrator privledges to system files - problems like jpeg images triggering buffer overflows that give remote locations root access or execute any other arbitrary code they wish.
A moderatly protected IE minimally takes an antivirus process (like norton),scanning every file which is created or accessed, a firewall (like zone alarm) analysing every packet that flows through the system, and anti-spyware program (like spybot) activly monitoring for BSO objects and registry changes. In addition to these third party programs you have some MS ones: the largest offendor, system restore, running 24-7 making full copies of each and every file accessed (doubleing hard disk space used), and auto update regularly looking to patch those three month old exploits which MS has decided to disclose and remedy. Five seperate processes which serve to roughly half system resources such as CPU time and hard disk space available. This is great for Western Digital or Intel - to those peddaling moores law IE vendor support invaluable, but as a consumer, as a network administrator, and as someone who has one too many times resolved the infestations of malware that target IE, I will take my chances on a lack of vendor support.
The feature "security" sold me.
| 9:15 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
When did google update the firefox homepage to this? [google.com...]
Or is this something firefox did?
| 10:27 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Maybe they're trying to get the same embedded Adsense ads deal.
| 12:23 am on Nov 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|a linux distro is not going to have 40% of the desktop any time soon, for all kinds of reasons, not least of which are support issues. |
Agreed - but you need to look at where Linux distros are headed. Have you seen the Ubuntu distro backed by Canonical - headed for corporates?
Do some research on who's behind Canonical - the guy who founded Thawte.
Whether or not they succeed isn't the issue - its more that Linux distros are addressing the issues many of us have always raised. Its an attempt at a complete desktop Linux operating system, freely available, with both community and professional support.
| 3:29 am on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I downloaded Firefox 1.0 a few days ago, the features look good, i especially like the tabbed browsing. The only problem i have encountered so far is that it quite slow on Windows XP.
I think you will find that the reason for the slow boot of Firefox on Windows XP is that when windows is booting up it does half the job for IE (having the browser integrated with the OS). Alternatively, when Firefox loads it starts from scratch.
| 4:03 am on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I saw an interesting article on Firefox not long ago, in which someone (CNet?) contacted Dell about browsers and security. I don't recall the exact number, but Dell spends a large and rapidly growing chunk of cash dealing with users' "damaged" or "defective" computers that are actually loaded with viruses and spyware.
Make no mistake: If Firefox saves Dell money, Dell won't hesitate to preinstall it. That's just as good as the cash payments that software companies often make to computer manufacturers.
| 12:12 am on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|if it ever does get mainstream, do ppl even bother to think of the consequences. When the s___ hits the fan, who we gonna blame? Volunteers? With what money? through their Donations?.I think its awful to rely so heavily on an organization. Its like relying on charities instead of the government. So we blame microsoft for hackers, i remember when they created XP their wasnt this spyware rubbish around, so why do they get the blame for it? They supposed to anticipate that people are evil?. I think through competition everyone benefits but think about this, in the end i do realise the benefit of having IE integrated with the OS however cos its linked within the OS it does open alot of vulnerabilities but its like try to blame the police for crimes happening rather then the robbers, i think ppl should start blaming the ppl that cause problems. |
Apache accounts for 85% of the web, do you see people blaming them when a hacker tries to beat the system? No, they fix the system and create a seamless security update.
Anyway, why does there have to be a scapegoat?
| 2:06 pm on Nov 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I've been using FireFox 1.0 for a few days - but it's just like IE. |
I beg to differ on that one. FireFox has a lot of huge advantages, including security, browsing speed, features, and customization.
|The techy types might get excited about it, but even the icons are virtually identical: picture of a house for 'home', forward and back arrows, curly arrows for 'reload' |
That's probably to get IE users to be more comfortable with it. Appearance is probably the least important aspect of a browser and therefore a bad area for comparison.
|What's the big deal? And if it is more secure, that's probably only because no-one has bothered to attack it yet. |
Not true. FireFox is inherently more secure because:
- It doesn't do ActiveX content, which is a huge security risk,
- It's not tied in with the operating system, thus giving less access to spyware, etc.,
- It's open-source and has a very active support community and team of developers, meaning security patches can be released in a matter of hours after a vulnerability is found.
|What is surprising is its small download file size - about 5Mb - impressive. But that's about it. |
I think I've shown by now just what is so much more impressive about FireFox. It's way more than the file size.
|I'll stick with IE and the Google toolbar - I certainly don't want or need a search engine for a start page if a searchbar is in place. |
If you intend to stick with IE, I wish you happiness with your spyware and bogged-down system! ;)
Seriously, though, you should consider giving FireFox a longer try. Did you happen to notice the built-in Google search box at the top right of the FireFox browser? And, did you know there is a Google search bar extension for FireFox? If the Google toolbar is your reason for sticking with IE, why not go with FireFox and the appropriate extension(s) and get all the "bonus" features I mentioned above? (Actually they're not "bonuses" at all; they're features that should be expected from a browser but somehow aren't due to the fact that IE falls down on nearly all of them . . . )
To sum up, FireFox has everything IE has, plus a lot more. You owe it to yourself to give FireFox an exclusive try for at least two weeks. Try it with an open mind, and I'm sure you'll become a FireFox zealot just like me! ;)
| 10:16 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So why the zeal for this little browser?
