backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by Master Kenobi.. on Jul 20 at 4:23 PM

Firefox gains ground on Internet Explorer in Europe, Australia

Popular alternative web browser Firefox is gaining ground on Microsoft’s Internet Explorer in a big way in Europe, according to French firm XiTi Monitor. The latest statistics put Firefox use at nearly 28 percent of European web surfers, up from just over 21 percent the same period last year.

In certain countries, the use of Firefox is nearly equal that of Internet Explorer. Slovenia had the highest Firefox utilization at 47.9 percent, followed by Finland at 45.4 and Slovakia at 40.4 percent.

In terms of overall Firefox usage per region, Oceania tops the globe at 28.9 percent. North America ranked lower at 18.7 percent. South America, Africa and Asia sat at around 15 percent.

"I hope we continue to gain market share, as our goal is to promote choice. Monopoly leads to lack of innovation," said Tristan Nitot, president of Mozilla Europe, to CNET.

Microsoft does not appear to be concerned about Firefox’s growth as long as it is on its operating system, as a company representative said in a prepared statement, "We're proud to see Windows remains the platform of choice, in part because it provides our customers with the widest range of both hardware and software options in the industry."

The folks behind Firefox, however, feel differently. "I think it should be a cause for concern for them--our intention is to encourage Microsoft to get back to work and improve IE," Nitot said. "We want a better Web experience for everybody."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Schools Using Firefox - Great MS Responses
By Exodus220 on 7/18/2007 6:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
I have taught at a number of different elementary school in Las Vegas area and the dominant web browser has become Firefox. Nearly all the Mac computers are running Firefox instead of IE, and whenever the teachers get new computers in their class they are quick to download Firefox. So it would seem to me that Firefox must have done something right to bring a turn in at least one school district (I can't necessarily say for others).

Also, I love MS responses to interviews. For the X360 RROD they talk about how well their customer service is instead of addressing their defective machines. When asked about the X360 in Japan they are quick to point out that Sony is being outsold by Nintendo. And now when more people are using Firefox they say they are happy that it is on a Windows based machine...but I know that even Mac users are using it on their machines. Gotta love MS.




By Zoomer on 7/19/2007 2:51:05 AM , Rating: 2
The integrated popup blocker should help them keep their jobs and to prevent them from being sued!


RE: Schools Using Firefox - Great MS Responses
By JagFel on 7/19/2007 7:43:12 AM , Rating: 2
Reason for the Mac's running FF is because Microsoft hasn't released a Mac version of IE since 5.0, and Safari is a joke.

I work IT at a private school, and I place FF on every system that comes my way. Granted, 80% of the systems here are Mac's and anything is an improvement over Safari, but the Windows users I've switched to FireFox and Thunderbird have been happy with the changes.


RE: Schools Using Firefox - Great MS Responses
By 0blivious on 7/19/2007 11:22:38 AM , Rating: 2
Possibly because they don't know any better to begin with. You sure thaught them!

Ah force-feding.. don't you just love it.


By 0blivious on 7/19/2007 11:26:20 AM , Rating: 2
i meant: 'you sure taught them' and 'force-feeding' before i get flamed for spelling smth the wrong way, my apologies in advance


no difference
By tacoburrito on 7/18/2007 1:53:48 PM , Rating: 1
As I get used to IE7, I'm starting to see almost no difference between IE7 and Firefox. Moving up from IE6 to IE7 was a big step and much needed improvements. I think it is because of the emergence of Firefox that MS engineers were forced to go back and redesign IE.

By the by, is it just me or Firefox starts up real slow when you first open it?




RE: no difference
By EndPCNoise on 7/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: no difference
By TomZ on 7/18/2007 3:05:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
By the by, is it just me or Firefox starts up real slow when you first open it?

Maybe just your configuration or add-ins. I have no Firefox add-ins, and it loads about the same as IE7. I tested "cold" (after boot) and "warm" starts, and they are more or less the same. Firefox may actually be loading a tad bit faster, but the difference, if any, is not significant on my machine.


RE: no difference
By encryptkeeper on 7/18/2007 3:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
I have Firefox on a pretty slow machine here at work (a sempron 2400+ w/768 memory, constantly at 80%-95% cpu usage w/12 tabs open). Have you guys had the (Not Responding) message in the title bar when loading some pages?


Opera - more secure Cooler than FireFox
By Belard on 7/18/2007 7:41:17 PM , Rating: 1
Tnere are some issues with all three browsers - but I have recently switched to Opera as my MAIN browser.

I could never get FireFox to be my main. It doesn't save web-pages correctly and a few functions could be done better.

As flexible as Opera is, it could be a TAD bit better, I am using an MCE type skin which makes it look SHARP and professional (in a way that IE7 doesn't). The Speed dial rocks. Zoom function is excellent. A big feature that Opera can use is a Spell Checker.

Also, on a report with security issues - IE6/7 has about 350 security issues, FireFox is at 36~38 and Opera is at 0~1.

Other than a few sites with ASP specfic ActiveX issues - nobody needs IE. Also, Opera is the MOST compatible with Web Standards. IE is broken and websites have to break their code to work with IE, a typical M$ trick to make their broken products "Standard".




By TomZ on 7/18/2007 9:17:46 PM , Rating: 3
That's a load of crap. There are lots of sites that are not compatible with Opera, but look fine with IE7 and Firefox. I ran Opera for a few months, so I know firsthand. Being the "most compatible with web standards" means nothing - being the most compatible with actual web browsers is what counts.

The reason that Opera has poor compatibility with web sites, and also have few security problems, is that it has just a tiny market share. Opera did not go through the same security audits and changes that IE7 did, so there is no basis for any claims about it being secure. It is no more secure than IE6 - it is just less of a target than IE6.


IE7 sill better
By shraz on 7/18/2007 4:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
I use firefox and IE a lot because of my job at rating website for Google and I can tell you that Firefox loads websites page slower and they still have CSS problem.




Cause for concern
By mindless1 on 7/18/2007 5:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
I have to feel that for much of the world's population, use of Firefox instead of IE should trouble MS. Even if it's running on windows, once users start becoming used to, and preferring applications with cross-OS support they are far more easily switched over to using an alternate OS like 'nix. Remeber, most PC owners didn't install the OS themselves, and a surprising few ever even buy supplimental applications unless something very specific and subjectively-required was missing. Certainly not all users but also remember that the more professional users already had a PC and bought retail software.

The typical users with basic needs received a preconfigured system then just booted it, clicked the icons to do things. Many of them could have been shipped a 'nix box, properly set up, and just used it. This has to be a concern for MS, when the end user experience is not lessened enough to offset the lower cost of the OS.




Choice
By stryfe on 7/18/2007 9:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
IE, Firefox, who needs them when you've got Opera! ;)




Browsers
By althaz on 7/19/2007 4:24:37 AM , Rating: 2
I've tried all the browsers and all of them have something I like. I love Speed Dial from Opera, love the printing and zooming from IE7 (as well as the speed and cleanliness of the interface) and I love the way Firefox handles tabs.

But the one I use is IE7. I run Vista, so really, it'd be silly not to in terms of security. Plus it's faster, prettier and printous seem to work a whole lot better.




the move is on MS
By derdon on 7/20/2007 4:45:27 AM , Rating: 2
I started using FF back when it was still called Phoenix and the version number was 0.6. That's when I started to use it on a regular basis and it's the very first application that I install on any new windows machine and about the only time that I need IE.

It's IE that needs to convice me to switch back and not FF that needs to convince me to stay.




Comments
By Anh Huynh on 7/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Comments
By stburke on 7/18/2007 1:22:34 PM , Rating: 4
Firefox did make MS improve IE already, IE6 to 7 was a large jump in many ways and it really was due in part to Firefox.

