Quote: "It's common problem in Windows, when you use it some years it becomes slower each day and finally die and you have to format. Also Firefox is not good as everyone makes it think."
I wouldn't continue to post that link anywhere... half of what it states is either flat out wrong, or just irrelevant.
For example, the section about system requirements is pointless. Of course FF is going to have higher requirements - it's a platform neutral browser, that relies on text data to be flexible (heavy emphasis on UI definitions via XML, XUL/XBL etc.). IE targets one platform, and doesn't have to do that kind of work (platform neutrality comes at a cost that IE doesn't have to pay)
Also, my biggest pet peeve with these lists (and critique of FF in general):
Quote: "Reality - Firefox is anything but Secure. Since Firefox was released, users have been exposed to over 400 security vulnerabilities and counting. You only need one vulnerability to be insecure."
The only reason IE may have lower security issue counts is because
MS aren't obligated to release details of the flaws they find. So if it's found internally, but is a big ogre of a flaw to fix, they can just put it off without releasing details, and nobody knows (unless external researchers find it too). This way, of course IE will have lower flaw counts - because half the flaws won't be disclosed. Unlike a FOSS application, where every single bug and flaw is visible.
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
