Recommended Posts

he failed to mention that the Mozilla team normally fix bugs and security holes faster than the IE team.
And what Myth would that be associated with? Regardless how fast bugs and security holes are fixed is debateable not to mention proper testing. Throwing a "patch" together and saying something is fixed is not the same as properly testing one.

all his pages are full of crap, I like how on his firefox sucks page it has google adds that (naturally) put up adds for firefox.

Firefox is faster, more compliant, and more secure than ie...opera is also faster, more compiant and more secure than ie....the point is, ie is not good, it's just what's used, and people should KNOW they can choose different.

@ Mastertech: what is your goal with that BS?? I dont think a Firefox user will switch back to IE or any IE engine crap. Anyone that I mention Firefox just love it. Me and a lot of people are going to keep using Firefox and Opera, but mainly Firefox, even on a Mac that I have Safari that is an awesome browser.

well when i use opera it was slower then firefox and possibly slower then IE

and yes firefox has many more things you can customize and it is still bloody fast (i load pages instantly.. i dont need any faster then that :p)

What is your source that Firefox is faster then IE? The data clearly shows otherwise. Maybe this page is more important than I thought.

well when i use opera it was slower then firefox and possibly slower then IE
So now we are resorting to making things up? Do you have any source to back this up, with reproduceable tests?

MasterTech has been on another website I have visited (and we found several others he's been on) posting this exact same crap, with exactly the same argument. All he's doing is trolling and trying to make money off of his Google ads (praise AdBlock, a [gasp] Firefox extension!). He may have 640+ posts here, but he's registered on other sites soley to bash Firefox (if you want a link, I'll gladly show it to you).

And this 'article' has already been addressed by other people:

http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2005/.../firefox-myths/

I really wouldn't bother responding to this thread any more, anyways.

Wow....

That was absolutely horrid, most of the sources have no credibility, and it looks as though alot of fanboyism is going on.

Honestly, the IE Trident Engine is the slowest for me, Gecko is the fastest, and Opera is average.

This one is my favorite:

Myth - "Firefox works with every Web Page"

Reality - 15% of web sites aren't completely compatible with Firefox. Firefox is not 100% Internet Explorer and ActiveX compatible. Web pages that depend on ActiveX or were only tested in Internet Explorer (which there are many) will only render and work properly in Internet Explorer based browsers. Web page features such as Menus, Web forms or other content may not function or behave differently then intended. While Internet Explorer works with 99.99% of all Web Pages. - Source

In a recent study by a UK based web testing firm SciVisum, 1 in 10 UK web sites failed to work properly with Firefox. - Source

Notes - Opera has the same problems as Firefox in regard to web page compatibility.

Ehh, response to that: Most of those sites specifically code for the Trident Engine.

:shiftyninja: if you are going to make a website like this, how about you get some credible sources and get things right!

Okay, maybe I will reply.

http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2005/.../firefox-myths/

Now, if you had actually read the Secunia page on Firefox, you'd notice that it's a DoS and a session hijack vulnerability. That's rather limited in what someone can do to the browser. Next, we check the page on Internet Exploder, and see that there is a vulnerability that can disclose a user's private information, a few phishing risks, one that can detect what files are currently installed, and so on. Compared to the main competitor, Firefox's vulnerabilities are minimal.

And do take a look at my previous reply, as the point still stands.

I think you over-estimate your impact or importance. I doubt the "Firefox damage control team" would move into action over some dude trying to generate ad revenue from his glorified blog.

Your views are inconsequential at best, and moreso than anything else, you're just annoying.

That link is horrible and the author did not even read the page.

System Requirements - Those are the minimum requirements for IE 6.0 wether he wants to accept it or not.

Firefox is Faster - Did he even read the source? How about you? It clearly shows IE is faster overall and Opera faster then both of them.

Firefox is Secure - The Active X warning system is as clear as you can make it. It clearly warns about installing any Active X controls from untrusted sources. This is no different then installing something from a link in Firefox or an untrusted extension. Oh and he claims extensions are for Advanced users? :laugh:

Firefox is Bug Free - People claim Firefox is perfect all the time. No knowledgeable users do not but knowledgeable users don't spread Myths now do they?

Firefox Tabbed Browsing - He posts a useless quote that doesn't dispute Netcaptor was the first browser to offer tabbed browsing.

Firefox Standards - He claims that no one knows what W3C standards are and they are poorly implemented? :laugh: Come on... This is one of the biggest arguments I hear about FF. FYI the XHTML 1.1 wording has since been corrected.

Firefox Web Page Compatibility - Again he can't disprove anything so he just makes guesses. Where you have another source - the BBC confirming the same thing. He has no case.

I guess some people can get away without backing up anything they say with facts.

Now, if you had actually read the Secunia page on Firefox, you'd notice that it's a DoS and a session hijack vulnerability. That's rather limited in what someone can do to the browser. Next, we check the page on Internet Exploder, and see that there is a vulnerability that can disclose a user's private information, a few phishing risks, one that can detect what files are currently installed, and so on. Compared to the main competitor, Firefox's vulnerabilities are minimal.
And this makes Firefox secure how?

when it comes down to it, it is browser preferance. I personally enjoy the look and feel of maxthon. As a bonus, it sits on top of the internet explorer kernel so I get nice features like firefox and opera, with the internet explorer kernal. Before Opera went ad free, I would switch between it and Firefox as firefox still seemed incomplete, but i needed a mozilla based browser to test websites. Now I've grown sick and tired of changing back and forth, Opera got uninstalled, and Firefox remains on my PC for testing, while I use Maxthon. I couldn't deal with the Opera interface... seemed too much of a hassal. firefox is sort of the same in those respects as I can't easily move the toolbars around.

When it comes to security, really what you need to have is a secure user. No matter what browser and operating system you give someone, if they are not careful about what they click on, then they can get a whole slew of viruses, adware, etc. Security is a false feeling on the internet today and only by raising awareness are you going to stop the spread of these sorts of things. No browser can fully protect you from it.

Speed, I could care less. If I gotta waste time trying to figure out how to move stuff around and make things cozy for myself, then where is my 1.00000000000000001 milliseconds in browser load time going? Oh, that's right, it's going towards me getting frustrated because things aren't the way I like them.

Here's a Myth:

There is a perfect browser out there that is totally secure and everyone should use.

False - There is no perfect browser. It is up to the user to find out what they like, what they feel comfortable using, and be aware of the dangers of the internet.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Louis Rossmann suing Samsung over "990 Pro SSD warranty scam" by Sayan Sen Back in 2023, if you recall, Neowin reviewer Robbie Khan had a dispute with Samsung over his 990 Pro SSD, which was rapidly losing its health. After significant back and forth, the tech giant had finally released firmware to "stop" the issue. Interestingly, its previous flagship at the time, the 980 Pro was also facing problems leading to two consecutive sets of firmware fixes. Three years later, it looks like a similar conflict has now broken out between tech repair entrepreneur YouTuber Louis Rossmann and Samsung, as it has escalated into a threatened lawsuit after the company allegedly refused to appropriately replace a failing 990 Pro SSD that remained under warranty. According to Rossmann, a 4TB Samsung 990 Pro NVMe SSD purchased for approximately $330 less than two years ago, began experiencing major hiccups and issues, even though he claims it had been operated under ideal cooling conditions. It was installed in a RAID 1 array and cooled by a heatsink and dual high-speed fans. However the drive reportedly started dropping out of the array, exhibiting controller-level failures that eventually became not useable in any meaningful way. Rossmann said Samsung’s support process was marked by delays and confusion from the very start. After initially contacting the wrong regional support channel, he was redirected to Samsung’s memory support division where he submitted detailed diagnostics, logs, and proof of purchase. Rossmann runs a repair company and owns an ACE Lab PC-3000 machine, which is a professional-grade data recovery equipment. As such, he had been confident in his diagnostics. Samsung even seemingly acknowledged that later. Regardless, Rossmann claims that his initial support ticket was automatically closed before a full 24-hour response window had elapsed, forcing him to reopen the case and resubmit documentation. The controversy however intensified further from here after Samsung accepted the drive for warranty evaluation but later returned it with a repair report stating that the drive had passed its testing and that the SSD had been verified as functional. Rossmann strongly disputed those claims citing that his own independent testing on PC-3000 showed write speeds reducing to as low as 40–60 MB/s before the drive failed entirely. Samsung subsequently informed him that the SSD had been reset and reflashed, passing internal stress tests. However, the company also stated that replacement units were unavailable due to an industry-wide memory shortage and suggested that a refund process could be initiated if further testing confirmed the fault. Thus, to settle, the company offered a refund of $330, the amount that was initially paid by him to make the purchase. Here, Rossmann pointed out the seeming hypocrisy of the tech giant as in how no Samsung drive was apparently allocated for warranty replacements, but they were abundantly available for retail sales especially when using business accounts. As you can see, Rossmann is indeed right, there are Samsung 990 Pro 4TB SSDs on Amazon currently for $950 (shipped and sold by first-party Amazon US itself), and they are also available on Samsung's own store too, albeit for an even higher price of $1100. Thus Rossmann argues that Samsung’s inability or unwillingness to provide a replacement while the same model remains available for purchase at significantly higher market prices reflects a failure to honor its warranty obligations. He has issued a formal 60-day notice and says he intends to file suit in Texas small claims court, asserting that companies should face greater costs for denying legitimate warranty claims than for fulfilling them. You can check out the full video titled "Samsung's 990 Pro SSD warranty policy is a scam; I'm taking them to court," at the link below. Source and image: Louis Rossmann (YouTube) As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases
    • Was it too much to ask to show the icon in this article?
    • Frankly, I blame whoever is writing such articles. "A big improvement/update and/or new feature is now available to everyone! Also, use this unofficial tweak tool to enable it because it actually isn't available to you yet officially and might not in fact even be entirely ready or whatever, hence why it is perhaps not enabled for you*. But it's great and you should enable it!" I mean there's nothing wrong with sharing info about some feature you might need to enable via unofficial means, of course. It's just that these articles tend to essentially end up being two news pieces in one, and one of them tends to be a bit misleading. (*Yes, yes, the "it's a controlled rollout!" thing. Not a fan of that one either. The argument, not the actual rollout.)
    • Thank you. Will do. I read in the release notes that editor config might be at play here.
    • Actually, I think even Microsoft doesn't know how to control it
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      davidbazooked earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Jamswaz earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Jamswaz earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      Marzoid went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Community Regular
      coch went up a rank
      Community Regular
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      508
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      185
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      83
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      75
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!