Firefox 3.5

"@Shark the default search provider for IE is or was Live. Its probably Bing now. Sure you can change it with 3-4 clicks of the mouse." Less than that. It's easier to manage search in IE8 than in any other browser. Safari is the biggest pain in the butt. We don't hear RTE complaining about that, do we? One of the reasons I prefer IE8 to FF is how easy it makes it to switch between search providers. Microsoft has done a great job of managing search in IE8.

Waethorn said: And they wonder why marketshare is still very low? *********************** BZZZZZZZ wrong answer. As Ocean noted, 22%. For my company we see about 26% of our customers using Firefox and 10% of all computers using OSX... Time to batten down the hatches to the basement and have helper cat reinforce the barricades.

oh my.... Those pesky facts... I think Mike G suffers from having been around for a good long while and a deep understanding of the facts and history as it applies to the topics addressed here. As a result, context is shaped by an evolved understanding that requires that populist memes be dismissed under the weight of even a few of them. A lot of the anti-MS/IE industry press does not benefit from the same and it does not take much examination to cause the "hey, wait a minute" flag from being thrown. When you write enterprise browser based applications, which we do, it is not hard to see what ground truth is from that perspective. From small businesses with 2 to 5 engineers interacting with 20 to 40 sub-contractors to national medical research organizations with hundreds of thousands of internal and external users, the tell of the tape reflects a different reality - 99.99% IE 7 and 8 use, where there is no requirement to use IE, or for that matter, Windows. As we say, "it is what it is" and while many people may have FF/Moz, or Safari installed on their machines, few use these browsers full time. Again, based upon what we see day to day (professionals across nearly all verticals - healthcare, engineering, architecture, legal and specialized finance and accounting firms). These are well read, well heeled people with direct influence over what they use, with a great many having in these past few years, funded Mac purchases for kids (of which many complain that it is an Apple that took a bite out of them and a computer that is a lot more fragile and prone to failure than they would have thought...) Shark47 is dead on - real-world, practical browser performance renders (ha) most arguments moot - once running, they are all pretty decent and very similar in this limited context. It comes down to security, features, and the ability to manage the browser for one's self and others. IE 8 shines across all variables as compared to alternatives. While perhaps not stone cold facts, they are realities and as I said, Mike's experience won't let him ignore them. They are the same realities that drive the decisions of every woman and man responsible for signing the "FRONT" side of most every check out there. We can snipe at such people all we want, but please do so with at least a touch of prudence and realization that most often, practical considerations attend decisions and therefore, seasoned opinions. Sooner or later, we all become "marinated" by time. Happy to see in Mike's case, the process of turning skin to leather has not, as it often does, diminshed the passion requried to keep plugging.

Lindy: "Mike if you dont like FF and dont use it dont post. " Mike: "But, if you think people should only post about products they like or use there are a whole lot of Mac zealots here you can go after. ... While I disagree with your criterion for discussion, I'd be fine with you holding to that for your posts." There goes Mike Galos again, having his way with "well articulated arguments" and "logic". We can't have that Lindy, Lotsa, et al !! Let's resort to personal attacks on Mike before it's too late.

Chuck You're missing two pretty key differences 1) There's no question that Microsoft pays for the development of Microsoft products. It's in no possible way equally obvious that Google Corporation is the one actually paying for Mozilla Foundation's Firefox. 2) Microsoft's groups that aren't profitable don't list themselves as independent non-profit organizations working for the common good while ask for charitable contributions. For that matter, neither do most of Google's other unprofitable projects. Skipping those two differences is pretty much at the "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" level of ignoring the elephant in the room.

So far, I have seen a lot of discussion about Google funding Firefox...with no supporting documentation...and the new discussion about all Micosoft gorups being self sufficient...again wiht no supporting documentation. Whats up with that? --tayme

What sycophants like Mike don’t seem to understand or perhaps simply ignore is without FF we would still be using IE6. Paul has repeatedly said “there are a lot of smart people at Microsoft.” I believe that! However, it does not change the ‘do not rock the boat’ apathy of any large bureaucracy. Microsoft has demonstrated time over time that without outside pressures, whether it is a browser or media players, Microsoft needs to be encouraged to innovate. As far as slow start times: on any modern dual core chip accompanied by 7200rpm SATA HHD – all programs fire up quickly. Separately, Paul, Mike, et al, continue to disparage the EU for apparent gross unfairness towards Microsoft business practices. A cursory reading of charges clearly shows monopolists, predatory bullying to maintain worldwide dominance over operating systems {and browsers} with the very largest OEMs. ______________________________ "Real men don't use backups, they post their stuff on a public ftp server and let the rest of the world make copies." - Linus Torvalds

