A Cool Look at the Future Three

Dear Readers, you might find this comparison of traffic-per-browser to NeoSmart Technologies since this articles publication interesting. 

Internet Explorer 7 has undeniably come a long way. Whether you like Microsoft's giant of a browser or hate it to pieces, the fact remains that Internet Explorer 7 is the single biggest update/upgrade this browser has ever seen, very comparable to the Windows 3.1.1 => Windows 95 upgrade in Microsoft's Operating System lineup. In this mini-writeup, we will be discussing from a fairly objective position how Internet Explorer 7 now stands compared to the latest offerings from it's biggest competitors: Firefox and Opera. This isn't a comparison, there will be no "winner," not in this article at any rate!

Unlike the other so-called reviews on the web, we're not going to compare it to Phoenix 0.1 and Opera 3; we're doing the real thing here, IE7 as it stands side-by-side with Opera 9 Build 8372 and the latest Firefox weekly. This isn't going to cover the glitches and the bugs that will be sorted out (hopefully) sooner or later, we're focusing on the hard-core features and the projected audiences, to evaluate the overall product experience.

———

First of all, whether you ever used or will ever use IE or not, you will have benefited immensely from IE7; don't think it is a coincidence that both the Firefox and Opera product line-ups are in such a frenzy over development, it's the competition that keeps things going. So long as there was none, IE6 was king, and later on when Firefox and Opera had established their (not-so) tiny communities, they were content to stay that way.

No matter who you ask, the biggest hurdle for Microsoft and the Internet Explorer team was the fact that they were tasked with bringing a 5-year-old corpse back to life, and making it win the marathon it once lorded over. Bringing a "dead" product back to life is especially difficulty when there is such tough competition on all sides, surrounding the prey and making any task doubly hard and four times as likely to draw attention. But at the same time, this made perfection (or as close as one can get to it) 8 times more important (not sure about the math, but I think you get my drift…).

The Interfaces

The most important thing for any browser is its shell. No matter how many computer techies or script-kiddies or hackers out there know how great a product is, it's not going to win any popularity contests if it looks like it came out of the 70s. Each of the three big browsers seem to focus on something else, to try to get their point to the user, and the product on the business table.

Opera
It seems that Opera has tried a novel approach with Opera 9, it tries to go for a very simplistic but aesthetically pleasing appearance, preferring to have almost all the toolbars hidden by default, and using a clean cream/off-white color scheme. It can take a while to get used to, but it saves a lot of screen real-estate, which is a great thing with multi-tasking on the rise. It uses it's own theme, no matter what you have enabled in Windows, and it comes with nice and crisp buttons for its many tasks. Opera is best compared to a desktop without icons: if you know what you are doing or are willing to get used to it, you will relish the outcome, even if it's awkward (for lack of a better word) to use.

Firefox
Firefox = themes. Unfortunately though, themes don't come from the company itself, and as such, they don't enter the realm of this round-up. When your average Joe uses the Firefox that come on his Dell, themes won't matter because he doesn't know how to get them. This puts Firefox at a very distinct disadvantage from this angle: it would seem that the developers were so determined that their users would use themes that they didn't give a damn how Firefox looked without them: not pretty at all. One would think that they would develop a simple and minimalistic theme that ships with Firefox and is activated by default, but apparently not.

Internet Explorer 7
It seems that the developers at MS have finally realized that the least used part of Internet Explorer is it's menus. By default all the menus are hidden, pressing "alt" brings them up, and they disappear later. It would be lovely to see fade-away effects for this minimizing, but as they say, beggars can't be choosers, and it undoubtedly is a great improvement, both in the eye-candy effect and the increase in screen-space. The "new" tabs are very pretty as well, they change depending on the OS and the theme selected, but either way, Internet Explorer 7 has very appealing tabs that are very pronounced and accessible. It comes with extra tabs for the simulation of other features, but more on that later. By all means, Internet Explorer looks excellent and fresh, and no longer appears cluttered and all the toolbars have been reorganized to make it easier to use.

Features

Though all browsers browse the web, some do it better than others, and other browsers go the extra mile and package other nifty utilities into their package, making it easier to easier to use and a more powerful tool to be mastered. But developers have to be very careful, one extra word of code and it goes from a really cool add-on to a piece of bloatware that the browser would be better off without.

