So why is FIREFOX better than EXPLORER?

[quote name='javeryh']So what are the must-have extensions and what do they do?[/QUOTE]

Go look at my thread in the PC forum. I think it's actually right under this one, but if you need a link then here it is:

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58266

here's a small list of extensions that I would place under highly recommended:

Adblock Plus
Adblock Filterset G
PDF Download
keyconifg
undoclosetab
download status bar
sessionsaver
tab clicking options
restart fox
reload every
image zoom
 
The one thing that still irks me about IE is the .bmp bug where images you try to save (jpg, gif) only save as .bmp after the cache is full. That should have been fixed long ago. I use IE for trusted sites like CAG, Yahoo, Paypal, banking etc. For any surfing to unknown sites I always use Firefox.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']The one thing that still irks me about IE is the .bmp bug where images you try to save (jpg, gif) only save as .bmp after the cache is full. That should have been fixed long ago. I use IE for trusted sites like CAG, Yahoo, Paypal, banking etc. For any surfing to unknown sites I always use Firefox.[/QUOTE]

That's another reason why I switched. Back when I couldn't convert the file after I had saved it as a .bmp to something like a jpg, etc. this used to piss me off non stop.
 
Having just recently switched to FF, I can say this safely - I am not sure why, but it handles wireless connections MUCH better than IE. Maybe this is completely testimonial, and maybe I'm not paying much attention, but here's what I know:

My apartment complex has free wireless access. When I connected with IE, if I tried to surf more than one site at a time using two windows, or even if I tried to navigate two windows within the same site (multiple CAG threads, for instance), it almost always choked out and neither would load. CAG was especially bad with this, although other regular sites had terrible issues as well (Slashdot, Planetgamecube, etc). About the only site that had no issue with this was Google, but that's hardly worth mentioning.

However, switching to FF, I have not seen this issue replicated. I don't get time outs, I can surf various sites, and everything seems to work better than IE.

That all said, FF has some serious compatability issues with a few sites (can't render background colors well, etc), and more people will support IE overall since it, by nature, will always have a larger userbase (though that is slowly and gradually deteriorating, I do not think it will shrink as much as people would like, and I'm guessing if IE7 actually works well, it will slow down). Also, I'm still working around with it and trying to determine how to do a few things. Also, because IE is better integrated into Windows, you can jump to folders almost immediately. I noticed FF took a long time to do this, and had much difficulty connecting to remote computers (something I can do with IE without issue at my workplace).

Overall, if you've got a broadband connection and you do the manual speed tweaks in FF, then get some decent extensions, I think it will prove the better browser. But unless you are paying attention, you aren't going to notice a lot of difference. Leave automatic updates on and chances are you'll never notice a difference.
 
I would imagine that because IE is the default browser, it would be targeted more often for security leaks (as it would have a larger, less security-conscious audience) than FF.

That said, I don't know anything else, but that would be my assumption. :3 I use them both frequently. FF for general browsing, IE for websites with "bonus" features that won't show up in FF.
 
[quote name='the_gloaming']I would imagine that because IE is the default browser, it would be targeted more often for security leaks (as it would have a larger, less security-conscious audience) than FF.
[/QUOTE]

Without getting into the debate, I must say that this is an excellent point. You could even stretch it to other debates: Windows vs. Linux, Windows vs. Apple, etc.

While I personally err on the side of the underdogs for the most part, I have to admit that gloaming is really hitting hard with good insight here. If you are a hacker or virus writer and you want to do serious damage, who are you going to go after? The 5% of nerds running some non-MS OS, or the 95% group, which is going to include a large portion of clueless people?

Granted, granted, it is documented how much better FF is than IE in terms of security, how much less Apple's OS crashes, and how much more efficient and modable Linux is, but where does Microsoft trump them all? Almost universal support and compatability across the board.

And since that is the case, why would you aim at something that is better protected and used by less people?

Bingo.

Obviously part of this is cyclical in argumentative nature - "Windows isn't all bad, it is just targeted more, and hackers want quantity, so they target Windows, but Windows doesn't get patched well enough so it GETS hit more..." You could replace Windows with IE in that running sentence.

I just wanted to add that.
 
Strell, I would say your experience is placebo effect, and Firefox doesn't have any trouble rendering background colours. Coders might have trouble writing actual code, though, which IE thinks is "good enough."

And no, FF/*nix aren't more secure because they're not as targeted. They're more secure because they're built from the ground up with security and stability as a primary concern. On *nix, potentially hazardous programs (like a web server) are chroot jailed so they can't affect the entire installation; there are distinct levels of access for users so a malicious program run by an unknowing user can only at most do damage to that user's files in the /home directory, and can't affect the entire system; a partition can be mounted noexec so no executables can be run from it even if it has global write access; most programs are installed from trusted and safe repositories as opposed to whatever site you may happen to stumble across and download an executable from; most of the *nix community is interested in source code, and binary-only programs where you couldn't see if there was something malicious contained in it aren't popular at all; the user is on average more aware about security; the list goes on. The only few viruses that exist for Linux are in academic circles. It's extremely difficult to take out an entire *nix system, whereas Windows is a Parisian steetwalker with her legs spread wide inviting all comers. Unix has been around FAR longer than Windows; if your logic was correct, wouldn't it have been infected far more often?

Hell, the National Security Agency has contributed to the security of Linux, which is now by default in the kernel. *nix people know what security is.

Do a bit of reading if you're curious.

Edit: irrossistable, you're right about Opera. But, I tried to make the point that it's not just Firefox that's better, but a lot of browsers are greater than IE. Opera's always had good security as well.
 
I've tried FF before. Tabbed browsing never really "wowed!" me. I keep my stuff updated and have never had a problem with IE, so that's what I use.
 
[quote name='P0ldy']Strell, I would say your experience is placebo effect, and Firefox doesn't have any trouble rendering background colours. Coders might have trouble writing actual code, though, which IE thinks is "good enough."
[/QUOTE]

Oh yes it does. Go to powerballzone.com and into the forum. There are "white" and "black" themes if you are a member (I am). Running the black theme in FF totally destroys everything - can't see some text because it doesn't render the correct spaces, broken lines, etc. Load it up in IE and there's no issue. The site is run by a bunch of Subspace/Continuum players, and the owner of the forum is a web techie guy for a living. Lazy programming? Maybe. But it works in IE, doesn't work in FF.

As I said, I believe FF/IE wireless connection handling probably isn't related, and that it is anecdotal at best, but there was an extreme difference in the two.]

As for my "logic" that you so snarkily remark upon, I think you missed the point entirely. It isn't a question of time, it's a question of penetration and marketshare, which is what I said in the last post, and I highly recommend you reread it and use some context clues. And yes, this is me being slightly rude, because I don't appreciate people talking down to me. I'm always up for learning new information, so you can take that condescending attitude and shove it - I'm not defending Windows OR IE, and I'm not entering into a silly debate. Don't talk to me like I'm a zealot or something, that will get you on my bad side quick.
 
Firefox is just cooler, and it makes you cooler by using it. Also, sending spam to your friends to try to make them cool like you is what spam/ad block browsing is all about. JUST DO IT!!
 
[quote name='Strell']Oh yes it does. Go to powerballzone.com and into the forum. There are "white" and "black" themes if you are a member (I am). Running the black theme in FF totally destroys everything - can't see some text because it doesn't render the correct spaces, broken lines, etc. Load it up in IE and there's no issue. The site is run by a bunch of Subspace/Continuum players, and the owner of the forum is a web techie guy for a living. Lazy programming? Maybe. But it works in IE, doesn't work in FF.[/quote]
I'm not a member, but it doesn't matter because it's a coding issue. If you'd like to pull the code for me since I'm not a member (even tried to sign up but it appears there isn't a typical email form, and bugmenot didn't have a l/p) and I'll find the problem for you. Maybe they'll even fix it if you submitted the corrected code. But, they would do well to fix their invalid code and it may just solve your problem. Offhand, I'd say it's the embedded CSS that's the problem.

As for my "logic" that you so snarkily remark upon, I think you missed the point entirely. It isn't a question of time, it's a question of penetration and marketshare, which is what I said in the last post, and I highly recommend you reread it and use some context clues. And yes, this is me being slightly rude, because I don't appreciate people talking down to me. I'm always up for learning new information, so you can take that condescending attitude and shove it - I'm not defending Windows OR IE, and I'm not entering into a silly debate. Don't talk to me like I'm a zealot or something, that will get you on my bad side quick.
Click to expand...
Huh? I wasn't talking down to you, nor was I smug, nor did I miss the point. I was just giving you some information on *nix, because you didn't seem to know much about it. It's a common fallacy among people not in tune with *nix to think that marketshare is why Windows has more exploits. The two articles I linked to, which I gather you did not take the time to read, explain and refute that. One of the articles is from SecurityFocus. I wasn't trying to jump down your throat about anything.
 
Guys, Im sure we'll all agree that there is no unhackable code, despite the security precautions. A hacker would be more inclined to hack into IE b/c it would potentially reach 10X that of Firefox users and an even greater percentage for Windows and Unix and Linux. Im sure IE has flaws, but its just that over the past few years, its flaws have become magnified b/c of the large established user base. If it had only 2% market share, few would be complaining that its vulnerable because few hackers, if any, would take the time and effort to hack it.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']http://clav.mozdev.org/

The Blockfall plug-in is a pretty cool Tetris clone for Firefox. It may have been mentioned already.[/QUOTE]

I think you meant to put this in the Firefox extension (A.k.a my precious;)) but that's kind of cool. I'll have to try it out sometime. Never even heard or seen it before.
 
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']I think you meant to put this in the Firefox extension (A.k.a my precious;)) but that's kind of cool. I'll have to try it out sometime. Never even heard or seen it before.[/QUOTE]

Oops! :whistle2:#
 
The main reason you'll have IE use less ram than FF would be extra installed plug-ins which seem to take up ram, and you could have alot more than you realize.

As for exploits each has plenty, but I think IE are exploited more often because of the type of users they attract. If you don't believe me try treading on the dark side of the net, and see how long your system stays stable. For illegal activites, and porn I'll stick with FF.

Oh, Download them all is an awesome ad-on for dling pr0n.
 
[quote name='Superstar']Unfortunally, IE is intergrated into Windows XP. So, if you're using XP, then you're using IE in some ways. You are basically stuck with it.[/QUOTE]

You are stuck with it because web designers refuse W3C standards and you have to use IE in some cases. It's not all Microsoft's fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top