Err.. Chuck! Whatever happened to Google's public proclamation that they developed Chrome to provide the best experience with Google owned Web properties like Docs, Maps, etc.? Whatever happened to Apple's slight of hand in foisting unoptimized abomination like iTunes and/or Quicktime on Windows users, while they somehow magically provide better experience on a Mac. Of course, ONLY Microsoft should not be allowed to optimize THEIR products [IE, SharePoint, OWA, etc.] to work better with products THEY develop and can control the fate of. Google 'does no evil' and 'can do no evil.', while all is fruity with Apple. Right!

tayme "So far, I have seen a lot of discussion about Google funding Firefox...with no supporting documentation..." I'd suggest you Bing (or use Google if you prefer) the phrase Google AND "Mozilla Foundation" and you'll find plenty of documentation from a wide enough range of sources and years to make it likely you'll find some you trust. It's both common knowledge and not disputed that most of Mozilla Foundation's budget has come from their Google contracts for years.

tayme Yes, I understand the difference. Now, the question is why you think Mozilla Foundation is not pretending to be a charity when their own site lists their goals as charitable in nature and they are registered as a CHARITABLE TRUST. For example, see their goals list at: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/ Or, to be VERY specific, see their "California registration by the Mozilla Foundation as a charitable trust" at http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/mf-ca-ct-registration.pdf (Warning: PDF file link)

Sheesh... it ain't hard... Server and tools is and has been a profit center for some time. Exchange alone joined the Billion dollar club on its own some time ago. SharePoint is in the same club as is SQL Server. These are all "servers" not Office and or Client, or even server OSes. The company, as it must, reports a clear breakdown of its profits and where they apply, losses. Xbox is profitable and enjoys the highest attach rate the industry has ever seen and as it expands into more and more factes, the revenue will only increase. For the record, too, MS reports their client division apart from their business division (office) and these are apart from the server and tools div, which I pointed out above. As it stands now, all but online generate profits, and online was impacted most by larger investments hitting that operating unit's P&L - for example, the aQuantive buy resulted in a chare of 6 billion and yet that div only lost ~280 mil as compared to after tax profits of more than 4.2 billion. The differences between MS and Google/FF/Moz are clear and huge. MS operates divisions made up of operating units - each with a P&L contributing to their consolidated accounting and reporting model/requirements. So long as they report accurately, they are free to invest as they see fit. Google "donates" between 50 abd 65 million a year to FF/Moz and receives a tax credit and FF/Moz gets to operate as a not for profit charity. It's a Myth and Google benefits most directly from the relationship it is paying for. Frankly, FF/Moz are underpaid - given search defaults and FF's presence in global markets. It makes me wonder what non-cash contributions make their way over to the "Foundation" and how they are reported. I am sure the information is out there, just as it is for Microsoft. I am not sure our press has any interest in looking into it - they're too busy riding the same ad supported train. That will end and quiker than you might think.

The real questions is does anyone (especially the public) care who funds Mozilla? , oh that's right Google is evil and MS good, if that works for ya run with it I guess. Balthazar has hit the nail squarely on the head, IE6 anyone? Because if Firefox did not come along when it did that is what we would be stuck with. Next, why the harping on Ad-Block? Suffice to say it makes browsing the web that much better. I have yet to see why Ad Block is bad. Maybe because it wont/can't (what have you) be released for IE? I'm guess that if it was available for IE it would be the best plug-in ever.. Try IE8? Turn and look in the mirror as to why there is no longer IE on the Mac. Last I looked MS canceled it in a huff because Apple developed Safari, how dare they???? Of course its probably because Apple's market share is so small not matter??? Which is interesting if they are so small not to matter, so non-innovative then why bother calling them out? Lastly, the desktop browser war is one of a long slow retreat, every quarter that goes by IE slips while others gain. The browser space is a completely different animal and one that is anyone's game to win and one that is fairly level in terms of the playing field. Lets see who wins, the consumer has already spoken in the DAP market, lets see what they say in smartphones. Either way it will be interesting to watch as will be the commentary that is sure to ensue.

"Are you referring to the feature to select 'Wikipedia' as the search engine from the browser search option drop box, and then specifying your search query? If so, that is supported in both IE8 as well as Firefox 3.x, right?" Yes, but I like the way IE8 handles it. I search for, say, "Michael Jackson" and Google is my default engine. It shows suggestions in the dropdown and an option to change the search provider. When I click on Wikipedia, it shows suggestions pertinent to Wiki. Clicking on one of the links it brings up takes me right to the page. I am probably not explaining it all that well, but I love the feature.

@mikegalos - By goals list do you mean the following: "We are helping make the Internet a place... where you and your neighbors build the world you want. that generates not only economic value, but also civic and social value. that is optimized for multiple languages and locales. that is trustworthy and has minimal risk for users." If so, I do not see anything that makes them a charity...As for your other link...it is not working, the formatting did not copy/past correctly into you post and it appears that part of the URL is missing, as I get a 404 if I copy/paste it into IE. --tayme