A few corrections to JoshB's misstatements:
> Firefox sux.....uses more system resources...
I haven't compared the memory footprint or CPU usage, but in my anecdoatal experience, Firefox loads faster and renders faster than IE. I *have* managed to hang Firefox, but it took something like 100 windows/tabs to do it. (a little mistake with an extension that lets me open every link on a page at once ... )
> and when used in conjuction with Google toolbar, you leave
> your system even that much more vulnerable to security risks
> and attacks...
I'm not even sure what this guy is trying to say, but if he is saying that the Google toolbar is somehow a vulnerability in Firefox, he's badly misinformed.
> Go with IE.....who would u trust more..Microsoft..or
> Firefox...come on..whos been in the game longer
I'd trust the one that doesn't have a history of enormous security vulnerabilities, of refusing to acknowledge they exist, and taking forever to fix them. And, um, that one would NOT be Microsoft.
> Another note.......I forgot to mention........if you're worried about
> security risks....Firefox is open source...meaning anyone can
> change it....and how it works.
You are badly misinformed about what open source is.
Just because you can, if you want, download the source code to Firefox and build your own version however you like doesn't mean you can do anything to anyone ELSE'S copy of Firefox. I can copy this web page, too, and do whatever I want to my copy, but this page will remain here on Yahoo just the same.
The Firefox project managers have very strict standards for what they accept into their codebase, and anything that DOES go in, even from a recognized developer, has been seen, reviewed, and tested to destruction by a lot of experts -- quite probably, more than review any given piece of IE code.
== THE ACTUAL ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ==
If a flaw does turn up in Firefox -- and of course some have -- those same experts find it, fix it, and push the patch, often within hours. Microsoft, on the other hand, rarely patches more than once a month, and that's after they've finally admitted that the problem exists in the first place, which may not happen for quite a while.
There's a bigger reason why Firefox is more secure, and will always be more secure, than IE, however: integration. As part of their defense against the big anti-trust case, Microsoft claimed that IE (which they had up until then treated as what it was, an application program -- they even sold it to Mac users) was "part of the operating system" and therefore couldn't be removed. In order to make that real, they actually wrapped parts of it into the core of Windows. So, when an exploit targets IE, the bad guys are already inside the walls. It's part of Windows (sort of) so Windows trusts it in a way it wouldn't trust any normal app, whether a game or a word processor -- or another browser.
Also, as many people have pointed out, the bad guys go for the softer and more profitable targets. Not only are there more people running IE, but more of them are clueless lusers who have no idea how their computer works or what it does. People who are competent enough to change to Firefox, Opera, or any other browser, on the other hand, might not be uber-geeks but they do show some degree of cluefulness, so they're more likely to have anti-virus software, firewalls, spyware removers, and other security tools in use. So they're not only a smaller set of the possible targets but they are, on the average, tougher to crack. So they'll be sticking with targeting IE for a long time. This is why many IE exploits are found in the wild, really taking over people's computers and doing bad things, while most if not all Firefox exploits have been proof-of-concept stuff, not running around the Web eating your computer.
Note: Firefox 2 now has built-in spell checking. I love it, especially when I'm typing while half asleep!
-- added 10/25 --
A quick response to the post by "oddball" (aka Mastertech, Mike G., etc.)
> It cannot stop viruses or spyware.
Since it doesn't natively support VBA or ActiveX, both of which have full access to your computer, it isn't vulnerable to the kind of drive-by downloads and trojan droppers that have plagued IE. That's certainly an effective way of (as the asker said) helping you prevent them.
> Firefox does not allow the use of ActiveX, so, you will still need
> to use IE on sites that require ActiveX to be used.
Which there are very few of. There is, however, an ActiveX add-on for Firefox if you really REALLY need to use it for a particular website. Of course, that brings in the whole ActiveX vulnerability again. That's something only Microsoft can fix.
> The only reason that Firefox was not attacked previously is
> because there was so few users.
Incorrect. While that certainly is a factor, it is far from the only, or even the major, factor. IE is trusted by Windows in a way that other applications, such as Firefox, are not. An attacker targeting Firefox has to start by breaking down the door; an attacker targeting IE is already inside the house.
> People using firefox are being infected all the time.
Simply, a lie. It isn't happening. Given all the interest in Firefox, it would be a news story to make the Melissa virus look trivial if it happened. It hasn't.
> Firefox just released a new version that is supposed to fix areas
> that was allowing access for infections.
Also wrong. Firefox 2.0 (available as of yesterday) implements new features, a more efficient engine, etc. Security flaws found in Firefox are patched within days, often hours, of their discovery, rather than waiting for a new release or even the equivalent Microsoft's "Patch Tuesday".
> It also had to add some features that IE7 has and it didn't.
That is backwards. IE7 was released to add features that have been in Firefox for years. IE just added tabs, better CSS support, and some other odds and ends. If there is any feature IE7 has that Firefox doesn't, someone will be sure to come out with an extension that adds it.
For further information, here is a rebuttal (not mine) of the anti-Firefox website:
http://nanobox.chipx86.com/blog/2005/12/re-firefox-myths.php
I'm not sure what oddball's issue is, but he is deliberately putting innocent people (or at least their computers) at risk with his misinformation.