Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Browser Comparison - Firefox 2 b1, IE7 b3, Opera 9 528

mikemuch writes "The browser wars have heated up again, with Microsoft putting Beta 3 of Internet Explorer 7 out for all to download (not just developers anymore), Firefox coming out with the first beta of its version 2, and Opera releasing version 9. ExtremeTech has a shoot-out of the three browsers, with feature comparisons and tests of resource usage, startup time, and Acid2 standards compliance. Standout features are Opera's built-in BitTorrent support, Firefox's spellchecker for forms, and IE's Quick Tabs view. Firefox is still ahead in extensions, while Opera has some slick UI conveniences."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Browser Comparison - Firefox 2 b1, IE7 b3, Opera 9

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Beta? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eln ( 21727 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:08PM (#15743931)
    Not really, if you're only comparing announced features. You probably shouldn't complain about problems that are clearly bugs though, and this article does just that several times.
  • by Tet ( 2721 ) <.ku.oc.enydartsa. .ta. .todhsals.> on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:13PM (#15743969) Homepage Journal
    From TFA: the address bar is for URLs, not searches.

    I couldn't disagree more. One of the things that kept me with the original Mozilla suite for so long, rather than switching to Firefox was the ability to trigger a search from the address bar. Now that Firefox can do the same (and not waste screen real estate with an unneccesary extra box), I've switched. What do you possibly gain by having a separate search box? I just don't get it.

    Now if only they could fix Gecko's inability to render display: inline-block properly, it might become a halfway usable browser. Quite why it's taken so long is beyond me. It's was originally logged as a bug 7 years ago (it's bug 9458, if you want to vote for it). So, Mozilla Organisation, *please* stop adding more and more features that I really don't want, and fix your fscking layout engine. Wasn't that meant to be one of the original goals of Mozilla? To have a browser with a rendering engine that didn't suck? What happened to that concept?

  • Spelling checkers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:14PM (#15743978)

    Standout features are Opera's built-in BitTorrent support, Firefox's spellchecker for forms, and IE's Quick Tabs view.

    How can Firefox's spelling checker be a "standout feature" when Opera, Safari and Konqueror already have it built in? It's more of a "catch-up feature" than a "standout feature".

  • by Blimey85 ( 609949 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:16PM (#15744000)
    I don't think comparing stock Firefox with anything is very relevant. You need to compare Firefox loaded with some extensions to show the true power of the platform. Same with the other browsers and their addons or widgets.

    One example of not doing this is in the feature comparison table where it says that Firefox can't remember open tabs for the next session. My copy of Firefox not only does that when I want it to, it also has crash recovery so when I restart I can choose to reopen all of the tabs or not.

  • by creepynut ( 933825 ) <teddy(slashdot)&teddybrown,ca> on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:20PM (#15744028) Homepage

    Also from TFA: in Firefox requires going through menus, or double clicking on the empty space to the right of the last tab (if you knew about that--usability is about making needed features obvious)

    Having it in the search bar makes it practially hidden. Having a second bar, which by default has the Google icon, makes it a little more obvious that the browser has built in search capabilities, and where it can be accessed.

  • by Blimey85 ( 609949 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:21PM (#15744040)
    Another example is the claim that Firefox can only zoom text and not images. There is an image zoom extension that does what the name implies.

    Maybe the Firefox developers should do a build that has every (non-conflicting) extension that exists just so the comparison will really show the power of Firefox. How else will people know what it really can and can't do?

    After reading this I would think that Firefox lacks a few features that I use, in Firefox, on a regular basis. Maybe the author of the article doesn't use Firefox on a regular basis. Otherwise you'd think he would know about this stuff. Not like these are real obscure extensions that you can't find on the main extension sites.

  • by Yvan256 ( 722131 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:21PM (#15744045) Homepage Journal
    Will Internet Explorer 7 run on Windows 95/98/ME/NT4? If not, then MSIE7 won't be "95% of web users"... And with Nintendo going with Opera for both the Nintendo DS and the Wii, Opera's marketshare might soon explode beyond 1-2%.

    Just keep that in mind before jumping into the "MSIE7 has nice proprietary features" train.

  • Re:It's unfair (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:22PM (#15744050)

    It's unfair to compare Beta versions with a completed version...

    Why? This is a comparison of features, not stability, compliance or even speed. Betas are supposed to be feature complete.

  • Re:It's unfair (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:22PM (#15744058)

    Firefox 2 doesn't pass Acid 2 because no work has been done on Gecko

    Oh come on, don't be such an apologist. Are you seriously saying "It's unfair! They're only behind on that because they didn't work on it!" How is that unfair? They had just as much opportunity to fix things as Opera did, the difference is that they chose not to. That may or may not be a good decision to make, but you can't exactly call it "unfair", can you?

    Firefox 3 (which will use Gecko 1.9) will pass the Acid 2 Test.

    That doesn't matter, what's planned for Firefox 3 doesn't make Firefox 2 any better. When Firefox 3 is released, we can compare that with Opera 10 and Internet Explorer 8, which will both have moved forward too.

  • by Yvan256 ( 722131 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:24PM (#15744066) Homepage Journal
    The problem with FireFox is the extensions. People want a good browser, not fiddle around hunting for what exists. Power users do that, sure, but not regular users.

    Zooming images accordingly with the text should be a basic feature on all browsers, zomming the text only makes no sense IMO.
  • Paste and Go (Score:1, Insightful)

    by vonsneerderhooten ( 254776 ) * on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:28PM (#15744098)
    One thing i still miss from my opera days is the 'paste and go' feature in the address and search bars. It feels natural. very rarely do i paste something in to either bars and not want to just go there. the rare circumstances of not wanting to go there include the need to edit a url or just observe a url when the site has some annoying scrolling thing at the bottom of the window. Bring 'paste and go' to firefox!!
  • ie on acid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzandwater ( 989789 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:29PM (#15744116) Homepage
    It's ridiculous that they defend IE by claiming "no pages seem horribly messed up." Clearly the author is not a web developer. If he were, he would know that the reason the pages display correctly in IE is javascript hacks, css workarounds, web developer headaches, Dean's IE7 javascript library, a separate stylesheet for IE, etc... It's not that IE is inherently displaying the sites correctly, it's that the site developers were forced to make them play nice with IE.
  • by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:30PM (#15744120)

    Now if only they could fix Gecko's inability to render display: inline-block properly, it might become a halfway usable browser. Quite why it's taken so long is beyond me. It's was originally logged as a bug 7 years ago

    Seven years ago, that was a proprietary Internet Explorer property. It's been added to the upcoming CSS 2.1, but that's still only a draft. It's not like it's been a missing part of CSS support for seven years, until recently it was totally non-standard, and technically it still is.

  • Re:Beta? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jerry Coffin ( 824726 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:32PM (#15744133)
    Hardly seems fair to compare different browsers based on beta builds.

    Three points: First, which generates more revenue - fairness or page hits?

    Second, by the time some products are released, everybody who cares has been using it routinly for months or (in a few cases) even years anyway.

    Third, in a lot of cases, it's hard to tell the difference between beta and released software anyway. Let's have a quick show of hands of all the people who believe that IE 7 will have been officially released for an entire month before a major security hole is found. Hmm...I'm not seeing any hands...and I don't think the fact that I can't see any of you really makes much difference in that.

  • by the phantom ( 107624 ) * on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:35PM (#15744158) Homepage
    As was stated above, they are comparing the features that the different browsers have. Betas are supposed to be feature complete, thus the comparison is fair. As long as they are not comparing render speed, memory usage, &c., there is no reason to cry foul.
  • by MaWeiTao ( 908546 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:36PM (#15744162)
    The application should be clean and intuitive out of the box. It's good interface design.

    Being extremely customizable is not always a good thing. Most people would never bother and some will probably be scared by excessively complicated customization.

    I used to go out of my way to customize everything I can, and in some cases I still do so. I went as far as creating new visual themes for my Sony Ericsson phone. But more often than not it's a waste of time. Additionally, the vast majority of skins available for every application are unprofessional and sloppy.