Opera
Opera 8 was classified by many as bloatware. I was one of them. It was a tad too bulky, inefficient, and bloated, for my liking; but Opera 9 is almost the polar opposite. It has all the cool features a person would like, and yet (as mentioned above) aims at providing a crisp look, ensuring a lack of clutter. It doesn't have true plug-in support any more than IE does, but it does have a "widgets" function: these are mini-apps very much like desktop widgets, but they are pure AJAX-powered entities, very like the gadgets in Windows Vista. It has an excellent download manager that provides speeds comparable to GetRight or ReGet, and, like all other browsers, it has the capability of remembering passwords. However, one very disappointing revelation is that it has no support for Auto-Complete or anything of that nature, there is no textbox memory of any sort (though it does have a killer form wizard dubbed "the wand"), which makes filling out all those registration sheets with random textbox names more than just a bit difficult. Opera 9 also comes with an impossible to disable built-in torrent manager, which is a decent client, but if you would rather use µTorrent or any of your choice can make your torrent-downloading days miserable. It's basically a torrent manager for dummies, such that the end user experiences nothing different from a normal HTTP download… which makes it useless for the rest of us.

Firefox
This browser gets all of its power from its plugins, and unlike above where we did not take themes into consideration, plugins build the basis of the Firefox browser. Any function you need or any feature that is "missing" can easily be reinstated by downloading one of the tens of thousands of plugins for this contender. The browser itself comes with the basics: password-memory, Auto-Complete, and the rest. The latest version of Firefox focuses heavily on history and bookmarks, a feature we find less than impressive when there are other things to be said and done.

Internet Explorer 7
Microsoft's latest installment is a feature-filled application, and its integration with the Windows operating system means that it can pack quite a few features without seeming bloated, and still opening faster than the rest due to the shared memory-space. It has all the whistles and bells that the rest do, but it still lacks what made Firefox so popular with developers and now Opera with its Widgets: a decent capacity to allow the end-user to optimize/tweak their internet browsing experience. It has several interesting additions that others don't; the two most notable being full integration of the Microsoft XML Parser that allows for RSS and Atom feeds to be displayed as user-friendly text with a nice layout instead of as pure XML or a simple list with Firefox and Opera respectively. The second feature is a tab-overview button that shows the user thumbnails of all open tabs side-by-side; which can be considered either nifty or useless depending on how you look at it. Either way, if you need it it's there; and if you don't it's not costing you anything.

Development and Innovation

A great browser is a wonderful thing, but what guarantee do you have it will stay that way? While most of the community was shocked by the lack of innovation from Internet Explorer's camp after v6; the tell-tale signs were there. When an entire version upgrade adds cookie management and nothing else, something is up. While what follows is based on hard-core facts, in the end no one know how things will end and we could end up being terribly off, but we don't think so.

Opera
It seems that Opera is dedicated to trying to accomplish a complete online experience from within their browser, taking it a step at a time, to ensure that nothing is overdone and buggy, and that it doesn't get too bloated too quickly. So long as clicking a link to an MP3 opens a different program or accessing a DOC file opens Word, Opera will continue adding functions and features; a torrent manager was only the first step. So we can continue to anticipate more innovation from this wonderful browser, which is quickly proving itself a worthy contender to appear in this list along with the other well-established two.

Firefox
Here the waters are murky, but the signs don't bode well for a company that is claiming a (highly contested) 10% market share. Following news of the impending release of IE7, the developers have been in a flurry to update their browser too, but unfortunately it seems as if the version number is all what matters. In a hurry to jump the numbers up, the browser is going from 1.5 to 3.0 without the features to match; even the jump from 1.0 to 1.5 which many felt was exaggerated covered more real features than this one. While Firefox is undoubtedly a great browser, it worries us that the developers have nothing better to do than use a mini-SQL-powered engine to store the history and bookmarks when there are quite a few bigger and more important features to worry about.

Internet Explorer 7
According to Microsoft, they have learned a lesson from the stand-still of IE6, and they aren't in a hurry to repeat it. Though they promise regular updates and releases, we have been given no real guarantees, but here is how we see it. Internet Explorer 7 is a final effort at regaining lost ground and fighting an uphill battle to keep its current user-base steady, let alone increasing. However, Microsoft has packed a lot into this build compared to IE6, and there is definitely room for more. We believe that somewhere along the way MS will discover just how important user-created plugins are and what they have to offer, but even without that, there is reason for hope. Though MS made it clear that IE7 will not ever be Acid2 compliant, hints have been dropped about IE8, and a feature list w/ planning is definitely in the works for the next edition.

———

Well, now you see where the browsers shine (or not), and what they stand to gain and lose in terms of users, features, and more. We'll always have our preferences, and you yours; but no matter who you're rooting for and who you hope drops out, it is in the public's best interest for the race to go on, the fiercer the competition the better. None of these browsers, no matter how badly beat, will ever consent to dropping out of the race, and as such only good can come of it. And no matter which you like, no single browser is perfect, and I for one am avidly awaiting the day when I can use the final versions of all three, side-by-side and raring to go.

37 thoughts on “A Cool Look at the Future Three

  1. > one very disappointing revelation is that [opera] has no support for
    > Auto-Complete or anything of that nature, there is no textbox memory
    > or form wizards, which makes filling out all those registration sheets
    > more than a bit difficult.

    Umm… what do you think the auto-complete form stuff in the wand preferences is for?

  2. Couple of Opera misconceptions:

    1) Skins – there is a slew of them from users (on my.opera.com) as well as a ‘windows native’ which I believe is provided by Opera and uses the native skin (but not the buttons) of the OS it is running under (see the skins tab in ‘customize’)

    2) Bittorrent client – though it may not be disabled there is no reason to not use your personal preference (I use Ktorrent) by changing the mime type in preferences -> downloads->tor

    3) Auto-complete – in preferences->wand there are a number of auto complete fields available

  3. ". We believe that somewhere along the way MS will discover just how important user-created plugins are and what they have to offer, but even without that, there is reason for hope" Uh, IE has plenty of extensibility already. There are tons of plugins out there.

  4. About Opera and torrents. Tools -> Preferences -> Advanced -> Donloads Uncheck the "Hide file types opened with Opera" field. From the list select "application/x-bittorrent" and press "Edit" button. Now you can choose whatever program you want to manage your torrents.

  5. Plenty use of words no facts. This is rather a joke to Firefox and W3C.  Very interesting MS have learned a lesson after 6years thats good news…

  6. Can you cite some sources?  Features are added to Firefox via extensions, not plugins (those are two different things).  Where are there "tens of thousands" of extensions?  addons.mozilla.org doesn't seem to have that many, can you cite your source?  Also, where did you read that "the browser is going from 1.5 to 3.0"?  This is not the case at all, please see http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox:3.0_PRD.  The firefox team has "quite a few bigger and more important features to worry about" than a bookmark engine… perhaps that's right, but besides a prettier theme I don't see listed what you think those priorities should be.  I don't think the same people are doing themes and bookmark engines, anyway.

  7. This looks like an opertonistic rip on Firefox. I really dont see how you think this is credible. The ease of use is what consumers want. If a consumer was smart enough to know where to get another browser, they will be smart enough to explore the program.

  8. seem like a lean toward IE7 and bias against Opera and FireFox.  I used all these browsers before.  My only complain with Opera is it is not very customizable like FireFox where you can move "buttons" around.  My only complain for FireFox is it doesnt have the multi-window feature like Opera.  By this i mean the Cascade and Title view feature in Opera.  IE7 beta still has a long way to go.  Seem like M$ just gave it a make over with the UI.   Anyways the author doesnt seem to know much about FireFox or Opera…. Yup, it's a joke.

  9. <i>Opera 8 was classified by many as bloatware. I was one of them. It was a tad too bulky, inefficient, and bloated, for my liking; but Opera 9 is almost the polar opposite.</i> Opera 9 has all the features of Opera 8 and plenty more besides. True, more of the menus are hidden by default, but that doesn't change the core of the program. Besides, Opera 8 was still much lighter and faster than any version of IE or Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix. <i>Opera 9 also comes with an impossible to disable built-in torrent manager, which is a decent client, but if you would rather use µTorrent or any of your choice can make your torrent-downloading days miserable.</i> It's trivial to disable.

  10. My main complain with Firefox is that it is freakishly slow, especially on Linux.  It requires an inordinately large startup time, and goes on consuming memory from then on.  Opera is approximately the same.  Internet Explorer, on the other hand, is blisteringly fast to load, and does not leak memory.

  11. The UI of Opera 9 is, as far as I can tell, almost identical to Opera 8. They've removed the Window menu, which is a commendable, but that's pretty much it. Opera 9 has done nothing but add functionality (including the, to me, completely superfluous Widgets, as well as genuinely useful things like selective content blocking), so where you're getting this perception of reduced bloat is a mystery to me… (The big UI-bloat exorcism happened a version earlier, going from 7 to 8.)

  12. To me, you are a IE user that don't use the other browsers except to make a review like this.You maybe need to get more information and spend a little more of time with opera and firefox.  Of course there is no winner, because you don't seems to know how to measure the browsers capabilities (the others at least).

  13. "Opera 9 also comes with an impossible to disable built-in torrent manager, which is a decent client, but. . ." The bittorrent client can be disabled by typing opera:config in the address bar, and unticking the "Enable" box in the Bittorrent section.  A whole lot of other configs can also be tweaked.  Happy guruing!

  14. > My only complain with Opera is it is not very customizable like FireFox where you > can move “buttons” around.

    Actually, moving buttons and tabs around is really easy in Opera, just hold ‘Shift’ and drag the button/tab where you want it. As stated, the Wand provides Auto-Complete functionality, and Bittorrent is easily turned off in a number of ways (I prefer going through opera:config). It is also really easy to add searches to Opera. Play around with right-clicking different areas and you’ll find all sorts of amazing features.

  15. > completely superfluous Widgets

    Agreed. I want a web browser, not a widget engine. Seems to me that Opera’s innovation on the desktop is either slowing down or they are what’s popular bandwagon.

  16. Hello All,

    Thanks for dropping by and sharing your view on this obviously touchy topic. I just wanted to clarify a couple of things…

    This review was done based on input from several members and employees of NeoSmart Technologies; not just my opinion alone.

    At NeoSmart Technologies we have all the desktops configured to use Opera 9 by default; not IE as some of you have thought, and all workstations have Firefox installed as well. I myself and posting this from Minefield on Vista at the moment, and though I realize why a topic like this would raise a lot of heat, please bear in mind that it was written from the POV of Joe Bloggs, not exactly your biggest tech geek…

    There *are* thousands of extensions for Firefox, not necessarily on addons.mozilla.org but also on hundreds of other sites and blogs around the web. We don't rightly consider the "default theme" in FF as much of a theme, it's funny how when people call FF ugly someone will chime in "But it's not MEANT to be used, you're supposed to theme it!" yet now people are angered at that reference, no offense to the Firefox supporters intended.

    To Joe, Opera doesn't have "extensions" and not just anyone can write an Internet Explorer plugin without extensive programming knowledge. There are no graphs and charts, because belive it or not, they aren't what matter. It's how the end user perceives the browser as being that matters most at the end of the day, not how well it performs in the books.

    Thanks again for dropping by our blog, and if you have any issues with any of these browsers or more, remember to drop by our forums for the most professional and quick support around.

  17. > Either way, if you need it it's there; and if you don't it's not costing you anything. This is not  true, actually. Any unused code has direct and inderect costs. It costs directly, because you are paying for memory and disk space. And it costs indirectly, because it can have bugs and security holes, so it will add to the cost of ownership.

  18. @vt: that is 100% correct; but everything in the browser has a "bug-potential" and a tiny feature like this that adds a couple more bytes to the size and a couple of KB to the memory (again, to the 'average' end-user) isn't the end of the world :)

  19. "> Either way, if you need it it's there; and if you don't it's not costing you anything. This is not true, actually. Any unused code has direct and inderect costs. It costs directly, because you are paying for memory and disk space. And it costs indirectly, because it can have bugs and security holes, so it will add to the cost of ownership." Oh please, nowadays, all computers have 1GB+ RAM memory, so bloatware or not, I don't care. Also, what is an application installed from a 3.5MB setup file on your computer? Nothing for your system. Back to topic, I found it sad that the writter doesn't know about the Wand, the most advanced password manager around. Just hit the Wand icon and Opera fills the form with your password and submits the form for you. Neither IE nor Firefox do this, they only keep the password in the memory and present it below the text field. Also, Opera has a lots of skins available in the "Appearance" menu. Changing the position of buttons and icons is a piece of cake too.

  20. "one very disappointing revelation is that it has no support for Auto-Complete or anything of that nature, there is no textbox memory or form wizards, which makes filling out all those registration sheets more than a bit difficult."  Opera 9 DOES have a form filler.  It just might not be obvious.  In the Preferences panel, theres a whole tab devoted to the Wand.  Here you can fill in all your details (name, phone number, email address etc.) and then whenever you browse to a page which has filed which Opera thinks it can fill, it will highlight them in yellow.

  21. I would have thought it was obvious on which browser to use !

    Re: Opera, FireFox, IE browsers

    Question #1:
    Which browsers were developed from an original code base ?

    Answer #1:
    {Opera, FireFox}
    —————————————————————
    Question #1:
    Which browser was developed through peeking at someone
    elses code ?:

    Answer #2:
    {IE} *

    * See
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass
    for the statement:
    “The source code of Spyglass Mosaic was licensed to Microsoft and became the basis for their Internet Explorer.”
    —————————————————————

    So, I would have thought Opera or IE was the way to go.

    Orpheus

  22. Opera bulky!? You do realize it does a whole lot more than Firefox and IE do, includes Flash, and is all under 4MB don't you??

  23. @Craig: Can you *read*!?
    Opera EIGHT was Bulky… no one said anything about 9….

    About the wand: a Wand is no substitute for Auto-Complete; especially when every site has a textbox under a different name. But you're not going to get an argument from me, Opera certainly has the best Password Manager around.

  24. The 'mini-SQL engine' (called'Places') is now not going to be in Firefox 2, and is being pushed back to Firefox 3.0. However there are lots of exciting things coming up in 2.0 still. Also, I think you underestimate just how exciting 'Places' is likely to be. By the way, you never mentioned Firefox 2.0 at all… it's not going from 1.5 to 3.0, but from 1.5 to 2.0, then to 3.0. There are also sub-releases, so it's not really on version 1.5 right now, but on version 1.5.0.2. Also how can you call IE7 small in size when the installer alone is 11 megs, and that's using an awful lot of built in windows functionality. The other browsers are tiny by comparison.

  25. I honestly didn't find this leaning toward IE, the comments however are a different subject. With the blogsphere bias towards Firefox your going to get a lot of flack when you post something that doesn't rip Microsoft to shreds. I think though that your impressions are representative of the non-geek crowd, which is really all Microsoft is probably concerned about. Average user's aren't biased one way or another, they are browser agnostic. All they want is something that works, and to be assured they're safe while surfing the net. Your comments about Firefox developers in a flurry of activity trying to catch up are accurate, to the extent that they are cutting arguably the only feature in Firefox 2.0 that differentiates it from IE 7. This may have been a huge mistake. Microsoft has been accurately criticized for not competing in the browser space, but now obviously they are. It's a race Firefox developers have not had to contend with that Microsoft has taken on before and won. (Ignoring the illegal OEM deals, I think most will agree Microsoft would have won the first round of browser wars anyway, by simply producing a better product.) I think the folks out there trumpeting Firefox should take a good hard look at their browser of choice and ask, why have we stopped innovating in this next release? But then again, judging by the attacks your getting in the comments, maybe they have, and they're running a little scared.

  26. Opera and Firefox are great browsers. Sorry, if I hurt people's feelings but Opera 9 is a great upgrade but useless browser when you travel in some sites. Firefo, don't get me wrong is one of the best browsers since IE6 screw up, but The Fox reign will be over when IE7 releases. IE7 has almost all the features of firefox included(even better ones). Plus! It's still in beta, guys. Microsoft has already added an plugin site for IE7(http://www.ieaddons.com/default.aspx?cid=home&scid=0). I know it's gonna be a hard pill to swallow, but IE7 at the final release is going to kill Firefox. Well Done MS! Well Done :) IE7 FTW!!! 

  27. Despite what you others think, I thought that was an EXCELLENT article. Very informative. And while a lot of you may be Firefox or Opera fans, each browser has upsides, and they also have downsides too. Opera isn't perfect, nor is Firefox, nor is Internet Explorer, not even Safari on Mac OS X Tiger!

  28. I am someone who uses all three browsers on both Windows and (except for IE of course)  Linux.  I have actual, on-going, day-to-day experience with all three (IE 4-6, Opera 5-8, Firefox 0.9x-1.5) on various versions of Windows ('95-XP) and various versions of Linux distros.  I don't have any particular complaint with the IE interface.  Or the "user experience" (note; as I understand it, this article wasn't about security concerns).  I'll admit to being a Linux fan,  but I often have to use Windows anyways, and still help friends maintain their Windows boxes ('98 through XP). I liked the preamble to this article.   We need more of this sort of approach in IT journalism — but sadly this sort of approach is usually notable only by its absence.  Unfortunately, the actual body of the article revealed so many errors of fact, so many lapses in basic knowledge of both Opera and Firefox, as well as statements entirely contrary to pretty basic, near-newbie levels of knowledge and experience, that no-one actually familiar with these browsers — as opposed to merely having them on their systems and fiddling with them for 10 minutes or so per week, when bored with the daily grind — can take this article seriously.  Which pretty much makes the whole thing useless. I doubt that this was conscious or purposely done as any sort of deliberate misinformation effort.  As I said before, the idea behind this excercise is one I approve of — it was the execution that was lacking.  I respectfully suggest that the author try using these browsers exclusively, for a month to 6 weeks each, and then try this sort of commentary again.

  29. I am a web developer and have been for the better part of 10 Years. Though, I read and see both sides of the argument…I have a thought or two from both aspects a) Web Developer b) User.

    I have developed websites keeping in mind cross-browser compatibility and have built very complex systems of detection for each browser to support each function that one or the other would not display correctly. As I sit and read your replies to a very reasonably worded, though somewhat lacking on technical details that I would like to review for my developmental needs, I found the article extremely non-biased and helpful to the extend of information.

    I have over time found that browsers are built and used because, people get online to view content. If the content is not visable people will not use that browser. Though, understandably this is because most of the web developers make sites for internet explorer without taking into consideration the standards for the other browsers. The developers of the sites really don’t care. They want to publish something and get it done with the least amount of work. Everyone here posting seems to think that if the browser has this or that then the sites work right. None of the browsers are really the cause of failures: this is the developers problem and a resolution will only come when these developers adopt those standards set so that a page will render appropriately no matter the clients browser.

    Now, I will share with you I use IE6 | IE7 | Mozilla | FireFox | Opera for verifying content per page is correctly rendering, what I see here is that by default without coding additional support IE in all its flavors renders the page without any delay, correctly and without adding much of anything. With extensibility and add-ons they are simple and easier to install in IE6/IE7 than any of the others…

    Until the other browsers make it less of a hassle to use the product for your average user and the product they develop is from the box doing what they want without sacrificing access to a site due to the developers inability/unwillingness to code for the browser correctly you will always see them using and continue using IE.

    This is only my humble opinion and I am not intending to identify that one is subpar or superior to the other this is a matter of taste and need. Each of us use the products we get for our own needs and based of our own desires.

    Thank You.

  30. Hello Garret,

    Thanks for your reply, it sure is rare to find a developer willing to put the blame where it really belongs; but I have to agree, all it takes is a couple of hours of extra coding to make things just work. The browser is but the medium that tries to bridge between the world of coders and viewers, and that’s the biggest reason why rendering was not included above. Some things, like PNG-24, are really essential, while others like ACID2 (now passed by Opera 9 and FF 3) are simply more reason for developers to write bad code….

    -CG

  31. Indeed… I have watched and listened to many a person complain about the problems noted by many technogeeks which inevitably are much quicker to point blame on Microsoft and not really look at the bigger picture. The fault never has lay upon MSFT / AOL (Netscape/Mozilla/FireFox) / Opera or etc… It has always lay with the programmer and content developers of said sites.

    I watch and listen to the reports of how security this or that, virus this or that etc etc is more abundant on MSFT Products and not on others. I find those statements as no real justification, my reason well consider the following: More than 80% of computers users today use Windows; Nearly 90% of them use IE; if your a hacker, virus coder, phisher etc etc your not going to develop for linux, opera, mozilla or some such other app. You want maximum exposure for your illicit activities therefore you dev for MSFT products.

    With that there are other problems when comparing other products with IE. Though, its true there are alot of free services out there that compete with MSFT products and branding, you will likely not find many of the advanced features and security updates prevalant in a product that is continually updated due to continual scrutiny by everyone in the world. This provides a user a product that is not only tried, tested and updated it also provides a cleaner simpler and moreover updated product than many of its competitors. Though, I dislike MSFT I also find that they have products that I need and will likely continue to use because, of their ability to update, fix, repair and release free systems for me to use.

    Thank You … I apologize for my ranting.

    Web Developer that has issues: garetjax

  32. What about xhtml? in nowhere talk about that, and for me is the most important thing that must acomplish a browser, is not very nice that IE dont follow the W3C recomendations, and for we, web site developers, the work become a nigthmare,….

  33. This so-called “article” is bogged down with misnomers and wrong facts. Firefox Stable is at 2.0.0.11, with Firefox 3 Beta 2 released a few weeks ago. Opera has a native skin under the preferences menu. As for IE7, most of the changes from IE6 are only UI based. Last of all, Firefox’s default theme, while not native, appears quite decent across Windows, Linux and Macs. If any users don’t like the default theme, there are dozens to choose from with a single click of a button. I don’t understand why this should be a problem. Make sure that you get your facts straightened out, as well as understand the individual underlying purposes behind each browser.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>