Firefox Myths v1.1.1
Posted by: [NT] on: 02/08/2006 11:34 AM [ Print | 31 comment(s) ] · 2905 views
Is Opera really the Fastest and Most Secure Web Browser? Are IE and Mozilla faster than Firefox? Is ActiveX really not a security problem? Does OS integration have absolutely nothing to do with security? Are the Market Share Reports Wrong? Does Firefox really have 72 security vulnerabilities? Are Firefox Extensions unsafe? Is Firefox not fully standards Complaint? Read on.
Firefox Myths
v1.1.1
Market Share Myths - Firefox Achieved 150 million downloads (2-2006) Added
Feature Myths - The Firefox RSS icon was stolen by Microsoft for IE7 Added
Feature Myths - Firefox does not wait for the whole page to be rendered like IE Added
Security Myths - Firefox is Secure - Actual Number of Vulnerabilities Corrected
Firefox Myths
v1.1.1
Market Share Myths - Firefox Achieved 150 million downloads (2-2006) Added
Feature Myths - The Firefox RSS icon was stolen by Microsoft for IE7 Added
Feature Myths - Firefox does not wait for the whole page to be rendered like IE Added
Security Myths - Firefox is Secure - Actual Number of Vulnerabilities Corrected
« Nvidia Faces Fighting Words: Artificial Enthusiasts Found · Firefox Myths v1.1.1
· RaidSonic ICY BOX IB-281U USB 2.0 Series Review @ MVKTech »
2 pages 1 2
Comment
|
Rosco Posts: 21 Joined: 2005-02-09 |
#63992 Posted on: 02/08/2006 01:02 PM
Is Mastertech actually allowed to poost his own news on the front page?? Is Rosco going to have to delete all of his bookmarks to Warp2Search and find another computer news source? Andrew, you had your website on the front page of Warp2 last week, and all you are going to do now is start inflaming this news site. |
Comment
|
sjr Posts: 1 Joined: 2003-10-15 |
#63993 Posted on: 02/08/2006 01:26 PM
just dont visit the site, he gets money for people going there. i have to agree, this troll shouldnt be allowed to post about updates to his site on this site. its not like every update of the msn page gets a mention. and beside the fact that 100% of his facts are incorrect (stats taken from a sample of "myths".) see anyone can make up bs... though that probably isnt bs the last time i read the site there wasnt anything actually correct for example "ie can handle xhtml better than firefox" <- thats just 100% bs ie can not parse xhtml what so ever it. it parses it as html not xhtml... so a convetional garden spade handles xhtml just as well as ie. this guy has been ridiculed everwhere he has spammed his site. after he has refused to accept that he knows less about firefox than that conventional garden spade hes been banned. please let warp2search be next. |
Comment
|
REGENERATI0N Posts: 52 Joined: 2003-11-07 |
#63994 Posted on: 02/08/2006 03:36 PM
The only Myth here is his website. |
Comment
|
Mastertech Posts: 1 Joined: 2005-04-13 |
#63995 Posted on: 02/08/2006 04:12 PM
Advisories do not equal Vulnerabilities. Check again! Some "Advisories" have multiple Vulnerabilities, some up to 9 per advisory = 72 vulnerabilities. Ut oh Firefox doesn't look so "secure" anymore. As for: "ie can handle xhtml better than firefox" That was never said rather that IE supported more changes to the XHTML 1.1 standard than Firefox. Which it did before the data was updated, once it was that was removed as you can clearly see. But what you said was never claimed. I have been "attempted to be ridiculed" by Firefox fanboys. None have succeeded. As for those blogs: Both of those are outdated, lame attempts at refuting the Firefox Myths page. Both have been completely distroyed by the facts. I did this many, many times. Do not fear the truth! |
Comment
|
funkdoobiest Unregistered |
#63997 Posted on: 02/08/2006 04:36 PM
Right, that settles it. If troll s***** like "mastertech" are allowed to post their lies on this site then W2S is getting deleted from my bookmarks. The line has been crossed. I urge all other visitors to do the same, just to show that we don't appreciate being lied to by a clueless moron. |
Comment
|
Mastertech Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2005-04-13 |
#63998 Posted on: 02/08/2006 04:49 PM
I know the page can be pretty shocking when this information has been hidden from you but at least now you now. I recommend deep breaths. |
Comment
|
BetrayerX Unregistered |
#63999 Posted on: 02/08/2006 05:31 PM
awwwwwwwwwwwwww shut up! Myth 1271: Mastertech works for AEG .... |
Comment
|
TSThomas Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2003-05-10 |
#64001 Posted on: 02/08/2006 06:26 PM
|
Comment
|
Nemo Unregistered |
#64002 Posted on: 02/08/2006 06:33 PM
Hoooooooray for Mastertech... the only one who will stand up and tell everyone about the Fartfox lies and Hype. Stop bitching fanboys!!! |
Comment
|
Chicken Unregistered Posts: 279 Joined: 2002-02-11 |
#64003 Posted on: 02/08/2006 07:19 PM
I don't care about whether his myths are true or not, im sick of his site being posted on the front page every time there's a .0.0.1 update to it, come on do we need to see this news item multiple times a week? Admins shouldn't be allowed to spam their site on w2s frontpage, let them keep it to the forums unless there's some major update. |
Comment
|
PersianImmortal Unregistered |
#64010 Posted on: 02/09/2006 12:59 AM
