Kaga-Kami wrote:

Once you have protection using software, you hardly ever have to do anything. Why even change?

Until the odd piece of new spyware comes along that no decent anti-spyware program knows about yet. It's happened. There are a few I've heard of that were an absolute PAIN to get rid of for the unfortunate IE users who'd caught them.

True, Firefox isn't completely secure either. But at least they're finding and fixing the exploits on a regular basis. There's even a $500 bounty for finding bugs in Firefox! The developers are really serious about this. By contrast, Microsoft doesn't always patch the exploits, and when they do it's usually in the form of "critical security patches" that hardly anyone ever installs.

And finally, the exploits that do get through Firefox are the reason that I still have my spyware remover tools. I have a double layer of protection, which is always better than just one of those layers by itself.

It just makes everything mess up anyway, with two browsers, you cn have mixed up registry paths and everything. It's just not worth downloding anything else, really.

Mixed up registry paths? I've never even heard of such a problem. For any application. Firefox imports all settings from IE when you first run it, and you can do so later on by just going File -> Import.

I'm not even sure that Firefox uses the registry for very much at all. (Which is a good thing, the registry is large and clunky.) It's cross-platform, remember, and Linux has no equivalent to the registry. Most of its settings are in configuration files.

*searches the registry* It's referenced in the registry where it's associated with files, registered as an application. All of which it does perfectly seamlessly (after asking you nicely if you want to make Firefox the default browser, of course). Reverting those settings is as simple as opening up IE, going to its options page, and click "Make default browser" or whatever the button is called. So no problem there.

It also stores various paths and uninstallation information, all of which have zero possibility of conflicting with IE. No problem there.

So I really don't see any registry-related problems, and I've looked pretty hard. Care to elaborate on that?

Smoko wrote:

And once again, I would rather download FireFox and see the internet properly.

i'll be using IE until this looks like this. i didn't expect all of the things to work outside of IE, but i expected that most would. but, they don't. maybe i could make them work in other browers, but i shouldn't have to.

edit: also, i don't seem to ever have the same problems that other windows/IE users have. they always complain about service packs ruining their lives and having to reboot so often and having so much spyware. i get spyware, but its only spyware because spybot calls it that. today is the 32nd straight day i've gone without rebooting, but i guess i'm just doing something wrong. i've never had any problems with IE, and FireFox still doesn't support all of the javascript i'd like.

OneFishDown wrote:

edit: also, i don't seem to ever have the same problems that other windows/IE users have. they always complain about service packs ruining their lives and having to reboot so often and having so much spyware. i get spyware, but its only spyware because spybot calls it that. today is the 32nd straight day i've gone without rebooting, but i guess i'm just doing something wrong. i've never had any problems with IE, and FireFox still doesn't support all of the javascript i'd like.

You darn Americans and not switching off computers...

It's called "Conservation"!

... if they dont take care of there computer its there fault not ours...

Smoko wrote:

Not really, and I would rather not have to scan for spyware as often than as much as I would with IE. And the extensions for FireFox make life easier.

And once again, I would rather download FireFox and see the internet properly.

Not only does it cause more hassle on you're computer, it gets in the way of other things. You have to find and download extensions to play movies or listen to music, tab, and anything else it has. It comes stripped of all of the features built into IE and allows the users to develop extensions. This is the WRONG way to make a browser.

And when it isn't making you waste your time, it makes you lazier! And even then, you can't view sites made specifically for the browser that is most generally used.

Nothing can be perfect, but some idiot thought the internet could be and that's why Firefox exists.

It's a computer, not the Neopet from Hell. When I want to do something on my computer, it's to do what I'd rather want to do, and not waste time having to fix problems that would otherwise be avoidable completely if I can take those steps.

Maybe you're right, though. While I'm at it, I shouldn't let the house I live in stay in good condition. I'll let it fall apart so I can put it back together. It gives me something to do, and I won't be lazy for trying to rebuild something that shouldn't have collapsed in the first place.

Everyone thinks there browser is faster, but in real life they're just use to the compression style it uses. There isn't a "fastest" browser.

Spuzzum wrote:

Other browser companies shouldn't have to make their browsers read extensions from Microsoft, either.

Though it would be a good conversion tactic =)

And also, you can only load a page as fast as your ISP can, so in the end, browsers don't mean jack!

That makes no sense. You can only load a page as fast as the the total combined slowness of all parts of the equation... the server the page is on, all the hops between, the ISP, your computer, and the browser. Make any one of those slower, and the end result is slower.

No, it won't. If I write a 2,000 line program to compute the digits of pi to an unlimited degree, and someone else writes a 2,000 line program to compute the digits of pi to an unlimited degree, I can guarantee you that, even if our programs wind up having the exact same number of lines, one program will be faster than the other, and quite likely one will be evidently faster.

Mozilla/Netscape is very noticeably slower at rendering tables and certain things compared to MSIE. But Mozilla/Netscape is far superior at the amount of standard HTML/CSS it supports.