# Firefox, IE. Tech journalists are a disgrace



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

"Worse than that, they are praising this steaming pile of bug-ridden code, while making hilarious gags about how far behind Microsoft is. What these odious little punks are forgetting is that no one - and I mean NO ONE - in the real world cares about browsers. Most of them don't know which one they use and just eight percent of the people interviewed in Times Square by Google earlier this year could explain what a browser actually did."
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/43102/141/


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

As I've always said, the superiority of FF over IE, which some people take to be total and unquestioned, is little more than a rampant internet myth, perpetuated by IT wannabe's that have a nerdgasm every time a new version comes out. Every piece of software that is updated from time to time has its ups and downs, and FF is no exception.

There seems to be a belief that if something is open-source, it is automatically good. Or at least that it should be given more leeway and faults should be accepted that would never pass muster in any commercial release. There is a lot of poor open-source software and some that is pure junk. It is possible to support open-source as an idea without compromising what level of quality is allowed. Can you imagine if you saw an ad for some program for sale that stated that it had 60 bugs and that they hoped they could fix them before the next release? So is that all right for FF just because we don't pay cash for it?


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

As far as normal browsing, both work just fine. I like FF simply because of the rich assortment of add-on's that you can expand it's functionality and customize it. Maybe it's just the embedded hacker in me, I don't know, but FF is my choice for what I believe is a valid reason.


----------



## AKAJohnDoe (Jun 6, 2007)

Heh. I have IE 8, Firefox 3.5, and Opera 9.64 installed. While I certainly have my preference, there be bugs in all three ...


----------



## techkid (Sep 2, 2004)

I never push forward with major releases of any program and Firefox is no exception. Until it has been established that the coding is stable, I would probably steer clear of it.

Given that I am a big FF user, I do like it because it is customisable, and you do have features, add-ons and other what-have-you that make it more controllable, manageable and even fun (I added FoxyTunes for my music, Net Usage Meter, Extended Statusbar and Broadband Speed Test and Diagnostics).

That being said, from a technological standpoint I don't feel that IE or FF have many things different from each other, apart from the above customisations, and the fact that HTML and other web coding designed for IE does not display or work properly in Firefox (a fact which can usually be remedied with the IE Tab add-on, another feature I like and have).


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

Elvandil said:


> So is that all right for FF just because we don't pay cash for it?


I find the opposite true.

People put up with a lot from MS after paying a fortune and go back to it again and again.

One little problem with Linux, out the door it goes.

Relating to browsers, how much does IE cost?


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Just about every (major) browser does what it needs to do. I generally have 3 or 4 different browsers open at one time. Each has some small feature that I like for some particular purpose. My virtualized GreenBrowser (not really a browser but a Trident front-end) seems to capture every possible download better than the others. Sleipnir is the most customizable and can switch from Gecko to Trident for best page rendering. And it remembers last opened pages. SeaMonkey lets me open multiple pages at once with no slowdown. K-Meleon or Opera work best for videos.

Though each has its own high points, it would certainly be possible to live with just one if that were necessary. But it is nice to have the choice and variety. And the competition makes all of them get better.


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

Elvandil said:


> Though each has its own high points, it would certainly be possible to live with just one if that were necessary. But it is nice to have the choice and variety. And the competition makes all of them get better.


:up:


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Elvandil said:


> Though each has its own high points, it would certainly be possible to live with just one if that were necessary. But it is nice to have the choice and variety. And the competition makes all of them get better.


I don't necessarily agree with this since not all current browsers run on all platforms.

With the exception of IE8, IE has been FAR BEHIND the other modern browsers when it comes to W3 standards support. IE8 has addressed that perfectly and FINALLY I can develop a site that literally *just works* in IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Google Chrome (and Ephiphany and Seamonkey and so on). In fact, I use IE8's compatibility view to see how a site I'm working on renders in IE7 vs IE8 and IE8 renders the page almost exactly like Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Google Chrome.

Outside of W3 standard support, I consider the browsers to be just about equal when talking about extensibility and related usability topics.

Being the long time IE-basher I've been, I must give Microsoft props for what they've done with IE8.

EDIT: With regard to the article, I consider the author an idiot. A typo in an online help file is considered a *bug* so a simple "bug count" isn't necessarily indicative of anything. What I do wonder is why the browser developers feel the need to "rush to market", considering how soooo many people complain at change. I mean the current user base has already learned their current browser and probably isn't in a hurry to get an upgrade unless they need some functionality they don't have now.

Peace...


----------



## techkid (Sep 2, 2004)

tomdkat said:


> With the exception of IE8, IE has been FAR BEHIND the other modern browsers when it comes to W3 standards support. IE8 has addressed that perfectly and FINALLY I can develop a site that literally *just works* in IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Google Chrome (and Ephiphany and Seamonkey and so on).


Wow, really? Given how loosely Microsoft (and probably most if not all current web browsers) adhere to W3C standards, I'm surprised they put in the effort this time around...



tomdkat said:


> What I do wonder is why the browser developers feel the need to "rush to market", considering how soooo many people complain at change. I mean the current user base has already learned their current browser and probably isn't in a hurry to get an upgrade unless they need some functionality they don't have now.


It is kind of stupid that they are more concerned about getting their product "out there" than they are about functionality. It is a given that there are going to be bugs or holes in any software, but at least they can take the time to ensure that the system isn't going to crash or otherwise stop working properly when you run the software.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

techkid said:


> Wow, really? Given how loosely Microsoft (and probably most if not all current web browsers) adhere to W3C standards, I'm surprised they put in the effort this time around...


Yep, IE8 is great at supporting W3C standards (at least CSS1 and CSS2.1).



> It is kind of stupid that they are more concerned about getting their product "out there" than they are about functionality. It is a given that there are going to be bugs or holes in any software, but at least they can take the time to ensure that the system isn't going to crash or otherwise stop working properly when you run the software.


Firefox takes heat for crashing when a lot of the problem is caused by a third-party extension. Firefox developers take heat for "breaking" extensions with each new Firefox release when the Firefox extension developers are the ones who need to keep their extensions current.

What boggles my mind about the 'rush to market' mindset is we're talking about free software. In the case of commerical competing products, competitors need to get to market quickly since consumers won't sit around and "wait" for any given product to hit the market. As soon as a product that does what is needed arrives at the right price, people will buy it.

In the case of these browsers, no one is buying anything so I don't understand the need to get a release "out there" and not slip release dates. A pattern of slipping release dates could be interpreted as the release planners not being very good at scheduling releases or that the product developers are having problems getting the product to work but I don't know how the general public would view that.

What I do know is we, the browser users, are a finicky bunch.  There will ALWAYS be someone who thinks any given beta version of a browser is "ready" for GA release once their site of choice functions in it. There will ALWAYS be someone who thinks any given GA release is still a "beta" and released pre-maturely. There will ALWAYS be someone who thinks the new version is a step backward from the old version. There will ALWAYS be someone who thinks the new version is the greatest thing since sliced bread... or at least the last version since the last version was ALSO the greatest thing since sliced bread.  There will ALWAYS be someone who never wants the browser to change and there will ALWAYS be someone who wants the browser to continually evolve.

They do the best they can to produce the best product they can and deal with the commentary and feedback as it comes in. Maybe the browsers released recently really haven't been "rushed" or really aren't "bug ridden" as some think. Each new browser release offers new functionality the old one didn't so there will always be something new that will "break" in the wild since the browser testers can test only so much.

What I want to know is what percentage of those who slam any given new browser release as being "broken" or "crap" actually try out the beta releases and release candidates and report issues they find *before* the browser is officially released. Or does these folks simply wait for the new browser to come out and then start complaining.

I dunno. I've got access to IE8 and Firefox 3.5 now so I'll be playing with both. 

Peace...


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Check this out here, http://browsershots.org/

http://browsershots.org/http://forums.techguy.org/

And this thread.
http://browsershots.org/http://foru...401-firefox-ie-tech-journalists-disgrace.html

It takes time so not all Browsers may of gotten a screen shot yet.

It also Expires in 26 minutes so your have to start over again.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Thanks for the links. The IE8 screenshot in the first browsershots set didn't fully load but the one in the second shot looks cool.

Peace...


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

You're wecome tomdkat.

If you go the http://browsershots.org/ you can then pick the Browsers. 
But I did not pick any so guess those are pre-check to show what one they check with. So guess you can uncheck all the others ones you don't need to look at.

You know a long time ago I think it was rhett that posted a site here that has all these pass Browsers but what was cool was you could get online and Browse around with them online from that web site so it was cool. I remember trying out many and using Netscape 1.x or maybe even a beta version before version 1.x. and some others I never heard of.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

I'm very familiar with BrowserShots.org as I use that site often. 

The other site you mention sounds interesting too. 

Peace...


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Well that was a new site I just found trying to find that other one I one I was talking about. Now that was maybe 7 years ago so who knows if it is around still.


----------

