Here is a page discussing various myths surrounding Firefox. "We have all seen these banners before or heard people say 'Firefox is faster, Firefox has lower requirements, Firefox is secure, Firefox defends me from all spyware, etc.' How misleading is it? Read on." Flame away. And be gentle. That's an order. And here's a rebuttal.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-11-10
Article is old, and debunked.
http://nanobox.chipx86.com/blog/2005/12/re-firefox-myths.php
Firefox is not perfect, but *anything* even Lynx is better than using IE and getting infected daily.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Don't blame IE because you are too stupid to read a warning dialog saying it is probably not a good idea to install an app, do you want to do it anyway.
Also, Firefox is not faster and has a much much larger memory footprint. Plus it crashes randomly (at least for me it does).
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2006-01-04
They surely did when exploiting the recent WMF vulnerability. FF and Opera needed user interaction with a dialogue while IE would just open the files with the Picture and Fax Viewer with no prompting needed.
The whole Myth site (not just the Firefox section) has rubbed me the wrong way for a long time.
Member since:2005-07-06
Hmmm, yes they do, it is called activeX, it is also called WMF.
Pick one type of flaw and Windows will be hit with something downloading and installing itself.
Windows mind you, nothing else, just Windows... ALL versions of Windows, and without user intervention.
And dont say SP2 will stop it, as it won't, simple as that.
Member since:2006-01-21
IE is to blame because it markets itself to new users while purposely leaving many backdoor features open by default for non-standard web applications (ActiveX, for example) as a matter of corporate convenience.
What you don't consider is that there are people who are being introduced to the net on a daily basis and for many IE is the first browser.
They go to MSN, and they don't know what they're doing.
Like it or not, people with IQs of 100 exist and they outnumber us.
The internet is public domain and I agree that it should be a human right; we have to accomodate at least the first two standard deviations.
We have to educate them but first they have to be introduced. YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE INTRODUCTION SAFE.
Even Yahoo looks like technicolor freaking dreamcoat and Ads that look similar to popular themes confuse those people. They click on banners that we --recognize-- as a scam but new users aren't as well versed as you are.
Firefox is not the answer to everything. Opera is better. BUT FIREFOX IS A HUGE STEP CLOSER TO WHAT GOOD BROWSING SHOULD BE. AND IT IS MOST IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT SETS A STANDARD AND MOST IMPORTANTLY HAS _SPREAD THE WORD_ THAT BETTER BROWSING IS POSSIBLE. Besides, firefox is faster than IE.
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-09-13
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Same here...7 tabs open and I'm at 135 megs/ram, which seems a bit high. That being said, I don't mind it given all the extra functionality offered by FF (namely extensions). I still have to clean my machine up about twice a month though, and while I don't have any hard evidence to support it, I still think FF lets some spyware through (I rarely use any other browsers, so it's a case of ockams razor). Again, worth it IMO.
Member since:
2005-11-13
This issue with this type of article is that it presents only one side painting a very negative picture of firefox without offering a better alternative, all the while implying that there are better alternatives. Firefox is far from perfect and is a tad heavy for my taste but when compared to IE it is the far better browser. Firefox is a good tool to help keep a system secure, not perfect surely but a step in the right direction and it is a shame when articles like this one twist the facts to imply the contrary leaving a web choked with even more spyware and broken web sites.
--Seth
Member since:2006-01-11
I don't think it should be read this way.
Saying that FF is not the ultimate browser is different than saying IE is better, and the author gives some references at least, differently to what most FF fans do while screaming it's the bestest (i'm a happy FF user, btw).
I think that this pointed out some of FF weak points (they exist) and highlighted Opera for me. Guess i'll give it a try again after version 5.
Member since:2006-01-07
This issue with this type of article is that it
presents only one side painting a very negative
picture of firefox without offering a better
alternative <...>
It do offers an alternative. Namely Avant Browser
http://www.avantbrowser.com/download.html
An argument that IE is compatible with (almost) all webpages sounds to me like "all envelopes stick to post stamps". MS do not follow web standarts, but as it is dominant on the web designers make pages to fit IE.
Member since:
2006-01-15
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:
2005-07-27
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
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
The author failed to mention those "15% of website" (according to what/who) are badly designed code wise or optimized for Internet Explorer. ActiveX is a well known trojan for spyware, virus and other kind of malware.
