Very interesting: Firefox Myths

Andreasm82 · Post by **Andreasm82** » December 18th, 2005, 5:57 am

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

old FatJohn · Post by **old FatJohn** » December 18th, 2005, 6:20 am

Your first link is not very interesting. It's outright funny.

Your second link doesn't even include Firefox 1.5...

greenknight · Post by **greenknight** » December 18th, 2005, 6:27 am

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...

Hendikins · Post by **Hendikins** » December 18th, 2005, 6:34 am

I'll give the OP the benefit of the doubt in this instance, but keep it civil in the replies.

Tom B. · Post by **Tom B.** » December 18th, 2005, 6:59 am

The OP might be interested in http://nanobox.chipx86.com/ie_is_dangerous.php.

scratch · Post by **scratch** » December 18th, 2005, 4:38 pm

FatJohn wrote:Your second link doesn't even include Firefox 1.5...

yes it does. and, interestingly, seamonkey is faster than firefox at, um, everything.

Post by **BenBasson** » December 18th, 2005, 5:16 pm

Yeah, for example, SeaMonkey lets you make totally unfounded claims much faster.

bcool · Post by **bcool** » December 18th, 2005, 5:20 pm

Cusser wrote:Yeah, for example, SeaMonkey lets you make totally unfounded claims much faster.

I wish I had said that! :lol:

Mastertech · Post by **Mastertech** » December 19th, 2005, 6:17 am

It looks like Mozilla is faster. Kind of Ironic? When Firefox is supposed to be the lean mean browser.

Post by **BenBasson** » December 19th, 2005, 6:26 am

No, the only irony here is the complete lack of backup for the claim. SeaMonkey is faster than Firefox 1.0.x, but not Firefox 1.5. It's not really possible that two products using an identical back-end can have noticeably different speeds.

Feuerfuchs_0815 · Post by **Feuerfuchs_0815** » December 19th, 2005, 6:34 am

Mastertech wrote:It looks like Mozilla is faster. Kind of Ironic? When Firefox is supposed to be the lean mean browser.

Well, at least up to version 1.5 Firefox felt faster than Seamonkey... ;-)

Mastertech · Post by **Mastertech** » December 19th, 2005, 6:38 am

Either way it pretty much dispells that Firefox is faster then anything. It does prove Opera is faster then them all.

Post by **BenBasson** » December 19th, 2005, 6:51 am

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.

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...]

JaredM · Post by **JaredM** » December 19th, 2005, 7:03 am

Cusser wrote:Yeah, for example, SeaMonkey lets you make totally unfounded claims much faster.

Thanks for making my morning

Mastertech · Post by **Mastertech** » December 19th, 2005, 7:06 am

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.

Um the page shows the exact opposite. Where are your sources?

Cusser wrote:Firefox now supports more than Opera, let alone IE (which is way, way behind): http://nanobox.chipx86.com/browser_support.php

No it doesn't look at the totals at the bottom. Opera supports 88% and Firefox 1.5 83% HTML.

Cusser wrote:Stating that IE has more XHTML1.1 changes and therefore has better support "for standards" is ridiculous.

Where does it say IE supports MORE standards? Are you reading the same page. Don't make implications.