What's so great about Mozilla?

[reticence]

If tabbed browsing and popup suppression are the main reasons you are using mozilla you really need to give MyIE2 a shot http://myie2.yeah.net/ . Also has quicksearch shortcuts, aliases, content filtering, support for ie addons like the googlebar, etc...

[OPaul]

Why can't I add

font-family: 'verdana';

font-size: 8pt;

color: #000000;

as my default under BODY in the style sheet, when I do that it screws up IE and Mozilla. Why can't everything else, including TABLE inherite that?

reticence: I just found http://www.crazybrowser.com/, is myIE2 any better?

[reticence]

OPaul: I tried every tabbed browser I could find and out of all of them my three favorites were MyIE2, Fast Browser, and Crazybrowser (in that order). IMO and for my needs MyIE2 is by far the best, though crazy browser appears to be the most polished.

[Prasanth]

Originally posted by username

the poll was rigged, spamed, cheated, frauded, whatever, it was then ended.

exactly. Most of the people here use IE.

the real results were

IE-1000

moz-100

opera-50

:rolleyes:

Mozilla is way too slow to start. The XUL UI is slow and buggy. I think the only nice feature in mozilla is tabbed browsing, the rest IE does better.

[Guest deadzombie]

Originally posted by Sticktron

#1. There is nothing "good" about mozilla. It is substandard, outdated software whose sole purpose is to be anti-Microsoft. As far as I'm concerned, a "browser" is no longer a "special program". The technology was finalized a few years ago, and is now built into the OS. The only people not using IE are people who can't run commercial software--linux users.

#2. Explorer shouldn't ever crash if you're using XP, nor should IE. If they crash more than once in a blue moon, you have a problem with your system setup.

or, another opinion could be;

1. There is nothing 'good' about Internet Explorer. It is a substandard application tied into an OS so the OS manufacturer could gain market share (ie; sell their OS). It's code is substandard, riddled with security holes and the most bloated peice of feces ever produced by a 'reputable' software company. The only people using IE are those that do not realize that there is a better alternative available to them.

2. Mozilla should render youre websites perfectly, as it conforms to W3C standards. If the sites do not render well it's probably because the coder has mistakenly used substandard the substandard IE to view their code, which does not conform to W3C standards.

But that's just an opinion.

[lazydesert]

if IE can be completely removed with sp1, i'll switch back to mozilla under windows.

[Prasanth]

Originally posted by deadzombie

I submit that Mozilla uses more memory but less CPU; when Explorer locks up once a day your cpu usage sticks at around 98% during the lock up....by not locking up the entire system Mozilla is nicer on the CPU long term ;)

what are you talking about?

[Guest deadzombie]

Originally posted by prasanth

what are you talking about?

Nothing at all...just being silly.

Watch your CPU usage when most applications lock up...you'll see processor use skyrockets to the high 90%.

I was (humorously to myself) putting forth the notion that Mozilla is better for the life of your CPU because it doesn't lock up, thus doesn't use as much of the CPU, thus prolonging the life of your processor.

But I may have just been overcome by geekness.

[sanctified Veteran]

Originally posted by Sticktron

#1. There is nothing "good" about mozilla. It is substandard, outdated software whose sole purpose is to be anti-Microsoft. As far as I'm concerned, a "browser" is no longer a "special program". The technology was finalized a few years ago, and is now built into the OS. The only people not using IE are people who can't run commercial software--linux users.

#2. Explorer shouldn't ever crash if you're using XP, nor should IE. If they crash more than once in a blue moon, you have a problem with your system setup.

I want to see the technical arguments that help you to support your statement.

1.- mozilla support most recent technologies and not that recent, IE not, example: 32 bits png?s

2.- your statement about the technology is absurd, if we use your idea then we dont need unix or os x server in our servers because the NT technology was finalized few years ago, still they still updating NT and IE, why? the technology was finalized, isnt it? Its the same with mozilla, new alternative, another technology, and a better one, IMHO

3.- IE hast crashed to me yet, but I cant stand some of their limitations

Now, Im waiting for a mature and supported response coming from you, please, tell me what USEFULL technology IE support and mozilla doesn?t

[akaj23]

*sigh* Once upon a time, I would have jumped for the bait and given you guys a whole list of reasons why IE is better.

Now? Jesus. It's a frickin' browser. Why do you care what someone else uses? If you're so petty that you feel the need to preach Mozilla or IE to others, you're arrogant, nosy, and stupid to boot.

[Guest deadzombie]

Originally posted by JaggedFlame

*sigh* Once upon a time, I would have jumped for the bait and given you guys a whole list of reasons why IE is better.

