Is Firefox incinerating IE?

commentary Any lingering doubts Microsoft had about the threat Firefox poses to Internet Explorer (IE) must be gone by now.

The open source browser continues to make strong headway against the dominant player, taking about 5 percent of the browser market.

Nielsen Netratings this week said more than 2.6 million people (US home and work alone) visited the Firefox download site in March. The number represents a sharp rise from 1.6 million in February and 795,000 in June last year.

Nielsen's director of strategic analytics, Ken Cassar, was not about to ease Microsoft's pain over its rival's growth. He described Firefox as giving "Web surfers a simple tool that blocks unsolicited windows, is less susceptible to virus attacks and [through tabbed browsing] offers a unique means of navigating multiple sites within a single browser".

Rubbing salt into the wound, Time Magazine has bestowed a high honour on Mitchell Baker, head of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation that developed Firefox. It awarded her membership of the Time 100 most influential people, with a comment from browser wars veteran Marc Andreessen that "Firefox is chipping away at [IE's] stranglehold, but more important, it is showing that a loose collection of volunteer contributors from around the world can deliver software that can compete with any commercial effort".

Microsoft's competitors are seizing the opportunity provided by Firefox and Mozilla. IBM this week advertised for programmers to adapt Firefox to operate with its server software, while Google has recruited from within the Mozilla Foundation's ranks amid rumours the search specialist is looking to develop its own browser.

Despite the adulation, however, a few teething problems remain. Not all Web sites are optimised for the browser and some of Australia's leading Internet banking providers are among the culprits.

According to a quick -- and highly informal -- poll of ZDNet Australia  staff, around 10 percent of sites they surf are not Firefox-ready. However, the browser's takeup rate must eventually convince all but the slowest companies with an online presence to ensure their sites are compatible.

Nevertheless, despite Microsoft's current pain, the software heavyweight remains Firefox' greatest long-term threat. The company is rapidly trying to fill in the holes in its browser offering to limit the intrusion of Firefox and other rivals.

The next version of IE -- due within the next few months -- is reportedly expected to include tabbed browsing (the most-lauded feature of Firefox among the ZDNet Australia  editorial team), support for Internationalised Domain names, improved support for Cascading Style Sheets and Portable Network Graphics transparencies. It is also likely to include a built-in news aggregator based on Really Simple Syndication (RSS).

With these features, Microsoft should be able to stem the tide of departures. Its market share -- which still sits around 90 percent -- should allow it to remain entrenched with all but the early adopters and tech-savvy. But the software heavyweight must be conscious of the customer ill-will generated by its sluggish approach to upgrading IE.

One Firefox convert told ZDNet Australia   "it will take one cold day in hell before I move back to IE".

What do you think? Will IE consolidate or Firefox and other rivals continue to take market share? How does Firefox stack up against IE? E-mail us at edit@zdnet.com.au and let us know.

Advertisement

Print feature brought to you by Hewlett Packard

Talkback 21 comments

    As long as Firefox continues to adapt to the changes (threats) on the internet I will never, ever go back to IE even if the new version will include tabbed browsing, etc.Anonymous -- 15/04/05

    As long as Firefox continues to adapt to the changes (threats) on the internet I will never, ever go back to IE even if the new version will include tabbed browsing, etc.

    > around 10 percent of sites they surf are not Firefox-ready. That would actually be: "Around 10 percent of sites are not standards compliant."Anonymous -- 15/04/05

    > around 10 percent of sites they surf are not Firefox-ready.

    That would actually be: "Around 10 percent of sites are not standards compliant."

    5% is still only a tiny market share. It'll really take >10%, maybe >20% for it to gain real weight and MS aren't going to hang around and wait for that to happen. Whilst it's far superior at the moment from the bog standard user's PoV (and I cAnonymous -- 15/04/05

    5% is still only a tiny market share. It'll really take >10%, maybe >20% for it to gain real weight and MS aren't going to hang around and wait for that to happen.
    Whilst it's far superior at the moment from the bog standard user's PoV (and I certainly wouldn't move from it for general browsing), IE7 will undoubtedly improve its GUI and will deliver it via windows update. Up to date users won't have a reason to switch after that (at least, those that don't care about FF's superior technology & standards support and just want a tabbed browser).
    IE7 is unlikely to be available on pre-XP OS's, so FF has a chance there, but if those user's don't already understand the benefits of FF or are too frightened to install new software (and there's plenty of those I know of), not having IE7 isn't really going to be an issue.
    MS's biggest advantage is that the majority of people just don't care about 'geeky', behind the scenes, standards and technical superiority, they just want a browser that works with their favourites list. If IE already does that and people are confortable with its clunky, no frills interface, there's no impetus for them to change.

    Firefox is just so over rated. I have both main browsers on my computer, and generally use IE, I have no problem with security, and fail to see what the fuss is about.Anonymous -- 15/04/05

    Firefox is just so over rated. I have both main browsers on my computer, and generally use IE, I have no problem with security, and fail to see what the fuss is about.

    I have never seen the need to use IE since I downloaded Firefox even during its infancy. In my experience, Firefox is a much superior browser than IE.Anonymous -- 15/04/05

    I have never seen the need to use IE since I downloaded Firefox even during its infancy. In my experience, Firefox is a much superior browser than IE.

    "Despite the adulation, however, a few teething problems remain. Not all Web sites are optimised for the browser and some of Australia's leading Internet banking providers are among the culprits. According to a quick -- and highly informalAnonymous -- 15/04/05

    "Despite the adulation, however, a few teething problems remain. Not all Web sites are optimised for the browser and some of Australia's leading Internet banking providers are among the culprits.

    According to a quick -- and highly informal -- poll of ZDNet Australia staff, around 10 percent of sites they surf are not Firefox-ready. However, the browser's takeup rate must eventually convince all but the slowest companies with an online presence to ensure their sites are compatible."

    Why? It seems to me the 'purists' always get this argument the wrong way around. Standards compliance and sloppy code is irrelevant, there's just code with all the plethora of imperfections and a particular product's ability (or inability) to render it as the author requires.

    In 99% of cases, the non-FF compliant websites were around long before the browser was publicly available. If there was already a browser that rendered those pages as desired, why should the introduction of FF force a change to the websites? It's like moving next door to the MCG then complaining about the crowd noise on a Saturday afternoon.

    Any new product should be able to handle the market into which it is released. If FF cannot render 10% or more of existing websites then it's FF that requires tweaking, not the websites - if only because at least one other product already did the job. The market saturation of IE may have spawned a glut of lazy code, but if it can infer the desired result from that same code then any genuine competitor should be able to do the same.

    > If there was already a browser that rendered those pages as desired, why should the introduction of FF force a change to the websites? There is this thing called "standards" and whaddya know, MS is part of it (W3C). These sites diAnonymous -- 15/04/05

    > If there was already a browser that rendered those pages as desired, why should the introduction of FF force a change to the websites?

    There is this thing called "standards" and whaddya know, MS is part of it (W3C). These sites didn't get that way by accident - they got to like that by design, a Microsoft design. They were designed with MS tools for IE only - on purpose, no doubt.

    So, while MS proclaims that it is for standards and it is a full W3C member, it pollutes the industry with non-standard stuff, so that majority of the users had little choice but continue on the MS bandwagon.

    Things are not as simple as they look...

    "Is firefox incinerating IE?" let me see. Firefox 5% of market share, IE 90% of market share. Any one who says that FF is incinerating IE should learn how ti do their maths better. I use firefox instead of IE because MS is a m****ive monopolyAnonymous -- 15/04/05

    "Is firefox incinerating IE?" let me see. Firefox 5% of market share, IE 90% of market share. Any one who says that FF is incinerating IE should learn how ti do their maths better. I use firefox instead of IE because MS is a m****ive monopoly that should be brought down. In all other respects i see no great difference between IE and FF. Interface? they both do the job, i dont see FF's interface any more special than IE. Im no security expert, and like most people do not see a difference between IE security and FF. For the general public, IE does the job just fine and it comes with MS products, so there is no need to take a risk and try something else. Personally I hope that FF does over take IE as most popular browser, but lets face it, single digit percentage of market share means nothing but the fact that they actually do exist. It more than likely it will just get shafted like netscape.

    Firefox is certainly a lot better than current IE. However, so long as major e-commerce sites such as banks and government offices persist in building their interfaces with proprietary MS extensions, I will always find it unavoidable to have IE installed Anonymous -- 15/04/05

    Firefox is certainly a lot better than current IE. However, so long as major e-commerce sites such as banks and government offices persist in building their interfaces with proprietary MS extensions, I will always find it unavoidable to have IE installed for the cases where other browsers fail.

    Firefox is not the best alternative though. Opera is still faster, better and more adaptable at all the browsing functions than Firefox, and includes an excellent integrated mail client. Opera's only weakness is that it maintains pure Javascript standards, and so fails to deal with non-standard Javascript used on many interactive websites. But since I have to keep IE available for the non-standard situations anyway, I found that I had everything covered between Opera and IE, so I have uninstalled Firefox. I'll look agaqin when it is a better browser than Opera.

    > Im no security expert, and like most people do not see a difference between IE security and FF. For instance FF does not execute ActiveX. So, it cannot be compromised by an ActiveX control, which usually can have effects to the whole systemAnonymous -- 15/04/05

    > Im no security expert, and like most people do not see a difference between IE security and FF.

    For instance FF does not execute ActiveX. So, it cannot be compromised by an ActiveX control, which usually can have effects to the whole system. Furthermore, due to IE integration with the system (Windows), it reaches much deeper and it has a notion of "zones". If you trick IE into believing it is browsing the "local" zone, you can cause serious damage to the system again.

    FF is "just an application", with no access to the "guts" at all.

    Standards? What standards? The W3C's? LOL!!! The W3C is a 350 member committee. Their standards are older than dirt. It takes them so long to approve new standards requests that a complete computer generation p****es. Web designAnonymous -- 15/04/05

    Standards? What standards? The W3C's? LOL!!! The W3C is a 350 member committee.

    Their standards are older than dirt. It takes them so long to approve new standards requests that a complete computer generation p****es.

    Web designers want more and faster. That is why Microsoft is not, I repeat IS NOT, a member of the W3C any longer, http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List.

    Over the years they have introduced new features that make the web more exciting.

    By the way, isn't that what Marc Anderseen was doing with Netscape? It also had some proprietary code in it like Layers.

    I no longer use FF. IE is perfectly safe when configured correctly.

    The industry should not have to change because FF follows standards from an outdated good ol' boy's committee.

    When IE7 is released FF won't have a chance. Time to buy that grave next to Netscape's.

    > Web designers want more and faster. That is why Microsoft is not, I repeat IS NOT, a member of the W3C any longer, http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List. They teach the required skill in primary school. It is called reading. If you actuaAnonymous -- 15/04/05

    > Web designers want more and faster. That is why Microsoft is not, I repeat IS NOT, a member of the W3C any longer, http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List.

    They teach the required skill in primary school. It is called reading. If you actually read that page you would see Microsoft on the list. Or, in FF, just press Ctrl+F and then start typing M-I-C-R and you'll see "Microsoft Corporation".

    And I repeat R-E-A-D-I-N-G ;-)

    Many anti microsoft people are saying that Firefox is better but it is not. sure many visited and downloaded Firefox but how many actually use it? I downloaded Firefox, installed it and removed it. Nothing special about it.Anonymous -- 15/04/05

    Many anti microsoft people are saying that Firefox is better but it is not. sure many visited and downloaded Firefox but how many actually use it? I downloaded Firefox, installed it and removed it. Nothing special about it.

    Many anti microsoft people are saying that Firefox is better but it is not. sure many visited and downloaded Firefox but how many actually use it? I downloaded Firefox, installed it and removed it. Nothing special about it.Anonymous -- 15/04/05

    Many anti microsoft people are saying that Firefox is better but it is not. sure many visited and downloaded Firefox but how many actually use it? I downloaded Firefox, installed it and removed it. Nothing special about it.

    Was <1%, now 5%. Sounds like incinerating to me. The percentage isn't the factor, the acceleration is what we're looking at here. As MS add more new security flaws, Moz will continue to replace IExploder (except, of course, on PCs where some simplAnonymous -- 15/04/05

    Was <1%, now 5%. Sounds like incinerating to me.
    The percentage isn't the factor, the acceleration is what we're looking at here. As MS add more new security flaws, Moz will continue to replace IExploder (except, of course, on PCs where some simpletons think that IExploder _IS_ the internet).

    Bring on OpenOffice.org, too.

    I believe like others that Microsoft thinks it's the Internet. MS gives support to companies to use MSIE which means one browser one operating system. Others have said they just want to use a browser and not be Geeky. I agree, I just want to use a browserAnonymous -- 16/04/05

    I believe like others that Microsoft thinks it's the Internet. MS gives support to companies to use MSIE which means one browser one operating system. Others have said they just want to use a browser and not be Geeky. I agree, I just want to use a browser that works, no virus protection needed, trojan horse, spyware and a computer that doesn't crash. The blue wall of death. As for the numbers between browsers they're skewed. I'm forced to have IE on my computer to search for real estate just like the banks that have been mentioned. Given the choice I would never had loaded IE onto my computer. When coders are lazy and only write Microsoft specific code for Internet Explorer they should be looked at. It's not that other browsers are gaining it's that IE is losing. There will be an added change or is that something MS is scared of. If IE is that good then why should MS worry.

    Excellent point by Sydney Hacker. If Firefox is hacked it will not bring down your entire system because it is a separate application unlike Internet Explorer. IE is part of the Windows operating system, that by itself should make you want to use another Anonymous -- 16/04/05

    Excellent point by Sydney Hacker. If Firefox is hacked it will not bring down your entire system because it is a separate application unlike Internet Explorer. IE is part of the Windows operating system, that by itself should make you want to use another browser or computer. If you hack FF it shuts down FF. If you hack IE it brings down your entire system. Great point Sydney.

    It may seem like a good point, however the majority of home users run windows using administrative priveleges, meaning that ANY application including Firefox have access to the entire system. Anybody who thinks that since they're running FirefoxAnonymous -- 16/04/05

    It may seem like a good point, however the majority of home users run windows using administrative priveleges, meaning that ANY application including Firefox have access to the entire system.

    Anybody who thinks that since they're running Firefox, they're immune to viruses... You're only asking for trouble. All it takes is a reasonable market share and I think you'll find that the number of vulnerabilities discovered and the number of viruses written to exploit them will raise exponentially. At the moment, I believe Firefox is security by obscurity...

    > It may seem like a good point, however the majority of home users run windows using administrative priveleges, meaning that ANY application including Firefox have access to the entire system. Yes, very true. It just shows how stupid the whoAnonymous -- 18/04/05

    > It may seem like a good point, however the majority of home users run windows using administrative priveleges, meaning that ANY application including Firefox have access to the entire system.

    Yes, very true. It just shows how stupid the whole system actually is. You can see more here:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/#windesign

    However, corporate users DO NOT run their Windows XP/2000 systems as administrators. And yet, they can be exposed more - due to the design flaws of both IE and Windows (i.e. see above about integration). Not to mention good old ActiveX and Active scripting, which FF never even executes.

    Just have a look at this CERT Vulnerability Note:

    http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878

    Or have a look through this list of recently fixed stuff:

    http://www.sygate.com/alerts/SSR20050413-0001.htm

    Search for "gain complete control". This is under the IE section. How many of those are still in? And, more importantly, how does one verify that?

    > Anybody who thinks that since they're running Firefox, they're immune to viruses... You're only asking for trouble.

    Yes, very true. Anyone who thinks security is some static thing doesn't know what he's talking about.

    > All it takes is a reasonable market share and I think you'll find that the number of vulnerabilities discovered and the number of viruses written to exploit them will raise exponentially.

    Ah, the market share crap. Yes, all those penetrated Apache and Linux machines around the world clearly show it. Dream on...

    > At the moment, I believe Firefox is security by obscurity...

    Ha, ha, that's the best joke I've heard all day. Thanks Jason. Now, if you would, please download the full source of FF and verify for yourself how obscure the whole thing is. Better yet, compare the code to the code of IE, to see which product uses better techniques to fight buffer overflows, to verify user input etc. Oh, wait, you can't get the source for IE... Darn!

    All who bag FF because of only a 5% share compared to 90% haven't looked at the time frame connection. How long has IE been around? How long has FF been around. Now do the math and calculate where FF would be if it had been around for the same perion of Anonymous -- 22/04/05

    All who bag FF because of only a 5% share compared to 90% haven't looked at the time frame connection. How long has IE been around? How long has FF been around. Now do the math and calculate where FF would be if it had been around for the same perion of time. M$ would be screaming fowl because it wouldn't be able to get a foot in the door.

    Actually FF is over 10% depending on which stats you look at. For example, see here: http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors/traffic_patterns/article.php/3500691Anonymous -- 28/04/05

    Actually FF is over 10% depending on which stats you look at. For example, see here:

    http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors/traffic_patterns/article.php/3500691

Add your opinion


Latest Videos

Blogs

  • David Braue Will Rudd's bush backhaul bonanza deliver?
    Rural areas will be welcoming the government's decision to put its money where its politicising is, funnelling $250m into a regional fibre upgrade to six rural centres. Remedying over a decade of near-neglect at the hands of telecoms privatisation, the investment could be the firmest step yet for Labor's NBN dream — but with inevitable political questions and a looming election, Rudd and Conroy need to deliver, and quickly, to preserve the NBN's credibility.
  • Array Doing for AV what VoIP did for telephony
    Sydney-based start-up Audinate is making traditional analog cabling obsolete in favour of TCP/IP-based networking technology. And it's doing a pretty good job so far, with its technology used by World Youth Day and the Sydney Opera House.
  • Array WiMax in Australia: Part two
    WiMax could be the standard that drives the next phase of mobile broadband, it provides an opportunity for players wanting to establish a pure IP network to carry voice and data effectively — but is this what operators want?
  • More blogs »

Tags

  1. 467 articles are tagged with 3g
  2. 5 articles are tagged with 3g s
  3. 7 articles are tagged with 3gs
  4. 430 articles are tagged with accc
  5. 72 articles are tagged with act
  6. 22 articles are tagged with anao
  7. 1250 articles are tagged with apple
  8. 129 articles are tagged with ato
  9. 35 articles are tagged with audit
  10. 18 articles are tagged with backhaul
  11. 18 articles are tagged with basslink
  12. 1260 articles are tagged with broadband
  13. 194 articles are tagged with budget
  14. 8 articles are tagged with cenitex
  15. 202 articles are tagged with ceo
  16. 52 articles are tagged with cepu
  17. 638 articles are tagged with cio
  18. 188 articles are tagged with conroy
  19. 117 articles are tagged with contract
  20. 20 articles are tagged with david thodey
  21. 50 articles are tagged with e-health
  22. 176 articles are tagged with eds
  23. 90 articles are tagged with gmail
  24. 1017 articles are tagged with google
  25. 968 articles are tagged with government
  26. 764 articles are tagged with hp
  27. 1271 articles are tagged with ibm
  28. 179 articles are tagged with iinet
  29. 331 articles are tagged with iphone
  30. 267 articles are tagged with isp
  31. 1418 articles are tagged with microsoft
  32. 32 articles are tagged with minchin
  33. 1097 articles are tagged with mobile
  34. 324 articles are tagged with mobile phone
  35. 144 articles are tagged with national broadband network
  36. 255 articles are tagged with nbn
  37. 175 articles are tagged with nsw
  38. 835 articles are tagged with optus
  39. 141 articles are tagged with police
  40. 149 articles are tagged with queensland
  41. 1270 articles are tagged with software
  42. 134 articles are tagged with stephen conroy
  43. 159 articles are tagged with sydney
  44. 89 articles are tagged with tasmania
  45. 216 articles are tagged with telco
  46. 2271 articles are tagged with telstra
  47. 97 articles are tagged with union
  48. 150 articles are tagged with victoria
  49. 312 articles are tagged with vodafone
  50. 69 articles are tagged with windows 7

Back to top

Featured