Last week, I discussed Microsoft's recent attempts to promote Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE), a product I consider among the most ill-conceived software products of all time. However, based on the feedback I received from numerous Windows IT Pro UPDATE readers, I'm in the minority, at least when it comes to business use of Web browsers. And although alternative Web browsers such as Mozilla's Firefox seem to fare better with tech-savvy individuals and power users, it's unclear to me whether that use will ever translate into dominant market share.

Recently, Microsoft Director of Windows Product Management Gary Schare told me that compatibility with existing Web sites was one of the huge draws of IE, and that opinion was borne out in the feedback I received. Overwhelmingly, readers speaking on behalf of companies said that they would be sticking with IE.

IE's compatibility prowess can be seen in various ways. First, the core HTML that many sites use is designed with IE in mind; often Web developers don't even test the code on other browsers. Second, IE, unlike Firefox, supports ActiveX technologies that many sites use. Third, some plug-ins and other browser add-ons are available only on IE. And finally, many customers require interoperability with Microsoft technologies such as Windows SharePoint Services (WSS) and Microsoft Outlook Web Access (OWA). Although you can run OWA on Firefox, the experience is much better in IE and very close to that you get with Outlook.

Although the reasons these Microsoft technologies work best (or at all) with IE are largely related to the first two points, program interoperability is worth mentioning separately because many readers manage networks at Microsoft shops. One such reader, Randy Barger, said "Interoperability is key. Many of my customers use ... Web-based applications. If I switched customers to another browser, they would, at the very least, have a diminished feature set available to them within these applications."

Some readers also noted that security was a concern and that, oddly enough, IE made the grade. Though IE has an admittedly spotty record, the product has undergone Microsoft Trustworthy Computing code reviews and been overhauled dramatically in both Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2). "Security is a huge concern and in the corporate world that is next to cost," reader Tom Krause said. "[With Mozilla,] where's the track record? Where's the support?"

Reader Scott Barker also brought up an excellent point. "Unlike IE, which can be automatically 'patched' through Windows Update, Firefox requires a manual reinstall when updates or patches are released," he wrote. "As you know, most machines (especially those with XP SP2 installed) are set up to automatically run [Automatic Updates] and as a consequence, IE patches get installed automatically. But not ... Firefox. Yes, Firefox is a great browser, but how do you automate deployment of patches or updates when they happen? It adds yet more complexity to managing your environment."

Even end users who voiced their support for Firefox--and I'd have to put myself in this category--generally admitted that Firefox has problems. Many sites--especially online banking sites--don't work in non-IE browsers. That hasn't stopped a large population of influential people from installing and migrating to Firefox, but these sorts of incompatibilities are a nightmare for IT departments that have to support many users. Whether you want to call it inertia or pragmatism, most companies simply aren't going to be switching any time soon.

Schare also had an interesting response to a comment I made about IE's stagnant development and the fact that Firefox is supported by a vibrant community of enthusiasts who are extending the product's reach with new add-ons every day. He noted that IE, too, benefits from such a community and that users who want any of Firefox's features--such as tabbed browsing--can simply download add-ons or other IE-based browsers to get that functionality. "Right now, those kinds of features are more for advanced users and early adopters," he said. When I asked him when we might see such functionality in IE, Schare told me that it would happen in the Longhorn release of IE. Right now, the IE team has no plans to release any IE add-ons or improvements before Longhorn, although that could change. Schare noted that the MSN team was leveraging IE's add-on mechanisms by releasing such add-ons as the MSN Toolbar and that the IE team might consider releasing similar updates.

Although Microsoft has improved IE's security in the XP SP2 release, that version of IE isn't available to Windows 2000 or Windows 9x users, and I think that's a mistake. That said, it's clear why most businesses won't be switching from IE any time soon, although you might argue that an upgrade from Win2K or Win9x is more complicated than migrating users from IE to Firefox, assuming there are no compatibility concerns. Like many of you, I'm forced to use IE for work-related tasks, but I'll keep using Firefox when I can. It just seems like it provides safer access to Web-based content than does IE.

Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't thank everyone who wrote in this week. As always, Windows IT Pro UPDATE readers have proven themselves to be a dedicated and well-informed bunch. Thanks so much to everyone who provided feedback for this commentary.

Reader Comments

"Firefox requires a manual reinstall when updates or patches are released," --Although this arcticle is out of date at before it was released. Firefox, as of version 1.0 press release, had automatic updates built into it. this article looks like propaganda to me.

Simple things count. I maintain a website that uses www.dynamicdrive.com slideshow code. All of it is javascript and supposedly NS6 compatible. Firefox doesn't render it properly! Never mind vbscript that I would have to port. Firefox would have to be an order of magnitude better than IE for anyone to switch--like IE4 vs Netscape4 was--and Firefox just isn't THAT good. We use W2K IE6 with the Google toolbar to suppress pop ups--and it works just fine thanks! Nick

Nick, If you aren’t already, now would be a good time to start using Web standards. Developing With Web Standards http://www.456bereastreet.com/lab/developing_with_web_standards/

1) There is activex support for firefox (I haven the url with info but search google) Firefox has XUL and XPCOM, wich is much better. Activex is just a securety nightmare and XUL/XPCOM is platform independed. 2) Firefox has an automatic update function 3) There is supports 4) Not working sites is a folklore. Many sites work perefectly ,only a few doesn't. Blame the web master not firefox etc..etc.. Ok firefox has it's isseu's,also IE has problem even bigger as with Firefox. This is a bad article wich looks only at one side of the story.

The matter is not usability . The matter is making the Web truly available to everybody. To make it accessible from every platform (Windows, Mac, Linux) and from every browsere (Safari, Konqueror, and so on). How can you imagine a World Wide Web only for Microsoft Windows users?

It's not a Firefox problem if a bank site does not work with it, it's the bank the problem. They'll have to redisign that site if they don't want to loose 1/10 of their customers.

Firefox owwns, in Quake 3 my ping time is better than ever now i use fiiiireefox

I treid FireFox for about 2 days and had to uninstall it. It slowed my Windows XP system down dramatically, and particularly when I was web browsing.

Many people use FireFox because of various 'features' like tabbed browsing or the security. I use FireFox simply because I find it to be faster at page rendering, and perhaps the download manager. If IE was much faster at page rendering, had a decent download manager and was a bit more standards compliant, then I'd switch back to IE. In a corporate environment IE scores big over FireFox. First, FireFox, like OpenOffice, isn't easy to deploy. With no MSI package deployment in an active-directory environment is difficult, and there are no resources available to follow other deployment methods. Also, IE is configurable through group policy, so locking down your zones centrally is easy to do. Finally, as you mentioned, patch mangement accross a network is much easier with IE than in FireFox. For now I'd recommend FireFox to most home users who are happy switching back to IE for the minority of incompatible sites, but would recommend that companies stick with IE and simply follow good patch and security management practices .. but then, you do that allready right? :)

I'm slightly confused, Paul. A few years ago you said IE5 was "a stunning achievement" and that you'd "recommend this product without any reservations". To be fair, this later changed to a "relatively unimpressive upgrade." IE6 was greated as "the most stable browser I tested" and "an excellent browser". Let's not forget good old IE4 - "most impressive, revolutionary release of IE ever". So how exactly does this all square with IE being "among the most ill-conceived software products of all time" ? I could understand if your argument was "IE was good at the time, but just stopped development" - but that's now what you're saying. Please elaborate? -- Red Dalek

1) There is a msi installer: http://hicap1.frontmotion.com/Firefox/FireFox-1.0-enUS-refresh.msi 2) It is not that firefox replaces I.E. but is installed beside IE. So it is possible to use IE when it is neccesary. Why should u use Firefox then? Rendersfaster and uses less memory (Usefull with Citrix) , search function, extensions, tabbed browsing and most inportant security. Also platform independed and afcourse XPCOM.

