I'm getting a little fed up with IE and have heard good things about Firefox. Is it as good as they say? Also, if I switch to it, can I import my favorites from IE to it and is it difficult to configure?
Thanks in advance for any and all info!

You are using IE7 right? Ir is better IMHO and more mainstream than Firefox and the new IE kinda looks like Firefox.

Simple answer: yes, Firefox is better than IE.

Oh, and plus you can't do alot of things on Firefox like online banking etc. as they won't accept other browsers. Some stores won't let you shop online without IE. Many online virus scanners won't work with FireFox which can be a problem if it is a last resort because a virus locked you out of your own programs (hapopend to me last year and that's why I dumped FF). I found that IE7 has everything FF has and is more compatible. If you do get FF I would always keep IE somewhere just in case. Don't make it your default browser either.

<font color=skyblue>I am with SpiritWarrior on that because I do bank online, shop online, etc. and I have to have IE to do those things. </font>

<font color=8fbc8f>I am totally aginst IE, and conduct ALL of my banking online with Firefox! That's right, my bank, 401K, credit card statements and bill paying service, ebay, paypal, expedia, electric bill, phone bill, mortgage, and traditional money <s>laundering</s> movements between accounts, all conducted with Firefox. The only thing Firefox cannot do at the moment (in my experience) is emulate IE on the M$ website, play .wmv files online (like Fox Sports), and do OS updates.

Sorry Spirit, but your stock is going down! I'll let the foundation know M$ is losing a recruiter!</font>

Firefox is becoming more and more compatible (always was compatible most places), as html is being standardized, and those thing microsoft decided to add to the standard disappear...as such, it works at all the online stores and banks I frequent...

I can watch stuff on Youtube, or listen to streaming audio, or whatever.

Actually, I can't remember the last time that I needed to open IE, because microsoft's web site is increasingly compatible with firefox, as well.

Plus, you can get plugins for firefox (I highly recommend Adblock!) that make it easier to use, even more secure, and more comfortable.

meh.. i find both useful. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color=8fbc8f>I am totally aginst IE, and conduct ALL of my banking online with Firefox! That's right, my bank, 401K, credit card statements and bill paying service, ebay, paypal, expedia, electric bill, phone bill, mortgage, and traditional money <s>laundering</s> movements between accounts, all conducted with Firefox. The only thing Firefox cannot do at the moment (in my experience) is emulate IE on the M$ website, play .wmv files online (like Fox Sports), and do OS updates.

Sorry Spirit, but your stock is going down! I'll let the foundation know M$ is losing a recruiter!</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Well many banks still won't recognise it and reject it. Either your bank took the time to talk and register with the FF admins or their security is low - which is a bad thing in itself for online banking. Ebay took awhile to accept FF also, during that while one couldn't ebay with FF if they "against IE" like you. Paypal was the same. Is it more compatible now than it was then? Sure. But when you really need it to work it doesn't. I got a virus last year that knocked out all my access to applications. I had to access the internet via run commands to bring up the browser. FF was my default browser at the time, and when I finally got to an online scanner it wouldnt let me use FF with it. Of course, all my access was locked out so I couldn't change my browser at all. If you get any kind of Desktop hijacker it can do this and give you problems. After that I deleted FF and never looked back. Until it replaces IE it isn't worth the risk or the hassle. Fast browsing isn't an issue for me. IE7 is liquid fast and rarely are the times any of us on broadband are sitting around waiting for pages to load anyways. Repent while you can and all will be forgiven.

<font color=8fbc8f>I am totally aginst IE, and conduct ALL of my banking online with Firefox! That's right, my bank, 401K, credit card statements and bill paying service, ebay, paypal, expedia, electric bill, phone bill, mortgage, and traditional money <s>laundering</s> movements between accounts, all conducted with Firefox. The only thing Firefox cannot do at the moment (in my experience) is emulate IE on the M$ website, play .wmv files online (like Fox Sports), and do OS updates.