I imagine the use in Europe has something to do with the anitrust concerns over MS and not including stuff like Windows Media Player, speculation.


RE: Comments
By stromgald on 7/18/2007 1:25:52 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think IE7 has that much appeal. It's too big of a change for people to swallow and the interface just isn't that user friendly.

I just hope that FF's success pushes MSFT to make an update to IE7, because in it's current state, IE7 doesn't have a chance at being my primary browser.


RE: Comments
By GaryJohnson on 7/18/2007 1:52:19 PM , Rating: 3
IE7 became usable to me when I found out how to put the file menu back on top of the browser window. It's too bad you have to edit the registry to do it.


RE: Comments
By Kenenniah on 7/18/2007 2:04:29 PM , Rating: 5
You have to edit the registry? Guess I did it the wrong way by right-clicking the command bar and placing a checkmark next to menu bar.


RE: Comments
By GaryJohnson on 7/19/2007 9:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
What I mean is: the command bar is normally under the address and tab bars. You can edit the registry and put it back above them, under the title bar (where it belongs).

http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off...


RE: Comments
By bdot on 7/18/2007 2:05:24 PM , Rating: 3
Actually you hit the "Alt" key to get the menu bar. If you want it permanent, you can right click and select menu bar from the context menu.


RE: Comments
By stromgald on 7/18/2007 5:45:04 PM , Rating: 3
The main problem I have with IE7 is the fact that the refresh button is in a different place (and I can't move it back), and the fact that I can't really customize how the tabs operate. FF has a lot of add-ons that allow you to customize tab behavior just the way you want.


RE: Comments
By Exodus220 on 7/19/2007 1:24:57 AM , Rating: 2
IE7 has no appeal for me. It was a drastic change from IE6 and the layout confuses me. I admit I struggle without having the file menu available to me immediately. I fell in love with FF a couple years ago and have not regretted it one bit. Currently my wife and I use different web browsers because it is more convenient. All my information and preferences are stored in FF, while she keeps her stuff limited to IE7 (she only needs it to surf the web, nothing more).

I personally love the option to customize my browser and have my weather, media controls, colored tabs, named bookmarks tabs, skin selection, spell check, ie tab, and all the other good stuff that comes with FF. IE7 looked nice but it never won me over. Oh well for MS. Yay for Mozilla.


RE: Comments
By CyberHawk on 7/19/2007 3:37:24 AM , Rating: 2
I am from Slovenia, and I assure you, that using FF has nothing to do with antitrust concerns ;)

It's just that FF is/was simply better, more secure.

I think that the fact that we are on top is a good thing.


RE: Comments
By CyberHawk on 7/19/2007 3:42:39 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and I forgot .... I'm not even thinking of going back to IE. FF has some really useful extensions...

If it wouldn't be better then it wouldn't gain such popularity IMO.


RE: Comments
By Merry on 7/18/2007 1:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
I run firefox on Linux :p

Seriously, though, its clear even to the individual that Firefox has been growing in popularity. Just over a year ago if i'd have asked a 'normal' computer user if they had firefox, they would look at me funny. Now everyone seems to install it automatically when they get a new computer, or find a computer without it. I guess for Mozilla thats a hell of a lot of progress.

Saying that though I think there is need for improvement. Rendering times, for example and certain memory issues. I also have the occasional crash but thats probably down to dodgy extensions.


RE: Comments
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Comments
By AnnihilatorX on 7/18/2007 1:51:12 PM , Rating: 3
Well I have Vista and I prefer Firefox really

It's mainly due to speed of execution and more importantly, support for the common add-ons like AdBlockPlus, Flash Block, Tab Mix Plus (Alloows renaming, locking of tabs, etc)


RE: Comments
By EndPCNoise on 7/18/2007 2:12:36 PM , Rating: 5
Firefox has lost the edge it once had.

I have to respectfully disagree with you. I have both IE7 and Firefox, but I greatly prefer Firefox over IE7 and here's why...
(Just my humble opinions)

Firefox is highly customizable. There are an hundreds of add-ons and extensions, which allowed me to customize my browser far beyond what I thought possible.

Yes, I know IE7 also has add-ons too, but you are expected to pay tens (and possibly up to hundreds) of dollars for them by the time you add them all up.


RE: Comments
By swatX on 7/18/2007 3:22:42 PM , Rating: 1
It really depends on the individual. I used firefox but honestly i love IE7 more than Firefox. Whats the point of downloading and having another brower when IE7 can do it all?

Also IE7 without addons runs perfectly fine, blocking unneccesarry popups, etc.


RE: Comments
By maroon1 on 7/18/2007 4:46:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Whats the point of downloading and having another brower when IE7 can do it all?


Firefox has integrated spell checker.

Firefox has restore secession feature

Firefox searches letter by letter when you use the find option (unlike IE or Opera were you should type the full word)

Firefox has search feature in the history to search for websites you visited before.

In Firefox you can reopen your last closed tab by clicking Ctrl+Alt+T

All those features are not found in IE7


RE: Comments
By TomZ on 7/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Comments
By Basilisk on 7/18/2007 10:18:48 PM , Rating: 4
Once exposed to it, these ARE very basic features. 'Use them every day, and quite effortlessly -- they're just THERE.

Of course not all features are perfect: like the spell checker not flagging the use of "secession" instead of "session". :)


RE: Comments
By SmokeRngs on 7/19/2007 9:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The point is, these features are not important to many users. Most users are just using the basic features of the brower. That is why, unless the default browser is pretty deficient (as you could argue IE6 was comparatively speaking), most people are content just using IE7.


Interesting...

What makes you say IE6 is deficient? At one time it was more than enough to do the job as it held the vast majority of the browser marketshare. Many of the users of IE6 had never used anything other than IE. If they were content to use IE for so long, what would make them look to anything else? IE6 never stopped browsing the web. That's it's basic function and according to you, most people use it for that and should be content to do so.

Obviously, some IE6 users were not content with the browser. What makes you think they will switch to IE7 after they found something else that suits their needs?

Your basic premise is flawed. If most people are content to browse the web with something that works, they aren't going to change. These are not the people who would switch from IE to begin with.


RE: Comments
By TomZ on 7/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Comments
By TomZ on 7/19/2007 10:48:23 AM , Rating: 1
It is deficient in that it lacks the very useful features of tabbed browsing and built-in popup blocker, amongst others. Not to mention security.

Sure, at the time, given the lack of alternatives, IE6 was okay, but the bar has been raised. Because of this, IE6 is now deficient compared to other available browsers.

quote:
If most people are content to browse the web with something that works, they aren't going to change. These are not the people who would switch from IE to begin with.

Your assertion is not backed by the facts. If what you said was true, then nobody would ever upgrade anything that is already working "well enough." That simply isn't the case.


RE: Comments
By TomZ on 7/19/2007 10:58:46 AM , Rating: 1
Not sure why that double-posted; I'm pretty sure I only clicked "Post Comment" once. Maybe the DT site software should automatically filter out duplicate posts?


RE: Comments
By Noobsa44 on 7/18/2007 9:22:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Firefox searches letter by letter when you use the find option (unlike IE or Opera were you should type the full word)

FYI, Opera allows you to search letter by letter, but it is not under ctrl+f (by default). Instead, just press "." and then start typing in what you are searching for.


RE: Comments
By EndPCNoise on 7/18/2007 2:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
On Windows Vista, IE7 is far better, especially from a security stand point.


How so...Could you explain this?

No disrespect, nor am I challenging you. Simply, I was not aware of this.


RE: Comments
By TomZ on 7/18/2007 2:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How so...Could you explain this?

Low-rights protected mode:

IE 7 uses Windows Vista’s Mandatory Integrity Control infrastructure to run in a low-rights protected mode. By running in a context with even fewer rights than a normal user, the risk of exploitation via malicious web sites is reduced even further. By running at the low integrity level, IE will not be able to modify any of the user’s data or the Windows binaries on the machine. Any files that are written will also be marked with the low integrity level, so downloaded apps in turn run at low integrity, adding an extra layer of security.
http://blogs.msdn.com/jmazner/archive/2006/07/14/6...

Mozilla is considering using this feature in Firefox 3.0:

Last October, after Firefox developers had spent several days at Microsoft's headquarters with the Vista team, a Mozilla engineer said they had come away with thoughts on how Firefox might take advantage of Vista's low-rights features.
http://www.computerworlduk.com/technology/internet...


RE: Comments
By EndPCNoise on 7/18/2007 7:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
Ask and you shall receive.
Thank you Tomz for the quotes and supplied links, and I would also like to thank SandmanWN . Thank you both for bringing me up to speed on browser security. Your knowledge greatly exceeds mine in this area, and I will look forward to Firefox 3.0 to for the updated security features.

I have been using Firefox for about 2 years now, and (knock on wood) have never experienced any security issues. Firefox is just for my personal use as I am NOT a network administrator.

I only use 2, simple, reliable add-ons with Firefox:
1) Adblock Plus
2) Adblock Filterset.G Updater
That's all most people really need. (Of course, there's much more if you wish.)

Yes, IE7 can block pop-ups (as can Firefox), BUT IE7 does NOTHING about blocking all those ads. Ads that are littered all over websites, cluttering them up, and slowing your browsing experience down. This is one the best reasons for choosing Firefox over IE7. Micro$oft charges you a great deal of $$ for these types of add-ons to IE7.

Micromedia, Shockwave, Flash type ads are the worst, and I never have to deal with ads anymore with Firefox. I no longer have to search through a sea of ads for the information I want.

If you've tried Firefox with these 2 above mentioned add-ons, and yet you still prefer IE7, I respect your decision. I'm only trying to help here.
Happy Browsing.


RE: Comments
By encryptkeeper on 7/18/2007 3:35:22 PM , Rating: 3
Unless the Mozilla team can come up with a clear cut feature that soundly trounces IE7.

With all due respect, the trump card for Firefox is the add-on features. Even if you go to a website that requires IE, you're in good shape if you have the IE Tab add on. And there's tons of other add ons you can get. At the same time, I like Opera's Wii browser (except the fact it lacks a flash player!!!) and I'd be willing to try Safari if it really is so much faster than FF or IE.

all the Vista naysayers need to remember the same naysaying was in full swing when we were looking at the migration from Win2K to WinXP, history repeats itself over, and over, and over

Again, things are very different this time. People HATED Windows ME, never really liked 2000, and if you were still running 98, you were salivating for an update. The initial reaction wasn't as poor as you're recalling here. When people tried it, most liked it. True, more people liked it when it got a service pack. When people try Vista, many hate it or just aren't impressed. Comparing the two events doesn't foreshadow that Vista will suddenly be the next Windows XP.


RE: Comments
By TomZ on 7/18/2007 3:47:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
With all due respect, the trump card for Firefox is the add-on features.

It's most powerful feature is also its main liability. Most users don't want to mess with add-ins. They just want to browse the Internet. I'm a pretty hard-core computer geek, and even I don't want to mess with add-ins. I just want to load up Vista on a machine and click on the IE7 icon to use the Internet. To me, there's no value added to loading Firefox compared to IE7.

Like the OP said, the difference between Firefox and IE6, however, is compelling and worth the hassle. Not so much for IE7.

I also agree with the OP, there are naysayers at every OS release. Granted, ME didn't turn out well, but there is practically zero chance of Vista getting marginalized and maligned like ME did.


RE: Comments
By kenji4life on 7/18/2007 4:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
Though I can agree that IE7 is a huge advancement in comparison to IE6, I'm so autonomous about installing firefox that I never even opened IE7 except the first time; to download firefox. Until firefox fails me as a browser, or IE7 starts doing backflips to get my attention, I'll probably continue to use FF.


RE: Comments
By TomZ on 7/18/2007 5:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
Then maybe you should consider changing your user name to "firefox4life."

Seriously, though, there is some value to using what you're comfortable and familiar with. I can see why you wouldn't want to change.


RE: Comments
By encryptkeeper on 7/18/2007 5:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
I never even opened IE7 except the first time; to download firefox.

Haha. I like that. I'm going to use that quote to piss off our Microsoft rep here at work.


RE: Comments
By encryptkeeper on 7/18/2007 5:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
Most users don't want to mess with add-ins.

Hey, 6 months ago I didn't know I wanted add ins, and once I tried it I loved being able to add them. Once you introduce IE users to FF (or ANY other browser) who never knew about it, over half will ditch IE. Mozilla is spreading the word through the web with positive word of mouth (or would that be positive word of keyboard?) and they're slowly gaining ground. Microsoft needs someone to push them to develop better software because I think everyone sees they sure as hell aren't doing it themselves.


RE: Comments
By TomZ on 7/18/2007 9:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. Firefox add-ins just increase the complexity of the software installation and reduce its reliability. The majority of bugs reported against "Firefox" are probably problems in add-ins. I prefer my software configurations lean and mean, without a lot of extraneous B.S.


RE: Comments
By Xavian on 7/19/2007 5:46:40 AM , Rating: 2
You are not going to change anyone's opinion on anything on the Internet so i wouldn't try, it'll save yourself a lot of time.

I prefer Firefox myself, the User Interface is so much simpler than IE7, i also like add-ons and i can completely configure the browser via about:config.

I run a business repairing PC's and for most customers, if they have IE6/7 installed on their PC, I will install firefox after getting their permission, I have yet to receive one single complaint about it.


RE: Comments
By SmokeRngs on 7/19/2007 10:42:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Firefox add-ins just increase the complexity of the software installation and reduce its reliability.


Complexity of the software installation? While technically true since it does add one more step, I would wonder if you have ever installed an extension in Firefox. It's about as simple and easy as you can get.

I use up to ten extensions depending on what computer I'm using at the time. I have not had any trouble with problems with Firefox due to extensions. I generally use well known and respected extensions so that could be part of the reason.

I can't remember the last time Firefox crashed anyway. Other than some public alphas and betas I've run, I've never really had much trouble with Firefox. I've had some crashes that I would blame on the browser, but they are few. Basically, I don't see a reliability problem with extensions.

I do have a question for you. Do you install any software at all that did not come included with the OS? If so, by your reasoning, you are increasing the complexity and reducing the reliability of your system.

quote:
I prefer my software configurations lean and mean, without a lot of extraneous B.S.


Okay, I don't normally say anything like this but for once I can't pass up the opportunity. This statement is coming from someone whom trumpets Vista as basically the end all be all of operating systems.


RE: Comments
By TomZ on 7/19/2007 10:55:55 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that, the more Firefox add-ins you load, the less reliable the browser is. Just google for Firefox problems if you don't believe me. Many/most are directly attributed to faulty add-ins.

Yes, I do load apps into the OS, but I only load the minimum necessary to get the job done. For example, I just bought a new Dell laptop, and guess what the first thing I did was? Re-install Vista to eliminate all the crap-ware (which wasn't too bad, compared to other machines I seen). Then I loaded just the drivers and applications I need to use on the machine. This machine is now running nice and fast because CPU cycles, RAM, and HDD space aren't getting chewed up by non-value-added software.

I appreciate your jab at Vista being bloat-ware, but that's a myth, not reality. Vista does need more RAM compared to XP, but beyond that, it performs at least as well as XP.


RE: Comments
By retrospooty on 7/18/2007 8:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
"all the Vista naysayers need to remember the same naysaying was in full swing when we were looking at the migration from Win2K to WinXP"

Thats not how I remember it at all... There were some nay sayers saying nay, but most people were looking forward to it, and were extremely happy with the upgrade from 2k to XP (myself and everyone I know included). XP to Vista is not nearly as smooth and I continue to say nay. ;)


RE: Comments
By VPofCommonSense on 7/18/2007 8:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
Don't mean to keep this off-topic thread going, but I was a MS College Rep in 2000-02 & heard the exact same complaints about upgrading to XP back in 2000 were given with Vista.

1. Poor Legacy Driver support. I remember the big 3 NVIDIA, ATI, & Creative getting railed on for not having reliable XP drivers for the first 6 months to a year.

2. Games & overall performance. Everyone wanted to keep 98 around b/c more compatible games were compatible & they had better frame rates. Also, the Win98 UI often seemed more responsive.


RE: Comments
By TomZ on 7/18/2007 9:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. This is how I remember it, too.

Bottom line: most people don't like change.


RE: Comments
By SmokeRngs on 7/19/2007 9:38:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Firefox has lost the edge it once had. Back when everyone was using IE6, the differences were much more pronounced.


I mostly disagree with the first statement but agree with the second statement. The only reason I would consider (in my opinion) Firefox to have lost some of its edge is because some of the biggest glaring outward appearances are no longer there for IE. However, IE has done nothing but play catchup and still hasn't met the feature set of Firefox. On that reason alone, I would not say Firefox has lost all it's edge.

quote:
Firefox is roughly on par with IE7 on WinXP.


Actually, IE7 is getting closer to what Firefox and Opera have been doing for a long time. Despite changes and advancements for IE7, it's still playing catchup.

quote:
Choice is fine and dandy, but many Firefox users jumped on the bandwagon during the IE6 days and have not yet looked back.


And why should many of them look back. I still believe there are two reasons for IE gaining the browser marketshare it had. 1) It was included with the Windows OS. 2) For the longest time, it had no viable and free competition. Netscape went into the crapper as the vast majority of people will agree and with the need to be purchased, Opera was never really a contender at the time. Once there was some competition, many people jumped the IE ship and went to Firefox as it seems they found the alternative they perceived as better.

I can understand looking to newer software to try it out and see what differences it has over what is currently being used. However, a lot of people found what they were looking for with Firefox and see no reason to try IE7. A large number of people believe "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

quote:
Right now Firefox seems to be playing catch up to IE7 rather than the other way around.


In marketsahre, yes it is. Firefox has claimed more marketshare than most believed it would. Getting so many people to install it and use it instead of the default browser that comes with the OS is amazing. IE had to defeat an entrenched Netscape but it never had to overcome an "embedded" browser.


RE: Comments
By Misty Dingos on 7/18/2007 1:41:14 PM , Rating: 1
I have been using Fire Fox for years now. I tell everyone I know to use it too. The ones that do like it better than IE and fast. The only downside has been work. The evil IT guys made us remove Fire Fox and use IE. I am still mad at them for this. I think IE has put wetware in their heads to make them dis the Fox.

Power to the Fox! Arfff woof and Grrrr!


RE: Comments
By SandmanWN on 7/18/2007 5:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
I am one of those IT guys. The reason why we do this is security. You can control features in IE through the domain environment and enforce policies which you cannot do with Firefox. This is extremely important in corporate structures to ensure certain corporate guidelines are not infringed upon.

Firefox is working to give that ability to IT Managers in 3.0 from what I hear. Once this is accomplished I personally would consider allowing Firefox in the workplace but not until then.


RE: Comments
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/20/2007 4:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'm also one of those Evil IT guys, and to be honest, I don't feel like supporting two browsers. I don't feel like supporting the ungodly number of custom addins off the web, which cause god knows what problems with our large library of web based applications and internal portals.


