Quote:
|
Originally Posted by InfoMiner
Who in their right mind argue that IE is better than FireFox? You've either just come back from Mars or had a time lapse of about two years or so. Do a simple Google search regarding this issue, you will find yourself a many more arguments on this subject.
|
There are also tons of results on Google supporting White Pride, alien encounters, and zoophilia. What's your point? That because some people support it, and that their viewpoints have somehow gotten into Google SERPs, that their viewpoints are correct?
And even if the majority did support your viewpoint (and browser statistics indicate that they don't), we also believed in chucking women off of cliffs to see if they were witches and curing illness with bloodsucking leeches. The majority doesn't always make the right call.
IE doesn't use 1/5 of the machine resource FF does. And that's before "extensions".
IE doesn't have a safe mode because it doesn't need one. No browser should need a safe mode. Period. This is just insane.
IE doesn't publish its source code, making it available to anyone with black hat intentions.
IE,
if configured correctly along with one's computer in general, can run without intrusion.
IE doesn't have the disadvantage of having volunteer coders that would likely not give FF their first priority if and when something goes wrong. If you're using a browser for commercial purposes, then this is an issue.
IE has some cool CSS filters (e.g. the MS Gradient) that FF doesn't.
FF is bloatware. Come on...how many of you would
actually USE all of those searches in the search bar FF provides? "Oh, but they can be customized." Gimme a damn break. Most people have maybe 1 or 2 engines that they use and that's it.
The only reason FF is "updated" more frequently than IE is simply because it has to be. You launch a new product, there are going to be screwups.
The "marketing" for FF is just ridiculous. "Take back the web." From who? Who owns it? Microsoft, based on browser share? Oh my god. This could be a serious problem considering they make $0 off of the browser.
"But it's supplied with Windows, and you can't get rid of it, and they're making money off of the operating system so in a way it's commercial." First of all, if you don't use it, it doesn't take up resource. So people do have the choice. Second, many ISPs (e.g. Bell Sympatico) do supply multiple browsers as part of their installation software. So it's not like people don't have a choice. Third, if that is the case, why doesn't FF go ahead and build a whole OS around the browser to compete? If MS has laid out the rules of the game like that, then FF should if they're smart be playing along.
Microsoft creates packages of software and ties them together with one another better than any other company. Is this wrong? I don't think so. Try taking the body of a Honda, drop a Ford engine into that, maybe a radiator from a Chevy, and see how it works. With software, it's the same concept.
The ONLY thing that I prefer in FF over IE, and this goes back to the Netscape days, is the Javascript console. If IE adopted that, i would have no practical use for FF at all.
As far as rendering of web pages, I've found that IE generally gets more right than FF in about a 3-3.5:1 margin.
IE > FF.