Alternate Browsers Have An Edge Over IE

MythicaL

The basic fact that Internet Explorer comes preinstalled on all machines shipped with Windows Platform is a good enough pointer to why it is the most used browser out there. It is not the best browser in the market and it is definitely not the most secure (as Microsoft would want us to believe). It is shipped with OS that runs on 90%+ of all the computers there are. The People use it either because they do not know that there are better alternatives out there, or they do not consider browser an important enough tool in their daily activities to worth experimenting with.

There are other advantages that come with alternative browsers. One is the lack of complacency that Microsoft is displaying with Internet Explorer. With IE, you get fixes when Microsoft finds problems too big to be ignored. There are no active official forums or channels to ask for support (if there are, please make me aware of them). I once tried to get some help at microsoft.com newsgroups, but my problem disappeared in the millions of messages there.

Alternative browsers like Firefox and Opera on the other hand are actively developed and updated. You can find a new updated release almost every month (even daily in case of Firefox Nightlies). They are more open to ideas and suggestions. Bugs and Security issues are easier to submit. There are official IRC Channels with sometimes actual developers accessible in them. Forums are buzz with activities with regular users ready to help new users.

Another advantage with Firefox and Opera is the alternative platform support. Firefox is released for all the major platforms in Windows, Linux, and MacOS. Solaris also seems to have a Firefox version. The source code is free for anyone to download, so it can be made to run on any platform. Opera on the other hand have official installers available for Windows, Mac, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, OS/2, QNX, and many mobile platforms. Microsoft limits Internet Explorer to Windows platform on PC and handhelds. The advantage is even if you move to a different OS; you get access to your browser of choice. And there is a feature similarities, which makes it easy to transfer settings and preferences. Microsoft killed their only version of IE for Non-MS Platform when they decided to stop development of MacOS IE.

So, the logical step is… Move to alternative browsers. You get more freedom and better choices and features. Security comes as a perk.

Source: Software Journal

Warpy

Spot on! I like that report

ZzzombieBunny

Just upgraded to Mozilla the other day, wow what an improvement. Not only does it seem to work lot faster than IE on my computer, but theres all kinda nifty customization options.

JLP

Yeah I also upgraded my browser when Firefox 1.0 final came out. But I upgraded from Mozilla. I upgraded from insecure and old IE a long time ago and never looked back.Mozilla and Firefox are a lot better in every way.

kelston

I still completely disagree with the security claims. IE is less secure because there are more people looking to find something wrong with it. Put the same amount of people on FireFox or Opera or Mozilla or whatnot and you'd get the same amount of problems unless any of these developers are ballsy enough to make the claim that they wrote a perfect program. One of the things I see is that these alternatives can claim better security for a simple reason. They turn everything off by default while IE leaves everything on by default. I'd prefer everything on that I can turn off rather than trying to figure out what I need to turn on to have it work like it's supposed to.

I use an alternative browser (Avant) but it's built on the IE engine so it's not really an alternative. IE works, does everything I need, does everything I want and I don't have to actively search for these plugins and other third party downloadables just to make my browser do what I expect. It looks nicer too.

The claims for support are just stupid. I don't know a single company that can support hundreds of millions of people in the same manner as something akin to a small mom and pop store can support its few regulars. Undoubtedly, at least half of these people don't do any of the reading themselves only to ask the same question, literally a million times when a solution is published and available. Being stupid and lazy doesn't mean the company offers poor support.

I tried FireFox once before it became an official release. I've never, ever had such a serious problem with a beta release of any type of program. It conveniently crashed instantly and refused to run. That's cool. I suppose it gets kudos for that one.

caqde

Beta? Nightly? When? What version? Ah whatever who cares. ONCE IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE A VALID JUDGEMENT ON ANY PRODUCT!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry if I offended anyone with that, but if I did this I would be missing out on alot of cool things, but then again I am very patient and will try it again to get one that works. Again remember for along time firefox was in beta. Not even 1.0b. And when your programming such large programs you should expect some computers are not going to like a certain release or your going to get a release that isn't stable. If it is a nightly you used then, there is no excuse for the comment you made.

If it wasn't for the point that Microsoft integrated the web browser tightly to the os and many programs linked to it, then I might agree. But they did so. IE, Windows, and Windows Media Player including many other applications included and sold by microsoft all have pretty much the same vulnerabilities because they all use the same code. This sounds I don't know like they are asking to be hacked. IE should never have been used as the OS's GUI. That is a major security flaw in itself that nicely brings security flaws that can do more than any other standalone applications security flaws. Most security flaws in say Mozilla will not delete or cause windows to not work anymore when they are exploited.

I guess my point is. Mozilla probably has flaws true, but at least they won't cause as big of problems as a flaw in IE would.

[edit] Fixed some statement's and grammer to fit with what I actually meant it to say.

kelston

If you are a serious computer user, a browser is something you use many many times everyday. I would say at the bare minimum, I use it 3 hours a day, even on holidays and weekends. So basically, at least 1/8th of my productive years of life are sitting in a browser. That would probably be a fair average of how much time people spend in a car. If you test drove a car one time, and it sucked ass, you wouldn't buy it. If you ate at a trendy restaurant and got remarkably ill, one time, you'd be at the very best, remarkably hesitant at eating there again. Why should I devote that much of my life to a product that didn't work the first time? Why should I spend my time supporting a non-working product in hopes that a future product from the same people would be working? You probably wouldn't test drive the same crappy car at another dealer with intent to buy it with the theory that maybe you just got into a bad batch.

I tried it back when it was Phoenix or Firebird. The reason I tried it wasn't because I wanted to try it. It was because a friend of mine saw that I used IE and thought I was stupid and downloaded the then current build of it to show me how much better it was. It crashed twice and then locked up my system. That surely impressed me.

There is a problem with that statement. If your customer base is a hundred million people, you can't make everyone happy.

You have the average computer user that isn't on the more hardcore side like everyone here that wants something completely user friendly. They want something where everything is there and they don't have to keep looking for different things they need to buy just for their computer to do what they want because they don't devote enough time to it to be looking for different programs and plugins and thingerbobbies. They want implementation because they don't have the time to put in everything they need by themselves.

Then you have people like you, the more hardcore people, who think maybe implementation is bad. That it limits your freedoms. It introduces more places where a problem could occur.

Then there are people like me, who doesn't believe alarmists. I don't think implementation is so bad. I've never encountered a problem having things implemented. I adopted the theory that you get problems like viruses and being hacked because you were doing something stupid that invited that to happen. I don't have to use IE or Media Player if I don't want to. Windows does things that I want that no other operating system does. Things like allowing me to play all the games I want to play.

ZzzombieBunny

You cant really base your opinion of the final version based a beta experience? Betas are always buggy and crash, thats the whole point of them, to track down those problems.

Just seems your rather biased towards IE for no other reason than because its whats always been integrated with windows. But in all honesty that doesnt mean that the competition isnt worth looking at or that IE is that good to start with.

Zardon

Im glad someone else is able to see this, ive been saying that for many months.

digerati

But IE is THE standard. There's no getting around it, hell even my xanga doesn't work with mozilla. So now your choices are a car that can easily get broken into, and has less features (but to get the cool features from the other car you have to add them). But the other car just won't drive on some roads no matter what.

Either way there's no clear winner.

caqde

I didn't say anything that you could have drawn a conclusion remotely similar to this from. I said that they were integrated. (I am talking about the code not what you see on the screen). You can unintegrate two products and still have them seemlessly work together. You wouldn't even notice that IE and the OS weren't integrated if they did it from the start.
Depends on what was wrong with that car. But still bad example.

After I found out why. I might go to another branch of the restuarant. (I could get food poisoning anywhere, Stupid workers exist nuff said) again bad example. (I can cook so.. This changes my views)

You took a prerelease product and rated the entire company off that experience. And I didn't ask you to devote your life to it... Were talking downloading a release build Version 1.0 instead of 0.1-0.9 builds and basing a product off of that. This is software not hardware. I do not base my views on a company off of one product or instance. In light of the cars I would have tried another model from that company or the next/previous year of that car to see if it was that one and even another one of that car. I will not hastily generalize my views on a company/product/person or whatever because of one or two bad experiences with it/them, because I do not feel it is right and I believe in second chances to change your ways. And anyways if you watch products don't they usually get better every year.

Pheonix was around version 0.4, Firebird went to 0.7 neither one of these is anywhere near showing what this product has to offer and these build I wouldn't even consider beta more like an mid-early alpha build. And from the way it sounds your friend might have installed the latest nightly. This is like going inside a company and taking the next product they are currently working on and seeing if it is any good then rating it. In this case saying it is junk and giving that company a bad rating.

Anyways I would try the version 1.0 RELEASE that came out and give them a fair chance. I have seen that it is very stable, as long as your computer is anyways.