"First, the core HTML that many sites use is designed with IE in mind; often Web developers don't even test the code on other browsers." This is a problem with the website developers not coding appropriately (often taking the easy route through an equally flawed program such as FrontPage). If they were coded correctly, they would render well in both browsers. Also note the fact that Firefox's rendering engine renders pages perfectly, unlike IE's flawed rendering engine. Any GOOD web developer can tell you that. "Second, IE, unlike Firefox, supports ActiveX technologies that many sites use" ActiveX is notorious for its security vulnerabilities. Its got more holes than swiss cheese, and is the SOLE reason why the Mozilla Foundation CHOSE not to implement it. "Third, some plug-ins and other browser add-ons are available only on IE" Well, Firefox has an excellent database of extensions (which BTW can be found quite easily through a link in the browser itself), many of which are far better featured and better supported than IE add-ons (which are often made by companies looking to make a profit). Firefox's extensions are made from the community themselves. "Some readers also noted that security was a concern and that, oddly enough, IE made the grade" I highly doubt this. Even with Windows XP SP2, IE still does not cut it. The program itself is very poor quality (Firefox is only 4.7 MB while IE is over 15 MB), and there are flaws where even SP2 cannot block malicious scripts. Also, half the computers in the world don't have Windows XP, and even those that DO have XP, not all of them have upgraded. If Microsoft was competent enough, SP2 should have already been implemented in the very first release. Heck, why weren't those improvements available since Windows 98? Google "Internet Explorer" and "Compromise" and you'll see why IE doesn't make the grade. "Firefox requires a manual reinstall when updates or patches are released," False. That was only required for the BETA releases, which is highly understandable. Firefox 1.0 has Automatic Updates automatically enabled (and was extremely effective when 10.1PR was released).

The IT staff may have no choice as Firefox maybe more than 10% of the user by the first. It is growing so fast that if IT staff don't code to it their company may go out of business. Firefox will be standard by 1 Jan 05 as the speed of uptake will make it so. You have no choice at all. People will not go to your web site but to others that support Firefox and may changes banks just because of it. Get with the facts of life that Firefox is the standard now.

You state that many sites use ActiveX. How many? (percentage figure + references please). Re: security, see Dept of Homeland Security / CERT advisories. As inferred in comments above, this appears to be a highly biased and unobjective piece of journalism. Please do us all a favour and read up more before you publish articles like this. [I speak as a practising IT journalist]

The Firefox shills are overstating the case: Firefox has LOTS of bugs and screws up on LOTS of sites (but seldom on sites devoted to web development). And, the idea that information on millions of old sites which will never be changed should just be forgotten, is nonsense. Compatability is required. Realizing the truths of the world is what makes Microsoft a great development organization.

Some readers also noted that security was a concern and that, oddly enough, IE made the grade. Though IE has an admittedly spotty record, the product has undergone Microsoft Trustworthy Computing code reviews and been overhauled dramatically in both Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2). "Security is a huge concern and in the corporate world that is next to cost," reader Tom Krause said. "[With Mozilla,] where's the track record? Where's the support?"

Firefox has LOTS of bugs and screws up on LOTS of sites That's not true. Firefox works perfectly with almost every page. Only some very few might not work because of bad code. And as already said above, those problems are not caused by Firefox' bugs. And, the idea that information on millions of old sites which will never be changed should just be forgotten, is nonsense. Right, it is. But noone said this has to be done. Old pages work with Firefox as they should (because old sites do not use CSS which causes the most differences between FF and IE in page rendering). Old HTML elemets, such as "" will work just fine in FF. Compatability is required. Realizing the truths of the world is what makes Microsoft a great development organization. If you had ever used Firefox, you would know, that Firefox has a very great compitability.