| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Review: Firefox 3 Versus Internet Explorer | |
|
||
| Time: 23:49 EST/04:49 GMT | News Source: CRN | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Firefox 3 has steadily been on the tail of Microsoft (NSDQ:MSFT)'s Internet Explorer as the number two browser of choice. With the final release of RC2 version 3, could Firefox become the IE slayer?
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:53:10 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 6/17/2008 6:48:21 AM |
| Is there any way to automate Windows/AD authentication in FF without having to manually key in server names? |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/17/2008 8:22:22 AM |
|
Ahhhh! I love the smell of fresh browser in the morning!
|
| #3 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 6/17/2008 11:07:07 AM |
|
Their results regarding performance are interesting. I'd be particularly curious to see more results around memory utilization. One recent report I looked at (I think it was Neosmart? I'd have to look it up) said that Firefox 3 has a running baseline of 300 MB--and that was with a handful of tabs (IIRC). I'm running 28 tabs right now (which is low for me), and IE 8 shows 168 MB according to the Task Manager (assuming that's the same memory value they're checking for Firefox). Not that I recommend running IE 8--it has a few stability issues after running a few days. It's not terrible, though... but not quite as stable as IE 7.
At any rate, my biggest concern with a Firefox 3 deployment is enterprise-grade patching. IE is ages ahead of everyone in this regard. |
| #4 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 6/17/2008 11:44:56 AM |
| #3: That is the main reason my company hasn't migrated. |
| #5 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 6/17/2008 11:51:12 AM |
|
even the smallest of companies want to be able to control users' browsers via policy objects which IE provides for nicely. So in addition to being integrated to patch management, policy based control is why IE remains the only real choice for businesses of any size. Until FF/Saf address these issues, end user oriented features will matter very little.
It still stuns me when I hear tech pundits say things like, "any technically literate person uses FF/Moz..." to whit I would recommend they refer to para 1, above. Technically literate people "Deploy" and "Manage" IE and all other applications running on their networks - regardless of how small, or large they may be. |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/17/2008 12:27:07 PM |
| #5: My personal experience has been that no company I've ever worked for (or any company that my relatives & friends have worked for) has cared about managing people's browsers. While I'm sure that there is no shortage of companies that want to micromanage everything to the subatomic level, I would suggest that this is not very important to most companies. |
| #7 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 6/17/2008 1:33:19 PM |
|
Sadly this site is resembling more and more a madras: holders of two different but still a"absolute" truth going after each others.
I understand that is more difficult to deal with the concept that 90% of things are located in the gray area and not in the white or the black ones but this is the reality. Time to change... or to become irrelevant. |
| #8 By 2960 (70.177.180.170) at 6/17/2008 2:32:19 PM |
|
#1,
You should be able to do it with a shortcut. You embed the login in the shortcut. No, I don't like it either. AD is pretty hostile to anything non-IE anyway. TL |
| #9 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 6/17/2008 3:22:20 PM |
|
Centrally managing (even according to extremely permissive levels) client machines is simply efficient and lowers costs and complexity.
#7, The ability to centrally manage clients isn't about absolutes - policies drive what one deploys and what one may do. Business owners and managers determine the policies - so they may be whatever they wish them to be. Latch, you likely do not have much experience in and or around those working with patient record data and or banking data. We have many very small practices and smaller banks as customers and for them, proving that they have centally managed clients and Internet access is not an option, it is mandated. Banks for example have FDIC regulators on them constantly. Other companies in the legal and specialized accounting space have retention policies and cached Internet objects have been subject to discovery, as have search histories. So it is not about "control" or "absolutes" it is about efficiency, consistency and adhering to standards. For a great many companies, these are important considerations. |
| #10 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/17/2008 3:58:23 PM |
| #9: And for a great many companies, it's not something that they care about at all. It would be interesting to have a local poll here on AW to see how many users are in an environment where their browser is locked down by policy. |
| #11 By 16797 (65.93.151.91) at 6/17/2008 4:03:30 PM |
|
Just installed FF 3.
Am I missing something or this thing fails Acid 2 test? Test: open Acid 2 test page in one tab, open reference rendering in another. Hold CTRL+TAB to switch tabs and watch the nose of the smiley face. That aside, it looks really nice and improved. |
| #12 By 23275 (68.186.182.236) at 6/17/2008 4:25:32 PM |
|
#10, no no... you're smart enough to know that "centrally managed" does not mean "locked down"
You don't get to do that - you can't couch all of Microsoft's strengths in a negative way. Don't confuse Fritz... it's not about absolutes... it's about consistency and efficiency and YES, there are cases where controlling which sites users may visit is not only required, but mandatory. The title of this article and the thread is about FF -v IE. There are going to be strengths on each side - none of which require extremes. So skip the "locked down" rubbish. I would offer that centrally managing the state and health of machines is a big plus and a solid plus on IE's side of the equation. We're seeing this extended to even home users with two or three computers... where things like security, backup and music and media accounts and software are all easily and centrally managed by non-technical people/parents and older brothers and sisters... OneCare, Zune Marketplace, WHS, etc... certainly, small business server stand as other examples and they directly relate to ease of use - not just for one user, but for the people supporting them. |
| #13 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 6/17/2008 4:26:02 PM |
|
#10: I would suggest that most if not all large companies lock down the browser in some way. Like setting the home page to be the company intranet site and preventing it from being changed, or setting security levels, or proxy servers. It is not at all uncommon. This post was edited by rxcall on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 16:28. |
| #14 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 6/17/2008 4:27:39 PM |
|
#10: that's not a bad idea for a poll. Obviously, those that don't actually "manage" computers beyond their own should not respond. I know that we do, and that the vast majority of my local colleagues do. If you're running desktops as standard users rather than local administrators, it's pretty much a requirement to be able to manage the browser, and the tool of choice is Group Policy.
The ability to "manage" the browser in terms of centralized patch deployment is just as big an issue, though. If Mozilla wants business traction, they should partner with Microsoft/Symantec/etc. to deliver updates via WSUS/SMS/Altiris. |
| #15 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at 6/17/2008 5:33:57 PM |
| Every major (larger) company that I have done work for has some kind of policy for the browser that they centrally manage. Sometimes it is as simple as homepage and other minor things. Other times it is much more complex. Many of the small businesses that I deal with have this also. |
| #16 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at 6/17/2008 7:20:52 PM |
|
#11: It seems to work for me at http://acid2.acidtests.org/#top and http://acid2.acidtests.org/reference.html. The one at webstandards.org works as well, but the nose increases very slightly in size as compared to the reference page.
#12: I misspoke when I used locked down instead of controlled, but I don't see locked down in a general negative context and wasn't trying to slam IE. There are many legitimate instances where you would need to lock down the desktop or browser. I do believe that IT has the right to control the browser behaviour of staff as dictated by company policy. A quick Google showed that there are several tools that allow you to package FF up with settings you preselect and plugins that you want preinstalled: http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/96176/enterprise-rollout-and-management-of-firefox.html #13: I agree. I didn't say large companies didn't do this, I said most companies didn't do this, and that includes all the small & medium-sized companies out there that outnumber the large companies. #14: Certainly those that manage their own computers should respond. That's the entire point of the poll. I wanted to know how many users here worked at companies that managed their browser, and additionally how big that company was in terms of employees. |
| #17 By 16797 (65.93.151.91) at 6/17/2008 7:51:52 PM |
|
Test at webstandards.org is the relevant one. Opera 9.5 passes it, for example.
And I get the same result with FF3 at acidtests.org - nose rendered differently. Again, Opera 9.5 has no problems. So, FF3 fails Acid 2, I guess. This post was edited by gonzo on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 19:55. |
| #18 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at 6/17/2008 8:29:37 PM |
| #17: You're right. I didn't notice it the first time at acidtests but did at webstandards. That's an interesting anomaly. I took a peek at the source and it might be that it isn't calculating the height of the nose properly compared to the spec. I'm not a web dev by any stretch, but it appears that there is a collision between two potential values for the height, but one trumps the other. Perhaps FF is not respecting the order of precedence for those operations. |
| #19 By 7754 (75.72.153.112) at 6/18/2008 12:15:37 AM |
| #16: I don't think it should be characterized as a large company vs. SMB issue. If anything, it's likely more beneficial for SMBs--they face many of the same concerns as larger businesses, but have far fewer resources. Whether you're 1000 IT people rolling out/managing an app for 50,000 employees, 100 for 5,000, 10 for 500, or 1 for 50, an automated, centralized tool for doing so saves lots and lots of time. And the further you go towards the narrow end of that spectrum, you have fewer people with more and more responsibilities. |
| #20 By 82766 (122.107.48.75) at 6/19/2008 6:35:16 AM |
|
I really hope the new AW has the ability to easily create polls :-)
I've spent the past 20 years working in the IT industry setting up networks, PCs, server's et all for 1 to 5000+ users for hospitals, banks, worldwide fishing businesses, etc etc. My personal experience says its not about locking out the user but mainly 1 - simple initial pre-configuration, 2 - simple easy and quick on going modifications to the configuration of said application and 3rd, "managing" the user's access within the application over a period of time. Currently, the business I work for is not within the IT industry but I am single handedly managing their nationwide network. I cannot be bothered with the 15 minutes it takes for me to install Vista using a pre-made disc with installation requirements. So I just order them from Dell with a basic pre-installation of Vista. I take the PC out of the box, plug it into the network, name the PC and walk away. AD and group policy takes care of the rest configuring all the applications on the PC as I require them, sets up the user, etc etc. In this context with IE, I do not want anyone changing their proxy server settings or any of the security settings (internet/intranet/local/etc). I also make additions and/or modifications to the proxy server exceptions about once a month. This is extremely easy to do. I don't need to reinstall the application and the user's are completely oblivious to the changes. As Latch points out, there is an ability to "package" FF for installation, unfortunately this is not the same situation as group policies controlling IE. If Mozilla/Google want businesses to truly accept FF, they will have to support GPOs and AD. In saying that, I downloaded FF3... installed it and the importing wizard crashed the PC I was trying it on. After 30 minutes of use, I've reverted to IE7. For me, FF3 was using MORE RAM than IE7 while with my timing tests... FF3 was MAYBE 0.5 seconds faster loading - could have been faster or slower than that but I was just using the stopwatch on my watch :-) Still, its not dramatically quicker for me. Plus, whats with those really thin tabs etc? they're far too hard to click on imho. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:53:11 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
