Elliott C. Back: Technology FTW!

Analysts Predict Death of IE

Posted in Browsers, Spread IE by Elliott Back on November 8th, 2004.

Firefox 1.0

In a much quoted article, O’Reilly’s Preston Gralla rags on Internet Explorer:

Firefox is a far superior browser to Explorer - it’s safer, faster, smaller, and includes modern features like tabbed browsing, as well as extensions.

I guess he didn’t read my article comparing Internet Explorer & Firefox, where a modern benchmark actually shows that IE is faster and smaller for a given page, and statistics from a well known third party security firm show Firefox has (on average) slightly more security flaws than IE. But, people have been complaining about IE for years–and they never stop.

It’s the vogue cliche of the year. IE sucks! I’m cool!

Expect Firefox’s numbers to go up even more, as the final official release hits on November 9. The Mozilla Foundation has also raised over $250,000 in donations, which it will use to promote use of Firefox. Firefox has already been downloaded over 7 million times.

I am impressed at the extent of the homebrew Firefox marketing campaign. It’s truly a massive American effort–but can it unseat Internet Explorer, which lives in every home, whose ubiquitous icon is in everyone’s mind? I have a feeling Microsoft will release another browser update soon…

This entry was posted on Monday, November 8th, 2004 at 4:43 am and is tagged with preston gralla, american effort, internet explorer, o reilly, security flaws, marketing campaign, security firm, homebrew, million times, rags, cliche, vogue, firefox, benchmark, mozilla, extent, donations, third party, statistics, microsoft. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback.

Viewing 14 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Of course IE is slightly faster. It's completely integrated into the OS of WinXP. It's already mostly loaded when you turn on the computer, and it's functions, etc are already being utilized by the OS so it takes less time to call them up in the instruction queries because of the integration. As for it having a smaller RAM/resource fingerprint? That is slightly misleading again, because of the tight integration into the OS. IE resource usages are often hidden over by other system processes. If it wasn't so integrated into the OS it would be twice the size of Firefox at least. There is no real argument here, nor anything new as this is well-known. As for the new IE? Not happening until Longhorn. Like a said in another comment. I use both browsers. I just prefer using Firefox for general browsing, as I get no drive-by downloads, I control which sites install cookies, I get no pop-ups, etc. I use IE for MS websites or sites only coded for view in IE (for example, to use many online antivirus scanners, you have to be running IE to utilize the ActiveX components). Both browsers have their uses.
    • ^
    • v
    It's not an "Of course" argument. Let's debunk your pseudo-technical claims one-by-one:

    It's completely integrated into the OS of WinXP. It's already mostly loaded when you turn on the computer, and it's functions, etc are already being utilized by the OS so it takes less time to call them up in the instruction queries because of the integration.


    Internet Explorer is a standalone application. But, putting that aside, the timings from the previous post were conducted over 40 runs. In the first run, both browser load themselves into cache--after that, it's pure load time. The effects you claim are responsible for IE's loading time are not actually at play.

    As for it having a smaller RAM/resource fingerprint? That is slightly misleading again, because of the tight integration into the OS. IE resource usages are often hidden over by other system processes. If it wasn't so integrated into the OS it would be twice the size of Firefox at least.


    Duh. Every windows process has tight integration with the OS. They're all using the windows libraries here. Even your precious firefox.

    As for the new IE? Not happening until Longhorn.


    We got a new IE with XP sp2, already.
    • ^
    • v
    New IE? Pop up blocker is not a new version of the browser. People with googlebar didn't even notice :D

    Downloaded IE off microsoft's site lately? Apparently the installer weighs in a 80MB. Of course in your opinion the browser just loads the first couple of MB and uses the rest for padding.

    If IE is a standalone app...I'm assuming you think that so is Windows Explorer, and your desktop.

    I guess you're using Fx's default installation, but you fail to state it, so extensions could be slowing it down.

    Umm....IE is PART of windows...the previous poster meant that IE components are used by windows all the time. Windows doesn't exist without IE. Fx is not closely integrated with windows. It is only just about as much as it is with Linux, Mac, Solaris and SkyOS.

    About the security holes...you ought to go crawl back from the one you came out of if you believe that yourself ;)
    • ^
    • v
    I use Firefox and IE - both have their advantages, of course, and I've noticed very similar load times, and very similar "going berserk" situations.

    To mr. Anonymous, IE and Windows Explorer are still standalone applications. They don't get any *advantage* by being distributed as part of the O/S. Firefox, once loaded, gets the same advantages on future uses.

    Security hole wise: I have no reason to believe that Firefox is more secure than IE. Period.
    • ^
    • v
    "Internet Explorer is a standalone application."

    Huh? IE was developed as part of the OS to try to deflect the DoJ's assertions that it was a predatory practise to force computer companies to bundle IE with the OS. They surmised that if they could claim that it was "just part of the whole OS package" that there would be no argument that they were using unfair business practises to force IE down the throats of PC manufacturers and, ultimately, the consumer.

    I'm not a technical expert when it comes to security and such, so I would never claim one browser is superior than the other based on this criteria. However, Firefox simply offers me a better set of tools and functions than does IE, which is why I choose to use it.
    • ^
    • v
    I suggest you try this experiment: Uninstall IE from your computer. Report back here on the result.

    Since Firefox does not share code with the OS, it makes it a bit more difficult for a hacker to attack the OS thru the browser.

    Also, a lot of spyware is installed on your computer because ActiveX makes it so easy. Firefox doesn't use ActiveX.
    • ^
    • v
    I love Firefox, I run it under Linux (mandrake - no crashes - uptime nearly 3 years, try that with ms) With the adblock extension, I have not seen an AD (even google syndicated ones - I just checked - there are supposed to be some on this page hehe :-) don't worry though, I have it set to download, so you think I've seen them, and you'll get your commission) or a popup for several years, I recently had to use a ms amchine with ie and almost didn't recognise the web.
    Any one reading this who hasn't tried firefox ( with adblock) should, It is how the web should be.
    • ^
    • v
    Haha, you can run IE in linux you know? Its called Crossover Office, and its pretty funny to see "Microsoft Internet Explorer" running in your favorite distro.
    • ^
    • v
    with a lot of great extensions and firefox preloader, firefox's speed and ease of use can not be reached by IE. (some of those great extensions: Flashgot, adblock, pastengo, dictionary search, colorzilla, downthemall, googlepreview, gcache, easygestures, cute menus and so on... and yes, it still starts up faster when used with preloader)

    Also, I suggest you try this experiment too: Write a web adress in an explorer window and press enter. Report back here on the result.

    Running IE on Linux? omg, NO!
    • ^
    • v
    Elliot Back is a total moron, presumtuous, and pompous to boot.
    FF is a better browser all the way around.
    • ^
    • v
    "I suggest you try this experiment: Uninstall IE from your computer. Report back here on the result."

    ...I did when I got Opera, and nothing happened. Explorer.EXE is what your shell is, not Internet Explorer. :)
    • ^
    • v
    oh Nikc you have no idea what you just said. You can't uninstall IE. Thats the point. And nobody said that explorer.exe was IE.
    • ^
    • v
    by far IE is the devil. i use it on the new vista OS and it is a POS. just alone the start up time is unbearable. i use FireFox every day of my life sense my high school years and haven't turned back yet. the only reason i use IE is for watching MLB tv because i have to use a proxy server to watch my own team in my own state. in either case i do have to agree with Ege, DONT RUN WINDOWS ON LINUX that is a sin to all humanity, and your computer if you are running linux on it.
    • ^
    • v
    by far IE is the devil. i use it on the new vista OS and it is a POS. just alone the start up time is unbearable. i use FireFox every day of my life sense my high school years and haven't turned back yet. also the popup blocker is amazing, havent had one in nearly two years. the only reason i use IE is for watching MLB tv because i have to use a proxy server to watch my own team in my own state. in either case i do have to agree with Ege, DONT RUN WINDOWS ON LINUX that is a sin to all humanity, and your computer if you are running linux on it.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus