Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Hardware/Software - Firefox/Mozilla or no? -- The Debate
| User | Post |
Karadur
Posts: 69/1192 |
As soon as I found Firebird back in my first year of college I used it whenever I went on the internet. If they haven't done anything with the computers since then, you could probably tell which ones I used just by looking in a certain folder  c:\WINNT\mui\0415\Firebird is where it always was 
Here and now, I use Firefox, although I probably could poke around and find a copy of Firebird around still. The tabbed browsing feature is a big plus, as is the mouse gestures extension (I use All-in-One Gestures). I couldn't imagine not having the popup blocker in it. The Adblock extension is nice to have, although I remember an extension for Firebird that you manually had to add in that removed more ads than it seems like are removed now.
Themes are also a cool part of the browser. I think I remember seeing a site that had themes for IE, but I didn't care enough to get one back then.
The only thing I use IE for now is if there's a site that won't load properly in Firefox. I didn't give anyone else that uses this computer a chance to use IE either. Everyone except my Mom (she doesn't use the computer) knows to use Firefox. |
Rydain
Posts: 309/738 |
I have IE on my computer at work, but I never use it unless I have to test one of our websites. Other people have already mentioned Firefox's superior standards compliance and customizability, so I'll just say that I like it so much because I can easily set it up to provide a very efficient and streamlined browsing experience. Tabbed browsing + middle click set to open links in a new tab + some mouse gesture extension (I use Radial Context) = w00t, especially if you're like me and read a lot of message boards and aggregated link sites like Fark. I just go and middle-click anything that looks interesting, flick the mouse to switch tabs and read stuff, and flick it again to close them when I'm done. I also like being able to keep all of my web browsing activity within a single taskbar entry. (We have 2K at work, not XP, and I also have a ton of other crap open at the same time - a text editor, several SSH terminals to various servers, etc. Thus, multiple browser windows would start to get really annoying really quickly.)
The smart popup eater and fine-grained control over images, cookies, and JavaScript are awesome as well. And AdBlock is godly.  |
dex
Posts: 2/46 |
I don't use IE because of security issues inherrent to it's programming, and Hell will freeze over, thaw and refreeze before they are ever resolved, Mozilla is too loaded for my tastes, and since I use WinXP/2000 and Linux to keep the same browser and email client I use Firefox and Thunderbird, though the problem has been with version changes the slow updating of extensions to be compatible even though in many cases all it actually needs is the flag to be updated to say it is usable. |
Legion
Posts: 3002/5657 |
Originally posted by |+Legion+|
(Will it ever end?)
IE also loads faster. And hey, I don't need the reason why it does, I already know. Besides, it's irrelevant. Who cares if it's integrated into the os? It still loads faster, point blank. And that's an advantage.
*sigh*
Please read my full post next time.  |
Tarale
Posts: 805/2720 |
Originally posted by Ailure
And well, a few people use PNG images already, such as Tarale.
That picture have a white backround on IE, in Firefox it goes against the backround nicely. (Tarale, I hope you really don't mind about me using your minipic as an example.  )
And this is a classical test, which Firefox passes competly.
Even worser full PNG support have been promised in IE for very long time, yet it hadn't been added.
I have no problem with you using my minipic
It should look good in Opera too if I remember correctly. It's just IE that won't like it, and I've decided I'm no longer going to make any effort to cater to IE. (If it works in IE, it's good, I'm just no longer going to go out of my way, it's too much effort) |
Derf
Posts: 1/11 |
I have 2 computers, One an iMac G3 using Safari, and the other Dell Inspiron Laptop P4 containing Firefox.
I've used IE for a rather long times, way back untill I found Netscape 6, and that's when I left IE. Than, when I found Mozilla (Hm... dunno what version), I switched to that. When I found out it was nothing but Netscape with a pretty startup screen. So back to Netscape I went. I used it untill Netscape 7, when my computer crashed.
Re installing Windows ME I went, COMPLETLY forgetting to install Netscape.
So I used IE. For maybe more than 7 months, when I got my Dell, and reinstalled Netscape, which was now at 7.1. Than I found Firefox. Only it was FireBird. And admitted, it was okay. So I had it as a 2nd Browser, still using Netscape as my first and favorite. Than FireFox .9 was released.
That's when FireFox went golden, and awesome. And I haven't stopped using it yet.
And as for my mac, I can't imagin why I would want to use FireFox over Safari, Safari's better. :-P |
Ailure
Posts: 6108/11162 |
And well, a few people use PNG images already, such as Tarale.
That picture have a white backround on IE, in Firefox it goes against the backround nicely. (Tarale, I hope you really don't mind about me using your minipic as an example. )
And this is a classical test, which Firefox passes competly.
Even worser full PNG support have been promised in IE for very long time, yet it hadn't been added. |
HyperLamer
Posts: 2063/8210 |
Originally posted by Surlent
Don't let fool you about different startup times between IE and Firefox.
The neccessary files are already loaded in Windows and IE uses a lot more than ~20 MB of Firefox, assuming you have no major extensions or 3462 tabs open.. With 5 or 6 tabs and one bigger download Firefox may gu up to 40-50 MB for me, but Opera constantly uses about 60 MB when it's running here 
IE may appear to use not that much RAM, but since the "parts" are spread out in Windows, it is a lie - and you'd have to add the RAM usage of all files together to get the exact amount of RAM IS using. Also compare the size between downloading _full_ versions of Firefox and IE. While IE needs about 50-70 MB in full install, Firefox has less than 5 MB in the Win32 version
Exactly. IE is really just a web-browser interface for the Windoze shell, which is loaded at all times (even some parts of it if you're not using the default shell), so it's not really possible to judge its memory usage and load time. That's like judging the speed of your computer by how fast a PHP script runs - the server's the one running it, your computer just shows the result.
And BTW, Leg, tables look 8192x better in Mozilla. |
geeogree
Posts: 100/448 |
if half a second on a crappy browser makes you happy, then it makes you happy.... nothing we can do about that
I however, have made the switch to firefox, and I prefer it.... no questions asked.... |
windwaker
Posts: 432/1797 |
IE also loads faster.
depends.
IE also loads pages faster as well.
see answer one.
It has a more sensical way of loading things than Firefox does.
I agree with you there. It does lots better with this; (though I've never had any reason not to just wait). |
Surlent
Posts: 679/1077 |
Don't let fool you about different startup times between IE and Firefox.
The neccessary files are already loaded in Windows and IE uses a lot more than ~20 MB of Firefox, assuming you have no major extensions or 3462 tabs open.. With 5 or 6 tabs and one bigger download Firefox may gu up to 40-50 MB for me, but Opera constantly uses about 60 MB when it's running here
IE may appear to use not that much RAM, but since the "parts" are spread out in Windows, it is a lie - and you'd have to add the RAM usage of all files together to get the exact amount of RAM IS using. Also compare the size between downloading _full_ versions of Firefox and IE. While IE needs about 50-70 MB in full install, Firefox has less than 5 MB in the Win32 version |
DurfarC
Posts: 170/483 |
Originally posted by Ailure
DurfarC: But have you tried Firefox at all? I felt like IE was enough, but I still did try Firefox.
No, I haven't. Sometimes, I think I should, but it's just that.... Eh..... Uh..... It's boring to download and install files. In other words, IE works fine... At least so far... But what I think is that your choice of browser depends on your computer... On my last computer, which is pretty old now, popups appeared everytime, and the browser was always slow. But with the one I have now, I have no problems... Yet... |
Ailure
Posts: 6082/11162 |
Indeed, but since how IE are. Almost no sites have PNG.
I'm still pissed that Microsoft aren't adding full PNG support yet. I wouldn't switch to IE or anything if they added that... but at least PNG would be an option for web designers.
As long there is no transparency, IE should show PNG fine. |
DarkSlaya
Posts: 2477/4249 |
Originally posted by |+Legion+|
but what does that mean exactly?
Firefox will handle transparenty and a few other thing while IE won't or will handle them but not in a very good way. |
Legion
Posts: 2992/5657 |
I keep hearing that Firefox has better PNG support, but what does that mean exactly? Both seem to load and look the same to me. |
Ailure
Posts: 6073/11162 |
But firefox handles broken CSS much better than IE, mind that. Both Firefox and IE get's stuck on a page if somebodys CSS is down. But IE tend to stick around longer. And most of the time Firefox have that certain CSS file in the cache for me so it loads it with no problems, while IE still try to look after it even if IE have it in it's cache. I noticed this when some people's CSS are down.
I feel that Firefox is faster on average thought. Probably becuse Firefox have way better caching than IE. IE isn't very fast when it comes to pages with alot of pictures. Still on old computers Firefox can be slow, I know one computer who isn't mine where Firefox lagged very bad... thought it was a bad computer even with 1998 standards.
DurfarC: But have you tried Firefox at all? I felt like IE was enough, but I still did try Firefox.
And well, Firefox have better PNG and CSS support. I think Firefox also supports MNG but I yet have to see one... |
Legion
Posts: 2988/5657 |
(Will it ever end?)
Anyway, there are pros and cons to both and that's all based upon who you ask. Personally, I've never had any security mishaps while I've used IE. Never. Of course, I always patch properly, so what can I say?
IE also loads faster. And hey, I don't need the reason why it does, I already know. Besides, it's irrelevant. Who cares if it's integrated into the os? It still loads faster, point blank. And that's an advantage.
IE also loads pages faster as well. Firefox can be very very slow when loading certain page. Take this board for example. If someone has a fucked up layout or their server is slow (or down) it will NOT load the rest of the page until it gives up on that part. You can't do shit about it and it's highly aggravating.
On the other hand, IE will load it at the same time it's loading the rest of the page. So if that layout is messed up, it will go right on and you can continue to view the rest of the page. It has a more sensical way of loading things than Firefox does.
Firefox couldn't load tables properly if it's life depended on it. There are tons of pages that looked beyond fucked up in Firefox and you can't even use some of it's features thanks to it. Some pages you'll only get a background, and the rest of the page wont even appear.
I use Firefox anyway despite these glaring shortcomings. Not because I'm paranoid about security because I'm not. The extensions are pretty much the main highlight for me. Tabbed browsing is a must, no two ways about it. And all the pages that don't load in Firefox, I have an extension that will allow me to right click on a page and view it in IE.
Comparing Firefox and IE is like comparing the class Theif to Warrior. IE is the theif, it's quick and agile but not suitable for soloing. Firefox is the heavy clunky tank like warrior. It's big and slow but is suitable for taking a beating. |
Tarale
Posts: 799/2720 |
Just to try to clarify the big difference in the ideas behind Opera and Firefox....
Opera is a fully featured browser, out of the box. It tries to have all the features you need already in it. In that respect, Opera is more like Mozilla.
Firefox is a very stripped down browser. Out of the box, it has fairly limited features, and you can add whatever you want on with Extensions -- like like some kind of software lego set.
I like Firefox for that reason, but I know that it's why Opera users generally LOATHE Firefox too They don't want to add features -- they want them to be already there.
IE on the other hand, is even more stripped-bare than Firefox, and yet somehow... so much more bloated too. |
Smallhacker
Posts: 904/2273 |
Fierfokz 4evu!!1
...what?  |
Surlent
Posts: 677/1077 |
If Firefox even had an option to continue stopped downloads when continuing the next day (pause only works until you shutdown Firefox ) - hehe, really neat. So you might not need an additional download tool for larger files splitting into several sessions |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
|
