# Firefox Myths!?



## knight_47 (Mar 15, 2006)

I honestly don't belive most of these, but hey, I am no expert. So what do you guys think about all this?

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

The owner of that site is a member here and at another site I also belong to, where he has been discredited.
For interesting reading, click on this google search for Mastertech banned

I wouldn't put much value to the info at that site


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Its already been debunked a few times (basically, the author is a moron.)


----------



## dr911 (Sep 21, 2005)

Did a *"Google"* search on *"Mastertech"* . I came up with *640* links to his/her *banning !!!* If he/she is a member at TGF....why is he/she still a "member" here ?? :down: :down:


----------



## RozyBean (Feb 12, 2006)

Hi,
Some of it is true, Firefox is definitely slightly slower than Opera, although there is a page prefetch addon for Firefox that greatly improves it.
The browser speed page http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#winspeed is interesting, although we are talking very small amounts of time and as the internet varies all the time, it would be very hard to measure.

As to Firefox being first with tabs, I used Crazy Browser years ago, which had a better tab system than either Firefox or Opera. Their systems have only just caught up in the last year or so.

The chap who wrote the site obviously doesn't like Firefox, but like every thing else it has good and bad points, the answer is to try any browser that takes your fancy and form your own opinion.

Rozy.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

The site nor myself has ever been discredited. The handful of sites that banned me did so because that was the only way they could get me to stop debating the facts that they wanted to ignore. Don't believe me read the sources for yourself. FYI the page has just been updates to v1.2.0. Firefox has currently surpassed 100 security vulnerabilities.

As you can see by a few of the fanboys here they don't debate any facts they just make personal attacks against myself. Nothing new.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

LMAO, if only there were facts on your site 



> Opera is actually the most Secure Graphical Web Browser in Windows with 0 unpatched vulnerabilities.


Your own source Secunia (who is awfully inaccurate but you seem to trust them) says that Opera has 2 unpatched vulnerabilities. Your source says there are 2, and still you say that there are 0. How exactly did you come up with that (and this is ignoring that Secunia does not list every vulnerability and often lists the same vulnerability multiple times)?

EDIT: No need to debunk the whole site again so I'll just leave an example.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

By the way...comparing the speed of a beta version of Firefox with the default settings to a release of Opera which has been specially configured to run faster is not considered a fair comparison.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Mastertech, you must have missed this part of the rules. There's no reason for the over sized signature. Nice guy that I am, I have fixed it for you. 

*Misuse of vB Code* - Over-use or mis-use of vB Codes may be held as an offense at moderators' discretion. This would include particularly annoying, large, flashing, or otherwise unnecessary over-use of such special features.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Totally debunked over at ARS _
First page of thread at Ars:
LINK
last page of that thread at ARS:
LINK

Read the last page for sure


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

The link is still broken


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Both load for me


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

I meant the link in his signature


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Oh, just tried that and I see what you mean


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Works for me.


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

brendandonhu said:


> The link is still broken


Fixed now

it works in Firefox anyway


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

That still leaves all the broken links on his site though 
My favorite part is how his site still links to Digg, where his site has been permanently banned.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

brendandonhu said:


> LMAO, if only there were facts on your site
> 
> Your own source Secunia (who is awfully inaccurate but you seem to trust them) says that Opera has 2 unpatched vulnerabilities. Your source says there are 2, and still you say that there are 0. How exactly did you come up with that (and this is ignoring that Secunia does not list every vulnerability and often lists the same vulnerability multiple times)?
> 
> EDIT: No need to debunk the whole site again so I'll just leave an example.


Does it really? You may want to actually check something before assuming = Opera 0 Unpatched Vulnerabilities (Secunia). But why would I expect any less?


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

You're joking right?
Secunia lists 2 unpatched vulnerabilities for Opera, its not that hard to find.
http://secunia.com/product/81/
http://secunia.com/product/82/
I'm sure you'll just add another qualifier to your already fudged statistics to discount them anyway.

I'd still love to hear your explanation as to why your source compares a default installation of Firefox to a specially configured installation of Opera.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

Are you kidding me? Those are for Opera version 5 and 6. Opera is up to version 8 and is soon to be releasing Opera 9. Talk about ridiculous! Maybe I should add in Firefox vulnerabilities pre Firefox 1.x? Do you really take yourself seriously? Opera 8 has NO unpatched vulnerabilities.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

brendandonhu said:


> I'd still love to hear your explanation as to why your source compares a default installation of Firefox to a specially configured installation of Opera.


I would love to see you prove where he says he used a specially configured installation of Opera. I would also love to see you produce documented reproduceable proof that shows otherwise regardless.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

> Opera 8 has NO unpatched vulnerabilities.


Not only is that not what your site says, but neither you or me have any way of knowing how many vulnerabilities Opera has seeing as its closed-source.



> Maybe I should add in Firefox vulnerabilities pre Firefox 1.x?


Go ahead...its exactly the same number of unpatched vulnerabilities as the number of unpatched Opera vulnerabilities. You are the one that said it only takes one vulnerability to be insecure.



> I would love to see you prove where he says he used a specially configured installation of Opera. I would also love to see you produce documented reproduceable proof that shows otherwise regardless.


I think you're right, sounds like he re-did the tests with the default setting. What hasn't been fixed is that he was using an alpha version of one browser, beta version of another, preview version of another, and a final release of another browser. That's very fair  But what do you expect from a comparison of Opera vs. Firefox that was performed by an employee of Opera.



> "Any browser is more secure by not supporting... Firefox.


^That trick doesn't work by the way, everyone knows what the [...] stands for

By the way, why is it that the top of your page says you are talking about a default install of Firefox with no extensions, then later you cite a page about Java vulnerabilities that don't have anything to do with Firefox except being installed by an extension?


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

brendandonhu said:


> Not only is that not what your site says, but neither you or me have any way of knowing how many vulnerabilities Opera has seeing as its closed-source.


Oh come on. The source link clearly goes to Opera 8. No matter how much you wish it were not so the closed source web browser Opera 8 has no unpatched vulnerabilities. Stop making excuses.



brendandonhu said:


> Go ahead...its exactly the same number of unpatched vulnerabilities as the number of unpatched Opera vulnerabilities. You are the one that said it only takes one vulnerability to be insecure.


If I added in those vulnerabilities to Firefox, the vulnerabilities would be in the hundreds. Currently Opera 8 is secure. And the Myth is CLEARLY that "Firefox is the most Secure Web Browser". It most definitely is not, Opera 8 actually is the most Secure Graphical Web Browser in Windows.



brendandonhu said:


> I think you're right, sounds like he re-did the tests with the default setting. What hasn't been fixed is that he was using an alpha version of one browser, beta version of another, preview version of another, and a final release of another browser. That's very fair  But what do you expect from a comparison of Opera vs. Firefox that was performed by an employee of Opera.


Then please provide documented reproduceable proof that proves otherwise. All you are able to do is complain but are completely incapable of proving one fact. Firefox Fanboys just can't handle the truth.



brendandonhu said:


> By the way, why is it that the top of your page says you are talking about a default install of Firefox with no extensions, then later you cite a page about Java vulnerabilities that don't have anything to do with Firefox except being installed by an extension?


Java is not a Firefox extension. You need to stop crying about this it clearly proves Firefox can easily infect your computer with Spyware.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

> Java is not a Firefox extension.


If you do the default install from java.com in Firefox, why does it list it under "Extensions" in the browser 



> You need to stop crying about this it clearly proves Firefox can easily infect your computer with Spyware.


You aren't convincing anyone...your "Secure XP" page shows us how little you know about spyware. How exactly did you conclude that Firefox can infect your PC with spyware 

I know you only care about the ad money from your site and you can read the Ars thread if you need a complete debunking, I'm not going to waste any more time explaining the basics of web browsers to you.


----------



## Datalyss (Dec 8, 2005)

Speaking of siggies, I''ve unchecked both "Show Signatures" and "Show Avatars" . On this particular board, I see no reason for the "fluff."

Now, in regard to IE being faster than FF? BULLFRAK!! IE 6 might load faster because it's part of Windows, but loading webpages in IE is about half as fast as in FF, and IE 7 beta 2 is slower than growing grass.

Also, as for security...*Nothing* is fool-proof.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

brendandonhu said:


> If you do the default install from java.com in Firefox, why does it list it under "Extensions" in the browser


Why is it listed as an add-on at mozilla.com and NOT an extension? Because Java is not a Firefox extension.



brendandonhu said:


> You aren't convincing anyone...your "Secure XP" page shows us how little you know about spyware. How exactly did you conclude that Firefox can infect your PC with spyware


So little that I don't get infected with spyware and do this for a living in real life not in some forum.



brendandonhu said:


> I know you only care about the ad money from your site and you can read the Ars thread if you need a complete debunking, I'm not going to waste any more time explaining the basics of web browsers to you.


No I care about the information I provide. The Ars thread doesn't debunk anything. Yes please don't waste anymore of anyone's time with any more fabrications about the Firefox Myths page.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

Datalyss said:


> Now, in regard to IE being faster than FF? BULLFRAK!! IE 6 might load faster because it's part of Windows, but loading webpages in IE is about half as fast as in FF, and IE 7 beta 2 is slower than growing grass.


IE 6 not only loads faster than FF but is overall faster in 6 out of 7 measures of performance. If IE loads faster because it is part of Windows then why does Opera load faster than it? You can't use excuses. Excuses don't change the facts. IE 7 is also faster than FF. You cannot use extensions such as adblock and fasterfox with Firefox to do a speed comparison. Please provide documented reproduceable proof of any of your claims otherwise they are meaningless.


----------



## Datalyss (Dec 8, 2005)

Mastertech said:


> IPlease provide documented reproduceable proof of any of your claims otherwise they are meaningless.


I'm speaking from my own experience. How am I suppose to provide proof of that?!


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

I might suggest some caution as to how statements are worded 
As has been proven, your words in altered combinations can show up at that web site meaning something other than what you intended ....