A few quickies-
2) tabs w/ gesture support
3) no popups
4) no need for anti spyware
5) no need for never ending security patches
6) RSS bookmarks
7) spell checking in textareas
8) renders better, renders faster
9) find as you type
10) feedback that gets attention
11) standards support
12) web developer extension
and i could go on... Firefox is without question a superior browser, to say otherwise tells me you don't have much experience (or are afraid of change).
| 11:19 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Looks the same but does less? Okay, I'll take you up on that! ;) I challenge you to name one single solitary feature that IE includes, that an out-of-the-box FireFox install doesn't also include. Of course, FireFox allows the use of extensions, which expand the feature list into hundreds (or thousands) that IE can't touch. But for this test, let's just compare the out-of-the-box installs.
And you keep mentioning the "look" of the two browsers . . . do you really think that's important? I mean, a clean interface is great, and FireFox is capable of the cleanest interface of any browser (IMHO). But if you want it to look different, try installing some themes. For starters, try the Noia Extreme theme - does FireFox still look like IE? ;)
| 11:59 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If you are still running Windows ME on your computer - known as "Windows Multiple Errors" for a good reason - you will find that using Firefox instead of Internet Explorer dramatically lowers your frustration level!
I used to have to reboot my computer due to lock ups upwards of a dozen times a day - now I never have to reboot. What did I do? I downloaded FireFox and stopped using Explorer and also from Mozilla I started using the free Thunderbird email client instead of Outlook.
Occasionally as a test I will fire up Outlook or Explorer again and then I am back to rebooting again in no time.
If you are having ME problems give it a try - it works
| 6:22 pm on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
As for the "Google" built in search bar, let's not forget that google is just the search engine that comes built in to that handy little search bar. With a few moments of effort, you can download plugins for hundreds of different search engines, that all fit into that little space. Right now, I have 18 different search engines built in there, that can be accessed with ease from a simple pull down.
Now I'm just waiting for Brett or someone to come up with a WebmasterWorld search plug-in I can add.
If you can't see any significant differences between FF and IE, then you're either blind, or blind to the obvious.
I like the fact that I can download skins to change the appearance of FF. I'm impressed with the security of FF. I like the fact that I don't have to get a registry protector and anti-spyware product from a 3rd party just to make my browser safe.
I love the fact I can tinker with the browser myself, and do things like enable pipelining (which, if you enable, will render pages noticeably faster than IE, on anything from a dial-up to broadband).
I also dearly love the fact that since I started installing FF on all my relatives' computers, I don't get clls anymore to fix spyware/adware riddled computers.
| 7:58 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If you're so observant, why is it you haven't even addressed all our reasons for why FireFox is far superior to IE? Being observant you must have noticed our reasons when we gave them, but failing to refute them would indicate you can't refute them at all. Does this make FireFox the winner of this debate too?
| 8:42 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm not sure if it's been stated yet, but Google is also the default homepage on Mac Safari browsers.
| 11:30 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I used to have Firefox but I canned it because my bank doesn't support it.
| 12:00 am on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I canned it because my bank doesn't support it |
You let your bank dictate the quality of your default browser?
| 1:14 am on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I used to have Firefox but I canned it because my bank doesn't support it. |
You're a webmaster or SEO and you don't have at least a dozen browsers installed on your system? I sure as hell have every browser that provides over 1% of my traffic, and I make sure that every page is at least useable (though it may not look perfect) back to Netscape 3.1.
By the way, did you try changing your user-agent for the bank's site, or did the site actually break on firefox?
If the bank did not work on a standards compliant browser with over 10% of the market, I would write to the bank president and give him two months to fix it before I would change to another bank. And I would find a bank that does work with my browser and tell him which one I was changing to. I certainly would not let a bank force me into using their choice of browser.
| 3:41 pm on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Just for the record I am not a webmaster or professional SEO. I hang around here for other reasons.
Unfortunately I don't live in the US and beggars cannot be choosers.If you find a bank you are happy with here you thank your lucky stars and don't complain. One of my banks not only cannot run anything except ie, it also cannot use the latest java from sun. It still runs the old unsupported stuff from Microsoft (Virtual Machine) which you cannot even download any more.
>>If the bank did not work on a standards compliant browser with over 10% of the market, I would write to the bank president and give him two months to fix it before I would change to another bank
Ha ha. Good one. I'd be lucky if he gave me my money back.
I don't know of any bank here supporting FireFox.
| 4:07 pm on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think the point was that the tail seems to be wagging the dog. I can't access my bank unless I use IE, but I don't use this as a reason to completely ditch what is an excellent browser - which happens, amongst all the other advantages mentioned here, to be free of most if not all IE's rendering bugs.
Along the same lines, I think the tail would also be wagging the dog if I chose my bank according to their taste in browsers!
| 4:08 pm on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I first started using Firefox when a large financial company I deal with began recommending it for security reasons. Some banks recognize the security holes in Explorer and prefer their clients to use a more secure browser - Firefox. :)
| 3:15 am on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I don't know of any bank here supporting FireFox.
SmithBarney - part of Citigroup
| 3:28 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Smithbarney? How many branches have they got in Eastern Europe?
| This 83 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 83 ( 1 2  ) |