Yet More Browser Wars [Archive] - Quintessential Forum

Roj

06-13-2004, 12:57 AM

What's busted in Mozilla? I can use the 1.8 nightlies without a single problem (not even a rendering balls-up).
It buckles under load. Badly.

I use it at the office to check the daily stats on my Symantec AV Gateways - when it works. This means I run a browser report that can consist of *a lot* of information which has to be displayed. Every so often (a good half of the time), both Mozilla and Firefix trash the living daylights out of my hard disk as they try and draw upon more and more memory (unnecessarily I might add). In short, they both have a monstrous memory leak. IE buckles as well but at least it doesn't attempt to use all the RAM in the corporation (let alone my machine) in the process.

**OPERA** does the job just fine - every time. It also performs the task in a fraction of the time it takes the others to do it successfully when they do manage to plow their way through it.

Mozilla is a ponderously slow and overbloated elephant in a tutu - a perfect example of a bloated app that tries to do everything and ends up doing nothing well. It also has a configuration interface designed by and for geeks - not end users (for the record, I'm a geek :) and *I* find it very badly laid out). Firefox fixed the user interface and is arguably much faster than Two Ton Tessie but as noted above, the common errors between the two code bases linger (for at least three revs thus far - anybody wanna try for four?). Neither browser performs well in rendering the majority of websites correctly since they persist in burying their heads in the sand while trumpeting the myth of "open web standards". Translation: they don't support pages built with MS enhancements properly.

Again, **OPERA** beats them hands down in all of those areas and of course IE was and remains faster and more compatible than the zillas (NOT Opera) with the majority of websites for obvious reasons. Firefox is at least as fast as IE but who wants to drive a broken Ferrari?

We won't even get into the retroactive abortions that are the e-mail and Usenet clients (Thunderbird and Mozilla). This is not to say that OE is a better Usenet client (for that try 40tude Dialog) but it beats the crap out of the 'zilla siblings.

You want to see something that's hysterically funny? Try running Yahoo Launch in Mozilla. It comes back with a message that you have to upgrade Netscape. Launch runs in IE just fine.

I'm sorry but the Mozilla family and their cousins will always be also-rans. Despite the fact that MS has sat on their butts for years now in terms of browser development, Mozilla *still* hasn't caught up and that's a telling statement on the product.

Sheepeh

06-13-2004, 01:57 AM

Hehe, when you've got 1GB of ram to chuck around you don't notice it eating RAM, that's what it's there for. It runs great on my machine.

I can't *stand* using IE now, no tabs, no integration, no *real* email program, no IRC, no skins,no extensions, no adblock, no pop-up stopper - Moz really does have it all.

It's not like I give a crap about what MS wants for me - ActiveX? No thank you - marquee giving me a headache? No ta. First thing I did when I built new computers for my family (a bunch of n00bs) was to kill access to IE, and install Firefox. I haven't had a *single* complaint about anything not working, crashing, or being slow/bloaty/crappy.

And frankly, I'd use (and do use) Moz/Thunderbird over Outhouse Express any day.

And another thing, for a BAAAAD UI, check out Opera 7.5- can you say *cluttered*? Don't get me wrong, I like Presto, but the damn thing just hs too many quirks. And User agent sniffers don't work with Opera and deny access even when the browser is compatible.

Don't blame Mozilla, blame the webmasters who put up such shite than manages to look broken.

If I put up a page that works in pure CSS with some png's chucked in, that's not my fault for writing good code to a standard, that's IE fault for being a bit crap.

Inthewoods

06-13-2004, 03:10 AM

Roj

06-13-2004, 04:54 AM

Hehe, when you've got 1GB of ram to chuck around you don't notice it eating RAM, that's what it's there for. It runs great on my machine.What do you think I've got at the office? Peanutz? A memory leak is a memory leak no matter how much RAM you've got.

I can't *stand* using IE now, no tabs, no integration, no *real* email program, no IRC, no skins,no extensions, no adblock, no pop-up stopper - Moz really does have it all.You're attempting to pass off boiled over Netscape functionality as integration? And e-mail "client"? Hooo boy, I want some of whatever it is you're smoking - it would make Hillary Clinton look like Britney Spears. It might even make her appear smarter too - powerful stuff you've got there.