"Mastertech" should really be working for Fox News, with his standards of informational integrity. I also think it's excellent that we hear about updates to his guide here on Warp2search. I mean heaven forbid we don't find out that another obscure vulnerability has been discovered for Firefox. This guy is doing us all a public service, and I can't believe you're all having a go at him. He should be given the Nobel Prize or a Pulitzer for busting open this massive Firefox conspiracy. |
Comment
|
Mastertech Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2005-04-13 |
#64011 Posted on: 02/09/2006 01:31 AM
TSThomas, I realize this is very hard for you you to comprehend and you may have difficulty with Math but let me try to explain it to you again: ADVISORIES DOES NOT EQUAL VULNERABILITIES. There are 72 VULNERABILITIES covered in the 27 ADVISORIES. Some advisories have multiple vulnerabilities, anywhere from 2-9. Yes Firefox does have 72 known VULNERABILITIES. And no Secunia is not lying, that is where I got the number from. Persian, I see you could not resist a chance to bash my site. So typical of you. Yet again, I never post about your site. |
Comment
|
PersianImmortal Unregistered |
#64013 Posted on: 02/09/2006 01:38 AM
Frankly I don't care what you post about my site. No more Mr Nice Guy from me. I tried treating you politely before and it's obviously had no effect. You've gone from someone who posts small, relatively harmless, sometimes useful articles to a professional Internet troll who is now deliberately posting misleading, misquoted, alarmist advice. That means you've gone from harmless to harmful, and I am not going to turn a blind eye to it. |
Comment
|
Mastertech Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2005-04-13 |
#64014 Posted on: 02/09/2006 01:57 AM
Persian, You jealously of my site never ceases to amaze me. You have now jumped on the Firefox Fanboys bandwagon. Bravo. Maybe you can start writing some lies about me as well. I would never put anything unprofessional past you. As for you ever being "nice" that is a crock of sh@#!. You have took every opportunity to bash my site. |
Comment
|
PersianImmortal Unregistered |
#64015 Posted on: 02/09/2006 03:16 AM
I genuinely wonder what kind of person lies behind this sort of maniacal ranting and raving. Are you honestly under some sort of emotional pressure that we should know about? What kind of delusions are you suffering from that you truly believe I or anyone else would be jealous of this dead horse you're flogging? If anyone knows me, they would know full well that the word "fanboy" is the least applicable to me; I even actively ban people from the TweakGuides Forums for posting fanboyish comments. I have written ATI and Nvidia tweak guides equally. I have Internet Explorer and Firefox tweaking advice on my site and in my guides. I specifically tell people to use whichever browser they feel most comfortable with, and have said that there is no clear "best browser". The simple truth is that no browser - Firefox, Opera, Internet Explorer or otherwise - is perfect. Each of them has its pluses and minuses and if you truly wanted to educate and inform people, you would point these out in a fair and balanced manner. Internet Explorer 6/7, Opera and Firefox are all sufficiently secure that none of them can be ruled out as being too insecure or too flawed to use. However your goal isn't to educate. Your goal is stir up the Firefox fanboys with provactive comments and hence draw more traffic to your site. To do this, instead of having an article called Browser Myths and addressing all the various pros and cons of the popular browsers equally and frankly, you have created an article called Firefox Myths and generated many "myths" which aren't even being promoted by anyone. To top it off, you keep "updating it" (and I use the word update loosely in this regard) every second bloody day, you deliberately misquote sources of information (much to their displeasure, even when they ask you to stop quoting them), and continue to mislead people into thinking that somehow Firefox is fundamentally a completely flawed product - which it isn't. People are welcome to search the Internet for Koroush Ghazi (my real name) or PersianImmortal (my nick) as I have only ever used these nicks/names to post articles, threads and news under on the net. They will see I have never, and will never, bad mouth, abuse, mislead or lie to others to get traffic, or to debase anyone else's site out of "jealousy" If you don't want attention from people like me, stop posting garbage and trolling the Internet for attention. The only moron here is you, and I'm rapidly losing my patience with you. |
Comment
|
ChrisW Unregistered |
#64016 Posted on: 02/09/2006 03:26 AM
"If you feel that you have been a victim of Internet abuse which took place in part or completely on the Comcast Network, please report the incident to abuse@comcast.net. Make sure to include the date and time of the incident, log files, spam examples or any other information that may be useful to the investigation and verification of the incident as well as your name and phone number or e-mail address so we may contact you directly." I suggest everyone send their comments to abuse@comcast.net I'm sending mine, along with ALL the links I can find where he's trolled with Misinformation, Spam, multiple identities, and lies against Mozilla Foundation. I hope you all do the same. Lets play the same game HE plays, and get his site shut down. |
Comment
|
Mastertech Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2005-04-13 |
#64017 Posted on: 02/09/2006 05:01 AM
Persian, Your obvious jealously comes out everytime you take cheap shots at my site. People can check for themselves everytime you have negatively commented on my site with ZERO comments made by me about yours. You go out of your way and then personally attack me each time. Pathetic. You deny being a Fanboy but side with them anytime it suits you needs. In this case to bash my site for your gain. Your intentions are clear. My goal is to educate. Don't sit here and tell me what MY goals are or attempt to create more propaganda about me. Every single Myth on the page I have heard more than once. NONE were "created" by me. The reason this page has been updated so frequently is due to the enormous amount of Myths the fanboys keep creating. If they would stop making things up, I would have nothing to write about here. But they don't get it. BTW I have a whole list of stuff I am still researching and many more updates will follow. I haven't misled anyone. Firfox is a decent browser but it is far from perfect as the Myth Spreaders would like you to believe and I have debunked. I've also never claimed Firefox is a completely flawed product. I said it was a decent web browser. As for your other FALSE allegations about me, keep them to yourselves or saddle up with your Fanboy friends and spew more lies. You are off to a good start. I lost my patience with you a long time ago. Anyone who can't comprehend Windows XP Prefetching and is completely ignorant about doing accurate research on how it works, has no business giving advice to anyone. |
Comment
|
mlauzon Unregistered |
#64018 Posted on: 02/09/2006 05:42 AM
So, because I use Linux, Windows, Firefox, and Internet Explorer equally...due to your retarded logic I must only be a Linux & Firefox fanboy. I, like everyone else am getting sick of seeing your shit posted all around the 'Net. I've read the sites you (mis)quoted and I am not impressed. By the way, I am in the process of creating a tech news site, but don't think you'll get any exposure on there because it'll will only except credible stories! |
Comment
|
PersianImmortal Unregistered |
#64019 Posted on: 02/09/2006 05:44 AM
Anyone who can't comprehend Windows XP Prefetching and is completely ignorant about doing accurate research on how it works, has no business giving advice to anyone." My thoughts exactly. |
Comment
|
mlauzon Unregistered |
#64020 Posted on: 02/09/2006 05:48 AM
Great catch, the guy's a complete ass...I think the whole multiverse agrees with that assement of him! |
Comment
|
Mastertech Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2005-04-13 |
#64021 Posted on: 02/09/2006 07:08 AM
Yes most Linux users are Fifefox Fanboys, unfortunately. Your usage of Windows doesn't usually mean much. |
Comment
|
Mastertech Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2005-04-13 |
#64022 Posted on: 02/09/2006 07:12 AM
So you are calling Mark Russinovich and Ed Bott liars? You are calling the Microsoft Devs who coded Prefetching liars as well? Or do you just pat yourself on the back in your own blissful ignorance? Do some research as you have already embarrassed yourself with your previous prefetching comments. |
Comment
|
Mastertech Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2005-04-13 |
#64023 Posted on: 02/09/2006 10:42 AM
That Article is incorrect. Try speaking with Mark Russinovich. We already went through this. Every reputable source disproves that once inaccurate article you keep referencing. Stop embarrassing yourself like this. |
Comment
|
PersianImmortal Unregistered |
#64024 Posted on: 02/09/2006 11:31 AM
Only you are the one continually embarrassing yourself here and elsewhere. Please continue to flog this point as it only makes you out to be the non-intuitive "I've read it so it must be true" moron that you have fast proven yourself to be. I have timed the difference and I know precisely what prefetch actually does. Like so many of Microsoft's "innovations", (and from the links you keep providing) in theory it confirms that prefetching loads data into RAM at load time. Yet the links then say that this is done while devices are being initalized and hence is "imperceptible". Well guess what you obtuse ass, I can perceive the difference, and so have many, many others. It can add up to an extra 5-10 seconds to my bootup time, and unlike you I actually know both what I'm talking about, and I listen to my readers who have confirmed this. Turning off the Task Scheduler service prevents prefetch files from increasing the startup time (as I have timed and proven to myself), and at the same time makes absolutely no difference to app loadup times. More importantly, unlike your incredibly commercialized, sparsely explained "guides", I actually tell me readers what it does, with links to relevant sources, and then let them decide. At no point do I simply tell people to disable prefetch. I am truly stunned at how novice you are - just like the way you keep referring to people who then turn around and tell you that you are misinterpreting or misquoting what they are saying. My 175 page free adless Windows PDF guide vs. your 10 page ad-ridden "guide" - which one is likely to contain actual information, explanation, and who is more likely to have ripped off whom do you think? Please blow away, you are borderline psychopath. |
Comment
|
Mastertech Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2005-04-13 |
#64027 Posted on: 02/09/2006 12:58 PM
I work for myself. Get over it. |
2 pages 1 2
