What's so great about Mozilla?

[lazydesert]

Originally posted by prasanth

I will use mozila when the internet is full of standard compliant webpages.

finally, a valid comment.

[Prasanth]

Originally posted by lazydesert

finally, a valid comment.

and the internet is not full of standard compliant webpages and im not going to use mozilla :rolleyes:

[parrots]

I think my friend's remark to reading his post puts it best..."its fun to watch MS groupies try to defend stuff." If you want to have the attitude of "screw the standards, screw doing things the right way" then fine, IE is the right browser for you. However, if you wish to start accepting the standards and doing as they say, you will be ahead when the standards are widely used and common ground. I for one an ready for IE to start being as "standard-driven" as Mozilla is, because I know the standards, and have no issues with coding the right way. As I said before, just because a browser fixes our mistakes doesn't mean that its better, it is just encouraging lazyness and sloppy code.

The only reason that the world is not full of standard compliant browsers is because IE allowed people to get away with sloppy code. Hence why standard compliance is so hard today...because IE let people be lazy. If IE had stuck witht he standards, we wouldn't have to worry about it looking different in IE and Mozilla, because they would look the same.

Why don't you come back to this thread in a few years when XHTML is a widely-used standard and try saying "screw the standards" then? Just suck it up that you have to learn to code correctly, and start making pages that work in 100% of browsers, instead of ones that don't. Trust me, its not hard, and in the end, its a lot better.

Mozilla - the browser of people who know how to code well-written sites...nuff said.

[sanctified Veteran]

the vaxoXP answers are sooo funny :D

he?s serious about this?

[Gromvar]

back up to the point where explorer.exe is part of ie. If it is then how come you can change out the shell to litestep, making it so that explorer.exe doesn't load and ie still works. hmmmmm.

[AgEnTsMiTh]

He is DEAD on serious. Scary and sad at the same time.

I hope he walks away from this realizing that he has much to learn and actualy does the research to help better his understanding of all the facts we have tried to teach him about.

[parrots]

Originally posted by Gahmahn

back up to the point where explorer.exe is part of ie. If it is then how come you can change out the shell to litestep, making it so that explorer.exe doesn't load and ie still works. hmmmmm.

It uses components of explorer that are loaded on boot regardless of your shell. We aren't saying they are the same thing, we are just saying that it uses many things from explorer.

[sanctified Veteran]

Originally posted by parrots

It uses components of explorer that are loaded on boot regardless of your shell. We aren't saying they are the same thing, we are just saying that it uses many things from explorer.

good point, example of that: webview and some other "fancy" stuff

[parrots]

Originally posted by AgEnTsMiTh

He is DEAD on serious. Scary and sad at the same time.

I hope he walks away from this realizing that he has much to learn and actualy does the research to help better his understanding of all the facts we have tried to teach him about.

Yeah, and does honest research, not biased research like "hrm, what 'facts' can I find to put those Mozilla trolls in their place" (he called all of us mozilla users trolls earlier for those who missed it).

[AgEnTsMiTh]

Originally posted by Gahmahn

back up to the point where explorer.exe is part of ie. If it is then how come you can change out the shell to litestep, making it so that explorer.exe doesn't load and ie still works. hmmmmm.

I am not saying that its IE. What I am saying is that its one of MANY MANY componets that IE is built into or around. Like I said, IE has more components and mem usage that it leaches into so to say that it uses less mem or system usage is incorrect. You have to factor in ALL the other components that ties into it to get the real data.

[VaxoP]

Originally posted by [saint dark]the vaxoXP answers are sooo funny :D

he?s serious about this? >

ive pretty much had enough now.. ive posted enough information on why ie is better. before it was mozilla is faster, quicker at starting up, using less ram, less mem etc etc and now its just "it follows standards" (in other words, it wont display sites correctly).

theres some peopel you just cant get things thru. like [saint dark] for example. not once was i trying to be funny (well actually maybe a tad in the post with all the reasons on it why ie was better)

ill post my reasons one more time, then u can go on using mozilla - i dont care. my browser will be faster, use less ram, start quicker, display more pages correctly, and be a programmers dream to work with. you may use the browser that doesnt do these things.

[VaxoP]

Reasons:

There is very simply, NO REASON to use mozilla except if youre a microsoft hater. here, carefully laid out are all the arguements people have.

1) IE loads faster because it is tied with explorer.exe, which is loaded at startup.

Wrong! close explorer.exe and you can still open iexplore.exe (in under a second). restart your computer if u like, close down explorer.exe before it even loads to "allow iexplorer to get launched in memory" and you can still oepn internet explorer in under a second. Even if it is (which it isnt) loaded at startup (again which it isnt) then why argue that ie loads faster because its tied with the os? who cares????? it still loads faster!! you cant run either program without the os, so since the os is already there, why even say something like "ie only loads faster cause its tied with explorer.exe" - its not like u can "stop the os" or something. it all matters on which loads faster - teh winnar is ie

2) Mozilla loads pages faster

Wrong! Look at the tests - did 10 of them for each browser. all 20 tsets were taken when cache was cleared, to prevent any headstarts, and only the pure capabilities of each browser could be seen. Time for Mozilla: 4.206 seconds avg. Time for IE: 3.671 seconds.

3) Mozilla uses less ram

Wrong! look at the 2 screenshots. proof is right there. 3 pages weer loaded, neowin, download.com and google. screenshots were taking when download.com was in focus in the browser. http://members.shaw.ca/d2store/moz1.JPG and http://members.shaw.ca/d2store/moz2.JPG

4) Mozilla uses less cpu

Wrong! No it doesnt, test yourself, i couldnt take the screenshots fast enough and im not going to be bothered to to prove this fact either. mozilla: 37% cpu when loading the 3 pages. ie: 17%.

5) Oh oh yea?? Mozilla loads faster!!!

Wrong! Mozilla took 11.6 seconds to load on my computer, ie 0.6

6) You have a slow a$$ computer

Wrong! I dont call amd 1.2ghz w/ 448mb ram slow

7) Ooh ooh!! I can SKIN MOZILLA!! BEAT THAT !!

IE was designed to be extremely extremely flexible for programming - there are dozens of plugins available. if you like, you can download programs that contain ie but are skinnable (like neoplanet) for free

8) Mozilla has tabbed browsing!! And it blocks popups! WEE I WIN!

Download crazy browser if u want tabbed browsing with all of ies feature + dozens mroe (still loads faster/less ram then mozilla btw). You want to stop popups? Download a free popup blocker. add antoehr 600k to memory, which is really nothing. (still total ram will be much lower then mozillas)

9) Mozilla is standards compliant. KEKEKEK I WIN!!!!111

honestly, who cares. if ie can render a page correctly and mozilla cant, its mozilla which needs to be changed, not ie

come now ladies, if you were at least argueing for a decent browser like opera id have much much less to say to you. opera kicks as$ - but ie still kicks operas as$. but opera is much muchbetter then mozilla. have you noticed something? The 2 best browsers are non open-source, while the worst is.

[Prasanth]

Originally posted by parrots

I think my friend's remark to readint his post puts it best..."its fun to watch MS groupies try to defend stuff." If you want to have the attitude of "screw the standards, screw doing things the right way" then fine, IE is the right browser for you. However, if you wish to start accepting the standards and doing as they say, you will be ahead when the standards are widely used and common ground. I for one an ready for IE to start being as "standard-driven" as Mozilla is, because I know the standards, and have no issues with coding the right way. As I said before, just because a browser fixes our mistakes doesn't mean that its better, it is just encouraging lazyness and sloppy code.

The only reason that the world is not full of standard compliant browsers is because IE allowed people to get away with sloppy code. Hence why standard compliance is so hard today...because IE let people be lazy. If IE had stuck witht he standards, we wouldn't have to worry about it looking different in IE and Mozilla, because they would look the same.

