Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Revisiting the "Firefox Myths" Part 5

Please read my earlier post "Revisiting the "Firefox Myths" Part 2, the Tangent" for background information on where these quotes came from and what the heck is going on.
Myth - "Firefox has lower System Requirements than Internet Explorer"

First of all read the examples are not myths section. Regardless I had multiple sources for many Myths but I only started screen capturing them as I found them go off line one after another after I linked to them. There is nothing I can do about it other then to show the screen capture.

The page came out in 2005! Regardless there is no "apples to apples" comparison. I actually compare IE6 to both Firefox 1.x to 2.x IE6 has the most market share of any browser period and the Myth is debunked.
This discussion is based on the fact that Andrew K compared Internet Explorer 6's system requirements to those of Firefox 2, even though IE 6 came out in 2002. He compared Firefox to a version of Internet Explorer that was released FIVE YEARS earlier. An Apples to Apples comparison DOES exist, comparing IE 7 to Firefox 2. When you do that, you find they have the same minimum system requirements.

I challenge Andrew K to include the Internet Explorer version information when he compares the browser requirements for IE 6 to Firefox 2. If you're going to use misleading information and massages statistics, then reveal the browser versions you're comparing.

Why does Andrew K insist upon choosing a baseline of IE 6, a browser whose own publisher wants you to upgrade? What is his fascination with clinging to obsolete technology? As of September 2007, IE 7 already has about half of IE 6's browser share market, and you can't even GET IE 6 on new PCs without going through hoops to install Windows XP or 2000.

Microsoft publishes information on Internet Explorer's product support life cycle. You can see that it's been a few years since IE6 was updated, and despite the fact that IE6 will remain supported for the life cycle of Windows XP, it's clear that all Microsoft's development is being geared towards IE7.

Given how long it took for the IE CreateTextRange remote execution vulnerability to be patched when IE 7 was still close to a year from release, do you really want to be using IE 6 when the Internet Explorer developers are focusing in IE 7?

Andrew only "Debunked" this myth in that he carefully chose his browser versions to get the results he wanted. I stand by my original automotive analogy: "This is a bit like Toyota comparing their safest 2007 Sedan to the late 1980's Ford Pinto and using that comparison to claim that Toyota cars are safer than Ford. Such comparisons make it look like you have something to hide."
Myth - "Firefox uses less memory than Internet Explorer"

If you could please provide a link that shows what part of IE loads when I would be interested and am still waiting for two years for proof of. Regardless the Myth is debunked.
Fascinating. I agreed with him and he still felt compelled to argue with me about it.

No, I didn't refute the common belief that IE components load at boot time, I did one better, I pointed out that it doesn't matter if they do. Even if IE components are loaded at boot, it doesn't matter in terms of memory usage comparisons, unless you can find a way to avoid loading those components when Windows boots.
Myth - "Firefox is Bug Free"

What you consider a Myth is irrelevant to what many others believe. Many people believe this and thus it is a Myth and obviously debunked.
Well, you did find ONE example of someone who thought Firefox was bug free, so I'll grant you this one. However, I recommend you find and link to more sources for this Myth. As it stands, using a Pet Lover's forum as the "source" for the myth is questionable at best. All you're really doing is proving there are idiots who don't know what they're talking about online. A quick look at Yahoo Answers will prove the same thing.
Myth - "Firefox is Stable"

Corrupt Preference Issues and Profile Issues are core browser issues! Again you show your bias for what you think the page is about, it is not to sell a browser or promote IE. I state nothing about IE here and yet you do, I can clearly see now how you are incapable of reading what I clearly state. It is to debunk Myths. This myth is clearly debunked.
Oh, that's cute! Andrew edited the page to add references to "Corrupt Preference Issues, Profile Issues, Plugin Issues." The previous version only mentioned the third party extensions.
Of course the Wayback Machine doesn't have a copy of the old page and I neglected to save a copy to my hard disk. Well, I just saved a copy of the page to my local drive, so if Andrew pulls that stunt again I'll have proof.

Anyone out there have a copy of the previous version of Andrew K's page?

I'm glad to see my article has forced Andrew to revisit and improve his page.

Regardless, the wording of the Myth is highly subjective. The source he chooses is using the phrase "Firefox is Stable" to compare Firefox to Internet Explorer. Yes, Andrew K demonstrated that Firefox is as vulnerable to bugs as any other program, but he does so in a misleading manner.

Most people use the phrase "Stable" to refer to software that doesn't crash all the time, it's safe to use in a production environment and won't leave you frustrated with lost data on a regular basis. An unbiased review of Firefox and this myth would have combined this with the "Firefox is Bug Free" myth to point out all software is vulnerable to stability issues. As it stands, Andrew K implies that Firefox is less stable than other browsers. While I can't speak for Opera, Firefox 2.x is more stable than any released version of Internet Explorer.


Anonymous said...

You fucking liar! I did not edit the page to include that since you posted this blog entry! It was there from the first day I put that Myth up!

I am done here. You are a a goddamn fucking liar and I should have expected nothing less from a fanboy. When you want to publicly apologize for fucking lying email me.

You fanboys are all the same when you lose the argument you lie.

Your fucking incompetent article hasn't forced me to do jack shit.

Matthew Miller said...

Too bad Andrew set up his page to prevent archive.org's Wayback Machine from caching it. I could have just checked the page there before I even wrote the post.

Anyone out there have a copy of an old version of the site? I'll gladly apologize if I'm wrong.

Anonymous said...

No you are wrong and a liar. I don't have time for these games and lies. I have just proven you do not even read what is on the page! You skim and make bullshit assumptions just like every other sad sack of shit fanboy.

From your first post I pointed out numerous areas you flat out did not read. Now you have the audacity to lie about my page and not apologize for such lies? You have absolutely no integrity.

You are lying.

Anonymous said...

"You fucking liar!...I am done here. You are a a goddamn fucking liar."

Andrew (Mastertech)

"dirty rotten LIAR!...Continue with your lies because it is all you have left....Done here."

Andrew (PopularTech)

Same old tired circles.


Anonymous said...

"You skim and make bullshit assumptions just like every other sad sack of shit fanboy."

Andy, don't be so hard on yourself. Just because you REFUSE to admit that "Drive-BY" exploits ever existed for EI6 even when half a dozen links are put in your face is no reason to berate yourself.

Well, OK, it is.

You ever thought of getting medication for those anger management problems?

And you CLEARLY got some memory problems if you forget half the links people post to show what an uninformed little asshat you are.