Firefox Myths

[Mastertech]

www.FirefoxMyths.com (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html)

Any gamer concerned about speed might want to check out Opera (now ad free), it is clearly faster, more secure and more compliant (Acid2). Get the facts:

:D:

[Rafal Dudek]

meh I prefer FireFox anyway. With a few tweaks and extra plugins, this thing is faster than light :):

[Ojnod]

What kind of people really believe some of these myths? "Firefox is bug free" was quoted from a single message board post on a forum about PETS. I don't think one person qualifies as starting a browser myth.

And how bout the fact that firefox is free? Internet explorer's cost is built into the operating system and opera and firefox are free for any of the platforms that they are supported on.

Then take a look at the speed comparisons. Opera is claimed to be faster but apparently if you want the best speeds all the time you have to switch versions between 6 and 9. I would rather have a browser that is quite fast at everything that a browser that is super slow at one thing and super fast at another. I did a brief test of my own loading up various news sites and opera took 2-3 times as long to load sites when compared to my tweaked version of firefox.

I do agree that both opera and internet explorer have improved over the years, but in my opinion that is only because of a browser like firefox. Otherwise internet explorer would have remained the browser with less features but "free" while opera would remain the browser with more features and a price tag (unless you want ads).

[Mastertech]

Opera 9 is faster than Firefox across the board. Those test do not use any extensions such as fasterfox and adblock. And Opera is completely free with no ads. It has been that way since September 2005.

[Rob]

My Firefox has no ads either. Just basic download.

[Cloudw4lker]

Opera is claimed to be faster but apparently if you want the best speeds all the time you have to switch versions between 6 and 9. That's right, if you want the BEST speeds you have to switch back and forth, otherwise you'll only get top 5 speeds, of which Firefox is in once. (According to this of course: http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#winspeed)

I currently use IE7b1 in Windows and Firefox in FC4 but I'm not set on a single browser yet. I'm looking around and Opera has caught my eye since those ads have been removed. Also, I've heard good things about it's RSS and how it has built in email.

[Kalbrecht]

Firefox has ads?

[Mastertech]

No one said Firefox has ads. I was responding to this statement from Donjo about Opera having ads:
opera would remain the browser with more features and a price tag (unless you want ads).
Opera's "free" version used to have ads before September 2005, now it is completely ad free.

That's right, if you want the BEST speeds you have to switch back and forth, otherwise you'll only get top 5 speeds, of which Firefox is in once. Opera 9 is faster than Firefox 1.5 is ALL 7 tests. You should never use an older version of a browser anyway.

[Jagndeke]

I'll stick with FF, a few tweaks and a couple of plugins. Great browser!!!

[Cloudw4lker]

Opera 9 is faster than Firefox 1.5 is ALL 7 tests. You should never use an older version of a browser anyway. I meant top 5 in all 7 tests :p

[Mastertech]

I meant top 5 in all 7 tests :p
What does that mean? If IE 6, 7, Opera and Mozilla are all faster than FF, what is left?

[Ojnod]

All these tests used a default version of firefox, and I must ask, does anybody really use a virgin copy of firefox? Please enlighten me on some mods/extensions/plugins that can make my copy of opera faster because in the personal tests I just did (yes I cleared my cache), my firefox was considerably faster. This doesn't even account for the fact that I like the way firefox looks much more than opera.

[Mastertech]

What is your personal tests? Loading web pages in FF with adblock and fasterfox installed? Hardly accurate.

[Rob]

Who cares what is used and what is not used. This isn't baseball, pump my browser full of steroids. Fastest wins gold.

[Mastertech]

Ad a precacher to IE and an adblocker and you have the same thing only faster. Which is what you don't get.

[mandrake]

Yeah, I'm sticking with FF, mainly because I just think Opera sucks.

[Rafal Dudek]

Yeah, I'm sticking with FF, mainly because I just think Opera sucks.

QFT!!!

I just tried Opera and it just didnt "feel" right =]

[draco7891]

What is your personal tests? Loading web pages in FF with adblock and fasterfox installed? Hardly accurate.

So, you admit that Firefox has a great capability when it comes to displaying a page.

Sure, anyone can make fast code to load up a webpage. Fast code doesn't make it flexible code. :thumbup:

I mean sure, I have to wait an ungodly 5 (sometimes 6!) seconds for my Firefox to open up, and heaven forbid I should try to write some HTML code with it (2.8 seconds! Where would I find the time!), but Firefox will pull the page up just as I like it to be.

And just for the record, I've got Adblock, TBP, and a few easy, minor tweaks to the config (which I found right here on 3DG), and Firefox is quite fast enough for everyone not on a sugar high.

Pumping up your browser because it's half-a-second faster in one test does not bode well, especially when the browser skimps on capability. Remember, programs are meant to serve you, to bend to your will, and Firefox can do that.

Draco

PS: Oh noes! FF doesn't post as fast as Opera! I'll had to wait an additional .0003 seconds! Torture!

[Cloudw4lker]

I'm using Opera as my main browser now, haven't done enough with it to say if it's faster or slower than FF but the load time sure is. Waiting is not something I like to do, I have a 5MB download for that reason.

[Chylde Roland]

The one that matches my real-world use and expectations is the one I want to use.

I find them all about the same, in my experience. I've tried them all, and they all seem to do the job in about the same time in my day to day surfing.

I like some of the features in Firefox better than in the other browsers, so that's the one I use. It's been working just fine so far, and I have no plans to change to get some minor .0003 second speed increase, that's just laughable, imo.

[Nyghtfall]

The day IE supports built-in tabbed browsing, and a feature similar to downloadTHEMall for FF, will the day I switch back to it as my default browser. Until then, I use FF as my default, and an IEView extension for FF that I just right-click to access when I want to view a page that was improperly coded for multiple browsers.

[Mastertech]

So, you admit that Firefox has a great capability when it comes to displaying a page.No I admit Firefox is just a web browser no more, no less.

Pumping up your browser because it's half-a-second faster in one test does not bode well, especially when the browser skimps on capability. Remember, programs are meant to serve you, to bend to your will, and Firefox can do that.Opera and Avant hardly skimp on capability, you may want to check out their features.

[Mastertech]

The day IE supports built-in tabbed browsing, and a feature similar to downloadTHEMall for FF, will the day I switch back to it as my default browser. Until then, I use FF as my default, and an IEView extension for FF that I just right-click to access when I want to view a page that was improperly coded for multiple browsers.
Get IE7 (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/ie7/default.mspx). I also recommend trying out Avant and Opera.

[draco7891]

No I admit Firefox is just a web browser no more, no less.

Sorry, that should read "has a greater capability..." My fingers, they r dum.

And yes, you do. The very virtue of you mentioning the fact that FF can use extensions to change the way a page is presented to the user is admission enough that FF is more capable of satisfying the needs of the user, because it supports more versions of a page than does Opera. And logic dictates that at least one of those choices will suit a particular user best. Thus, FF > Opera. :p:

And, I just checked the feature list of Opera. Everything on that list is supported by Firefox (and more, DTA ftw), even things you should never use, like site pre-caching. Plus, since most of those functions are written independently of FF itself, their development is more focused, and updates can occur without having to wait for a single development group to get around to compiling a new build of the browser. :lol:

Draco

[Mastertech]

IE can also use extensions. Extensions are nothing new. The majority of people care about a select few features, Tabs, integrated Search and Pop-up Blocking. IE and Opera has both.

[Nyghtfall]

Get IE7 (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/ie7/default.mspx). I also recommend trying out Avant and Opera.

Actually, I'd also need IE support for these extensions, as well. I've just gotten so used to using them that I forgot they're extensions:

ImageZoom - Adds zoom functionality for images.

Thumbs - Shows the first thumbnail from each linked gallery.

Past and Go - Lets you past a url from the clipboard and directly load it. This one has proven especially useful, as I can highlight text from a page, copy it, and then past it to my Google search bar and directly load the results.

[Mastertech]

Here are all the new features (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie7/featuretable.mspx) in IE7.

[Rattlesnake8]

Does it really matter whats faster? Is the speed difference between Opera and Firefox even noticeable?

[Mastertech]

If you are using Firefox because you think it is faster than IE when it is really slower then yes Opera is very noticeable. Either way it is noticeable.

[Nyghtfall]

Here are all the new features (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie7/featuretable.mspx) in IE7.

Tabbed pages and Page Zoom. Ok, two out of four, but they're still missing single-click download support, and support for viewing the first thumbnail of linked galleries.

[Nyghtfall]

If you are using Firefox because you think it is faster than IE when it is really slower then yes Opera is very noticeable. Either way it is noticeable.

Personally, I've yet to notice any significant difference in browser launch speed between FF and IE (ok, 1, maybe 2 second difference. Whoopy). FF simply has features that IE has yet to offer or match.

[Rafal Dudek]

If you are using Firefox because you think it is faster than IE when it is really slower then yes Opera is very noticeable. Either way it is noticeable.


I'm using FireFox because of the features and the fact that its more secure then IE. Like 2 years ago, I had a trojan downloader sneak in through IE. Thats when I started researching other browsers. Started with Mozilla but then moved to FireFox and I'm never going back =]

[bmn]

FF rules. :D:
I have both; don't like Opera at all. For me it's slower, and I really like the Open-Source-ness of FF. :): It appeals to my inner geek. I don't care what browser anyone else uses, but I'll never use Opera. :p:

[Cloudw4lker]

Like it's open-source-ness? Have you or will you ever use the source? That's exactly like people who won't use utorrent because it's not open-source.

[Ojnod]

Like it's open-source-ness? Have you or will you ever use the source? That's exactly like people who won't use utorrent because it's not open-source.

You don't have to be a code-monkey to appreciate something being open source. Even for the non-programmer that means that mods and add-ons are easy to make and get.

[bmn]

^^What he said! :p: :):

[Mastertech]

The nonsense that people can't use something because it is not opensource is just that. Opera is completely free and not opensource. But all the opensource nuts refuse to use it, yet like it was just mentioned 99% of users never look at or have any reason to look at the source. Opensource has become this football team people think they need to join and defend.

[bmn]

The nonsense that people can't use something because it is not opensource is just that. Opera is completely free and not opensource. But all the opensource nuts refuse to use it, yet like it was just mentioned 99% of users never look at or have any reason to look at the source. Opensource has become this football team people think they need to join and defend.

I never said I wouldn't use something because it wasn't open-source; I would gladly use Opera, if I liked it better than Firefox. I think that they have a comparable number of features, and that a security nut would probably be better off using Opera. But I prefer the layout of Firefox, and it renders pages signifigantly faster when it's been tuned via FireTune. And it has Adblock, and all sorts of neat plugins. I see no reason to ditch a browser with which I am perfectly comfortable (FF) simply to go to one that is just as good -- not any better -- because someone seems to think that it is in some way superior. I am NOT trying to bash Opera -- I think any self-respecting geek should at least try it, as I have -- but I just prefer Firefox. What I will gladly bash is IE, the stinking mess of a badly-coded, incredibly vulnerable browser. I think people who use IE really need to take a look at all the problems it can cause. :wink:

[Mastertech]

and it renders pages signifigantly faster when it's been tuned via FireTune.
I've seen no documented proof of this.

What I will gladly bash is IE, the stinking mess of a badly-coded, incredibly vulnerable browser. I think people who use IE really need to take a look at all the problems it can cause. :wink:I use IE 24/7 without incident.

[Rafal Dudek]

I've seen no documented proof of this.

Who needs documented proof if you can try it yourself as the browser and plugin is free.

I use IE 24/7 without incident.

That is great. I'm personally done with IE when its vulnerability let a trojan downloader through that took way too much work to fully remove.

[Mastertech]

Who needs documented proof if you can try it yourself as the browser and plugin is free.Otherwise you are just assuming this. I only work on facts and documented proof.

That is great. I'm personally done with IE when its vulnerability let a trojan downloader through that took way too much work to fully remove.That is YOUR opinion but the reason it happened was one of the following:

1. You did not have all the security updates applied
2. You never removed MSJVM
3. You manually installed it

Those are the only way you can get infected with IE.

[Rafal Dudek]

Otherwise you are just assuming this. I only work on facts and documented proof.

