Firefox heavyweight - can this really be true?

  Pineman100 15:45 08 May 2008
Locked

I've just had a look in Control Panel>Add/Remove Programs on a friend's XP computer. To my surprise, Internet Explorer 7 was listed as a little under 2.5 MB, while Firefox 2 is apparently over 22 MB!

This is an extraordinary difference between the two browsers. Can it really be true?

  sean-278262 15:55 08 May 2008

Remember that internet explorer is intergrated into the operating system and that add/remove is little more than a guess. I installed half life 2 and it reported that a game that took 20minutes to install was a little over 100mb. Also add ons may be being counted there. I know a number of add ons are quite large and do add to the size of the program as reported.

my steam folder is currently 16gb!

  sean-278262 16:02 08 May 2008

The thing about the add/remove programs especially in XP is that it seems to be more interested in guessing things. In the end I worked out using CCleaner that the files were around 8.2GB overall with all the other junk I installed but windows add/remove refused to admit it was as large as I knew it was.

I am guessing you have the anthology of the games to get that much data. I dont personally own the last version for PC (YET!)

  cocteau48 16:10 08 May 2008

Firefox in Add/Remove : 24.9 Mb.
Firefox in program files : 25Mb
..and I still would not swap it for IE6 or IE7

  Pineman100 16:26 08 May 2008

Why not? I'm really interested to know.

I've always used IE up to now, but have been using FF for the last few days. I notice very little difference between the two, except that:

* IE is a bit quicker to load (on this XP SP3 computer)

* IE renders web pages more quickly (ditto).

So what's the attraction of FF?

  cocteau48 16:43 08 May 2008

Quite simply the wealth of themes/extensions and add-ons.
Yes I would agree Firefox is slower to open (probably due to those same add-ons which I use) but I still would not go back to IE7.
Do not forget that in many instances Firefox got there first and Microsoft has been playing catch-up for a long time.
....and.oh yes, an aversion to believing that Microsoft could be the best at anything! I do not use
Internet Explorer/Outlook Express/Microsoft Office or Works/Windows Media Player/Defragmenter/Task Manager.... the list goes on and on.

  Arnie 16:55 08 May 2008

I agree entirely with you.
I wouldn't go back to using IE.

Have you seen what's in store for FF users in version 3?
Although it's still in the beta stage, but pretty well engineered and stable to date.

click here

  Pineman100 16:57 08 May 2008

From my point-of-view not really a convincing argument!

The fact that MS have been playing catch-up doesn't really change the fact that - so far as my own browser usage is concerned - they offer everything I need.

I confess that I don't share your aversion to Microsoft. No, they're not best everything, but the fact that they're the biggest doesn't automatically make them the worst, either.

To get this big, they must have been doing a few things right!

I suppose the killer argument (IMO) against Firefox is that Windows already has a browser built-in that satisfies my requirements. So why would I want to load up my computer with another 22MB of software for no advantage?

Anyway, each to his own! Thanks for your views.

the thing i love about ff is it's so tweakable, because it's open source i suppose.
and because you can tweak/ change all kinds of things you can make it much faster and much more secure than ie, ie is ie, ff is whatever you want it to be.
click here

  GANDALF <|:-)> 17:16 08 May 2008

I just want a browser that works without feeling the need for faffing around to pimp it up so it looks pretty and to add things that i would never normally need or use. Bit of a waste o'time IMHO.

G

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5 review

Alice Saey's mesmerising animation for Dutch singer Mark Lotterman

iPad Pro 10.5in (2017) review

Comment booster votre iPhone ?