Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st May 2006 15:31 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "In this mini-writeup, we will be discussing from a fairly objective position how Internet Explorer 7 now stands compared to the latest offerings from it's biggest competitors: Firefox and Opera. This isn't a comparison, there will be no 'winner', not in this article at any rate!"
Order by: Score:
Nice review
by Gadget on Mon 1st May 2006 15:47 UTC
Gadget
Member since:
2005-10-21

Overall, I felt the author was pretty balanced in his view. On the one hand, I'm happy that MS is finally updating IE, for no other reason that IE is currently such a PITA and totally insecure.

That said, I hope that Opera (my favorite) & FireFox can keep their heads above the water and not drown, ala Netscape.

I too am liking Opera 9. After tweaking a few things to my preference, I am very happy with it. A definite improvement over version 8.x.

Reply Score: 2

Worthless Review
by SpookyET on Mon 1st May 2006 15:47 UTC
SpookyET
Member since:
2005-07-08

What a worthless review! I expected to see tables, charts, CSS, XHTML, et. al. support. I expected to see pictures. I expected many things. None that I could find.

Reply Score: 5

false information
by Benjamin_Lebsanft on Mon 1st May 2006 15:48 UTC
Benjamin_Lebsanft
Member since:
2005-10-11

"the browser is going from 1.5 to 3.0"

don't know if I didn't get it, but there'll be a 2.x series inbetween.

Reply Score: 4

themes?
by scblock on Mon 1st May 2006 15:51 UTC
scblock
Member since:
2006-01-29

I don't understand why this review mentions how firefox doesn't have a theme by default and looks ugly. By default it looks like an ordinary windows application with icons that have obvious meanings for those familiar with web browsers. I think this is exactly how it should be.

Browser: ELinks/0.10.4-7-debian (textmode; Linux 2.6.8-2-686 i686; 80x40-2)

Reply Score: 5

RE: themes?
by dylansmrjones on Mon 1st May 2006 18:13 UTC in reply to "themes?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Huuh... it doesn't have a theme by default?

I wonder what "default theme" then means, if it doesn't mean default theme?

Reply Score: 2

RE: themes?
by aquila_deus on Tue 2nd May 2006 15:53 UTC in reply to "themes?"
aquila_deus Member since:
2005-10-02

Applications should never provide themes by theirselves. If any app looks ugly, it's the OS' fault.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: themes?
by BluenoseJake on Tue 2nd May 2006 18:19 UTC in reply to "RE: themes?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

That's not true, the UI could have been badly designed, it could ignore interface guidelines, or like many OSS apps on windows, use a different toolkit then the one supplied by the OS.

Reply Score: 1

first
by MaBu on Mon 1st May 2006 15:52 UTC
MaBu
Member since:
2006-01-04

This is first review that compares apples to apples. IE 7 to weekly build of FF and Opera 9. Previous reviews compared IE 7 to FF 1.5. Why not IE 6?

I only hope that IE will support most of CSS 2 and starting to support CSS 3 like competitors. (KHTML with shadows, Gecko with border-radius and :target)

Reply Score: 2

Decent
by Nex6 on Mon 1st May 2006 15:55 UTC
Nex6
Member since:
2005-07-06

I use both(FF and IE) for different reasons, I have forced myself lately to use only IE (i used only FF for years) and i noticed some things.

IE has better memmory management, and favorites can be redirected to my home directory so every machine I logon to has my favorites.

FF has tabs and themes which is the coolest thing.
and extension like noscript help also.




-Nex6

Reply Score: 1

RE: Decent
by mkools on Mon 1st May 2006 22:10 UTC in reply to "Decent"
mkools Member since:
2005-10-11

'IE has better memmory management, and favorites can be redirected to my home directory so every machine I logon to has my favorites.'

Firefox profiles can also be redirected, there are even policy adm-files to do it easily:

http://jernstrom.org/site/files/downloads/firefoxadm_0.4.zip

Also, IE doesn't have better memory management, because it uses less memory it doesn't mean it manages it better.

I want my applications to use my memory, in Linux memory management is much better because all memory is being filled up and used and given back when an application asks for it.

What is the use of 1 GB RAM when my system only uses 25% of it most of the time?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Decent
by Nex6 on Mon 1st May 2006 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Decent"
Nex6 Member since:
2005-07-06

I would not want to 'redirect' an entire FF profile. just the bookmark.htm file.


and I dont want a broswer with 3 tabs to use 170MB of ram.

I dont mind, the OS using ram, weather its Nix or Win. my issue with with leaky software. and if an OS at idle
is using say: 60% or more of ram, and you need that ram or take a preformence hit. it has to first lower the ram usage, by going to swap, so it can use it. If ilde ram was at say 30% or so, then when you needed it, it could load steight to ram.



-Nex6

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Decent
by RenatoRam on Tue 2nd May 2006 08:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Decent"
RenatoRam Member since:
2005-11-14

If you are on a modern OS you can always symlink the bookmarks.html file wherever you want. Bang! Instant "redirection".

On windows, you'll have to figure how to use junctions or rely on the feature being somewhere in the browser :-)

Reply Score: 1

Missing the point?
by naelurec on Mon 1st May 2006 15:58 UTC
naelurec
Member since:
2006-02-15

Isn't the point of a web browser to umm.. allow a user to view web pages? Seems like assuming this is the purpose, a comparison should address the following:

1. Page Display: Determine how well a browser can view the page (web standards seems like a good place to start)
2. Security: How well can the browser display the content while maintaining a safe, secure experience for the user?
3. Availability: How available is the browser (the only currently available operating system that IE7 runs on is Windows XP)

It appears the author goes into subjective vs objective comparisons in several areas (ie default themes.. I don't find Firefox's default to be "not pretty at all"). In addition, what is with the "hard-core fact" that there will be no Firefox 2.0? Sounds like he might have taken a nightly build from the 3.0 branch?? *confused* -- thought a computer guru could understand different development branches.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Missing the point?
by ma_d on Mon 1st May 2006 16:11 UTC in reply to "Missing the point?"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Well, here's the thing. A lot of unemployed web developers (jk guys) seem to think the web is the next rich client platform and therefore the browser is the most important thing in the world.

They ignore that web browsers haven't been able to go a month without a security hole and few can go 3 hours without a crash.

So, some treat a browser like it's all you look at all day.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Missing the point?
by Wintermute on Mon 1st May 2006 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Missing the point?"
Wintermute Member since:
2005-07-30

Few can go 3 hours without a crash? I cannot agree to that. My Firefox 1.5.0.2 can run for weeks without crashes. ranted once in a while Firefox does crash, but not every 3 hours. And it's not like my setup is minimalistic. I have quite a few plugins installed and even more extensions, even a few potentially crashy ones like sessionsaver. Maybe it's your system that's causing problems....

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Missing the point?
by ma_d on Mon 1st May 2006 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Missing the point?"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I have:
adblock, DOM Inspector, Image Zoom, Fasterfox, NoScript, and DisableBackspaceNavigation on mine and it typically crashes every couple hours or so.

It does better than Epiphany and Opera have for me though.

My system is fine. Although, I'll admit, I use Arch, and their builds have a tendency to be a bit edgy; so it _could_ be related to their build.
I do expect near perfect reliability for something to be a "platform" though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Missing the point?
by jimmystewpot on Mon 1st May 2006 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Missing the point?"
jimmystewpot Member since:
2006-01-19

I am using Firefox 1.0.x on Ubuntu Breezy without any crashes ever. Everything I do with internal systems is through web based interfaces and firefox is by far the best choice for me, I do also use Opera as it was an easy install however I will refuse to use IE because I hate the usability and browser feel nothing more than that, i do not care about "security issues" on IE as my choice or hate it because its Microsoft, I used Netscape, loved the usability and Firefox follows on with much of that which is brilliant.

Reply Score: 1

Awful
by ma_d on Mon 1st May 2006 16:08 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't know that I can even finish. The review is filled with the typical wet-noodle "everyone is competing and we win" crap that all the reviews have.
Then he goes on to make spelling errors such as:
"No matter how many computer techies or script-kiddies or hackers out there no how great a product is"
Sure, it's a blog, but come on, don't call names and make spelling errors in one sentence...

Firefox blends to its environment, I can't believe a reviewer is actually saying that's a bad default... It's like the default of all defaults ;) .
I would like to mention to the author that the way a program looks is not its interface, it's its look. The interface was covered correctly in everything but firefox.

Since when did the Mozilla Foundation claim 10% market share for Firefox? I believe independent "studies" have said that, and others have said 8 and 7 and 9 and 11 and 15, etc.


This review is shallow, often wrong, useless, and badly written.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Awful
by chrishaney on Mon 1st May 2006 16:45 UTC in reply to "Awful"
chrishaney Member since:
2005-11-15

relax... this is the guy's blog

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Awful
by ma_d on Mon 1st May 2006 18:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Awful"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Meh.

Reply Score: 1

Opera
by sappyvcv on Mon 1st May 2006 16:11 UTC
sappyvcv
Member since:
2005-07-06

I wonder why the author doesn't mention themes for Opera (which are very easy to access in Opera9, via Tools > Appearance, yet mentions them in firefox.

Another thing is, he claims IE doesn't have "true plugin support," which is quite wrong. It has fine plug-in (not 'netscape' plugins) support, it's just a bit harder to use because it's not all javascript based like in Firefox. One example of this is the developer toolbar that just came out, among other things.

edit: I agree basically what ma_d said. The guy doesn't have a lot of his facts straight, and obviously didn't do his research.

Edited 2006-05-01 16:13

Reply Score: 3

So-so review
by JacobMunoz on Mon 1st May 2006 16:27 UTC
JacobMunoz
Member since:
2006-03-17

I also felt that this review was lacking substance, it was so mushy and there were not stats to base any facts on. Anyways...

I recently gave Opera another try (my last experience with it was way back in ver 4 or 5) and I have to say that it really impressed me. It doesn't seem to barf on bad HTML (like pages missing proper end-table tags and such), and it seems to respond to user input while it's working (very different from Safari - which hangs/locks all the time). I've used Firefox, and I guess it's okay, but it seems to take longer to render pages than Opera or IE (I don't have stats to back this up, but that's how it feels), and since I couldn't care less about skins there's not too much Firefox can offer that the others don't (heck, they all do the same thing!). That said, I'll be sticking with Opera (on Windows) and Firefox (on Linux) as my first choice (Firefox seems to be the de-facto standard for Linux distros, so that's a no-brainer). I simply don't trust IE (and probably never will) because I know for a fact that it is so tied-in to the OS with secret system calls (WindowsUpdate has always smelled dangerous to me) that the risks involved in using it are a little too unsettling for me. Maybe that's my paranoia kicking in, but I've said it before - a little paranoia is healthy.

Reply Score: 2

Mere opinion posing as fact
by boots on Mon 1st May 2006 16:41 UTC
boots
Member since:
2005-07-06

This guy does not give a balanced or particularly knowledgable review -- he is obviously a MS fan boy. Perhaps worst of all, he uses phrases such as "many felt" and pervasively uses the royal "we" where he can only really speak for his lone-self (this is his personal blog after-all and he admittedly performed the reviews on his own). He also makes several comments and attributions without citing evidence of any sort (not even quotes) and disparingly questions research (eg: firefox has 10% market share) without even the slightest hint of substantiation.

An opinion piece like this is perfectly fine for a blog -- even if it does suggest that it does more than it can deliver. Still, I find it rather odd to see it linked from OSNEWS.

Reply Score: 1

MS Confusion 7
by Don T. Bothers on Mon 1st May 2006 16:51 UTC
Don T. Bothers
Member since:
2006-03-15

I think once MS fixes Internet Explorer, Windows users will be less likely to bother with Firefox. Why bother to install extra software when you already have something that works and you can't remove that something else? After all, a browser is just a browser.

That being said, I still think Firefox marketshare will continue to grow. The simple reason is that as Microsoft becomes more draconian in enforcing piracy, they will push all those users to Linux and other free alternatives in which Firefox is the defacto standard.

I don't quite understand Microsoft's strategy. It seems that one hand of Microsoft is spending billions to keep people on Internet Explorer, money that they will never recover since IE is free, but with the other hand, they are slapping people away from using Windows and hence Internet Explorer. I think they are truly confused.

Reply Score: 1

RE: MS Confusion 7
by naelurec on Mon 1st May 2006 19:14 UTC in reply to "MS Confusion 7"
naelurec Member since:
2006-02-15

As long as people stick with Windows and IE7 is close to Firefox for security/end-user features, then I don't see people loading Firefox on new systems.

I don't see corporate networks rolling out Firefox.. IE does provide group policy integration, tie-in with the Windows update service, etc that make it easier to manage than Firefox (there is 3rd party plugins but they feel like a kludge).

Firefox is nice but don't discredit other browsers such as Konqueror. Konqueror reached ACID2 compliance before Firefox and is actually quite nice and has many innovative features to boot.

Microsoft's strategy is simple: maintain control of content. Apps built on the IE platform require IE to run and hense Windows. There are LOTS of apps that require some IE functionality to operate. In addition, maintaining IE allows Microsoft the ability to promote their own online services (ie default search engine, homepage, etc..).

Besides, IE is *not* free. IE is a part of Windows and the last time I checked, you have to pay for Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE: MS Confusion 7
by Kochise on Tue 2nd May 2006 08:07 UTC in reply to "MS Confusion 7"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

"Why bother to install extra software when you already have something that works and you can't remove that something else? After all, a browser is just a browser."

