Is Firefox & Thunderbird better than IE & Outlook?

[prathapml]

In other words, firefox doesn't fix the issues by actually setting them right, it disables whatever could cause problems.....

And easy to configure? Uhmm a hundred-and-one topics started here about uA setting-up firefox say something else....

The plugins/extensions? I'm ready to faint on this - the architecture of this is really outdated and needs an update, but I see no way of it happening! Merge X, Y, Z extensions into ff install, pre-configure the settings, do the dialog-boxes, set it to take an existing profile backed-up elsewhere - do all of this in the course of a uA (within 10 seconds). That's when it will mean something!

FYI, all of this is easily done in a uA, with IE or opera. The odd one out is?

As for the _free_ mail-client wars, thunderbird beats OE hands down. Since you are already used to ff and the modularity it offers, give tb a try for some days!

[ianmassey]

I use IE as part of Maxthon, and I experience no security issues whatsoever as a result of it. Even on high risk sites, a combination of my IE settings, maxthon settings, anti-spyware settings, and NOD32 antivirus settings does not allow anything even remotely malicious to ever touch my hard drive. I scan for spyware daily via task scheduler, and not once have I found anything with any of the 3 programs I use for it. Viruses also have been nonexistent. If you are competent enough to configure firefox, you are competent enough to use IE and IE based browsers without risk to your data or network.

so now that the security issues are out of the way, the choice becomes one of personal preference as it relates to speed and features. we all know IE opens quicker, thanks to being integrated with the shell. all reasonably unbiased tests have shown that IE outperforms firefox speed-wise on all measurable page rendering tasks, from tables to scripts. Firefox 1.0 and 1.1 both have a documented memory leak issue, which causes it to bloat and bloat RAM usage-wise the longer you leave it open for. IE has no such flaw, and furthermore, IE with maxthon uses less than 1/2 the amount of ram as firefox or IE alone.

featurewise, IE with maxthon can easily compete head-to-head with firefox and any extensions. A large number of firefox extensions are written by amateur programmers and will subject your browser and machine to unnecessary bugs and crashes. I say this from 1 year+ experience using firefox as my main browser. IE with maxthon suffers from no such handicap, and has yet to crash on me a single time. Not so much as a stutter.

The benefits of open source and freeware are shouted from the rooftops by slashdotters and firefox fanboys worldwide, however, the reality is that in a large number of cases, INCLUDING firefox, open source development cripples the software as a result of the sheer number of people working on the literally thousands of bugs that are known and repeatable at any given time. The code is not contiguous or written in a way that compliments itself from every direction, and is not developed in a linear, organized fashion in the same way that software from Microsoft or comparable organizations is.

Bottom line is, if you prefer firefox for whatever reason, great. Use it. If you are like me and you give everything out there a shot, and let the winner show itself through time and experience, then chances are good you're going to end up using an IE based solution just as I have.

just my two cents.

p.s. i use outlook express, because my pop3 email is secondary, i get zero junk mail through it, and i don't use it for anything serious. GMail is my number 1, and all of my domain mail is forwarded to my gmail box.

[epic]

Is that your only excuse for not liking Firefox...

In other words, firefox doesn't fix the issues by actually setting them right, it disables whatever could cause problems..... 

Point out a perfect example that Firefox disables problems and does not "Fix"?

And easy to configure?  Uhmm  a hundred-and-one topics started here about uA setting-up firefox say something else....

You bet it is.. AND it's open source... meaning I could go into and change whatever settings I wish and recompile it to my corporate environmet (which we have). You dont get that for every browser.

The plugins/extensions?

Hmm.. so "only" Firefox has plugins and extension? Correct me if I am wrong BUT Internet Explorer, Safari, Opera all have these. It just so happens that Internet Explorer and Firefox(Mozilla) have an insane amount since they have been marketed longer.

Your simple resolution to the Plugin/Extension war... "Don't use them if you do not need or like them!".

I'm ready to faint on this - the architecture of this is really outdated and needs an update, but I see no way of it happening! Merge X, Y, Z extensions into ff install, pre-configure the settings, do the dialog-boxes, set it to take an existing profile backed-up elsewhere - do all of this in the course of a uA (within 10 seconds). That's when it will mean something!

FYI, all of this is easily done in a uA, with IE or opera. The odd one out is?

Your right here... Firefox is not a simple Deployment product, it was not made for "Large Scale Corporate Environment's" and I doubt it will be anytime soon. The best thing about Firefox is that it is Open Source, it's "bare-boned", also if a Security threat is found everyone is aware of it within the community and fixed, nothing is hidden from the general public, it's all open for users to see "EXACTLY" what pre-emptive steps were taken to resolve the conflict. Just check the bug database.. it goes on since the Mozilla core has been active. Another positive point is that Firefox is not inundated with individuals searching for exploits as IE is, but will soon be.