AvantBrowser Avant Browser - Download - Home Page
A custom Internet Explorer based browser that utilizes the Internet Explorer Engine for 99.99% web page compatibility and features all the new features of Firefox and Opera. It has a Built-in Pop-up Blocker, Flash Animation Filter, Tabbed Browsing, Built-in Search Engine, Built-in RSS/ATOM Reader, Safe Recovery Feature, User Friendly Interface and Full 100% IE Compatibility. Editor's Pick
It still retains major secuirty issues found on Trident engine. My problem with AvantBrowser is it requires IE to be functional.
Edited 2006-01-25 21:54
Member since:2005-11-11
Member since:
2005-07-01
Myth - "Firefox is Faster than Internet Explorer"
[...]
The argument that components of Internet Explorer may load during Windows Startup is nullified by Opera's start times.
Opera's performance is irelevant when comparing FF with IE.
Myth - "Firefox Achieved 10% Market Share in 2005"
Reality - "According to WebSideStory, a San Diego-based Web analytics provider, Mozilla's Firefox closed 2005 with 8.9%
One survey disagreeing with another by one percentage point does not constitute proof.
Myth - "Firefox Extensions are Safe"
Reality - Firefox Extensions can be very unsafe. A vulnerability in older versions of the Greasemonkey Extension...
That's it? One vulnerability that's been patched? It's hardly AciveX. Speaking of which, I won't quote the whole thing but it discusses some idealised version of ActiveX that always asks permission and compares this to FF letting you downlad an EXE file.
He goes on like this, becoming more subjective and making up a couple of myths towards the end (who ever said FF was first with tabs?). He relys on single sources to disprove all it's myths. He picks and chooses facts that support his point and overlooks those that don't. In short, he has an excellent future in journalism.
I read this with an open mind. Then I realised it was bunk.
Member since:2005-06-30
I agree that the article was... not so good.
Opera's performance is irrelevant when comparing FF with IE.
Not in this case, as the "Myth" he's debunking is the implicit claim that no browser could start as fast as IE because Microsoft cheats. Opera puts paid to that line of reasoning.
The author would have been much better served by pointing out that even if IE is cheating, the difference in speed still matters to the user.
(who ever said FF was first with tabs?)
People who only know about IE and Firefox. Most people are not techies.
Member since:2005-07-07
Opera's performance is irelevant when comparing FF with IE.
It isn't, because Opera shows that Firefox should and could do better - it shows that it isn't only the preloading that makes IE seem fast, it's also that Firefox really is slow.
I have used Opera on a Pentium 75 with 32 MB RAM, with no problems and no speed issues. I don't even want to think about running Firefox on it, because even on a Pentium 350 it feels sluggish.
That Firefox is cross-platform is not a valid excuse - Opera is cross-platform too, from Windows to Linux to Solaris/SPARC.
Edited 2006-01-25 23:10
Member since:2005-07-06
I have used Opera on a Pentium 75 with 32 MB RAM, with no problems and no speed issues. I don't even want to think about running Firefox on it, because even on a Pentium 350 it feels sluggish.
Naming a browser without the version release is meaninless. I can say the argument like this one:
using a very old Winbook XL (Pentium 166 with 64MB) running Windows 98 SE, Firefox initial starting was more than 10 seconds but the time response on many website is quite fast using three tabs given the memory limit. Does it make sense without mentionning the version? No. The test was done with Firefox 1.0.4.
Given the expertise of Opera team to work of mobile browsrer, their browser is quite efficent memory side. However the source code is still closed. When the user base will increase, that will be a true test to expose bugs much like Firefox.
The most important is use any browser other than Internet Explorer and its derivates.
Edited 2006-01-26 00:01
Member since:2005-07-01
Not in this case, as the "Myth" he's debunking is the implicit claim that no browser could start as fast as IE because Microsoft cheats.
No, the myth he's debunking is that FF is faster than IE (which hasn't been true since about FF 0.8). Just because Opera starts quickly, that doesn't mean IE would also start quickly if it didn't cheat. Not that I'm saying it wouldn't or that it does cheat, only that Opera is irrelevant here.
Most people are not techies.
And therefore won't have read this decidedly techy article. And they won't care who was first with tabs either - certainly not once IE has them.
I'm not saying the story is rubbish, just the article.
Member since:2005-06-30
Just because Opera starts quickly, that doesn't mean IE would also start quickly if it didn't cheat. Not that I'm saying it wouldn't or that it does cheat, only that Opera is irrelevant here.
Eh? The "Myth" isn't about which is engineered better, but which gives the user a faster experience. A common (rather silly) counter-argument from the Mozilla-fan side has been IE having that edge because of preloading, as if that makes things all right. Opera is entirely relevant as a counter-counter example.
And therefore won't have read this decidedly techy article. And they won't care who was first with tabs either - certainly not once IE has them.
Right, but that has nothing to do with the fact that some people do believe that FF was first with tabs, and thus that it's possible that the author did not make that "Myth" up out of air. That's the implication I was originally responding to.
Member since:2006-01-11
>>Myth - "Firefox is Faster than Internet Explorer"
>>The argument that components of Internet Explorer may load during Windows Startup is nullified by Opera's start times.
>Opera's performance is irrelevant when comparing FF with IE.
Not for _this_ argument. Read better.
Otherwise, startup time is not a wise/useful comparison for speed: it's not often that big issue and both aren't fast anyway.
>>Myth - "Firefox Achieved 10% Market Share in 2005"
>>Reality - "According to WebSideStory, a San Diego-based Web analytics provider, Mozilla's Firefox closed 2005 with 8.9%
>One survey disagreeing with another by one percentage point does not constitute proof.
Reliability data is not given, nor information about the population and sampling methods - you can't tell.
Anyway this is more a marketing claim anyway, and the author succeded in provocating you (:
>>Myth - "Firefox Extensions are Safe"
>>Reality - Firefox Extensions can be very unsafe. A vulnerability in older versions of the Greasemonkey Extension...
>[...]
"FF extensions are safe" != "ActiveX is safe"
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-12-16
Member since:2005-06-30
Safer, granted, but faster? You won't notice speed issues if your computer is fairly recent. However, it's fairly heavy on older computers (PII era). Still usable, but requires a bit of patience, especially if you are low on RAM. Many browsers are faster, including MSIE.
That said, given MSIE's lack of features, standard compliance and cross-platform availability, it ought to be faster!
Member since:2005-09-23
Firefox is junk. The 1.0.x releases were decent, but 1.5 is complete garbage. Slow, filled with random crashes, and it is broken in many areas. I want to like it. I really do. But I can't.
Konqueror is more viable for me, and I use Opera when it can't handle a webpage. Niether of them are great, though.
Member since:2006-01-12
This have to be the funniest load of shit i have read, so far 
Not a single fact
Firefox IS safer, IS faster and it realy IS A BETTER browser..
Wonder how much microsoft gave him for this...
Eh, just look at the overall content of his site. He is a 100% Microsoft troll. Judging by his arguments I bet he hasn't even touched Firefox OR Opera in his life.
And that's a key point. People who argue against something cannot argue against reality and user experience.
FACT : When people use a browser other than IE, they are safer. The author CANNOT argue against user experience.
FACT : ActiveX is the source of a number of IE issues. (Heck, search for "Kama Sutra" worm, its the latest issue!)
FACT : The only time when using another browser didn't help was Windows's recent "WMF security issue". This was a Windows issue...NOT a browser issue.
FACT : The author of this article is also a known troll under a number of AKA. Such as "MasterTech".
Here's a sample...
=> http://nanobox.chipx86.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=281
=> http://forum.deviantart.com/os/xp/563523/
If you head over here
http://nanobox.chipx86.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=29&postdays=0...
And look at the 7th post from the bottom, you can tell Andrew K. is nothing more than what you call a "Super Troll".
The intention is to delibrately stir trouble to get ad dollars. He isn't the only one, George Ou of eWeek does it as well. His one is more wider, covering OpenOffice. He is well known for his pointless tests and results in the form of tables that don't mean much.
Example: He'll look at the number of issues of Firefox, but not how critical they are! And look at his articles on the speed of OpenOffice! WTF? Seriously, does anyone care for speed when the majority of people see "free alternative, get it here!". And yet, this person claims he uses FreeBSD and is help open-source this way...Yeah right, Ou...You're a twisted FOOL!
What is it about these people that are against open-source solutions? They claim all this BS, and yet, when people use it, we don't have the problems they're yacking about!
And FACT : Microsoft only gives you money for a report or article, if they can use it as part of their PR campaign. Why do you see the same companies conduct studies over and over again?!
Thom, my only suggestion is to check the author of the articles. Because this one is a well-known no-clue troll. When you give him structured counter points, he'll give you BS. And that's how the cookie crumbles!
Member since:2005-08-28
Uh, I think there ARE some facts in his article. He's got some things that are TECHNICALLY true, but presented to make you jump to the wrong conclusion.
On my laptop, Firefox 1.5 starts slower than Opera 8.51 in Windows and Firefox. Firefox is a little slower than IE.
He's right that Secunia listed 6 out of 26 Highly Critical security flaws. But it goes like this:
......Flaws....Highly Critical...Unpatched
Fx.....26.................6..............3 (none highly critical)
IE......91................37.............21 (1 highly critical)
Opr....39.................7..............0
(That's Opera 7, Secunia doesn't track Opera 8 for some reason, so it can probably be ignored.)
(please note, I counted those off myself so I may have counted wrong, plus one critical IE flaw is only partially fixed.)
As for standards... Firefox 1.5 is as he says-not perfect, Opera 8.5 is better (you can see the eyes, there's a gap just above the mouth still, and red hashing over the eyes.
I fired up Internet Explorer 6 and... it doesn't even look like a circle. it's a big red box with a black and yellow stripe at the top, random blocks, and some broken .png images in the bottom.
http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html#top
I'm extremely ticked off about his statement about HTML 4.01. He neglects to point out that Firefox is BETTER than IE at HTML 4.01... If he intended to be unbiased he would have made a big deal about Firefox only having 94% support for HTML 4.01, and incomplete XHTML 1.1
But no.
It IS true that Firefox doesn't display all pages on the internet properly. Granted, it's been a while since I've gone to one but I tend to avoid those places.
Sigh. This guy knows what he's talking about; he's intentionally leaving out other facts that go against the facts (which are all technically true) he's got here.
Edited 2006-01-26 02:35
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-04
FACT : The only time when using another browser didn't help was Windows's recent "WMF security issue". This was a Windows issue...NOT a browser issue.
Actually that's not a fact. Yes, Opera and Firefox opened a dialog box and if you hit "open" you'd be hit, but with IE at default settings you wouldn't even need to do that; it'd just open up the WMF file automatically. So while alternate browsers weren't proof against the flaw, they certainly did help.
Member since:2006-01-11
Member since:
2005-07-11
Note: as Internet Explorer the browser is nothing more than a shell around the MS HTML components, the memory listed for iexplore.exe is maybe half of the memory it is using. When you start Windows, you are also loading most of IE into memory. It's very hard to compare the memory usage of IE and anything as MS hides it in with the system memory usage stats.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
Legal Notice - Reproduction of this page in whole or in part is strictly forbidden. This guide and ALL versions thereof are protected by copyright under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Feel free to link to this Guide.
Ouch! Don't bite! Uh oh... am I within my rights to even reproduce that?
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-01-17
With any firefox I tend to have problems with rendering (even showing) some websites, possibly because of non-standard HTML, but pages work in IE and opera. Example: http://qstrip.blog.hr/
Crashing? Happens but rarely.
It is much younger browser than Opera, IE, so I still expect it. But it is much more stable and mature than in 0.3 version when I begun using it.
It may also be slower (because UI is written in high-level language), but that is completely irrelevant today.
What IS relevant is it's extensibility. With it you can do things by far not possible on any other browser, and thus it's the best browser.
Extensions aren't a BIG security risk because a) not many people use same extension, b) not many extensions are related to HTML handling (aren't exposable to security risk by design).
Member since:2006-01-22
Member since:2005-10-13
The site looked fine for me too. (FF 1.5.0) Of course, I don't read that language, so maybe I'm missing something obvious.
I've had very few rendering problems with FF since the .9 version, and that is the main reason I've stuck with Firefox. Opera often seems like a better browser (for someone with certain advanced needs but not a huge extension user) but I can't use it because it doesn't render some websites very well.
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2006-01-10
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Compare to http://nanobox.chipx86.com/firefox_myths.php ?
Member since:
2006-01-25
So, what division of Microsoft do you work for?
In order,
Requirements they may state that IE will run on with those requirements, but no one would want to. I assume Firefox would too, they just assume no one would want that much frustration.
IE faster from cold boot sure, because it preloads the browser on startup.
10% vs 87% percent who cares, if people had brains they wouldnt use Windows anyway.
Security -- Its not what a smart person would use. Grandma can get to CNN.com just fine with both, granted, browsing the open free internet, you'd have to be an idiot or someone who loved reformatting their hard drive.
Extensions -- IE doesn't have any, so they are in fact more secure, but I want extensions, and I won't install those that are not safe. On the other hand, there are security enhancing extensions.
Spyware if Microsoft hadn't made it so easy to do in security mess windows, spyware wouldn't be a problem.
Bugs I won't even respond to this.
Tabbed browsing IE doesn't do it, period.
W3 standards -- IE openly violates W3 standards
Acid test I'm betting it does better than IE.
Web pages granted, firefox doesn't implement a lot of the Microsoft hacks, for a reason they aren't safe.
Overall what a lame set of arguments'
If you were a lawyer, your client would sue you for negligence.
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-07
This is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. The myths the author speaks of don't even exist. He uses extremes like "fastest, completely bug free, and blocks all popups. I haven't heard anyone argue those things. What I do hear is that Firefox is faster from a warm start, or firefox has less issues with spyware, or things of that nature, that are arguably true. There are no real myths of the nature that the author speaks of. It's just flamebait.
Member since:
2005-12-28
Get a newly installed WinXP WITH SP2.
Open IE (any version), go to www.serials.ws and pick up any serial. A popup window opens .. and voila! Your shiny xp sp2 has just been infected with some ad crap via an automatically installed activex control.
Now, if your system still runs. Try and do it with Mozilla/Firefox! You see .. no activex, no spyware! It a lot more secure than IE!
For me, thats the most effective answer to all browser security issues.
p.s. Don't forget the javascript engine of Firefox. It's times faster than IE's.
Member since:2005-06-30
Member since:2005-12-28
Member since:
2006-01-10
Member since:
2005-07-06
Most of you who are attempting to "debunk" the article with such informed statements as "Firefox *IS* faster, more secure, and more comptible!" and "The author is an idiot!" should pay attention to one thing ...
The author compares Firefox to IE *for some points*, but not all points. Most of the points are spent debunking a Firefox myth, and no more. When he says that Firefox does not support web standards as well as people say it does, he is *NOT* implying that IE is any better -- he's merely saying that Firefox is not as good as people make it out to be either.
Given that, while IE is still a relatively decent browser, Firefox is the safer bet -- but it is not a faster bet. I think I'm a part of a very large crowd when I say that it is too slow, bloated, and leaky.
That's why I use Opera. I get even better security than I would with Firefox, 95% standards support, and better speed/memory usage than IE.
Member since:2005-07-06
Most of you who are attempting to "debunk" the article with such informed statements as "Firefox *IS* faster, more secure, and more comptible!" and "The author is an idiot!" should pay attention to one thin
You should read this quote in bolded italic:
After having been in several long discussions with Andrew K. (the author of the Firefox Myths page), I notice that Mike G's posting style is nearly identical to Andrew K's. I should also mention that he has posted under many different names on various sites, all claiming to be someone different from Andrew K., but all determined (via I.P. checks, etc.) to be him. Some of the names include: Mastertech, GeneralAres, FFeLEET, Mastermind, Realist, and chiawaikian. Under all of these names, at one point or another, he has pretended that he wasn't the author or outright lied about it. He also has an extensive history of trolling and ban evasion
http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2005/12/19/firefox-myths/
Draw your own conclusion to not only about the content but the author himself.
Member since:2005-07-06
What is this, a political campaign? The author's dubious Internet practices have no relevance to the content. I was defending the author from the resident retards here who think an opinionated statement is enough to pass as fact.
If Hitler said "The sky is blue, and birds are singing", would he be any less correct than someone else simply because he was Hitler?
Member since:2005-06-29
No, but I think the second link pretty well covered the problems with all of the authors arguments: Mostly that half his myths aren't commonly perceived and are even more exceptionally argued.
For example, people don't say Firefox is secure, they say it's more secure than IE. Which, while it's arguable, has been very true over the last couple of years (lately Microsoft may have improved, especially now that they again decided IE was worth spending time on).
People also don't say it Fully supports standards, they say it's more complaint; which it indeed is. He then pretends html 4.01 is the most important when it is in fact the tiniest source of real problems with developing web pages.
Anyway, I do agree that ignoring someones arguments simply because they're a __hygenic product container__ is not wise. Although, had Germany ignored Hitler's ideas....
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-01-08
I've been keeping my IE security settings on a custom level above medium, have been using the Maxthon Browser and have been updating by Microsoft Update(manually installing EVERYTHING) at least once a week for 2 years now. I have not had one (O N E) case of spyware/adware/trojan/whatever kind of crap you keep telling me I'm getting.
I've been using one antivirus or another, depending on mood and available system memory. Ranging from NAV 2004 to NOD32(today).
I run Spybot S&D twice a week and manually debug my registry every month. Except for crap Yahoo! games leave in my registry, I have no problems at all.
What ARE you people talking about?
Member since:2006-01-11
I think they're talking about the fact that not everyone is prepared to, or knows how to tweak their security settings, manually clean their registry every month, run spybot at least every week, install a front end that acts like a condom to cut down on the cruft that still gets through even with security settings at their highest, and is prepared to limit which websites they visit to avoid "drive-by" installs.
Anyone who wants t