13 Reasons To Use Firefox Over IE

Thursday February 12th, 2004

Gsurface writes: "With the current release of Mozilla Firefox 0.8 and in the excitement to try out something new, I decided to compile 13 Reasons To Use Firefox Over IE. Here's a snip...

"'A feature which I thought was going to be integrated in Internet Explorer 6 was a download manager. Download managers allow you to manipulate and take control of your downloaded files. Mozilla Firefox's download manager contains just the essentials to allow you to control your downloads. You can pause your download and continue it a later time, something which is not possible with IE's download manager. Apart from sporting a nice look, the download manager stores the information such as size and location of your downloaded file. When the download is complete, a small notification is displayed in the lower right side of the screen.'"

#1 Fireball

by wde

Thursday February 12th, 2004 1:30 PM

"In this day in age, an internet browser without a popup blocker is like having a broadband connection without a fireball."

I'm on broadband, and I don't have a fireball.

#20 Reply

by napolj2

Thursday February 12th, 2004 7:40 PM

I think he means firewall. This reminds me of how someone once wrote about Internet Exploder, which would come with its own fireball.

#2 Popup blocker defeated?

by aldo_

Thursday February 12th, 2004 1:46 PM has got some new javascript which seems to get round firefox's popup blocking.

One such example which seems to work on my Firefox 0.8 for Windows (also happens on my iBook) is

The new javascript controls that have been implemented in firefox 0.8 really help out, but it still isn't enough to kill all of it.

#4 Re: Popup blocker defeated?

by wilbertnl

Thursday February 12th, 2004 1:56 PM

Hm, I don't see anything popping up when I open that web page. I refuse Third Party Cookies, could that make a difference?

#6 Re: Re: Popup blocker defeated?

by joschi

Thursday February 12th, 2004 2:04 PM

same here...

#26 Re: Re: Re: Popup blocker defeated?

by kwanbis

Friday February 13th, 2004 6:11 AM

same here, no popup

#27 Re: Re: Re: Re: Popup blocker defeated?

by polidobj

Friday February 13th, 2004 6:36 AM

As stated below the popups only occur when you click on a link. So just loading the page won't show the popup problem.

#5 Re: Popup blocker defeated?

by wilbertnl

Thursday February 12th, 2004 1:59 PM

Hm, I don't see anything popping up when I open that web page. I refuse Third Party Cookies, could that make a difference?

#7 No popups for me

by bugs4hj

Thursday February 12th, 2004 3:22 PM

They check for popup blockers. Click on a link first and note the popup under at the right side of your screen!

MultiZilla doesn't open popups from any site, but we're still stuck, still waiting on images/icons to support Mozilla Firefox :(

#11 Re: No popups for me

by wilbertnl

Thursday February 12th, 2004 3:39 PM

You are right. It looks like we are in need for a whitelist for javascript (and java, for that matter).

#14 Re: Re: No popups for me

by polidobj

Thursday February 12th, 2004 4:46 PM

It's already checked in for 0.9 before 0.8 even came out.

I tried the 2004-02-10 trunk build to see if I could block the click popups on and it didn't by default but it did when I removed click from the list. It's under dom.popup_allowed_events in about:config. But that seems to be overall. How would you set that for individual sites?

#21 Re: Re: Re: No popups for me

by mesostinky

Thursday February 12th, 2004 8:38 PM

Add *paypopup* to adblock and your set. You know I used to do the whole user css thing in my profile, but adblock is a vastly superior solution.

#22 Re: No popups for me

by c960657

Friday February 13th, 2004 3:08 AM

I think it would be convinient to be able to give permissions (javascript, java, popups etc.) for individual sites.

As a web programmer, there are a lot of browser functions like e.g. popups that I hesitate to use, because popups are misused by advertisers and others and people thus totally block popups. For popups, semi-advanced users fortunately have a way of enabling them per site, but other settings like e.g. whether Javascript is allowed to resize windows, there is only one global setting. Thus I must totally refrain from resizing windows in my websites, even though I have a legitimate reason to do so.

I have written a posting in the forum on this: It wasn't read by that many and nobody commented on it, but I would like to know what people think of this, before I suggest it in a bugzilla bug.

#9 Re: Popup blocker defeated?

by bugs4hj

Thursday February 12th, 2004 3:25 PM

Yep, this is what they do:

var firstPop ="about:blank","paypopuptest","width=1,height=1,left=5000,top=5000",true); window.onerror=failed var secondPop ="about:blank","paypopuptest","width=1,height=1"); if(firstPop == secondPop) PB=false; else PB=true;

if(PB) {} else { //Pop-Under Code End dl = document.links; for (i=0; i< dl.length; i++) { if (dl[i].onclick==null && dl[i].target==""){ dl[i].onclick = gopaypopup; } }

#10 Re: Re: Popup blocker defeated?

by bugs4hj

Thursday February 12th, 2004 3:27 PM

Again, no problem for MultiZilla users. No popups for us, with or without cookies:-)

#13 Re: Re: Re: Popup blocker defeated?

by wilbertnl

Thursday February 12th, 2004 4:33 PM

I just installed Multizilla and it looks like it works better with Seamonkey than with Firewhatever. I recall installing an older version, which looked too bloated, this version looks promising! Thank you for the tip

#15 Re: Popup blocker defeated?

by thelem

Thursday February 12th, 2004 5:59 PM

I went to that site, and it blocked two popups when it first loaded. The other popup is created by a user action (clicking any link on the page), so mozilla deliberatly allows this popup to occur, because many legitimate sites require a popup to work when you click on a link (or if the automatic popup doesn't work, fall back to a link). This may not be very good (personally, I hate all popups), but it means that mozilla will work with sites such as (games) and (internet banking).

As has been pointed out elsewhere, if you want mozilla to block all popups, this is also possible through setting a preference. If you want mozilla to block advertising popups only, then you will have to accept that it will not be able to detect adverts 100%, and will both block legimate popups (which I notice because I have configure a sound to fire when a popup is blocked), and allow occasional advertising popups.

#18 Re: Popup blocker defeated?

by rabidcow

Thursday February 12th, 2004 6:52 PM

Block their domains entirely. If the url they try to popup fails to load, so does the popup. The company own at least,,,,,,,,,, and It's a horrible solution, but it does work.

#3 13 poor reasons

by wilbertnl

Thursday February 12th, 2004 1:52 PM

I'm a very content user of the Mozilla family, and I'm pleased with all the improvements with every new release (or for that matter with every nightly build). But this article annoys me with the poor items. I actually don't like the download manager, I don't want that pop-up thingy close to the system tray. A sound would do much better for me. My list of reasons to use formerly known as Firbird is just quite different.

#8 Re: 13 poor reasons

by bugs4hj

Thursday February 12th, 2004 3:23 PM

Care to share them?

#12 Re: Re: 13 poor reasons

by wilbertnl

Thursday February 12th, 2004 4:16 PM


1. The concept is great: offer miminum requirements and fulfill additional needs with extensions. 2. Let the user define minimum typeface size, very useful with high resolution. 3. Development is in progress, more than just security fixes. 4. Most settings definable in user.js script, which makes installations easier.

I'm sure that I have more reasons. :)

#16 Re: 13 poor reasons

by thelem

Thursday February 12th, 2004 6:07 PM

This is possible with the application suite, Edit > Preferences > Priv&Sec > Popup > Play Sound.

However, the preferences dialog in the app suite is far too comprehensive - in my copy I have 57 pages - not counting Mail & News Account Settings. That is far to many for people to quickly and easily find the settings they are after. Firefox has limited their preferences (options) to 7 pages, so obviously can't have all the options the app suite has.

BTW, who allowed "Cookies are delicious delicacies" to be checked in? This is meant to be a product that has a professional image and can be rolled out by businesses across entire sites.

#23 No it isn't

by leafdigital

Friday February 13th, 2004 3:10 AM

Business doing large rollouts across entire sites certainly aren't supposed to, nor likely to, use Fire* 0.8. They will, if they're sane, be waiting for 1.0 (and/or using Mozilla 1.6). The 0.8 after all means 'this product is not finished' which probably includes things like wording in preferences dialogs. I'm sure 1.0 will have a boring^H^H^H^H professional edit job on the text.

As for the restricted preferences I think having a core set of preferences you actually need is a good idea, and getting rid of preferences that nobody really needs is another good idea... but there should be a halfway-house solution to provide advanced preferences that power users might want, without actually having to go into manually editing the prefs (i.e. something that still gives you a plausibly user-friendly dialog). If that runs to 57 pages it doesn't actually matter - better to have it there than not. Just ensure that the only preferences ordinary users actually need are easily accessible and not hidden away in the 57 pages of advanced preferences.

Requiring extension installs (with their own really crappy preference UIs, which could themselves mount up to 57 pages for stuff you actually do want to control, as well as issues like version incompatibilities and such) just to enable browser features that are actually included as default and only need a preference change, is silly IMO.


#29 Reply

by Racer

Friday February 13th, 2004 10:28 AM

It is expected that FF 1.0 will contain a set of extensions bundled WITH the installer but that do not install by default. During the install, the user will be able to select as many (or as few extensions) as they want. I fully expect TTLO (Things They Left Out) or a very similar extension to be included in this set. It contains most of what is in the Moz Suite and will hopefully contain more by the time it is bundled with FF.

#28 Re: Re: 13 poor reasons

by Waldo_2

Friday February 13th, 2004 9:43 AM

It's a *Firefox*, remember? It's *not* a bland Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator, and it's just showing a little spirit. Personally, I really like it, because it's one of those things that people will read and give a little chuckle.

#17 View page info

by vfwlkr

Thursday February 12th, 2004 6:10 PM

Looks interesting - didnt know about that.

#19 Only 13? I have 101 for Mozilla

by fedetxf

Thursday February 12th, 2004 7:13 PM

I have 101 reasons to use mozilla and they are out of date! Check them out

I think people have to think harder or maybe firefox sucks? Anyway, only 88 reasons more to go! Keep the good work.

#25 Re: Only 13? I have 101 for Mozilla

by polidobj

Friday February 13th, 2004 4:57 AM

So, close to all of those items also apply to Firefox. He probably was only looking for the most significant reasons for an average user to switch.

#24 IE does have integrated search...

by Teddy

Friday February 13th, 2004 4:47 AM

Integrated Search Engine Now why didn’t the IE programmers think of this? Mozilla Firefox comes with a built in search engine. The default search engine is Google’s, of course, with the ability to add others. The search entry takes up a very small space, which is a plus when compared to those huge toolbars out there.

-- IE can search, in the same way as Mozilla. Type in something, and under the address bar will appear "Search for /whatever/." It does an MSN search by default, but I remember once chaning it to another, probably Altavista because this was back before Google's popular days.

#30 Re: IE does have integrated search...

by wgianopoulos

Saturday February 14th, 2004 3:16 AM

IE does NOT search in the same way. If you have the IE feature turned on (which I do not becuase I hate it) you can't tell IE if you are trying to go to URL or to do a search becuase you do both by typing into the address bar. With Firefox if you want to go to a URL you type in the address bar if you want to search you type in the search bar. IE always ends up returning some lame search results page becuase I mistyped something into the address bar. Therfore I turn off searching from the address bar becuase it is just a really stupid user interface. I don't want the browser trying to figure out what I wanted it to do. I want it to do what I tell it to.

#31 Another Idea to Prevent Popups

by 6XGate

Tuesday February 17th, 2004 10:01 PM

How about making an option in Mozilla (Suit and Firebird) to block popup windows from domains other than the one you are on. This includes from imported scripts. It could work in much the same manner as the option currently in the Mozillas about allowing Images ONLY from originating website.