The New Browser War is Good for Microsoft
 Joe Wilcox
News Analysis: Suddenly, Mozilla seems mightily concerned about Apple's Safari. Internet Explorer can only benefit from the impending conflict. |
Mozilla took a surprisingly proactive approach with Firefox last week, and neither move really had to do with Microsoft.
In an interview with Reuters, Mike Schroepfer, Mozilla's vice president of engineering, claimed that "In many ways it [Firefox 3] is much more stable than anything else out there." The story was published two days after Apple released Safari 3.1. Firefox 3 is currently at Beta 4, with a fifth still expected.
On Friday, Mozilla's CEO, John Lilly, roasted Apple for using its updater to distribute Safari 3.1 to Windows users. Yesterday, Lilly qualified his Apple attack, asserting: "It isn't about competition."
Really?
Mozilla's actions strongly suggest otherwise. Firefox 3's release is still months away but Safari 3.1 is here, now, and it's a surprisingly standards compliant browser. That's a departure for Apple's browser, which had lagged behind Firefox and Internet Explorer. Apple has bragging rights and a finished, new browser; meanwhile, Microsoft and Mozilla are still testing their next-generation browsers. Then there is the matter of the distribution tactic—Apple Software Update offering up Safari 3.1 to Windows users.
As I explained last week, one of Apple's incentives for pushing Safari 3.1--and hard--is that little Google search box in the upper right-hand corner. Mozilla has one of those too. Safari gains could mean less Google revenue for Mozilla.
So Mozilla came out barking at the dog moving in on its territory, with statements asserting Firefox's relevance, and accusing Apple of violating users' trust. I disagree with Lilly. It's all about competition. Safari gains are more likely to come at Firefox's expense than at Internet Explorer's.
My LinuxWatch colleague Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols reviewed Firefox 3 Beta 4 today. He disputes Mozilla's prime-time claims: "Is Firefox 3 ready for production use? Well, my verdict is it's not quite there yet."
On Wednesday, my eWEEK colleague Jim Rapoza praised Apple's browser. For users "who just want a simple and fast Web browser, Safari 3.1 might just be the best choice."
What a lucky break for Microsoft. Firefox has nipped at IE's tail for nearly four years. The biggest IE pain has been Firefox brand gains. Even a 20 percent market share loss to Firefox really wouldn't hurt Internet Explorer. (I doubt the number is that high, as some people have asserted.) The market share numbers are disputable, as most analysts don't accurately track multiple browser usage. Microsoft's problem isn't so much that more people use Firefox but that they now use Internet Explorer and something else.
Microsoft benefits if that something else splits among multiple browsers. More importantly, Firefox could become less of a problem if Mozilla has to focus attention behind, as well as in front.
Dean Hachamovitch, IE general manager, should send Apple CEO Steve Jobs one of those iPhone cakes. "Thanks, Steve! You're the best!" Safari distractions at Mozilla can only benefit browser behemoth Internet Explorer.
The timing is wonderful for Microsoft. IE 8's newfound standards embrace isn't just about Microsoft doing the right thing, as Hachmamovitch's March 3 blog post insinuated. Standards support is just as much a competitive tactic; a way of closing the feature gap on Firefox. While Microsoft tries to make IE 8 into the Firefox-smasher that IE 7 wasn't, Mozilla must engage in a potentially ugly two-front war.
How ugly could it get? The answer will depend much on how many people try Safari and then adopt it. This afternoon, I reviewed browser stats from several of the firms tracking them, including TheCounter.com and OneStat.com. Safari usage/share ranged from about 2.2 percent to 3 percent, and Firefox's was between 13 percent and 16 percent. Net Applications's statistics puts the numbers higher, with more than 17 percent for Firefox and nearly 6 percent for Safari. Whatever the measure, Safari is more likely to take away share from Firefox than Internet Explorer.
Safari has leverage, with Apple Software Update, the iPhone and the iPod Touch, for starters—and that's on Windows. Safari also conceptually benefits from Mac market share gains. I'm not predicting huge share gains for Safari. It's not the amount gained, but from where, that matters and the possible distraction from Mozilla. Share loss equals revenue loss, because of Mozilla's huge dependence on revenue derived from Google search.
