• 0

Mozilla is superior to Internet Explorer 6.0!


Question

Let me start by saying I have tried many builds of Mozilla, Netscape and Opera over the years and have always preffered IE until now. As of Mozilla 1.0 (now 1.1b) I believe that Mozilla is far surperior to IE.

1.) Tabbed browsing is more efficient than opening multiple explorer windows. Having 4 or 5 websites fully loaded under tabs a few inches away from your main browser window is so much easier than stacking multinple browsers, having to go to the taskbar, or even using a windowshade app to roll up the windows.

2.) Mozilla is stable. This afternoon, just for fun, I loaded 160 sites into a single browser, tabbed. Mozilla was slow for about 10 minutes (probably more my system limitations than Mozilla), but it accomplished all 160 sites. Without crashing.

3.) Mozilla is easily, fully customizable. It has native skin support. Want to change the splash screen? Drop in your own mozilla.bmp into the main mozilla directory and your finished. Want new browser icons? Install a new set online in 5 seconds. With as many Neowin members into system customization, I'm surprised Mozilla isn't their default browser for this reason alone. Not to mention it works well with Intellimouse drivers, so you can backspace your way through your page history with ease (thanks for the tip BroChaos!)

4.) It supports all commonly used plug-ins. Java, flash, shockwave and more. With the exception of a few MSN Java games I haven't had a single plug in problem. (Mozilla having problems with an MSN site...hmmm. Not to mention the score of open source plug ins like leech get...the best site file leecher I've used.

5.) It's fast. The user decides how much to optimize Mozillas speed and interaction with the OS. Mozilla consistantly loads sites faster the IE6.

6.) It's secure. I've noticed that Mozilla works almost like a firewall in it's ability to screen everything you are looking at (speaking of firewalls, Mozilla works seamlessly with zone alarm now). I have been extremely impressed with how much Mozilla catches when browsing insecure sites.

I have about ten more reasons that I dig Mozilla so much. It's free...go try it out at Mozilla.org. Post what you think of the new build.

I would love to see Neowin artists really get into this browser and start creating skins to match many of the themes we've seen on Neowin!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Originally posted by Jish

ROFL! My goodness, I never expected a reply such as this. A reply so far off-topic and far from the truth of my true self. Please, try to keep up while I try to keep this topic on the subject of Mozilla. What I don't understand is that Mozilla was listed as BETA for the longest time. Yet people then called it better the IE. I'll take a integrated browser such as Internet Explorer over Mozilla any day.

If people think beta software is better than a final Microsoft product, that's a bad thing?

Someone hit this guy with a clue-by-four.

And integration has nothing to do with browsing. Sretting quicklaunch on startup for mozilla preoduces the same effect so the point is moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

"Mozilla is completely 100% WC3 standards compliant. There's no tags we can all live without like ."

No, it's not. It may be closer than the rest, but it's not 100%.

"Mozilla is free (as in beer) and open (as in source). What do you think is a faster method of debugging... having users submit bug reports and having developers pour over code until they find it and fix it, or having users look at the code, find the bug, and send in the fix to be included in the next build?"

What do you think is a faster method of finding holes... keeping the source under wraps so no one can exploit code holes, or opening up the source for all to see?

"Importing favorites is easy (despite some other user's claims). Go into IE. Export favorites. Go into Mozilla bookmark manager. Tools > Import."

How does the ability to import favorites from IE make it better than IE? It just eases a transition.

"Built-in forms manager, password manager, download manager, and cookie manager."

IE has a forms manager and a password manager. A download manager would be cool, and I personally don't care about a cookie manager.

"An ability I missed when I went from Netscape 4.7x to IE... have it open on a blank page, but still have a page assigned to the HOME button."

IE can do that, too. iexplore.exe -nohome

"I clearly state to do a google search on any proof you need."

Anyone can put up a site and have it show up on Google. That's not proof.

"just google search, you'll find loads [of reasons why Mozilla is better than IE]"

There is no source that can say, with validity, that Mozilla is better than IE, or IE is better than Mozilla. It's a personal thing. If you think that's set in stone, you're not very knowledgeable.

"Have you gone to www.w3.org and validated your code? The browser can only go so far if your code is dodgy."

I believe "validate" means to use a validator. Yes, that means using W3.

I've also coded many projects, and they validate fine in both browsers with a minimum of work. I don't think this is an issue.

"so am i, no issues. I have IE problems on all my pc's."

Considering IE is part of the OS, I'd say you are having issues.

"Fact It follows those compliances better then any other browser.

Any knowledgeable web programmer knows this to be a fact."

Any knowledgeable web programmer also knows that a browser that accomodates for bad code is a better renderer of web pages than a browser that strictly adheres to the standards.

"hear hear! I'm tired of webpages that are poorly coded cos the coder uses the fact that the majority of browser users use IE as standard as an explination for their laziness. Web Page coders should be forced into making sure their webpage is W3C compliant."

You wish. Humans are always going to make mistakes. In other words, you're saying you're tired of imperfection. That's not a real smart thing to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by Hatter

If people think beta software is better than a final Microsoft product, that's a bad thing?

Someone hit this guy with a clue-by-four.

And integration has nothing to do with browsing. Sretting quicklaunch on startup for mozilla preoduces the same effect so the point is moot.

The reason BETA software is called such is because its code is unfinished, incomplete, buggy, etc. The fact I prefer intergration is because that it runs smoother then running a external program of the same type. In this cause, a web browser. Please excuse me while I duck under the incoming clue-by-four.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by JaggedFlame

What do you think is a faster method of finding holes... keeping the source under wraps so no one can exploit code holes, or opening up the source for all to see?

You went off on a tangent there, and that's a different debate altogether. The source code can also be used to find and fix exploits. Why do there seem to be more exploits for IE than mozilla? IE's source isn't available. That's the only way to find bugs, right? :paranoid:

Originally posted by JaggedFlame

Any knowledgeable web programmer also knows that a browser that accomodates for bad code is a better renderer of web pages than a browser that strictly adheres to the standards.

In a day and age where anyone who fires up FrontPage or DreamWeaver is a "web programmer", i wouldn't trust the opinion of any of them. But this is just a matter of philosophy. If you allow bad code, then your not really encouraging good web coding. The people who write mozilla want people to make good code, so they make it standard compliant. Bad web programmers can't complain that their crappy code won't run. It's their own fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
its free -and you can get it here. http://www.opera.com
I don't consider ad-supported versions "free". I consider it bandwidth sucking spyware.

The only thing I don't like about Mozilla right now is the DHTML rendering. It definitely can't beat IE in that department right now. If I'm wrong, please show me sites that prove otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by Jish

The reason BETA software is called such is because its code is unfinished, incomplete, buggy, etc.

I still don't see how its a bad thing if a beta of one program is better than the final of another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by Oogle

The only thing I don't like about Mozilla right now is the DHTML rendering. It definitely can't beat IE in that department right now. If I'm wrong, please show me sites that prove otherwise.

AFAIK there is no official DHTML standard so Mozilla developers are more concerned with implementing other standards like CSS2 and MathML.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by Hatter

I still don't see how its a bad thing if a beta of one program is better than the final of another.

I never said it was a bad thing. It all depends on user preference. I prefer not to use BETA software on a regular basis. But I do like to play with BETA software for the fun of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by giantsnyy2002

i do... i have a 1.9GHz and IE is extremely slow.

Try defraging once and awhile.......I have a 1.95ghz pc and IE works like a dream. As for mozilla never used it...probly never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Everybody (allmost) knows the fact that Im a microsoft entusiast, but I need to admit it, Im getting addcited to mozilla

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by use_imagination

i tried it and still prefer www.crazybrowser.com

i haven't tried it long enough to see if it's faster or stabler but i just didn't like the way it looks and its options...

CrazyBrowser works very fine for me and rarely (almost never) crashes

Crazy Browser has a lot of nice features, but it's it's not really a browser it's a just a different interface for I.E. like neoplanet. It uses I.E.'s rendering engine so in effect you are still using I.E.

I'd recomend it to anyone that's obsessed with tabbed browsing. it also has a nice pop-up killer and many more features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

"Mozilla is free (as in beer) and open (as in source). What do you think is a faster method of debugging... having users submit bug reports and having developers pour over code until they find it and fix it, or having users look at the code, find the bug, and send in the fix to be included in the next build?"

What do you think is a faster method of finding holes... keeping the source under wraps so no one can exploit code holes, or opening up the source for all to see?

And thus the holes can be fixed much quicker as well.

The way you worded that makes it sound like you're in support of that.

"Importing favorites is easy (despite some other user's claims). Go into IE. Export favorites. Go into Mozilla bookmark manager. Tools > Import."