    Apple interfaces are successful not because of customization. In fact, you're usually stuck with what they give you. However, they clearly put a lot of thought into usability. Those interfaces work because they're clean. I don't necessarily like the visual style, but I appreciate the simplicity.
  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) * on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:38PM (#15744179)
    Well the last war MS won but failed to keep their browser up to date. Thus failed in their primary goal of compleatly controling web standards. With IE 7 it is more of a step forward to following the standards and a step back because they realized they didn't get what they compleatly wanted. Many of the features in IE 4,5,6 which I warned were stupid because of security ended up being bad for security. [Cough] Active X [Cough] But now with .NET making Web Apps more standards Based, things like AJAX being standard, CSS and Javascript there are more robust metods of doing things now and latly IE has been the thorn to web devleopers.

    I am somewhat optimistic about IE 7, Vista... Microsoft sience IE 6 and XP has been getting a lot of heat and their stock shows it. Even a company Microsofts size can only make so many mistakes until bulk amounts people start switching. The Aditude has changed a lot sience then too. Before around Windows 95 and 98 Microsoft was (wrongly) considered the Technical Leader and their products were considered to be the best available. Now it is more of a deffeetest aditude of well I am stuck and I don't want to switch and it is not bad enough to switch yet but I am keeping my eyes open. I am not dumb though IE 7 and Vista will not be as great as the PR people make it out to be but it will be better then what they curently have. Much like Windows 2003 Server I havent seen any major problems with it nor do I see people wanting to switch to in in droves.
  • by Tet ( 2721 ) <.ku.oc.enydartsa. .ta. .todhsals.> on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:41PM (#15744206) Homepage Journal
    It's been added to the upcoming CSS 2.1, but that's still only a draft. It's not like it's been a missing part of CSS support for seven years, until recently it was totally non-standard, and technically it still is.

    Agreed. However, it is an essential layout ingredient (to the point, where many layouts can't be implemented without it, short of resorting to tables). Also, the W3C is shooting itself in the foot by releasing specs so slowly. The last officially approved CSS spec was released in 1999. At this point, no one really expects any significant changes to CSS2.1 before it's approved, and there's not really any excuse for not implementing it fully in a browser released in 2006.

  • Re:It's unfair (Score:3, Insightful)

    by El Tonerino ( 875866 ) <toeknee@ha i r c r a z y . i n fo> on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:42PM (#15744209) Homepage
    Internet Explorer 8, which will both have moved forward too.

    Yeah... about that... really... quick... dev..el..op..ment.. time ... that ... i...e... is doing.....
  • Pro IE 7 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:49PM (#15744286) Journal
    IE 7 is cool. I think I'll switch to it for my Windows computers (despite having used Firefox since its first beta). What I like about beta 3: tooltips that show keyboard shortcuts, in fact an entire list of keyboard shortcuts is available from the option menu on newly opened tab. Also I like the option on shutdown to open up with the current tabs next time.

    "But there are extensions for all that!"—In fact that gets me to what I hate most about Firefox. Extension hell. Every time I install Firefox on a new system I have to hunt down a list of extensions for it or my user experience is going to change radically. And all those extensions take up memory and processor time, and often have bugs or security flaws of their own.

    Another thing I like about IE 7 is its sandbox mode on Vista. That should, I think, provide several security advantages over competing browsers. (In fact, IE 6 with ActiveX turned off was already reasonably secure.)
  • Printing support (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chiller2 ( 35804 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @12:59PM (#15744364) Homepage
    The IE7 developers have really improved their printing options [msdn.com]. This is an area the Firefox team should focus on.

    e.g. In Firefox the scaling to fit the page just squeezes the content between wider margins rather than actually scaling the pages.

    Just yesterday a work colleague was trying to print off a page that was split horizontally into two frames. The top one had a company logo, and the lower one the table of figures she actually wanted. Printing normally just output the first bit of the lower frame. I had to view that frame only to get the full table in the frame to print.
  • Re:ie on acid (Score:4, Insightful)

    by trifish ( 826353 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @01:04PM (#15744396)
    Actually, almost every site looks good in IE because webmasters preview/test their sites primarily in IE. Why? Because vast majority of people use IE. Quite simple and reasonable equations.
  • Re:Beta? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kimvette ( 919543 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @01:05PM (#15744406) Homepage Journal
    Comparing bleeding-edge betas to bleeding-edge betas IS fair.

    Comparing, say, Firefox 2.0 (beta) to MSIE 6.0 isn't a very fair comparison.
  • Re:ie on acid (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Enrico Pulatzo ( 536675 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @01:07PM (#15744421)
    Regardless of the author's web developing skills, it's a valid metric for evaluating a web browser.

    No matter how well Firefox and Opera employ W3C standards, they still need to be able to display poorly created pages just as well as valid, semantic, XHTML-driven sites.

    Yes, there are a lot of people who make a lot of workarounds for a lot of browsers. Those who lament this fact should get over it. The companies involved know damn well by now what business they're involved with. Folks have got to stop belly-aching and bitching over these now decade-old problems. They're well-defined problems, which is a good thing. It takes some tricky work to keep your backwards compatibility and introduce new ways of working, ala Internet Explorer's DOCTYPE mode. If they are concerned about people introducing hokey work-arounds that they would eventually have to work around themselves, browser makers would do well to be more involved with the design community.
  • by WeAreAllDoomed ( 943903 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @01:09PM (#15744443)
    True, but there are a lot of programmers that would do pretty much anything for having 'worked for Microsoft' on their CV.

    they could achieve the same effect by putting "i have no scruples, self-respect, or sense of taste" in their bio section.

  • by pe1chl ( 90186 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @01:17PM (#15744498)
    It is usually possible to make websites print decently in many different browsers, including Firefox and MSIE.
    Just define a separate stylesheet for printing. This stylesheet can hide the navigation items and specify how the fixed page layout has to be scaled on the paper when printing.

    Of course, not every site designer is careful enough to include a printing stylesheet.
  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @01:29PM (#15744582) Homepage Journal
    I disagree. Keeping the functionality in extensions keeps the base install smaller. Pretty much everything should be implemented through extensions. It's a web browser, so it's not like fetching extensions from the web is much of a stretch. All one needs is a nice guide to them, the existing addons.mozilla.org site is quite good but it could use some more help in the "easy to figure out what the hell you're doing if you're a newbie" department.
  • Re:ie on acid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @01:51PM (#15744749) Homepage Journal
    Okay. No you are wrong. It really is that simple. IE doesn't follow standards and doesn't even support PNG files correctly. I use Firefox because I use more than one OS. I love me extensions to Firefox, and because I like it better than IE. It seems like a good number of people use Firefox now. So unless you want to exclude 1 out of 10 users from your site can not support just IE. I will not due business with a company that has an IE only site.
    Now the rub is this. IE doesnt support current standards. FireFox has some issue but it is much better then IE and Opera and Safari seem to fully support current standards. Yes web developers have every right to complain about Microsoft ignoring standards and making their life more complicated. Because of IE I can not use PNG files with an alpha channel on websites I design.
    Just because most people use junk that is no reason to
    a. Not tell them that is junk.
    b. Try to get the producers of said junk to make it better.
    c. Try to get people to use a better product.

    Even if IE was only 10% of the browser market good web developers would still put in all the hacks to support it. It is a stupid professional that wants to send away one tenth of their potential market.

    Telling the to get over it? Hell no. Microsoft fix IE 7 before you release it. Get PNGs working and ACID 2.
    Mozilla we are still waiting for ACID 2 from you as well. Get it done NOW.

     
  • by AndreiK ( 908718 ) <AKrotkov@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @01:55PM (#15744789) Homepage
    I would say they meant MB, as currently, with one tab, Firefox is at 36,000K
  • by nick.ian.k ( 987094 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @02:02PM (#15744841)
    Close but not quite. Yes, the interface should be arranged in a logical way that's obvious to most users, but it should still be customizable. To put it another way: customization should be accounted for but remain optional, while common usability should be possible out of the box with little to no effort on the part of the end user. The notion that imitation with only minor improvement is the key to success is the mentality that results in real-dog new versions of popular software. Much as I'm sick to death of hearing about Opera, they brought cool features like tabs to market...only hardly anybody used Opera. Others started to copy a feature that the average web user neither expected or would know how to use out of the box, and now its standard in the major browsers. That's pretty damned unexpected, wouldn't you say so?
  • Re:It's unfair (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @02:10PM (#15744887)

    Browsers are lousy in terms of supporting the various specifications people have published that define useful things web developers want and need to do. This has numerous effects:

    • It slows down and frustrates web developers.
    • It raises the costs of web development.
    • It makes some things impossible.

    All of these are pretty bad for web developers, but they have knock-on effects that end-users suffer from, but don't understand. For example, when was the last time you ran across a bug on a website? Did you ever consider that a web developer would have got around to fixing it before you had trouble with it if he hadn't been busy trying to work around a bug in Internet Explorer?

    The Acid2 test is merely a collection of all kinds of ways in which browsers screw up support for particular specifications. The idea is that it contains lots of things that browsers get wrong which cause hassle for web developers, and that browser developers can use it as a check-list for bugs. It's also a gimmick to raise awareness for these bugs to put pressure on the browser developers to fix them.

    The more browsers that pass the Acid2 test, the better support there is for web developers. The better support there is for web developers, the higher the quality of the work they put out. And you, as an end-user of that work, benefit. It's too many steps removed for you to see, but it's certainly not the meaningless statistic you think it is.

    To use your analogy with CPUs, imagine if every CPU screwed up 10% of the time, and applications like word processors and mail clients had to have 30% more code written to work around the bugs in CPUs. Would you say that was a problem, and demand better quality CPUs, or would you say "Hey, not a problem, the application developers can work around it, right?" Because that's the analogous situation; the "processors" of the WWW are utterly broken, and a huge amount of effort is being wasted because they aren't getting fixed.

  • by friedmud ( 512466 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @02:43PM (#15745165)
    About the memory usage... did it ever occur to anyone that maybe firefox 2.0 is both bigger and slower because it might be compiled in DEBUG mode?

    Comparing Betas on memory size and speed is just a dumb idea...

    Friedmud
  • by Haeleth ( 414428 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @03:03PM (#15745326) Journal
    Apple interfaces are successful not because of customization. In fact, you're usually stuck with what they give you. However, they clearly put a lot of thought into usability. Those interfaces work because they're clean. I don't necessarily like the visual style, but I appreciate the simplicity.

    Yeah, Apple's UI is wonderful, isn't it?

    So intuitive [upenn.edu]. So clean and simple [asktog.com].

    Let's be honest with ourselves here. Apple's UI sucks. It just sucks less than anybody else's; like democracy, it's the least worst idea anyone's come up with. But that doesn't make it perfect.
  • by kthejoker ( 931838 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @03:31PM (#15745569)
    The obvious solution to this is that Firefox should make the browser homepage open up and offer you (concisely and quickly) the 10 Most Popular Extensions, and some links to some more.

    They should make Extensions part of their introductory spiel, and they should make them more accessible and drawn in. They should have "Extensions Packages" wherein you can download 5 XPIs at once and have them all install. I'm a power user, and even I'm turned off by the prospect of hunting through dozens of extensions to find something worthwhile.
  • by njdj ( 458173 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @04:17PM (#15745929)

    I don't really care about features (except tabbed browsing, a must-have, but they all have that). I care about standards compliance. Apparently Opera is in the lead here, with the rest nowhere.

  • Re:It's unfair (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hankwang ( 413283 ) * on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @04:19PM (#15745941) Homepage
    imagine if every CPU screwed up 10% of the time, and applications like word processors and mail clients had to have 30% more code written to work around the bugs in CPUs.
    You would be making a fuss about useless ideal standards. If 90% of the market is running this XYZ processor, then it is the de facto standard. :)
  • by lee1 ( 219161 ) <lee@lee-phi l l i p s.org> on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @04:30PM (#15746005) Homepage
    I like Opera. I use Opera.
    Me, too [lee-phillips.org]. I think there is a reflex to ignore Opera becuase for so long it was pay- or ad-ware.
  • by jez9999 ( 618189 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2006 @06:23PM (#15746679) Homepage Journal
    Woah, don't decry the 'new tab' button just because you don't use it. I'm sur you realise such behaviour is stupid.

    I often use it when I'm in 'reading' mode and am not using the keyboard, but am copy/pasting a URL using the mouse.

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz

Working...