Very interesting: Firefox Myths
-
- Posts: 535
- Joined: April 5th, 2005, 11:30 am
- Location: Germany, Saarland
- Contact:
Very interesting: Firefox Myths
Firefox Myths
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD ... Myths.html
and
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html
[edit] - By Moderator:
Two articles which refute Firefox Myths:
http://robert.accettura.com/archives/20 ... fox-myths/
http://nanobox.chipx86.com/blog/2005/12 ... -myths.php
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD ... Myths.html
and
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html
[edit] - By Moderator:
Two articles which refute Firefox Myths:
http://robert.accettura.com/archives/20 ... fox-myths/
http://nanobox.chipx86.com/blog/2005/12 ... -myths.php
Greets, Andreas
My german energy-saving page - let's stop wasting of energy!
My german energy-saving page - let's stop wasting of energy!
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm
- greenknight
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: December 13th, 2004, 2:28 am
- Location: In the shadow of Mount St. Helens
Seen all this FUD before. Those speed tests are too limited to mean anything, to be a valid test it would have to be repeated many times, on many different computers. They would need to be freshly reformatted before each browser was installed, to insure the same baseline condition for each test.
If you follow the link to the source for the "multiple unpatched vulnerabilities" claim, you find a Secunia page which reveals that there are 3 "less critical" unpatched vunerabilities. Oooh, scary...
If you follow the link to the source for the "multiple unpatched vulnerabilities" claim, you find a Secunia page which reveals that there are 3 "less critical" unpatched vunerabilities. Oooh, scary...
Win 10 Pro x64, AMD Ryzen 5 5600G 6 core, 3900 MHz (4450 Turbo), AMD Radeon Vega (integrated graphics). 16GB DDR4-3200, Firefox 125.0.2, Developer Edition 126.0b5, Nightly 127.0a1.
-
- Posts: 157
- Joined: May 3rd, 2004, 3:53 am
- Location: London, England
The OP might be interested in http://nanobox.chipx86.com/ie_is_dangerous.php.
- BenBasson
- Moderator
- Posts: 13671
- Joined: February 13th, 2004, 5:49 am
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: March 18th, 2005, 6:38 pm
- BenBasson
- Moderator
- Posts: 13671
- Joined: February 13th, 2004, 5:49 am
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
- Feuerfuchs_0815
- Posts: 474
- Joined: April 22nd, 2005, 1:48 am
- Location: Germany
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: March 18th, 2005, 6:38 pm
- BenBasson
- Moderator
- Posts: 13671
- Joined: February 13th, 2004, 5:49 am
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Except not.
Everyone knows that Opera and IE have a shorter start-up time. Rendering speeds are close between Firefox and Opera (and can be argued both ways, Opera typically performing better on lower-end systems). Rendering times of both Opera and Firefox are much better than IE in nearly all cases.
Firefox now supports more than Opera, let alone IE (which is way, way behind): http://nanobox.chipx86.com/browser_support.php
Stating that IE has more XHTML1.1 changes and therefore has better support "for standards" is ridiculous. It lacks so much basic support for other things that an implementation of ruby is hardly a saving grace. [Edit: haha, especially as IE is missing 42% of XHTML1.0 changes...]
Everyone knows that Opera and IE have a shorter start-up time. Rendering speeds are close between Firefox and Opera (and can be argued both ways, Opera typically performing better on lower-end systems). Rendering times of both Opera and Firefox are much better than IE in nearly all cases.
Mastertech wrote:Come on you never heard people say FF supports standards and IE doesn't?
Firefox now supports more than Opera, let alone IE (which is way, way behind): http://nanobox.chipx86.com/browser_support.php
Stating that IE has more XHTML1.1 changes and therefore has better support "for standards" is ridiculous. It lacks so much basic support for other things that an implementation of ruby is hardly a saving grace. [Edit: haha, especially as IE is missing 42% of XHTML1.0 changes...]
-
- Posts: 3826
- Joined: November 14th, 2004, 4:41 am
- Location: Alberta, Canada
- Contact:
Cusser wrote:Yeah, for example, SeaMonkey lets you make totally unfounded claims much faster.
Thanks for making my morning
I'm moving to Theory, everything works there.
Most issues are solved by going through the Standard Diagnostic
Most issues are solved by going through the Standard Diagnostic
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: March 18th, 2005, 6:38 pm
Um the page shows the exact opposite. Where are your sources?Cusser wrote:Except not.
Everyone knows that Opera and IE have a shorter start-up time. Rendering speeds are close between Firefox and Opera (and can be argued both ways, Opera typically performing better on lower-end systems). Rendering times of both Opera and Firefox are much better than IE in nearly all cases.
No it doesn't look at the totals at the bottom. Opera supports 88% and Firefox 1.5 83% HTML.Cusser wrote:Firefox now supports more than Opera, let alone IE (which is way, way behind): http://nanobox.chipx86.com/browser_support.php
Where does it say IE supports MORE standards? Are you reading the same page. Don't make implications.Cusser wrote:Stating that IE has more XHTML1.1 changes and therefore has better support "for standards" is ridiculous.