How does the ability to import favorites from IE make it better than IE? It just eases a transition.

Someone stated that importing favorites is next to impossible. I was making a point.

"Built-in forms manager, password manager, download manager, and cookie manager."

IE has a forms manager and a password manager. A download manager would be cool, and I personally don't care about a cookie manager.

I would hardly call auto-complete a forms manager. Nor would I call "remember this password/clear all my passwords" a password manager. And some of us who don't like a ton of trackers all over our drives enjoy having a cookie manager.

"An ability I missed when I went from Netscape 4.7x to IE... have it open on a blank page, but still have a page assigned to the HOME button."

IE can do that, too. iexplore.exe -nohome

Mozilla has it built in. IE requires you to edit the shortcut. Yet again I'm making a point.

Any knowledgeable web programmer also knows that a browser that accomodates for bad code is a better renderer of web pages than a browser that strictly adheres to the standards.

So what you're saying is that standards are just arbitrary and not there for a reason? Mozilla does accomodate for bad code AFAIK... the only sites I've actually had trouble rendering were random Geocities and AOL Hometown pages. I can't imagine any connection there. :cheeky:

"hear hear! I'm tired of webpages that are poorly coded cos the coder uses the fact that the majority of browser users use IE as standard as an explination for their laziness. Web Page coders should be forced into making sure their webpage is W3C compliant."

You wish. Humans are always going to make mistakes. In other words, you're saying you're tired of imperfection. That's not a real smart thing to say.

No... there's a big difference in saying you're tired of ****ty code written in 20 seconds and something you actually put time into and make sure it works right.

God help us if you ever build anything.

"My skyscraper up to code? But it's so much easier if we use fewer screws!"

"Automobile safety standards? But this tin is so much cheaper than steel!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by BroChaos

this thread is great. i don't think i've seen one valid point supporting IE yet. :)

go moz.

IE IS faster on MY machine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

have to agree..IE IS faster on my system...

pentium 500 mhz

256 mb ram

windows xp

cable

maybe its just my specs..dunno...if Moz was faster it would be perfect (using it more and more)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

If Galeon was ported to Windows, it would slaughter IE. It's got all the good points of the mozilla interface, and it uses native widgets and is FAST. And the bookmark system is fantastic. I agree the Mozilla XUL interface can be slow on some windows boxes but on my PIII laptop it's pretty damn fast.

Does anyone know of a native-widget browser for Win32 that uses the Gecko engine that's equivalent to Galeon? The only real contention for IE i'm seeing here is speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by chromogenX

have to agree..IE IS faster on my system...

pentium 500 mhz

256 mb ram

windows xp

cable

maybe its just my specs..dunno...if Moz was faster it would be perfect (using it more and more)

Acctually IE is faster in Loading on Every Windows Machine(& it is faster bcoz it is built on Win Explorer), But Not faster on Loading Web Pages as compare to MoZillA.

I've compare it on several machine's But MoZillA is the BEST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by Xahid

Acctually IE is faster in Loading on Every Windows Machine(& it is faster bcoz it is built on Win Explorer), But Not faster on Loading Web Pages as compare to MoZillA.

I've compare it on several machine's But MoZillA is the BEST.

I guess you mabey missed my earlier post.

As far as application load time, and individual who would make this claim knows nothing about both the windows runtime environment and how explorer is loaded and boot up. Also they have probably have not installed the late beta versions nor the 1.0 release. This release has an optional boot time service that allows Mozilla to be loaded in memory the exact same way explorer is loaded into memory at boot up. This would lead to the exact same application load time as IE. Here is an exercise for those competent enough to take up this task. Remove all runtime components related to IE or use an optional shell that does not load explorer ?If your not educated enough to do this, then your not educated enough to give an authoritive answer to Mozilla abilities". Then I challenge you to record the new boot time vs. the old. Take the time difference from that and record how long Mozilla takes to run. You will see as I have seen that in most cases Mozilla actually runs faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Acctually IE is faster in Loading on Every Windows Machine(& it is faster bcoz it is built on Win Explorer), But Not faster on Loading Web Pages as compare to MoZillA.

I was referring to the rendering of web pages (load time for pages). IE is faster...or so it seems on my box :ermm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by chromogenX

I was referring to the rendering of web pages (load time for pages). IE is faster...or so it seems on my box :ermm:

That's because Mozilla loads the page and then displays is whereas IE loads the text and then loads the images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.