Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Debunking "FireFox Myths: Debunking Firefox"

Last response: in Apps General Discussion
Share
December 21, 2006 2:49:50 PM

Someone had just recently linked me to firefoxmyths.com, a site dedicated to "debunking" Firefox's "claims" as a superior web browser.

As I read through the "myths" and the authors sources, I can't help but get angry. Very angry, to be honest. Extremely angry, to be exact, so here I am, leading my own campaign against auther Andrew K.

I call this "Firefox Myths" Myths.
December 21, 2006 3:13:37 PM

Quote:
System Requirements

Myth - "Firefox has lower System Requirements than Internet Explorer" - Example

Reality - Internet Explorer 6 has much lower minimum System Requirements than Firefox 2


Internet Explorer Internet Explorer - Source

Minimum:
486/66 MHz CPU
16 MB of RAM
11.5 MB of free disk space
Windows 98

Notes - Anyone who claims Internet Explorer 6 will not run on these requirements has never tested it.


Firefox Firefox - Source

Minimum:
233 MHz CPU
64 MB of RAM
50 MB of free disk space
Windows 98

Notes - The Recommended Requirements for Firefox are much worse:

Recommended:
500 MHz CPU
256 MB of RAM
100 MB of free disk space
Windows XP





First, let's take a trip to Mr. K's source, Microsoft's website.
Quote:
Computer/Processor
Computer with a 486/66-MHz processor or higher (Pentium processor recommended)


Response: Windows XP won't even run at 66MHZ. Win98 will, but do you think web browsing on the latest installment of IE6 is going to be in the range of usability?
I had used a PII 300MHZ Toshiba laptop running XP, running firefox.
Firefox does run when the laptop activates it's CPU throttling features, running under 100MHZ. Firefox, like IE, is CAPABLE of running, but not in a usable state.




Quote:

Windows XP:
32 MB of RAM minimum
Full install size: 12 MB


Have you ever successfully installed and used XP with 32MB installed? Have you used WinXP with 64MB?
Oh sure, it's very possible to do so, but what exactly do you think is going to be the result of web browsing with the latest installment of IE6? Do you think it's going to be in usable condition?

Again, from Microsoft:
Quote:
The recommended system configuration to use Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 (SP1) is Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me), or Microsoft Windows NT® on a computer running with a Pentium III processor and 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM.


Now here's a more realistic claim. Even though Microsoft says "It's possible" to run on snail snot, it's not very likely you're goign to enjoy the results

and again, they supply a recommended of 128MB of memory, but again, do you think that amount of memory is sufficient to running any task on XP or 2000? Possible, but not very likely.


Firefox, however, supplies us with a more down-to-earth claim. THG shows us that running XP is possible on 166MHZ (no service packs)
and I have also confirmed that running firefox on a lower-than-specified system requirements is possible (lower than 233) but not in what we would consider "usable."

Mr. K's argument is very shallow, not regarding a simple scenario that you simply can't run XP on 32MB of memory.

Please note that Internet Explorer is a built-in feature. While IE6 uses "12MB of memory," That's only considering the "additions" on top of the original core.

Consider this: Use nLite, and remove the Internet Explorer's core features
IE FrontEnd: 4.02 MB
IE Core: 2MB
Add 12MB of extra files, that's 18MB of installation usage.
I've been using FireFox as a "portable" web browser on my flash drive, and it uses 15MB of space.
Again, a very shallow comparison, Mr. K.
December 21, 2006 3:25:25 PM

Quote:
Memory Usage

Myth - "Firefox uses less memory than Internet Explorer" - Example

Reality - Internet Explorer 7 uses much less memory than Firefox 2.x. - Source



Mr. K once again flexes his inability to read, nevermind read sensibly.

Let's take a trip to Mr. K's source, a dim-witted blogger:


Gina claims that IE7 uses "less than half of Firefox's"

... O RLY??

and at the very bottom of her blog she writes this:
Quote:
I am running the Firefox 2 release candidate with extensions, which makes this a bit of an unfair comparison.


I tell you, we love RC's! And what's this? extensions? did she take time to add that poorly constructed extensions is the primary cause of memory hemorrhaging?
Reality:
I run Firefox daily, all day. Browsing with about 12 tabs running code-intensive sites, I hummed along at a MAX of 80MB, averaging 50-60 on normal usage.
*note*
Firefox 2's usage has increased since 1.5. If you'd like to reduce the footprint of 2, please disable and remove the spell checking/dictionary.

Anyway, Thank you so much for your unreliable, shallow, shallow source, Mr. K.

