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 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Feb 02, 2005
I agree with the statement that Firefox is perceived as being more secure partly because it is more obscure, and it is not under the same scrutiny as IE is. I might mention though that the Mozilla Foundation does offer a bounty of $500 for each legitimate bug found, so there is incentive for people to find problems with it. In addition, it has a fairly large (and growing) community testing and bug hunting for it due to its open source nature, so it does have more people looking for holes than most people would give it credit for. The community is also probably larger than Microsoft's paid staff, so when highly critical security flaws do get exposed, there are probably more people are working on the Firefox security holes than IE security holes.

I will restate one thing though: the biggest security problem with IE is ActiveX, a technology that Netscape, Firefox, and Opera intentionally do not support. By that measure alone, the non-IE browsers are undeniably more secure.
on Feb 02, 2005
I don't agree with the statement that there are less security holes because the user base doesn't warrant the effort to find them. There are companies, organisations, that do just that: look for holes or potential threats. These people are not hackers trying to break in, there are quite the opposite, organisations trying to stop people from breaking in other people's computers. When they find something, they post the alert in order to let the developpers of the software in question fix it. There has been holes found in IE, in ICQ, in Yahoo messenger, in AIM, and in Firefox too. These organisations spend as much time as needed to find these holes. They don't spend more time on IE because IE has more users. But the fact is, more holes and security threats have been found for IE than any other software, including Firefox. Just because more people put their money in a cardboard box instead of an iron safe doesn't remove the fact that an iron safe IS safer.
on Feb 03, 2005
With IE my speed is: 83343 Bps - Throughput
667 kbps
With Firefox my speed is: 51626 Bps - Throughput
413 kbps

Using a Cable connection - 4mbps

And all those that cry about the holes from actice X - that was fixed by SP2.

CLEARLY Firefox is slower in speed - both in starting up and in displaying web sites.
on Feb 03, 2005
And all those that cry about the holes from actice X - that was fixed by SP2.


Secunia.com begs to differ.

A vulnerability caused due to an error in the DHTML Edit ActiveX control that has been confirmed on a fully patched system with Internet Explorer 6.0 and Microsoft Windows XP SP1/SP2: http://secunia.com/advisories/13482/

And other problems not solved by SP2:
http://secunia.com/advisories/13872/
http://secunia.com/advisories/13404/
http://secunia.com/advisories/13251/
http://secunia.com/advisories/13317/
http://secunia.com/advisories/13203/
http://secunia.com/advisories/13156/
http://secunia.com/advisories/12765/ (tested this one myself and it works)

Not all security alerts issued before SP2 came out have been checked in SP2 or offer tests to see if you're vulnerable to them.
on Feb 03, 2005
CLEARLY Firefox is slower in speed - both in starting up and in displaying web sites.


One single test is not nearly enough to determine which is faster in loading pages. My test proved nothing, your test proved nothing. I have found that whenever testing one right after the other, whichever one goes first tends to win. In addition, performance also varies depending on whether the Firefox cache and IE's temporary internet files are full or empty. And when test conditions are nearly identical in back-to-back tests, the performance for both sometimes varied widely one minute to the next. My point is that to get a meaningful analysis out of a website like that, actual statistical research has to be performed, including running hundreds of tests to get a good population; identifying and assessing possible lurking variables like the cache/temp int. files, other programs running, and amount of free RAM; and caclulating expected value, variance, and standard deviation of each at the very least. I, for one just don't have the time for that.

How 'bout this. We agree Firefox is faster for me, IE is faster for you, and I stick to my original point that people should at least give some of the non-IE browsers a try. You tried something else, didn't like it, and went back. But you tried it. That's all I ask of anyone. That, and do some research on security holes if you're going to comment on them
3 Pages1 2 3