What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
230 Comments
- krystianantoni, on 10/12/2007, -7/+74screenshot and "Can you honestly see a difference between this and FireFox 1.5?" - the author was using a old beta of FF, with old theme.
Why he uses a beta with old interface to judge?!
The new interface is in betas for a week now and there were articles about the new default theme.. i guess the author could not care less... - mvent2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53Hell yes we need Firefox. Why? To prevent a repeat of the bad ol' late 90's. Without Firefox there may not be an IE7.
Also, it's a bit unfair to compare the FF Beta 1 interface now since the interface has already gone under a complete overhaul and is available in the branch nightlies now.
They aren't working on the phishing lists yet either, they just want the groundwork laid out first.
But, if the author would rather have another browser monopoly, that's his opinion... - riah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42I bet if Mozilla waited 5 years to release another Firefox it would have vast improvements aswell.
- eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36Nobody can read buried comments in IE7 because, while they're coded properly, IE7 doesn't know what that means. Once the final version is released I'm sure Digg'll throw in a hack to make it work.
- nogami, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28From reading the first page of the article (and not bothering to read the next), it seems that the author is comparing the "quantum leap" of IE7 to the "meager update" of Firefox 2.
Huh? How is IE7 a good product because it's "changed more"?
Firefox's extensions are what make it the perfect browser for me - it's really a shell that I can plug my own stuff into, and without that functionality, IE7 will sit unused (and likely uninstalled) for a long time. - phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29I use opera, and even I know from playing with firefox 2.0 for a bit that spellcheck is right click > enable on this feild. It's activated by default on textareas.
- eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32Everything else aside, do you want to see why we still need firefox? Load this page in IE7. Notice how the layout gets ***** up. IE7 does not handle CSS properly so until IE8 comes out and Microsoft gets it right (heh), we will always need firefox.
I played with the IE7 interface for about a day, trying to make myself like it, and I still don't. I actually even prefer IE6 to it. - Snakedal337, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Yes we need firefox, MS wouldn't be overhauling IE7 if it wasn't because of firefox/opera
- alwaysmc2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Well, FireFox is necessary because competition is needed. FireFox, Opera, etc., really made Microsoft have to improve IE in version 7.
Oh, and the article makes it seem like IE won't be avalable for XP. Well, it is. - jhatcher16, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Annoyingly biased towards IE.
- rhamej, on 10/12/2007, -11/+32"My favorite is how you can't close a tab unless it's focused (no close button on the tab). Good thinking guys!"
That's incorrect. I can middle click on it and it closes. As well as right clicking on it and selecting "Close".
Closing the tab are pretty much the same in both. - seandfeeney, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22It comes down to web standards and IE7 just isn't up to par.
- bbene, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Yeah. Looks aren't everything. Microsoft needs to learn how to make a W3C compliant browser.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20That was the main thing I was looking for in this "comparison": IE7 standards compliance vs FF2 standards compliance. What do I get? The lamo comparison of only the basic stuff. *thumbs down*
- kypen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I'm quite tired of these articles. Testing betas against betas is not practical as they work on different parts of the product at different times. Compare final product to final product and *speculate* about betas, but don't compare them as if they are final products. No digg.
- llbbl, on 10/12/2007, -24/+42"Now there's really nothing that Firefox does that IE doesn't"
Oh really, well maybe thats because MS tried to copy FF functionality with hopes of killing their competitor, like they have done many times before. Does this mean we should all go running back to IE, ***** no. Use Opera + FF all you will ever need. Ubuntu is much better than Vista is trying to be. - Snakedal337, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19@ Guys complaining about the buried comment bug
Correct you are, that's microsoft either
A) Lagging behind already
B) Still working on the CSS/Javascript rendering
Take your pick. - Avogadro65, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20By the way, it's impressive how many times you misspelled Firefox.
- ngmcs8203, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17His article is riddled with lame catch phrases. Lame and biased article. Does he not want to compare W3C standard integrations?
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -16/+31If we didn't have firefox, what would microsoft steal features from for IE8?
- HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19@Mythos: The whole problem is that IE7 DOESN'T fix any of that. It's STILL terrible at CSS support, among other things.
- caffiend, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Why does he call it "Open Sauce?"
- cody50, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15FTFA
"Over 60% of bit-tech's readers are now logging on with Open Sauce browsing technology"
and what a tasty sauce it is. - Avogadro65, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Because people just use what comes with their intarwebs.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Firefox and Opera are great browsers. They both have definitely contributed to how IE is being developed, especially in the last year or so. And Maxthon is everything Internet Explorer should of been . . .
/2 cents - mtgarden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Should we keep FireFox? Yeah. I actually like IE7. It has some nice features, but the greatest failure for IE7 is the lack of plugins. If Microsoft built an api that allowed FF plugins to be used in IE7, then it would give FF a run for it's money. Until then....
I want/need my FF plugins. - jambarama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13There are still tons of things FF does that IE7 can't touch. The existing extensions give FF obvious functionality that IE7 lacks. When adblock, filterset.G, noscript, greasemonkey, gmail notifier, video downloader, session saver, gspace, bugmenot, and pdf downloader (or equivalents) come to IE7, let me know.
Not to mention, the config layout is so much nicer, prefs.js, about:cache, about:config, and others are make it so much easier to customize than IE7.
IE7 may be faster than FF (that is what a multi-billion dollar company ought to be expected to produce) but if speed is everything we should all be using Opera. - EdLesMann, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12For the same reason he calls it "Fireferret"
He appears to be extreamly biased against FireFox and cant actually make a valid debate, so he drops into slander. IE7 cant hold a candle to FireFox's growing flame, so the author tries to belittle everyone who uses it.
You always know when you have won the debate when the other person begins personal attacks and name-calling. - dfltr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11to answer your (trollish) question, are you honestly confused as to why an inferior product that comes packaged with the OS has a higher user base than a superior product that you have to manually install? i won't even get into how broken IE's rendering engine is, it'd be a waste of keystrokes.
- evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"Firefix need to be faster and needs to become more forgiving, like ie, when looking at pre-css 2.0 webpages."
Hahahahahahhaha! - Aninhumer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10You'd need tht to run Vista :P
- EasY_TargeT, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Thats awesome and all but why not compare ie7 to the latest beta of firefox with Firefox 3.0 (Minefield) Ive been using it for weeks, has never crashed. Heres the ftp link http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/
- b1mmer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11My biggest problem with IE (which BTW was not mentioned in the article) is endless number of flaws and vulnerabilities. I don't mind IE interface but I hate to get it "fixed" every week.
That and the Microsoft vision of W3C standards... - motang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Neither would they be saying that there will be newer version of IE every year after IE 7. The whole reason why IE 6 is so out dated is because it was the only one in the market (dominated) so there was no push to update it.
- Drealoth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Some people seem to have this strange thinking that competition is a bad thing.
I hope that Internet Explorer hands Firefox's ass to them. Why? Because in the end we have a better product (Internet Exporer), and Firefox's developers are all of a sudden under more pressure to deliver an even better competitor. So we end up with faster development and two superior products - is this bad? - kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Totally agree. Microsoft was set to rest on it's laurels until Firefox came along. You didn't get patches, IE6 was considered the best of the best, etc.
Plus - even though it's IE7 and there've been mainly cosmetic changes, they don't change the fact that IE rides very deeply on Windows whereas Firefox doesn't. This opens up all sorts of exploits on the part of IE7 that won't be there in Firefox 2.0
Not to mention that Mozilla is much more reactive than Microsoft. When a CERT bulletin comes out about Firefox or Thunderbird the fix is available within days. When MS CERT bulletins come out, it's weeks or months before the fix is available.
Not to mention that Vista is going to be a Charlie Foxtrot until at least SP2, as is the tradition with pretty much all MS products. - s14sh3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I gave the IE7 beta an honest trial. Although I do like it and think it's a vast improvement over IE6, I just don't like the fact that I can't customize it like I can FF. Now, if Microsoft were to allow for easy tweaking like Firefox does with about:config, I might give it another try.
- happyfappy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16Its selective use of facts results in a misleading impression. I'd call that inaccurate.
- KJay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Microsoft has spent so much time putting together a decent browser, I've become accustomed to the Firefox UI and would hate to trade it for anything else. I've used IE7 and while pleasant, it is so radically different from anything else Microsoft or anyone else has put out, I just can't seem to get used to it.
Firefox 2.0 is already pretty much sold on me, they'd have to really screw up to change that. - seanmc303, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8By the time IE 8 comes out, everyone will be using FireFox 8.
- MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9IE7 is a huge step forward from IE6, and I really do like the new interface (particularly the hidden menubar). It's much better than I was expecting. I'm guessing that it's good enough that it will probably slow down the growth of Firefox. Out of the box, I'd even say that, unless it proves to be as insecure as IE6 used to be, I might even like IE7 better than Firefox 2.0.
When you add in extensions and customization ability, only then does Firefox really become the browser of choice. I'm not going to list all of the extensions and added privacy and functionality that I can't live without, but I certainly won't be switching away from Firefox... ever.
That said, Firefox 2.0 is, for my purposes, insignificantly better than Firefox 1.5. It really doesn't deserve the 2.0 designation. It's more like 1.6. What Firefox really needs most is a patch for the memory leak, some optimization (Opera is faster), and a bit of a facelift (the default theme is pretty old school). As far as I know, 3.0 is scheduled to be more of what 2.0 should be. - sdrawkcaB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"It's definitely an improvement on IE6, and wins points over Firefox for showing tabs by default."
Anyone who's opened the preferences for Firefox should know that firefox can show tabs all the time if you simply enable the option. IMO it doesn't look right to have just one tab anyways, and takes up unecessary space - ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The ACID/ACID2 test does not confirm standards support. Never has, never will.
It's basically a pissing contest in the form of CSS. - motang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It seems very hard for Microsoft to follow standards. They want to do everything their way, and mess up stuff for everyone else.
- groogs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Not to mention that Windows is not the only platform out there.. Firefox runs on every major desktop operating system. I don't see MS releasing an IE for Linux anytime soon...
- KJay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11IE is fast? Since when? If you want speed, go Opera, if you want features Firefox.
- qwerty967, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/586/firefoxmr9.png
That's what the final Firefox 2.0 will more likely resemble. - limejuice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10A big part of the comparison is the plugins. Stuff like Customize Google (http://www.customizegoogle.com/) ,
Ad Block (http://adblock.mozdev.org/), Ad Block Filterset.G Updater, FlashGot (combined with Free Download Manager http://www.freedownloadmanager.org), Flash Block NoScript, FoxyProxy, VideoDownloader, etc.
Firefox wins hands down when you factor in the wealth of plugins. - AmishJedi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Exactly, without any competition, Microsoft would have any reason to make an IE7 and make sure it is good.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 231 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 