What more qualifies as a documented proof then doing the experiment yourself? hmmm? Do you actually need ANOTHER person to do the job for you and you gonna BELIEVE them? whew boy you got issues boy :yes:

That is YOUR opinion but the reason it happened was one of the following:

1. You did not have all the security updates applied
2. You never removed MSJVM
3. You manually installed it

Those are the only way you can get infected with IE.

1. I check updates on weekly basis
2. I'm guessing this is the Microsoft Java runtime thing? Wasnt this like totally removed because of the crap with Sun Microsystems?
3. nonesense. If I understand correctly, the trojan downloader came through with the microsofts ActiveX scheme. I actually did some digging around to find out how can a trojan pass through a web browser without me knowing. Do a search and you'll find several scripts that allow this.

[Rob]

That is YOUR opinion but the reason it happened was one of the following:

1. You did not have all the security updates applied
2. You never removed MSJVM
3. You manually installed it

Those are the only way you can get infected with IE.

1) If people were not getting infected, you wouldn't need to have security updates. Viruses come first, patches to fix the vulnerablity come second.

2) Why would someone have to remove a feature to protect themselves if the product was just fine?

3) Although some trojans and viruses do come with a snazzy neon light shouting "Click Me To Install" the fact that you can go to a website and have Active X loopholes install Trojans and other viruses are still a possibility. Yes, Zedd could have been foolish and installed something he should not have. Unfortunately I think we all have at one point or another... hopefully we all learned out lesson. But it is also entirely possible he got it from simple browsing with an exploitable browser.

[Mastertech]

What more qualifies as a documented proof then doing the experiment yourself? hmmm? Do you actually need ANOTHER person to do the job for you and you gonna BELIEVE them? whew boy you got issues boy :yes:Documented proof like on the Browser Speed Test page that not only provides results but system specifications and testing methods used so they can be reproduced. Many people are completely incapable of properly testing things and come to incorrect conclusions. An example of this is when I was explaining to people how certain Windows tweaks were useless and did not improve start up times but actually hurt performance. People "tested" this themselves by looking at the boot process and seeing how long a certain graphic stayed on the screen. No one was using any timing device and thus they came to incorrect conclusions.


1. I check updates on weekly basis
2. I'm guessing this is the Microsoft Java runtime thing? Wasnt this like totally removed because of the crap with Sun Microsystems?
3. nonesense. If I understand correctly, the trojan downloader came through with the microsofts ActiveX scheme. I actually did some digging around to find out how can a trojan pass through a web browser without me knowing. Do a search and you'll find several scripts that allow this.
1. You should use Windows Updates to notify you of these or just have it install them automatically.
2. This is supposed to be removed in Windows XP SP1a and SP2 but I am continually finding machines with this installed. The security exploits in this will never be fixed because it was discontinued. Malware installed through MSJVM exploits are constantly blamed as ActiveX "drive-by" installs.
3. You default web browser settings will not allow an ActiveX control to install without prompting you. So unless you changed those then it came in another way. Everyone just blames ActiveX because alot of other people blame it but drive-by installs come from unpatched exploits.

[Mastertech]

1) If people were not getting infected, you wouldn't need to have security updates. Viruses come first, patches to fix the vulnerablity come second.Many times patches come out for exploits that have yet to be exploited in the wild, thus no one winds up getting infected. If everyone was patched up we would have next to no problems.

2) Why would someone have to remove a feature to protect themselves if the product was just fine?Besides the fact that Microsoft discontinued it and removes it in Windows XP SP1a and SP2, it is based on a modified outdated version of Sun's Java v1.1.4. They are now up to Java v1.5.0_06 (Version 5.0 Update 6). You are putting yourself at risk for drive-by malware using it.

3) Although some trojans and viruses do come with a snazzy neon light shouting "Click Me To Install" the fact that you can go to a website and have Active X loopholes install Trojans and other viruses are still a possibility. Yes, Zedd could have been foolish and installed something he should not have. Unfortunately I think we all have at one point or another... hopefully we all learned out lesson. But it is also entirely possible he got it from simple browsing with an exploitable browser.That is not how ActiveX works, there are no "loopholes" that allow this to happen on the default security settings, there never was you are always prompted for installation of an ActiveX control. People with unpatched systems and MSJVM installed incorrectly blame ActiveX.

[Rafal Dudek]

Documented proof like on the Browser Speed Test page that not only provides results but system specifications and testing methods used so they can be reproduced. Many people are completely incapable of properly testing things and come to incorrect conclusions. An example of this is when I was explaining to people how certain Windows tweaks were useless and did not improve start up times but actually hurt performance. People "tested" this themselves by looking at the boot process and seeing how long a certain graphic stayed on the screen. No one was using any timing device and thus they came to incorrect conclusions.

Thats because many people dont give a crap if a page takes extra .1 sec to load or windows takes extra 5 sec to boot up. Some like the eye candy, other like performance. Cant please both.

1. You should use Windows Updates to notify you of these or just have it install them automatically.

Why? I thought you was hyping up all the rage about performance. This is extra process running that monitors if updates are available. Also, this thing is quite an annoyance especially when it pops up during times when you're working on something and dont want to be disturbed or while you're playing a game and it boots you into desktop because of this said notification.

2. This is supposed to be removed in Windows XP SP1a and SP2 but I am continually finding machines with this installed. The security exploits in this will never be fixed because it was discontinued. Malware installed through MSJVM exploits are constantly blamed as ActiveX "drive-by" installs.

Well since I'm on SP2, I guess its removed. And the crappy part is I have to install the malware Java Microsystems crap to get anything java enabled on websites working. Seems with every new update, this thing becomes more annoying.

3. You default web browser settings will not allow an ActiveX control to install without prompting you. So unless you changed those then it came in another way. Everyone just blames ActiveX because alot of other people blame it but drive-by installs come from unpatched exploits.

I believe this was default in IE6. Just coz they changed this in IE7, why still carry this crap?

btw, your website lost all credibilty with me when you mention the following about ICSA:

Not all AntiVirus programs are created equal. Using a non Certified program puts you at risk for a virus infection, since it may not detect all known viruses or produce false positives. ICSA Certification guarantees your AntiVirus program was tested and meets the following guidelines for virus detection:

ICSA practically GIVES AWAY the certification. Their tests just plainly suck. If you want to stay on top of what is the best, take a look here:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/


I actually had a quite an amusing time reading through your silly website about certain myths. Especially the min sys requirements. BWAHAHAHAA 486 66 MHz CPU Yea, I dare ya running that :):


Please dude, many of us have tried different browsers. FF is still the best to use. :):

[bmn]

Mastertech -- you use IE??? As I recall, didn't you start this thread promoting Opera? And yet you criticize us for not exploring all the options -- it sound like you haven't done your research! :p:

Why would I want to use IE? It's got ads, it's got ActiveX, and I've compared it to FF; I simply like FireFox better! Why would I switch to something I don't like? Even accepting your claims that it's secure, it still has to render ads which makes it about twice as slow as FireFox. I think it's good that you haven't had a problem with it, but the fact is that IE is vulnerable to all kinds of attacks. I look at Slashdot and just about every week I hear about yet another flaw! :crazy: And don't try to deny it; I just had to patch another security hole. I don't criticize your choice of browsers; why try to get me to switch?

EDIT: ho-ho, went back to your pathetic little FF bashing site:

486 66 MHz CPU
16 MB - 32 MB of RAM *
8.7 MB - 12.7 MB of available hard disk space *

Windows 98
Windows 98 SE
Windows ME
Windows NT 4.0 with SP 6a
Windows 2000
Windows XP

FF will run on my old computer; according to your site IE will not. (Really, go ahead and dare me; I have a Win95 box and FF runs fine on it! :p:)

Your site is simply a wholy biased, baseless attack on the Browser Of Choice for geeks. Yes, if you combine the security of Opera and the features of IE, you might have a better browser. But overall, Firefox is better. It is vastly more secure than IE; it loads pages faster than Opera, (don't argue with me here. I've got both browsers in front of me right now and Firefox is simply faster. I can prove it; say the word and my stopwatch will prove you a liar.) and it has features and plugins that stomp both. Don't try to convince me of something that simply isn't true when I can launch all three browsers right now and prove you wrong. :wink:

[Mastertech]

Thats because many people dont give a crap if a page takes extra .1 sec to load or windows takes extra 5 sec to boot up. Some like the eye candy, other like performance. Cant please both.That is the point, every web page is different and so is everyone's computer and Internet connection. Making ridiculous statements of the difference being only .1 seconds is unfounded and inconclusive to say the least. Speed is Speed and I've never heard anyone claim they don't care that their browser is slower. Funny that people will push Firefox against IE claiming it is faster, provide ZERO evidence and then say speed isn't important when it is proven to them Opera and IE are faster than Firefox.

Why? I thought you was hyping up all the rage about performance. This is extra process running that monitors if updates are available. Also, this thing is quite an annoyance especially when it pops up during times when you're working on something and dont want to be disturbed or while you're playing a game and it boots you into desktop because of this said notification.Windows Updates in no remotely noticeable way effects performance, if you think it does again please provide evidence. As for something popping up, it is very configurable and can easily be set to just provide an unobtrusive tray icon that only shows up when updates are available not disturbing anything you are doing.

Well since I'm on SP2, I guess its removed. And the crappy part is I have to install the malware Java Microsystems crap to get anything java enabled on websites working. Seems with every new update, this thing becomes more annoying.It doesn't work that way. SP2 is SUPPOSED to remove it but like I said I see it installed all the time on SP2 systems. To be safe it is recommended you attempt to remove it anyway. Sun's Java is NOT malware in ANY way. There is also absolutely nothing annoying about it. If you don't like the tray icon simply disable it with autoruns or msconfig.

I believe this was default in IE6. Just coz they changed this in IE7, why still carry this crap?ActiveX has always asked to be installed by default. Windows XP SP2 made the warning more explicit not IE 7. There is nothing crap about ActiveX, read the source link off the ActiveX Myth.

btw, your website lost all credibilty with me when you mention the following about ICSA:

ICSA practically GIVES AWAY the certification. Their tests just plainly suck. If you want to stay on top of what is the best, take a look here:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/Do you have proof of this or this more online Myth making?

I actually had a quite an amusing time reading through your silly website about certain myths. Especially the min sys requirements. BWAHAHAHAA 486 66 MHz CPU Yea, I dare ya running that :):I have and it works. I build computers for clients and have for over 15 years. It is not practical by todays standards but it does work.

Please dude, many of us have tried different browsers. FF is still the best to use. :):According to YOU - not everyone or even close.

[Mastertech]

Mastertech -- you use IE??? As I recall, didn't you start this thread promoting Opera? And yet you criticize us for not exploring all the options -- it sound like you haven't done your research! :p:I've used all the major browsers and currently use Opera and IE. I never started this to promote Opera. I mentioned Opera because it is faster, more secure and more compliant (Acid2) than Firefox and it is rarely mentioned.

Why would I want to use IE? It's got ads, it's got ActiveX, and I've compared it to FF; I simply like FireFox better! Why would I switch to something I don't like? Even accepting your claims that it's secure, it still has to render ads which makes it about twice as slow as FireFox. I think it's good that you haven't had a problem with it, but the fact is that IE is vulnerable to all kinds of attacks. I look at Slashdot and just about every week I hear about yet another flaw! :crazy: And don't try to deny it; I just had to patch another security hole. I don't criticize your choice of browsers; why try to get me to switch?You can get ad blockers for IE if you really want. You can't call IE secure any more than you can Firefox. IE has it's share of vulnerabilities. The point is that most of IE's security problems are very misunderstood and the blame is misplaced. If you are happy with Firefox than keep using it. I am not trying to get anyone to switch, I am merely providing them with information to make a more informed decision. Slashdot is an Anti-Microsoft site that hypes ANY problem with Microsoft products and down plays any from Open Source ones. If you will review I never criticized anyone for their choice of Browsers, I am simply debating the facts relating to them.

FF will run on my old computer; according to your site IE will not. (Really, go ahead and dare me; I have a Win95 box and FF runs fine on it! :p:)IE will also run on Windows 95 but it is not listed in the official requirements.

