From technology to politics to video games; these are the random thoughts of a geek with too much time on his hands
Netscape vs Mozilla vs Firefox vs Opera vs Internet Explorer
Published on February 1, 2005 By Zoomba In Industry
Later this month, Netscape (AOL) will be releasing a beta version of their latest browser version… Netscape 8. This time though the browser has a rather odd parentage. Let’s look at the overall progression of the Netscape browser line. Each item is based on the item before it.

NCSA Mosaic -> Netscape 1-7 -> Mozilla -> Firefox -> Netscape 8

So now, by that train of logic, Netscape is loosely based on itself rather than being a direct evolution from previous versions.

Netscape, Mozilla and Firefox are all competing against Microsoft for market share in the web browser arena. IE rules supreme here through a combination of shady business moves by MS, and sheer incompetence by Netscape. The browser wars were declared over and dead years ago, no one can really argue who won. However, now we have a revival of that old competition, though it’s not quite as close as it used to be. Firefox right now represents the best threat to IE, taking up roughly 20% of the pie (MS still holds about 70%, and various versions of Netscape, Mozilla and Opera make up the remaining 10ish%). So you’d think Microsoft might be feeling a bit uncomfortable, that maybe they’d be rethinking their IE strategy, right? Well, probably not.

Most computer users don’t really care what the name of the program is that lets them check CNN.Com, or access their bank information online. To many, the web browser is just another feature of the Operating System itself, not a separate application that they could find a replacement for (issues of IE being built into Windows notwithstanding). To the average user, a computer is a black box that just has to work and they’ll take whatever is thrown at them by default.

Let’s say that the above population is steady at about 60% of all computer users (it’s likely higher, but we’ll go with that number). So that’s over half of all surfers who will always use Internet Explorer. That leaves 40% to be given to a competitor. Now, even 40%, while not quite half, is a respectable chunk and can provide some real power to whoever makes the browser that sucks up that share. Even at 40%, a competitor could give Microsoft a bit to worry about and would likely spur them on to better their own product. Even though the tables are slanted, you still have the recipe for good, healthy competition.

As things are going though, even if IE drops to 60%, or hell even 50%, we’ll never see any real competition. The reason is the other side of the line is too busy trying to edge out each other. Netscape is going after the AOL crowd… Mozilla is trying to act as a technology platform, and Firefox is just doing its own thing and is somehow gathering popularity. They’re taking the market and fragmenting it severely. Netscape has the brand recognition that the other two could only dream of, yet it’s the browser whose horrible design decisions were what finally tipped the scale towards Microsoft. Mozilla is trying to be the end-all-be-all tool and tech platform… it’s a beast of a browser. Firefox is just trying to take what Mozilla is doing, strip out all the crap, and build something that just flat-out works without being bogged down by bloat. Problem is that while they all technically work together, they’re trying to undermine and outdo one another.

There’s a lot to say for limited product choice in some cases. Yes, greater choice in a lot of cases means greater competition. In computing though that doesn’t hold true, because the consumer doesn’t know enough to be able to pick the “better” product. Mac OSX is a better product in terms of technology, security, ease of use and all that. For the average user, it even has all the software you need. But it’s not even making a dent in the market share of Windows. Certain distros of Linux are making huge strides in terms of usability, but aside from in the tech geek arena (where quality does matter), it’s not really touching Windows on the desktop. The better product doesn’t always win in this arena. You win through being quickly recognizable. You achieve that by being one of the two or three dominant providers in a given area.

With such an entrenched user base for IE, having four or five competitors isn’t going to do much to dislodge MS’s stranglehold on the market. The Mozilla camp (since they’re all the same core technology) needs to realize that there is a lot more to gain by banding together under one browser and using their resources to push that, instead of putting out a whole bunch of different products that are only incrementally different and ultimately lose out to MS just because they have the single largest chunk and no one else can come close.

Sadly, until the tech community as a whole realizes that it’s not us geeks who choose the successful technologies but Mom and Pop Smith who can’t even program their VCRs, we won’t see anyone come close to challenging Microsoft in any market.

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Feb 02, 2005
BTW Microsoft will NOT let Firefox take over. As soon as MS feels threatned they will release IE 7 and/or update IE 6.


Microsoft has stated many times that the last significant upgrade to IE6 other than routine security patches was the improvements that came with XP SP2. If you're running a version of Windows pre-XP (98, NT, 2000) then you have no way of getting the updates other than buying Windows XP. In addition, Microsoft has stated many times that there will not be a new version of IE until Longhorn, and that it will only be available for Longhorn only.

The reason why IE starts up quicker is because it is integrated into the operating system (which is a huge security concern) and so it is always partially running in the background as a part of the overall OS. For my machine, a year and a half-old laptop running XP SP2, Firefox is actually quicker because while the IE window appears in less time than the Firefox window, Firefox renders my homepage quicker than IE does. While the startup time (from icon click to homepage fully loaded) probably varies from one computer to the next, the Gecko rendering engine has been shown to render pages quicker than the IE engine on average. Once again, there are probably exceptions to the rule, but I personally have not seen a computer where Firefox did not render pages quicker than IE.

One quick comment on the competition: while the Mozilla foundation will continue to develop its full Mozilla Suite, it has said its focus will be more on standalone apps like Firefox and Thunderbird (take a look at #1 under "a new roadmap" http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html ). The Mozilla Suite and Firefox are not in competition, but rather they cover two separate markets: just browsing (Firefox) and a full-service Internet app (Mozilla). In addition, the new Netscape 8 will have an antiphishing feature not found in Firefox and the option to render a page using IE's engine if necessary, which would put it several steps ahead of Firefox.
on Feb 02, 2005
Minor note on this:

NCSA Mosaic -> Netscape 1-7 -> Mozilla -> Firefox -> Netscape 8


Technically speaking, both Netscape 1-4 as well as IE are descendants of Mosaic. Mozilla on the other hand uses a completely different codebase. Netscape 6+ is just a repackaged/branded version of Mozilla, while Firefox stems from the browser component of Mozilla.
on Feb 02, 2005
You sure about Firefox being faster? I think NOT!!

Go test both IE and /firefox on your machine using this link...


Link
on Feb 02, 2005
I'm not trying to argue the relative technical merits of IE vs Firefox or anything else. In the end that argument falls to personal preference 100%. Which brings me back to the real point of this article... Mindshare and Marketshare. To those of you who simply "can't believe" anyone would willingly use IE and they must be morons for doing so, I have this to say to you: You are the reason normal people react poorly to IT folks in general. Get off your high horse and try to realize that most people don't want to customize their computer, they just want it to work. They think of it as an appliance whereas we think of it as a tool. Do you mod your toaster oven at home to get that extra 6 degrees out of it? Do you want different color face plates for it to make it more unique? Probably not since to you it's just a toaster.

Whatever is the default is what a majority of users will use. So IE has a solid unchanging minimum market share that short of some miracle, no one will really make a dent in that. That leaves the rest of the market to be divided up by Mozilla, Firefox, Netscape, Opera and whatever other companies spring up with their own browser (Google?). Despite what everyone says about the rest of them not competing with one another is bull. How many different applications do people want to have to learn to browse the net? One, maybe two at the very most. There isn't room for 5 or 6 browsers, even if one is going for enterprise users, another for Mom & Pop, another for the hard-core techies (who use lynx anyway). Everyone in the end likes to have a consistent environment between home, work, their friends house etc. You don't want to have to relearn where menu items are, or how exactly to add and access bookmarks.

I didn't write this article about the tech-saavy, those of us here are the ones who have enough knowledge to customize our desktop environment, to install alternative operating systems, other apps etc... The reason is because we don't drive technology in the marketplace. We don't, face it. Like I said, the "better" product rarely wins out because it's not on technical merit alone that these things are decided. Marketing and simplicity win out over technical merit just about every day. IE wins because it's already there on a user's machine and it "Just works" It is because of this mentality that Microsoft can't really be beaten anymore on the end-user side of things. At best, these other browsers can steal away only a certain % of users from IE, only those who are knowledgeable enough to weigh the technical merits and come to an informed conclusion. That group though is not in the majority at the present time, and doesn't look to be in the near future.
on Feb 02, 2005

It makes no logical sense to use IE, just the basics of risk and security alone is enough to warrant the use of an alternative browser.  The reason 75% of the Malware out there can spread to other PC's is because of people using IE.  Using Firefox alone, is the best thing someone can do for the security of their system, and its FREE..

But like I said, Firefox/Moz is stealing 1-2% of the IE browser market every single month, so its only a matter of time. I've also read a few technical journals that say many firms are requiring firefox for their employees because lets be frank, it prevents spyware/malware. Now that the industry has accepted Firefox as the better solution, its only a matter of time before it takes the market - its already mainstream and nothing can stop that, with a full 30% of the market using Firefox/Moz now.

So go ahead, bury your head in the sand, and keep using IE, keep buying those antispyware licenses to try and protect yourself.. Keep running Adaware 12 times a week.  I mean, without noObs, who'd these spyware people have to infect? 

on Feb 02, 2005
Kobrano,

You make a few bad assumptions in your posts...

1. Firefox is gaining 1-2% monthly and will therefore eventually overtake IE
Sorry, that's just wrong. There is a limited portion of people who use the web who are concerned/knowledgeable enough to switch. These people are the vast majority still and are only slowly going away. It will be another generation before you see the majority of computer users being saavy enough to switch browsers etc...

Also, you're assuming growth will remain steady until eventually it hits 100%. I guess you never took any basic economics course, otherwise you'd know that little graph that maps out the disemination (sp?) of a new technology or tech product. Slow at first (pre 1.0), then near exponential growth as all those who are likely to switch jump on board fairly quickly (1.0 release) and then a leveling out as the potential market is saturated/achieves stability. Firefox will expand in share until it hits the upper limit of the number of people who care/know enough to switch. That's a smaller number than most would like to admit. I'd be surprised if Firefox ever breaches 30% of the market. I think where it's at right now (20%) is going to be the max for it.

2. Firefox is inherently more secure than IE
We don't know that yet. This is an argument that Mac users use a hell of a lot when attacking Windows. The fact is, IE is the biggest target, therefore it's what hackers go after. If Firefox or Mac got a significant market share, you'd see a shift by hackers and malware companies to attack those platforms too. As it stands, the population that uses alternative browsers and platforms are not large enough to justify the investment of time or money by these people. The market leader in IT almost always tends to be portrayed as the most vulnerable, if only because there are more people trying to take it down.

Firefox right now enjoys better security because it blocks the known attacks. IE even does that now with the new patches. It will only remain so secure until someone develops a new attack. Visibility and popularity will eventually make Firefox a target just like IE.

---
Your biggest mistake is to be so dismissive of anyone using IE as a n00b, as ignorant etc. I use Firefox at home 100% of the time, at work I'm forced to use IE. I spread Firefox wherever I can because I like the software more. However, I'm not so stupid as to assume that anyone who is not yet using it is some filthy, unwashed moron who willingly walks head-first into assured disaster. There are many factors that contribute to why someone uses the software they use. The biggest factor is "Does it do what I need it to do?" And you have to be honest here, IE does EXACTLY what people need it to do. Sure, it does extra stuff, but they don't know about any of that, nor do they honestly care all that much.

If it works, why switch? And if someone is thinking about switching, how do you think they'd react to someone like you ranting and raving against the evils of IE?

*I'm a Firefox fan, I have a system running OSX, I'm generally anti-Microsoft where it is possible and makes sense. However I also recognize that there are practical considerations when dealing with what software a person chooses. Comfort and familiarity with an interface, a brand name, or a technique almost always trumps the technical features. It's this reason that Linux is not winning on the desktop. It's a superior OS in all the nuts and bolts, but to be honest in terms of what users do, it sucks horribly. Driver support is bad, software installation is hit-or-miss, documentation is written for PhDs, there are multiple "standard" desktop environments, no real equivalents for major software packages people use on a daily basis (I'm sorry, OpenOffice doesn't quite measure up just yet). It's more secure, it's more stable... doesn't make it better though
on Feb 02, 2005
So go ahead, bury your head in the sand, and keep using IE, keep buying those antispyware licenses to try and protect yourself.. Keep running Adaware 12 times a week. I mean, without noObs, who'd these spyware people have to infect?


I only use my adaware once every month a a half and it rarely comes up with anything. What part of "I'm careful" on the net do you not understand? What part of Firefox is too slow do you not grasp?
on Feb 02, 2005
Go test both IE and /firefox on your machine using this link...


Results:
Firefox: Throughput = 53976 bytes per second/432 kilobits per second
IE: Throughput = 41429 bytes per second/331 kilobits per second
I also tried the stopwatch using ESPN's website as a benchmark since it tends to take a while to load. Firefox took 7.8 seconds, IE took 16.5 seconds. For WinCustomize's home page, Firefox took 5.5 seconds, IE took 9.2 seconds.

Those are pretty significant gaps.
on Feb 02, 2005
To respond strictly to the original post, I think it doesn't matter that the "other" browsers "compete" against each other. What matters is that together they are slowly building a user base large enough to force web designers to be a bit more concerned about cross-browser compatibility. While one could get away with making sure a web site works well only with IE until now, this is no longer the case, or won't be the case very soon. If 20% of the users on the Internet can't see your corporate web site, you have a big problem. If that number eventually translates in sales, your problem start to be critical.
As it is, less and less web sites will not work in other browsers. Actually, there are probably dozens - if not hundreds - of clients calling their web design supplier this very minute asking them why their site doesn't work with Firefox or Safari, ask asking them to correct the problem immediatly. As time go by and as more people start trying different browsers, the issue that sites work only with IE will go away. Even sites that use ActiveX will slowly start thinking of using alternatives. And eventually, the user base will get even bigger because all sites will work with the other browsers.

But the game isn't over then either. Like somebody else mentionned in another thread, when Longhorn will be released, IE will be even more tied to the system and web sites will be able to be opened like a software. Now there are two things that can happen here. Either such a feature in Longhorn will be the death of all the othe browsers, or the user base of the other browsers will be large enough by then that very few companies will want to invest the energy and the money to make their website use such a technology that a chunk enough of the population will not use. If the latter holds true, then it will be a huge lost for Microsoft. I'm pretty sure Microsoft execs are quite nervous right now seeing just 10% of the market slip though their hands.
Time will tell us how the near future will be in the browser market.
on Feb 02, 2005
Cakeypower, I downloaded it off their own website. I guess you better discuss what you said with Adaware, Spybot and Pest Patrol. They found 7 or 8 suspicious files when scanned.
on Feb 02, 2005
I have not read eveyone of the comments so this may be a repeat. Did any of you Firefox users consider that since Forefox is new, there has'nt been enough time to find all the holes. Just give it time. People will find a way around it just as they have IE.
on Feb 02, 2005


I'm still in awe that anyone surfs the web without protection no matter what browser they use.
on Feb 02, 2005
Using IE is just dumb. The other night I accidentally loaded IE, and within an hour had 4 pieces of spyware on my machine.


Only a noobie would surf the net without protection, regardless of what browser you use.
on Feb 02, 2005
Tha whole monopoly tings was a farce as far as Im concerned. Im not defending the business practices of MS, but if they had competition to file suite against them.. then they werent a monopoly. If IE seems to be less secure the Firefox, then Id suggest perhaps its because there are more IE users, which means there are more people trying to FIND holes in IE because after all, whats the point in spending your time trying to find ways to get information out of 20 percent of the users, when you could spend the same amount of time and effort to get 80 percent?
on Feb 02, 2005
I think in the end, it really wont be the average consumer (I mean those of us sitting at home browsing, or chosing the browser for our companies) choice that makes a difference. If you have to have IE for updates, if the pages you need to use wont work with firefox, then your choice is going to be to have TWO browsers, or to have the one that works. There are alot of people that can make another browser work for them, but there is a HUGE chunk of the browser users out there that cannot. Unless a browser will do EVERYTHING they need it to, there wont be any reason to have another. So unless the competition catches fire with developers (and Im not saying it isnt popular, just not to the extent IE is) then the user base wont ever come close to IE.
ON a side note.. just what makes a 'noob' (how I hate the term) a 'noob'. Its a slang shortnening of Newbie. (For those of you throwing the word around with no idea of what you're saying) Has been around since before alot of you were online Im sure. Id be willing to wager that 80 percent of the people on here know alot more about computer systems, software, ect than I do.. but Ive been online since I was 8.. with a 300 baud modem (its true.. those werent just some horror story used to scare little internet surfers) I use IE because Ive used ALOT of other browsers, and IE has conistantly provided what I need. I dont think Firefox is any more secure because its a better coded piece of software.. its more secure because trhere arent as many people TRYING to wiggle in to it. My house has never been robbed.... is it more secure than the bank that got robbed down the street 2 years ago? Hardly. Regardless of what browser I use, Im going to run anti adware/spyware/vurus anyway..
3 Pages1 2 3