The Google search relationship, which expires in November, is important to Mozilla. "Approximately 85 percent of Mozilla's revenue for 2006 was derived from this contract," according to The Mozilla Foundation's 2006 financial statement. No statement has been released for 2007 (that I know of).
So, Mozilla has real financial concerns regarding increased Safari competition. Meanwhile, Microsoft executives can sit back, have a good laugh and continue their prodding IE 8 development.
Create, Communicate, Collaborate with IT Professionals at Ziff Davis Enterprise IT Link.
Comments (41)
I disagree, most people running Fx did so of their own free will, and they'll be less than impressed when Apple's sneakware ends up on their system.
Safari can only take marketshare away from those who don't care, most likely IE users.
Posted by rtk | March 24, 2008 6:53 PM
When I first switched to Firefox from IE there was immediately an obvious improvement. No more spyware, No popup adds, and maybe even a little faster. That's how Mozilla brought in such a huge fan base so quickly. I know I told everyone I could about it. Since IE7 I have backed off little though. But at this time what feature is Apple pushing to increase their user base. Absolutely nothing! Yes, it is slightly faster than Firefox 3. But that's really it. The design really isn't that good. In fact, the dull lifeless brushed metal looks completely out of place on a shinny Aero Vista desktop. Its supposed simplicity makes doing anything above a chimps level of intelligence impossible. There is just no obvious difference which means that the only way Apple can bring people in is through clever marketing techniques. Such as, installing itself covertly on people's computers or by trying to convince people that using Safari is just "cooler". Quite frankly, I don't think that even the average IE bozo could find a reason to use Safari. I predict it will bring in a lot of uppity iphone owners though.
Posted by Jim | March 24, 2008 8:27 PM
@RTK and Jim;
Well said and I agree with both your opinions in like measure. However, and not to nagate what you two have said, I believe that Microsoft could take the lead and in taking advantage of FireFox's powerful and yet simplistic web browsing technology in more ways than Mozilla could have dreamed of.
Once again, we can see that Microsoft sat on it's laurals or does not have the intuitive desire to implement a truly revolutionary safe, and wonderful browser experience.
I will say that with each evolutionary version of IE there has been made some improvements, but nothing like Firefox.
I often wondered if Microsoft did not include a "native" browser with its operating system and had included no alternative solution, how would the landscape may have drastically changed?
When people are forced sneakware on their PC's most will find it offensive and this latest underhanded act by Apple will, if they haven't felt it already, backfire.
I would like to see the day when Microsoft abandons its bloated compatibility issues and designs a true operating system that contains nothing but an effective GUI, stability, and performance without the rediculous bells and whistles. I will even suggest that IE should not be any part of the heart or integrated necessaty of the Operating System, but rather a free additional add-on aplication seperate of the main installation processes of the said new operating system.
Just think if we take a hard look at Vista and was able to turn back the clock and had a heavy hand in development of the OS. Or if Microsoft stopped and actually listened to the public opinion and really wanted to marvel in excellence.
1.) Windows Vista should of only looked like W2K without any flare or glitz. If people wanted the Areo Glass look, they could of made that available only as an option and not a part to add to the bloat of the installation processes.
2.) No firewall or anti-virus/spyware software installed. Again only available in the initial customazation or add-on portion of the installation processes. There are much better third party products out there.
3.) Do not include any games, trash, and Music Players -- There's good ones out there. I run a wonderful ipod and I do not use either Microsoft or Apple to manage it, but WinAmp.
4.)An operating system should only be around $49.95 and after cutting all the so-called features, Vista certainly could of been at that cost per license.
5.)IE whatever version should not be by any means a critical application to the operating system and in fact, this is the doom of those who "hate" Microsoft.
I believe the people should have a clear choice of what add-ons and or features they want to add to the core of the operating system, besides the manditory file and program management. Yes, let's make Windows a truly transparent OS like the name suggests in the first place.
