FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


10 Reasons Why Firefox and Opera Are Better Than Internet Ex





Meit
1. No more ads! IE doesn’t have a decent integrated ad-blocking device. Opera and Firefox, on the other hand, have the excellent AdBlock plugin. Of course, if you like to support a site with a few clicks you can set it to show ads for that site. Bloggers are ever so happy when they get a click or two. Wink
2. Fast security updates – Internet Explorer’s security updates come with Microsoft’s usual once-per-week schedule. By that time, Firefox has updated itself several times already. Fast updates are very important for security as they help to protect browsers from the newest security threats.
3. Reasonable tabbed browsing – Internet Explorer’s tabs are quite a mess. Can’t close them when they’re open and no way to bookmark any at the same time.
4. Accepting certificates – IE shows the finger to all security certificates it doesn’t trust for some reason. Using your company’s solutions can be quite difficult…
5. Web standards – Firefox’s and Opera’s support of web standards is better.
6. Portability – You can take Opera or Firefox with you anytime on a memory stick or flash memory device. Internet Explorer is stuck in your Windows.
7. Only for Windows – IE is only made for Windows. Firefox, Opera and even Safari are all made for several operating systems.
8. Customization – Opera has a heap of widgets to use. Firefox has tons of plugins and themes so you can make your favorite browser work and look any way you like. Try that on Internet Explorer! Very Happy
9. Password Management – Firefox and Opera let you choose to delete remembered passwords and Firefox even lets you set one master password to protect the others. IE remains unprotected.
10. Speed – On Windows XP, both Firefox and Opera are much faster than IE7 when several pages are open. Internet Explorer’s speed is better on Vista, but come on – you need Vista for that!
Diablosblizz
Even though I am a long-term Firefox lover, I'd just like to point out flaws in your post. They go in order in which you posted. Your 1 is my 1.

1. You say Firefox has an integrated ad-blocking plugin, although you also state that you must download it. It's not integrated, it's a plugin.
2. No comment, even though I rarely get updates for Firefox, once a month maybe?
3. You can't close tabs on IE, what are you blind or something? Honestly, this point is just retarded.

Skipping some..

6. Every Windows machine has IE. No it's not portable, but if you're using it on a Windows machine it already has it.
7. Incorrect. There was a Mac version of Internet Explorer until Safari came. Even though Safari sucks more than IE.

I always will be a Firefox user, but I just thought I'd point out the flaws.
loyal
Diablosblizz wrote:

6. Every Windows machine has IE. No it's not portable, but if you're using it on a Windows machine it already has it.


Peace

Razz except windows 7 shipped in europe lol (source: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/06/windows-7-to-be-shipped-in-europe-sans-internet-explorer.ars)
anakin_skyrunner
loyal wrote:
Diablosblizz wrote:

6. Every Windows machine has IE. No it's not portable, but if you're using it on a Windows machine it already has it.


Peace

Razz except windows 7 shipped in europe lol (source: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/06/windows-7-to-be-shipped-in-europe-sans-internet-explorer.ars)


This is incorrect, respectively it was correct for some time, but is now incorrect Wink
See the following posts:
EU Vista, XP users will also get to vote IE off the island - Ars
Microsoft confirms Windows 7 E is dead - Ars
Relax, Windows 7 preorders in Europe will be full versions - Ars

Instead of removing the UI of IE, a browser ballot will be forwarded via Windows Update and ask people, which browser they want to install. Now I don't know if I'm, resp. the above quoted article is up to date, but this should also concern Windows XP and Vista users in Europe.
dantechen
this is a reason for using FF (http://www.favbrowser.com/internet-explorer-ie-vs-safari-vs-firefox-vs-opera/). you can read to compare.i always use FF
xalophus
Meit wrote:
1. No more ads! IE doesn’t have a decent integrated ad-blocking device. Opera and Firefox, on the other hand, have the excellent AdBlock plugin. Of course, if you like to support a site with a few clicks you can set it to show ads for that site. Bloggers are ever so happy when they get a click or two. Wink

Firefox doesn't have an integrated ad-blocking device. It needs an extension. IE can also block ads with third party help.
Although, Opera does have an integrated one.

