I finally made the switch to Mozilla's Firefox after the homeland security warning. My buddy has been trying to get me to move to Mozilla for years, but I finally did it... and I couldn't be happier! Besides being more fluid to operate, let me give you quantitative proof why Mozilla is better:
Once a month I would run LavaSoft's Adaware on my system. I am a decently careful surfer, but Adaware cathes all spyware and purges it. When I had explorer, it would take about 15 minutes to run... and find about 35 items every time. Now that I switched to Mozilla, Adaware runs through the whole computer in about 4 minutes and finds 2 or 3 things.

I've never used MSIE. I was using Netscape until they stopped developing it. A blogger I read regularly kept talking about how swell Mozilla was, so I tried the Mozilla Suite and LOVED it. Then I made the jump to Firefox and REALLY LOVED that. I've been using it for several years now and would never dream of using anything else. It is just too versatile and fast and feature-rich.

If you still aren't sure about making the jump, try http://www.switch2firefox.com. They break it down for you. Believe me, once you've used tabbed browsing alone, you won't be able to imagine switching back. Then there's built-in ad blocking, built-in cookie control, built-in adware and malware control, endless customisability, etc., etc.

I'm all for supporting Mozilla, but as a web designer I've noticed that Firefox still has some kinks to iron out. One of then being that it is less forgiving than IE when it comes to rendering code. They still have a ways to go and until then it will (unfortunately) remain my second choice.

Stephen Toulouse has written saying he was misquoted in that article about his use of Firefox. If Microsoft employees related to IE aren't checking out their competitors they wouldn't be doing their jobs, so this isn't the big controversy that some are making of it.

And misquoting, it seems, is something that is really bad these days with news sources.

BB --
I'm a webmaster, and I note some differences. However, most people will point out that Mozilla is more standards-compliant (with the W3C being the standards body, and not Microsoft), so it is probably MS with the inconsistencies, esp in regard to CSS.

Bruce, what I'm saying is IE is more "forgiving", meaning yes, Mozilla is probably more standards compliant in the stricter sense.

Unfortunately most of us are not hardcore web masters and appreciate the forgiveness factor and backwards compatibility of IE with page rendering. Remember, IE is still the dominant browser. But having said that, a little more forgiveness in Mozilla will go a long way as far as yours truly is concerned.

There are some other kinks they also need to deal with, but I'm certain as more and more revisions come it will gain more user acceptance and become the browser of choice.

Here's hoping :-)

there are also some 'bugs' when viewing pages with mozilla that actually have more to do with coding errors on the page.

i've gone to some sites where coding errors make it look like i don't have flash available, which just isn't true.

i've gone to some sites where coding errors make it look like i don't have flash available, which just isn't true.

I just encountered that today, on the TMZ site that has the Michael Richards video; it kept telling me i didn't have ActiveX installed.

When I began using Firefox a couple of years ago, I kept IE, so I just switched browsers on TMZ to watch the video.

That kind of thing is rare, though.

I really like FF, especially the tabbed browsing.