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

Mastertech
we have edited your signature for the second time in 2 days

Next time you increase it's size you will be banned

This is your last warning


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I'm just curious as to what drives this one man crusade against Firefox? I don't even use it with Windows, and I can't work myself up to hate it as much as you do. I think you need to get out more.


----------



## Datalyss (Dec 8, 2005)

Stoner said:


> I might suggest some caution as to how statements are worded
> As has been proven, your words in altered combinations can show up at that web site meaning something other than what you intended ....


Ok.  I'm done with Mastertroll anyway.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

Datalyss said:


> I'm speaking from my own experience. How am I suppose to provide proof of that?!


That is the problem many people incorrectly assume something is faster. How does someone prove a video card or a new driver version is faster than another? By personal experiences? Show me the reputable hardware site that reviews hardware and concludes one is faster than the other by saying their own personal experiences? Come on.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

dvk01 said:


> Mastertech
> we have edited your signature for the second time in 2 days
> 
> Next time you increase it's size you will be banned
> ...


What? I've read the rules of the forums which state:



> Signatures - When posting a useful response, you may include your own web page (or that of your company) in the signature of your message. However, this does not precede other rules. (That is to say that you can't mis-use vB Code in your link, provide links to naughty web sites, etc.)


So please show me where it says oversized signatures are not allowed. First of all, what accounts for oversized signatures? No font size adjustment at all? You might want to make this clear. I used a size 3 the last time. The first time it was a 7. The last time I adjusted the font size I merely matched YOUR size. So it is ok for Moderators to use a size 3 font but members are not? If this is so please state these in the rules.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

JohnWill said:


> I'm just curious as to what drives this one man crusade against Firefox? I don't even use it with Windows, and I can't work myself up to hate it as much as you do. I think you need to get out more.


I'm curious as to what makes people jump to ridiculous conclusions. I dislike misinformation, I dislike fanboys but I most certainly do not hate Firefox. I do dislike the propaganda about it though. Funny how I can rationally provide facts that debunk Myths about something and that gets construed as hate. As you can CLEARLY see here from the continued spread of propaganda for Firefox that I have alot of work to do yet. :up:


----------



## knight_47 (Mar 15, 2006)

Mastertech, you need a girlfriend...


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

Mastertech said:


> What? I've read the rules of the forums which state:
> 
> So please show me where it says oversized signatures are not allowed. First of all, what accounts for oversized signatures? No font size adjustment at all? You might want to make this clear. I used a size 3 the last time. The first time it was a 7. The last time I adjusted the font size I merely matched YOUR size. So it is ok for Moderators to use a size 3 font but members are not? If this is so please state these in the rules.


Misuse of vB Code - Over-use or mis-use of vB Codes may be held as an offense at moderators' discretion. This would include particularly annoying, large, flashing, or otherwise unnecessary over-use of such special features.

I think that pretty much covers it, but if need be, we can have TechGuy re-word it so that it's clearer.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

AcaCandy said:


> I think that pretty much covers it, but if need be, we can have TechGuy re-word it so that it's clearer.


Yes please, this needs to be very clear. Otherwise a moderator can simply declare anything annoying. If font size adjustment is not allowed at all say so ect...


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

The Administration, in its discretion has final say as to the specific action to be taken, if any, for violations of rules. Further, the Administration reserves the right to close or delete any thread or post that it deems unacceptable for any reason, regardless of whether such thread or post violates a specific rule or rules.

And of course, that would cover it in any event


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

How's this for a myth?

Will MT's site really infect your computer with malware? 


If the mods think that's out of line with the forum rules....go ahead and delete this post


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

Mastertech said:


> What? I've read the rules of the forums which state:
> 
> So please show me where it says oversized signatures are not allowed. First of all, what accounts for oversized signatures? No font size adjustment at all? You might want to make this clear. I used a size 3 the last time. The first time it was a 7. The last time I adjusted the font size I merely matched YOUR size. So it is ok for Moderators to use a size 3 font but members are not? If this is so please state these in the rules.


Without getting into a slanging match

You were warned nicely yesterday that the large font was unacceptable

To attempt to override a moderator's decision and immediately alter it within 24 hours is just not playing ball

And it was size 4 not size 3 that I removed today


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

> Why is it listed as an add-on at mozilla.com and NOT an extension? Because Java is not a Firefox extension.


Actually, if you go to Java.com in Firefox and do the default install, it is an extension. If you don't install it as an extension to Firefox, how can it possibly be considered a firefox vulnerability? No need to respond to this, just skip to the next post.


----------



## LauraMJ (Mar 18, 2004)




----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Thanks Brendan 
That's the funniest turn of events yet....LOL!


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Yeah, wouldn't that be a great Digg story 
Maybe he'll explain how he was just testing out the latest Firefox bugs, or maybe he set up Opera to send Firefox headers to trick people


----------



## Flrman1 (Jul 26, 2002)

I'd say this thread has outlived it's usefulness so I'm going to close it before the pissing matches begin again. 

Have a lovely day!


----------

