Looking for Firefox specifics

[W1GUH]

I keep hearing a lot about Firefox's internet browser, and it sounds like a very, very good thing. #I've never heard anything bad about it.

So...is Firefox worth checking out even if I've had no problems with IE 6.0? #Is the transition seamless? #Or, if IE 6.0 is not causing problems would going to Firefox be a case of "fixing what's not broken?"

Thanks

[k6bbc]

IE is ALWAYS broken. I use Firefox with OS X. It works well and supports Google's online word-processor.

k6bbc

[n4sva]

My experience with Firefox is that it is processes web pages much faster than IE.

Only drawback I know is some online apps force you to use IE.

[N00B]

Replacing Internet Exploiter with Active-XXX controls with Firefox is the best thing you could do for yourself.

Once you're comfortable with that, move your email from Outlook Distress to Thunderbird.

Replace your spyware IM clients with GAIM.

By then, you'll be open to trying OpenOffice.Org instead of paying big bucks for Microsoft Orifice.

Before you know it, you'll be an open source junkie, experimenting with the hard stuff--Linux.

[WS2L]

As stated in previous posts, IE is broken most of the time. I downloaded IE7 onto the XYL's laptop and it messed everything up and ultimately I removed it. I stopped using IE a long time ago and use Firefox exclusively now. Give it a try, you will not be disappointed.

[W3MIV]

Firefox works OK. I have found that some webpages do not display as well in Firefox as they do in IE, but those instances are few.

The beauty of it is, you can download Firefox for free and run it to find out how well you like it. I keep a copy on my systems and use it from time to time. It will ax you if you want to make it your default web browser and you may choose that option if you so desire.

Thunderbird is OK, too. I don't care at all for the way it handles attachments -- I much prefer Outlook for that, and I am sending and receiving very large attachments often (photos that are often many megabytes each). Also, it is solely an email app, and it handles emails well.

Thunderbird, too, is free to download and use to see if you like it. I recommend you do so. It will also ask you if you want to make it your default mail handler. Just click yes or no; you can always change later either way.

I woulld pay little or no attention to others' opinions about what you should or should not run on your system. They are free to try and neither will harm your system.

73

[KD6NIG]

Firefox and IE will both function either or. Firefox doesn't replace IE.

So if you want to try it, you won't mangle your IE install http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[N1MLF]

I use Firefox 99% on XP and have no problems other than theres a few sites you still need IE for.. so I have both onboard.

Here's a site with some tweaks I found most useful:
http://www.tweakfirefox.com/tweaks.php
All tweaks done in the browser window & can be 'undone' just as easily.
Give it a try.. you just might like it..

JW

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 22 2007,10:21)]I keep hearing a lot about Firefox's internet browser, and it sounds like a very, very good thing. I've never heard anything bad about it.

So...is Firefox worth checking out even if I've had no problems with IE 6.0? Is the transition seamless? Or, if IE 6.0 is not causing problems would going to Firefox be a case of "fixing what's not broken?"

Thanks
Paul, just give it a whirl. No need to "switch". I've run them both at the same time. Just try it. I run both Windows ans Linux and it works great under both. Just take a deep breath and jump into Firefox. While your at it you can try Opera too.

Even Konqueror worls good to under Linux.

[n7zsd]

A friend of mine tried an experiment using Firefox for one week, and IE the next. At the end of the first week he ran spy-bot and adware. He found several instances of spyware and adware. The second week yielded nothing. I don't know what this means, but I sure thought it would have been the other way around! I use both browsers and no qualms about either one, except that sometimes Firefox won't open some pages, but perhaps the patches that someone mentioned will help.

Anyway, that's just my two-and-a-half cents worth.

[K7JEM]

Don't switch, use both. I use FF 99% of the time. The other 1% I use the other program. Certain sites or applications don't work well with FF, so keep brand X as well.

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 22 2007,22:35)]Don't switch, use both. I use FF 99% of the time. The other 1% I use the other program. Certain sites or applications don't work well with FF, so keep brand X as well.
Ditto this.

My stupid stock trading software doesn't work with anything but ie6. Everything else works just fine.

You can run them both, and opt to change the default html handler later when you feel more confidant i.e. <snicker> when you click on a web link in a message or something.

[K7FE]

I have had the same experience as K7JEM. 99% Fire Fox, 1% the other guy.

73.
Terry, K7FE

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (n7zsd @ Jan. 22 2007,23:27)]A friend of mine tried an experiment using Firefox for one week, and IE the next. At the end of the first week he ran spy-bot and adware. He found several instances of spyware and adware. The second week yielded nothing. I don't know what this means, but I sure thought it would have been the other way around! I use both browsers and no qualms about either one, except that sometimes Firefox won't open some pages, but perhaps the patches that someone mentioned will help.

Anyway, that's just my two-and-a-half cents worth.
Did he run spy bot and adware the before the first week to make sure the machine has no problems to begin with ?

[al2i]

Stopped using M$ the day I saw the animated icon in the upper right hand corner. I don't like thieves, and I never went back.