Your site is simply a wholy biased, baseless attack on the Browser Of Choice for geeks. Yes, if you combine the security of Opera and the features of IE, you might have a better browser. But overall, Firefox is better.Opera has more features than IE. Check out the Freeware Browser Guide (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FreewareBrowsers.html).

It is vastly more secure than IE;Not really, 72 vulnerabilities is pretty insecure.

it loads pages faster than Opera, (don't argue with me here. I've got both browsers in front of me right now and Firefox is simply faster. I can prove it; say the word and my stopwatch will prove you a liar.)It is not that simple. You can only fairly compare browsers with default installs and no tweaks or ad removers. You also can't just time a page loading off a remote server since you have NO way to determine how much fluctuations in network performance effect the test results. To make these claims you need reproduceable documented proof.

and it has features and plugins that stomp both. Don't try to convince me of something that simply isn't true when I can launch all three browsers right now and prove you wrong. :wink:It will not prove anything because I have no way to confirm your results. IE has plenty of plugins and Opera doesn't need any with all the features it has built-in.

[Cloudw4lker]

Sun's Java is NOT malware in ANY way. There is also absolutely nothing annoying about it. If you don't like the tray icon simply disable it with autoruns or msconfig. So sucking up 40-120mb of RAM to run even the simplest of programs in not malware? I absolutely hate Java because of that, which is also why I no longer use Azureus.

I've been using Opera for about a week now and it's really not that different at all, I haven't noticed anything, which is good. One thing I haven't managed to do is block ALL ads, some are gone. Also the built in mail is nice but I don't like how it works. The preview pane is unremovable (apparently there is no longer a security risk but I want it gone because of preference. I also haven't managed to make spam automatically deleted in it, it still wants to show me every single spam message which is kinda the point of having a spam filter, so I don't have to see it.

[Rafal Dudek]

That is the point, every web page is different and so is everyone's computer and Internet connection.

EXACTLY!!! You just proved yourself that the speed myths are tutal ******** :): And like I said before, many of us geeks actually TRIED different browsers and are falling back to FireFox. So quit saying stuff that people claim things false if they themselves tried it. Its all how it runs on their PC, not yours.

Windows Updates in no remotely noticeable way effects performance, if you think it does again please provide evidence. As for something popping up, it is very configurable and can easily be set to just provide an unobtrusive tray icon that only shows up when updates are available not disturbing anything you are doing.

I'm sorry but only the n00bs need these update notifications. I'm one of those people that do weekly system checkup. So I dont need no additional process running in background reminding me of something that I do so on weekly basis anyway.

It doesn't work that way. SP2 is SUPPOSED to remove it but like I said I see it installed all the time on SP2 systems. To be safe it is recommended you attempt to remove it anyway. Sun's Java is NOT malware in ANY way. There is also absolutely nothing annoying about it. If you don't like the tray icon simply disable it with autoruns or msconfig.

Considering that you need a java runtime in order to view anything java based on the website, I have to fall back on Sun Java. And the newer the release, the more bloatware it is. Now it even notifies you to update whenever it feels like even if I disable that!! Just open some java based application or website and you'll see java.exe takes 50 to 100mb easy!!!! If thats not bloatware, I dont know what is.

ActiveX has always asked to be installed by default. Windows XP SP2 made the warning more explicit not IE 7. There is nothing crap about ActiveX, read the source link off the ActiveX Myth.

There were scripts to walk around this. And this happened before I had SP2.

Do you have proof of this or this more online Myth making?

Yes, I know the person behind that website. Back in the day we used to together gather viruses for testing. It become too time consuming for me to continue so he does this himself now.

According to YOU - not everyone or even close.

Lies! several people actually stated the same thing here.

BTW, you actually got lucky sneaking in your spammish thread. I should of checked your email address to that of the owner on that website and delete this thread. But since it has grown big I'll live it as it is.

[Mastertech]

So sucking up 40-120mb of RAM to run even the simplest of programs in not malware? I absolutely hate Java because of that, which is also why I no longer use Azureus.By that definition Firefox would be considered Malware. :lol: Jave is most certainly NOT Malware.

I've been using Opera for about a week now and it's really not that different at all, I haven't noticed anything, which is good. One thing I haven't managed to do is block ALL ads, some are gone. Also the built in mail is nice but I don't like how it works. The preview pane is unremovable (apparently there is no longer a security risk but I want it gone because of preference. I also haven't managed to make spam automatically deleted in it, it still wants to show me every single spam message which is kinda the point of having a spam filter, so I don't have to see it.Everything you mention is doable just check the Opera help or their support forums.

[Mastertech]

EXACTLY!!! You just proved yourself that the speed myths are tutal ******** :): And like I said before, many of us geeks actually TRIED different browsers and are falling back to FireFox. So quit saying stuff that people claim things false if they themselves tried it. Its all how it runs on their PC, not yours.What? The Firefox speed Myth is a Myth. Firefox is NOT faster than IE, Mozilla and expecially Opera. Anyone objective can clearly see this. I also think people incorrectly call themselves "Geeks" when they don't deserve the title. If you want to claim anything then you better back it up with facts and sources like I have. Speed testing needs to be documented and reproduceable.

I'm sorry but only the n00bs need these update notifications. I'm one of those people that do weekly system checkup. So I dont need no additional process running in background reminding me of something that I do so on weekly basis anyway.The fact that you used the word "n00b" shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone who takes security seriously uses the update notifications. Another Myth is that the process hurts performance.

Considering that you need a java runtime in order to view anything java based on the website, I have to fall back on Sun Java. And the newer the release, the more bloatware it is. Now it even notifies you to update whenever it feels like even if I disable that!! Just open some java based application or website and you'll see java.exe takes 50 to 100mb easy!!!! If thats not bloatware, I dont know what is.#1 First off the Java notifications can be disabled. #2 You should update it anyway since the updates fix security vulnerabilities. #3 The memory usage can vary drastically based on the application used and are not necessarily the fault of the Java JRE.

There were scripts to walk around this. And this happened before I had SP2.Really? Then please provide proof because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, I know the person behind that website. Back in the day we used to together gather viruses for testing. It become too time consuming for me to continue so he does this himself now.That is not proof of anything.

Lies! several people actually stated the same thing here.Don't start with the Lies nonsense. Everyone clearly does not say this since the browser market share is NOT 100% Firefox.

BTW, you actually got lucky sneaking in your spammish thread. I should of checked your email address to that of the owner on that website and delete this thread. But since it has grown big I'll live it as it is.It is not Spam but information.

[Rafal Dudek]

What? The Firefox speed Myth is a Myth. Firefox is NOT faster than IE, Mozilla and expecially Opera. Anyone objective can clearly see this. I also think people incorrectly call themselves "Geeks" when they don't deserve the title. If you want to claim anything then you better back it up with facts and sources like I have. Speed testing needs to be documented and reproduceable.

OK, just to prove that you're a n00b, here is what I did. I cleared all the cookies, cache and temp files. I used a stop watch to measure the speed of IE6 to FiferFox whatever current version is. In firefox I got the FasterFox plugin that tells me how long it takes to render a website. Since IE dont have that, I had to use a stopwatch. I loaded www.3dgamers.com and here are the results:

FF took 3.844 seconds
IE took 5.48 seconds

The fact that you used the word "n00b" shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone who takes security seriously uses the update notifications. Another Myth is that the process hurts performance.

I know what I'm talking about because I actually take some time to do weekly checkups. The n00bs I'm referring too are the folks who never open the Windows Update shortcut. Those are the n00bs that need the update notification. Last thing I need is to have 30 notifications poup whenever there is an update. This goes for all software so dont think of it as just windows/IE crap.

#1 First off the Java notifications can be disabled. #2 You should update it anyway since the updates fix security vulnerabilities. #3 The memory usage can vary drastically based on the application used and are not necessarily the fault of the Java JRE.

Its actually badly optimized. Java doesnt need all that memory hogging it uses. A simple-based java application doesnt need 50mb of loaded library files. Not to mention the garbage cleanup process it uses. I still dont get it why devs are pushing this crap.

Really? Then please provide proof because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Do a google. I got better things to do then do your homework on the subject.

That is not proof of anything.

That is great. Continue using Avast, AVG, eZ Trust whatever crap software you want that has that silly certification. If you get a virus/trojan, dont come back crying that your av was useless against it.

Don't start with the Lies nonsense. Everyone clearly does not say this since the browser market share is NOT 100% Firefox.

Oh please, dont even start with the market share. Consider this... if your OS comes with a webbrowser... why would anyone bother getting a different one since they already got one? The sad part is, there are people that dont realize that there are other web browser and there are folks that dont care. And I know this coz when I tried convert some of my friends from university, they were simply didnt care enough to make a switch. However the tech savvy folks who look into these things use the other webbrowsers like firefox and opera.

It is not Spam but information.

Your sole purpose was to come here and advertise your website.


btw, learn to quote.

[Mastertech]

OK, just to prove that you're a n00b, here is what I did. I cleared all the cookies, cache and temp files. I used a stop watch to measure the speed of IE6 to FiferFox whatever current version is. In firefox I got the FasterFox plugin that tells me how long it takes to render a website. Since IE dont have that, I had to use a stopwatch. I loaded www.3dgamers.com and here are the results:

FF took 3.844 seconds
IE took 5.48 secondsCompletely inconclusive. Firefox is faster than IE in script speed so any page that relies more on scripts will load faster in IE. Where standard HTML and CSS will load faster in IE.

I know what I'm talking about because I actually take some time to do weekly checkups. The n00bs I'm referring too are the folks who never open the Windows Update shortcut. Those are the n00bs that need the update notification. Last thing I need is to have 30 notifications poup whenever there is an update. This goes for all software so dont think of it as just windows/IE crap.You don't get any popups if you configure it correctly.

Do a google. I got better things to do then do your homework on the subject.I have and have not found any evidence of this.

That is great. Continue using Avast, AVG, eZ Trust whatever crap software you want that has that silly certification. If you get a virus/trojan, dont come back crying that your av was useless against it.I've never been infected with a Virus with a fully updated AV program with ICSA certification, such as Avast or EZ Trust. Neither have my clients.

Oh please, dont even start with the market share. Consider this... if your OS comes with a webbrowser... why would anyone bother getting a different one since they already got one? The sad part is, there are people that dont realize that there are other web browser and there are folks that dont care. And I know this coz when I tried convert some of my friends from university, they were simply didnt care enough to make a switch. However the tech savvy folks who look into these things use the other webbrowsers like firefox and opera.The point is everyone does not say this.

Your sole purpose was to come here and advertise your website.No really I want people to read this page and absord the information.

[Ojnod]

I don't care how many times you guys quote each other, if opera or internet explorer was a superior browser you wouldn't have to spend 3 pages trying to convince people that it was. Everybody here who has used Firefox has said that they tried other options (heck, they had to seeing how firefox is rather new compared to IE/Netscape/Opera) and guess what? they picked what they like. So far you have convinced no one that opera was a better browser, or even IE for that matter. The only person that is close to siding with you is cloudwalker and he is on the fence about it. I have used firefox on the side since it was in version 0.3 and since then it has had 2 name changes and a lot of fixes and improvements. I have been trying out versions of opera, netscape and mozilla for just as long while using IE for its simplicity. It wasn't until a bit after firefox picked up the Firefox name that I finally made the permanent switch and I don't plan on going back anytime soon.

For the record I have been running 24/7 on a cable modem for 6 years now and I only got one virus since then and it was acctually a worm that hit me at a LAN party since I was a few weeks behind on my patches. I only scan for viruses approximately once a month or when I notice "something is up". I am constantly checking my process list, start up items and I browse safely. That does a lot more help than any crappy browser ever will.

Also, who gives a damn if browser X is faster on sites with (insert web serving technology here), MY copy of firefox is the fastest on the sites that I browse on a regular basis and that is what counts for me. Next time I decide to go to browse sex with farm animals maybe I will try the browser you prefer for those sites.

[Rafal Dudek]

Completely inconclusive. Firefox is faster than IE in script speed so any page that relies more on scripts will load faster in IE. Where standard HTML and CSS will load faster in IE.

um ok if you say so! If the sites I visit use heavy scripting and load faster, guess I'm sticking fire firefox then :):

You don't get any popups if you configure it correctly.

