The problem is that most arguments you used against Firefox was quoting the parts of Firefox myths that was grossly outdated. And some of the myths seems to be crazy fanboy ones that I hadn't heard myself (like Firefox having lower system requirement). Besides I have a hard time to take that page seriously after the "Firefox is a religion part" especially considering I seen Opera/IE/Chrome fanboys as bad.

Funny though, I have a system like that with IE 6. It's not a very pleasant browsing experience though.

Actually, since I feel like it I will counter most myths, the ones I don't note... well consider that I agree with them:
Myth - "Firefox and Mozilla are the same thing" - Example
Reality - Firefox started as "Phoenix" in 2002, an experimental redesign of the Mozilla Suite browser component. It officially became known as Mozilla Firefox in 2004. The name "Mozilla" in this case refers to the Mozilla Foundation/Corporation which develops Firefox and developed the Mozilla Suite. Official development of the Mozilla Suite ended in 2005 but continues as a community-developed product known as SeaMonkey.
Note: Fair enough, even if this is a bit to the point of nitpicking. I think most of us didn't confuse the Mozilla suite with Firefox though (hell I admit I hated the Mozilla suite), and looking the post he links... I guess the user in question meant to say "similar enough".


Myth - "Firefox is Completely Free"
Reality - "The truth is, while Mozilla Firefox is open source, it is not entirely free. Several elements are restricted by the EULA, including the trademarked Firefox name, artwork, and the proprietary Talkback crash reporter."
Note by me: This is true! However it's why browsers like Iceweasel exist, which is basically the Firefox browser without the brand. It's not really that much of an issue, although it's why Firefox forks have the generic globe at worst. I don't really consider it a problem, since if you fork you probably want to use a different name in the first place.

Myth - "Firefox is spelled 'FireFox' and abbreviated FF"
Reality - Firefox is spelled F-i-r-e-f-o-x - only the first letter capitalized (i.e. not FireFox, not Foxfire, FoxFire or whatever else a number of folk seem to think it to be called.) The preferred abbreviation is "Fx" or "fx".
Note: I don't remember seeing anyone spell it "FireFox", Actually to be honest I hadn't seen the Fx abbreviation used in years, so I guess it fallen out of use.

Myth - "Firefox has lower System Requirements than Internet Explorer 6" - Example
Reality - Internet Explorer 6 has much lower minimum System Requirements than Firefox'
Reality by Ailure: The article quotes system requirements to which I almost have a identical computer to! Almost, I have more memory (32 MB)! But it's very sluggish to surf with, so yes it runs but it's not very well (to the point that the system requirements should at least been late-Pentium gen level). Problem is that system requirements are kinda set what the vendor is comfortable with so it can vary a lot. Did he even try to run Opera on a 486 at the time?

Myths - *Something about memory usages*
Note - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/macbook-air-chrome-16-firefox-9-benchmark,3108-13.html During use it seems that about all browsers are about the same. Opera is actually the worst at freeing up memory (see the -39 tabs graph). Nearly all modern browsers caches aggressively though if you have a lot of RAM, and why shouldn't they?

Myth - "Firefox is Bug Free"
Myth - "Firefox is Stable"
Note: This would be a myth with any software.

Myth - "Perfomance
Note: The browser that can claim being fastest switches constantly. It's a perfomance race between the browsers, which is a good thing for us consumers (assuming that.. they are not sacrificing speed for security).

His note - Internet Explorer 6 is still actively supported by Microsoft.
Counternote: IE6 is under extended support! But that's basically the software equivalent of it being on lifesupport, and it's intended for companies who insists with legacy. Microsoft themselves however wants you to use their latest software version of IE which... is understandable!

Myth- "Market share"
Note: Some of those myths is true now! Firefox have reached 25% marketshare before, and still is in some places (it lost some to Chrome). Depends on region a lot. Worldwide currently, Chrome, Firefox and IE have a quarter of the market each. My prediction is that mobile browsers will only increase for awhile too so that's a factor, and IE seems to be steadily going downwards in user share.

Myth - "Security"
Note: At the time the Firefox adoption was crazy. So with a increased userbase, the number of reported exploits increased. Actually for a well-tested browser that only had security updates over the years, 158 exploits is still a lot. Interestingly the "vulnerabilities" he links as unfixed are also listed as "not/less critical" by Secunia, meaning that even they consider it low priority to fix.

Myth - "Firefox is More Secure because it does not use ActiveX"
Note: Why is he defending ActiveX? It's always been really badly sandboxed unlike let say... a Java applet. I'm it's a tech that have died out.

Myth - "Firefox Extensions are Safe"
Note: It's near impossible to make a extension/plugin system safe if the extension/plugin is rogue. So that's true for anything with said functionality. Even with only HTML/CSS/JS access,you can still mess up stuff pretty bad, with some clever tricks you can easily make a password sniffer with HTML injection

Myth - "Firefox is a Solution to Spyware".
Note: This is related to the "Firefox is bugfree" myth. In other words, applicable to any software really that isn't properly sandboxed.

Myth - "Anti-phishing"
Note: No idea honestly how it's now. Other than Google are really good itself at warning about those pages anyway.

Feature myths:
Several of those are wrong and just gives away the author as a Opera fanboy. Opera is not the first tabbed browser, it was early but it wasn't first. Netcaptor was the first browser with tabs. Infact I'm pretty sure most of those features was in the various IE-based browsers that there were tonnes of in the 90's. Actually thinking on it, I sworn I read about one of the earliest 90's browsers having tabs (pre Windows 95 era).

Standard support:
All current browsers have incomplete standard support. And sometimes they support stuff before it's even standard (which was the case for HTML5 tags).

ACID tests:
Firefox passes them all. But ACID have been criticized for testing edge cases and not really being a useful benchmark, more of a bragging right.

Web Page Compatibility:
Oof, this is a case by case basis. Rule of thumb, if the site is standard compliment then blame the browser. Otherwise blame the page . Not as much of a problem anymore as recent versions of IE9 is at least supporting more recent stuff, and it's discouraged to design layouts around browser quirks.

____________________

The only addon problem I had in Firefox was when I forced addons that didn't support the current Firefox to be turned on. But that's kinda going towards the "You messed with it yourself, it's your own fault for breaking it" territory, complete with tonnes of warnings to do not do that. And usually it doesn’t totally break the browser so you can still manage to disable the troubling addon. It's been awhile since Firefox last broke plugins between version changes though (between version 3 and 4).

Kiyoshi: Forgot to mention but it's possible to run Firefox 2.x on Win NT 3.5 (which is from the time that the firefox myths page was created). Of course that's not exactly the first OS I would go for.

(His GUI gallery is great, just watch out for his almost near irrational hatred for IE that even I find over the top ).

____________________