Now? Jesus. It's a frickin' browser. Why do you care what someone else uses? If you're so petty that you feel the need to preach Mozilla or IE to others, you're arrogant, nosy, and stupid to boot.

I didn't know we had met! I am arrogant, stupid and nosey! Im also extremly good looking and have alot of sex with a beautiful woman, so who cares if I'm stupid or nosey?:p :D :evil:

[Ghost Cloud]

Mozilla + the Multizilla addon just makes it even better.

[VaxoP]

Here is why mozilla sucks.

for those saying that mozilla only has high ram usage/cpu because its not built into explorer.exe is WRONG. mozilla is hella slow, starting up, loading windows, closing windows, displaying images, displaying html, loading forms, loading text, etc etc. compare operas ram/cpu with mozillas. mozilla is clearly the loser. opera ownz mozilla, but ie ownz opera (and mozilla)

ie is extremely customizable - look at all the plugins available for it, and ie is a programmers dream to work with because of the endless amount of things you can do with it, how access to every item on the webpage and ALL its properties are available for the programmer to change or view. sure mozilla has an embedded object too (gecko) but GOD does it suck.

if u want tabbed browsing, theres hundreds of programs available for you to do that with ie. its not hard to download those is it?

ie loads webpages faster than mozilla. its proven. numerous tests have been made to prove this (search on download.com).

mozilla claims its the best because its "standards compliant". now i say, WHO GIVES A F*CK. If mozilla cant load a page properly and ie can (99% of the times this is the case), it doesnt matter how standards compliant mozilla is, ie is better cause it can actually load the page. microsoft took time (or whoever made ie - mosiac?) to code ie so well that it properly displays webpages that arent properly designed - and that is another reason why ie is better.

mozilla is a nightmare for website designers. although the page will work in ie, it wont in mozilla so the designer has to go back and waste unneccessary time fixing the stupid little mistakes in the code or research new ways to try and create the same effect in mozilla. if there was just one browser - if people were smart enough to use the best browser then this problem wouldnt occur. if ie can display it, so should mozilla and if it cant, it is clearly the inferior product.

another thing i keep hearing is "mozilla is more stable than ie". dear god. it uses 3x the ram, 3x the cpu (compare this to opera as well - which is not integrated into explorer) and yet is still not more stable then ie. ie has not crashed on me for.. hmm, since i installed xp/whistler (year ago i think).

the ONLY reason anyone would want to run mozilla is either if they are on linux (which, i would use konqueror over mozilla there too) or if they are anti-ms.

[Prasanth]

Nothing at all...just being silly.

Watch your CPU usage when most applications lock up...you'll see processor use skyrockets to the high 90%.

I was (humorously to myself) putting forth the notion that Mozilla is better for the life of your CPU because it doesn't lock up, thus doesn't use as much of the CPU, thus prolonging the life of your processor.

But I may have just been overcome by geekness.

im using IE it doesn't lock up. if your IE locks up then you computer is infected by some virus.:rolleyes:

Mozilla is better for the life of your CPU

HA HA HA

[BroChaos Veteran]

you guys crack me up. IE can't hold a candle to moz. i don't even use the systray feature, and moz loads in the blink of an eye. moz does load pages faster than IE. IE is customizable? it's not skinnable.

mozilla claims its the best because its "standards compliant". now i say, WHO GIVES A F*CK. If mozilla cant load a page properly and ie can (99% of the times this is the case), it doesnt matter how standards compliant mozilla is, ie is better cause it can actually load the page. microsoft took time (or whoever made ie - mosiac?) to code ie so well that it properly displays webpages that arent properly designed - and that is another reason why ie is better.

and all that is just nonsense. it all comes down to coders being sloppy and lazy. you do realize that xhtml is the next generation html, and it will not tolerate sloppy coding, right?

"99% of the times this is the case" - nice exaggeration.

and i really have to laugh at "ms took time to code ie so well". that is probably the funniest thing i've heard all week.

[sarcasm]

but hey, why should i agree with the W3C, who make the rules, when i could listen to MS who just wants to make a buck off of me selling more OSes.

[/sarcasm]

[Prasanth]

Originally posted by BroChaos

i don't even use the systray feature, and moz loads in the blink of an eye.

wrong, i takes atleast 5 secs.:rolleyes:

and all that is just nonsense. it all comes down to coders being sloppy and lazy.

but we do need IE to view those poorly coded pages. IE renders them correctly.

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-941926.html

[Wizz]

I use the mail program at the moment because it is brilliant. However the browser has problems with tables and stylesheets which drives me nuts.

[BroChaos Veteran]

Originally posted by prasanth

wrong, i takes atleast 5 secs.:rolleyes:

lol, how do you know? blink of an eye on my work pc as well as my home pc. i'm talking 1-2 seconds, or as fast as IE.

[BroChaos Veteran]

Originally posted by Wizz

I use the mail program at the moment because it is brilliant. However the browser has problems with tables and stylesheets which drives me nuts.

LMAO, people please, it's NOT the browser. for the billionth time.

prasanth: that link seems to be against IE. it talks about how the web is messed up now because microsoft tried to make it proprietary. it also talks about IE and it's lack of standardness, and how moz and opera are increasingly viewing more pages correctly. just think, the web would be so much better right now if it wasn't for IE. there would only be one set of standards, and everyone would be happy.

[Prasanth]

Originally posted by BroChaos

lol, how do you know? blink of an eye on my work pc as well as my home pc. i'm talking 1-2 seconds, or as fast as IE.

i have a p3 600 and 256MB ram IE takes less than a sec and moz takes above 5 secs.

prasanth: that link seems to be against IE. it talks about how the web is messed up now because microsoft tried to make it proprietary. it also talks about IE and it's lack of standardness, and how moz and opera are increasingly viewing more pages correctly. just think, the web would be so much better right now if it wasn't for IE. there would only be one set of standards, and everyone would be happy.

yep the link is againt IE, but the web is messed up and you do need IE to view the pages.

[giantsnyy2002]

Originally posted by Sticktron

#1. There is nothing "good" about mozilla. It is substandard, outdated software whose sole purpose is to be anti-Microsoft. As far as I'm concerned, a "browser" is no longer a "special program". The technology was finalized a few years ago, and is now built into the OS. The only people not using IE are people who can't run commercial software--linux users.

#2. Explorer shouldn't ever crash if you're using XP, nor should IE. If they crash more than once in a blue moon, you have a problem with your system setup.

mozilla is not substandard... at least it FOLLOWS the w3c standards... (unlike IE). Linux users, dont even bother getting me started there, as i use linux, and find it BETTER than windows, and IE crashes every day. And I run XP pro. Reason why? Microsoft Virutal Machine. Every time i look at the error report, its because microsoft virtual machine didnt load properly. I cant even have 2 windows of IE open its so bad now.

[edit] oh, and... its outdated???? It follows every w3c standard, and comes out with builds every day... You must be thinking Netscape 4 [/edit]

[parrots]

mozilla claims its the best because its "standards compliant". now i say, WHO GIVES A F*CK. If mozilla cant load a page properly and ie can (99% of the times this is the case), it doesnt matter how standards compliant mozilla is, ie is better cause it can actually load the page. microsoft took time (or whoever made ie - mosiac?) to code ie so well that it properly displays webpages that arent properly designed - and that is another reason why ie is better.

mozilla is a nightmare for website designers. although the page will work in ie, it wont in mozilla so the designer has to go back and waste unneccessary time fixing the stupid little mistakes in the code or research new ways to try and create the same effect in mozilla. if there was just one browser - if people were smart enough to use the best browser then this problem wouldnt occur. if ie can display it, so should mozilla and if it cant, it is clearly the inferior product.

http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/comp...iral/demo2.html http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/comp...ral/glassy.html

Those are two reasons why we should "give a f*ck" about standards. Try loading that in IE, and then try loading it in Mozilla. This just shows the most basic of effects you can do when you have a browser that supports CSS and HTML according to the W3C.

As to "having to go back and change code to create the same effect in Mozilla" thats a basic CSS effect, how do you do that in IE? Eh? If it followed standards, you wouldn't have to look around that hard to find out. You could just look at the specs for the standards, and there you would find the answer. And it would be the same way os Mozilla. However IE doesn't follow them because they have the same mentality of you "If 80% of the people don't follow the standards, why should we?" This is why we have so many poorly coded sites, because IE let people get away with sloppy code.

"microsoft took time...to code ie so well that it properly displays webpages that arent properly designed" That was nothing that they "tired to do." It was easier for them to write a browser that didn't check for validity and didn't care how well the page was coded. It isn't like MS wanted to make it easier to display sites, they were just lazy in their coding. Try writing any C++ prgm, then try to write one that has well-written, optomized code that does exactly what it should, based on standards...it is a lot harder to write a quality program than one that doesn't stick to the standards.

Stop saying its ok to not follow the standards just because 80% of the population doesn't, learn how to code the right way, then maybe we won't need IE to fix our mistakes.:p

[VaxoP]

It was easier for them to write a browser that didn't check for validity and didn't care how well the page was coded. It isn't like MS wanted to make it easier to display sites, they were just lazy in their coding. Try writing any C++ prgm, then try to write one that has well-written, optomized code that does exactly what it should, based on standards...it is a lot harder to write a quality program than one that doesn't stick to the standards.

hahaha this is just hilarious. it is VERY simple to detect only one type of tag or format in a webpage, but much much more difficult to detect a wide wide range of ways to perform the same action. example: "If ($segment == "" as compared to "if ($segment == "" or $segment = "" or $segment = "") etc. which browser coder was more lazy?

it is d*mn okay to not follow standards. if anything, it should be microsoft making the standards if they control 95% + of the market. in the end it does not come down to which browser is more "standards compliant". it comes to which browser can display the site properly, quicker, using less ram/resources - and that browser is IE.

and i commend u mozilla trolls for reading my post, and being able to argue on one of its many many points.

PS: i seriously doubt xhtml will be the next generation in webpage creation - the last i saw a xhtml page the source was much larger then the mirrored html version. website designers will code for speed and bw usage, so they will choose html

[parrots]

Originally posted by VaxoP

hahaha this is just hilarious. it is VERY simple to detect only one type of tag or format in a webpage, but much much more difficult to detect a wide wide range of ways to perform the same action. example: "If ($segment == "" as compared to "if ($segment == "" or $segment = "" or $segment = "") etc. which browser coder was more lazy?

it is d*mn okay to not follow standards. if anything, it should be microsoft making the standards if they control 95% + of the market. in the end it does not come down to which browser is more "standards compliant". it comes to which browser can display the site properly, quicker, using less ram/resources - and that browser is IE.

and i commend u mozilla trolls for reading my post, and being able to argue on one of its many many points.

PS: i seriously doubt xhtml will be the next generation in webpage creation - the last i saw a xhtml page the source was much larger then the mirrored html version. website designers will code for speed and bw usage, so they will choose html

Just because MS owns the markey doesn't mean that they control the standards. If they did, TCP/IP and every other protocal would end up like everythign else MS owns...costing $20 a month. The point of the W3C is to determine standards based on the need, while not being controled by a CEO that only wants profit. This is why it is wise not to have MS control the standards.

I will admit that Mozilla uses more RAM than IE. This is because of its skinning engine. As much as I like the skining ability, I hope that in the future they add a way to make it use default Windows UI so that it doesn't use the extra resources. That is the only real issue I see with the browser.

XHTML will be the the replacement to HTML. Why? First, W3C is not making any more HTML standards. 4.01 was the latest, and it will not be edited beond that. So this means that XHTML is the only option left. While at first people may not use it, once new features are relased in XHTML that aren't in HTML 4.01, people will need to switch to it to use those features. I don't think thats why people should switch to it, but that is what will cause a lot of people to start using newer standards.

Also, XHTML is not any larger from HTML. The only difference is that it now follows XML well-formattedness. If you read the specs at the W3C, you will see that the main difference is that you are now required to close all of your tags. This may mean adding a few

's and 's here and there, but there is no major change in the page weight. I'm willing to close my tags if it means having well written code ;-)

As for the coding of the browser, I didn't say anything about the parsing being easier. This is because IE doesn't have to worry about If this, then this and this. That is what the DTD is for. If it were to follow the DTD, then all it has to do it loop through all the tags and find a match in the DTD. I was refering to the rendering. Its easy to say "look for a p tag, and insert two breaks", as opposed to "look for a p tag, make sure it has a closing p tag, make sure there are no tags inside the p tag that are closed outside."

And if "it is d*mn okay to not follow standards" then try driving on the wrong side of the road, and see what happens

:p

[BroChaos Veteran]

they will choose html? html by itself is practically dead. everyone is moving towards separate style sheets, it makes things much easier. xhtml shouldn't be larger than regular html, except for the fact you can't leave tags out and hope that the browser knows what you mean.

you are starting to scare me man, you really think MS should be making standards??:s do you not understand that all they care about is the money in your wallet?

unless you strive for imperfection, you should want to be as standard as possible. this doesn't just apply to website design. read the link that prasanth posted. this whole issue was started because MS tried to proprietize the internet. that is not what we should be striving for.

mozilla displays sites properly, quicker, and although it may use more ram, it has about twice the features of IE, so what do you expect?

*edit* parrots: well said, i agree 100%. although you must type faster than me :p