Sorry Spirit, but your stock is going down! I'll let the foundation know M$ is losing a recruiter!</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Well many banks still won't recognise it and reject it. Either your bank took the time to talk and register with the FF admins or their security is low - which is a bad thing in itself for online banking. Ebay took awhile to accept FF also, during that while one couldn't ebay with FF if they "against IE" like you. Paypal was the same. Is it more compatible now than it was then? Sure. But when you really need it to work it doesn't. I got a virus last year that knocked out all my access to applications. I had to access the internet via run commands to bring up the browser. FF was my default browser at the time, and when I finally got to an online scanner it wouldnt let me use FF with it. Of course, all my access was locked out so I couldn't change my browser at all. If you get any kind of Desktop hijacker it can do this and give you problems. After that I deleted FF and never looked back. Until it replaces IE it isn't worth the risk or the hassle. Fast browsing isn't an issue for me. IE7 is liquid fast and rarely are the times any of us on broadband are sitting around waiting for pages to load anyways. Repent while you can and all will be forgiven. </font>[/QUOTE]I know how you feel Spirit, my banks warn user not to use FF as well and most don't work, which doesnt bother me because I generally use IE7 anyways.

Same, it's usually only stubborn people that cannot find the usefullness of both.
REGARDLESS of which has more benefits.

Meh. I've used Firefox for most things for at least a couple of years now. I bank on-line, I buy things with paypal, and do all sorts of transactions. Not a problem.

There are sites that are not compatible. For the most part, it's because the designer of the site isn't as clever as they think (IMHO). They parse a string that the browser sends to determine what browser you're using, and then decide if they're going to use it. Firefox has a plugin called... User Agent Switcher that lets you identify what you want to send back -- IE6, NS 4.8, or Opera 7.54 (on my older version of the plugin).

There are only a couple of places where I've run into issues. Our corporate web site is one (shame on them), and Trendmicro (who are probably an exception to the "not as clever as they think) bit. For those, I have to use IE. For everything else, FF.

Bottom line: use the tool you need. Don't fret over it.

Two words:

Mac

Safari

:D

One word:

Irrelevant. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] What planet are you from? I wouldn't consider any bank that thinks IE is secure to be trustworthy. IE is THE MOST insecure browser out there. Just the fact that you are using Winblows (which is explicit in using IE) means you are insecure.

You do realize that this behaviour you love is THE main vector for desktop infection by virii, don't you? The ability to install executable code through the IE browser (this is called ActiveX) is very, VERY dangerous - and the INability to do this is a feature for me, and many others - not a bug.

Oh, and if you are smart, you don't rely on an online scanner (which can be tricked if you are well and truly screwed by an infection), you prepare by having a scanner bootdisk - which will work even if your internet acces is hosed by the virus.

Ever heard of IE7? Obviously not, you should look it up sometime

[img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] What planet are you from? I wouldn't consider any bank that thinks IE is secure to be trustworthy. IE is THE MOST insecure browser out there. Just the fact that you are using Winblows (which is explicit in using IE) means you are insecure.

Quote:

I got a virus last year that knocked out all my access to applications. I had to access the internet via run commands to bring up the browser. FF was my default browser at the time, and when I finally got to an online scanner it wouldnt let me use FF with it. Of course, all my access was locked out so I couldn't change my browser at all. If you get any kind of Desktop hijacker it can do this and give you problems. After that I deleted FF and never looked back. Until it replaces IE it isn't worth the risk or the hassle. Fast browsing isn't an issue for me. IE7 is liquid fast and rarely are the times any of us on broadband are sitting around waiting for pages to load anyways. Repent while you can and all will be forgiven.

You do realize that this behaviour you love is THE main vector for desktop infection by virii, don't you? The ability to install executable code through the IE browser (this is called ActiveX) is very, VERY dangerous - and the INability to do this is a feature for me, and many others - not a bug.

Oh, and if you are smart, you don't rely on an online scanner (which can be tricked if you are well and truly screwed by an infection), you prepare by having a scanner bootdisk - which will work even if your internet acces is hosed by the virus. </font>[/QUOTE]for IE
usually my feature for active x is either disabled or protected my anti-virus or firewall. If it ever pops up that it is installing some program, it ask me first before any installation occurs. But I dont believe it has ever installed something i disallowed in the past 3 years i have been using this computer.

I use Opera. And before that I used Firefox. And I would say that yes, Firefox is better than IE. Although I do admit that I might not have the best reseach material available. The IE they use at school is an old sucky one that has absolutely no support for even the most basic interface improvements that Firefox has had for years, such as tabs.

With Microsoft finally realizing that it has to actually occasionally update IE, issues with security are decreasing. Most cases of works-only-with-spesific-browser can be worked around. So you just have to pick a browser that looks nice and has an intuitive interface and doesn't spontaneously crash.

[img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] What planet are you from? I wouldn't consider any bank that thinks IE is secure to be trustworthy. IE is THE MOST insecure browser out there. Just the fact that you are using Winblows (which is explicit in using IE) means you are insecure.

Quote:

I got a virus last year that knocked out all my access to applications. I had to access the internet via run commands to bring up the browser. FF was my default browser at the time, and when I finally got to an online scanner it wouldnt let me use FF with it. Of course, all my access was locked out so I couldn't change my browser at all. If you get any kind of Desktop hijacker it can do this and give you problems. After that I deleted FF and never looked back. Until it replaces IE it isn't worth the risk or the hassle. Fast browsing isn't an issue for me. IE7 is liquid fast and rarely are the times any of us on broadband are sitting around waiting for pages to load anyways. Repent while you can and all will be forgiven.

You do realize that this behaviour you love is THE main vector for desktop infection by virii, don't you? The ability to install executable code through the IE browser (this is called ActiveX) is very, VERY dangerous - and the INability to do this is a feature for me, and many others - not a bug.

Oh, and if you are smart, you don't rely on an online scanner (which can be tricked if you are well and truly screwed by an infection), you prepare by having a scanner bootdisk - which will work even if your internet acces is hosed by the virus. </font>[/QUOTE]I think you are saying alot but managing to steer clear from anything that is in any way relevant. People, please re-read posts carefully and thoroughly before spewing paragraphs of these stupid assumptions and arrogant conclusions all the while patting yourself on the back for "saying what you feel". There is no need to be a rude prick about the fact that you disagree. It is enough that your reasons are retarded but atop this you have to come off as annoying AND clueless. Just, don't.

I think you are saying alot but managing to steer clear from anything that is in any way relevant. People, please re-read posts carefully and thoroughly before spewing paragraphs of these stupid assumptions and arrogant conclusions all the while patting yourself on the back for "saying what you feel". There is no need to be a rude prick about the fact that you disagree. It is enough that your reasons are retarded but atop this you have to come off as annoying AND clueless. Just, don't. </font>[/QUOTE]I think you're both wrong. The other browser isn't necessarily really bad just because your browser is really good.

I amn't saying it's bad. If you would see in my second post I advised him to keep IE while using FF. I said both.

It would be interesting to hear some actual quantifiable data to support these claims that one is better than the other. I see little difference between Firefox and IE7 other than the fact I don't get timeouts at Ironworks when on IE7. Thus, IE is better FOR ME.

God yes, I haven't had a timeout in months. I thought it was IW that fixed it, but yeah I switched to IE7 beta around then.

The only issues I ever faced with IE was that spyware was able to change my homepage and not allow me to change it back, bt then again, I have had the same thing happen in Firefox.
Most people will claim that IE is less secure, which is true to a certain degree I suppose. But that has changed since IE7 has been released.

Eitehr way, it is nott easily possible to show accurate, un-biased facts on both.

Just use what you like and leave people to try them all if they choose to.

<font color=8fbc8f>You are spot on!

First qualifying post: All servers talk to each other in code. All browsers must be able to talk to the server in order to create communications. M$ does this for you, in the deep dark depths of the unseen world.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa286574.aspx

My preference is Linux and Swift Fox (high speed low drag Linux only FF), which is native code with a native coded browser. I have zero impact from virus, trojan, script, active X, java, and hang times. Yet, I still have SSL 3.0 security. Both my Federal Credit Union, and bank, (Citi-Bank) have chosen the higher security standards. However, there was a validation process that had to be executed prior to full access. As "B" posted above, that was conducted some time ago.

Is it not amazing how we get so involved for a simple question on this forum?

Use both, be happy, surf till you can't surf no-more!</font>

Hehe, I agree with both your points :D

It really is amazing that the words "FF/IE/FX/Firefox/Inernet Explorer/Linux/Unix/Windows" are destined to have long discussions (actually arguments) :D

It's all in good fun though as long as you don't take it too seriously (Which I admit I do alot [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

Maxthon rulez! (thats what i have been using in a long time) integrated IE engine that is. [img]smile.gif[/img]

but i do surf in mozilla once in awhile. Speaking of which, I found a cool plugin for Mozilla firefox which would allow you to download videos from youtube, and other sites

http://javimoya.com/blog/youtube_en.php

extension plug-in
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2390/

You would need an FLV player for it though. (im sure you also would know how to move around this website for the plug in [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

What stupid conclusions are you talking about?

1) Windows is, in fact, the most insecure and buggy O/S out there - this is proven fact. XP has many "features" that the average user is totally unaware of, or even how to use, that are enabled by default, or can be enabled through simple, hidden commands on a webpage. Unsuspecting webusers can then be literally hacked at the root level of access completely without their knowledge. It takes considerable savvy to disable these features, even if you find out about them. (for example, XP's built in server functionality)

Windows has an enormous buglist - one that grows faster than they're patched by the slothful bureaucracy at microsoft. Open-source software (such as Linux or Firefox, for example) often get bugs patched before they're common knowledge.

2) IE uses ActiveX, that's a fact. ActiveX is an infection vector, that too is a fact. Just because you're aware something is being installed doesn't mean it's beneficial to you. Ever heard of a Trojan?

3) I don't feel I've been rude at all - I haven't called you names or insulted you - just your flagwaving of an inferior browser. You have a right to your opinion - even when it's wrong. [img]smile.gif[/img]

as much as i agree with your first point SirK.
the problem would also be that while many people arent aware about those "default" settings, they will probably not also be aware of the existence of linux or other OS. At least IMO, many people see the bugs of windows because a majority of people use windows. If the same amount of resources are placed into other OS in discovering weaknesses and bugs, I am fairly confident they will have the same amount of buglist that can be discovered.

another note is i belive would be a good but decieving advertising being made by MAC
http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/
especially claiming that thier OS is spyware free and cannot be hacked into.

What stupid conclusions are you talking about?

1) Windows is, in fact, the most insecure and buggy O/S out there - this is proven fact. XP has many "features" that the average user is totally unaware of, or even how to use, that are enabled by default, or can be enabled through simple, hidden commands on a webpage. Unsuspecting webusers can then be literally hacked at the root level of access completely without their knowledge. It takes considerable savvy to disable these features, even if you find out about them. (for example, XP's built in server functionality)

Windows has an enormous buglist - one that grows faster than they're patched by the slothful bureaucracy at microsoft. Open-source software (such as Linux or Firefox, for example) often get bugs patched before they're common knowledge.

2) IE uses ActiveX, that's a fact. ActiveX is an infection vector, that too is a fact. Just because you're aware something is being installed doesn't mean it's beneficial to you. Ever heard of a Trojan?

3) I don't feel I've been rude at all - I haven't called you names or insulted you - just your flagwaving of an inferior browser. You have a right to your opinion - even when it's wrong. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Well then I guess that's the way you talk to everyone when expressing your opinion...since we both agree that's all it is, an opinion. It's just your statements contradict what you just said, you say things like "you flagwaving an inferior browser". Put the abbreviation "IMHO" before that (remember we all have 'opinions'). You then say "you have a right to an opinion - even when it's wrong". Make up your mind. Or is it just what suits you in the moment? I refuse to believe you talk to people like this IRL. Regardless, please don't do it here. This isn't an Xbox forum where we struggle to prove who has the bigger E-peen and who can be more condescendingly arrogant. This is a thread where someone asked an opinion. If you disagree with the opionions fine but have manners while doing so. If you still have absolutely no inkling as to how you come across in your posts perhaps if I just paste this line back to you it might spur on some deep self-analysis.

"I don't feel I've been rude at all - I haven't called you names or insulted you - just your flagwaving of an inferior browser. You have a right to your opinion - even when it's wrong."