RE: Comments
By AsicsNow on 7/18/2007 6:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
I just wish Firefox would implement more keyboard shortcuts and mouse gestures like Opera 9. Other than that its leaps and bounds above the competition imo.


RE: Comments
By hobbes7869 on 7/18/2007 7:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
The one thing I noticed is no one brought up mouse commands like in opera. I wish IE or FF had that, and which ever had it, I would use. That is the only thing I like about opera


RE: Comments
By EndPCNoise on 7/18/2007 8:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
Ask and you shall receive...

Try these Firefox add-ons:
1) Mouse Gestures
2) MouseZoom

Question for you...
Can Opera block ads as well as Firefox?

Happy Browsing


RE: Comments
By clemedia on 7/18/2007 10:47:10 PM , Rating: 3
MS really screwed up with the interface for IE7. I'm practically lost trying to use it compared to previous versions. Worst interface ever.

Luckily Firefox has a skin (looks familiar) that makes it look almost exactly like IE6. So that's what I use.


RE: Comments
By 0blivious on 7/19/2007 11:19:57 AM , Rating: 2
Funny how nobody mentions Maxthon2. It's IE but done better.


RE: Comments
By majorpain on 7/19/2007 12:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
Im using FF for the last 2 years, and honestly, im not able to
use IE7, or im too used to FF, or IE7 really confuses me over IE6... hate the refresh and stop buttons position, hate the search feature and favourites really make me nervous. I started using FF for security reasons, but i got really addicted to it after installing some addons, and i cant really live without the addons anymore.. :D Import&Export favourites, and the favourites bar with the rss feeds are something i just cant ignore anymore. Cheers!


... what?
By XesBOX on 7/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: ... what?
By Rampage on 7/18/2007 3:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares.
I use Internet Explorer. It works, and works right the majority of the time.

I see no need for Firefox. I need something with the features I need (tabs ect) and will get up and go right away.

I'm too busy to be bothered with add-ins ect.
Just give me a browser that has the basics, and does what it does do... well. For me, thats IE7.

If I couldn't use IE7, I prefer Opera to FF. Yes I've used them all extensively.


RE: ... what?
By quickk on 7/18/2007 3:41:52 PM , Rating: 3
You should try Firefox with the addblock+ plugin (as well as easyelements and easylist). It will make your browsing so much more pleasant!


RE: ... what?
By enlil242 on 7/18/2007 8:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
I hear ya on this one. I used IE 6 and now use IE 7. I like IE 7 for the added feature of Tabs and other security features, (Phishing fileter / pop-up blocker). None of FF's add-ins really appeal to me, nor do I feel as though I am missing something.

The reason the other browser don't appeal to me is they just aren't compelling to me, and I use a lot of web applictions that use activeX controls. FF and Opera aren't useful to me in this regard. And I finally saw Safari on Windows today and thought it was just as unuseful as it is / was on my Mac. When I had my G5, I pereferred Opera...


RE: ... what?
By xphile on 7/19/2007 12:07:22 AM , Rating: 2
Quite a lot of people do care. I'm not knocking your viewpoint, I myself felt the same way for a long time. Id been a Netscape user for around 10 years and it did the job so why worry about anything else. Then I sat with a Firefox user with Adblock Plus, the Scrapbook, TabMixPlus and Session Manager in action and it totally changed my opinion of what a web browser should be, and has since totally changed how much I get out of the net.

Each to their own of course, but until you've tried Add-ons that really add something special you wont know what you were missing. You kinda make it sound like it would take so long to install and understand but the really great ones are very intuitive, which is what makes them great.

I liken it to when you buy that car you really want, then over time you pay big dollars for the added performance parts and modifications that make it truly perform and unique. Just here someone else is doing all the work and providing all the parts for free - you just get to enjoy the end product. And I reckon thats a deal too suite to ignore.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki