Mozilla: Firebird

[X-Istence]

You just started a war my friend.

I would like to see a test to see which browser wins.

But i also want to see which browser is able to load sites the fastest, that are totally w3c compliant, and that IE renders useless.

Case and point: http://tutorials.x-istence.com/qMail_vpopmail_daemontools_authpatch.xhtml


Open this in Mozilla and you will be presented with a nice page, showing you how to setup qMail and the stuff, but open this in IE, and it will ask you to download it. What is that all about? The server is still sending it a normal XHTML document, with the normal header, but it WANTS TO DOWNLOAD IT.

Now second, performance, this seems to be your issue about FireBird, and Mozilla.org. You dont think it can stand up against IE, or you are to SCARED to even believe it would fail to step up to the plate, and blatently load sites that re w3c compliant, and look crap in IE.

Second, i know Mozilla does this as well, but why does MS add extensions to CSS but those are not recognized by w3c, but they still try to push them on everyone on the web.

Case and point, the "filter" CSS tag. Its not valid CSS, and is not shown by FireBird or Opera, but still IE shows them. Mozilla has extensions like these, but properly marks em that way. Like
moz-opacity and moz-*. And most users dont even know about these.

Third, if you put to many tables inside another table, making a pyramid kinda ting, IE will get slower and slower and slower and slower everytime it has to add another table. While FireBird/Mozilla displays em within seconds, without any problems.

Also, why the random bugs in IE, there is even one where if you have an <input> field without a name="hello" it will crash.

Put this in a page and watch:

<form>
<input ie>
</form>

( Note: code could be wrong, i am gonna check up on this )

it will crash IE, and if you have a HTML background type thingie, your desktop will now only say it crashed =).

I currently cant think of a site that is w3c compliant but doesnt look proper in IE but i have seen quit a few things happen.

Like my friends site http://squeakyweasel.net/ had made his page w3c compliant after Speedy_B proded him a few times, and it looked like he wanted in Mozilla and opera, but in IE it was all screwed, and things were out of place. So he went out of his way, redid some of his allready w3c compliant code, which again was compliant, but now it did look fine in IE as well, and looked the same in FireBird and Opera.

Popup blocking? IE doesnt even have any, i hate popups, so Firebird and mozilla block em for me, no need to install something from a 3rd party, and it works out the box.

Cookie control, okay so in IE you have 2 settings. Allow or disable, but you cant do site per site allowance, or only allow cookies for the current site only so that any cookies from 3rd party sites are blocked. Or you can get warned when a cookie is set and per site basis select if you want to allow it, or not allow the cookie.

Image control, you can control what servers are allowed to load images and what server are not. Great for that annoying flashing GIF banner add, right click, dont show images from this site, and gone it is. Just hit reload. Youd need to find another app for IE to be able to do that.

Search is integrated, google, netscape, ixquick, hotbot, pretty much anything is included. Have yet to see more than MSN and some other services in IE, and those search engines dont offer what i want.

Mulitmedia integration and plugins. IE and FireBird have their fair share of plugins and multimedia apps that work with em. But the edge that Firebird has over IE is that its easier to produce plugins for since ITS opensource. Ive seen plugins for IE only, but why IE? Only because its the most used, why cant you make it for some other company? See thats another problem, IE seems to get a lot more used since EVERYTHING is made towards it. This can be bad, but to me thats good, one less site to visit on my daily surfing.

Javascript, in FireBird you can control what it can do or cant. You can select if its allowed to open windows or change the URL bar text and make a ticker. In IE its either on or off, and those annoying debug messages dont help the end user anyways, who wants to see them if they are just visiting the site in the first place?

Then there is java, its all great, but the last IE i used it still contained the old Java from MS, the one that is now banned. So using the origional one is needed, but still for some reason if the normal java is not present and the MS java is, it will still use that instead of telling the users that its not allowed, or uninstalling it totally.

Active X, i have yet to see something good come off of Active X, all it lets sites do is install spyware on demand as someone else stated. Its not a good language, and can be used to do malicious things. No active X in FireBird, and also a lot less viruses going around for it arnt there?

Third, bugs and major security issues, well last time i checked IE had a million and one patches in the last 50 minutes since it had another vuln that allowed any site to takeover a person's PC. I have yet to see any other browser allow someone that they dont even know and they are visiting a page off to allow them to take over my PC. Kinda weird aint it?

Now that is my review of IE versus FireBird/Mozilla.

X-Istence

Content posted here is (c) copyright 2003 X-Istence.com

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by X-Istence
Send IE a perfectly normal:

Content-Type: text/xhtml+xml

Or whatever it is, and it will ask you to download it =).

anyone that writes a page that ie can't open can't write a page

or wirtes a page with a deliberate anti ie agenda

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by X-Istence
You just started a war my friend.

not so X-Istence

I allready said I'll retire from tis thread...I made my point and as speedy pointed out, there is no need for benchmarks, since the people that like the alternative browser will continue to prefer it

as they should

 

[gonaads]

Any and all IE postings will be DELETED with extreme prejudice. This is a pro Mozilla/Firebird thread and hence OFFLIMITS to all IE peons.

 

[Perris Calderon]

/me ie peon

tee hee

 

[gonaads]

Now to quell Dealer...

attached is an image of both IE and Firebird's page generated numbers. IE is in the forefront.

 

[X-Istence]

Id post it again, since it was a few posts up.

You just started a war my friend.

I would like to see a test to see which browser wins.

But i also want to see which browser is able to load sites the fastest, that are totally w3c compliant, and that IE renders useless.

Case and point: http://tutorials.x-istence.com/qMail_vpopmail_daemontools_authpatch.xhtml


Open this in Mozilla and you will be presented with a nice page, showing you how to setup qMail and the stuff, but open this in IE, and it will ask you to download it. What is that all about? The server is still sending it a normal XHTML document, with the normal header, but it WANTS TO DOWNLOAD IT.

Now second, performance, this seems to be your issue about FireBird, and Mozilla.org. You dont think it can stand up against IE, or you are to SCARED to even believe it would fail to step up to the plate, and blatently load sites that re w3c compliant, and look crap in IE.

Second, i know Mozilla does this as well, but why does MS add extensions to CSS but those are not recognized by w3c, but they still try to push them on everyone on the web.

Case and point, the "filter" CSS tag. Its not valid CSS, and is not shown by FireBird or Opera, but still IE shows them. Mozilla has extensions like these, but properly marks em that way. Like
moz-opacity and moz-*. And most users dont even know about these.

Third, if you put to many tables inside another table, making a pyramid kinda ting, IE will get slower and slower and slower and slower everytime it has to add another table. While FireBird/Mozilla displays em within seconds, without any problems.

Also, why the random bugs in IE, there is even one where if you have an <input> field without a name="hello" it will crash.

Put this in a page and watch:

<form>
<input ie>
</form>

( Note: code could be wrong, i am gonna check up on this )

it will crash IE, and if you have a HTML background type thingie, your desktop will now only say it crashed =).

I currently cant think of a site that is w3c compliant but doesnt look proper in IE but i have seen quit a few things happen.

Like my friends site http://squeakyweasel.net/ had made his page w3c compliant after Speedy_B proded him a few times, and it looked like he wanted in Mozilla and opera, but in IE it was all screwed, and things were out of place. So he went out of his way, redid some of his allready w3c compliant code, which again was compliant, but now it did look fine in IE as well, and looked the same in FireBird and Opera.

Popup blocking? IE doesnt even have any, i hate popups, so Firebird and mozilla block em for me, no need to install something from a 3rd party, and it works out the box.

Cookie control, okay so in IE you have 2 settings. Allow or disable, but you cant do site per site allowance, or only allow cookies for the current site only so that any cookies from 3rd party sites are blocked. Or you can get warned when a cookie is set and per site basis select if you want to allow it, or not allow the cookie.

Image control, you can control what servers are allowed to load images and what server are not. Great for that annoying flashing GIF banner add, right click, dont show images from this site, and gone it is. Just hit reload. Youd need to find another app for IE to be able to do that.

Search is integrated, google, netscape, ixquick, hotbot, pretty much anything is included. Have yet to see more than MSN and some other services in IE, and those search engines dont offer what i want.

Mulitmedia integration and plugins. IE and FireBird have their fair share of plugins and multimedia apps that work with em. But the edge that Firebird has over IE is that its easier to produce plugins for since ITS opensource. Ive seen plugins for IE only, but why IE? Only because its the most used, why cant you make it for some other company? See thats another problem, IE seems to get a lot more used since EVERYTHING is made towards it. This can be bad, but to me thats good, one less site to visit on my daily surfing.

Javascript, in FireBird you can control what it can do or cant. You can select if its allowed to open windows or change the URL bar text and make a ticker. In IE its either on or off, and those annoying debug messages dont help the end user anyways, who wants to see them if they are just visiting the site in the first place?