But they are turned on by default which is the annoying part especially since I dont feel like digging through options of every single peace of software to turn off anything that will bother me.

I've never been infected with a Virus with a fully updated AV program with ICSA certification, such as Avast or EZ Trust. Neither have my clients.

EZ Trust is a such a poor a/v program that its laughable that they got the ICSA certification. I'll stick with my Kaspersky thankyouverymuch. But hey, its your choice your system. Do what you want with it :):

No really I want people to read this page and absord the information.

Not really any different then someone coming in here to register and post a weblink to their site. We see these on daily basis :): But man dude, you got ads all over the place on you website :p:

[Mastertech]

I don't care how many times you guys quote each other, if opera or internet explorer was a superior browser you wouldn't have to spend 3 pages trying to convince people that it was. Everybody here who has used Firefox has said that they tried other options (heck, they had to seeing how firefox is rather new compared to IE/Netscape/Opera) and guess what? they picked what they like.If there was not all this misinformation about Firefox that the far majority believed when they switched to Firefox, it would never have been as popular as it became. Thanks to this page the Myths are no more. The problem was not everyone evaluated multiple browsers. Most simply used IE and were recommended Firefox and that is it. The few that really did most likely tried Opera when it had an Ad Banner pre-September 2005 (not that long ago).

So far you have convinced no one that opera was a better browser, or even IE for that matter.There is nothing to convince, Opera is faster, blatantly obviously more secure, more compliant (Acid2) and has an integrated BitTorrent Client, among other features included by default. I wouldn't speak for everyone, they can make up their own minds.

Also, who gives a damn if browser X is faster on sites with (insert web serving technology here), MY copy of firefox is the fastest on the sites that I browse on a regular basis and that is what counts for me. Next time I decide to go to browse sex with farm animals maybe I will try the browser you prefer for those sites.Is it really? I don't think so, in every documented performance test Opera is faster. Anyone non-biased can see that this is true and every valid test proves it.

[Rafal Dudek]

Is it really? I don't think so, in every documented performance test Opera is faster. Anyone non-biased can see that this is true and every valid test proves it.

Just because some quak in a lab with a OC4 connection done testing on a single browser, doesnt mean things are faster. Problem you're going to run into is that every user will have different experience. Because a connection is routed through so many different places, how can anyone even come up with a conclusive experiment that grants a winner in performance to a single application? I'm dying to know how they did it. Becaues if you bounce around and packets are lost, things will be different.

BTW, I got a question for you. Why did Opera remove ads from their browser? hmmm? OH right, it got threatened that IE has no ads and now another browser is increasing market share also has no ads hehe.

There is nothing to convince, Opera is faster, blatantly obviously more secure, more compliant (Acid2) and has an integrated BitTorrent Client, among other features included by default. I wouldn't speak for everyone, they can make up their own minds.

Opera being faster is just an opinion. Just like everything else. Whether is secure is a moot point, its not popular enough to be exploited further. You're talking software here, nothing can ever be secure in software. And if you cant understand it, please unplug your computer and start taking some CSC courses.

And that Acid2 test is bullcrap. So it makes a happy face appear disoriented. So far FireFox is working fine with all the websites I visit. And the only sites that wont work properly with firefox is that they were poorly designed from the start. And a poorly designed website == me not visiting it ever again. nuff said. As far as bittorrent thing, meh. I use utorrent and its the best damned thing ever.

Honestly dude, if you're going to inform about other options, you shouldnt blast a single webbrowser to oblivion about it. Doing so makes you much less convincing.

[Mastertech]

Just because some quak in a lab with a OC4 connection done testing on a single browser, doesnt mean things are faster. Problem you're going to run into is that every user will have different experience. Because a connection is routed through so many different places, how can anyone even come up with a conclusive experiment that grants a winner in performance to a single application? I'm dying to know how they did it. Becaues if you bounce around and packets are lost, things will be different.His tests and results are very methodical and properly documented. I reproduced the tests with various hardware and the results always scaled the same. He did a very smart thing by focusing on various components of using a web browser since no two pages are the same.

BTW, I got a question for you. Why did Opera remove ads from their browser? hmmm? OH right, it got threatened that IE has no ads and now another browser is increasing market share also has no ads hehe.They still sell premium support and most likely can make enough off search results like Firefox does.

Opera being faster is just an opinion. Just like everything else. Whether is secure is a moot point, its not popular enough to be exploited further. You're talking software here, nothing can ever be secure in software. And if you cant understand it, please unplug your computer and start taking some CSC courses.Opera being faster is a documented reproduceable fact. So based on your reasoning it doesn't matter what browser you use, since they are all insecure. Otherwise you have to except the cold hard truth that Opera is by FAR the most secure graphical web browser on Windows.

And that Acid2 test is bullcrap. So it makes a happy face appear disoriented. So far FireFox is working fine with all the websites I visit. And the only sites that wont work properly with firefox is that they were poorly designed from the start. And a poorly designed website == me not visiting it ever again. nuff said. As far as bittorrent thing, meh. I use utorrent and its the best damned thing ever.Acid2 visually proves Firefox does not fully support standards as it is widely claimed. People are free to use whatever BitTorrent client they want and they now have another choice built into the fastest, most secure and most compliant (Acid2) web browser on Windows = Opera.

[Rafal Dudek]

Opera being faster is a documented reproduceable fact. So based on your reasoning it doesn't matter what browser you use, since they are all insecure. Otherwise you have to except the cold hard truth that Opera is by FAR the most secure graphical web browser on Windows.

No I will not accept the truth of that because there is no truth and here is why:

1. Market share sucks for Opera
2. Hackers target the most widely used platforms for maximum damage.
3. IE has the most attacks because it is the mostly used browser ever. If you think otherwise, you should be locked up and put to jail. Microsoft has to stay on top of it. If they didnt, they would be into a whole lot of trouble.
4. Firefox market share is increasing (why the hell we calling this market share anyway since its not really about premium product)
5. Due to FireFox increase in popularity, hackers are starting to find vunlerabilities and exploiting them.

Same reason why Windows is targetted the most. Why dont hackers target MAC's as often? Oh yea, no point really unless its for bragging rights. And its the same bragging that leads them into trouble in the first place.

Acid2

Honestly this is the first time since my entire 12+ years of internet career that I hear of such a riddiculus test. And I'm guessing that its something unimportant and was only designed for bragging rights. If a website is not displaying correctly on some browsers, you can go ahead and bitch to the poor skills of the webmaster. If they dont want to do that, fire them and hire a new one with more skill.

His tests and results are very methodical and properly documented. I reproduced the tests with various hardware and the results always scaled the same. He did a very smart thing by focusing on various components of using a web browser since no two pages are the same.

Different settings all around. You're still going to run into a problem that not everyone will experience the same results. And that my friend is the cold hard TRUTH. If you cant handle this, please go to school and learn something before making bogus and repeatable comments again.

[bmn]

Since you have proven yourself not very knowledgeable, Mastertech, I will now argue with you using only your own statements:

Opera is faster, blatantly obviously more secure
fastest, most secure and most compliant (Acid2) web browser on Windows = Opera.
[Opera] is faster, more secure and more compliant (Acid2) than Firefox and it is rarely mentioned.
That is the point, every web page is different and so is everyone's computer and Internet connection. Making ridiculous statements of the difference being only .1 seconds is unfounded and inconclusive to say the least.

In other words: your tests are rote; ours are nothing. :crazy:

in every documented performance test Opera is faster.
Do you have proof of this or this more online Myth making?

One of the best things about FF is the support community. MS took several weeks to fix a prominent IE bug a while ago; most FF fixes are available within a few days.

Oh yeah: I checked your site again. The link (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/) that was supposed to give me popups? Well... it didn't. :crazy:

Perhaps you have some kind of agenda here? Hmmm... your site is hardly an intelligent, unbiased examination of the browsers; in fact, you even refer to those praising FireFox as 'Fanboys'. Oh yes, then you complain that they're attacking YOU. Hypocrite. :):

I also checked out one of your sources (http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#winspeed). Apparently you didn't read the whole page:

"No, no. That is up to you. It all depends on how you use your browser and what you use it for, and what operating system(s) you use it on. Take a look at the tables (and graphs, if your browser's scripting engine is up to the task) and work it out for yourself."

"Firefox is not faster than Internet Explorer, except for scripting, but for standards support, security and features, it is a better choice."

Now let's take a look at FF vs. IE:

In FF, I can disable images, java, javascript, popups and cookies.
IE?? Nope. You have to pay (http://www.secureie.com/index.aspx) $30 to get the same features in FF which are available free.

You yourself have discredited most of your sources with this little gem:
That is the point, every web page is different and so is everyone's computer and Internet connection.
... therefore your entire point is lost! I have tested the browsers, and FireFox is better! I you want to take this (http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html) guy's word on it, why not take mine as well?? :p: Sure, I didn't do tests that were as extensive, but on the sites I visit on a regular basis, FF is faster! I don't need any more proof than that!

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a316/playitbogart/pwns/getalife.jpg

[Rafal Dudek]

pwn3d! bmn opened up a can-o-whoopass! :):

[Mastertech]

No I will not accept the truth of that because there is no truth and here is why:

1. Market share sucks for Opera
2. Hackers target the most widely used platforms for maximum damage.
3. IE has the most attacks because it is the mostly used browser ever. If you think otherwise, you should be locked up and put to jail. Microsoft has to stay on top of it. If they didnt, they would be into a whole lot of trouble.
4. Firefox market share is increasing (why the hell we calling this market share anyway since its not really about premium product)
5. Due to FireFox increase in popularity, hackers are starting to find vunlerabilities and exploiting them.Nice theory but it does not hold up. Firefox has been out for almost two years and has 72 vulnerabilities with less than 10% market share. IE 6 has been out for five and a half years with over 85% market share and has only 96 vulnerabilities. Now do the math. What would Firefox's vulnerability count be if it had 85% market share and been out for over five years? This isn't rocket science. Regardless you make all the theories you want, I am dealing with reality and the current vulnerability situation. The truth is Opera has zero out of 19 vulnerabilities unpatched. That is a fact you cannot ignore.

Honestly this is the first time since my entire 12+ years of internet career that I hear of such a riddiculus test. And I'm guessing that its something unimportant and was only designed for bragging rights. If a website is not displaying correctly on some browsers, you can go ahead and bitch to the poor skills of the webmaster. If they dont want to do that, fire them and hire a new one with more skill.Nice excuses but all the features tested in Acid2 are documented W3C standards. I completely agree that at the end of the day all that matters is if a website renders correctly. But that is not the point of this exercise. Firefox fanboys like to push standards support in everyone's face, except when they are confronted with reality. Then it becomes "not important" = convient.

Different settings all around. You're still going to run into a problem that not everyone will experience the same results. And that my friend is the cold hard TRUTH. If you cant handle this, please go to school and learn something before making bogus and repeatable comments again.People will not experience the EXACT same numbers but they will scale accordingly and the same winners will come out in every category. There is a reason those results have yet to be officially challenged because anyone that properly tests them comes up with the same results (not exact numbers but winners per category).

[Mastertech]

In other words: your tests are rote; ours are nothing. :crazy:The tests that are sourced are non biased, scientifically done and reproduceable.

One of the best things about FF is the support community. MS took several weeks to fix a prominent IE bug a while ago; most FF fixes are available within a few days.This has nothing to do with any Myths. And it is clear Firefox does not fix every security exploit in a few days since the still have this exploit (http://secunia.com/advisories/12403/) unpatched since 8-30-04.

Oh yeah: I checked your site again. The link (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/) that was supposed to give me popups? Well... it didn't. :crazy:I tested this again on a clean install of Firefox v1.5.0.1 with no extensions, a clean cache/history and the popup came through.

Perhaps you have some kind of agenda here? Hmmm... your site is hardly an intelligent, unbiased examination of the browsers; in fact, you even refer to those praising FireFox as 'Fanboys'. Oh yes, then you complain that they're attacking YOU. Hypocrite. :):Yes the agenda is to debunk Myths and inform. The site is highly intelligent. It is an unbiased examination of Firefox Myths, it is not a review of any browser or a comparison guide. I refer to those misrepresenting the facts about Firefox as Fanboys.

I also checked out one of your sources (http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#winspeed). Apparently you didn't read the whole page:

"No, no. That is up to you. It all depends on how you use your browser and what you use it for, and what operating system(s) you use it on. Take a look at the tables (and graphs, if your browser's scripting engine is up to the task) and work it out for yourself."

"Firefox is not faster than Internet Explorer, except for scripting, but for standards support, security and features, it is a better choice."And? That is his opinion and has NOTHING to do with the facts about speed.

Now let's take a look at FF vs. IE:

In FF, I can disable images, java, javascript, popups and cookies.
IE?? Nope. You have to pay (http://www.secureie.com/index.aspx) $30 to get the same features in FF which are available free.
That is an outright LIE, Java, Javascript and cookies have ALWAYS been controllable though the Internet Explorer - "Internet Options". Popup blocking is available for FREE with SP2 for Windows XP or you can get Popup blocking for FREE and Tabbed Browsing support with the MSN Toolbar.

You yourself have discredited most of your sources with this little gem:Nope that says exactly what it does, nothing more. Those are the reasons why other "tests" people try to perform are NOT accurate. It does NOT say that performance of the various web components will change speed between browsers because of these.

... therefore your entire point is lost! I have tested the browsers, and FireFox is better! I you want to take this (http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html) guy's word on it, why not take mine as well?? :p: Sure, I didn't do tests that were as extensive, but on the sites I visit on a regular basis, FF is faster! I don't need any more proof than that!No my point is even more clear. I would never take anyone's word for it about performance data without documented reproduceable proof. Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you" doesn't change the reality of the situation.

[bmn]

The tests that are sourced are non biased, scientifically done and reproduceable.
... but not real-world. Think about this: you say that if you uninstall the MSJVM whatever, then you have a better browser (which I strongly disagree with). Right there, you make the test unfair. REMOVING a component of IE DOES NOT constitute a clean install; it's a TWEAK! Therefore I'd like to see a test with either FireTune or FasterFox enabled or with MSJVM in IE. You can't have it both ways: put up or shut up!
Oh, and you sure aren't biased! :p: Your site has links to 'StopFirefox', 'FireFox Sucks', 'Slyerfox', and other, uh... non... biased... sites. :wtf:

This has nothing to do with any Myths. And it is clear Firefox does not fix every security exploit in a few days since the still have this exploit (http://secunia.com/advisories/12403/) unpatched since 8-30-04.
Solution:
Disable Java support.
Wow, so difficult! I'm... growing weak... can't reach... checkmark... ugh... Java has known vulnerabilities and I surf without it; haven't encountered ANY Java-related problems.

I tested this again on a clean install of Firefox v1.5.0.1 with no extensions, a clean cache/history and the popup came through.
... which is in no way a real-world test. Anyone here use a virgin FF? Show of hands? Anyone? If someone told you that you could get better speeds using a tweaked FireFox, I guess you'd say

"Sorry, but the default browser isn't fast enough."
:crazy2:
Yes the agenda is to debunk Myths and inform. The site is highly intelligent. It is an unbiased examination of Firefox Myths, it is not a review of any browser or a comparison guide. I refer to those misrepresenting the facts about Firefox as Fanboys.
That in and of itself is a bias. For you, there is only one side to the argument, and that's yours. If you were truly unbiased, you'd be pointing out some of the good things about FF, like its built in RSS support. :):

And? That is his opinion and has NOTHING to do with the facts about speed.
I obviously don't need to intercede here; at this point you're arguing with your own source! :lol2:

fastest, most secure and most compliant (Acid2) web browser on Windows = Opera.
No, no. That is up to you. It all depends on how you use your browser and what you use it for, and what operating system(s) you use it on. Take a look at the tables (and graphs, if your browser's scripting engine is up to the task) and work it out for yourself.
Your source site advocates thinking for yourself... you, uh don't. :crazy: You'd rather do my thinking for me. No thanks.

That is an outright LIE, Java, Javascript and cookies have ALWAYS been controllable though the Internet Explorer - "Internet Options". Popup blocking is available for FREE with SP2 for Windows XP or you can get Popup blocking for FREE and Tabbed Browsing support with the MSN Toolbar.
Weren't we using absolutely clean, default installs? If you use an outside component, even one produced by MS, then you should also use Adblock and Firetune.

Nice theory but it does not hold up. Firefox has been out for almost two years and has 72 vulnerabilities with less than 10% market share. IE 6 has been out for five and a half years with over 85% market share and has only 96 vulnerabilities.
So, in some way, 96 is better than 72?! They've had six years to work out the bugs! :wtf:

Nope that says exactly what it does, nothing more. Those are the reasons why other "tests" people try to perform are NOT accurate. It does NOT say that performance of the various web components will change speed between browsers because of these.
Come on, you can do YOUR OWN freakin' tests! Why in the world would you need someone else to do them for you, when both browsers are absolutely free?! I've done my tests; FF is better for me. If you want to reproduce it, do your own tests! Do your research: even your source says that you should do your own tests before you accept his results. Besides, if you were really advocating the fastest browser, you'd be going for lynx or links2. :p:

FF vulnerabilities (your own source):
"Mozilla Firefox 1.x with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by one or more Secunia advisories rated Less critical http://secunia.com/gfx/crit_2.gif"
http://secunia.com/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=4227
Criticalitly of the problems:
http://secunia.com/graph/?type=cri&period=all&prod=4227
Wow, look at what a terrible job they've done! :p:
And now IE:
"Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.x with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by one or more Secunia advisories rated Extremely critical http://secunia.com/gfx/crit_5.gif"
http://secunia.com/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=11
http://secunia.com/graph/?type=cri&period=all&prod=11
And if you disagree with this, you'd better disagree with all of it, as your site uses it repeatedly as a source! :p:
:eek2:

No my point is even more clear. I would never take anyone's word for it about performance data without documented reproduceable proof. Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you" doesn't change the reality of the situation.
I can't hear you because I don't need someone else to do tests which I've already done! Jeez, I pity the poor woman who marries you; she'll probably have to help you in the bathroom! :p: You need 'Documented, reproducable proof' for something you could do yourself? Why not just take your own results, as they are going to be FAR more accurate based on your configuration?

[Rafal Dudek]

Lol bmn, good effort. I stopped arguing with him because he keeps spinning everything. He's worse than Bush :p:

[Mastertech]

... but not real-world. Think about this: you say that if you uninstall the MSJVM whatever, then you have a better browser (which I strongly disagree with). Right there, you make the test unfair. REMOVING a component of IE DOES NOT constitute a clean install; it's a TWEAK! Therefore I'd like to see a test with either FireTune or FasterFox enabled or with MSJVM in IE. You can't have it both ways: put up or shut up!This is the problem, you don't even understand what you are talking about. Microsoft removed MSJVM from IE6 in Windows XP SP1a and SP2, IE7 does not come with it and neither will IE7 on Vista. They did so because of security concerns. I recommend to remove it for the same reason. It is the farthest thing from a "tweak". If you buy a computer today with Windows XP SP2 OEM, MSJVM will NOT be installed! Get it? So a current default install of IE does NOT have MSJVM. Regardless I have seen NO evidence of it affecting performance. Not to mention I recommend installing Sun's Java in it's place.

Oh, and you sure aren't biased! :p: Your site has links to 'StopFirefox', 'FireFox Sucks', 'Slyerfox', and other, uh... non... biased... sites. :wtf:Those are Firefox Myth's links. Slyerfox is excellent.

Solution:
Disable Java support.
Wow, so difficult! I'm... growing weak... can't reach... checkmark... ugh... Java has known vulnerabilities and I surf without it; haven't encountered ANY Java-related problems.The point is you can disable this all in IE and always could.

... which is in no way a real-world test. Anyone here use a virgin FF? Show of hands? Anyone? If someone told you that you could get better speeds using a tweaked FireFox, I guess you'd say
It sure is a real world test. Default installs are the only fair tests.


That in and of itself is a bias. For you, there is only one side to the argument, and that's yours. If you were truly unbiased, you'd be pointing out some of the good things about FF, like its built in RSS support. :):
You still don't get it. This page is to debunk Firefox Myths NOT promote Firefox. This isn't complicated but you and all the other Fanboys just can't grasp this simple concept. The problem with Firefox is all the Myths are exaggerated positives, which undoubtedly causes the Firefox Myths page to appear negative but that is unavoidable. Excuses will not be made for why a Myth is not true.

I obviously don't need to intercede here; at this point you're arguing with your own source! :lol2:
Absolutely not, that source is used for the Speed data only NOT his opinions on which browsers are better.

Your source site advocates thinking for yourself... you, uh don't. :crazy: You'd rather do my thinking for me. No thanks.
No I don't. But thinking for yourself requires having all the facts of which Firefox Myths gives you for the Myths presented.

Weren't we using absolutely clean, default installs? If you use an outside component, even one produced by MS, then you should also use Adblock and Firetune.
Speed testing and supported extensions are two different things. You confusing two seperate debunked Myths.

So, in some way, 96 is better than 72?! They've had six years to work out the bugs! :wtf:
And 0 unpatched out of 19 is better than both. Opera is by far superior to both in terms of security.

Come on, you can do YOUR OWN freakin' tests! Why in the world would you need someone else to do them for you, when both browsers are absolutely free?! I've done my tests; FF is better for me. If you want to reproduce it, do your own tests! Do your research: even your source says that you should do your own tests before you accept his results. Besides, if you were really advocating the fastest browser, you'd be going for lynx or links2. :p:
Obviously you cannot. I meet people like you everyday who thinks that if they just keep repeating something it becomes true. You have no reproduceable documented evidence to back up anything you say, I do. The source actually says:

These results are drawn from my tests as shown above, and are confirmed by my personal use. Please do not send me hate mail saying I have insulted your browser or whatever. If you get different results, try doing what I did. Perform a set of tests like these that cover the major areas of use. Make sure you do it unbiased, cross platform, using the same or equivalent spec on each (make sure you use the same amount of RAM in each). Once you are done, don't tell me about it. Publish your own results, as I have done, with a discussion of why you did each test and what it represents. Facts and figures are everything. Oh, and don't just say "I couldn't get it to install so I didn't bother" - you have no idea how much work I put into getting all these browsers to install on these operating systems (as my wife and the IRC community would be able to testify to). If you can't get it to install, then that is your problem, it says nothing about speed, and simply makes your results incomplete.

And if you disagree with this, you'd better disagree with all of it, as your site uses it repeatedly as a source!
Disagree with what? Secunia is an excellent security resource. But as always this has nothing to do with any of the Myths. No one claims IE has less vulnerabilities than Firefox. None of that changes any of the facts about Firefox's security situation of:

"Since Firefox v1.x was released, users have been exposed to 72 security vulnerabilities and counting, 39 of which are rated as Highly Critical and 1 Extremely Critical."

I can't hear you because I don't need someone else to do tests which I've already done! Jeez, I pity the poor woman who marries you; she'll probably have to help you in the bathroom! :p: You need 'Documented, reproducable proof' for something you could do yourself? Why not just take your own results, as they are going to be FAR more accurate based on your configuration?Yes you keep making this claim but are completely incapable of providing reproduceable evidence of any of it. No Firefox Fanboy can because they are in denial about the truth, they don't want it to be and cannot accept it. Computer Performance claims wether it be hardware or software have ALWAYS had to be backed up with reproduceable evidence. This is just the way it works. Performance is NOT an opinion.

Oh and I haven't spun anything neither has Bush.

[bmn]

This is the problem, you don't even understand what you are talking about. Microsoft removed MSJVM from IE6 in Windows XP SP1a and SP2, IE7 does not come with it and neither will IE7 on Vista. They did so because of security concerns. I recommend to remove it for the same reason. It is the farthest thing from a "tweak". If you buy a computer today with Windows XP SP2 OEM, MSJVM will NOT be installed! Get it? So a current default install of IE does NOT have MSJVM. Regardless I have seen NO evidence of it affecting performance. Not to mention I recommend installing Sun's Java in it's place.