Posted by Douglas S. Taylor | March 24, 2008 9:22 PM
Can anyone actually tell me that web pages look better on Safari? The fonts are all fuzzy and harder to read. No thanks Apple. Text is much crisper/clearer on IE or Firefox. Stick with one of those unless you like headaches from eyestrain.
Posted by gc | March 24, 2008 9:25 PM
The reasons for using safari would be:
good bookmarking system, fast, standards compliant, good UI (resizable rich text fields, great search highlighting, etc)
if getting those basics right is uppity wank in your eyes, then that browser isn't for you. I hear firefox has some great add-ons and extensions...
Posted by whatever | March 24, 2008 11:37 PM
Joe, you should back and ride before the sunset.
We have no clue what you are going to write :
1) Based on you personal friend 's experience, you advise us not to upgrade Vista SP1
2) To you Vista is bad , Mac is good
3) To you IE is bad , FireFox is good
4) Bill Gates is evil , Steve Jobs is god sent
But I still like you , at least you are better than Ms Laura Didio
Posted by Peter | March 25, 2008 2:19 AM
We need to make a public petition to request Mr Joe Wilcox to stop writing on the column of Microsoft Watch
Posted by John | March 25, 2008 2:30 AM
Why didn't you get reviews from the same person for both browsers? May be the first guy was more critical (nothing wrong; just that standards differ). Apple first sent iTunes updates with Quicktime and now Safari with iTunes??!! Isn't this spyware behaviour? Firefox is innovative. Apple is the next Microsoft & MS is dead. Simple as that.
Posted by Eswar B | March 25, 2008 2:52 AM
Peter wrote: "We have no clue what you are going to write."
Hi, Peter, responding point by point:
1) Everyone who can upgrade to Vista SP1 should. I'm not ready.
2) I've been one of Vista's biggest defenders. Read past posts.
3) On Windows, I tend to use IE 7 more than Firefox.
4) Bill Gates gives away billions to help others. I respect that.
Joe
Posted by Joe | March 25, 2008 3:12 AM
I'm sticking with Firefox. Yes Firefox has great free extensions. The most simplest and quite useful is Forecast Fox.
In addition I could have several Firefox pages open and it will not slow down my computer unlike that "other" browser. Over 1/2 a Billion downloaded in just a few years...they must be doing something right! I really have no need for Internet Explorer or Safari.
Posted by Ralph | March 25, 2008 3:21 AM
The reason that I unistall QuickTime after I've viewed the video I want, is so that iTunes is not installed accidentally on my machine. Why push software on to people who don't want it.
IE7 looks bad, and I like my shortcut buttons in the correct place on the toolbar.
I also love the extentions that I have installed on Firefox, they make my life so much easier.
Posted by Iain | March 25, 2008 5:09 AM
Iain - Me too, can't stand the way Apple invades -never had any bad feeling about Apple, just viewed it for those who the Art types who know no better :) and want to be out of the mainstream. Now can't tolerate their products, just irritating the way they go about things. Apple seems to stand for about everything I hate about big companies!
Posted by bob | March 25, 2008 5:50 AM
1.Firefox is open source then you can trust 100% this application, maybe in safari or IE are hidden some spywere and one day you will find other applications installed on your computer
2. If i know right in Europe Microsoft must not sheep internet explorer or Media player in the Installation
3. The fastest browser is Opera(search for comparation), a greath looking browser,free but not open source
About windows it would be good(but almost imposible) that Micro$oft made a modular OS, programmers know what are the this is the best solution but the guys that are leading the company are t gready and just want a monopol (it would be nice to install KDE or gnome on the X-server over the windows kernel)
Posted by simion314 | March 25, 2008 6:06 AM
This has got to be the most tenuous post I have seen for a long time. Joe tries hard to build the impression that Mozilla is spooked by the Safari threat when John Lilly's issue is clearly with Apple's inconsiderate and dare i say rude decision to force unrelated software on unsuspecting users through their quicktime/itunes updaters. The rest of the post is fluff and nonsense.
Posted by Long Bow | March 25, 2008 7:07 AM
have any of these people tried the Opera browser? It blows everyone else outta' the water. All these little boys are desperately trying to 'evolve' into Opera and the features she's had for years, now! - That too, by default and without having to install a plugin\extension.
Posted by Shree Mulay | March 25, 2008 8:29 AM
well....
@Douglas S. Taylor
I find no harm in having a "browser" in an oparating system. Every operating system has a Wordpad, a calculator, a media player, and essentially a browser. Now, if all those applications r not shipped with the operating system, do u xpect evry person to download all those softwares from the internet???? Its sheer waste of time. Moreover Microsoft is not stopping you to use Firefox/safari/opera...one can always downlaod any browser or any other application and use it as his/her default one...
Not shipping a browser, media player n other important softwares wid the OS wud not b gud for all those computer users who dont knw much abt comuputers..or hav no internet access or some1 whos least bothered abt whc company's browser they r using...
u expect a mother who uses the computer less often to download a player when she wants to hear a song??or to download a browser when she needs to view any html page???
and download evry other software when its needed???
lol
its an absurd idea to make evry1 download/buy important softwre like media players n browsers by not shipping it wid the OS.
just bcoz u r knowledgable enuf to decide n download software whc u like..doesnt mean evry1 in dis world has the knowledge/time/intent to do so.
also..in today's world of viruses/trojans n a million other vulnerabilities...its important to keep ur system protected..atleast to some xtent..
i appreciate MS's move to include a firewall/spyware cleaner with windows..not evry1 is dis world wud like to pay few hundred dollars to get an antivirus/firewall...
i agree that thr r much better third party softwares available...so u buy n use it..is thr any restriction on it??
not evry1 computer user in dis world knows how to download or buy a third party software..for them, atlest the OS firewall/spyware cleaner is sum protection...
@simion314
it does not neccessaarily mean that if a software is open source, then its 100% reliable..
in fact..most opensource softwares are provided "as is" basis with no liability/guatantee of its operation/use or support...
a propeitery software(like any by ms) on the other hand is more reliable in most cases..with dedicated help, support and privacy policies
Posted by TechRaj | March 25, 2008 8:37 AM
@TechRaj:
First, you could put some effort into writing like a human.
"propeitery software(like any by ms) on the other hand is more reliable in most cases..with dedicated help, support and privacy policies"
This is wrong. FOSS (free/open-source software) is provided without LEGAL guarantees. However, legal guarantees have nothing to do with reality. The reality is that FOSS is more reliable in practice. Have you ever wondered why Google, YouTube, Flickr, Yahoo and almost every other large web site out there except MSN runs on FOSS-powered computers?
"o u xpect evry person to download all those softwares from the internet?"
"Not shipping a browser, media player n other important softwares wid the OS wud not b gud for all those computer users who dont knw much abt comuputers"
There are two ways to buy an OS: preinstalled on a computer and standalone. The beginner user will always have the OS preinstalled. However, preinstallation of software is up to the hardware vendor, not the OS vendor. Therefore, the hardware vendor should take care of installing all the additional applications that are essential for basic usage. The OS vendor should concentrate on making a good OS, not on bundling it with extra software that introduces additional security vulnerabilities and is often unused. The fact that IE vulnerabilities affect Windows Server editions is an example of the problems software bundling creates.
@Shree Mulay:
The main issue with Opera is its user community. My general impression of those people is that they think Opera is the mightiest piece of software that ever graced the unworthy computers of mortal men, and fail to admit that SOME browsers do SOME things better than Opera (i.e. the extension mechanism in Firefox is unquestionably better). This is also a problem with some FF fans, but they are a small minority.
Posted by Tweenk | March 25, 2008 9:29 AM
You don't really see the point Joe. There might be a competition point, but definitely Apple has no right to make users download safari via itunes update. The other day, I accepted downloads from Itunes expecting it to be some patch. When it took too long, I noticed it was safari which was being installed. Now wouldn't you mind, if Microsoft forced people to use Live writer(or any other software for that matter) via its automatic updates.
We'll indeed sign the petition :-X
Posted by neyawn | March 25, 2008 9:40 AM
i downloaded safari from the update after i checked some reviews and i was interested in the "faster than ie and firefox" feature. i just started using it i didn't really notice if it's faster i think it's a little slower for me but im not sure yet.
anyways i dont think safari will go up fast and anyways i have to have all browsers for web developing but my main browser so far is still firefox.
Posted by rou | March 25, 2008 10:13 AM
It would be ok if MS shipped a browser IF IT WAS A COMPLETE PROGRAM THAT COULD BE EASLY REMOVED. Mater fact it would be great if PC sellers would ship with 3 or 4 browsers that the buyer could try out and have the abliity to completely uninstall those that they find not suitable for there needs.
Posted by memyself | March 25, 2008 10:56 AM
@gc
Yes the web looks better for me in Safari but then I'm usually using a Mac. Apple and MS have two different philosophies for font smoothing. You may say fonts look blurry to you in Safari but when I use Windows apps such as IE then I find fonts look blocky compared to the smooth ones on my Mac.
In Safari for WIndows you can adjust the level of font smoothing in the Appearance settings.
This explains the two methods of font smoothing:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html
@ neyawn
Apple doesn't make users download Safari via iTunes update, it's optional. Sensible people check to see what they're downloading before accepting with a click.
It's worth noting that the iTunes Store uses Safari's open-source rendering engine called webkit so maybe installing Safari also updates iTunes in that way. I know it does on Mac OS X but I don't know how it's arranged on Windows.
One thing is for sure, the more people that upgrade from IE to something more advanced, whether it be Firefox or Safari, the better it will be for the web and its users.
@rou
All the independent reviews (including those in PC publications) I've seen show Safari to easily be the fastest browser
Safari has been showing steady growth. The last figures I saw were in January which showed Safari usage at 5.82% when it was still only in beta for Windows. When you consider mac sales are continuing to boom, Safari for Windows is out of beta and perhaps most importantly the iPhone and iPod Touch both use Safari then the future is bright for Safari.
Although I like some features of Firefox on Windows I prefer Safari on Mac and with 3.1 I'm leaning towards that on Windows as well now thanks to the speed, stability and simple elegance.
Posted by Andy K | March 25, 2008 11:02 AM
Ed Bott has a good, detailed, article comparing Apple's Safari push, with Windows Update: "What Microsoft can teach Apple about software updates" http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=405
I hope that Apple's sleazy push campaign causes a backlash against Safari. An Opera complaint to the EU to follow?
Posted by JohnJ | March 25, 2008 11:22 AM
JohnJ wrote: "Ed Bott has a good, detailed, article comparing Apple's Safari push, with Windows Update."
Hi, JohnJ,
Windows Update is opt-in without opt-out for many updates. Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications is one example. Early on, WGA Notifications were listed as necessary, or required, updates. They weren't necessary. Some people would call the approach trickery. Later on, users got no choice about accepting the updates.
Joe
Posted by Joe | March 25, 2008 11:46 AM
memyself : wrote
It would be ok if MS shipped a browser IF IT WAS A COMPLETE PROGRAM THAT COULD BE EASLY REMOVED. Mater fact it would be great if PC sellers would ship with 3 or 4 browsers that the buyer could try out and have the abliity to completely uninstall those that they find not suitable for there needs.
--------------------------------------------------
Good idea, this could go a long way to help get the European Union off MSFT's back. I'll add to this that the EU would really back off MSFT if computers sold there were installed dual boot Windows/Linux all tweaked and fully functional ready to go.
Posted by Ralph | March 25, 2008 11:48 AM
So far, I have a lot of things I like about Safari. My problem isn't about them competing, but more of the exact words that the Mozilla head stated. Making the Safari install default in Apple Update of the "100 million" people who use ipods/itunes is a huge deal. To people like me, it is really just an annoyance and makes me UAC Cancel Apple update every time it comes up (I get a sick pleasure from it, actually), but to people who have older machines or just don't know what is going it may cause problems. I don't personally recommend people just installing programs at random as Windows is and always has been a little touchy. Even with Vista you don't really want to change the state of the machine from one you know works very often or without thought. Bad Apple... *slap on the hand* Good Safari though. *pat on the head*
Posted by Darren | March 25, 2008 12:51 PM
@TechRaj
First off, I cannot understand anything you've wrote, though I use the term "wrote" loosely. I also realize through struggling with your comment through the typos and grammatical errors that you've made some assumptions of what I said. Re-read my comments and I realize that your writing, reading, and comprehension skills are ceretainly in question.
Might I suggets usinf FireFox and having the dictionary turned on. It really is next to impossible to take a person like you seriously.
Posted by Douglas S. Taylor | March 25, 2008 9:16 PM
Oh by the way, I was having a bit of fun on the last sentence in honor of your lackluster communication skills.
Posted by Douglas S. Taylor | March 25, 2008 9:18 PM
If I were working with the IE team I won't be any happy with Safari gaining from Firefox, because once FF is eaten alive (situation that won't happen) the next target is IE, which is the most non innovative Bloatware available...
Come on, you want Apple to stay quiet and do nothing while Microsoft launches a new version of its beast without nothing to offer, maybe the way they promote the update is not the fair one, but I don't think Apple should spend any money making ads for a browser, nobody does it.
So get useed to apple or go to Microsoft.
Posted by Desinformado.com | March 25, 2008 10:20 PM
@Tweenk:
Opera is amongst the most beautiful pieces of software in existance. I had stopped using it because it didn't support extensions, and as a result, would support stumbleupon. But then, after waiting 15 minutes for all 25 of my tabs to load whenever the browser would start, only to have it crash and eat up the biggest memory footprint alive(and cpu processing, too!), I venutred to try Opera again! Only this time, I get to load all 75 of my tabs in 2 minutes! With a VERY RESONABLE memory footprint and not bringing my machine to a crawl. So then I decided, fuck stumbleupon. I mean, I really loved it, but I guess I'll just live without it, isn't that so? And, all those other extensions I'd install in Firefox - Well Opera has all those features built in anyways. But yeah, Opera SUCKS! But, It's difficult for me to change to anything else, these days. Not that I don't use firefox, IE, and Prism for other specific tasks. Though, my default browser remains Opera. That's because Opera sucks, and on top of that, I'm a big looser! Especially since I prefer shitty Opera to all the other browsers out there!
Posted by shree mulay | March 25, 2008 10:40 PM
Use IE if you want other people hijacking your browser and infecting your PC with all sorts of spyware.
Use Firefox if you want to cut down on all the stuff that you can catch with IE.
Safari? Please take some of IE's market share. We need more people using less of IE.
Posted by Maddog | March 26, 2008 5:20 AM
Yes, i am equally surprise to hear about Mozilla's CEO, John Lilly reaction to Apple's update. I recently got on a "I want an IMac" bandwagon and try out on. I like the safari browser but still am trying to live with using a one button mouse.
Posted by GreatLaminateFlooring | March 26, 2008 7:20 AM
I'm a Firefox user but just downloaded Safari to try it out. I spent about 5 minutes with it, then uninstalled it, although I knew I'd uninstall it within about 30 seconds.
If I could turn font smoothing off completely then I'd have considered using Safari for a bit longer, but I run what were once top of the range CRTs, and I run CRTs because they look good, not because I want a browser to make them look like an LCD.
Aside from the appearance, and I know I'm not the average surfer, I couldn't live without the many tricks and features I've become accustomed to using Firefox. Well to be honest, I became accustomed to having them when I surfed with MyIE2 before it became into Maxthon, so I spent hours playing with extensions to get Firefox to do what MyIE2 could do before I switched. Safari would be an enormous leap backwards again.
Posted by Darren | March 26, 2008 11:02 AM
If Firefox loses market share, who really loses? Whose revenue stream drops? It doesn't appear as if there is a revenue stream tied to Firefox market share.
If Safari takes an increasing chunk of this non-monetary share of browser users from Firefox, it means that an increasing number of people are using Apple and not Windows. How does this help Microsoft?
If there is a revenue stream associated with Firefox market share, then Safari needs to be able to run on all currently used versions of Windows and all distributions of both 32-bit and 64-bit Linux. Otherwise, all it can hope to do is to take away market share on the Mac but not touch the share on Windows and Linux.
I, too, thought Joe's post was nothing but fluff, but it has raised some interesting questions and so has value after all. Blogs aren't expected to be thoroughly researched term papers, but are expected to offer opinions and views and stimulate discussion. Which Joe seems to do with the vast majority of his blog entries.
Oh, and we should all lay off TechRaj's writing. Yeah, at first glance, TechRaj's post appears that 1000 monkeys had severe bowel distress on 1000 typewriters. But hey, even my cat can't write all that much better than TechRaj can. And she's 2 1/2 years old and should know better.
Posted by Philosopher | March 26, 2008 6:05 PM
My understanding is that Safari, under the hood, is really developed from the open source linux Konqueror Web browser. Which is a very fast browser in its own right.
Both Safari and Opera suffer from the fact that they are not open source projects. Firefox has vastly gained features, due to this "open source" environment, that allows coders to make extensions for Firefox. The extensions that Firefox has, makes its without a doubt the most powerful browser out there. Opera, would be my first choice as a backup browser for firefox, because of its speed, and its compatibility to render IE type web pages.
Internet Exployer 6 was the last MS effort that I used for a little while. Once you realize that most of the viri code written, was to exploit IE and outlook, you then decide to use something else, in order to be safer. Then one day, you learn that, linux and mac's, don't have the viral problems of Windows, and that using them to surf the internet, is the right and smart thing to do.
Posted by chips | March 26, 2008 11:42 PM
IE7 is much better than Firefox 2.0 in terms of memory footprint. IE7 is my first choice browser when I want to lookup something while my machine is memory-hogged (most of the times due to Firefox, with other things). Firefox is still my first-choice browser though, mainly because I can crash the process when I need to reboot, and use the "Restore Session" feature subsequently.
@Douglas: At least a person should turn his own dictionary feature on while thrashing others on their spelling and writing abilities. Or are you yourself using IE6 still?
Stop being an evangelist. TechRaj has raised some pretty good points. And don't say you have never ever written like that!
Posted by uXuf | March 27, 2008 11:14 AM
@uXuf:
IE uses less memory than Firefox because much of the bulk of IE is embedded within Windows and isn't counted as part of IE. The same reason that Firefox's IE Tab add-on is available only on Windows: because most of IE is embedded within Windows.
Douglas most definitely did not thrash anyone on their spelling and writing abilities. I and someone else did! Douglas was much smoother and more diplomatic.
And before YOU criticize Douglas for his ONE spelling error, you should know that your link points to a sentence in which the contraction "doesn't" spelled incorrectly, as it is missing the apostrophe in two instances:
"An early twenty something who doesnt [sic] look, and doesnt [sic] certainly feel like it, is a perfectionist and standards-compliant, hates typos..."
Hates typos? With two of them in the opening sentence?
But I am also a habitual offender, even with Firefox's spelling checking turned on. So enough with pointing out the occasional typo.
But a post with 90% typos is difficult to read, even if there are some good points buried deep within. And I think Douglas and I can and will says that we have never written like that!
Posted by Philosopher | March 27, 2008 1:12 PM
@Philosopher
Thanks for pointing out the obvious, and yes, I can safely say that I have never "gooned" up something as that. I wonder if uXuf is so peeved about since this person has a "keen" grasp on grammatical things as you so pointed out in this "person's" writing.
@uXuf
I would recommend that you should use a good web development tool with "grammar checker" along with "Spell Check." Dreamweaver, FrontPage, and of Course Web Designer has these features.
To "conject" what I use or how I use it on your part is, shall I say, preposterous if you actually read other posts of mine here on this site.
I will however, make it as concise as I can, I use FireFox...
I have yet written a book, nor have I ever read one that was free of any errors at all --Odd?
I am far from perfect but I smile knowing full well that I am always improving. My Cat, his name is Dexter and he's seven. Dexter can safely write much better than TechRaj and he has no thumbs and I must admit, can out-gun TechRaj only using Notepad.
Now I got to go let him out to catch some mice and check out the latest Tabby sporting a hot pink collar, so if you don't mind...
Posted by Douglas S. Taylor | March 27, 2008 8:47 PM
I personally was upset when that Apple Safari browser install popped up on me. I think that is actually a bit pushy and deceitful myself. It betrays a lack of confidence. That Apple has to rely on back door trickery to distribute their product. I did not appreciate it and would probably never use that browser because of it.
Posted by K M Birch | March 28, 2008 6:24 PM
Isn't it interesting to compare "Then one day, you learn that, linux and mac's, don't have the viral problems of Windows, and that using them to surf the internet, is the right and smart thing to do." with the results of the "Pwn to Own" competition yesterday where a Mac was hacked in two minutes (mainly due to weaknesses in Safari) and neither Vista (with the supposedly weak IE) or Linux were hacked. Microsoft has come a long way recently in working to produce more secure products.
I also think that a company should be able to put whatever they want into their own products (Apple certainly does). The development costs for the supposedly unnecessary apps (media player, browser, security programs etc.) are passed on to the consumer. If enough consumers complained enough (by not paying the price to purchase the program in the first place) then Microsoft would offer a stripped down OS (like they do for underdeveloped contries) here in the US.
However, most people like to receive these extra features, find them quite satisfactory to use and apparently do not mind paying for them (at least not enough to switch to a different OS).
I did not like when Apple bundled iTunes with Quicktime and caused the installation download to jump in size. I also don't like having to practically re-download both programs in their entirety to apply each update. I tried Safari when it showed up as an update to Quicktime and did not like it. I haven't enjoyed using Safari or Quicktime (opening a separate window for each file that you want to view is annoying), so I have found alternatives. I now use a codec in Windows Media Player that plays Quicktime files, Windows Media Player also does everything that iTunes does and IE7, Firefox and Opera all easily beat Safari in my opinion.
Everyone has security issues that they need to deal with. At least Microsoft publicly acknowledges that they have had problems and are changing company policies to try and prevent future ones.
Microsoft should be able to put whatever they want into their software. They should even be allowed to block third party programs from running on their operating systems (even if this would be a bad marketing decision). Of course they never will do this as people enjoy having the ability to install whatever they want on Windows. If people have issues with Windows then they are free to use any of many other operating systems, but I don't see that happening until those other operating systems are as easy to use and compatible with as many different programs as Windows currently is.
Posted by Jeremy | March 30, 2008 1:25 AM
If Safari becomes more credible and popular, it probably helps Firefox a little by making IE-only sites even less feasible and contributing to an open web.
Other than that, I doubt it matters much either way. Apple's push for Safari has been heavy-handed, and the browser is much more limited in terms of functionality than Firefox. It may score a little higher on standards compliance, but with Firefox's market share, web sites are going to work around whatever bugs Firefox happens to have.
Posted by Mike | April 6, 2008 9:22 AM
Oh my god, this is a bit of topic but is related. When I first saw firefox in 2005 I fell in love with it, I shouted from my rooftop and tolf everyone to use it. After using it for a couple off months I thought to myself this will easily catch on and soon the whole world will be useing it. Anyway 3 years later I still use firefox and still love it.
Today after browsing here there everywhere I stumbled across apples safari page and found there was a windows version available and I thought lets have a look at what the browser statistics are these days. To my horror Internet Exploder has about %60 usage share and firefox about %35, come on whats going on here. I would have thought it would have been a lot closer than that. And I see %30 people are still using that virus called ie6. I nearly choked on my prezel when I read that.
Just thought Id let you know my feelings.
p.s. I got my figures from w3schools.
p.p.s. I started downloading the safari browser for windows. 3 mins later it still hadnt finished so I looked at the download window and found that the size was 18megs. I quickly clicked on the cancel button. Apple if your listening when I want an apple I do not expect you to give me oranges aswell. 18 megs! I bet they bundled in software trying to sell me their horrible, overpriced, white vowels.
Posted by Anony Mouse | April 8, 2008 9:28 PM