Would you buy a Ford or a Ferrari if you were offered a Lada ? No ? I see, a car is just a car... But what about security features such airbags and driver experience ?

Kochise

Reply Score: 1

--
by apoc on Mon 1st May 2006 17:31 UTC
apoc
Member since:
2006-03-24

1. Page Display: Determine how well a browser can view the page (web standards seems like a good place to start)
- 1_Firefox, has the best approach, it supports the most popular standarts, good error correction, but its gecko engine is bloated as hell, almost 3 times more resources than Opera to achieve almost the same results, see for yourselves, open about 10 tabs with your favourite websites, check the amount of swap and ram firefox is using and then check opera's use, minimize Opera and FF and check again, close all the tabs, re-check.
2_Opera, nice but.. it isn't balanced, it's a really lightweight browser but it fails when it comes to error correction and standarts support.
3_IE7, not going to comment.

2. Security: How well can the browser display the content while maintaining a safe, secure experience for the user?
- I see Opera as the 'winner' in here, Firefox's extensions may be a security risc, you never know what fasterfox really does behind your back, not that it does anything(I think) but you know what I mean, there's interaction between extensions and webpages, that doesn't happen in Opera as there are no extensions, only useless and harmless widgets, although you can have user-javascript, as for IE hooray for add-ins and ActiveX that are installed without your consent .

3. Availability: How available is the browser (the only currently available operating system that IE7 runs on is Windows XP)
- Opera is everywhere, Windows,Linux,Mac(etc),TV's,Mobile Devices, and although Opera ASA doesn't advertise this, your Opera for Windows Bookmarks are compatible with the Linux version, Mac OS, and even Pocket PC(skins too), IE as it has been said is only available for Windows(up to version 7), Mac OS(old version, 5 i think), Linux(IE6 - WINE/CrossOffice) and i don't think we can include the pocket pc version altough there's interoperability between this version and others(Windows though ActiveSync and possibly Linux manually)

-------------

about that review, he didn't talk about Opera real MDI nor customization, excluding extensions, it's much easier to customize Opera than FireFox(forget about IE), compare Opera 9's ctrl+F12 to FF Alt-O, see non-troppo opera wiki(google for it), also, Opera's password manager(Wand) is much better than FireFox's, it handles multiple login info much better, also, Form completion is supported by Opera, as soon as you configure it in Ctrl+F12>Wand Tab, he also forgot to mention Opera's notes, you can have for example a note with your mobile phone number, when you come across a text-field requiring it just press down to scroll through your notes, Opera's Windows version has TTS and Voice-Commands support(add-on), it has better keyboard navigation, Display-modes, sessions, it has a mail/rss/irc (very basic)client and a few other minor-details, everything out-of-the-box.

Please don't mistake me as an Opera Fanboy lol, I've used Opera for years, it started with the mobile version and it made me ditch IE for Opera a few years ago, but I now use Firefox mainly, because of the Extensions and better standarts support.

-----

" I have quite a few plugins installed and even more extensions, even a few potentially crashy ones like sessionsaver."

Tab mix plus's better.

Reply Score: 5

RE: --
by sappyvcv on Mon 1st May 2006 18:50 UTC in reply to "--"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

2_Opera, nice but.. it isn't balanced, it's a really lightweight browser but it fails when it comes to error correction and standarts support.

Where does it "fail" as far as standards support? How is it any worse than Firefox?

Reply Score: 2

We have a winner...
by dylansmrjones on Mon 1st May 2006 18:16 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

in the category of "Most Useless Article this Week".

Reply Score: 2

choice ...
by kwanbis on Mon 1st May 2006 18:33 UTC
kwanbis
Member since:
2005-07-06

As good as IE7 could be, and i don't think is much more than a patched IE6, i would never touch it unless:

1) I can use it in Windows 2000
2) I can use it in Linux
3) I can use it in Mac OSX

Reply Score: 1

RE: --
by silicon on Mon 1st May 2006 18:57 UTC
silicon
Member since:
2005-07-30

Theres a flaw in that. Opera is fully W3C compliant. Opera has passed the Acid2 test - the "ultimate" Acid2 test. Firefox can only pass the Acid2 test as of version 2.0 which is an alpha.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: --
by sappyvcv on Mon 1st May 2006 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE: --"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

No. No browser is fully w3c compliant, and I would even venture to say that such a thing is impossible.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: --
by apoc on Mon 1st May 2006 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: --"
apoc Member since:
2006-03-24

"Where does it "fail" as far as standards support? How is it any worse than Firefox?"

Mostly javascript and css problems, www.fluxiom.com(you must login to see, slow performance and the animations do not render as they should, there's also an upload problem AFAIRemember), GMail.com, calendar.google.com, FCKEditor, problems with embedded flash(video) not loading as it should, it often happens @engadget|joystiq.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: --
by sappyvcv on Mon 1st May 2006 20:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: --"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

That's very vague. GMail, calender and flash all work as they should for me.

They currently don't have richedit support, but they ARE putting that in in 9.0.

Please be specific as to what parts of the javascript or css standards it does not support. I can name a few things that Firefox doesn't support in CSS, by the way.

Reply Score: 1

IE is super fast
by hraq on Mon 1st May 2006 21:10 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

When I have tested opera 9 beta, opera 8.5, firefox 1.0.6, 1.0.7, 1.5.0, 1.5.0.1, 1.5.0.2 on many linux distros (RHEL4.3, FC5, Mandriva2006,...) I have discover ed from the system monitor and my own sense that all these browsers are so slow and heavy that they will crawl your system even if you have a decent CPU, memory and GPU. I was trying to isolate the cause of course so I have tried KDE (almost all versions), GNOME (all versions) and window maker and the like and found again how heavy these browsers are.

What strikes me also is that these browsers are faster under windows than under linux.

Actually, windows is the reason, its so fast and optimized, so also IE 6.x which is silk smooth;
BUT we know how long windows can survive on the web jungle, yes few hours; so I am till now torn apart between these two worlds. The world of Speed represented by windows platform and the world of Security represented by Linux platform.

Notice: platform means the OS, available applications for it, available support and available community and all the other things that makes the OS appealing.

Reply Score: 0

Has this guy tried Opera at least?
by Joe User on Mon 1st May 2006 22:35 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

He's missed a few Opera features. Sad.

Reply Score: 1

Frankly I question ...
by kadymae on Mon 1st May 2006 23:34 UTC
kadymae
Member since:
2005-08-02

... any review that calls Opera "bloatware". 8.x was quite a bit smaller than Firefox, and contained standard features that were only availible as plugins in Firefox.

And, as somebody who does a fair amount of htmling, I find Opera to be slightly less picky about tag placement than other browser, such as Firefox.

Finally, Opera 9beta for PPC Linux plays better than Firefox (latest PPC release_ with the CMS (custom coded by our Webmistress) the webzine I write for uses.

Reply Score: 1

Not very accurate...
by Dave_K on Tue 2nd May 2006 00:07 UTC
Dave_K
Member since:
2005-11-16

I've just skimmed through the article, but as an Opera user I noticed a number of inaccurate comments.

For example he says that Opera 8 is "bulky, inefficient, and bloated" when it's easily smaller and lighter on resources than Firefox or IE. Opera 9 has even more features and is a little larger than previous versions, surely if Opera 8 was bloated then Opera 9 is too?

He acts like the minimalist look of Opera 9 is something completely new, while actually Opera stripped down the default UI quite a long time ago. It's pretty obvious that he hasn't used the previous release of Opera, so why is he commenting on it?

He states that "It uses it's own theme, no matter what you have enabled in Windows", when you can choose "Windows Native" in the appearance panel.

He describes the bittorrent download feature as "impossible to disable", and states that it "can make your torrent-downloading days miserable" if you use anything else. Actually you can disable it quite quickly from the download section of advanced preferences.

He states that there's "no support for Auto-Complete or anything of that nature" when actually that's handled by the "Wand" password manager.

I'm not sure how many inaccuracies there were in his comments on Firefox and IE, but it's obvious that he hasn't used Opera much. If nothing else it would have been nice if he'd done a quick search on Opera's help forums to see if there were answers to his complaints.

Reply Score: 2

Minimal usage before writing?
by abdavidson on Tue 2nd May 2006 00:13 UTC
abdavidson
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm an Opera user primarily so will just comment on that (although I install each latest FF version I still prefer Opera).

Two things coloured my reading of this article early on.

1. The inability to turn off Bittorrent support (opera:config#BitTorrent|Enable)

2. Can't store form details (The second tab on the preferences page with its load of form details and the Wand)

Amazing. Just leaves me to wonder how long this guy gave any of the browsers he was comparing to miss such obvious abilities in one.

Reply Score: 2

Oh brother...
by abdavidson on Tue 2nd May 2006 00:16 UTC
abdavidson
Member since:
2005-07-06

I just noticed the blog name and how they reference themselves: Computer Guru.

Anyone that can call themselves that needs a good slap...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Missing the point?
by Soulbender on Tue 2nd May 2006 05:23 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

"thought a computer guru could understand different development branches."

Self-appointed guru's rarely are.

Reply Score: 1