4. I cannot really reply to this one due to the fact that I'm not IT.
Not IT, but the IT media
that I complain about. Here's a perfect, though a bit old now, example.
Note this headline from PCWorld: XP SP3 Bug Makes Some AMD PCs Crash
. SP3 bug? You have to read the article to learn the problem is not with SP3, but HP not conforming to standards! How is that an SP3 bug? It's not. But the biased, unprofessional IT media uses sensationalism, and as seen here, lies to exploit the biases of MS bashers. That's not reporting the facts. And PC World is considered a reputable source.
Note my comment, and their response to it. Oh wait. They did not bother to reply for they know they don't have a foot to stand on.
So, you have chosen to characterize the millions of Firefox users as "zealots".
No! Don't be so defensive. You have fallen into the same trap. You took his comments out of context and you twisted the facts
to read as though he was talking about ALL FF users. That is not what he said, and that is NOT true!
What is true that some
very vocal FF users are very biased - even many of my colleagues who I otherwise have great respect for. Many frequently would suggest all IE users should switch to FF for no apparent reason, or to fix their connection problems, or worse yet, to be safe.
My favorite comeback to those few
but very vocal FF users who are zealots is to ask this, "Who STOPPED
getting infected simply by, and only by
, switching to Firefox?" Of course none did. Why? Because they were not getting infected! They already were disciplined and kept their systems patched, updated, scanned with current anti-malware tools and blocked behind a firewall and usually a router too. The weakest link is never the browser of choice - it's the user and his lack of discipline.
Note I also said FF is an excellent browser.