Firefox or ie

[Uncle]

Installed Vista Ul.on my laptop, now I'm ready to use IE because FireFox3 is quite abit slower and I'm not talking ms. I've shut down the automatic updates but pages are noticably slower to loadup. Any Ideas. Thanks By the way I prefer firefox, have used it since 1.2, but I still have some hope for Vista, I'm pretty sure it must be something small I've over looked.

[Azhar]

It basically comes down to personal preference anymore. They're both great and they both have flaws now and then and they're both serious about patching up holes when flaws are detected. They both can be customized with add-ons and they both display web pages pretty well.

I use them both, Firefox 3 and IE7. I have no problems with either. If I had to chose one or the other, IE7 would get my vote because of ActiveX support with Sharepoint Service and better Exchange Webmail support as well as the fact that majority of web pages were created with IE in mind. In Vista, Internet Explorer can be sandboxed too for an extra layer of security. I also prefer IE's download method to Firefox, although they both can be customized via add-ons and options.

But all in all, I like them both.

Edit: I should also add that if you've only recently installed Vista, give it a few days and Firefox will load faster than you're used to. Vista will learn your software habits and superfetch them so that when you need them, they will load almost instantly.

[Uncle]

Thanks I've been using Vista off and on since it came out, I always end up going back to xp. A lot of my customers use vista so I try to refresh my self. I thought I would keep it on my laptop. Might just use Vmware as in my Desktop to run Vista. I'll keep Vista for awhile yet on its own on the laptop.

[ajm786]

Edit: I should also add that if you've only recently installed Vista, give it a few days and Firefox will load faster than you're used to. Vista will learn your software habits and superfetch them so that when you need them, they will load almost instantly.

This is the key to it all. You have to give Vista some time for Superfetch to adjust to your computing style. After that, it'll be smooth sailing.

And FF FTW. IE sux much, although with IE7 Pro (http://www.ie7pro.com/), it can make the experience a bit more manageable.

[Volcanon]

I haven't noticed anything different in terms of speed from FF3 to IE7.

Only thing I notice are the random bugs each experience and they both have their fair share!

Like Azhar says, it comes down to personal preference. If you don't mind the way IE7 handles tabs, you'd be fine using it.

[griffinhart]

I find FF3 faster than IE7, but I prefer the way IE7 handles tabs and with IE7 Pro I get the extras that are nice to have like a Download manager, spell checking, etc.

I have both installed on my Vista machine at the moment, but I've been favoring IE7 for a couple of reasons.
- I much prefer the way IE handles favorites
- I ran into a couple of printing glitches under FF3 that I don't have under IE7
- I like the peace of mind that running in Protected mode (sandboxing) offers

If FF3 ran in protected mode like IE7, I might use it more often as I really like the rendering speed.

[Shambler]

Love me some FF3, and will also be loading up the newest v of Opera as well.
I have used IE7 on a rare occasion, and I found nothing wrong with it. I have just been hooked early on by Opera and FF.

[Arainach]

I'd take FF over IE7, but the IE8 beta has been pretty reliable for me (plus it passes Acid2, so things are starting to actually look correct), so I guess we'll see what happens when the final gets released.

[cinohpa]

I like to run open source stuff as much as possible so I run Firefox. It does everything I need and I'm used to it.

Do you have to pay for IE7 Pro?

[axan]

Firefox 3 FTW :P

[ajm786]

Do you have to pay for IE7 Pro?

No.

Firefox 3 FTMFW :P

fixt. ^ :p

[ThreeDee]

I'm a FF fan myself ..and only use IE7 on rare occasions (like when I reinstall an OS and have to use IE to download FF :p ) .. it's just what your used to /personal preference is all ..

[DeaconFrost]

I'm still an IE7 user, and that's all I use. Firefox has too many quirks that prevent me from using it, plus IE7 is there already, works perfectly for me on every site I go to, including SharePoint sites as mentioned above. It certainly doesn't suck, as some have mentioned, as that's just the old and moldy "I hate MS" viewpoint. There are three quality browsers out there, so it comes down to personal preference.

[bigdogchris]

Both are nice but I prefer Firefox 3 because of silly stuff like clicking the mouse wheel on bookmarks and on the go button, to open new windows. It's fun! Plus, Firefox crash recovery is less fussy (than IE Pro). Plus, I like having the menu bar on TOP of the search bar :rolleyes:. I know, IE Pro, but I don't want unnecessary addons.

Anyways, <3 Firefox!

[Proxy]

FF3 son!!!

[tel0004]

There is only one reason to open up internet explorer, and thats to download firefox on a brand new computer.

Bonus points if you keep firefox on a thumb drive to avoid opening up IE at all.

[mlewis]

I like using IE7 but I mainly use FF3 now because it is colour managed.

[xxEIEIOxx]

I use both. IE7 with IE7Pro and Firefox 3 with several add-ons. Firefox wins if I am going to unfamiliar parts of the Internet, with Adblock Plus and NoScript it is the safer way to go. Session Manager is also nice. I can load up my top 8 sites in a couple of clicks. No major complaints about either. Can't stand the Opera interface though.

[JimmiG]

Firefox 3 has a much nicer address bar, making it easy to go back to pages you've previously visited, for example. Also got a clearer user interface while IE has its buttons and menus scattered all over the place. Firefox feels a bit faster to me.. IE seems to wait until almost the entire website has loaded before displaying it, while Firefox displays it quicker and loads in the remaining elements on the fly.

[griffinhart]

I use both. IE7 with IE7Pro and Firefox 3 with several add-ons. Firefox wins if I am going to unfamiliar parts of the Internet, with Adblock Plus and NoScript it is the safer way to go.

Under XP I don't think IE7 w/ IE7 Pro is any less safe than FF3. But under Vista with UAC turned on IE7 w/ IE7 Pro is arguably safer since it runs in protected mode with lower rights than a standard user.

[Mithent]

I used the Mozilla Suite before Firefox existed, and used it for both web and email. I've carried on with it by switching to SeaMonkey, which is a continuation of Mozilla Suite. For website rendering purposes, it's Firefox (both use the Gecko rendering engine). Firefox came from spinning out the Mozilla browser component into something more IE-like which would be more appealing to the consumer; the mail/news component was spun out into Thunderbird. I guess I could use Firefox and Thunderbird, but I'm happy using the suite and not incurring extra overheads from two different programs.

IE7 is fine, and I use it mostly for media purposes, since Flash video is currently buggy on SeaMonkey/Firefox and I never bothered to install the Windows Media plugin.

[Grentz]

IE7 is my main browser, firefox is my secondary one.

I like and use both a lot ;)

[SPARTAN VI]

FF3 + NoScript is part of my security suite when cleaning out and immunizing friends'/coworkers' computers. Throw in the mouseless browsing plugin for some convenient mobile computing (more or less).

[Impulse]

I haven't used IE since v6 I think... And it crashed with ridiculous frequency back then when you had a few dozen pages open, so I haven't felt compelled to go back, heh. Plus I've gotten used to a few certain favorite FF extensions... MiniT for scrolling thru the tab bar, ImageZoom for zooming into individual images w/the mouse wheel, etc.

[Rofl-Mic-Lofl]

*cough* Opera! *cough*

[axan]

*cough* Opera! *cough*

lol opera owns but only on mobile devices :P

[Joe Average]

I used IE forever it seems. Not the basic vanilla IE, well not since what, Win98SE was around or so. Ever since I learned about addons like Avant, Maxthon, and many others I was always using what you'd call an "enhanced" version of IE because of the additional features those addons created. I had FF2 installed for testing purposes, but didn't use it as my primary browser because I just didn't like the way it did some things and didn't allow me to have the same features those addons did for IE.

When I first tried out FF3 late last year I wasn't too impressed. I'd been using IE7Pro, an outstanding addon for IE7 that adds new features, fixes some annoyances, and generally makes IE7 the browser it should be. Avant used to do that for IE6 long ago but it simply fell out of favor with me over time.

Earlier this year when the first announcement came out about FF3 finally reaching a build where they "fixed" the memory issues that had been plaguing FF since it was first developed prompted me to try it once again. Boy what a big difference. I don't know what the developers were jacked up on, smoking, or getting the work done with (Jolt, Red Bull, pure sugar water, meth, who knows, who cares) but they did it. After all the years of people bitching and complaining about Firefox's memory leaks and generally bloated responsiveness, they fixed it.

Ever since that beta build was released I've been using FF3 through the rest of the betas and then into the release candidates and final release, now at 3.0.1. I've had to modify a few addons so they install and work, but so far the addons I use all work fine. As more addons are recoded and updated to support FF3 it won't be an issue for people

I do find the "Awesome Bar" a bit irritating at times, but I don't hate it - hate is an awfully strong word to be using about a piece of software. Sure, there are things I dislike - they're called annoyances - but one or two little annoying things isn't enough to dump the entire browser, bleh. That's just stupid.

Anyway, FF3 is officially my browser of choice nowadays. Works fine, the addons work, the RAM hit is fine (I have the cache set to 256MB on mine for more efficient use since I have 2GB of RAM), it's damned fast with Fasterfox installed, NoScript is obviously the solution stopping almost every piece of malware that's out nowadays, and other assorted benefits.

Highly recommended, and this comes from a longtime IE user as mentioned. IE7 is a better browser than any previous version of IE, obviously, and I still use it on occasion as a backup or on sites that have issues with NoScript where allowing them still doesn't make 'em work, but FF3 is the one I use primarily.

[number69]

Firefox.

[GreenMonkey]

I never ran Firefox as anything but a secondary browser. But I love FF3 and it's become my primary browser. It helps that I hate the layout of the refresh/stop buttons on IE7 (yes, I know the shortcut keys, not always handy).

[milkweg]

noscript and the plethora of add-ons to FF make it a must have for me. I use IE7 to do my banking though but not much else.

[Grentz]

I haven't used IE since v6 I think... And it crashed with ridiculous frequency back then when you had a few dozen pages open, so I haven't felt compelled to go back, heh. Plus I've gotten used to a few certain favorite FF extensions... MiniT for scrolling thru the tab bar, ImageZoom for zooming into individual images w/the mouse wheel, etc.

You should try IE7 than, it is a totally different beast.

IE7 runs lighter than FF2 or FF3 on my machine...

[Spherific]

I'd use FF3. It loads pages significantly faster than IE7.

[Parmenides]

There is only one reason to open up internet explorer, and thats to download firefox on a brand new computer.


Oh yes,
That's my first download on a new computer.

I might be ignorant on the recent developments for IE, but FF has a great set of addons. I doubt IE has caught up with it in that department. I'd be surprised if FF wasn't still light years ahead of IE in terms of addons. If you do anything with the web, FF has some indispensable addons.

But IE isn't terrible. Just bland.


The four browsers side by side (http://imagechan.com/img/5772/browsers/)

[Impulse]

lol opera owns but only on mobile devices :P

That is, until you browse using Safari on an iPhone/iPod Touch... :o Say what you will about the device(s), the browsing itself is still very slick and unmatched UI-wise.

[xxEIEIOxx]

Under XP I don't think IE7 w/ IE7 Pro is any less safe than FF3. But under Vista with UAC turned on IE7 w/ IE7 Pro is arguably safer since it runs in protected mode with lower rights than a standard user.

I disagree. Where protected mode runs with lower rights, NoScript runs nothing you haven't added to the trusted list. Not running something is safer than running it with low rights, though they are both far better than nothing. If you are not running NoScript then I believe you are absolutely correct, however I would never run FF3 without it.

[YeOldeStonecat]

Pre Firefox 2 days...I was mostly Opera.

Since FF got more stable with version 2....I've gone towards it...due to certain plugins which keep websites "cleaner".

Performance wise I find Opera is fastest..especially on forums with threads that have lots of pictures.

[Mithent]

That is, until you browse using Safari on an iPhone/iPod Touch... :o Say what you will about the device(s), the browsing itself is still very slick and unmatched UI-wise.

I've not used an iPhone and don't plan on getting one, but do they render the page quickly in Safari then? I have an N95 which has a closely related WebKit browser (which also has Flash, actually), and the download speed is fine since it has HSDPA, but the actual render time is tediously slow. Hence I use Opera Mini most of the time, since it renders much more rapidly and works just as well for most things.

As a separate issue, I would think that NoScript isn't a good option for the average consumer, since they're not going to know whether to trust a script or not (or, indeed, what a script is). I still think it sounds very tedious, considering the number of scripts on pages now.

[Joe Average]

NoScript works on a site by site basis, and yes the "average Joe" type consumer (not me, I assure you) would not understand exactly how it works and why. I've installed Firefox on new clients machines as the recommended browser sometimes and put NoScript on. Then I had to explain that since it was a "new" installation, anytime they visited a website for the very first time with that installation of Firefox and NoScript, they were going to have to "allow" the site in question and tell NoScript "this site is OK with me" by clicking the NoScript icon on the Status bar in FF and allowing that one site.

Typically because of scripts and how sites and pages are coded nowadays, you'll get a lot of sites that show up in NoScript just by loading one page. I went to an image gallery a few weeks ago and geezus, it was like the damned page never finished loading. When I checked NoScript's allow/disallow list it scrolled off the damned screen; there were over 125 URLs/domains trying to offer up content from that one webpage alone so... I allowed the main domain of the site itself and everything else just got ignored.

The one tip I always give people and have given it for years now is this:

In the settings for whatever browser you use that control Cookies, set them to always allow session cookies (very important for most sites), always allow 1st party cookies (without these your logins typically won't get saved without using some login/password caching tool like RoboForm), and always deny third party cookies, period.

That one thing about the third party cookies can have a dramatic effect on the crap you end up having to deal with and it works for any browser as long as the setting is one you can modify.

[SPARTAN VI]

NoScript works on a site by site basis, and yes the "average Joe" type consumer (not me, I assure you) would not understand exactly how it works and why. I've installed Firefox on new clients machines as the recommended browser sometimes and put NoScript on. Then I had to explain that since it was a "new" installation, anytime they visited a website for the very first time with that installation of Firefox and NoScript, they were going to have to "allow" the site in question and tell NoScript "this site is OK with me" by clicking the NoScript icon on the Status bar in FF and allowing that one site.

Typically because of scripts and how sites and pages are coded nowadays, you'll get a lot of sites that show up in NoScript just by loading one page. I went to an image gallery a few weeks ago and geezus, it was like the damned page never finished loading. When I checked NoScript's allow/disallow list it scrolled off the damned screen; there were over 125 URLs/domains trying to offer up content from that one webpage alone so... I allowed the main domain of the site itself and everything else just got ignored.

The one tip I always give people and have given it for years now is this:

In the settings for whatever browser you use that control Cookies, set them to always allow session cookies (very important for most sites), always allow 1st party cookies (without these your logins typically won't get saved without using some login/password caching tool like RoboForm), and always deny third party cookies, period.

That one thing about the third party cookies can have a dramatic effect on the crap you end up having to deal with and it works for any browser as long as the setting is one you can modify.

Yeah, NoScript on my less than adept friends' computers usually means I'll set aside 5 minutes or so to explain how to use it. Haven't heard any complaints, so either they're not browsing anymore, or they've figured it out. :)

I know they're not using IE, because I took the extra effort to hide it from them.

[mikeblas]

FireFox hates their users. The add-ins are great, performance is wobbly, the lack of NTLM security is a real problem for me, and I can't understand why I can't turn off the auto-complete bar in FF3.

IE has NTLM security, doesn't have any goofy UI (for my tastes, yes), is more stable, and renders sites that FF breaks because they don't hate their users quite as much. But I often really need the add-ins.

Because of the add-ins I want, I tend to lean towards FF. But like most of these questions, it's a matter of personal preference--depending on what you need, what you like, and how you use the product.

Why wouldn't you install both and then make your own decision?

[ajm786]

...and renders sites that FF breaks because they don't hate their users quite as much.

Historically, I've found the exact opposite. I can't stand coding for IE because it always breaks something that should work perfectly fine otherwise. I have to end up making a special code section JUST for IE to render the page properly. Case in point: simple GIF that had a javascript attached to it. In order to display what otherwise is a simple image command, I had to compose that into an IEframe because IE had caching issues with the javascript command. :rolleyes: That took me over an hour to figure out. It worked great in FF from the beginning.

[Parmenides]

From what I understand, web developers hate IE

[TechieSooner]

Been giving Opera, FF3, and IE7 all a good, equal shot lately.

Opera... Loved the features. On paper, a great browser. Just too incompatible with too many things... Couldn't make it a whole week.

FF3... Week 2 now. Works ton better than Opera. Too many incompatibilities as well... If it weren't for IETab, I'd have ditched it as well.

IE7- works with everything. I don't have any issues with any websites I have visited.


FF3 rocks because of addons (AdBlock Plus anyone???). IE7 rocks for compatibility.


On Vista, you must also consider Protected Mode in IE7, does not exist in FF.

[///M3]

I only use Firefox. I think it's great! FF3 is definitely the best version yet. It's very fast and very secure.

Speaking of special code for IE, my personal website has problems with IE! I can;t, no matter what I do, get my drop down menu's to align properly. In Firefox and Opera it works like a charm.

[thisperishedmin]

FF3 and Opera...I pretty much refuse to touch IE. if a website cant work it doesnt deserve my time...

that said - at work were stuck on ie6 for all of the funky trashy webapps that depend on it :(

[Joe Average]

FF3 rocks because of addons (AdBlock Plus anyone???).


Come on, you know the rules around here better than that, right? :D

[milkweg]

FF3 rocks because of addons (AdBlock Plus anyone???). IE7 rocks for compatibility.




The only reason IE7 displays more sites correctly is because there are too many web developers who use Microsoft's non-standards instead of sticking to universal standards for html code. If they used the correct standards then every page would display in FF correctly, probably Opera too. If a site doesn't display in FF correctly (rare) then I just deep six it and move on. I have no patience for bad coding.

[ajm786]

The only reason IE7 displays more sites correctly is because there are too many web developers who use Microsoft's non-standards instead of sticking to universal standards for html code. If they used the correct standards then every page would display in FF correctly, probably Opera too. If a site doesn't display in FF correctly (rare) then I just deep six it and move on. I have no patience for bad coding.

Ditto. They have the nerve to call it "quirk mode" and "non-quirk mode". :rolleyes: WTF is that supposed to be? It's wrong or it's right, not "quirky". :o

[GORANKAR]

I use both.

[TechieSooner]

The only reason IE7 displays more sites correctly is because there are too many web developers who use Microsoft's non-standards instead of sticking to universal standards for html code. If they used the correct standards then every page would display in FF correctly, probably Opera too. If a site doesn't display in FF correctly (rare) then I just deep six it and move on. I have no patience for bad coding.

I don't care who is at fault.... IE works, FF doesn't. From a business standpoint- you have to use what works.

[jimmyb]

Firefox + NoScript.

One plus is that I can use this on my work + home machines since it's cross platform.

[mikeblas]

The only reason IE7 displays more sites correctly is because there are too many web developers who use Microsoft's non-standards instead of sticking to universal standards for html code. In actuality, it's because IE's parser and rendering engine are more forgiving of errors. Sure, there are outright bugs, but most of the differences are actually in FF failing to be lenient.

Naively, it's true that HTML or CSS syntax is either correct or not. But sites are coded by people, and people make mistakes. Software that is more tolerant of mistakes is, by definition, more robust.

FireFox, because it is too strict, punishes end users when it's actualy the web developers that are making the mistakes. When you find a broken website and report it to the FF devs, they'll tell you that the problem is the website and they won't fix FF. The user is left to pursue a fix with the web site provider--who may or may not care, may or may not listen, may or may not be reachable, and may or may not act. Meanwhile, the user has no choice; the site they want to use doesn't work.

The end user does not care about the bleating of syntax and correctness rules or any of that. It's easiest for them just to switch to a browser that does work.

This situation--and the responses from the FF dev team--make it pretty clear to me that they don't care about the end-user experience of their product and have mistakenly prioritized technical correctness (which, in the eyes of those end users, is arbitrary and meaningless).

[TechieSooner]

^^^ QFT. What I was trying to get at, but you explained very well ;)

[HSADJADI]

I work for an online streaming company, IE is the most problem free, firefox doesnt do DRM as reliably

[slls]

My FF3 started crashing ever 2 minutes, went back to FF2 and all is good.

[Cyrilix]

In actuality, it's because IE's parser and rendering engine are more forgiving of errors. Sure, there are outright bugs, but most of the differences are actually in FF failing to be lenient.

Naively, it's true that HTML or CSS syntax is either correct or not. But sites are coded by people, and people make mistakes. Software that is more tolerant of mistakes is, by definition, more robust.

FireFox, because it is too strict, punishes end users when it's actualy the web developers that are making the mistakes. When you find a broken website and report it to the FF devs, they'll tell you that the problem is the website and they won't fix FF. The user is left to pursue a fix with the web site provider--who may or may not care, may or may not listen, may or may not be reachable, and may or may not act. Meanwhile, the user has no choice; the site they want to use doesn't work.

The end user does not care about the bleating of syntax and correctness rules or any of that. It's easiest for them just to switch to a browser that does work.

This situation--and the responses from the FF dev team--make it pretty clear to me that they don't care about the end-user experience of their product and have mistakenly prioritized technical correctness (which, in the eyes of those end users, is arbitrary and meaningless).

Be careful there, mikeblas. That's a slippery slope argument that you're making and precisely how standards are eroded. Someone decides that it's OK to cut corners on a technical specification, and if they manage to get enough people to use their product, then there's no way to fix the problem, since everyone has now adapted to incorrect standards and making the standards correct would break something somewhere in the dependency chain.

For the sake of long-term benefit, standards are important, and should not be discarded that easily for the sake of business reasons.

[mikeblas]

Argument? What I'm observing is that FireFox is stead-fastly trying to adhere to the written standard at the expense of their own users.

Standards erosion isn't something I've intended to discuss. It happens because vendors who implement bugs and then don't fix them directly because of legacy compatibility issues for their customers; ambiguity in the standards, and sometimes even malicious decisions to extend the standard to bind more users to it. Both IE and FF have done these things for all the different reasons.

The FireFox team has decided something like the contrapositive of what you describe. They see a strong, established de facto standard that differs from the black letter standard. They didn't like that, so steadfastly adhere to the written standard. The net effect of this decision is that they're punishing their users--the overwhelming majority of whom don't give a darn about the standard, not to mention even know that it might exist.

If FF wanted to help web developers, they'd provide compatilbe and strict modes. They'd default to the compatible mode so more people would use thier product and have a good experience doing so instead of having problems, then blaming someone neither they nor their users can control directly. FireFox didn't do this because in reality, very few people care about the standards. Even web designers just want a site that just works in front as many users as possible with as little meddling as possible.

Standards wars have happened in many procedural languages over history, like C, C++, Fortran, and COBOL. After a while, the market realizes that very few people want to write portable code across platforms and those that do have the tools they need to do so. Those tools are unavoidable, since even benign bugs or fundamental platform differences will cause differences in the code shown to the different platforms. At the end of the day, standards compliance is properly just a marketing bullet and is of minimal value to real customers. Bug compatibility, or switchable conformance levels, are actually more useful.

The standards issue has also happened with non-procedural languages, like SQL, with the same result.

What makes HTML/CSS different is that so many more projects are cross-platform. A public website may be visited by clients with any number of browser implementations on lots of different platforms. I think this makes the compliance with the de facto standard among installed users far more important than the black letter standards.

Whatever the cause of the erosion of the standard, it's inevitable. Even the almighty FireFox is non-conforming in certain areas, just because of bugs or misinterpretations of the inperfect standards documentation. It's silly to be so strictly conforming, in the end, particularly when the structure of the architecture puts the discomfort of that non-conformance in front of the end user rather than someone who can actually do something about it.

[Mithent]

If FF wanted to help web developers, they'd provide compatilbe and strict modes.

They do:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Mozilla%27s_Quirks_Mode

Quirks mode is used if no specific standard is specified, otherwise the browser renders as compliant as it can to that standard.

This is a feature of Mozilla Gecko, not Firefox itself, incidentally. I don't know if Firefox displays it, but the Page Info in SeaMonkey says whether it's rendering in quirks mode or standards compliant mode; interestingly, Google uses quirks mode. [H]ard|OCP uses standards compliant mode.

[TechieSooner]

They do:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Mozilla%27s_Quirks_Mode
Unless you have other info to say otherwise- this isn't something your end-user can change. This is all done automatically:
For documents sent as text/html, Mozilla must decide whether to handle them in quirks mode or standards mode. (Content sent as text/xml or other XML or XHTML MIME types is always handled in strict mode.) Currently Mozilla does this through DOCTYPE sniffing.

It doesn't do a decent job of switching between full-standards mode and quirks mode obviously...


Edit- and isn't switching between all these modes a little, well... ridiculous?
In Strict mode: you break websites with bugs, and display webpages written perfectly.
In "Compatibility" Mode: you display websites with bugs, and display webpages written perfectly.

See the difference? Just kindof stupid to be doing any of this switching around, when you can have a "single mode to rule them all".