Meit wrote:
2. Fast security updates – Internet Explorer’s security updates come with Microsoft’s usual once-per-week schedule. By that time, Firefox has updated itself several times already. Fast updates are very important for security as they help to protect browsers from the newest security threats.

Many people consider "necessary" more important than "fast" when it comes to updates.

Meit wrote:
3. Reasonable tabbed browsing – Internet Explorer’s tabs are quite a mess. Can’t close them when they’re open and no way to bookmark any at the same time.

Actually, you can close tabs and you can bookmark web pages.
And since you couldn't define it, what you consider "quite a mess" remains purely subjective.

Meit wrote:
4. Accepting certificates – IE shows the finger to all security certificates it doesn’t trust for some reason. Using your company’s solutions can be quite difficult…

"some reason". You have such a way with words !
The "some reason" IE "shows the finger to" (rejects) security certificates is that they are invalid.
Even if you were right about that, would you call rejecting invalid certificates a bad thing ?
In reality, however, IE lets you continue with invalid/untrusted certificates on your own risk, just like Opera & Firefox.-


Meit wrote:
5. Web standards – Firefox’s and Opera’s support of web standards is better.

Agreed, and that has never been their goal.
Given how, in the days before web standards, everything IE followed was thrown out the window, and everything other browsers did was made into web standards, even though most sites were coded for IE !
Which causes the fact (which I find extremely funny) that the "standards compliant" browsers break more sites than IE.
Microsoft wrote:
Internet Explorer 8 has been designed to include three rendering modes: one that reflects Microsoft’s implementation of current Web standards, a second reflecting Microsoft’s implementation of Web standards at the time of the release of Internet Explorer 7 in 2006, and a third based on rendering methods dating back to the early Web.

Show me another browser that takes so much pain for maintaining backward compatibility.

Meit wrote:
6. Portability – You can take Opera or Firefox with you anytime on a memory stick or flash memory device. Internet Explorer is stuck in your Windows.

Actually IE follows a different philosophy on this. That of synchronizing your browsers across different machines using windows live.
"Opera Link" does something similar. I'm sure Firefox has some extension that does the same.

Meit wrote:
7. Only for Windows – IE is only made for Windows. Firefox, Opera and even Safari are all made for several operating systems.

Again, I don't see why that matters.
This actually ensures your browser is secured along with your windows profile.

Meit wrote:
8. Customization – Opera has a heap of widgets to use. Firefox has tons of plugins and themes so you can make your favorite browser work and look any way you like. Try that on Internet Explorer! Very Happy

No arguments, given the fact that when IE allows for features additions, they invariably end up being used for malicious purposes, something for which IE gets all the blame.

Meit wrote:
9. Password Management – Firefox and Opera let you choose to delete remembered passwords and Firefox even lets you set one master password to protect the others. IE remains unprotected.

"Master password" feature was an Opera first, added around v7.50, year 2002. Firefox 1.0 was released in 2004, two years later.
Stop giving Firefox the credit for all Opera innovations.
And as before, Internet explorer, being integrated with the OS, relies on your windows security (one of the best around) to protect your saved passwords.

Meit wrote:
10. Speed – On Windows XP, both Firefox and Opera are much faster than IE7 when several pages are open. Internet Explorer’s speed is better on Vista, but come on – you need Vista for that!

Subjective, again.
I find Firefox slower to launch and bloated in its memory usage.

Internet Explorer, especially the more recent versions, is not half bad a browser, if you stop being a fanatic for a few moments.


dantechen wrote:
this is a reason for using FF (http://www.favbrowser.com/internet-explorer-ie-vs-safari-vs-firefox-vs-opera/). you can read to compare.i always use FF

So, the reason you use Firefox is that their website is coded as XHTML 1.0 strict ?
anakin_skyrunner
xalophus wrote:
dantechen wrote:
this is a reason for using FF (http://www.favbrowser.com/internet-explorer-ie-vs-safari-vs-firefox-vs-opera/). you can read to compare.i always use FF

So, the reason you use Firefox is that their website is coded as XHTML 1.0 strict ?