Firefox is just not a free software it's dependent on the Open source community, but a lot of it's volunteers that do not have a paying ful'time job. Some of these volunteers spend there time 'unpaid, mind you' to provide the Internet Generation and themselves a better browser that is secure and ease of use, even some volunteers have dedicated there life work to mozilla and depend on donations to keep them going 'it's not much but puts food on the table and pays the electric bill'. But that's a differnt subject and won't get too in depth...

Moving forward, Opera does have its Pro's and Con's but a significant problem that has been sticking out like a sore thumb for 'years', they do not follow standards.

A simple explaination for everyone to understand; is CTRL+B which by any standard brings up your bookmarks.. opera wants you to use PF4.. But in many cases if you do not like this you can change it in the ini. I can list many more issues regarding Opera.. it's an endless list. However, having an ini file available to change at free will is a big plus but still does not change the fact. Another is it's engine's ability to display plain HTML and Java source. It's there software, but to be able to come on top they need to follow the "Standards" that are in place today, not change them.

However, Internet Explorer is the 'most secure' browser (when properly configured) available when your under a Windows environment.

[ianmassey]

Moving forward, Opera does have its Pro's and Con's but a significant problem that has been sticking out like a sore thumb for 'years', they do not follow standards.

Opera has better W3C standards compliance than any other windows web browser, including firefox. If you're talking about du jour "standards" such as hotkeys and the like, then I am ineligible to respond, because the only hotkeys I ever use are CTRL+D and CTRL+F.

[m8E]

When I'm at a particluar website and try to click on something sometimes a message box appears saying 'Redirection limit for this URL exceeded. Unable to load the requested page. This may be caused by cookies that are blocked'. This message box will come up 8 out of 10 times and the page I'm trying to get to will eventually come up if I persist in clicking lots of times on the same thing. No other website I use (using Firefox) does this, and using IE for the same website poses no such problems. Any thoughts on this?

I'm also finding that Firefox opens slower than IE.

[Tarun]

When I'm at a particluar website and try to click on something sometimes a message box appears saying 'Redirection limit for this URL exceeded. Unable to load the requested page. This may be caused by cookies that are blocked'.  This message box will come up 8 out of 10 times and the page I'm trying to get to will eventually come up if I persist in clicking lots of times on the same thing.  No other website I use (using Firefox) does this, and using IE for the same website poses no such problems. Any thoughts on this?

I'm also finding that Firefox opens slower than IE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Get ChromEdit and tweak it then! I've got a whole post in my forums on my site dedicated to the best Firefox tweaks.

[epic]

Opera has better W3C standards compliance than any other windows web browser, including firefox.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really

[prathapml]

Really 

Very really.

And just to rub it in:

Opera has had these features and we got used to it ages ago, while only now the moz devs are discussing the "possibility" of on-the-fly page zoom, and stateful tab-tied image display.

Also, the opera interface is 100x more customizable than ff. Does anyone realise that when they say that being based on XUL, ff UI is easily modifiable, that they have to wholly write a custom UI themselves to be able to break from the established window system? If even 10% of the firefox fanboys understood what went into compiling an app that you use all the time, with its dependencies, I will change my opinion. Most of them fanboys are just parrots picking up what the venerable evangelizers and repeating it, with out even understanding it.

Is that your only excuse for not liking Firefox...

Point out a perfect example that Firefox disables problems and does not "Fix"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IDN (yeah, turn it back on if you wish using about:config)

JS

aspx

Okay well, lets leave the proprietary world. Did you know to what extent ff simply is unable to handle the output of pl? (perl scripts) (Consider that both perl and mozilla are children of the same wave, and that perl is mostly processed at the server-end, BUT STILL ff has pathetic interaction with it).

And easy to configure?  Uhmm  a hundred-and-one topics started here about uA setting-up firefox say something else....

You bet it is.. AND it's open source... meaning I could go into and change whatever settings I wish and recompile it to my corporate environmet (which we have). You dont get that for every browser.

Did I miss out on emphasising what i mean? Please see the red-highlighted parts again.

You yourself admit later, that deploying ff hasn't been given the attention it deserves.

As for re-compiling it, did I mention that ff is wonderful? You can optimize it for your proc. architecture, you can strip out bloat, you can embed support for anything else you need, yeah its the geek's dream....... But it doesn't help the basic question - poor deployment design.

Hmm.. so "only" Firefox has plugins and extension? Correct me if I am wrong BUT Internet Explorer, Safari, Opera all have these.

Of course they do. The point I'm seeking to make is, you don't get very far without extensions in firefox. That's not so in opera, which has any number of features built-in and still is secure and has a clean interface.

Your simple resolution to the Plugin/Extension war... "Don't use them if you do not need or like them!".

Oh my... I do use extensions. One, the basic set that it comes with is not enough for one, and second, it bores out kids very fast. But thing is, its not been made easy to install unattended.

Your right here... Firefox is not a simple Deployment product, it was not made for "Large Scale Corporate Environment's" and I doubt it will be anytime soon.

Right.

I was forced to make my own methods. Of course with the result of my effort, firefox is easily put out with all the config I need. But it shouldn't have been made so difficult in the first place.