[k4kyv]

I started using Firefox the time a website I was trying to access kept getting redirected to some sleaze site that offered to pay me cash for taking online surveys. Tried for several days to figure out how fix the problem, but nothing worked. I could type in the url, but as soon as I hit the "enter" key, the address would flip to the hijacker's url.

I downloaded and installed Firefox, and the very first time I tried it, the problem was not there. Since then I have used IE only on those sites that don't work properly with Firefox. M$ update, for example, only works with IE.

My wife always uses IE, under her XP profile. I upgraded from IE6 to IE7, and so far, no problems.

I am still using Firefox 1.5.0.9, but plan to upgrade to Version 2.0. I normally wait a while before updating to a new version of a program to see what problems other people have with the "upgrade," and allow for major problems to get patched. (Let someone else invent the wheel and work out its bugs; I'd rather spend the time tinkering, repairing and experimenting with my radio station hardware than with computer software.)

Has anyone had any serious or annoying problems with the new version of FF, and how do you like using it compared to v1.5?

I have read that v2.0 is less a memory hog than v1.5. My primary objection to Firefox has always been that it gobbles up a lot of my "available physical memory."

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Jan. 23 2007,06:43)]Has anyone had any serious or annoying problems with the new version of FF, and how do you like using it compared to v1.5?
If you upgrade to 2.0, do it with the option to carry over all of your settings, as some of the default settings are just plain stupid.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 21 2007,19:07)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 22 2007,10:21)]I keep hearing a lot about Firefox's internet browser, and it sounds like a very, very good thing. #I've never heard anything bad about it.

So...is Firefox worth checking out even if I've had no problems with IE 6.0? #Is the transition seamless? #Or, if IE 6.0 is not causing problems would going to Firefox be a case of "fixing what's not broken?"

Thanks
Paul, just give it a whirl. No need to "switch". I've run them both at the same time. Just try it. I run both Windows ans Linux and it works great under both. Just take a deep breath and jump into Firefox. While your at it you can try Opera too.

Even Konqueror worls good to under Linux.
Thanks, John...what I was really looking for is if you could do what you say. Yea, I'll give it a try, knowing it's not going to take overy my machine against my wishes! That happens so much.

[kb0yup]

I use Firefox 2.0 and just love it. I also have IE 7 but I don't use it, it's just there. I have XP Home edition, all works well. My WX station and other stuff works fine. Go get Firefox, you'll love it too.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 23 2007,23:17)]If you upgrade to 2.0, do it with the option to carry over all of your settings, as some of the default settings are just plain stupid.
Is that a clearly visible option that is offered before you click on the button for final installation, or is it inside a menu hidden in some obscure place (if so, where do I find it?)

And, did you uninstall v1.5 first, or simply install v2.0 on top of the old version?

[N3ATS]

Install over the old version. Once you install FF you will be prompted from time to time to download updates.

I've been using FF exclusively for over a year, and I will NEVER go back it IE.

Unfortunately some websites require IE.

There is also a way cool plug-in for Firefox that allows you to search the QRZ database from a search bar in the browser...

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/

http://www.ae7q.com/ (scroll down to bottom right to download the QRZ search plug-in)

You can also download all kinds of add-ons, plug-ins, skins, and neat stuff you can add to Firefox.

https://addons.mozilla.org/

[KC0VWU]

Try Opera.

http://www.opera.com/

It is super fast and it renders HTML & CSS much, much better than IE. It also passes the Acid 2 browser test (http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/) which both IE and Firefox fail.

[wv6z]

Quote[/b] (KC0VWU @ Jan. 23 2007,18:39)]Try Opera.

http://www.opera.com/

It is super fast and it renders HTML & CSS much, much better than IE. It also passes the Acid 2 browser test (http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/) which both IE and Firefox fail.
Agreed...... IE is completely useless compared to Opera or Godzilla Firefox.

[WS2L]

In my previous post I did not imply to switch 100% but do give it a try. Some WebPages run better or are designed to run better on IE but for me I prefer Firefox. I do run IE7 once in a while but if I were to break down my usage it would be 99% Firefox and 1% IE. I also have Netscape 8.1 installed but I rarely if ever use it and when I do it is to check a website that shows my APRS activity over the previous 24 hours.

Some people swear by IE and others swear at it, I'm the latter of the two as I will use Firefox hands down over IE. As for Thunderbird I don't even bother because my main email address is a Yahoo address. The only time I use Outlook express is to receive new activation notices for a website that I'm webmaster of. The new members have to be approved before they can post so as I do use it often it is for that only purpose

[NC5P]

Microsoft gives free software to developers if they agree to make their web pages unusable on Firefox, Opera, Macs and Linux machines. A lady at work said her husband got some. Actually, I only have trouble once in a while. Usually the most common trouble is video. I have M-player and can watch most wmv content. Youtube works fine, but the local channel 4 messes up. The other local tv stations' sites play fine. Supposedly Real Player for Linux is supposed to be coming out supporting wmv. Hopefully it will take care of the rest.

[WF7A]

While we're on the subject of websites...

I just secured my domain name and want to use the website to sell software that I write. Adobe's GoLive was handed to me to create the site but it's a little beyond the limit that my two working brain cells can handle. So, any recommendations for books and/or software to create a website would be welcomed. (The books don't have to be "idiot guides", but something that's a step up from that.)

I have Office 2007 and FileMaker Pro, so I'm sure I can compose something with those if need be. I want to make the website classy, not splashy, so I don't need fancy animations. However, I do want it to have the ability for users to download (by FTP) demo software and videos of the products in use. (Camtasia Studio 4.0 for that--GREAT program!)

Thanks in advance, guys!

[N3ATS]

WF7A, How about a CMS (Content Management System).

My website uses a FREE CMS called CMSimple. http://www.cmsimple.dk Very easy to implement, update, and configure. No need for FTP, and you can update the site anywhere you have internet access and a web browser.

You can choose from thousands of templates, also FREE from http://www.dotcomwebdesign.com. (http://dotcomwebdesign.com.)

Feel free to browse my site. If you want more info, PM me and I will give you the password to get in and look around....

http://www.n3ats.com

[W1GUH]

Just got Firefox and I'm checking out. So far, so good. It seems OK - The Tool/Options menus seem particularly instinctive and easy to use.

Only gripe so far is that the Bookmarks were empty, even 'tho I told Firefox to import 'em from IE. Well, not a big deal. Rag Chew was the first one I added.

Oh...yea...the only way I know now to add a bookmark is to cut and paste the address into the popup window. Kind of a pain...I'll keep looking for the "automatic" way, though.

[K0RGR]

I have had so much fun with IE that I avoid it as much as possible.

However, I have the most luck with an installation where I have IE set as my primary browser. Firefox hangs on me occasionally, and if it is set as the primary browser, it can be real ugly to recover. I use FF as the main browser, but if something bad happens, I can switch back to IE until I can re-boot the machine.

I have another machine which is extensively used by my kids. One of the kids is just smart enough to bypass the spyware protection and install his 'neat apps'. IE is usually gummed up so badly it won't run correctly. FF is more spyware resistant. I like the Google search bar in FF - very handy!

[ad4mg]

IE (Internet Exploder)? Not since FF's newest came out (2.0.0.1).

How do you folks live without AdBlocker Plus?

I have a new machine with IE 7. It really works just fine, but I really prefer the look & feel of FireFox. Earlier versions could be fussy displaying graphics that were stored in sub folders, but I think there was even an add-in to fix that.

IE loads faster ... FF displays web sites a bit faster. Go figure. FireFox can be down right slow on older machines (PII's & early PIII's).

73

[W8EFA]

Everybody wants to be cool and say Firefox is great.

But IE is the Standard and that says it all. IE7 is great. I have never had a problem with IE. Why would I want to run a browser that some websites don't support.....oh yeah thats right, to be cool and hip!

No thanks, I will stick to the standard where every site I hit will run.

[W1GUH]

I just got IE 7, too. #Guess I'll be switching between the two of them. #One thing about firefox, though, is its spell-checker so far looks like a great time-saver. #I think I saw something go by as I installed IE7 that said it has a spell-checker, too, but so far it's not turned on. #I'll be working on that.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Jan. 30 2007,20:21)]Everybody wants to be cool and say Firefox is great.

But IE is the Standard and that says it all. IE7 is great. I have never had a problem with IE. Why would I want to run a browser that some websites don't support.....oh yeah thats right, to be cool and hip!

No thanks, I will stick to the standard where every site I hit will run.
Actually it has nothing to do with being cool and hip. And it has nothing to do with being "the standard". If websites were built according to "the standards" every website would work with every browser. The reason some websites work only with IE is because those websites are broken, they don't adhere to working Web Consortium standards. Matter of fact a key issue in designing enterpise websites is to make sure Web Consortium standards are followed so that the site will accommodate ALL properly written web browsers. Designing websites that only work with IE means lost commerce. In addition Firefox is much more secure than IE. Plus it has lots of features that I prefer to IE.



Over here I run several browsers. I run Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, Konqueror, to name a few. They are all top performers and most easily outperform IE and are far more secure.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 29 2007,22:10)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Jan. 30 2007,20:21)]Everybody wants to be cool and say Firefox is great.

But IE is the Standard and that says it all. IE7 is great. I have never had a problem with IE. Why would I want to run a browser that some websites don't support.....oh yeah thats right, to be cool and hip!

No thanks, I will stick to the standard where every site I hit will run.
Actually it has nothing to do with being cool and hip. And it has nothing to do with being "the standard". If websites were built according to "the standards" every website would work with every browser. The reason some websites work only with IE is because those websites are broken, they don't adhere to working Web Consortium standards. Matter of fact a key issue in designing enterpise websites is to make sure Web Consortium standards are followed so that the site will accommodate ALL properly written web browsers. Designing websites that only work with IE means lost commerce. In addition Firefox is much more secure than IE. Plus it has lots of features that I prefer to IE.



Over here I run several browsers. I run Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, Konqueror, to name a few. They are all top performers and most easily outperform IE and are far more secure.
Quote[/b] ] I run Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape,...

Hmmm... the Firefox I just got is "Mozilla Firefox." Did they used to be separate?

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 31 2007,00:10)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Jan. 30 2007,20:21)]Everybody wants to be cool and say Firefox is great. #

But IE is the Standard and that says it all. #IE7 is great. I have never had a problem with IE. #Why would I want to run a browser that some websites don't support.....oh yeah thats right, #to be cool and hip!

No thanks, #I will stick to the standard where every site I hit will run.
Actually it has nothing to do with being cool and hip. And it has nothing to do with being "the standard". If websites were built according to "the standards" every website would work with every browser. #The reason some websites work only with IE is because those websites are broken, they don't adhere to working #Web Consortium standards. #Matter of fact a key issue in designing enterpise websites is to make sure Web Consortium standards are followed so that the site will accommodate ALL properly written web browsers. Designing websites that only work with IE means lost commerce. #In addition Firefox is much more secure than IE. Plus it has lots of features that I prefer to IE.



Over here I run several browsers. I run Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, Konqueror, to name a few. They are all top performers and most easily outperform IE and are far more secure.
Sorry but that is not how it works. #If I want to build a website I will build it to work with IE since that is probably 90%/95% of the users. #If I want to spend the time to make it compatible with Firefox, etc, that is a monetary choice I will make. #

Apparently Firefox will not work on those sites that don't have the inclination to make sure they capture the small market they may miss from firefox users. #I learned along time ago that sometimes it is not the best product, but the best marketed, and using the standard that makes the most sense.

[W8EFA]

Also IE7 has #Protected Mode, which stops Web sites from changing a computer's critical files or settings, is a feature i don't believe that anyone else has however it will work only in Windows Vista.

Also does anyone know if Firefox is going to fix printing support? Thats the one that that keeps me coming back to IE7 again and again. It prints web pages how they actually look. Anyone ever tried printing #in Firefox? Its #printing support is atrocious.

Also in IE you can easily email webpages or links and the to easily save web pages as single files. Can't do that in Firefox

Also IE7 uses about 1/4 of the memory of Firefox.

Firefox will never become popular because you have to go look for it and download it. #Most users won't so expect to keep hitting websites that won't work with it. #Also good luck with support.

And again I don't want to use a browser where
every website doesn't work.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Jan. 31 2007,01:00)]Also IE7 has Protected Mode, which stops Web sites from changing a computer's critical files or settings, is a feature i don't believe that anyone else has however it will work only in Windows Vista.

Also does anyone know if Firefox is going to fix printing support? Thats the one that that keeps me coming back to IE7 again and again. It prints web pages how they actually look. Anyone ever tried printing in Firefox? Its printing support is atrocious.

Also in IE you can easily email webpages or links and the to easily save web pages as single files. Can't do that in Firefox

Also IE7 uses about 1/4 of the memory of Firefox.

Firefox will never become popular because you have to go look for it and download it. Most users won't so expect to keep hitting websites that won't work with it. Also good luck with support.

And again I don't want to use a browser where
every website doesn't work.
Quote[/b] ]
Also IE7 has Protected Mode, which stops Web sites from changing a computer's critical files or settings, is a feature i don't believe that anyone else has however it will work only in Windows Vista.


Sounds like they finally accomplished access control under Vista, something we've had in the Linux & Unix world for years. No website SHOULD EVER be able to change critical system files or settings. Any system that allows that to happen is BROKEN and a SECURITY RISK and should not be used for any serious task.

Quote[/b] ]
Also does anyone know if Firefox is going to fix printing support? Thats the one that that keeps me coming back to IE7 again and again. It prints web pages how they actually look. Anyone ever tried printing in Firefox? Its printing support is atrocious.


Just the other day I printed a simple web page. Nothing fancy, just some text, a form for user input, some images, and a couple of ads, one ad on the top of the page, one on the side. I printed the web page first in IE and then in Firefox. Guess what ? The one printed with Firefox was rendered on paper perfectly and exactly as rendered on the screeen with text, ads, images, form and user comments scaled properly and in their proper place, proper colours, etc. The one printed with IE was atrocious. Nothing was rendered properly, parts of the page were truncated, margins were off the page, ads were drawn out over several extra pages. What amounted to 2 pages rendered correctly under Firefox turned into 6 pages chopped, truncated, and improperly rendered under IE. This is also the biggest problem many people complain about on the job. They try and print something with IE and it is sloppily rendered on the page. I come over, bring the same page up in Firefox (or Opera), hit the print button and viola', 9 out of 10 times a perfect rendering. Seems like IE needs to have it's printing fixed.


Quote[/b] ]
Also in IE you can easily email webpages or links and the to easily save web pages as single files. Can't do that in Firefox


What ?? Sure you can do it in Firefox. I've been saving web pages as files, emailing both web pages and links under all sorts of browsers for years dating back to early versions of Netscape. I can easilly do it in Firefox. Matter of fact just a couple minutes ago I emailed off a web page to a friend using Firefox.

Quote[/b] ]
Also IE7 uses about 1/4 of the memory of Firefox.


Here I will grant you some credit. Under Windows , looking at the memory footprint of IE versus Firefox (using standard XP system monitoring tools) it appears that IE uses less memory than FF. Under Linux I can't really do a fair comparison because IE won't run under Linux without Wine.

But browsing around the web I get all sorts of conflicting stories depending on how the 2 systems were tested and under what conditions. Some argue that FF starts with less memory than IE but gradually eats up more due to a memory leak. Others argue it depends on how many tabs are open and numerous other factors along with the idea that many of IE's components are build directly into the OS thus runs more efficiently under Windows than FF.

Regardless, I generally run several browsers simulataneously. I'll usually have one or two instances of FF running with lots and lots of tabs, many running multimedia apps, I'll also have an instance of Opera running along with numerous other apps. The bottom line is that FF has always remained fast and responsive under the roughest nconditions I have put it through. For now that's good enough for me.

Quote[/b] ]
Firefox will never become popular because you have to go look for it and download it.


Depends what you mean by "popular". Firefox is already extremely popular. It doesn't come built in with Windows so, there are users that will never seek it out, download and install it. But by the same token most pre-built machines come with Windows pre-installed so most users won't install Linux on their machines either. Either way it doesn't really matter, it's about getting things done, not winning a popularity contest.

Quote[/b] ]
Most users won't so expect to keep hitting websites that won't work with it. Also good luck with support.


Actually I have never had a problem getting a website to work with FF. Virtually every website I have ever visited works with it. I have never had a banking site, online store or any kind of e-commerce site that does not work with FF. Even the few remaining sites designed with IE only in mind seem to work albeit an occaisional minor glitch or two. And there is even a Firefox extension that can be added on to make sure IE only sites will work. But I have never needed that extension because every site I visit works fine under FF.

Quote[/b] ]
And again I don't want to use a browser where
every website doesn't work.


You repeat yourself here only this time you are making the completely false statement that "every" website doesn't work with FF. Sounds more like your trying to push an agenda here. If "every" website did not work with FF nobody would be using it at all because it would be useless. As I pointed out above and as most people who use FF already know the vast majority of websites DO work fine under FF.

Besides, nowadays, most website builders on the enterprise level who are worth a damned design sites to work with all popular browsers and not just with IE. Businesses are aware that there are many users out there who are using different kinds of web browsers and they want their business. They don't want someone using a browser other than IE to hit on their website and then go do business with someone else because their site only works for IE.


Then there are other issues...

IE lacks the extendibility of FF
IE lacks the ad blocking capability of FF
IE is less secure than FF and opens up your system to all sorts of malicious software, trojans, viruses, worms, and exploits.

Where I do give credit

IE7 has added tabbed browsing. Finally !!

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Jan. 31 2007,00:26)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 31 2007,00:10)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Jan. 30 2007,20:21)]Everybody wants to be cool and say Firefox is great.

But IE is the Standard and that says it all. IE7 is great. I have never had a problem with IE. Why would I want to run a browser that some websites don't support.....oh yeah thats right, to be cool and hip!

No thanks, I will stick to the standard where every site I hit will run.
Actually it has nothing to do with being cool and hip. And it has nothing to do with being "the standard". If websites were built according to "the standards" every website would work with every browser. The reason some websites work only with IE is because those websites are broken, they don't adhere to working Web Consortium standards. Matter of fact a key issue in designing enterpise websites is to make sure Web Consortium standards are followed so that the site will accommodate ALL properly written web browsers. Designing websites that only work with IE means lost commerce. In addition Firefox is much more secure than IE. Plus it has lots of features that I prefer to IE.



Over here I run several browsers. I run Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, Konqueror, to name a few. They are all top performers and most easily outperform IE and are far more secure.
Sorry but that is not how it works. If I want to build a website I will build it to work with IE since that is probably 90%/95% of the users. If I want to spend the time to make it compatible with Firefox, etc, that is a monetary choice I will make.

Apparently Firefox will not work on those sites that don't have the inclination to make sure they capture the small market they may miss from firefox users. I learned along time ago that sometimes it is not the best product, but the best marketed, and using the standard that makes the most sense.
Actually with that mentality you'll probably be chasing away more of your potential customers than you think. I'd advise you check the various web stats before you set out to design commercial websites.

Linque (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp)

[W8EFA]

Yes And I would advise you to actually read what youi post for "evidence". Your source is misleading at best - it even states that IE is in the 80 percentile range.

From your link

Quote[/b] ]W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers.

These facts indicate that the browser figures below are not 100% realistic. #Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users.



Here are the real numbers

Firefox Losing Market Share, Internet Explorer Gaining, Says Dutch Metrics Firm

Quote[/b] ]Internet Explorer has regained nearly 3 percentage points of the browser market since July, while Firefox has dropped 1.4 points in the same period, a Dutch Web metrics vendor said Monday.

According to OneStat, IE's share of the global browser market at the beginning of October was 85.9 percent, several points higher than Net Applications' 82.1 percent for the Microsoft browser at the end of September. Likewise, OneStat pegged Firefox at 11.5 #percent, while Net Applications had it at 12.5 percent.

http://www.informationweek.com/softwar....3200287 (http://www.informationweek.com/software/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193200287)


IE Picks Up Market Share as Version 7.0 Looms

Quote[/b] ]OneStat said that IE currently controls about 85.9 percent of the overall browser market, compared with about 11.5 percent for Firefox

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/93827/93827.html

[W8EFA]

From IZE
Sounds like they finally accomplished access control under Vista, something we've had in the Linux & Unix world for years. No website SHOULD EVER be able to change critical system files or settings. Any system that allows that to happen is BROKEN and a SECURITY RISK and should not be used for any serious task

I thought we were comparing IE to Firefox. What does Unix have to do with it? And with all due respect your comment that any system that allows critical settings to be changed is broken is someone not cognizant of the industry as a whole. I was working on Mainframe Unix sytems before you even knew their were things called computers, so don't tell me how great 1970's Unix is please. There is a reason we have open systems now and their inherent security problems, that is what users needed and asked for as we went from proprietary mainframes to open systems.


From IZE
You repeat yourself here only this time you are making the completely false statement that "every" website doesn't work with FF. Sounds more like your trying to push an agenda here. If "every" website did not work with FF nobody would be using it at all because it would be useless. As I pointed out above and as most people who use FF already know the vast majority of websites DO work fine under FF.

Besides, nowadays, most website builders on the enterprise level who are worth a damned design sites to work with all popular browsers and not just with IE. Businesses are aware that there are many users out there who are using different kinds of web browsers and they want their business. They don't want someone using a browser other than IE to hit on their website and then go do business with someone else because their site only works for IE.

EVery website doesn't work with Firefox


Websites alienate Firefox users
Quote[/b] ]One in 10 UK websites fail to work properly on the open source Firefox web browser, a study shows.
Some 100 leading consumer sites were assessed by web-testing firm SciVisum.

Websites that proved difficult for Firefox users to navigate included the government website Jobcentreplus.gov.uk and the cinema site Odeon.co.uk


And why? Once again as I already explained

Quote[/b] ]Surprisingly, after all these years, users of standard-compliant browsers are still faced with sites that do not support their browser or with a link suggesting they download Internet Explorer," said Deri Jones, chief executive of SciVisum.

This is largely because web developers are used to testing their sites just using IE rather than so-called standards-compliant browsers, which only use code ratified by the World Wide Web consortium.

"There is a certain business logic to this as IE is the most widely used browser," said Mr Jones.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4115806.stm

Another erroneous statement from IZE

IE is less secure than FF and opens up your system to all sorts of malicious software, trojans, viruses, worms, and exploits

Well first of all open-source programs will become more vulnerable as they pick up more users, because more hackers will become attracted to it. Right now there are not enough users to make it worthwhile. Am I gooing to develop hack code that can hack 90% of the systems or 10%. Just common sense.

Reality - Internet Explorer 6 has been more secure than Firefox 1.x in 2006.

Firefox 1.x (2006) - 13 Advisories = 88 Vulnerabilities
Internet Explorer 6.x (2006) - 16 Advisories = 36 Vulnerabilities
http://secunia.com/product/4227/?task=advisories_2006

[KF0RT]

Woohoo!! Browser wars! There's a blast from the past.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

73, Rob

[AC0H]

Browser usage for the past five years. (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp)
If you take a look at the trends on this page you will notice that for the last 5 years IE has been slipping in usage and EVERYBODY else has been gaining.

A few facts about the browser wars.

1. NO version of IE is fully W3C standards compliant, current standards being CSS 2.0 and HTML 4.0.1 Strict. It's like everything else MS does. They pick and choose which standards they're going to comply with and those they're not, users be damned.

2. Installed base means diddely squat since IE is packaged and integrated into the operating system. People use IE because they don't know any better and it's all they've got. People build "IE only" websites for the very same reason.

3. Webpages that open under IE and don't under one of the W3C compliant browsers are written incorrectly. The fact that they open under IE shouldn't be counted as proof that IE is a better browser, and that the website doesn't load properly under a W3C compliant browser shouldn't be held against them. It's a coding problem NOT a browser problem.

[W3MIV]

I hope this doesn't become a habit, but I have to stand with EFA on this issue.

Kevin sez:

Quote[/b] ]Webpages that open under IE and don't under one of the W3C compliant browsers are written incorrectly. The fact that they open under IE shouldn't be counted as proof that IE is a better browser, and that the website doesn't load properly under a W3C compliant browser shouldn't be held against them. It's a coding problem NOT a browser problem.

While that is no doubt true, it is of little consequence to those of us who are using the browsers to view the pages. All I am interested in is that it works, and that the page is correctly viewable -- I don't give one tiny hoot about the how or why.

I stick with IE because it works better for the vast majority of pages I visit. Of the other browsers, I have come to regard Opera as a better performer for me than FF, but it still doesn't work as well as IE.

Browser users "vote with their feet," in effect, and I am interested only in what happens on my screen -- not who wrote what or how Bill Gates does or does not do business or any of a host of other non-germane issues.

73

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] ]Browser usage for the past five years.
If you take a look at the trends on this page you will notice that for the last 5 years IE has been slipping in usage and EVERYBODY else has been gaining

This is the same bogus link that IZE used. #On the same page you linked to they explained their numbers. Every real analysis out there (of which I referenced 2or 3) show IE around 88 to 90% - FF around 10-12%


W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers.

These facts indicate that the browser figures below are not 100% realistic. #Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users.


I also linked to references that FF has actually lost market share.

Also for your info FF does not meat all WC3 - only Opera.

And as MIV mentioned who cares

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Jan. 31 2007,07:20)]From IZE
Sounds like they finally accomplished access control under Vista, something we've had in the Linux & Unix world for years. No website SHOULD EVER be able to change critical system files or settings. Any system that allows that to happen is BROKEN and a SECURITY RISK and should not be used for any serious task

I thought we were comparing IE to Firefox. What does Unix have to do with it? And with all due respect your comment that any system that allows critical settings to be changed is broken is someone not cognizant of the industry as a whole. I was working on Mainframe Unix sytems before you even knew their were things called computers, so don't tell me how great 1970's Unix is please. There is a reason we have open systems now and their inherent security problems, that is what users needed and asked for as we went from proprietary mainframes to open systems.


From IZE
You repeat yourself here only this time you are making the completely false statement that "every" website doesn't work with FF. Sounds more like your trying to push an agenda here. If "every" website did not work with FF nobody would be using it at all because it would be useless. As I pointed out above and as most people who use FF already know the vast majority of websites DO work fine under FF.

Besides, nowadays, most website builders on the enterprise level who are worth a damned design sites to work with all popular browsers and not just with IE. Businesses are aware that there are many users out there who are using different kinds of web browsers and they want their business. They don't want someone using a browser other than IE to hit on their website and then go do business with someone else because their site only works for IE.

EVery website doesn't work with Firefox


Websites alienate Firefox users
Quote[/b] ]One in 10 UK websites fail to work properly on the open source Firefox web browser, a study shows.
Some 100 leading consumer sites were assessed by web-testing firm SciVisum.

Websites that proved difficult for Firefox users to navigate included the government website Jobcentreplus.gov.uk and the cinema site Odeon.co.uk


And why? Once again as I already explained

Quote[/b] ]Surprisingly, after all these years, users of standard-compliant browsers are still faced with sites that do not support their browser or with a link suggesting they download Internet Explorer," said Deri Jones, chief executive of SciVisum.

This is largely because web developers are used to testing their sites just using IE rather than so-called standards-compliant browsers, which only use code ratified by the World Wide Web consortium.

"There is a certain business logic to this as IE is the most widely used browser," said Mr Jones.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4115806.stm

Another erroneous statement from IZE

IE is less secure than FF and opens up your system to all sorts of malicious software, trojans, viruses, worms, and exploits

Well first of all open-source programs will become more vulnerable as they pick up more users, because more hackers will become attracted to it. Right now there are not enough users to make it worthwhile. Am I gooing to develop hack code that can hack 90% of the systems or 10%. Just common sense.

Reality - Internet Explorer 6 has been more secure than Firefox 1.x in 2006.

Firefox 1.x (2006) - 13 Advisories = 88 Vulnerabilities
Internet Explorer 6.x (2006) - 16 Advisories = 36 Vulnerabilities
http://secunia.com/product/4227/?task=advisories_2006
Quote[/b] ]
thought we were comparing IE to Firefox. What does Unix have to do with it? And with all due respect your comment that any system that allows critical settings to be changed is broken is someone not cognizant of the industry as a whole.


I said any OS that allows a WEBSITE to alter critical systems date is BROKEN and unfit to be used for any task requiring security, i.e. e commerce, banking, sotring personal or confidential data, etc.

Quote[/b] ]
I was working on Mainframe Unix sytems before you even knew their were things called computers, so don't tell me how great 1970's Unix is please.


If you were born anytime from approx 1955 onwards I doubt it. We probably heard about computers around the same time. As far as Unix (or at least Linux) goes we have had far better access controls to prevent any user running a browser to have critical systems settings altered by a remote website. I hope that has been improved in Vista.
Open systems does not mean the entire system should be open to everybody across the network to which it is attached. There are some things best left closed to outsiders.

Quote[/b] ]
Websites alienate Firefox users
[quote]One in 10 UK websites fail to work properly on the open source Firefox web browser, a study shows.
Some 100 leading consumer sites were assessed by web-testing firm SciVisum.
Websites that proved difficult for Firefox users to navigate included the government website Jobcentreplus.gov.uk and the cinema site Odeon.co.uk


Hmmmm... SciViscum must be using a very old release of FF because I just pulled up and navigated both those sites in FF and they rendered perfectly. As a matter of fact I really enjoyed looking at Odeon.co.uk under FireFox running under both Windows and Linux. Even the QuickTime video played beautifully. No problems here. I don't see why SciViscum had so much trouble.


Quote[/b] ]
eality - Internet Explorer 6 has been more secure than Firefox 1.x in 2006.

Firefox 1.x (2006) - 13 Advisories = 88 Vulnerabilities
Internet Explorer 6.x (2006) - 16 Advisories = 36 Vulnerabilities
[URL=http://secunia.com/product/4227/?tas


What was the severity of each vulnerability and how fast was it fixed. Turns out that IE had more critical vulnerabilities that remained unpatched and exploitable for longer periods of time. And to make matters worst IE routinely allows over the Internet access to critical systems resources. In other words run IE long enough and sooner or later your system will get owned. This is not to say that FF is not without it's faults. All software undergoes "growing pains" as more and more features are added and bugs and vulnerabilities become visible. The important issue is not nessesarilly how many potential exploits are discovered but rather their severity, length of time it has taken to fix the problem and, whether or not an exploit actually occurred. Like I said, I hope IE7 and Vista fix some of the past problems. I hope FF gets down with it's problems. Security problems are a major PITA for everyone, Windows and Non-Windows users alike.

[N2RJ]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it before, but Firefox on windows appears to have a serious memory leak. It just grows and grows and grows as time goes on.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 31 2007,10:23)]I don't know if anyone has mentioned it before, but Firefox on windows appears to have a serious memory leak. It just grows and grows and grows as time goes on.
Yes, there was a memory leak. It was supposed to be fixed in version 2. What version are you using ?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Jan. 31 2007,09:37)]Quote[/b] ]Browser usage for the past five years.
If you take a look at the trends on this page you will notice that for the last 5 years IE has been slipping in usage and EVERYBODY else has been gaining

This is the same bogus link that IZE used. On the same page you linked to they explained their numbers. Every real analysis out there (of which I referenced 2or 3) show IE around 88 to 90% - FF around 10-12%


W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers.

These facts indicate that the browser figures below are not 100% realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users.


I also linked to references that FF has actually lost market share.

Also for your info FF does not meat all WC3 - only Opera.

And as MIV mentioned who cares
Quote[/b] ]
his is the same bogus link that IZE used. On the same page you linked to they explained their numbers. Every real analysis out there (of which I referenced 2or 3) show IE around 88 to 90% - FF around 10-12%


There is nothing bogus about the link I presented. Apparently there is no "official" source of browser statistics as it iis a relatively new and difficult area to analyze with any degree of real accuracy . Website stats vary greatly from country to country, site to site, day to day etc. The stats I posted are considered adequate and are widely used by numerous sources that have an interest in browser stats. That make it clear on the site that there is indeed a margin of error as would be suspected for that kind of statistic. Even if we take the margin of error to be as high as 10% and we disregard all other browsers except for IE and FF and bias our error we can only conclude that at present FF comprises anywhere from 21% to 31% of the total overall usage. Although it might seem small it can still be quite significant when it comes to online commerce. Depending on the business I am in it could mean a significant loss of business if 20 - 30% of Internet users cannot access or utilize my site. Far more important is the trend indicated by the stats. It shows a steady yearly increase in the usage of Mozilla and later Firefox. Now it's true that increase may gradually level off. But if I were designing a website which my business were to depend upon I certainly would not ignore that trend.

Additionally the cost of designing a W3C compliant website is not higher than designing a IE only website. And considering the statistics that are available I can't understand WHY WOULD anyone design an IE only commerce site ?? Why would you want to leave 20-30% (and growing) of your potential customer base out in the cold ? That's simply throwing money in the trash. It makes no sense.

Fortunately for IE only sites in most cases non-IE browsers can still manage to access and use them.

[ve2nsm]

I use FF since many years, first version I had was firebird 0.6 I think, that was 3 or 4 years ago.
Since it became Firefox I have been using it exclusively and blocked IE in all the computers at home and at the office... IE no more.
I never had any problem with any user visiting any website, even my 8 year old son does not know that there is another way to surf the web.

The memory leak has been fixed, everything is fine. Nowadays I honestly can say there is not a web site that can not be seen with firefox. I could not live without ad-block or grease monkey and all the other useful extensions, IE7 now supposedly has tabbed browsing... wow! what a breakthrough http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[W1GUH]

I'm stumped by something in Firefox (which I'm getting along with very nicely).

When I originally installed it, I thought I saw a message go by that said it would install my IE bookmarks. It didn't. Then, in the help files, I read again that it would during installation.

So I just re-installed it and again I didn't get my IE bookmarks.

Do I need to uninstall it for the full install to work?

Or maybe it was looking for IE 6 bookmarks, and didn't find my IE 7 (so far, so good with that, too) bookmarks.

Tnx,

Paul

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]So I just re-installed it and again I didn't get my IE bookmarks.

Do I need to uninstall it for the full install to work?

Or maybe it was looking for IE 6 bookmarks, and didn't find my IE 7 (so far, so good with that, too) bookmarks.
I've never been able to make either browser reliably snag the others bookmarks. That's why I export my bookmarks to a file then import with the other browser. Good opportunity to make a backup as well.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Feb. 02 2007,08:53)]Quote[/b] ]So I just re-installed it and again I didn't get my IE bookmarks.

Do I need to uninstall it for the full install to work?

Or maybe it was looking for IE 6 bookmarks, and didn't find my IE 7 (so far, so good with that, too) bookmarks.
I've never been able to make either browser reliably snag the others bookmarks. That's why I export my bookmarks to a file then import with the other browser. Good opportunity to make a backup as well.
Thanks, Kevin, that's something I'll do right now. Didn't even think of that.

[W1GUH]

That did it. Now I don't have anything to gripe about with Firefox! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

But a quirk I've got with IE-7. It doesn't close gracefully. No matter how I close it I get the "Encountered, Has to close" info window (Well, duh, Bill Gates...that what I'm trying to do! ) . Oh, well, eventually I'll get the ol' Microsoft "updates are read" notifier.