Yes, I thought that was a funny statement as well^^

Fortunately, Opera's website is standard compliant too, otherwise I would have to switch to FF Cool (Good lord, the arguments have been been better already...)
Agent ME
Diablosblizz wrote:
2. No comment, even though I rarely get updates for Firefox, once a month maybe?

The point is that if some exploit in firefox is discovered, the update to fix it usually comes within a few days at most. IE patches usually end up being on the next "patch Tuesday" at least a week or two away.
Diablosblizz wrote:
6. Every Windows machine has IE. No it's not portable, but if you're using it on a Windows machine it already has it.

The main reason I have Firefox Portable on my flashdrive isn't exactly so I can have Firefox where ever I am (often the computer already has it) but so I have my firefox profile (bookmarks and passwords) with me.

xalophus wrote:
Meit wrote:
6. Portability – You can take Opera or Firefox with you anytime on a memory stick or flash memory device. Internet Explorer is stuck in your Windows.

Actually IE follows a different philosophy on this. That of synchronizing your browsers across different machines using windows live.
"Opera Link" does something similar. I'm sure Firefox has some extension that does the same.

There's a plugin for Firefox called Xmarks (formerly Foxmarks) which works very well for synchronizing bookmarks and passwords. I believe the plugin has been ported to other browsers too now.

xalophus wrote:
Meit wrote:
7. Only for Windows – IE is only made for Windows. Firefox, Opera and even Safari are all made for several operating systems.

Again, I don't see why that matters.
This actually ensures your browser is secured along with your windows profile.

How does it being Windows only secure your browser?

xalophus wrote:
And as before, Internet explorer, being integrated with the OS, relies on your windows security (one of the best around) to protect your saved passwords.

Er, I'm going to assume that's not sarcasm, and just say I've never known anyone to commend Windows for its security (maybe barring Vista and W7).
xalophus
Agent ME wrote:
How does it being Windows only secure your browser?

Due to the fact that Microsoft can guarantee your Windows profile security.
Which might not be the case if you have your browser were to run on other operating systems.

Besides,
If someone were to get hold of your firefox browsing history from a windows computer, it will be windows' fault.
But, if someone were to get your IE profile from a Mac, it will be IE's fault, no questions.

Agent ME wrote:
xalophus wrote:
And as before, Internet explorer, being integrated with the OS, relies on your windows security (one of the best around) to protect your saved passwords.

Er, I'm going to assume that's not sarcasm, and just say I've never known anyone to commend Windows for its security.

You're right, that wasn't sarcasm.
Because I wasn't talking about the layman's concept of "security", where being secure means having fewer hackers writing malware that targets you.
I meant "security" as a programmer would think of. Windows security on a domain computer is as good as any. For home users, a strong password + encrypted profile directory is impenetrable.
And making this security work for your browser as well, requires your browser to be tied to your OS.

Agent ME wrote:
maybe barring Vista and W7

Actually Vista and W7 don't add much to security (the programmers' view) over previous NT based operating systems.
They do however, add layman's "security" by adding "features"(?) that more experienced users will only find hindering. A concept I personally do not like. But something that is a hit with layman users.
Fire Boar
xalophus wrote:
Agent ME wrote:
How does it being Windows only secure your browser?

Due to the fact that Microsoft can guarantee your Windows profile security.
Which might not be the case if you have your browser were to run on other operating systems.


You mentioned the word "fact". Can you back it up with evidence? Prove that the Windows profile is guaranteed secure (hint: it's not).

Also, while you're at it, would you care to back up your claim that a browser running on a more secure operating system than Windows is less secure than the same browser running on Windows?

xalophus wrote:
Besides,
If someone were to get hold of your firefox browsing history from a windows computer, it will be windows' fault.
But, if someone were to get your IE profile from a Mac, it will be IE's fault, no questions.


Actually, in both of these cases it's the user's fault. The software creates the browsing history, and it is up to the user to keep it safe. If the operating system is compromised, and access is gained remotely, then that's the fault of either the OS (Mac in this case) or the software (Internet Explorer). Are you admitting by this that Internet Explorer is the weak link here?

xalophus wrote:
Agent ME wrote:
xalophus wrote:
And as before, Internet explorer, being integrated with the OS, relies on your windows security (one of the best around) to protect your saved passwords.

Er, I'm going to assume that's not sarcasm, and just say I've never known anyone to commend Windows for its security.

You're right, that wasn't sarcasm.
Because I wasn't talking about the layman's concept of "security", where being secure means having fewer hackers writing malware that targets you.
I meant "security" as a programmer would think of. Windows security on a domain computer is as good as any. For home users, a strong password + encrypted profile directory is impenetrable.
And making this security work for your browser as well, requires your browser to be tied to your OS.


Does it really? Prove it. Because, as a counter-claim, nobody running Linux with Firefox (Firefox is not tied to the operating system) has ever got a virus by browsing the internet. The list of known GNU/Linux viruses is pitifully small because the underlying OS is so rock solid, and none of them have any chance of being truly virulent (that is, infecting a machine and spreading at a faster rate than dying) because they don't work properly.

But this thread is not about viruses, it's about IE. Firefox is generally considered to be far more safe for browsing, not by being tied to a flawed operating system but by its open nature: any holes when discovered can be patched quickly, before a malicious user has had a chance to write a program to exploit that flaw. With IE, only Microsoft have the code, which is a much narrower selection of people. So security flaws can go unnoticed for a very long time.

xalophus wrote:
Agent ME wrote:
maybe barring Vista and W7

Actually Vista and W7 don't add much to security (the programmers' view) over previous NT based operating systems.
They do however, add layman's "security" by adding "features"(?) that more experienced users will only find hindering. A concept I personally do not like. But something that is a hit with layman users.


Ah, good. You had something correct to say at the end.
xalophus
Ah, so the inevitable fanboy debate ensues.

First off, let me remind you, in case you haven't already noticed, that I'm not making comparative claims of superiority on part of any certain OS or looking for such a fanboy catfight. I haven't once, in my posts before, mentioned the name of any other OS.
Let it be noted that you're the one to start it off.

Secondly, in view of all your demand for proof, let me also make it clear that in a situation like this, logically, the burden of proof lies with the accuser - you. I benefit from the presumption of innocence.

Fire Boar wrote:
Can you back it up with evidence? Prove that the Windows profile is guaranteed secure (hint: it's not).

I only said Microsoft delegates the browser profile security to the OS, and yes, they do guarantee it. They sell it for crying out loud.
"prove" ? When you've already started off with the "hint: it's not" premise.
You are welcome to create a new user profile on a Windows NT machine with encrypted home directory, and then try to gain access to it without using the password.

Fire Boar wrote:
Also, while you're at it, would you care to back up your claim that a browser running on a more secure operating system than Windows is less secure than the same browser running on Windows?

I'm not "at" anything.
And no, I wouldn't care to prove something that is -
  • self-contradictory
  • totally irrelevant here
  • not what I ever said or "claimed"


Fire Boar wrote:
xalophus wrote:
Besides,
If someone were to get hold of your firefox browsing history from a windows computer, it will be windows' fault.
But, if someone were to get your IE profile from a Mac, it will be IE's fault, no questions.


Actually, in both of these cases it's the user's fault. The software creates the browsing history, and it is up to the user to keep it safe. If the operating system is compromised, and access is gained remotely, then that's the fault of either the OS (Mac in this case) or the software (Internet Explorer).

Precisely what I was saying, that Windows/IE/Microsoft always get blamed for users' faults.

Fire Boar wrote:
Are you admitting by this that Internet Explorer is the weak link here?

No, please stop stuffing words in my mouth.