Firefox is just not a free software it's dependent on the Open source community, but a lot of it's volunteers that do not have a paying ful'time job. Some of these volunteers spend there time......

Its based on OSS model yes. Volunteers, yes. But did you know that most of the base team comprises of those who have been in netscape?

I view this as a lack of commitment by the users. They just jump in with relatively smaller contributions, and never really made the system of development as robust as the linux kernel's is today. The result is that if the netscapers pull-out, the core is pretty much dead. I have been following this process a long time (since the days of firefox's daddy, mind you - right since the mozilla 0.2 alphas came). In fact, I support the mozilla project, and love to see it spread and improve. But the militant fanboys are bringing a bad name. All they ever say is - its free, open-source, and cuts out many dangerous IE features, so move to it. I prefer the old days where we used to get the move from IE to mozilla, done on the basis of technical deliberations.

However, Internet Explorer is the 'most secure' browser (when properly configured) available when your under a Windows environment.

I agree. Even now, if a domain is what we're looking at, my first preference would be to just give all them dumb users the normal IE, and lock it down.

Confused that I seem to be on the side of all 3 browsers?

Its because that's the truth! The browser you choose depends on your requirements, that is all. Each technology has its own pros and cons, but when one pushes something on the basis of emotion (as in fanboys), as opposed to logic, that's what's unhealthy.

Moving forward, Opera does have its Pro's and Con's but a significant problem that has been sticking out like a sore thumb for 'years', they do not follow standards.

A simple explaination for everyone to understand; is CTRL+B which by any standard brings up your bookmarks.. opera wants you to use PF4.. But in many cases if you do not like this you can change it in the ini. I can list many more issues regarding Opera.. it's an endless list. However, having an ini file available to change at free will is a big plus but still does not change the fact. Another is it's engine's ability to display plain HTML and Java source. It's there software, but to be able to come on top they need to follow the "Standards" that are in place today, not change them.

This is a shock to me on two levels. One, that you managed to confuse "following standards" with "UI design". Two, since you are so ready to start from source (firefox), such a trivial thing as configurable keyboard shortcuts is a matter you mention at all, is amazing. Opera's focus is on power-users, and as such its geared its default UI for us. Of course, if the default is not enough, the UI still is infinitely configurable.

Its insane the amount of what you need to do, to make firefox come somewhat close to competitors, with extensions. A decent extensible out-of-the-box solution is more acceptable anyday, and that's why Opera thrives.

[HeadHunter2]

voted for yes,

i think Firefox is safer because its not binded so hard into os like the OE and IE.

Bugs of the IE concern the hole windows. the firefox bugs are only phising things.

maybe some bufferoverflows....but thats not as bad as ie.

[m8E]

Thanks Tarun, what's your website then? I understand the idea of tweaking something although I'm not that good at that sort of thing, what does ChromEdit mean and where do I get it?

[choppa]

Any piece of software that is soft-patched in an OS update rather than an app-oriented update is broken software.

IE is one of these programs. Many of its bugs are 'worked around' or patched inside Windows' own codebase, rather than the browser's code itself. The problem here lies with the huge jump to integrating the browser with the OS.

That's why FireFox wins against IE. It's secure, because it doesn't have access to the OS in the same way as IE does. The worst Gecko can do is trash the FireFox profiles directory through an exploit which I believe is now patched - but IE, it's a can of bloody worms. Rather than fixing IE, they go and patch up Windows, and break something else.

[m8E]

I've been searching around the internet for a good tweaks website for firefox and Thunderbird but don't seem to find one I can trust. Does anyone know a good tweaks website, or know some good tweaks, for Firefox and Thunderbird?

[Bâshrat the Sneaky]

Try FireTune or FireTweak

[epic]

Hmm, I think I already made one comment in here, but since it's still in the air.

Both of these applications are exceptional tools, however one of them is specifically designed to work with Windows.

IE & OE, I say express because Outlook relies upon OE contacts to function, are the best tools to use "If you set POLICIES CORRECTLY!" The downside of these two, IE/Outlook, is that your policies need to be changed on a daily basis (in corporate life). It just sooo happens that Microsoft products are inundated with people who want to exploit there software, interim disabling innocent individuals. Microsoft tends to wait on distributing patches, explicitly for the General Public, but a list of well supported companies recieve updates constantly. At this present moment Microsoft has to adhere to distributing beta patches, to the US government, postmortem. Expect patches to be delayed.

Firefox / TB, you can not set policies under windows, but can make restrictions and lock down the application since the source code is widely available to the public. Both firefox / thunderbird are very light, fast, reliable and easy to use for the beginning PC user. However, the Mozilla community is not as burdened with exploiters trying to access source, source is available to EVERYONE. If a bug or exploit is discovered it is promptly resolved (depending on the scale). Patches are distributed when released.

[m8E]

Thanks Bâshrat the Sneaky, I've found FireTune no problem but FireTweak I can't find anywhere. Where can I find FireTweak?