Discussion of general topics about Mozilla Firefox
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD ... Myths.html
 - 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
My german energy-saving page - let's stop wasting of energy!
Your first link is not very interesting. It's outright funny.
Your second link doesn't even include Firefox 1.5...
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...
Win 7 Home Premium SP1 x64, Linux Mint 17 MATE x64, AMD A4 5300 APU 3.6 GHz, ADATA XPG DDR3 1600 8GB, ATI Radeon HD 5450 1GB, Firefox 39.0, Developer Edition 40.0a2 (Win only), Nightly 42.0a1x64 (Win), Nightly 41.0a1 (Linux AMD64) .
I'll give the OP the benefit of the doubt in this instance, but keep it civil in the replies.
yes it does. and, interestingly, seamonkey is faster than firefox at, um, everything.
Yeah, for example, SeaMonkey lets you make totally unfounded claims much faster.
I wish I had said that!
Never let them see you sweat
It looks like Mozilla is faster. Kind of Ironic? When Firefox is supposed to be the lean mean browser.
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.
Well, at least up to version 1.5 Firefox felt faster than Seamonkey...
Either way it pretty much dispells that Firefox is faster then anything. It does prove Opera is faster then them all.
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...]
Thanks for making my morning
I'm moving to Theory, everything works there.
Most issues are solved by going through the Standard Diagnostic
Um the page shows the exact opposite. Where are your sources?
No it doesn't look at the totals at the bottom. Opera supports 88% and Firefox 1.5 83% HTML.
Where does it say IE supports MORE standards? Are you reading the same page. Don't make implications.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests