Any reason NOT to switch to Firefox?

[ejr]

I have always used Internet Explorer. But for years now I have read that other browsers are more secure, safer. With the choice in browsers now available, is there any reason to stick with IE?

[ccsito]

Most webpages were written to be compatible with IE since it has been taken to be the standard for browser programming. The others may not have the complete set of plug-in add-ons that IE has. Others such as Firefox and Opera are widely used and can display most webpages without any problems. I've continued to use IE since I dropped Netscape several years ago. I usually switch between Firefox and IE and when a webpage doesn't show properly on FF, it usually displays OK on IE.

[WSFuser]

as long as you secure and keep IE patched it should be fine for everyday use.

the browser u use is just a personal preference based on what features u want, how u like the interface, etc.

@ccsito - have u tried teh ietab extension for firefox?

[ccsito]

No Wsfuser. Still using version 1.5 on my laptop.

[WSFuser]

ietab lets u view pages in an "IE" tab. its very handy for viewing those IE only pages. and it does work on Fx 1.5.

[ccsito]

Thanks for the tip. I will try it out on webpages that I come across.

[Ice_Czar]

Vulpa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox)phobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-phob-#Psychological_conditions)? ;D


-{ Quote: "is there any reason to stick with IE?" }-

I'll purposefully misconstrue this as is there any reason not to rip it out by its bloody entrails from the OS itself?
(w\ XPLite or nLite)
In which case yes, you need it for automatic updates to work if you dont manually download from technet or use ~Link removed - Not recommended by this forum - Ron~
and you need it to make Windows Explorer work properly (webview (http://www.virtualplastic.net/html/wv_main.html)) but to actually use?

No

slap a noaccess.rat (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/267930) on the beast restrict its IP ranges at the firewall and deny it as much permission as possible with a HIPS

if a website cant bother to conform to W3C verification (http://validator.w3.org/)
make a single exception using IE so you can get thier email addy and tell em to go @##%$$# themselves youll be back when they manage to pull thier head out of their %$##@%$%$#

;D

[Pedro]

No reason whatsoever to stick with IE.

Tabbed browsing alone is very new to IE, but if you had FF or Opera, that's old news. If you like to customize things, Firefox could be the one for you. But if you want the browser to do pretty much everything from install, go for Opera, imo, the best around. Opera has shortcuts you don't dream about, has email client if you want, torrent client if you like, etc etc.

Some simple things make life so easy in Opera, and obvious features, like 'right click- left click' goes back one page, 'left click- right click' goes forward, all sorts of mouse shortcuts, the 'Trash' to recover tabs that you accidentally closed, or regretted closing (in the same session), save sessions for later review (you can save 15 tabs if you want, with the label "external hard drive" for instance, for later reviewing and buying of HD's).
Simple things that makes you look back and think "IE is stone age"
Lets not talk about security, we only need to take a peak at Secunia

[Ice_Czar]

but the advantages of alternatives really are what you dont get
you dont get a browser that holds native permissions inside the OS itself and is actually an integral part of the shell, you dont get a browser with historically exploitable code employing dangerous protocols and default permissions, and you dont get a corporation that could care less about your security and would rather hold off on a patch that is so sensitive (because of the integral nature of the browser in the OS) it might bust a multnational's web application

last year critical exploits went unpatched for 3\4th's of the year
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/01/internet_explorer_unsafe_for_2.html
http://searchsmb.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid44_gci1238795,00.html

excerpt
-{ Quote: "The Washington Post's computer security blogger, Brian Krebs, raised a few eyebrows earlier this month when he announced that Microsoft's Internet Explorer was "unsafe" for 284 days in 2006.

Krebs arrived at that number (nearly nine months of the year) by compiling the amount of time it took for Microsoft to release a patch for critical flaws in Internet Explorer for which exploit code was publicly available on the Web. He added that there were at least 98 days in 2006 in which no software fixes were available from Microsoft for Explorer flaws that "criminals were actively using to steal personal and financial data from users."

Krebs took a look at Mozilla's Firefox, Explorer's closest competitor, and found there were only nine days in 2006 when exploit code for a serious security hole was available online before Mozilla issued a patch.

Those numbers side by side seem pretty stark, but is it a fair comparison?

"Not only is it fair to the level it goes, but it doesn't take into account that most people don't actually patch software as soon as a patch is available," said Richard Steinnon, chief marketing officer at Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Fortinet Inc., an information security vendor. " }-

[Rmus]

Nothing seems to arouse the passions, make the hair on your neck stand up, call forth abusive, almost vulgar language, than a discussion of browsers. It doesn't get quite as inflammatory here as in other forums, where a psychologist friend notes the rising anger, often starting between two posters, and then bringing in others, cresecendoing to a huge war of words and deleted posts. Why is this?

Recently, the Brian Krebs blog from January 4 that Ice-Czar mentioned caused a furor. Even the comments in the blog degenerated into a war of words between Firefox and Opera users, the latter calling Krebs to task for mentioning Firefox as the only alternative to getting hacked. After some Opera users had their say, a Firefox afficionado replied, "And saying that Opera is more secure is stupid."

Even more interesting is how any methodology and statistics can yield the results you want to show. This article infuriated a good many Firefox users:

Internet Explorer 6.x More Secure than Firefox 1.x in 2006 (http://www.populartechnology.net/2006/09/internet-explorer-6x-more-secure-than.html)

-{ Quote: "Is Browser Security getting better? That is tough to say but Firefox is definitely not leading the way. Despite all the hype, despite all the Myths, Firefox 1.x has a worse security record so far in 2006 than Internet Explorer 6.x." }-

So, what about the Brian Krebs blog headline that IE users were at risk 284 days last year?

A mathematician/statistician friend of mine puts it this way: "Theoretically, any application is at risk 365 days/year because of the potential for the discovery at any moment of a vulnerability." This is in keeping with my own thought that any line of code has the potential for mis-use.

If you accept that premise - and I do - then either you plan your security from the bottom up and have protection below the browser for the "in case of fire" scenario, or you constantly worry and fret needlessly.

What are you protecting against?

The recent VML exploit caused much concern throughout the computing world. Another Brian Krebs blog included this:

Unofficial Patch Released for IE Flaw (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/09/unofficial_patch_released_for_1.html)

-{ Quote: "Some malicious sites appear to be using the exploit to silently install spyware and adware, while others are seeding visitors' Windows machines with hard-to-remove keystroke loggers or "form grabbers" designed to steal username, password and financial data when users enter data at bank or e-commerce Web sites. " }-
(my emphasis)

and this writeup which mentions that the web page could download one of three .html pages:

The VML Exploit and Rootkits (http://www3.ca.com/blogs/posting.aspx?pid=93273)

-{ Quote: " Each of the three files contains code to exploit the VML vulnerability and run an executable with the rights of current user...

YesXP.html worked its magic on the buffer, and soon enough my system was infected. Because of the buffer overflow an executable named Yes.exe is launched, which quickly downloads and installs a variant of the UrSnif trojan." }-(my emphasis)

Would you be protected against the installation of an unauthorized (not already installed) executable? An easy test: load an installation CD and attempt to run the setup.exe. If your security doesn't alert, I would suggest you have other problems besides a browser that might compromise you.

An easy way to protect against that -- no purchase necessary -- is to set up Software Restriction Policies. Contact Wilder's resident expert on that, SpikeyB (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=927771&postcount=8)

The question always arises with me, what is the likelihood that I will encounter one of these malicious web pages? "Social engineering" is still the principal trigger. Microsoft typically has this comment in its bulletins:

-{ Quote: " an attacker would have to persuade users to visit the Web site, typically by getting them to click a link in an e-mail message or instant messenger message that takes users to the attacker's Web site." }-Other security sites confirm this:

Zero-Day Update: Important Update on VML Exploit (http://www.websense.com/securitylabs/alerts/alert.php?AlertID=632)

-{ Quote: "attacks are surfacing through emails with URL lures" }-The other means of getting to a malicious site could be just in one's everyday surfing.

For more than six months now, each weekend a friend and I run what I call my "lo-sec" routine, where we do our normal internet work using Internet Explorer set on low security:

http://www.urs2.net/rsj/computing/imgs/ie-options.gif

We do this when we go directly to known malware sites, so that we can test/watch the exploit run.

But in order to see what "normal" surfing would yield, we spend a couple of hours each Saturday/Sunday running this way. We have never gotten an alert (using Anti-Executable) to install something. Pop-ups sometimes, which we don't turn off, just to see if malware might be embedded in such. We monitor the cache, files created, have our firewalls configured to prompt for all outbound.

I just use Google as I normally would, going to any site without reservation.

My friend says she often gets the comment, "well, you just didn't go to the right sites" - or wrong, depending on your point of view.

This is a valid observation, for it calls to mind the notion that our computing activities are just another aspect of our life, so that the situations we experience in computing are likely to reflect our other activities. If the right sites - the ones that would tend to attempt to install malware - are typically sites with "cheats," cracks, pirated software, then if you don't cheat or steal, you are not likely to go to those sites. The old adage, "what you sow, you will reap" still holds true for much in our life.

The browser war, so-called, is much ado about nothing, in my opinion. As WSFuser puts it,

-{ Quote: "the browser u use is just a personal preference based on what features u want, how u like the interface, etc." }-

regards,

-rich

________________________________________________________________
"Talking About Security Can Lead To Anxiety, Panic, And Dread...
Or Cool Assessments, Common Sense And Practical Planning..."
--Bruce Schneier

[Ice_Czar]

I have a slightly different standard

does it ship and install so a reasonably thick 8 year old using it is secure?
as a lowest common denominator for the www populace not a bad representative, because its the clueless that are the cannon fodder
they are the bot nets, the spammers the battering rams of DDoS

When assessing a threat its not only from a personal standpoint but an overall health of the system, especially when discussing an ubiquitous application. While nothing can lie like statistics, there are meaningful metrics and deceptive metrics, the patch cycle and number of infections from the wild are meaningful. Ive been singing this particular song long before Kreb's article based on the data at Secunia and countless encounters with the clueless's woes.

And personally don't care what alternative is chosen as long as its not the IE engine.

http://secunia.com/product/11/?task=statistics


Privilege level
http://i16.tinypic.com/4dnsefa.png
http://i3.tinypic.com/30caiqv.png
http://i18.tinypic.com/2hs810n.png
http://i10.tinypic.com/2cep94g.png

its the combination of how critical the exploit with how long it takes to patch after its discovery with its actual employment in the wild that is the only real metric

and IE is the biggest looser
OS integration was a bad idea taken for competitive advantage,
well the edge it provided is gone and has turned into a malware conduit

sure you can secure it there are generally workaround for even unpatched exploits if your aware of them, but should you morally encourage its use?
Or promote alternatives that have responded to the end user and continue to stay ahead of the curve for both yourself and the clueless?

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,

I see it like this:

If a site does not properly load in non-IE browsers, that's entirely the coder's fault. IE has worst compliance with W3C standards. Worst. Absolute joke of compliance. I have a website and even though 49% of visits to my site are through IE - and not always rendered well because IE does not support CSS as intended - I refuse to use even a single IE hack.

IE, usability, interface, price of addons - a horrible joke on our expense. The productivity one can achieve with FF + 10/20/50 extensions is seven quantum leaps and three quantum hops ahead of IE with 19.95$ cookie cleaner and 29.95$ phishing toolbar.

IE is embedded into OS, patched slowly, has millions of exploits available all over the place - whereas I have yet to find a SINGLE working FF exploit. I'm not talking about PoC. If someone can show me a page where you get infected by drive-by-download through FF, I'll send him a sixpack of Heineken. I'll even pay for quick shipping by FedEx.

The talk "IE is more secure than FF", "FF had 23 exploits while IE has 19 hence IE is more secure" is nothing more than the purest of pure propagandas that server nothing but someone's pocket, add to the general feel of fear and paranoia. It may impress people who have never heard of anything else except IE, Windows and Outlook. A pure form of bovine excrements.

Firefox has lots of beautiful and useful extensions, it can run portable from USB stick, it can share profile with other operating systems, it runs on other operating systems, it is several years of programming ahead of its buggy, crashy, ugly, copycat MS counterpart - if it can even be called that.

No reason whatsoever to stick with IE. All the reasons in the world to switch and never ever look back.

Mrk

[Mr2cents]

I can't think of any reason for anyone to stay with "Internet Explorer Browser". I've been using firefox for about 3 years. I also use opera sometimes. Firefox is just a lot more secure browser.

I haven't tried the newer version of "IE". I have ie version 6 installed on this computer.I never let it access the internet. I have it blocked with the firewall. I hate IE :D

Some people hate norton. I hate "IE" 8) It's the worst piece of software ever made in my opinion ;D

I know, someone is going to ask how I do windows updates? What updates ? Microsoft no longer gives updates to "Windows Me or Windows 98 Users'

However, if you look at the majority of your windows updates. Most of them are a patch for "IE" ROFLMAO.

Concerning website compatability.. You will find a few websites that require additional plug ins for Firefox. However, their aren't many of them. I do online banking with a small hometown bank. I've never had a problem using firefox with them.

That's just my opinion of "IE". Version 7 may be better...I don't know. From all the reviews I've read on the internet... Firefox still beats out ie 7 by a long shot.

[Lamehand]

Try to avoid using Microsoft-software all together,it is just expensive crap.

Lamehand

[Rmus]

-{ Quote: " Secunia Advisory Statistics
http://secunia.com/product/11/?task=statistics" }-
Interesting statistics, but:

-{ Quote: "Statistics based on Secunia advisories released since 2003.

Please Note: The statistics provided should not be used to compare the overall security of products against one another." }-
Much more useful statistics would be: of all of the millions of computers world-wide that are infected, what percentage were the result of browser exploits? Of email executable attachments? Of ports/services exploits?

The fact the the trojan ports are still exploited must mean that it is worth while for malware writers to do so because people either have no firewall, or don't have the exploit patched.

http://www.urs2.net/rsj/computing/imgs/kerio_trojan.gif
___________________________________________________________

Port graph:

http://isc.sans.org/port.html?port=135

The top viruses still propagate via email:

Top 10 viruses reported to Sophos in December 2006 (http://www.sophos.com/security/top-10/)

-{ Quote: "W32/Dref-V
Type: Virus
How it spreads: Email messages, Network shares, Infected files
Attached file:chosen from

Postcard.exe
postcard.ex
Greeting Card.exe
greeting card.exe
Greeting Postcard.exe
greeting postcard.exe" }-
Recent backdoor/bot trojans enter by "clicks" on email attachments, such as the recent postcard.exe:

Second Trojan Variant Storm Worm Spreads through Social Engineering (http://www.us-cert.gov/current/current_activity.html)

-{ Quote: "The Small Trojan variants arrive as an email attachment...These Trojan variants also create a back door that may be used to harvest sensitive data or launch a spam attack
File names:

Full Clip.exe
Full Story.exe
Full Video.exe
Full Text.exe
Full Story.exe
Read More.exe
Video.exe " }-

Trojan.Win32.Zapchast (http://www.offensivecomputing.net/?q=node/132)
-{ Quote: "Found this in some spam. Apparently someone bulk emailed out the url: h t t p://postcards2005.[removed]/postcards.gif .exe " }-
Other recent trojans (http://www.sophos.com/security/analyses/index_st_trojan.html)
__________________________________________________________

Until those statistics are generated - and it would be almost impossible - we don't know how much of the problem is the browser exploit.


regards,

-rich

________________________________________________________________
"Talking About Security Can Lead To Anxiety, Panic, And Dread...
Or Cool Assessments, Common Sense And Practical Planning..."
--Bruce Schneier

[Ice_Czar]

I rail just as voraciously against
folks not running Firewalls and AV scaners as using IE ;)

difference is that everyone generally is forced to use a browser
and the "default" application is of course the most flawed one

[TOMxEU]

erj you can try IE7 Pro freeware add-on (http://www.ie7pro.com/) - AD filter, mouse gestures, crash recovery, etc.
In IE7 Internet zone can be set only to Medium (http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/3884/capture012420071012344mf.jpg) and it alerts (http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/9175/capture012420071010406wz.jpg), if security settings are changed (http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2929/capture012420071011292fw.jpg).

Firefox is great though, especially with NoScript & extensions to block ADs, cookies, referres.
Also backing up FF is a dream, just copy one folder (with favorites, extenions, etc) unlike IE.

-{ Quote: "I rail just as voraciously against
folks not running Firewalls and AV scaners as using IE ;)" }-
What do you have against me?! http://www.wilderssecurity.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif But you are right, especially beginners runing IE6. ;)

[Rmus]

-{ Quote: "I rail just as voraciously against
folks not running ...AV scaners as using IE ;)" }-Concerning internet exploits, AV would be the last thing I would want to rely on behind the browser/email program because of the zero-day stuff.

Some examples:

1) http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=880

-{ Quote: " IMPORTANT: Antivirus software does not provide any reliable protection against current threats. Viruses like Sober tend to change every few hours well in advance of AV signature updates. The fact that an attachment did not get marked is no indication that it is harmless. We do receive reports of up to date versions of AV software missing some of the recent Sober variants. " }-

2) http://www.offensivecomputing.net/?q=node/132

-{ Quote: " Trojan.Win32.Zapchast
Has an interesting XML blob in it as well, which when changed, makes a lot of AV software misdetect it" }-
Updating an AV database is the same as applying patches. Quicker, for sure, but there is still that window of opportunity. I wouldn't feel secure at all.

Of course, one could argue that he wouldn't open attachments in the first place, in which case, he wouldn't even need an AV for that.

Still no reason to dump IE.

To quote again:

-{ Quote: "the browser u use is just a personal preference based on what features u want, how u like the interface, etc." }-


regards,

-rich

________________________________________________________________
"Talking About Security Can Lead To Anxiety, Panic, And Dread...
Or Cool Assessments, Common Sense And Practical Planning..."
--Bruce Schneier

[Pedro]

Well, even if you think IE is as safe or safeR:o , just look at the functions and features missing...
Face it, IE is stone age. And it's not that IE7 does more things and better than IE6 that will ever change my mind. Even if they update to IE8 with all the features in FF and Opera, i'll still prefer these, because they're the ones that are innovating!

Again i repeat: new features in IE7 are already in FF and Opera for ages!

If there are new features not in FF or Opera, that are in IE:o , my guess is:
I'LL NEVER NEED THEM!

[ejr]

-{ Quote: "Well, even if you think IE is as safe or safeR:o , just look at the functions and features missing...
Face it, IE is stone age. And it's not that IE7 does more things and better than IE6 that will ever change my mind. Even if they update to IE8 with all the features in FF and Opera, i'll still prefer these, because they're the ones that are innovating!

Again i repeat: new features in IE7 are already in FF and Opera for ages!

If there are new features not in FF or Opera, that are in IE:o , my guess is:
I'LL NEVER NEED THEM!" }-

My main reason for not switiching to Firefox is duplication of function. I hate to waste precious resources by having 2 programs that do the same thing.

If you use Firefox, it is my understanding that you must also keep IE in order to do windows update. Is this correct?

[Pedro]

Yes, but IE won't use anything if not used.
But now that you say that, i now remember that there's a FF pluggin to act as IE. Maybe i can update with this? I'm not sure.

Think it like this: i do more things and faster with Opera. Just try it, read a bit about it (short-cuts etc.) and you won't go back to IE.

Simple things, that even if explained, you won't see the benefit. You'll answer: i don't need that, i can do that with this and that app., i can tweak it to do that, etc.
Believe me, i read that, friends explained that to me, and i answered just like above. One fortunate day, IE wouldn't start, or crashed, and i tried FF. Then Opera. Like in my sig., i never looked back.

Firefox is highly customizable. Opera probably has everything you need from the get-go, and you find features built-in, that you previously weren't aware of!
Just give it a go, and try the features that Opera's homepage presents to you. You'll be surprised. It's best to try it out yourself, reading about it is not the same, believe me.

[PhiloVance]

-{ Quote: "If you use Firefox, it is my understanding that you must also keep IE in order to do windows update. Is this correct?" }-

Yes, that's correct. I keep IE (in this case IE7) around just for that and the fact that FF has both IE Tab and IE View which uses the IE engine. I've found quite a few places where FF does not display pages correctly.

[ejr]

OK...I think I have been talked into trying Firefox or Opera. I am not trying to start a Firefox-Opera war.

But what I want to know is:

1. If I try Firefox, what extensions should I also try (thinking from a security perspective as well as blocking cookies and adds). And does it have settings that I can set to make it as secure as possible?

2. Same for Opera...

More than likely, I will not mess with many of the optional features to enhance the browsing experience. I am strictly making the change with PC security in mind.

[TOMxEU]

FF's exts: NoScript (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/722/), CookieSafe (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2497/), RefControl (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/953/). Additionally: Adblock (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/10/) or Adblock Plus (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1865/).
With those extensions, you can enable cookies, referrers or scripts via FF's systray.
As for Opera, I never got it to block cookies nor scripts, so I will rather say nothing.

Blocking scripts, java, flash provides 99,99% security. NoScript can enable scripts for one page only, even when there are scripts from other pages included. That is, what I envy to Firefox.

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,

Some nice extensions for FF:

Adblock / Adblock Plus (+Filterset.G Updater) for blocking ads
Cookie Button + Cookie Button in the Status bar for blocking cookies
Noscript, for blocking javascript and/or other plugins (flash, java)
Refcontrol, for controlling the referrer of your browser
User Agent Switcher, for changing the default ID of your browser for improved / false rendering of sites
Video Downloader, for downloading flash movies
ScrapBook, for easy saving and catalogueing of sites
Zotero, for management of documents, websites, notes
IE Tab, for using IE engine via Firefox
Dr. Web Link checker, for checking remote links using Dr. Web AV
Mouse Gestures or All-in-One Gestures, for those too lazy
Sage, RSS feed reader
FireFTP, an FTP client

And so many more...

Mrk

[Pedro]

:) For Firefox you have plenty of tips here. For Cookies, i prefer CookieSafe, which works as Noscript but for cookies.

As for Opera, it doesn't have extensions, but there are widgets, although they won't do what some ff extensions will.
Opera for functionality has everything imo. It can do what Noscript does and all that, but not as simple. It's one of the disadvantages to FF.:-\

BUT, FF won't do some things Opera does. There are extensions that mimic these functions, just not as simple. And you have to look for them. Like the session manager, Opera has the best. If you close Opera, next time you open it, presto, it opens just like you left it, with all the tabs from the last session. And you can save sessions, to return to them when you like. The trash, mouse shortcuts...

Try them, and let us know your preference.

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,
I forgot Tab Mix Plus, with an excellent Session Manager.
Mrk

[lucas1985]

With Windows, you can be secure: common sense, policies, firewall, antimalware, etc.
With Linux, you are more secure by default. This doesn´t mean that you should forget good practices.
It´s the same with IE and Firefox.

With Firefox you get:
-A better rendering engine which is free, open source and standard-compliant.
-A browser that isn´t embedded in the OS and don´t use the crap called ActiveX.
-A portable and multi-platform app.
-A much better way to manage scripts, cookies, add-ons, ads, etc.
-A browser which you can tweak for your needs.

[Ice_Czar]

-{ Quote: "Concerning internet exploits, AV would be the last thing I would want to rely on behind the browser/email program because of the zero-day stuff." }-

very true, (in the strict context of the thread) but by now you know my song :P
Depth of defense

give the AV a shot while your looking at in the sandbox
use a HIPS, rule based firewall, hardware NAT, checksums, security benchmarks and extensive logging.

errr...in Windows (see sig)

[The Hammer]

-{ Quote: "as long as you secure and keep IE patched it should be fine for everyday use.

the browser u use is just a personal preference based on what features u want, how u like the interface, etc.
" }-Exactly right. There's a lot of tilting at windmills and Chicken Little comments in this thread IMO.

[Pedro]

What does that mean?

[Ice_Czar]

think it means we keep crossing over the macro and micro viewpoint line
the personal and the common man touching on the ethical, metrics, and the real impact on the sophisticated and on the rube. In other words its a mess of viewpoints :p

But if Im going to be cast as Don Quixote
I'll have Mrkvonic as my Sancho :P
being painted as quixotic is apt facing these odds

as far the subject of the topic
de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme

[dylanfan]

-{ Quote: "Others such as Firefox and Opera are widely used and can display most webpages without any problems." }-Please guys, see the Acid2RenderingTest which can be found here (http://webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html)
Running on Opera 9.10 b8666, I get a perfect match. FFox can't get even close, not to mention IE.

-{ Quote: "'right click- left click' goes back one page, 'left click- right click' goes forward, all sorts of mouse shortcuts" }-
Holding right button and moving mouse to left or right does it even more easily...

-{ Quote: "I've been using firefox for about 3 years. I also use opera sometimes. Firefox is just a lot more secure browser. " }-
Don't be ridiculous... Check some security site, say Secunia (www.secunia.com) or HeiseSecurity (http://www.heise-security.co.uk/) for instance, compare the frequency of flaws of the three browsers, the speed at which the vulnerabilities are corrected, and the level of danger of those vulnerabilities. Opera is near perfect. Firefox is far behind, IE is left in the dust.

-{ Quote: "As for Opera, I never got it to block cookies nor scripts, so I will rather say nothing." }-
I guess pressing F12 may be too complicated for you!? ;) Come on... You're embarrassing yourself.

Opera classic installer is available here (http://www.opera.com/download/), and is a mere 3.9MB download, full featured and complete, ready to go. This speaks volumes regarding the precision and care the Opera team has put in this browser over the years. Compare the respective dimensions of Firefox (without extensions of course) and, even more spectacularly, IE at download. The differences are so huge it's a joke.

One may champion any browser one likes, but -like it or not- there's no escaping the fact that Opera is the Norwegian Ferrari of the Internet.

[TOMxEU]

-{ Quote: "Please guys, see the Acid2RenderingTest which can be found here (http://webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html)
Running on Opera 9.10 b8666, I get a perfect match." }-
This is also Opera's weakness, because it is perfect browser for perfect web.
Unfortunatelly, most webpages are not valid, so they just do not work in Opera.

[rdsu]

-{ Quote: "Any reason NOT to switch to Firefox?" }-
If you use Opera... ;)

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "If you like to customize things, Firefox could be the one for you." }-I haven't customised FF; I use it "out of the box". I believe in simplicity, and I've even stripped down IE7 by removing some icons from the toolbar. Less clutter, the better IMO.

[Pedro]

-{ Quote: "
Holding right button and moving mouse to left or right does it even more easily...
" }-

How is pressing two buttons that are next to each other harder than pressing one of them and moving the mouse??:o
Even if it matters for you the nanoseconds apart:o , i think you'll find the buttons much quicker, not to mention easier...

[dylanfan]

-{ Quote: "most webpages are not valid, so they just do not work in Opera." }-
I surf the web for hours a day, and still have to find any webpage I can't display in Opera. Any pointer?

[dylanfan]

-{ Quote: "I haven't customised FF; I use it "out of the box"." }-
Hi
The trouble with that is that FFox lacks some necessary features if you don't use extensions (adblocking, mouse gestures, NoScript, and so on). All are built-in in Opera.
Cheers

[lodore]

the websites i have tryed in opera work fine and i now use it everyday.
the only website that wont are like certain bank sites that think its better to use IE.
or sites which use activeX
lodore

[dylanfan]

-{ Quote: "How is pressing two buttons that are next to each other harder than pressing one of them and moving the mouse??:o" }-
:) Your method needs two fingers, mine only one.:D
Cheers

[lodore]

even the microsoft vista site works fine with opera lol.
lodore

[rdsu]

It's very normal that now a huge % of websites works fine in Firefox, Opera and other browsers, because much more users are not using IE and this makes that webmasters have to improve their websites to add compability and use the standards... :)

[twl845]

I tried FF and Opera side by side for a couple of months before picking one. Opera has some neat tricks, but I found it geared to the younger crowd, maybe in their teens to twenties. This is most obvious in "communities". Being 67, I don't need cool funky features. I think the side bar was a bit annoying too. Not being able to access certain web sites was the thing that was really annoying. My memory of Opera features is a little fuzzy now since I made the decision to go with FF full time some time ago, but although Opera was nice in some respects, I like FF better. ;D

[lodore]

i used to use firefox as my main browser but now i use opera and use firefox less. you can get most of the stuff i used extensions for in firefox as bulti in in opera.
lodore

[dylanfan]

-{ Quote: "I tried FF and Opera side by side for a couple of months before picking one. Being 67, I don't need cool funky features. I think the side bar was a bit annoying too." }-?!?There's nothing annoying about the side bar since pressing F4 simply makes it disappear instantly.
-{ Quote: "Not being able to access certain web sites was the thing that was really annoying." }-Again, please point me to any of these sites - I know of no one.
-{ Quote: "My memory of Opera features is a little fuzzy now since I made the decision to go with FF full time some time ago, but although Opera was nice in some respects, I like FF better. ;D" }-That's fine with me, no problem to me if you like FF better ;)

Cheers

[FastGame]

-{ Quote: "I surf the web for hours a day, and still have to find any webpage I can't display in Opera. Any pointer?" }-
Sure, its easy to find them Here (http://my.opera.com/community/forums/forum.dml?id=2) :D

[strangequark]

Q: Any reason NOT to switch to Firefox?

A: in a word, NO

[lodore]

the pages that dont work in opera probaly dont work in firefox eiether cos they meant for IE lol.
lodore

[Pedro]

Yes, the only cases i'm aware of, are websites that build for IE, not standards. So it's not Opera and FF's fault. If those sited aren't important, add them to blocklist;D

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "The trouble with that is that FFox lacks some necessary features if you don't use extensions (adblocking, mouse gestures, NoScript, and so on)." }-I use none of those in FF anyway. I haven't added any extensions.

I could add extension upon extension, but my surfing habits dictate I really don't need 'em all.

Ad blocking is contained within KIS, the security suite I use.

[mercurie]

Not that I can think of. I use it 95% of the time. ;)

[deadmanschest]

I have a viewpoint not voiced by many, perhaps a tad unique. I ran IERadicate 5 years ago, and gutted IE (5.5 at that time) out of WinME and started to use Opera 5 or 6 (as it was then) and Phoenix 0.4 or 0.5 (now FF) as it was then.

I have only found one issue that might be a negative. That is that a fair bit of software refuses to install if you do not have IE 4 or IE 5 or such installed. The expected examples are crap like MSN Messenger, which will not install, but will run fine without IE. The unexpected ones are like one I encountered today, and which prompted me to post in this thread. I decided to install AxCrypt (many of you will be familiar), a respected app, and on Setup it stopped and said "IE4 is required" and closed....hehe.

Aside from the fact that it seems incredibly stupid that a cryptographic program with shell integration should 'require' IE4, it's just one of the surprises that you get without having IE around at all. I would say that of perhaps 40 apps that would not install w/o IE the last 5 years, only 1 or 2 are really a tee-off (like AxCrypt). Interestingly, the vast majority of open source software and other freeware installs and runs fine. Mostly commercial and/or commercal/lite ware seems to choke on "no IE". Some may be understandable, like some HTML editors, others are just stupid, like Paragon software Drive Copy 8, a disk cloning app. 'Warning - Needs IE 4 or better to run" etc. etc.

The short answer is No. Switch now. I use FFas default browser because I still find page renderings in Opera that bug me, but Opera is sooo well designed, I would use it more often if I didn't like some FF extensions so much.

I also use Proxo for all http filtering. Therefore which browser is "better for ads and popups etc" means nothing to me. I use Proxo for all browsers and never configure any of the security buttons in any of them. By the by, I just started playing with K-Meleon (a kin to FF and Moz) and it is fun fast....

Cheers

dmc

[KDNeese]

-{ Quote: "Again, please point me to any of these sites - I know of no one.
Cheers" }-

I have been using Opera for a couple of years and am a real Opera fan. However, I can name two sites that did not work for me while using Opera, at least when attempting a purchase transaction via a secure connection. The first was when I attempted to finalize my purchase of NOD32 at the Eset website. After adding NOD32 to my cart, Opera would not complete the transaction. I had to use IE in order to complete my purchase. The other site is in reference to my Alltel cell phone service. I cannot perform a secure transaction when attempting to make payment online using Opera. However, both FF and IE allow me to complete the transaction. This is not the same for every site, however, as I have successfully completed transactions with Opera on other sites. There are other sites I have encountered that specifically state that you must be using Internet Explorer to make the site work.

At the same time, as far as Internet security in general, I can relate my own experience, in that while using IE6, I had to clean my computer almost every time I went online. After switching to Opera, all of that stopped. Malware scans almost became a moot point, as malware (not even tracking cookies) were found on my machine while using Opera. Even using Firefox, I still found tracking cookies and other junk. However, with the newer versions of FF (also using Noscript and CookieSafe) nothing gets on there either. I also have to say that even when using IE7 I don't get anything except normal cookies. Of course, I have ActiveX and all the other crab disabled in IE, and practice safe surfing habits. At this point, however, I am so used to Opera, its lightness and speed, that it is still my favorite browser. I also use FF quite as my browser when running Ubuntu Linux as well as the Konquerer browser using SUSE Linux. My surfing speed using FF in Linux is at least twice as fast as using FF in XP. I would use Opera with my Linux system but so far haven't had any luck getting it installed. Once I do, however, I will be using Opera on it also.

[TOMxEU]

-{ Quote: "I surf the web for hours a day, and still have to find any webpage I can't display in Opera. Any pointer?" }-
I tried pages, that did not work in 9.02 and they do work now, one point for Opera. ;)
But it still can not manage cookies, javascripts like IE or FF (exceptions, temporarily allow).
I also do not use Opera, because I do not like its name and for Firefox, I do not like its skin.

[lodore]

you can get different skins for firefox!
there must be one you like.
if you like IE than there must be a skin like it.
tbh i dont like the disign of ie7 much.
lodore

[Ice_Czar]

Ive had to setup a few boxes with IE & exceptions to the noaccess.rat so the browser can be employed with activeX for presentations (Keithley Instruments) or logging onto corporate mainframes (Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway)

but I don't explain how to get rid of the noaccess.rat
just give them the password to write new exceptions

sort of discourages them from using IE somehow ;D

[dylanfan]

-{ Quote: "But it still can not manage cookies, javascripts like IE or FF (exceptions, temporarily allow)." }- ::) Sorry, but the fact that you still can't manage cookies and scripts in Opera doesn't mean that Opera can't handle those easily and efficiently.::)

[strangequark]

-{ Quote: "you can get different skins for firefox!
there must be one you like.
if you like IE than there must be a skin like it.
" }-
indeed there is, at least 2 that I know of, one to look like IE 6 and another for IE 7, not to mention Vista.

if you ever get bored looking through Wilders forums [ I know I'm being blasphemous ] another way to lose a few hours is the firefox extension and theme site, there seems to be an extension for everything and a theme for every taste ............. including............ those who like the look of IE ;D

[TOMxEU]

-{ Quote: "::) Sorry, but the fact that you still can't manage cookies and scripts in Opera doesn't mean that Opera can't handle those easily and efficiently.::)" }-
Million people, million opinions, I do not consider managing cookies via menu as easy. ;)
I spent 2 days on it and it was not working, Opera even allowed all or blocked all cookies.
By the way, either my friend, who uses Opera for years, has no idea, how to get it working.
Nevermind, I am sure, that Opera is a good browser, but I never recommend it to beginners.

[twl845]

Even though I prefer FF to Opera, the one thing that Opera has is an outstanding operating manual and tutorial. If you can read you can learn Opera in no time. If you know enough to navigate to the tutorial, it doesn't matter if you're a beginner or not. :isay:

[lodore]

i have found out that the best way to learn stuff is to play with settings.
thats how i learnt most of the stuff about computers.
some people read books about computers and dont know that e.g. if a printer keeps spitting out paper just turn it off stop the print que on the pc and turn it back on. hands on experience is the better way.
and if you change the setting and e.g. opera dont work just reinstall it its only like a 5mb download
lodore

[twl845]

You can't play with the settings very well if you don't know what they're for. It's a heck of alot easier to read a few sentences of instructions and try a procedure, than to just click stuff in the dark. It's quicker in the end too. Then you will have learnt it more better.;D

[jc836]

Another 2 cents on the subject--
I only use IE7 for updates and a small group of webpages that I have to. I agree that if there were a way-I too would remove IE in favor of Firefox 2.0.0.1. I still have the discs for Netscape (now AOL) put away. At least Firefox is more secure than IE and much more configurable for the individual user IMO.

[solcroft]

And now for something slightly more different...

The one reason you do not have to switch to alternative browsers if you do not wish to is that IE7 is good. As far as basics go, it gets them right for the average Joe Schmoe. Alternative browsers offer a whole load of bells and whistles, but they're just that - bells and whistles. IE7 is the bare basics. Of course there are multiple, quite compelling reasons to switch, but if you don't, rest assured, nothing bad will happen.

[lodore]

but IE7 is still quite unsafe with reguards to activex and other exploits on default setting is it not?
ie7 isnt to bad but i still prefer firefox and opera.
i only use IE7 for windows updates and an online game called runescape because it seems to use to make firefox or opera use over 100mb of ram just by having runescape open in eiether of them.
they need to make it work with alternate browsers

lodore

[TOMxEU]

-{ Quote: "but IE7 is still quite unsafe with reguards to activex and other exploits on default setting is it not?" }-
IE7 by default: Medium is min - unsigned activex will not download, signed activex prompts.
So with default settings, IE7 is as safe as Firefox with scripts, IE6 just has too bad history.
When scripts are enabled in a browser, it is still an unsafe browser, whetever it is IE or FF.

[lodore]

hmm i guess it is safer then.
but its easy to execute a script in IE 7 with one button.
i play an online game called runescape that uses java.
i use opera for the other sites i am visiting but runescape works better in IE7
i guess they havent added support for opera or firefox yet.
but when i click on a world and then switch to opera while it loads IE7 will come up on top of all other windows and says do you want to allow this press spacebar or enter to countinue.
now if a less knowledgeale user was e.g. browsing unsafe sites and talking on messenger and about to press enter to send a message to someone ans Ie7 popped up and said press enter or space bar to continue on the unsafe site then thats it malware executes again.
its another two clicks rather than one.
In IE6 the malware from the dodgy site would of executed but in IE7 it asks for aproval by pressing spacebar or enter.
im guessing to allow unsigned ActiveX controls its a message saying press enter or spacebar to countinue as well
my main browser atm is opera since its the fastest and safest browser.
i disble dangerous scripts globaly and allow on a site per site basis like no script.
lodore

[Mrkvonic]

-{ Quote: "IE7 by default: Medium is min - unsigned activex will not download, signed activex prompts.
So with default settings, IE7 is as safe as Firefox with scripts, IE6 just has too bad history.
When scripts are enabled in a browser, it is still an unsafe browser, whetever it is IE or FF." }-

Hello,
Even with scripts enabled FF is safe. I have yet to see a viable real exploit that will get past FF as some major drive-by and install crapolas...
Mrk

[sosaiso]

-{ Quote: "Hello,
Even with scripts enabled FF is safe. I have yet to see a viable real exploit that will get past FF as some major drive-by and install crapolas...
Mrk" }-

How about the wmf exploit? Well, that was Microsoft's fault, but I wouldn't say FF will prevent everything either. To be safe, I usually throw all webconnected apps into a sandbox, or restrict their rights.

[Pedro]

Here we go. It's not only security, NOR BELLS! Firefox and Opera can do a lot more things than IE7,8,9 and 10! So, they're better, and they do not complicate things having more functions. They make things simpler.

Don't want to jump forward? Don't want the extra functions? Fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion:thumb: . The world would be a terrible place, and dull, if not. My dad also doesn't want to change, but he doesn't argue what's better either.

The end;D
I promise not to harass you guys again.

[twl845]

Thanks to someone. 8)

[pilotart]

What KDNeese posted was true for Every Time I Had to use IE as well.
-{ Quote: "...as far as Internet security in general, I can relate my own experience, in that while using IE6, I had to clean my computer almost every time I went online. ...." }-
Love to use my Firefox (along with 25 extensions) and my system always scans clean now. Did not care for Netscape and never tried Opera.

There are a few sites for which I must use IE (some with lowest privacy setting) and BufferZone {Free for IE} (http://www.trustware.com/)provides additional protection from IE's malware exposure and allows a quick and simple 'one-click' clean at any time.

MS Windows Updates (along with MediaPlayer 10 install) automatically install with BufferZone and are applied (as trusted) to the whole system.

MS OfficeXP Updates, however need BZ disabled to successfully install. Still better than pre-BZ, as I could start with a 'clean' IE before 'disable'.

Programs can be installed within BufferZone and then moved out of BufferZone (if you want) with a single click.