Now, as for your proven facts they are what I would call "flagwaving". Most of this data is all proportional at best. Windows has more users than any OS. It's like the "no viruses on the mac" discussion we had a few months back on this forum. It's because there's not enough people to be bothered making them. Add enough people to anything and flaws will soon be uncovered. Of course it has security holes and bugs but what doesn't? Open source software is a double edged sword of course. The other side is that everyone else and their mother has access to the code. The activeX thing I don't dispute but bears no relevance to what I was saying. And no, what is a trojan? *groan*

[ 10-18-2006, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: SpiritWarrior ]

Having sourcecode publicly available is a good thing. It allows something called peer review and is one of the reasons bugs get fixed so fast under the open source system. It also says "see? I have nothing to hide - check out my code" Microsoft is very high handed, and does lots of things under the hood that users don't know about - perhaps most don't care, but they should. (much like the lawsuit that was in the news a while back) Microsoft refuses to allow access to their sourcecode, and believe me it has nothing to do with security - knowing how a system secures itself has little to do with how easy it is for you to hack it UNLESS there is a bug, and the bug will be found sooner if users can poke around the sourcecode and tell you whats wrong. This is proven by experience in the open source movement.

There is some truth in the "windows is more popular" argument, but remember that Linus runs the majority of commercial servers out there, and are the more lucrative targets for would be hackers - yet Linux systems have uptimes measured in years, the most secure and stable windows systems don't even come close - most are measured in weeks, and thats only if they're running the latest patched software - earlier versions were lucky to get three days.

I'll assume the trojan comment is serious. A trojen isn't quite a virus. It's a piece of software that promises one thing, but really does something else. Someone could offer you a piece of software doing something useful, but when you install it, it then erases your harddisk or spies on your system sending personal information to the internet, for example.

No, you described a virus and a keylogger.
A trojan is a kind of malicious code that burries inside your PC and allows the hacker who infected you easy access into your system. Some trojans are untargeted, and allow pretty much any hacker anywhere easy access to the infected system, while some work much like Remote Desktop. Trojans are often masked as other programs that require internet access, the most popular ones imitating java, update scheduler and printer ques.

It was sarcasm. Thus the *groan* after it.

[ 10-19-2006, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: SpiritWarrior ]

Not that you can remove it...

Not thoroughly. Well it can but you would lose some intergrated functionality. But then you need to for things like Windows Update.

A trojan (as in "Trojan Horse") is indeed what I described. The fact that it is also a keylogger is inconsequential. I did not describe a virus. A virus is a small program that "hitches a ride" on other software. Trojans are actual stand alone programs that are designed from the ground up to carry a payload.

What you described is not a trojan - you described a backdoor. ;)

Backdoors can be delivered as virii or trojans.

[ 10-19-2006, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

It doesn't? It occurs to me that you don't quite get what a risk to security ActiveX can be.

If you expect your bank transactions (and your personal info, such as passwords and account numbers) with IE to be private and confidential, then you are mistaken in believing that IE keeps this secure from intruders. (ref: your comment that using anything but IE is a risk to security)

A trojan (as in "Trojan Horse") is indeed what I described. The fact that it is also a keylogger is inconsequential. I did not describe a virus. A virus is a small program that "hitches a ride" on other software. Trojans are actual stand alone programs that are designed from the ground up to carry a payload.

What you described is not a trojan - you described a backdoor. ;)

Backdoors can be delivered as virii or trojans. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, reading it now, I see I fumbled. Well, atleast you know what I meant [img]tongue.gif[/img]

*Crwod chants* Fight fight fight fight!

It doesn't? It occurs to me that you don't quite get what a risk to security ActiveX can be.

If you expect your bank transactions (and your personal info, such as passwords and account numbers) with IE to be private and confidential, then you are mistaken in believing that IE keeps this secure from intruders. (ref: your comment that using anything but IE is a risk to security) </font>[/QUOTE]Well you made an incorrect assumption again then. I know how programs can implement themselves via activex. My point was I never mentioned it, you did. That's all.

And this thoughtful "(ref: your comment that using anything but IE is a risk to security)" is another gem. Where'd I write that?