And what about the MSN toolbar you so constantly trumpet? And Windows popup blocker? Are not those considered tweaks; parts of software which do not come with the default browser? Why not disable those and see how the browsers compare?
See, with the same amount of effort it takes to disable cookies in IE, you can tweak FireFox and increase your speed.

Those are Firefox Myth's links. Slyerfox is excellent.
They are biased, and your site is biased as well.

The point is you can disable this all in IE and always could.
Withdrawn.

It sure is a real world test. Default installs are the only fair tests.
Why? Is there some reason this test should be fair? You yourself use a popup blocker with IE to make it tolerable; therefore that's not a real-world test. Do your tests with as many add-ins and plugins as you want, as many as someone would actually use, and you'll have a real-world test.

You still don't get it. This page is to debunk Firefox Myths NOT promote Firefox. This isn't complicated but you and all the other Fanboys just can't grasp this simple concept. The problem with Firefox is all the Myths are exaggerated positives, which undoubtedly causes the Firefox Myths page to appear negative but that is unavoidable. Excuses will not be made for why a Myth is not true.
If you saw a news organisation showing only one side of the argument, I guess you'd call it unbiased.


Absolutely not, that source is used for the Speed data only NOT his opinions on which browsers are better.
Translation: I can take what I want from this site and then ignore what I don't like.

No I don't. But thinking for yourself requires having all the facts of which Firefox Myths gives you for the Myths presented.
This would be the point where I'd start quoting your site and debunking it, but apparently I can't because you decided to protect it with the fascistic DMCA.

I think it speaks volumes about your morality that you are willing to attack a company that is giving away their software, source code and all. You sir, have too much time on your hands or are being paid to do this. I notice your site has a disclaimer about not being affiliated with Microsoft, but such a disclaimer about Opera is strangely absent. :wtf:

Speed testing and supported extensions are two different things. You confusing two seperate debunked Myths.
But doesn't the Windows popup blocker improve performance? And isn't it a feature not included in the default install, which you tout so much?


And 0 unpatched out of 19 is better than both. Opera is by far superior to both in terms of security.
Those are the reported security holes. Opera's user base is much smaller, therefore very few bugs are going to be found.


Obviously you cannot. I meet people like you everyday who thinks that if they just keep repeating something it becomes true. You have no reproduceable documented evidence to back up anything you say, I do.
You cannot possibly be serious. I mean, I am supposed to take someone else's results over my own? All of his tests are simulations of the real-world, not actual field tests. Mine are much more accurate pertaining to me.
Let me highlight something in this little quote of yours:
The source actually says:

These results are drawn from my tests as shown above, and are confirmed by my personal use. Please do not send me hate mail saying I have insulted your browser or whatever. If you get different results, try doing what I did. Perform a set of tests like these that cover the major areas of use. Make sure you do it unbiased, cross platform, using the same or equivalent spec on each (make sure you use the same amount of RAM in each). Once you are done, don't tell me about it. Publish your own results, as I have done, with a discussion of why you did each test and what it represents. Facts and figures are everything. Oh, and don't just say "I couldn't get it to install so I didn't bother" - you have no idea how much work I put into getting all these browsers to install on these operating systems (as my wife and the IRC community would be able to testify to). If you can't get it to install, then that is your problem, it says nothing about speed, and simply makes your results incomplete.


Disagree with what? Secunia is an excellent security resource. But as always this has nothing to do with any of the Myths. No one claims IE has less vulnerabilities than Firefox.
The point is that most of IE's security problems are very misunderstood and the blame is misplaced.

Yes you keep making this claim but are completely incapable of providing reproduceable evidence of any of it. No Firefox Fanboy can because they are in denial about the truth, they don't want it to be and cannot accept it. Computer Performance claims wether it be hardware or software have ALWAYS had to be backed up with reproduceable evidence. This is just the way it works. Performance is NOT an opinion.
Why would I need to give you reproducable evidence when you can do it yourself? I don't need to take tweaks off FireFox to make the tests fair because they don't need to be fair. If you want something faster, then use FireFox with Firetune. Just because it's not part of the default install does not mean that it isn't fair. As Rob said:
Who cares what is used and what is not used. This isn't baseball, pump my browser full of steroids. Fastest wins gold.
There is no reason not to use every advantage available. As I said:
If someone told you that you could get better speeds using a tweaked FireFox, I guess you'd say

"Sorry, but the default browser isn't fast enough."

[Mastertech]

And what about the MSN toolbar you so constantly trumpet? And Windows popup blocker? Are not those considered tweaks; parts of software which do not come with the default browser? Why not disable those and see how the browsers compare?No those are EXTENSIONS for IE. What are you talking about? This is NOT a comparison guide, the speed tests were run without any extensions in ANY browser. Let me ask you a simple question:

Does Firefox support Adblocking? The obvious answer is YES with the Adblock extension but the default install does not. Thus IE6 supports Tabs with the MSN Toolbar extension it is not complicated.

See, with the same amount of effort it takes to disable cookies in IE, you can tweak FireFox and increase your speed.What? Have you even used IE? Or Tweaked IE?

They are biased, and your site is biased as well.My site is NOT biased, it is all factually based and properly sourced. YOU don't like it because you blindly support Firefox and have made numerous incorrect statements here about IE.

Why? Is there some reason this test should be fair? You yourself use a popup blocker with IE to make it tolerable; therefore that's not a real-world test. Do your tests with as many add-ins and plugins as you want, as many as someone would actually use, and you'll have a real-world test.IE6 with SP2 comes with a Pop-up blocker WITHOUT an extension. That is the default install of IE6 on Windows XP SP2. You can't just start claiming extensions that everyone uses. Regardless it would be a biased test since you would have to install an equivalent IE extension and it still would not be an accurate test.

If you saw a news organisation showing only one side of the argument, I guess you'd call it unbiased.Why can you not comprehend this. Firefox Myths is not an promotional page for Firefox, it is not a review, it is not a comparison guide. There is no argument. You keep reading into the page something that is not there. The page ONLY debunks Firefox related Myths.

Translation: I can take what I want from this site and then ignore what I don't like.No, the authors opinions are NOT facts, only facts are used on the page.

This would be the point where I'd start quoting your site and debunking it, but apparently I can't because you decided to protect it with the fascistic DMCA.Which is my right.

I think it speaks volumes about your morality that you are willing to attack a company that is giving away their software, source code and all. You sir, have too much time on your hands or are being paid to do this. I notice your site has a disclaimer about not being affiliated with Microsoft, but such a disclaimer about Opera is strangely absent. :wtf:You still don't get it. I am debunking Myths. You should think of the Morality of misinforming and misleading unknowledgeable users to get them to switch to Firefox. To quote an email I recieved:

"As much as I support your cause, I must say I also fully support using bended facts in promoting Firefox. That's just marketing, and surviving in the real world..." :lol:

But doesn't the Windows popup blocker improve performance? And isn't it a feature not included in the default install, which you tout so much?No more then the Firefox Pop-up Blocker would both are irrelevant to the performance tests cited however. And yes it is installed by Default in IE6 Windows XP SP2.

Those are the reported security holes. Opera's user base is much smaller, therefore very few bugs are going to be found.And this changes the number of know vulnerabilities?

You cannot possibly be serious. I mean, I am supposed to take someone else's results over my own? All of his tests are simulations of the real-world, not actual field tests. Mine are much more accurate pertaining to me.Yours are completely innaccurate because you are not using default installs, cannot account for fluctuations in network bandwidth ect...

Why would I need to give you reproducable evidence when you can do it yourself? I don't need to take tweaks off FireFox to make the tests fair because they don't need to be fair. If you want something faster, then use FireFox with Firetune. Just because it's not part of the default install does not mean that it isn't fair. As Rob said:Because otherwise your claims have no meaning, they are baseless. Imagine a Hardware review site that just makes performance claims between video cards without publishing any testing results or methods. If you cannot understand this then nothing I say will make any sense. As for fairness, that is what you do not get. If you want to do performance testing with Firetune, go ahead. Just make sure to do equivalent tweaks to the other browsers you are comparing. Regardless I have yet to see documented evidence of Firetune improving performance.

[F.Fox]

That is YOUR opinion but the reason it happened was one of the following:

1. You did not have all the security updates applied
2. You never removed MSJVM
3. You manually installed it

Those are the only way you can get infected with IE.

Microsoft may rush out a security update for Internet Explorer to fix a flaw that is now being exploited to attack Windows systems, security companies say.

Computer code that demonstrates how a hacker can use the flaw to take over a PC was released onto the Net on Thursday. At least two such exploits were made public, and one has now been adapted to attack systems, Monty IJzerman, the manager of security content at McAfee, said on Friday.

"This exploit code is being used in the wild in malware," or malicious software, IJzerman said. "I expect other attacks to be prepared and to be out there over the next few days."

In a security advisory issued Thursday, Microsoft said it will address the vulnerability in a security update, but did not say when that patch would be delivered. Its next "Patch Tuesday" bundle of fixes is scheduled for April 11. On Friday, however, Microsoft indicated that a security patch might be released outside of the regular cycle.

"It is on the table," said Stephen Toulouse, a program manager in Microsoft's Security Response Center. "Every time any kind of exploitation is going on, it is on the table."

The flaw is the third to hit Microsoft this week. It has to do with how Internet Explorer handles the "createTextRange()" tag in Web pages. A hacker could take advantage of it to gain control over a vulnerable PC by crafting a specially coded Web site, Microsoft said.

McAfee found that a Web site is using the IE vulnerability to sneak malicious code onto vulnerable Windows PCs, IJzerman said. The company has updated its security software to protect against that code, which IJzerman could only describe as something related to spyware.

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+mulls+rushing+out+IE+patch/2100-7349_3-6053961.html?tag=cd.top

Gotta sting, Mastertech, gotta sting.

http://nanobox.chipx86.com/FirefoxFables/images/firefox_fables.gif (http://nanobox.chipx86.com/FirefoxFables/)

[Rafal Dudek]

Why can you not comprehend this. Firefox Myths is not an promotional page for Firefox, it is not a review, it is not a comparison guide. There is no argument. You keep reading into the page something that is not there. The page ONLY debunks Firefox related Myths.

Actually you cant comprehend the fact that an unbiased site doesnt take one side only. Your site is biased, you only take one side, and you flame firefox. No one said you have to promote firefox, to make your site more believeable, you would include the good about FF as well. Obviously you do not want that and claim your website is unbiased. Which means you're website as about as stupid as paypalsucks.com and those anti-starforce websites. End of story.

IE6 with SP2 comes with a Pop-up blocker WITHOUT an extension. That is the default install of IE6 on Windows XP SP2. You can't just start claiming extensions that everyone uses. Regardless it would be a biased test since you would have to install an equivalent IE extension and it still would not be an accurate test.

It is an extention technically because the popup blocker was not present before. MS just "added" it to their default browser. The way firefox works, its released "as is" and with open source and whatnot, people can create easily their own plugins for firefox.

You still don't get it. I am debunking Myths.

Which means you are only taking one side and you are biased. If your site was professional enough, you would take the whole picture, you woudl debunk your myths, you would state the reasoning, you would also talk about what firefox really is and what does it do and let the people for themselves decide. Thats the true power of being a pro in the industry, if you can state all the facts and yet present the entire picture, your article will be more believeable and convincing.

As it stands, your website has not convinced me of anything bad about firefox, it did convince me not to ever install Opera though.

Now, go on and start busing Opera myths and IE myths as well along with other browsers. When you're done so, I just might pay a visit again to your silly website and take a peak at information.

And this changes the number of know vulnerabilities?

Easy, if a userbase percentage sucks for particular application, its a waste of time for hackers to bother with it.

Yours are completely innaccurate because you are not using default installs, cannot account for fluctuations in network bandwidth ect...

Neither are yours. Use the original IE6 without updates for it to be true default.

People are smart enough to make their own choice. If you're going to provide biased website with "information" to steer away people from certain application, your website is losing credibility.

Oh, and please dont bother to quote me, I'll be not responding to this thread anymore. I do my own testing on things, I have my own results to see what works for ME and what isnt. Just because you dont like it doesnt mean their not true.

[Ojnod]

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+mulls+rushing+out+IE+patch/2100-7349_3-6053961.html?tag=cd.top

Gotta sting, Mastertech, gotta sting.

http://nanobox.chipx86.com/FirefoxFables/images/firefox_fables.gif (http://nanobox.chipx86.com/FirefoxFables/)


:lol: :lol: @ your site, great stuff.

[Mastertech]

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+mulls+rushing+out+IE+patch/2100-7349_3-6053961.html?tag=cd.top

Gotta sting, Mastertech, gotta sting.
You did not read carefully:

1 . You did not have all the security updates applied

You will need to apply the upcoming security patch to fix this. Not to menton IE7 Beta 2 is NOT affected by this.

[Mastertech]

Actually you cant comprehend the fact that an unbiased site doesnt take one side only. Your site is biased, you only take one side, and you flame firefox. No one said you have to promote firefox, to make your site more believeable, you would include the good about FF as well. Obviously you do not want that and claim your website is unbiased. Which means you're website as about as stupid as paypalsucks.com and those anti-starforce websites. End of story.What part of this do you not get? THE SITE IS A FIREFOX MYTHS SITE! It only debunks known Firefox Myths. The far majority of Myths being spread are over exaggerated positives. The site is NOT a frickin review site about Firefox!!! Why would I include promotional propaganda? The content is extremely simple. Actually there are two Negative Myths on there:

1. "Firefox and Mozilla are the same"
2. "Firefox's Memory Leak is a Bug"

It is an extention technically because the popup blocker was not present before. MS just "added" it to their default browser. The way firefox works, its released "as is" and with open source and whatnot, people can create easily their own plugins for firefox.Nonsense the latest version of Firefox v1.5 includes an auto update feature. That is NOT an extension. The new version of IE6 in Windows XP SP2 includes a Pop-up Blocker by DEFAULT. That is NOT an extension.

Which means you are only taking one side and you are biased. If your site was professional enough, you would take the whole picture, you woudl debunk your myths, you would state the reasoning, you would also talk about what firefox really is and what does it do and let the people for themselves decide. Thats the true power of being a pro in the industry, if you can state all the facts and yet present the entire picture, your article will be more believeable and convincing.What are you talking about? I am NOT making excuses for the Myths. Endorsing or reviewing Firefox is not what this page is about so get over it. The site is VERY professional since I stick to the content of what the page is about. Firefox Myths should not be used as a review of Firefox but as a resource for misleading claims made by the community. It doesn't get any clearer then that. Firefox Myths is brutally honest and that is the way it is staying on topic.

As it stands, your website has not convinced me of anything bad about firefox, it did convince me not to ever install Opera though.Great! It wasn't supposed to to do either. :thumbup: It is only to debunk Myths.

Now, go on and start busing Opera myths and IE myths as well along with other browsers. When you're done so, I just might pay a visit again to your silly website and take a peak at information.Oh you really don't want me to make an IE Myths site because all the IE Myths are overexaggerated negatives. :) The site is anything but silly.

Easy, if a userbase percentage sucks for particular application, its a waste of time for hackers to bother with it.Nice excuse but it doesn't change the facts. Firefox Fanboys always want to make excuses for everything.

Neither are yours. Use the original IE6 without updates for it to be true default.I am using the original IE6 install with this PC. ;)

People are smart enough to make their own choice. If you're going to provide biased website with "information" to steer away people from certain application, your website is losing credibility.I would hope people are smart enough but quite a few like yourself have a hard time comprehending the website. None of the information is Biased no matter how many times you repeat it. The web page is in no way trying to stear people away from any browser. You fear that telling people the truth about Firefox will do this. Now why would you be afraid of this? Only if they were fed misleading information to begin with.

Oh, and please dont bother to quote me, I'll be not responding to this thread anymore. I do my own testing on things, I have my own results to see what works for ME and what isnt. Just because you dont like it doesnt mean their not true.As usual no reproduceable evidence, only rhetoric. I will hold all Firefox endorsers to task of backing up what they have to say, since this is what led to the Firefox Myths being spread in the first place.

[Nanobe]

You did not read carefully:

1 . You did not have all the security updates applied

You will need to apply the upcoming security patch to fix this. Not to menton IE7 Beta 2 is NOT affected by this.

So if I'm using Internet Explorer right now and get infected with adware, that's my fault because I didn't install patches that will be available next month? What kind of logic is that?

I'm the author of the Firefox Fables page, by the way. And I'm the one whose quotes were butchered twice in the Fanboy Quotes section, and I'm also the allegedly biased source for his standards support information.

And yeah, there's at least one factual error on the Firefox Myths page that Mastertech has been ignoring for months dispite a LOT of feedback about it: Secunia does not list an extremely critical vulnerability for Firefox on Windows. From the Firefox Myths page: "All Myths relate to running the default install of Firefox in Windows with no extensions." Mastertech, here's your chance to explain yourself. Ready, set, go!

I mean, heck, you could just fix it, never mention it in the changelog (the vast majority of the changes you make aren't listed there anyway), and no one will be able to tell you had the error in the first place, since you block the archive.org Wayback Machine and everything. You have everything set up perfectly so that you can hide all criticism. I guess that's why you removed the blog reponses section: the comments all had annoying factual rebuttals.

[Mastertech]

Thats didn't take long for a member here to contact my #1 fan. :thumbup:

[Rafal Dudek]

Thats didn't take long for a member here to contact my #1 fan. :thumbup:

Your #1 fan just pwn3d you.

[Mastertech]

Your #1 fan just pwn3d you.You mean the same guy who was redirecting visitors from my site to specially created warning pages on his in an attempt to bend the truth? After I caught him, he started complaining that I should take down the warning because "he would not do it anymore". :lol: Or is this the same guy who just fabricates massive lies about me? You bet. I will never directly respond to anything he has to say.

[Rafal Dudek]

:lol: sounds like an awesome gripery between you two :p:

[F.Fox]

The flaw affects fully patched versions of IE 6 and Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 2 as well as IE 7 Beta 2 Preview, according to security experts.

Sorry, Mastertech. Plain wrong. Again.

[Cloudw4lker]

No those are EXTENSIONS for IE. What are you talking about? This is NOT a comparison guide, the speed tests were run without any extensions in ANY browser. Let me ask you a simple question: Does Firefox support Adblocking? The obvious answer is YES with the Adblock extension but the default install does not. Thus IE6 supports Tabs with the MSN Toolbar extension it is not complicated. But doesn't using the toolbar slow down the browser? Maybe that's why Firefox is slower, because it HAS everything you get in your extensions out of the box, you can't say it can do all the things that Firefox can AND be just as fast as it was before.

I mean, say I make this browser with next to nothing on it, let's call in links2, but in an extension everyone uses it has all the features of say Opera because you love it so much. It would preform your tests the fastest and have all those features so obviously it's the best right?

As for F.Fox, GREAT link and thanks Nanobe for making it.

[Nanobe]

Let me just repeat something I recently posted on another website you're spamming...

The misinformation on your page still hasn't been corrected. When will you fix the factual error? Firefox for Windows has never had an extremely critical vulnerability. Your page says, "All Myths relate to running the default install of Firefox in Windows with no extensions." and the only extremely critical vulnerability Secunia lists clearly says, "This vulnerability can only be exploited on Unix / Linux based environments." (Source (http://secunia.com/advisories/16869/))

Also, can you tell me why you once claimed that you weren't the owner of the Firefox Myths page and that your name was "Vincent"? (Source (http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=350389#350389))

Can you tell me why you spammed a website using my name? (Source (http://www.whatistheword.com/story/SciTech_609.html))

How is it you claim that my Internet Explorer is Dangerous page is propaganda and your Firefox Myths page isn't? My arguments are properly sourced and everything. (Source (http://www.webdevout.net/ie_is_dangerous.php))

You have repeatedly claimed that your website is intended to educate and not to make money. So can you explain to me this line in your source HTML? var msg = "Ad Blocking is bad for the free Internet. Disable it to look at this page"; (Source: the Firefox Myths page)

You claim to have knowledge about web design. Why then are you using XHTML incorrectly, and why did you rip the design from another website? (Source 1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/), 2 (http://www.irc.nix.co.il/))

By the way, the incorrect use of XHTML is why the adblock-blocking script doesn't work. When you send the page as text/html, the web browsers treat it just like that: HTML, not XHTML. Therefore things like CDATA sections are interpretted as they are in HTML, and the major web browsers don't recognize CDATA sections in HTML. (Source (http://www.webdevout.net/articles/beware_of_xhtml.php))

Why do you insist on claiming that I redirected visitors from your page to a different one? I merely inserted an extra paragraph, specifically pointing out that the paragraph was inserted because the users came from your site, and I dumped that idea on my own a day later, before you put up your warning.

Here's what basically happened: My tables originally showed Internet Explorer as having a higher percentage of support for XHTML 1.1 changes than Firefox. At the time that I was filling this out, I realized that I would need to do something to make it clear that Internet Explorer doesn't actually support ANY of the changes in the proper context (that is, it actually doesn't support those features under any condition in which it is correct to use them). The Firefox Myths page then cited my standards support summary as evidence that Internet Explorer has better support for the XHTML 1.1 changes than Firefox, which isn't really true. It supported some of the new elements as proprietary extensions to HTML, but not as XHTML. So I simply put up that clarification while I tried to decide how to clear it up on the tables themselves. About a day later, I changed it so *everyone* sees the message, whether they came from the Firefox Myths page or not. Mastertech then puts up a notice on his page that I was trying to somehow hide the information from people who came from his site, which is complete nonsense.

Anyway, to wrap up the story, I eventually decided to just give Internet Explorer an "I" rating for each of the elements' "(General)" support, along with a brief explanation why, and then I removed the message for everyone.

Now, Mastertech, please tell me, why did you deliberately alter the quotes in your sidebar so that quotes that originally called your page garbage appear to support your page? (Source (http://www.techspot.com/vb/post249496-1.html))

If everything we say is just laughable, then why have you been banned from 3dgpu (http://3dgpu.com/), Anandtech (http://forums.anandtech.com/), digg (http://www.digg.com/), Forum bX (http://www.bamahome.com/cgi/discus/discus.pl), Geeks to Go (http://www.geekstogo.com/), IntelZone (http://www.intelzone.com/), Lunarsoft.net (http://www.lunarsoft.net/), MozillaZine (http://forums.mozillazine.org/), Nanobox (http://nanobox.chipx86.com/), PCMechanic (http://forum.pcmech.com/), TechSpot (http://www.techspot.com/), and Web Devout (http://www.webdevout.net/)? That's quite an impressive record. And that's just the ones I noticed after half an hour of looking around.

One argument you used to defend your disproportionate emphasis on Opera was that you use Avant Browser and not Opera. Can you please explain to me then why this was in the message headers of the e-mails you sent me: User-Agent: Opera M2/9.0 (Win32)

Tell me why you have posed as these different names, at some point claiming to be different people (sometimes still), when in fact they have all been confirmed to be you via IP address checks? Andrew (http://www.populartechnology.net/), Andrew K. (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html), David Dobsen (http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2005/12/19/firefox-myths/#comment-7915), David H. (http://www.whatistheword.com/story/SciTech_609.html), Drew (http://www.bamahome.com/cgi/discus/board-profile.pl?action=view_profile&profile=drew-users), FFeLEET (http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=369823), GeneralAres (http://forumz.tomshardware.com/software/Firefox-Myths-ftopict229761.html), Jim (http://www.thingoid.com/2006/01/the-myth-of-firefox-myths/#comment-42), Joe Somebody (http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2005/12/19/firefox-myths/#comment-7469), Mastertech (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8269), Mike G. (http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2005/12/19/firefox-myths/#comment-7495), MT (http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/03/08/windows-live-initially-dead-on-firefox-working-now/#comment-71441), NewsHound (http://www.newsforge.com/search.pl?query=newshound), Realist (http://www.thingoid.com/2006/01/the-myth-of-firefox-myths/#comment-28), TheHardTruth (http://digg.com/software/Firefox_Myths_2), Thor (http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2005/12/19/firefox-myths/#comment-7821), and Vincent (http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=350389#350389).

How far should I go on? I think your credibility is pretty much shot. So let's talk about the content of your page. You have clear factual errors which I have informed you about dozens of times over the last few months. Fix them.

[Mastertech]

Sorry, Mastertech. Plain wrong. Again.I don't think so.

Microsoft Security Advisory (917077) (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/917077.mspx)

Note Customers who use the Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 Preview that was released on March 20, 2006 are not affected by the public reported vulnerability.

As you can see I am completely correct.

[Mastertech]

But doesn't using the toolbar slow down the browser? Maybe that's why Firefox is slower, because it HAS everything you get in your extensions out of the box, you can't say it can do all the things that Firefox can AND be just as fast as it was before.Nice excuse but it doesn't change reality, not to mention Opera has all those features and more and it not negatively impacted by performance.

[Nanobe]

The flaw affects fully patched versions of IE 6 and Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 2 as well as IE 7 Beta 2 Preview, according to security experts. Microsoft, however, in its advisory lists the IE7 browser as immune.

Microsoft apparently has not yet seen an exploit for IE7, but other security experts have. Considering it's those security experts who discover most of the vulnerabilities in the first place (while Microsoft is in the business of keeping vulnerabilities secret as long as they can), they are probably right. Of course, you always side with whoever best supports your bias at the moment, so I'll just let you and Microsoft be alone for a while.

Hey, here's an idea: why don't you go to the infected sites yourself and see if you get spyware in IE7? If you're right, you have nothing to worry about. If you're wrong, it'll just be that much more funny.

[Nanobe]

Does Firefox support Adblocking? The obvious answer is YES with the Adblock extension but the default install does not. Thus IE6 supports Tabs with the MSN Toolbar extension it is not complicated.

Whoa whoa whoa, let me get this straight... For the question, "Does Internet Explorer 6 support tabbed browsing?" your answer is "Yes, with the MSN toolbar extension"?

Alright then... For the question, "Does Firefox block all popups?" the answer is "Yes, with the AdBlock and NoScript extensions."

Your response would probably be "But my page clearly says all myths relate to the default install of Firefox with no extensions." So why do you talk about Internet Explorer WITH extensions? You're holding a double standard, which is obviously meant to mislead your viewers.

Your intentions are clear, your page is biased fanboy propaganda, and you resort to nothing but personal attacks and rhetoric to defend your argument. All of my facts are properly sourced and I encourage everyone to read them.

Does that last paragraph sound familiar? That's because you're a hypocrite too. Thanks for wasting more of my time, and stop spamming sites that obviously don't want your garbage.

[Mastertech]

Pure nonsense. Firefox supports popup blocking natively and it is far from perfect as I clearly point out. You can't use Adblock and Noscript to test the native popup blocking features of a browser, please. I can disable all scripting in IE and wow no popups. Which makes it completely irrelevant to the effectiveness of Firefox's popup blocking capability.

IE 6 clearly supports Tabs with the MSN Toolbar extension. No matter how bad you want to cover that up like you do everything else.

Nothing is misleading except you and how you tried to redirect only visitors coming from my web page to your biased propaganda. Except I caught you and fixed that problem. I clearly link directly to the sources and don't do misleading things like have ridiculous Firefox is Dangerous banners when Firefox users visit my website. Oh wait that is something YOU do, only you use IE is Dangerous banners.

[bmn]

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/718/trollwithtext9rt.jpg

[F.Fox]

That is YOUR opinion but the reason it happened was one of the following:

1. You did not have all the security updates applied
2. You never removed MSJVM
3. You manually installed it

Those are the only way you can get infected with IE.

Since when is downloading a beta version of a program applying a security update?

The problem with dogma is that it eventually leads you to make an ass of yourself when you are proved wrong.

F.Fox just pinned a tail on your ass and if you can't see it Mastertech, don't worry, everybody else can see it just fine.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0001RFOIK.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[Nanobe]

Pure nonsense. Firefox supports popup blocking natively and it is far from perfect as I clearly point out. You can't use Adblock and Noscript to test the native popup blocking features of a browser, please. I can disable all scripting in IE and wow no popups. Which makes it completely irrelevant to the effectiveness of Firefox's popup blocking capability.

So basically, you're saying Firefox doesn't block all popups natively, therefore Firefox doesn't block all popups. Internet Explorer 6 doesn't support tabbed browsing natively, therefore Internet Explorer 6 doesn't support tabbed browsing.

IE 6 clearly supports Tabs with the MSN Toolbar extension. No matter how bad you want to cover that up like you do everything else.

So basically, you're saying Internet Explorer 6 supports tabbed browsing with extensions, therefore Internet Explorer 6 supports tabbed browsing. Firefox blocks all popups with extensions, therefore Firefox blocks all popups.

If you don't see the contradiction, you might be retarded.

Nothing is misleading except you and how you tried to redirect only visitors coming from my web page to your biased propaganda. Except I caught you and fixed that problem. I clearly link directly to the sources and don't do misleading things like have ridiculous Firefox is Dangerous banners when Firefox users visit my website. Oh wait that is something YOU do, only you use IE is Dangerous banners.

By the time you added that notice to your site, my site wasn't doing anything special to visitors coming from your site. You didn't "catch" anything, I made the change on my own. And no, I never redirected anyone coming from your site. For a few hours, visitors who came from your site got this additional paragraph on the summary page:

The article you have just come from states that Internet Explorer has better support for the XHTML 1.1 changes than Firefox. It should be noted that although Internet Explorer does support some of the relevant elements, it does not support them in any fashion in which it is correct to use those elements. Internet Explorer only supports the elements as proprietary extensions to HTML. True XHTML 1.1 must be sent with the content type "application/xhtml+xml" or a generic XML content type, which Internet Explorer does not recognize as a webpage without the application of special hacks.

That's a very odd definition of "propaganda" you have. Anyone knowledgeable in web design already knows the above information -- it comes straight from the World Wide Web Consortium (http://w3.org/). The problem is you're trying to feed on people's ignorance, and you don't like the fact that I'm trying to show people the truth.

Furthermore, the word "redirect" implies that the visitors were turned away from the resource they were trying to reach, which never happened. I never turned people away from the standards support summary page. I very briefly inserted one little extra paragraph, which I later decided to show for everyone, even people not coming from your site. Soon afterward, I updated the tables with this information and could remove the notice. I don't see how a reasonable person can find my actions illegitimate. But then again, as you've proven time and time again, you are not a reasonable person.

Stop spreading lies and myths.

[Mastertech]

Since when is downloading a beta version of a program applying a security update?Hey be "cool" and don't secure your system. Mine is secure.

[Mastertech]

Firefox clearly does not block all pop-ups even a blind man can see it. IE6 supports Tabs with the MSN Toolbar extension. Hey look nothing changed on my page in relation to your comments again. I wonder why this keeps happening?

You have shown you IE Bias with your IE is Dangerous propaganda page that only shows up to IE visitors. You also refuse to make you page readable in IE because of the same BIAS. On the other hand I will never include such a warning, try to make sure my pages work with ALL browsers. But the page redirection takes the cake and shows the lengths you will go to, to deceive people of the truth. Fanboys like yourself have to include pages of rhetoric and excuses to try and cover up the obvious facts. Not only did I catch you red handed you cried to me saying I could link directly to your page again and you would not do these things anymore. Yeah right, what type of person does a deceptive thing like this to begin with? Someone like you Mr. Hammond, someone like you. No one can trust anything you say because of this. Pitty.

[Nanobe]

Hey be "cool" and don't secure your system. Mine is secure.

OH! OH! You have been caught! Oh I love it.

Remember folks, as Mastertech has said many times in the past, calling something "secure" means it is *perfectly* secure, not relatively secure. Mastertech has relied on that argument in countless past discussions. And now he's claiming that his system is completely impenetrable. Even though Secunia lists one extremely critical vulnerability for IE7 (http://secunia.com/advisories/18680/), and there have been other vulnerabilities (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/02/ie7beta_vuln/) discovered as well. If this is what you call secure, then it would seem Firefox is beyond secure.

[Nanobe]

Firefox clearly does not block all pop-ups even a blind man can see it. IE6 supports Tabs with the MSN Toolbar extension. Hey look nothing changed on my page in relation to your comments again. I wonder why this keeps happening?

Because you're a biased fanboy, duh. Firefox clearly blocks all popups with the right settings. Heck, you don't even *need* extensions to block all popups. Anyone can clearly see that IE6 doesn't support tabs by default. What's so hard to understand?

You have shown you IE Bias with your IE is Dangerous propaganda page that only shows up to IE visitors.

My page is propaganda and yours is not? Is there some source I forgot to cite? Tell me what on my page is more biased then your Firefox Myths article and I'll clear it up.

You also refuse to make you page readable in IE because of the same BIAS.

Just because I'm biased? If you have a way to give elements table displays in Internet Explorer purely through CSS, please let me know and I'll fix it up. As it stands, my page can NOT be made to work in Internet Explorer in any comparable way, and that's due to limitations Internet Explorer has that no other major browser has.

On the other hand I will never include such a warning, try to make sure my pages work with ALL browsers.

*ahem* "Ad Blocking is bad for the free Internet. Disable it to look at this page" (from the Firefox Myths page HTML)

But the page redirection takes the cake and shows the lengths you will go to, to deceive people of the truth.

Considering that I never redirected visitors coming from your site, that's a very interesting statement.

Fanboys like yourself have to include pages of rhetoric and excuses to try and cover up the obvious facts.

Fanboys like yourself have to include pages of rhetoric and excuses to try and cover up the obvious facts.

Not only did I catch you red handed you cried to me saying I could link directly to your page again and you would not do these things anymore.

Haha. You didn't "catch me red handed" and I honestly don't care whether or not you link directly to my page. I just want you to stop lying about things I've done. It's called libel, and it's against the law.

Yeah right, what type of person does a deceptive thing like this to begin with?

You?

Someone like you Mr. Hammond, someone like you.

Aw, I never get your questions right.

No one can trust anything you say because of this. Pitty.

Which is why so many people trust what you have to say? Let's look back at that poll you started on Ars Technica about whether or not people think your page is biased...

16%: Informative - Debunks alot of misinformation
78%: Biased
6%: Good but could be better

But at least people rallied behind you in the end, right? Oh wait (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/99609816/m/558005957731/p/12).

[bmn]

http://www.salagir.com/gfx/troll-web.jpg

The only person you're going to convince of anything would be Mastertech, and he's simply not listening. No matter how much we tell him he's wrong, he's going to leave the page as is. Nothing we say or do is going to have any factor in anything he does. Thus, this is not a thread promoting a healthy discussion of his site or any factual content, or indeed anything. It is spam and one of the moderators should lock it. We all know Mr. Tech is just a great big Spam Troll, as does almost everyone else on the entire planet. We've been duped into giving him exactly what he wanted and now playtime is over. Don't feed the Troll.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/anne.rooney/troll/troll.gif

[Rafal Dudek]

Awwwww I was gonna pull up a comfy chair and grab a bucket of popcorn cause things were getting interesting :p:

[mandrake]

That is great. I'm personally done with IE when its vulnerability let a trojan downloader through that took way too much work to fully remove.

lol
And that's just one of a host of reasons for me.

[Chylde Roland]

Awwwww I was gonna pull up a comfy chair and grab a bucket of popcorn cause things were getting interesting :p:
:lol:

And I'm enjoying reading this thread with my lovely browser, Firefox. :yes:

It's actually a lot of fun when someone makes a complete ass of himself, proves himself a hypocrite and a blantant spammer and a troll to boot. Heck, I think the entertainment value provided here is the only reason we haven't locked the thread yet. :D:

[mandrake]

:lol:

And I'm enjoying reading this thread with my lovely browser, Firefox. :yes:

It's actually a lot of fun when someone makes a complete ass of himself, proves himself a hypocrite and a blantant spammer and a troll to boot. Heck, I think the entertainment value provided here is the only reason we haven't locked the thread yet. :D:

:lol: :yes: :no: :yes: :lol:

[bmn]

Hey be "cool" and don't secure your system. Mine is secure.
I use IE 24/7 without incident.

Ouch. (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1944579,00.asp) Again, that is.