firefox opinion

[Mastertech]

I think I said I used a blank profile for Firefox and IE6 is empty as it is almost never used. Why should I have a malware infected IE? What you dont think about is what computer these test are made on - and how much that influence result. I do not see FF being 3 times faster than IE, how come? Im not alone, look at results.

What are you talking about the script speed? Yes this is well documented. But script speed is the only test that FF is faster than IE.

Small variations in hardware or software can cause big differences in results so it is important that all tests are done on the same computer your source says but still you praise his findings as reproducable facts on any hardware. So false claims made once again. A standard computer today is probably not "800MHz Intel Pentium 3, 256 MB RAM" for XP setup.

You are reading that completely wrong. He means all the tests need to be done on the same hardware NOT that using faster hardware for all the test would show different results of which is faster but that if you change hardware in between each test it would. You are not comprehending what he said!

This particular test he did not do locally btw. And as said at least result for FF changes drastically once you start to install extensions, yet you dont see that during browsing (Adblock is good example) - because you dont browse benchmarks! Since you cant tell a real difference in speed you find a link with a bunch of synthetic numbers and declare them facts. Same as when Nvidia and ATI cheats with benchmarks. No relation to normal users.

Which test did he not do locally? You can't start testing using extensions unless you apply the same exact tweaks to the other browsers, like blocking ads ect... The tests are facts, since they are reproduceable. No one is cheating so that comment is completely irrelevant. And you can tell a difference when browsing certain pages.

Seems your knowledge of Firefox is based on numbers and myths not experience. So again, FF will most likely if not guranteed get worse result with big extensions like Adblock installed. If I did test with that I would be biased towards IE. A new profile means default setup of toolbars, menus and no extensions.

My knowledge of browsers is based on both, my data and facts are based on reproduceable evidence NOT experience which means nothing in a performance test.

Not to mention how many times i get little bugs in IE and my homepage always ends up getting changed to some random site which then i have to go on a mission to fix it.

Only if you are infected with Malware which happens because you either did not apply security patches or clicked yes to install some malware.

[wetlegs6]

Can I bring Opera into this debate?

Lets look first at IE7. It is a huge imrpovement over IE6 with the phishing filter, and a speed boost. However, the thing to remember is it does not comply to web standards (Try the Acid2 in IE7). Infact Microsoft are openly ignoring any bug reports pertaining to web standards (Acid results are worse in IE7 than IE6). Therefore, id definetly miss IE7 and carry on looking. IE7 also still carries many security flaws from IE6, some of which were reported in 2002, marked as critical, and are still not fixed.

Firefox, with a few tweaks, can be incredibly fast. It has a reasonable rendering engine and is open source - which is good and bad. It makes it easier for flaws to be identified and exploited, but it also means when they are there are millions of users who can jump in and create a fix for it. Meaning an upodate with the issue fixed can be released soon! It is also excellent for extendability and theming, ever wanted your browser to do something quirky and wierd that no-one sle would ever think of? Write your own extension! Firefox is around 65-70% standards compliant right now. Although you should also take into account it has an awful startup time - takes a long time even on my system, which is fairly good.

Opera is undoubtedly the fastest and most secure of all browsers (Except possibly Safari on Mac). Its rendering speed is unbelievable, and it is now free. Furthermore, the soon to be released version 9, will be nearly if not 100% Acid2 compliant - meaning it will fully conform to ALL web standards (So any well made webpage in true-code, rather than coded for IE, will display perfectly).

I personally have Firefox and Opera. I use Firefox as my main browser - as I have a lot of useful extensions. However Opera is always my way to get something fast ;)

Hope that helps ;)

(Oh yeh and to the IE fanboi in this thread, try opera ;))

[mufdvr3669]

Who cares what browser if faster in benchmarks, if the browser you use if fast enough for you on your computer then fine, if not try a different one. Kind of like saying you need a 7800 GTX to play the Sims because it's faster than a 6600GT, when both will work just perfectly fine. People have this e-penis thing about proving their browser if faster, safter, whatever. Just use what you like and shut up already.

[wetlegs6]

But when you have uber-fast broadband and the rendering engine of your browser is slow as s***, it is necessary.

Like having 24mb ADSL2+ broadband and using IE, it would still take an eon to load pages.

[toadeater]

Do you have a source with reproduceable data to back up this claim? I do and Firefox is clearly not faster than IE. Speed Tests. Keep in mind these are default installs on Windows only with no extensions like adblock or fasterfox and no speed tweaks to IE.

From your very own source:

Internet Explorer on Windows was either as fast as - or faster than Mozilla and Firefox for most tasks, with the exception of scripts, where it took over twice as long.

With the exception of scripts... now that's quite an understatement, isn't it? How many pages on the internet AREN'T scripted? That's like saying Microsoft's new car drives faster in Antarctica than any other car -- buy one now and get a free commemorative Chairman Gate$ iGloo.

