Firefox is better than IE

Why should it take so much to make it XHTML 1.1 compliant. I would imagine the code would look something like this: if (targetfile.mimetype == "application/xhtml+xml"){ xmlParse(targetfile); } xmlParse(targetfile){ read(targetfile); applyCSSAndDisplay(targetfile); } Not too difficult. I'm obviously not going to cover the inticracies of coding a browser in Windows here, but the general idea is clear. IE lists */* as a supported MIME type when it requests a file, but does not support */*, which includes application/xhtml+xml. I don't have to use workarounds. I will choose not to have my site viewable to people using a browser that does not support a standard that was approved in May 2001, and has been a draft standard even longer. Wikipedia does not list adblocking as an IE feature or add on. Are you speaking of pop-up blocking? The feature I am referring to is inline adblocking (banner ad blocking). I am aware that there are several commercial adblockers for IE, but is there a free option? There is for Firefox. Quick tabs are not included with Firefox because it is not wanted by many people. I like to have the feature (even though I don't use it much), so I use Firefox Showcase, which is available from the Firefox Addons site. Features like this are not included because for many users they only waste bandwidth and disk space. The problem with your excuse for IE's advisory count is that it assumes people only look for exploits to use them. Security researchers also look for exploits so they can be fixed. It's also easier to find security holes in Firefox, but fewer have been found. And before you try to bring it up, there are more people finding holes to fill then people finding holes to use, so it is not a security threat. You also neglect to factor in the severity of holes. The average severity for IE7 is a bit over 2.25, while the average severity for Firefox 2 is 1.08. Signed Java applets can access system data. IE has options to allow access to unsigned applets as well. This is a security measure, as a signed applet is proof of who wrote the applet. An applet that trashes your system has an author's name attached to it if it is signed. Does ActiveX do that? The reason Windows Update has to use ActiveX is because Microsoft needs to have proof of a major company using their technology. Windows Update could just as easily be implemented through HTTP or FTP downloads. My point in mentioning that someone has built a test version of ActiveX for Firefox is to show that if someone wanted to, it could be done. I don't use IE that much. Partly because Firefox is better, so I have no reason to. But also because I cannot run IE7 on my system. Firefox does. Good to see something new in IE. Actually, no. One of the first things a web designer learns is that the web can be viewed on many different platforms, with different screen sizes, different text sizes, different numbers of colors, and that expecting a page to look the same everywhere is not going to work. I have a specific look in mind when I design pages, but I know that not everyone will see the same thing. And I really don't know what you call me "Mr. Standards" for. I support standards-compliance, as when everyone follows standards it eliminates the difficulty of designing pages (it also helps users, as browsers not having to deal with figuring out what authors are trying to do, which reduces CPU cycles used). PDF is now a de jure standard, and has been a de facto standard for years. Firefox may not work on DOS, but neither does IE. The only graphical browsers I know of that work in DOS are Arachne and elinks2. I realize your point is that Firefox doesn't work on all OS, but it works on more than IE does or ever has. Firefox isn't an FTP client? ftp://ftp.mozilla.org... seems to open perfectly well in Firefox (version 2.0.0.11) for me. Actually, most site developers make sure their site works in Firefox and IE. IE does not have the ability to be used as an FTP server. It can be used as an FTP client, but Firefox does the same. IE can use ActiveX. Firefox can use ActiveX. People don't use ActiveX on Firefox, but it CAN be done. If there are no reasons to use Firefox over IE on Windows, why do I have Firefox Portable on a thumbdrive for when I'm on a Windows system? I've seen the argument that IE is older than Firefox and therefore better, so I'm going to avoid that with a few facts. Although the name "Internet Explorer" is older than the name "Firefox", the products are around the same age. Firefox was created when some users of Mozilla decided that including an email client, web page maker, IRC client, and calendar app with the browser was unnecessary. Mozilla was created when Netscape was being purchased by AOL, and the Netscape developers released what they had as open-source. Netscape was based on Mosaic, the first graphical browser. At each stage, the developers had a chance to rethink how things were done. For example, in the conversion from Netscape to Mozilla, the Gecko rendering engine was created. Internet Explorer was created when Microsoft realized that they needed to have a web browser included with Windows 98, which was to be released soon. They took Mosaic and rebranded it to create Internet Explorer 1.0. Since IE1, there have been (mostly incremental) improvements and changes, but no major leaps. So IE is not "older and more refined" (that's not from you, but from other arguments I've seen) than Firefox.