Let us have a little perspective here. The French and English colonial models were completely different. The English had settler colonies or ones based on plantations; the French set-up a fur trading empire. The latter model required locals to catch the furs and bring them in for trade, so that all the French needed was to secure the St Lawrence river or establish a few coastal ports. The Native Americans were thus a requirement for extraction of resources. The colony never had large scale immigration like the British ones did, so the stress between the natives and the French were not as acute, and the French settlement expanded by natural birth mostly.
This does not mean they were peaceful. On arrival, the French allied with the Huron and Algonquins against the Iroquois. One of the first acts of the French colony was to go to war with the Iroquois, and they would have an ongoing on and off war till the British took over. The French chose certain tribes which they then favoured against others - classic divide and rule. The Frenchman that lived amongst the natives was essentially a way to extend French influence in their fur-trading empire, not a magnanimous gesture of understanding - that was why Champlain did it in the first place. The British did very similar in Prince Rupert's Land for the Hudson Bay Company.
The Iroquois sided with the British in all their wars with the French, because from their arrival the French had been openly hostile towards the Iroquois. By that time, the Iroquois considered the French to be traditional enemies, as much as the English did. If the French had won, the Iroquois would have been disposessed of much of their lands and the French Indian allies would have gleefully slaughtered them. This alliance between the British and the Iroquous would last, which is why they sided with the British in the war of 1812 as well. To this day, the British in Canada were much nicer to the Native Americans than the US ever was, which is why many plains Indians moved to Canada in the 19th century.
If you look at French colonialism elsewhere, in North Africa or the Caribbean say, you'd see they aren't that different. Usually, British colonies tend to be a little better in their regard for the peoples that live there, especially in Africa (so that Anglophone Africa is more prosperous today than the Francophone one). The North American French colony of New France was largely a model built on exploiting native fur trading skills, which thus required co-opting certain tribes (and thus marginalising or elimating those they did not favour). Where sufficient French settled, you got the Algerian wars and dispossession; or if needed the forcible takeover of Vietnam or Tahiti or Senegal.
Let us not needlessly condemn the French or pretend they were angels. They were another European colonial power actively engaged in spreading French influence in support of their fur trading; and opposing their traditional English enemy's extension of their colonies. Some tribes ended up siding with the English, some with the French. Both were faithless at times, though the British adhered to their treaties much better than the US government ever did; and it is an open question how France would have acted if large scale immigration of Frenchmen occurred or if they had to deal with the population explosion of the Quebecois in the 19th - though we both know the answer here, I am afraid.