I can also supply YOU with a SINGLE SOURCE that says Mountain Dew helps teenager kids concentrate on their high school homework.
Related resources
December 27, 2006 8:00:15 PM

Don't take it personally... sheesh... did you help write Firefox or what?

:p 

I don't care what other people claim about either browser... I will use what I want to use regardless of what others think. I happen to like IE7 and have switched to it exclusively. Before IE7, I used Firefox because I liked having tabbed browsing. Now that IE does tabbed browsing, there's less incentive for me to use Firefox. (Not that I don't like FF... I just find myself with less desire to install it)
December 28, 2006 7:23:19 PM

I've just switched from FireFox to SwiftFox, Firefox builds optimised for given CPU architectures. I know what you mean by less reason to use FF now that IE has tabs but all I'll say is the difference in speed between FF and SF is AS MUCH a reason for me to use SwiftFox.

You know its funny I remember the same arguments when IE took on Netscape back in the early 90's.
January 3, 2007 8:57:05 PM

Quote:
Don't take it personally... sheesh... did you help write Firefox or what?

:p 

I don't care what other people claim about either browser... I will use what I want to use regardless of what others think. I happen to like IE7 and have switched to it exclusively. Before IE7, I used Firefox because I liked having tabbed browsing. Now that IE does tabbed browsing, there's less incentive for me to use Firefox. (Not that I don't like FF... I just find myself with less desire to install it)


I'm in the same position you are in Zoron! With tabbed browsing in IE7 I think it's as good as FF if not better. What I do appreciate is the fair market forces, brought about largely by FF IMO, on MS to get them to produce a mean, lean, tabbed browsing machine!
February 3, 2007 10:53:07 PM

Google:

Why does Internet Explorer crash all the time? - 2.57 million results

vs.

Why does Firefox crash all the time? - 218,000 results
February 4, 2007 12:03:45 AM

If you are smart you don't need others to tell you, you can figure out yourself, install and use both IE7 and FF. use each 3 weeks in a row.

If at the end of the 6 weeks you still think IE7 is better go see a team of psychologists, not one but a team.

I personally use opera beats all of them if you know how to use it, but if I had to decide between FF and IE7 I would go with FF, working with IE is like talking to a caveman

February 25, 2007 6:46:43 AM

First off here is the link that SuperK86 conviently leaves out:



Quote:
Response: Windows XP won't even run at 66MHZ. Win98 will, but do you think web browsing on the latest installment of IE6 is going to be in the range of usability?

The Myth on the Firefox Myths states clearly "Firefox has lower System Requirements than Internet Explorer", it doesn't mention usability, you do. But how "useable" it is, is your opinion and has nothing to do with this Myth that is clearly debunked.

Quote:

Windows XP:
32 MB of RAM minimum
Full install size: 12 MB

You need to make this clear. This quote is from the Microsoft source link but it is not the Windows XP minimum requirements but IE6's running on XP. XP's minimum requirements are 64MB.

Quote:
Have you ever successfully installed and used XP with 32MB installed? Have you used WinXP with 64MB?

No because you can't. Yes I have used it with 64MB and it runs, Microsoft even claims performance will suffer but you are way off base. The Myth was the minimum requirements for the browser not the minimum requirements for running the browser on Windows XP or the minimum requirements for Windows XP.

Quote:
Again, from Microsoft:
The recommended system configuration to use Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 (SP1) is Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me), or Microsoft Windows NT® on a computer running with a Pentium III processor and 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM.

That is why they are called RECOMMENDED. Again nothing to do with the Myth, which is clearly and easily debunked.

Quote:
and again, they supply a recommended of 128MB of memory, but again, do you think that amount of memory is sufficient to running any task on XP or 2000? Possible, but not very likely.

Again this has nothing to do with the Myths page. Would you consider Office XP a sufficient task to run since it only requires 64MB?

Quote:
Firefox, however, supplies us with a more down-to-earth claim.

No Firefox has a minimum and a recommended both much higher than IE6s requirements. But to determine lower system requirements you simply look at the minimum.

Quote:
Mr. K's argument is very shallow, not regarding a simple scenario that you simply can't run XP on 32MB of memory.

He makes no such argument, you do using distorted logic. There is no Myth stated on the page about XP and 32MB of memory. Please post the link to this.

Quote:
Please note that Internet Explorer is a built-in feature. While IE6 uses "12MB of memory," That's only considering the "additions" on top of the original core.

Nice excuse but it doesn't change the minimum requirements.

Quote:
Again, a very shallow comparison, Mr. K.

What comparison are you talking about? You don't even make any sense.
March 2, 2007 7:19:49 PM

Ok guys.. I ran a little test.