I don't know why anyone would want to use IE6 at this point. IE7 may eventually turn out to be equal to Firefox 2.x. But then there's always Firefox 3.x coming next year. MS needs to starting working on an IE8.

Also, let's not forget that Firefox is cross-platform, that you can even run it off a USB stick if you want absolute privacy and security. You can't safely remove the IE virus from your Windows install even if you wanted to, MS software stops working properly if you do. WHAT A COINCIDENCE!

[Tarzan]

Jesus, you wont read Mastertech, filter is on. I have just giving you the reproducible proof that his finding are not reproducible! I know exactly what he means and I agree - anyone able to read will. So how can he know other hardware will produce same result? Does he say that or is it your misinterpretation? Ever heard of scaling, sweet spots? You think all browser will perform their best under same conditions? Nope, but then conditions are important? Yes, what I am saying. The whole test suite he does is based on 1 odd computer configuration. Had startup time been faster with a 8mb cache hd?, more so for Firefox? Does 512mb proportinally give benefit to slow starters like Firefox because more cache is used? Ever heard of scaling and sweet spots? He do not test and so do not know. Anyway, clearly I cant use his numbers for anything - your claim of universal reproduction is false. There are no 1 to 3 relationship in this test - which he did not do locally.

I still do not have malware on IE and both browsers were still testet with default setup.

For the third time, with dumb blind tests like these extension like Adblock is not a tweak or cheat but kick in own butt. Result will get worse! And for the third time a new profile do not know of Adblock or any other extension. What is it you dont understand? Have you ever done this yourself? Even have Firefox installed? You should be able to reproduce that on your own computer - well not really sure about that, have the feeling something will go wrong.

Personally I think focusing on whatever benchmark is irrelevant to any real browsing with IE, Opera or Firefox. Does not help intention of some people refuse to go beyond myths and sticking to conveniently false translation of numbers. That is why I mention 3Dmark, same thing especially with old 2001. This is even stupid cause tests are done on old "drivers" - IE6 have been called IE6 since forever but you cant be sure it will perform the same anyway. Same with Firefox which has been upgraded. What was truth yesterday can be changed today - and this test is so stupid. Anyone can reproduce that as well. Very common changes to Firefox like installing Adblock etc. will have big influence on result. And yet you cant assume slower browsing speed, in this case most likely the opposite! Uncritical approach to benchmarking has allways been dumb.

[mufdvr3669]

But when you have uber-fast broadband and the rendering engine of your browser is slow as s***, it is necessary.

Like having 24mb ADSL2+ broadband and using IE, it would still take an eon to load pages.

I don't have that problem with firefox. If you visit sites like that and have that problem then use opera, IE or whatever is fastest. There problem solved. I just get annoyed with people like Mastertech that try to tell others why their browser sucks and why their choice is the best, use what you like and be quiet about the whole thing.

[Mastertech]

With the exception of scripts... now that's quite an understatement, isn't it? How many pages on the internet AREN'T scripted? That's like saying Microsoft's new car drives faster in Antarctica than any other car -- buy one now and get a free commemorative Chairman Gate$ iGloo.

It is called javascript which has nothing to do with how most pages are designed using tables and stylesheets.

I don't know why anyone would want to use IE6 at this point. IE7 may eventually turn out to be equal to Firefox 2.x. But then there's always Firefox 3.x coming next year. MS needs to starting working on an IE8.

IE7 is simply going to destroy any hope Firefox had. Try it and you will see why.

Also, let's not forget that Firefox is cross-platform, that you can even run it off a USB stick if you want absolute privacy and security. You can't safely remove the IE virus from your Windows install even if you wanted to, MS software stops working properly if you do. WHAT A COINCIDENCE!

Honestly next to no one cares about this. What people may be interested in is Opera Mini.

Jesus, you wont read Mastertech, filter is on. I have just giving you the reproducible proof that his finding are not reproducible! I know exactly what he means and I agree - anyone able to read will. So how can he know other hardware will produce same result? Does he say that or is it your misinterpretation? Ever heard of scaling, sweet spots? You think all browser will perform their best under same conditions? Nope, but then conditions are important? Yes, what I am saying. The whole test suite he does is based on 1 odd computer configuration. Had startup time been faster with a 8mb cache hd?, more so for Firefox? Does 512mb proportinally give benefit to slow starters like Firefox because more cache is used? Ever heard of scaling and sweet spots? He do not test and so do not know. Anyway, clearly I cant use his numbers for anything - your claim of universal reproduction is false. There are no 1 to 3 relationship in this test - which he did not do locally.

You have to be using the exact hardware he is to get the exact results. What I am talking about is scaling. "Sweet Spots"??? What are you talking about? Faster hardware simply scales unless the software is programed to take advantage of new hardware features. Again which test did he not do locally?

For the third time, with dumb blind tests like these extension like Adblock is not a tweak or cheat but kick in own butt. Result will get worse! And for the third time a new profile do not know of Adblock or any other extension. What is it you dont understand? Have you ever done this yourself? Even have Firefox installed? You should be able to reproduce that on your own computer - well not really sure about that, have the feeling something will go wrong.

If you are not using COMPLETELY default installs than your results are USELESS.

Personally I think focusing on whatever benchmark is irrelevant to any real browsing with IE, Opera or Firefox. Does not help intention of some people refuse to go beyond myths and sticking to conveniently false translation of numbers. That is why I mention 3Dmark, same thing especially with old 2001. This is even stupid cause tests are done on old "drivers" - IE6 have been called IE6 since forever but you cant be sure it will perform the same anyway. Same with Firefox which has been upgraded. What was truth yesterday can be changed today - and this test is so stupid. Anyone can reproduce that as well. Very common changes to Firefox like installing Adblock etc. will have big influence on result. And yet you cant assume slower browsing speed, in this case most likely the opposite! Uncritical approach to benchmarking has allways been dumb.

These tests are completely accurate and have nothing to do with 3DMARK. Your inability to comprehend them or accept the obvious which is that Firefox is slower than IE.

I don't have that problem with firefox. If you visit sites like that and have that problem then use opera, IE or whatever is fastest. There problem solved. I just get annoyed with people like Mastertech that try to tell others why their browser sucks and why their choice is the best, use what you like and be quiet about the whole thing.

I didn't tell anyone their browser sucked, I simply answer questions honestly with factual data to back it up. Firefox is a decent web browser but it is not faster than IE, Opera or Mozilla in Windows and it is not more secure than Opera. Those are the facts.

[Joel]

I didn't tell anyone their browser sucked, I simply answer questions honestly with factual data to back it up. Firefox is a decent web browser but it is not faster than IE, Opera or Mozilla in Windows and it is not more secure than Opera. Those are the facts.

No facts were presented by you, only statements that you had facts. I know you're a zealot when it comes to bashing Mozilla (like that fiction piece in your sig), but geez, come back to reality someday, will you? The first chance you had to fart all over this thread you grabbed and ran with it.

[Izlude]

Firefox butchers my website :cry: But for different people its faster or slower. For me it is slower and doesn't seem to like loading flash as fast as IE. On a friends system its a little faster. I just hate how FOX messes up the alignment of certain bojects though.

[Tarzan]

Waste of time but you keep saying his numbers are reproducible on any hardware! Try look at his numbers and the difference between IE and FF in the script test. I cant reproduce that at all. His old numbers are correct on that day with his old browsers and computer - only useful on his and similar setup (his 800mhz P3 setup is not standard at all, makes it useless already). Any claim they are universal is false. Plain logic. Besides of course being irelevant for normal use of browser.

Where does it say he downloaded whole script site and did test locally? He says he used Bench24 then give url to test.

I think most actual users of Firefox can come up with better complaints than you - with some meat on. This is just meaningless. Try stop the "source" mania or at least find some which make sense. Alternatively you could dump the linking to whatever, change contribution from deliberate misinterpretation, playing dumb and state own findings. You will have to learn how to use Firefox but many people around here can help. I think you could make up a new myth if you did what Ive said several times now - repeat test with certain extensions, like the 10 most popular for example. Then you could say FF is ONLY somewhat fast WITHOUT extensions - when browsing benchmarks. I can see it coming ;)

[Nick H. Supervisor]

If you're asking the question about Firefox because you're interested in trying it out, then the best advice anyone could give is to just give it a go. It's not like it costs you anything to download or run. Download it here and give it a go. If you don't like it, uninstall it and move back.

If you're asking about it for some other reason, then you're just not going to get a definete answer. You're going to have some people say, "man, it's totally awesome, super-duper-uber. It owns all other browsers now and forever", and you're also going to get, "dude, Firefox sucks more than a black hole. There are too many vunerablities, and it isn't made by Microsoft so it has to be bad!"

For me personally, I use Firefox. I started using it because the tab function is lovely for organisation in my opinion. However, I have no plans on changing over to Internet Explorer 7 when it gets released because I now have extensions in Firefox that I don't think I could live without.

As for problems with websites not showing properly, I've only had one time where I have noticed a difference between Firefox's display of a website and Internet Explorer's display, and that was when I was creating a website in Firefox and someone complained that they couldn't find something when using Internet Explorer. A minor difference with the placing of some buttons in a frame between browser. Everything else I've viewed with Firefox has been the same as in Internet Explorer (to the best of my knowledge anyway. I don't use Internet Explorer unless absolutely necessary, so some sites could look different in Internet Explorer and I've just never seen it).