Then there is java, its all great, but the last IE i used it still contained the old Java from MS, the one that is now banned. So using the origional one is needed, but still for some reason if the normal java is not present and the MS java is, it will still use that instead of telling the users that its not allowed, or uninstalling it totally.

Active X, i have yet to see something good come off of Active X, all it lets sites do is install spyware on demand as someone else stated. Its not a good language, and can be used to do malicious things. No active X in FireBird, and also a lot less viruses going around for it arnt there?

Third, bugs and major security issues, well last time i checked IE had a million and one patches in the last 50 minutes since it had another vuln that allowed any site to takeover a person's PC. I have yet to see any other browser allow someone that they dont even know and they are visiting a page off to allow them to take over my PC. Kinda weird aint it?

Now that is my review of IE versus FireBird/Mozilla.

X-Istence

Content posted here is (c) copyright 2003 X-Istence.com

 

[gonaads]

And to prove that it is IE and Firebird, here is an image of the upper left corners of the browsers.

Again as I said before, IE is in the forefront.

Funny how Firebird generated the very same page faster.

 

[X-Istence]

Originally posted by dealer
anyone that writes a page that ie can't open can't write a page

or wirtes a page with a deliberate anti ie agenda

Excuse me, but that is the real content type of a XHTML/XML page. So basically its not an ANTI IE agenda, but rather IE not keeping its specs up to date of the right header's its supposed to be getting.

Second, if you claim i can no write pages, i suggest you go try to build a website that has the extension XHTML and sends the correct header, and get IE to display it, since it is in fact just normal proper content type header, so then IE does not support it.

Read my thread above for more info.

Gecko the engine is way better than the engine IE uses.

Faster, doesnt crash as often, and if it crashes doesnt take the entire system down with it.

 

[X-Istence]

Originally posted by gonaads
And to prove that it is IE and Firebird, here is an image of the upper left corners of the browsers.

Again as I said before, IE is in the forefront.

Funny how Firebird generated the very same page faster.

Page creation times are the servers measurement of how fast the page was processed by PHP, and in this case has nothing to do with the engine of Mozilla or the engine of IE.

 

[X-Istence]

My server sends a totally valid content type, and guess what. Firebird serves the page as reqeusted, and IE wants to download it.

Hrm, something not totally right about that is there?

 

[Perris Calderon]

X-Istence

I see you added to your original post

that's a great post

I agree...ie is not under developement, and writing code that ie cannot deal with will prove to fail in the ie browser

as I said, I was full expecting an alternative browser to finally beat ie, and I will switch if this is what I find

for the time being however, ie will open much more pages then any "alternative" that is not ie based

but on one point, no...

the test must be a practical test, not a devised test...this means common surfing, not devised surfing


so if your point is that the mo can open some pages that ie can't, you have to take a full measure, and the mo will fail against ie in that regard

now as far as your screeny

I'd like to try to duplicate your results

can you tell me how you launched both browsers at the same time...I can't figure out how to do that...in my benchmarks, I have had to use a much less acurate timing device, and do a apge by page comparison...not as good as what you've come up with

if I get the same results as you I will gladly post that the mo is faster then ie

I guess after reading your post I will indeed give firebird another go

give me the link to the best download to try

I'll be back in a couple of days with what I found

 

[gonaads]

Originally posted by X-Istence
Page creation times are the servers measurement of how fast the page was processed by PHP, and in this case has nothing to do with the engine of Mozilla or the engine of IE.

Shut up... Sheeeeeesh

 

[X-Istence]

How do you mean you would like to duplicate my results. I have no results showing that FireBird is faster, i agree on that.

But neither do you have prove that IE is better or faster. In fact, by all the points i have mentioned, it would seem that IE is insecure, doesnt keep to the standards, and doesnt listen to normal headers that are perfectly right to use.

Second, since XHTML/HTML and the web standards are always improving or becoming better, IE should be updated as well:

" agree...iue is not under developement, and writing code that ie cannot deal with will proe to fail in the ie browser"

Thats the point, FireBird supports the new stuff that IE is failing to support because of it lack of updates, meaning OFF course it fails in the newer tests, which are being used more and more on websites.

Just because one browser doesnt support a feature doesnt mean that people are gonna stop using the newer stuff, no they want to use the newer stuff since its either easier to use, or just plain cool to have the new stuff.

Well, that is what browser have to keep up to, they have to keep updated so that they support the latest and greatest. Claiming that IE then should not be tested on those parts is like saying i dont want to take those classess in highschool since they are to new, and i like old school.

The screeny is showed just shows that FireBird displays it fine, but that IE doesnt, eventhough the content header sent is fine, and is a valid header. So basically IE is not compliant again.

Basically, what i suggest you to do before you post anymore stuff about IE not having to participate in a test, is to go find another browser THAT doesnt support stuff that i pointed out IE doesnt support.

So go find one, other than a browser older than 2003, since those really dont count.

I know as a fact the following browser are compliant and work as expected with what i showed with that screeny:

Konqeurer
opera
Mozilla
Firebird
Netscape
lynx
links

You go find me one that doesnt support it other than IE.

Good luck, and test FireBird before you say anything else Dealer/perris. It really will not do you really good.

About the time to open the table thing, go get a stop watch, and make PHP loop 5000 times making a table inside a table. This should get you 5000 tables embedded, now time how long it takes to open it in IE, and how long it takes in FireBird.

According to my test results, it was not even nowhere close, and Firebird won by a long shot as IE froze.

Running both side by side is not very smart, since both will want to grab full CPU power capicity, and will cause it to be split unevenly.

I tested on a fresh reinstall of Windows 2000, with IE 6.0, and FireBird 0.6.1

Have a good day, and head over to mozilla.org download it, and test yourself.

And come back once you have the results, since now you cant say that i am allready afraid that FireBird will lose.

If Firebird loses, ill try to get your results by testing again, and if i conclude the same as you, i will state that i was proven wrong.

 

[X-Istence]

Originally posted by gonaads
Shut up... Sheeeeeesh

No, since that would be unfair to our IE loving Dealer/Perris who needs to go try Firebird before he comments again.

 

[punkandacoke]

the funny thing about this all. IT DOESNT MATTER YA MORONS. PEOPLE ARE STILL GONNA USE WHAT THEY WANT TO. i mean, from some aspects, every browser is better than the other. try all of them. see what you like. whatever you may choose to use, dont tell other people that your browser is better. because you know what. your basically being a digital bigot. and a$$. so just SHUT UP! for god sakes. ya jacka$$'s

 

[j79zlr]

Originally posted by punkandacoke
the funny thing about this all. IT DOESNT MATTER YA MORONS. PEOPLE ARE STILL GONNA USE WHAT THEY WANT TO. i mean, from some aspects, every browser is better than the other. try all of them. see what you like. whatever you may choose to use, dont tell other people that your browser is better. because you know what. your basically being a digital bigot. and a$$. so just SHUT UP! for god sakes. ya jacka$$'s

Lay off the coke or share dood

 

[punkandacoke]

btw. i know i only have four posts.

 

[X-Istence]

Originally posted by punkandacoke
the funny thing about this all. IT DOESNT MATTER YA MORONS. PEOPLE ARE STILL GONNA USE WHAT THEY WANT TO. i mean, from some aspects, every browser is better than the other. try all of them. see what you like. whatever you may choose to use, dont tell other people that your browser is better. because you know what. your basically being a digital bigot. and a$$. so just SHUT UP! for god sakes. ya jacka$$'s

Wow, another prick comes in here using the $$ symbols to pypass the word filters.

Second, go away if you just want to complain, dont read this thread if you dont like it, its you choice. DONT CLICK THE LINKS.

 

[gonaads]

Now the question I have is what will happen to IE in the form of functionality if and when MicroSquish does tweek IE because of this:

Microsoft told the Web's leading standards body that it's considering making changes to its Internet Explorer browser in light of a recent ruling against the company in a patent infringement lawsuit.

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) issued a statement Thursday indicating that Microsoft is mulling its options after a federal court earlier this month found that plug-ins and applets in Internet Explorer (IE) infringed on patents held by Eolas Technologies and the University of California. The software giant was ordered to pay $521 million to the Web technology company and the university.

"In the near term, Microsoft has indicated to the W3C that they will very soon be making changes to its Internet Explorer browser software in response to this ruling," Steven R. Bratt, chief operating officer of the W3C, said in a statement. "These changes may affect a large number of existing Web pages."

This week the standards body held an ad hoc meeting for its members, including Microsoft, during which people were asked to offer their opinions regarding any changes the software maker should make to IE. The objective of the meeting was to evaluate potential near-term changes that could be implemented in browsers, authoring tools and Web sites as a result of the court case. Roughly 50 individuals showed up at the meeting in San Francisco, with many others participating via a teleconference call, a W3C representative said.

From front page news article:

http://www.ntfs.org/comments.php?catid=1&id=7597

Will IE still perform as it does or will it hinder the way it functions?