Why don't you come back to this thread in a few years when XHTML is a widely-used standard and try saying "screw the standards" then? Just suck it up that you have to learn to code correctly, and start making pages that work in 100% of browsers, instead of ones that don't. Trust me, its not hard, and in the end, its a lot better.

Mozilla - the browser of people who know how to code well-written sites...nuff said.

web developers have to care about standards not a internet user.:cheeky:

so if the webpages are not standard compliant IE will rule.

[parrots]

Originally posted by VaxoP

ive pretty much had enough now.. ive posted enough information on why ie is better. before it was mozilla is faster, quicker at starting up, using less ram, less mem etc etc and now its just "it follows standards" (in other words, it wont display sites correctly).

theres some peopel you just cant get things thru. like [saint dark] for example. not once was i trying to be funny (well actually maybe a tad in the post with all the reasons on it why ie was better)

ill post my reasons one more time, then u can go on using mozilla - i dont care. my browser will be faster, use less ram, start quicker, display more pages correctly, and be a programmers dream to work with. you may use the browser that doesnt do these things.

We still say it uses less RAM and such. You are the only one complaining that it uses more. Every other Mozilla user has fast load times, and low RAM usage. I experiance about 10megs more RAM needed for IE than Mozilla (That includes virtual memory). We simply stoped talking about this because you can't benchmark, seeing as you are the only person with these issues.

We are concentrating on the standards because they are important. I guess you just don't see that, so go back to your ActiveX and MS godness and let this post continue with people willing to RESEARCH and LEARN.

[AgEnTsMiTh]

No one here is telling you to use ANY browser you dont want to. We can care less what you choose. You tried to point unvalidated and incorrect benchmakrs and tests. You did them incorrectly, you posted incorrect statements that you yourself FINALY admitted to, and so on. Hence this si why we have posted facts that obviously show you how incorrect your understanding of IE and Mozilla is. Honestly, you have much to grasp and learn about this topic.

And I am sorry that you wasted your time attepmting to do acurate benchmarks that anyone with any understanding of IE MOZILLA AND VB would other wise inform you how incorrect your going about it.

But of corse you know more then everyone else.

[parrots]

Originally posted by prasanth

web developers have to care about standards not a internet user.:cheeky:

so if the webpages are not standard compliant IE will rule.

It doesn't matter if more users are willing to use IE, that is marketing and other factors. From a TECHNICAL standpoint Mozilla is better because it follows standards. This isn't as post of which browser more people NEED or WANT, this is a post of which one is a better overall browser.

And as a note, for all of you saying that "there are lots of pages that don't render well in Mozilla"...maybe 1-3% don't render well, and that's it. And according to everyone, 1-3% isn't a large factor since in a business pratice you don't care about a browser that controls about 5% of the market. You redirect them to another site, therefore losing their business. So I guess 5% isn't a large impact on your bottom line. Therefore, losing 3% of the site on the internet (which I probably don't visit anyway) is no loss to me. Im willing to give up 3% of the sites on the Web to allow sites to use standards, and do amazing things with those standards.

[Prasanth]

Originally posted by parrots

We still say it uses less RAM and such. You are the only one complaining that it uses more. Every other Mozilla user has fast load times, and low RAM usage. I experiance about 10megs more RAM needed for IE than Mozilla (That includes virtual memory). We simply stoped talking about this because you can't benchmark, seeing as you are the only person with these issues.

We are concentrating on the standards because they are important. I guess you just don't see that, so go back to your ActiveX and MS godness and let this post continue with people willing to RESEARCH and LEARN.

In my system mozilla uses more memory :rolleyes: Also it takes about 5 seconds to load. I have p3600 and 256MB RAM (you dont need a Athlon XP 10000+ to browse websites :cheeky: )

[sanctified Veteran]

funny, mozilla runs at less than a second in my PC

also, a page dont need to be a fully w3c aproved, just good coded, my page works like a charm with both browsers

now tell me, IE can display 32 bits png?s natively?

IE can display a xhtml page?

Im going to tell you something, IE is the leader because it was embedded with the os, then the newbies dont know how to use another browser or even dont know about the existence of other choices, nothing more, and please, dont try to reply the mozilla features with features in other browsers that use the ie rendering engine (mozilla tabbed browsing vs crazy browser...etc) This thread is Mozilla vs IE, not Mozilla vs IE Front ends, in that case Mozilla has more alterntives than IE

[parrots]

Originally posted by prasanth

In my system mozilla uses more memory :rolleyes: Also it takes about 5 seconds to load. I have p3600 and 256MB RAM (you dont need a Athlon XP 10000+ to browse websites :cheeky: )

You sure you have quicklaunch on? It takes me 5 seconds w/o quicklaunch and 1 with it.

[sanctified Veteran]

Originally posted by prasanth

In my system mozilla uses more memory :rolleyes: Also it takes about 5 seconds to load. I have p3600 and 256MB RAM (you dont need a Athlon XP 10000+ to browse websites :cheeky: )

wow 5 seconds, thats a full eternity, I dont know but mozilla run in less than a second, maybe a little more than a second

also, this is the strongest point by the IE users, this is still funny :D

It doesn't matter if more users are willing to use IE, that is marketing and other factors. From a TECHNICAL standpoint Mozilla is better because it follows standards. This isn't as post of which browser more people NEED or WANT, this is a post of which one is a better overall browser.

And as a note, for all of you saying that "there are lots of pages that don't render well in Mozilla"...maybe 1-3% don't render well, and that's it. And according to everyone, 1-3% isn't a large factor since in a business pratice you don't care about a browser that controls about 5% of the market. You redirect them to another site, therefore losing their business. So I guess 5% isn't a large impact on your bottom line. Therefore, losing 3% of the site on the internet (which I probably don't visit anyway) is no loss to me. Im willing to give up 3% of the sites on the Web to allow sites to use standards, and do amazing things with those standards.

exellent point

[Prasanth]

Originally posted by parrots

You sure you have quicklaunch on? It takes me 5 seconds w/o quicklaunch and 1 with it.

nope quick launch is off.If you turn it on it just adds more time to system startup.

[parrots]

Originally posted by [saint dark]

IE can display a xhtml page?

/me makes sure I am honest in debate, and admit facts for other side if true

Yes, it can. My site is XHTML 1.0 Transitional (and validated byt he W3C), and it renders fine in IE 6.0 However, there are many CSS 1 features missing in IE. On top of that, IE 6 may display my page, but it does not do it exactly. Example : it renders table borders inside the table space rather than outside, as the W3C says it should be done.

[AgEnTsMiTh]

I for one have not had an issue viewing any pages under Mozilla so all this claims of not showing the page correctly is beyond me. I am sure I will at some point but of all the damn sites I visit no issue yet.

[parrots]

Originally posted by prasanth

nope quick launch is off.If you turn it on it just adds more time to system startup.

The only reason IE doesn't do the same is because it uses explorer components. If mozilla did this it would be just as fast, if not faster. And it doesn't do this because it doesn't want to, but because MS won't let other people do this to make sure that is it always going to win. "Our browser is faster. Yeah, half of it is loaded at startup (exploere components), and we won't tell (or let) other browsers do this, but hey, we are still faster!!!" It's not mozilla's fault this is how MS does things, and therefore the faster slower arguement is irrelivant until someone tries to load both without compoents preloaded. AgentSmith said how to do this a few pages back.

[sanctified Veteran]

Originally posted by parrots

/me makes sure I am honest in debate, and admin facts for other side if true

Yes, it can. My site is XHTML 1.0 Transitional (and validated byt he W3C), and it renders fine in IE 6.0 However, there are many CSS 1 features missing in IE. On top of that, IE 6 may display my page, but it does not do it exactly. Example : it renders table borders inside the table space rather than outside, as the W3C says it should be done.

Im going to investigate that, but still Im going to change my question

IE can display a xhtml page, correctly ?