MozillaZine

Very interesting: Firefox Myths

Discussion of general topics about Mozilla Firefox
Andreasm82
 
Posts: 535
Joined: April 5th, 2005, 11:30 am
Location: Germany, Saarland

Post Posted December 18th, 2005, 5:57 am

Greets, Andreas
My german energy-saving page - let's stop wasting of energy!

old FatJohn
 
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post Posted 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

User avatar
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: December 13th, 2004, 2:28 am
Location: In the shadow of Mount St. Helens

Post Posted 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...
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) .

Hendikins

User avatar
 
Posts: 26
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm
Location: On a train

Post Posted 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.
 
Posts: 157
Joined: May 3rd, 2004, 3:53 am
Location: London, England

Post Posted December 18th, 2005, 6:59 am

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

scratch

User avatar
 
Posts: 4942
Joined: November 6th, 2002, 1:27 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post Posted 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.

BenBasson
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 13661
Joined: February 13th, 2004, 5:49 am
Location: London, UK

Post Posted December 18th, 2005, 5:16 pm

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

bcool

User avatar
 
Posts: 638
Joined: December 27th, 2003, 9:01 am
Location: Ozarks

Post Posted 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:
Never let them see you sweat

Mastertech
 
Posts: 24
Joined: March 18th, 2005, 6:38 pm

Post Posted 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.

BenBasson
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 13661
Joined: February 13th, 2004, 5:49 am
Location: London, UK

Post Posted 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

User avatar
 
Posts: 474
Joined: April 22nd, 2005, 1:48 am
Location: Germany

Post Posted 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
 
Posts: 24
Joined: March 18th, 2005, 6:38 pm

Post Posted 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.

BenBasson
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 13661
Joined: February 13th, 2004, 5:49 am
Location: London, UK

Post Posted 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
 
Posts: 3826
Joined: November 14th, 2004, 4:41 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Post Posted 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
I'm moving to Theory, everything works there.
Most issues are solved by going through the Standard Diagnostic

Mastertech
 
Posts: 24
Joined: March 18th, 2005, 6:38 pm

Post Posted 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.

Return to Firefox General


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests