Firefox Vs IE

[+Nakedbamboo]

I realize that a lot of people say that all the new changes work better with Firefox than they do with IE, however, in my opinion, if you are going to upgrade something that people pay for that works perfectly fine in IE, the upgrade should work just as well in IE. Not all of us, and I would say probably not the majority of us, have any desire to Firefox. Call us unflexible, dumb, whatever, I don't care. I don't want another piece of software on my computer that I am only going to use to visit 1 website.

[+Miragee]

The problem is that IE often does not work with correct code. A well-written web site will work better in Firefox, or Opera, the browser I use, while that same well-written code will not display properly in IE.

 

A website designer should be writing code correctly . . . not writing it to work in only one browser . . .

[+TheCarterFamily]

GO FIREFOX!

 

IE is microsoft only. Firefox works in many other platforms. Linux, Mac, Windows... and since you can get the source code many others. (ie Solaris)

 

I say go for it. Make it work in mozilla tech before IE.

 

I hate windows only sites... especially since I run Linux

[+IDLookout]

Thankfully, I see everything fine in my Firefox, as well as every other website I visit - I dislike IE. At least it's nice for us to have a choice.

 

[+Renegade Knight]

...I don't want another piece of software on my computer that I am only going to use to visit 1 website.

 

Neither do I. However I also like softare that works as it should IE has may IE only standards, and does not always use correct internet standards used by every other browser that you have chosen not to install.

 

Those other browsers won't work right for the sites that choose to use IE standards because IE is the dominant browser. You have to pick your poison.

 

I use both IE and Firefox and find there are things that I like about both. Since 2.0 though I've switched to Firefox being the predominat browser.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+roveron]

I'm a Firefox only user 99% of the time. For the sites that insist on being IE centric I have the Frefox extension "IE Tab" and set them to automatically load in an IE tab.

[+mousekakat]

IE is slow in comparison and in perpetual danger of viruses, hacking, and other little nasties that jerks with too much time on their hands like to toss out there. Keeping it updated is a major PIA, and not updating it is like having sex with a hooker without a condom, you just don't know what you're going to pick up from random sites out there!

 

I'll take my Opera or hubby's Firefox ANY day of the week.

 

OH, and for the record, Outlook and Outlook Express are just as disasterous and dangerous... we go for Eudora, ourselves!

[+TrailGators]

...I don't want another piece of software on my computer that I am only going to use to visit 1 website.

 

Neither do I. However I also like softare that works as it should IE has may IE only standards, and does not always use correct internet standards used by every other browser that you have chosen not to install.

 

Those other browsers won't work right for the sites that choose to use IE standards because IE is the dominant browser. You have to pick your poison.

 

I use both IE and Firefox and find there are things that I like about both. Since 2.0 though I've switched to Firefox being the predominat browser.

I'm exactly the same way. I've found that IE is more susceptable to spyware. I also like the geocaching plugins for Firefox. There is no browser that I have seen that had more goodies available for geocaching!

[+QuesterMark]

I think that the entire site should work well in and be tested with the following browsers (not in any particular order):

 

IE 6 and 7

Firefox on Windows, Linux, Solaris, and Mac OS X

Safari on Windows and Mac OS X

Opera on all the above OSes.

Konqueror (sp?) on Linux.

 

At a minimum.

 

I use Firefox on Windows and Mac OS X most of the time.

I also have Safari and Opera on both platforms.

Have to have IE too, because parts of the internet work better in it.

 

Besides, if you use GSAK, it doesn't matter what your DEFAULT browser is, the bottom half of GSAK uses IE's engine.

 

I'd appreciate a bit of statistics from Groundspeak though, about what browser is used by percentages.

[+StarBrand]

On the websites I manage - about 80% of visitors use Internet Explorer either IE 6 or 7. Mostly 6.

 

IE - like it, love it or hate it is still the browser that most folks use.

 

Many things about IE I perfer. Some things I don't. Firefox is ok - but not always.

[+Team Cotati]

The problem is that IE often does not work with correct code. A well-written web site will work better in Firefox, or Opera, the browser I use, while that same well-written code will not display properly in IE.

 

A website designer should be writing code correctly . . . not writing it to work in only one browser . . .

 

Often doesn't work with "correct code". Is that right? What odds are you offering on that?

 

I quite honestly believe that there are those who'd rather wank and whine about Microsoft than oh ...uh...Geocache or maybe even shop at Wal-Mart.

 

By any legitimate measure, writing software for general use that does not work well with Microsoft is a gigantic losing proposition. Brings to mind a little saying that my old boss used to say: "There is little comfort or success in being Dead Right"

Edited October 11, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+Team Cotati]

On the websites I manage - about 80% of visitors use Internet Explorer either IE 6 or 7. Mostly 6.

 

IE - like it, love it or hate it is still the browser that most folks use.

 

Many things about IE I perfer. Some things I don't. Firefox is ok - but not always.

 

Only 80%, must be a pretty limited interest group, eh?

[+TheCarterFamily]

Since we're on the topic of browser compatibility.

 

http://browsershots.org/

 

I've been using this to test my apps to see what they work in and look like.

[+TrailGators]

The problem is that IE often does not work with correct code. A well-written web site will work better in Firefox, or Opera, the browser I use, while that same well-written code will not display properly in IE.

 

A website designer should be writing code correctly . . . not writing it to work in only one browser . . .

 

Often doesn't work with "correct code". Is that right? What odds are you offering on that?

 

I quite honestly believe that there are those who'd rather wank and whine about Microsoft than oh ...uh...Geocache or maybe even shop at Wal-Mart.

 

By any legitimate measure, writing software for general use that does not work well with Microsoft is a gigantic losing proposition. Brings to mind a little saying that my old boss used to say: "There is little comfort or success in being Dead Right"

There is this irrational "I hate Microsoft" religion. When you consider how many different PC/software configurations exist, it is pretty amazing how well it does work.

[+Prime Suspect]

I realize that a lot of people say that all the new changes work better with Firefox than they do with IE, however, in my opinion, if you are going to upgrade something that people pay for that works perfectly fine in IE, the upgrade should work just as well in IE. Not all of us, and I would say probably not the majority of us, have any desire to Firefox. Call us unflexible, dumb, whatever, I don't care. I don't want another piece of software on my computer that I am only going to use to visit 1 website.

If the horizontal hold on my TV set is broken, I don't complain to the cable company that they're not providing a signal that will show up correctly on my TV.

[+yorelken]

The problem is that IE often does not work with correct code. A well-written web site will work better in Firefox, or Opera, the browser I use, while that same well-written code will not display properly in IE.

 

A website designer should be writing code correctly . . . not writing it to work in only one browser . . .

 

Often doesn't work with "correct code". Is that right? What odds are you offering on that?

 

I quite honestly believe that there are those who'd rather wank and whine about Microsoft than oh ...uh...Geocache or maybe even shop at Wal-Mart.

 

By any legitimate measure, writing software for general use that does not work well with Microsoft is a gigantic losing proposition. Brings to mind a little saying that my old boss used to say: "There is little comfort or success in being Dead Right"

There is this irrational "I hate Microsoft" religion. When you consider how many different PC/software configurations exist, it is pretty amazing how well it does work.

A couple of other old sayings: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Change for the sake of change."

[+Shilo]

 

IE - like it, love it or hate it is still the browser that most folks use.

 

 

That's like saying that most people use Goodyear tires on their cars when car manufactures put Goodyear's on all cars.

(The above is an example. I have no idea if car makers use Goodyear tires. But you get the point )

[+TrailGators]

A couple of other old sayings: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Change for the sake of change."

If this were "always" true, we'd all still be using typewriters. Productivity drives the advances (changes) in the PC world. As the hardware advances then so must the software. If you don't like something then don't buy it. Microsoft is successful because a lot of people buy their products.

[+TrailGators]

 

IE - like it, love it or hate it is still the browser that most folks use.

 

 

That's like saying that most people use Goodyear tires on their cars when car manufactures put Goodyear's on all cars.

(The above is an example. I have no idea if car makers use Goodyear tires. But you get the point )

You can easily load your PC with whatever you want to use. Edited October 12, 2007 by TrailGators

[+roveron]

If you don't like something then don't buy it.

That's true sometimes, but love MS or hate them, for most of the personal computer years MS wouldn't let the big name computer makers sell computers without paying them a royalty, whether they has a Microsoft OS or not.

 

And the goodyear analogy was spot on.

Edited October 12, 2007 by roveron

[+kewfriend]

Its always true that afficianados of non-MS products are the likely prosletysers - but - I suspect that there is little overall difference proportionately on MS to non-MS users on geocaching.com as to what's out there in the general population.

 

As it so happens I'm an IE7 installation - and yes - I do have FF and I dont use it. I'd certainly raise an eyebrow if Jeremy wanted to force me to use FF because my IE7 pages didnt run correctly on geo.com, but I think Jeremy is more sensible than that: seemed a regular bloke with his head screwed on when we saw him in London.

[+TheCarterFamily]

Its always true that afficianados of non-MS products are the likely prosletysers - but - I suspect that there is little overall difference proportionately on MS to non-MS users on geocaching.com as to what's out there in the general population.

 

As it so happens I'm an IE7 installation - and yes - I do have FF and I dont use it. I'd certainly raise an eyebrow if Jeremy wanted to force me to use FF because my IE7 pages didnt run correctly on geo.com, but I think Jeremy is more sensible than that: seemed a regular bloke with his head screwed on when we saw him in London.

 

Actually I don't think Jeremy if forcing anything. He's probably following industry standards like 3w.org. The problem is Microsoft is trying to force IE on the world. So one of their tricks/tactics is to make custom standards that will only ever work in IE. Then push the world to use them.

 

I'm a linux user. So I have no choice. IE will not run nativly on my system. (only with emulation) All my sites are written using firefox/mozilla. I test them with IE but I have a lot of trouble keeping up with MS changes. Seems every time there is an update IE doesn't handle some 3w.org standard properly, or differently

 

Although MS/IE is included on every machine, trying to force it on the market. It's not the only choice anymore and more people are discovering it.

[+roveron]

I'd certainly raise an eyebrow if Jeremy wanted to force me to use FF because my IE7 pages didnt run correctly on geo.com

And well you should. Likewise he shouldn't force people to us IE.

Given Tim Berners-Lee's goal when he invented the World Wide Web, it only makes sense to develop web sites based on standards of the W3C and then, as time/need/desire allows, make allowances for browsers that don't render them properly.

[+StarBrand]

I'd certainly raise an eyebrow if Jeremy wanted to force me to use FF because my IE7 pages didnt run correctly on geo.com

And well you should. Likewise he shouldn't force people to us IE.

Given Tim Berners-Lee's goal when he invented the World Wide Web, it only makes sense to develop web sites based on standards of the W3C and then, as time/need/desire allows, make allowances for browsers that don't render them properly.

So you would be willing to upset the 80%+ of users that strictly use IE - even if it looks bad??

 

Like I said earlier, you may be a Microsoft hater or lover but it really doesn't matter. Fact is fact - it is the dominant browser on the market in use today despite numerous free browser options. It is the defacto standard for designers - whether they like to admit it or not.

[+roveron]

So you would be willing to upset the 80%+ of users that strictly use IE - even if it looks bad??

Well..I don't know what to say to people who chose to use something that breaks when a web site follows W3C standards.

If I drove a make of car that had a wheel fall off every time I drove over a section of highway that was built to DOT/NHTSA standards I'd probaby get my cars from a different mfg.

[+TrailGators]

If you don't like something then don't buy it.

That's true sometimes, but love MS or hate them, for most of the personal computer years MS wouldn't let the big name computer makers sell computers without paying them a royalty, whether they has a Microsoft OS or not.

 

And the goodyear analogy was spot on.

What other operating systems were the PC manufacturers supposed to ship with their PCs during those years? Remember any good ones? I don't. Plus there are many alternatives to Goodyear so the tire analogy doesn't work well at all. Debeers might actually be a better analogy....

[+Shilo]

Well..I don't know what to say to people who chose to use something that breaks when a web site follows W3C standards.

If I drove a make of car that had a wheel fall off every time I drove over a section of highway that was built to DOT/NHTSA standards I'd probaby get my cars from a different mfg.

[+roveron]

If you don't like something then don't buy it.

That's true sometimes, but love MS or hate them, for most of the personal computer years MS wouldn't let the big name computer makers sell computers without paying them a royalty, whether they has a Microsoft OS or not.

 

And the goodyear analogy was spot on.

What other operating systems were the PC manufacturers supposed to ship with their PCs during those years? Remember any good ones? I don't.

Yes. PC DOS, DR DOS (later Novell DOS 7), all much superior than MS DOS ever dreamed of. For a GUI OS, OS/2, much superior to Win3.1, and Mobile Computing rated it better than Win95 and was better than NT. But none of the alternatives were allowed to be preloaded without still paying a royalty to MS for MS DOS, Windows, or both.

 

Plus there are many alternatives to Goodyear so the tire analogy doesn't work well at all.

Yes it does, Firefox is not only an alternative, but a better and more functional and customizable browser than IE.

[+TheCarterFamily]

So you would be willing to upset the 80%+ of users that strictly use IE - even if it looks bad??

Well..I don't know what to say to people who chose to use something that breaks when a web site follows W3C standards.

If I drove a make of car that had a wheel fall off every time I drove over a section of highway that was built to DOT/NHTSA standards I'd probaby get my cars from a different mfg.

 

Good point. So why is everyone using Microsoft Windows then? They make up their own standards as they go.

[+Ambrosia]

So you would be willing to upset the 80%+ of users that strictly use IE - even if it looks bad??

Well..I don't know what to say to people who chose to use something that breaks when a web site follows W3C standards.

If I drove a make of car that had a wheel fall off every time I drove over a section of highway that was built to DOT/NHTSA standards I'd probaby get my cars from a different mfg.

 

Good point. So why is everyone using Microsoft Windows then? They make up their own standards as they go.

Why do people use AOL?

 

Ok....I won't go there.

[+Prime Suspect]

Good point. So why is everyone using Microsoft Windows then? They make up their own standards as they go.

Back in the 60s through the mid 80s, there was a saying in the IT (or DP, as it was known then) world: No one ever got fired for choosing IBM.

 

For better or worse, that's evolved into No one ever got fired for choosing Microsoft. Microsoft has used that power to bully others into following their "standards" and pretty much doing as they pleased. Put out a browser that can't render progressive JPEG images correctly? Sure, why not? Create an email client that's practically a virus delivery system? You betcha!

Edited October 13, 2007 by Prime Suspect

[+Glenn]

Its always true that afficianados of non-MS products are the likely prosletysers - but - I suspect that there is little overall difference proportionately on MS to non-MS users on geocaching.com as to what's out there in the general population.

 

As it so happens I'm an IE7 installation - and yes - I do have FF and I dont use it. I'd certainly raise an eyebrow if Jeremy wanted to force me to use FF because my IE7 pages didnt run correctly on geo.com, but I think Jeremy is more sensible than that: seemed a regular bloke with his head screwed on when we saw him in London.

 

Actually I don't think Jeremy if forcing anything. He's probably following industry standards like 3w.org. The problem is Microsoft is trying to force IE on the world. So one of their tricks/tactics is to make custom standards that will only ever work in IE. Then push the world to use them.

 

I'm a linux user. So I have no choice. IE will not run nativly on my system. (only with emulation) All my sites are written using firefox/mozilla. I test them with IE but I have a lot of trouble keeping up with MS changes. Seems every time there is an update IE doesn't handle some 3w.org standard properly, or differently

 

Although MS/IE is included on every machine, trying to force it on the market. It's not the only choice anymore and more people are discovering it.

 

I've coded a few web pages in my time and I've run in to the same problem with IE. I follow the W3C standards for HTML and the web pages work as intended on all browsers that follow the W3C standards. However, IE has a very bad habit of doing its own thing and not implementing the standards correctly. Which usually means that I write the web page for the W3C standard first. Then I publish the web page. Then I work on jumping thru hoops to make the web page work with IE without breaking it for the browsers that do follow the standard properly. Sometimes this isn't possible or practical to make things work correctly for browsers that don't follow the W3C standards and that means that IE loses out.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Glenn

[+TrailGators]

What other operating systems were the PC manufacturers supposed to ship with their PCs during those years? Remember any good ones? I don't.

Yes. PC DOS, DR DOS (later Novell DOS 7), all much superior than MS DOS ever dreamed of. For a GUI OS, OS/2, much superior to Win3.1, and Mobile Computing rated it better than Win95 and was better than NT. But none of the alternatives were allowed to be preloaded without still paying a royalty to MS for MS DOS, Windows, or both.

If there was nothing that was owned by MS then royalties wouldn't have to be paid. Apple didn't pay royalties because there was nothing they used that MS owned. The bottomline is that nobody else did a good job of marketing a viable PC solution that didn't use MS software.

 

Plus there are many alternatives to Goodyear so the tire analogy doesn't work well at all.

Yes it does, Firefox is not only an alternative, but a better and more functional and customizable browser than IE.

I thought the analogy was to MS (tire manufacturer - Goodyear). There have always been dozens of tire manufacturers but there "were" only two main OS manufacturers for the mass-market when MS took off. Apple let a golden opportunity slip through it's fingers because their solution was so expensive. I remember buying a Mac II in '85 for $4000. In today's dollars that's ~$10,000. So the PC+MS was a viable (not perfect) cost effective solution. MS bundled IE with it's OS. Firefox is better. But to this day nobody is doing a good job at marketing a better alternative PC solution, so MS is still bundling IE. I guess if you are a computer jock you can build one but the mass-market can't do that.

[+Shilo]

I thought the analogy was to MS (tire manufacturer - Goodyear). There have always been dozens of tire manufacturers but there "were" only two main OS manufacturers for the mass-market when MS took off.

 

My point was, using my original analogy, was if you buy a car with Goodyear's you pretty much use them. How many people buy a car off the lot and run to a tire store to change to another tire company.

Same with MS IE pre loaded on all Microsoft OS loaded PC's. How many people run out and download another web browser immediately. Not very many. Some do, don't get me wrong but your general non pc techie wont.

[iryshe]

I'm going to close the IE vs Firefox topic since it really doesn't have much bearing on our requirement to support both. There are plenty of sites you can go to to kvetch about either browser.