Fire Boar wrote:
Does it really? Prove it.

Prove what ?
That "Windows security on a domain computer is as good as any. For home users, a strong password + encrypted profile directory is impenetrable" ?
How do you propose I do that, despite the fact that it's upto you to prove that a windows user profile is vulnerable ?
And again, you are welcome to create a new user profile on a Windows NT machine with encrypted home directory, and then try to gain access to it without using the password.

Fire Boar wrote:
Because, as a counter-claim, nobody running Linux with Firefox (Firefox is not tied to the operating system) has ever got a virus by browsing the internet. The list of known GNU/Linux viruses is pitifully small because the underlying OS is so rock solid, and none of them have any chance of being truly virulent (that is, infecting a machine and spreading at a faster rate than dying) because they don't work properly.
Fire Boar wrote:
But this thread is not about viruses

Make up your mind already.
I categorically stated that "I wasn't talking about the layman's concept of "security", where being secure means having fewer hackers writing malware that targets you."

Infact, I never talked about viruses. You are the one who brought up that concept of "security" and took off on the same tangent again -
Fire Boar wrote:
Firefox is generally considered to be far more safe for browsing, not by being tied to a flawed operating system but by its open nature: any holes when discovered can be patched quickly, before a malicious user has had a chance to write a program to exploit that flaw. With IE, only Microsoft have the code, which is a much narrower selection of people. So security flaws can go unnoticed for a very long time.


Unlike you, I will not claim to be talking about "everybody running Windows", but I, personally, have used the "deadly" Windows/IE/internet combination for more than 10 years, never got a virus. And I don't run any anti-virus security sham either.
Mac OS has a very small "list of known viruses" and yet, it has been the first OS cracked in the previous two editions of Pwn2Own hacking competition. So what ? It proves nothing.
Anecdotal evidence amounts to nothing, not even in a fanboy argument. That is not my aim here.

Fire Boar wrote:
Ah, good. You had something correct to say at the end.

Ah, good. Your fanboy selective information filter is working just fine.
Diablosblizz
Quote:
Ah, so the inevitable fanboy debate ensues.


Hmm, I could have sworn Fire Boar is a true Linux fan-boy, but I could be wrong. Wink So calling him a Windows fan-boy is completely wrong. I am I Windows fan-boy, Boar isn't (or isn't so much of a Windows fan-boy).
Fire Boar
Diablosblizz wrote:
Quote:
Ah, so the inevitable fanboy debate ensues.


Hmm, I could have sworn Fire Boar is a true Linux fan-boy, but I could be wrong. Wink So calling him a Windows fan-boy is completely wrong. I am I Windows fan-boy, Boar isn't (or isn't so much of a Windows fan-boy).


Quite right, though I got the impression that I was being called a Windows hater rather than lover. No matter: my position is that Microsoft have had a sketchy past when it comes to releasing viable products, about half of the time. Windows XP and Windows 7 namely. In my experience (which is considerable), I would also say that Linux is overall a better choice, and try to do my bit to make sure as many people realise that "Windows is not your PC" and what the alternatives are like. Maybe that makes me a Linux fan-boy. I couldn't care less.

As for xalophus, I could post a long reply answering all your points, but I really don't want to bore everyone (and myself) with something that will eventually result in nothing. So I'll simply avoid the inevitable situation altogether by *gasp* not posting a counter to anything at all. Smile
Related topics
*OFFICIAL* Which Browser do you use?
10 Reasons You Know You Bought a Bad Computer
10 Reasons to Date a Hockey Player
10 Reasons why PC's crash
Different View CSS Problem with Firefox, opera, IE , mozilla
10 Reasons Why to Have a Website
[Official]Wii
10 Reasons Computers are Better than Girlfriends
12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong (Lol...)
Why dogs are better than ur wife or girlfriend??
phew that banners gone
Mozilla Vs Google CHrome
10 Reasons Why You Should Leave Work at 6.00pm
Reasons why I like blogging better.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Operating Systems

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.