I have an old 233 pentium system, I installed 128megs ram, installed Windows XP SP2, (ie6) and firefox1.5 (only one extention "fasterfox").

Then hold on to your pants everyone... I reduced memory to 32megs!

I know I'm crazy right!

I then ran both ie and firefox and ladies and gent's the performance (page load Speed) winner is...... FireFox by a long shot.

But who cares! To me customization is King! you cannot customize IE or even Opera the way you can FireFox. Though anybody with a brain knows Opera is the fastest browser, it just doesn't fill my need to hack.
March 5, 2007 2:12:27 PM

GeneralArse,

What do you want pictures? White Papers? I was there, it worked (though not well) I don't care what M$ says.

"""""You can customize Opera even more than Firefox:"""""

Thats bull. Sorry, I've installed Opera (and used it for some time), and I could not do 1/100 of the things I could do with firefox.
March 9, 2007 12:25:37 PM

GA,

Don't get me wrong, Opera is a great browser, very fast. I specifically dont use it because...

1. Opera's web developer add-on sucks compared to FF web developer tool bar.
2. there are several add-ons I cant get for Opera that I like, Even your own links tell me they are not available for Opera.
3. I can EASILY Hack FF Extensions and make changes to FF code.
4. I have had problems with Opera's version of user agent switcher on sites I visit daily for work, FF user agent switcher works fine.

I am not a Firefox fanboy, I just use the tools that allow me to do what I want.

And then please stop spreading more Opera Myths simply because you do not know what you are talking about.
March 10, 2007 11:51:27 AM

Why do you insist about spreading new myths?

1. Opera Web Developer Toolbar: http://operawiki.info/WebDevToolbar

Opera Developer Tools: http://dev.opera.com/tools/

Dev Console is built-in: Tools - Advanced - Dev Tools

3. Irrelevant
4. Easy to change: Tools - Quick Preferences - Edit site preferences... - Network Tab.

The only one spreading Myths is you.
March 12, 2007 11:17:49 AM

OK Opera Fanboy..


1. IT SUUUUUCCCCKKKKKS. Are you def. It's there, but it SSSUUUUCCCCCKKKKS.

2. No comment ????

3. Irrelevant??? To you, maybe. Important to me.

4. You are not listening, AGAIN. Opera will not work, EVEN WITH this tool.



The only one spreading Myths is you. Back @ you Flake.
March 14, 2007 10:51:55 AM

1. That is your opinion it does not change the fact that it is there

2. There are features in Opera not available in Firefox such as the integrated Bittorrent Client. This is all a matter of opinion.

3. Like I said Irrelevant to the far majority of users. Just like you think it is important I do not thus a matter of opinion

4. Works for me thus I am not sure what your problem is.

So far all of your points have been shot down and you are simply left with opinions which you are entitled to but these are hardly facts.
March 16, 2007 1:57:59 PM

You two do realize that you're both entitled to your opinions.

I use IE 7 because I like it. It surfs the net just fine for me. :p 

Regardless, you two can sit here and argue your opinions but I will tell you.. if you spend more than 3 minutes trying to convince someone else of your opinion and they're not taking it, you're both wasting your time.
March 19, 2007 4:11:42 PM

HEY GA,

"1. That is your opinion it does not change the fact that it is there "
You wouldn't see me driving a Yugo, but they are there.

"2/3. There are features in Opera not available in Firefox such as the integrated Bittorrent Client. This is all a matter of opinion."

Did you see my answer to #3? "Irrelevant??? To you, maybe. Important to me." same answer to #2

"4. Works for me thus I am not sure what your problem is. "
My "Problem" is that Opera and IE do not work for me, thus I use Firefox.
Not really a problem for me, but it obviously seems to be a problem for you, thus I must keep explaining myself to you over and over.


"So far all of your points have been shot down and you are simply left with opinions which you are entitled to but these are hardly facts."

1.) there are several add-ons I cant get for Opera that I like, Even your own links tell me they are not available for Opera. FACT

2) I can EASILY Hack FF Extensions and make changes to FF code. FACT

3) I have had problems with Opera's version of user agent switcher on sites I visit daily for work, FF user agent switcher works fine. FACT

That leaves only one opinion, and I would like you to find a web developer to disagree with me.

1)Opera's web developer add-on sucks compared to FF web developer tool bar.

Again, Opera is a great browser, Especially for someone who surfs a lot and wants the fastest browser. Heck, some people even like the new IE, more power to them. BUT, I like and use Firefox because it does what I want it to do, Opera and IE don't. FACT! I don't know why you have a problem discerning facts, Maybe your opinions are getting in the way of rational thought. Thank you.
!