I have no use for IRC or skins - the latter is a waste of horsepower as far as I'm concerned. As to extensions, where have you been? The entire IE API is one huge extension - and that's exactly what the Zillas fall flat on their faces trying to deal with because they can't. The ad-block and pop-up stoppers are coming in SP2 and besides, third party solutions will easily trump the home-grown dreck included. They're free too.

It's not like I give a crap about what MS wants for me - ActiveX? No thank you - marquee giving me a headache? No ta. First thing I did when I built new computers for my family (a bunch of n00bs) was to kill access to IE, and install Firefox.Poor buggers - You really must not be very fond of them. :) What a mess with which they have to contend, what with pages that won't display properly, occasional runaway threads, memory leaks, etc. That thing is most certainly NOT ready for prime time and won't be until it gets a thorough de-lousing with the Lysol. Perhaps in another six months to a year on their schedule...

Also, the ActiveX hype is all that - just hype. Java is just as or even more vulnerable. However, it is the darkling of the so-called "open standards" "propeller head" set (kinda like Linux) so fewer exploits get targeted at it. That doesn't make it better - just off the radar.

I haven't had a *single* complaint about anything not working, crashing, or being slow/bloaty/crappy.That because by your own admission they're noobs and wouldn't know the difference anyway. Put a *real* power user on it and...

And frankly, I'd use (and do use) Moz/Thunderbird over Outhouse Express any day.Your funeral. :) I tend to not settle for second best, especially in the functionality department. Maybe when they're finally finished it next year (who knows, they might have taken some courses on interface design by then)...

And another thing, for a BAAAAD UI, check out Opera 7.5- can you say *cluttered*? Don't get me wrong, I like Presto, but the damn thing just hs too many quirks. And User agent sniffers don't work with Opera and deny access even when the browser is compatible.You use the Zillas and have da noive ta talk about quirks??? pot=/= kttle black. :) :) :)

Don't blame Mozilla, blame the webmasters who put up such shite than manages to look broken.Pardon? Those sites work when when a browser that sports REAL compatibility is used and not one that uses the excuse of "open standards" to keep from dealing with the issues in the real world. In case you haven't noticed, those types of sites also happen to be very prevalent out there since more and more folks have been using the tools to create them because they're simple to use. That's a reality of life.

If I put up a page that works in pure CSS with some png's chucked in, that's not my fault for writing good code to a standard, that's IE fault for being a bit crap.Hey, you can ride the "open standards" high horse or you can serve users in the real world. We had the choice within our organization to develope for "open standards" only, IE which largely support those plus has its own extensions or both. We ended up devving for IE because of one simple fact: market penetration. Most companies now do that and it saves them a pile of $$$ doing it.

When the folks in ZillaLand:

1) get off their butts and fix their memory leak / runaway processes problems

2) add native Hotmail integration instead of the third-party Java add-in garbage they suggest you use to get that functionality (not to mention stop spouting the elitist and juvenile excuses about not spending their time devving for a MS back end - grow up junior misses)

3) support the going de facto standards that are prevalent across the net

4) pay a prolonged visit to Jenny Craig (I speak of Mozilla, not Firefox in this instance)

5) develope a real e-mail client that doesn't behave as if it were built by Lil' Abner

...then it might be worth considering as a primary browser. Until then, there's MyIE which adds tabs and additional functionality to the IE engine wthout sacrificing anything or vanilla IE if you can live without tabs (I can - it's called the Task Bar).

Roj

06-13-2004, 04:59 AM

I use MyIE2 which uses the IE6 core, but it has tabs, all the plugins, popup blocker, etc. and it's skinnable.

My experience with Mozilla and Firefox is that they are not very robust and a little unstable, and become HUGE resource hogs when anything other than "typical", simple webpages are loaded.In short, they're not ready for prime time. Maybe when they mature they might (and I do mean *might*) be decent but right now they're unstable and unusable for the average (and even the not-so-average) Joe.

I don't have time to babysit the app or wait for the developers to get their act together - I want it to work and I want it to work NOW. The folks in ZillaLand have had years and they (by their own admission - else there wouldn't be a Firefox and Thunderbird) flubbed it.

The folks at Opera didn't.

Heigar

06-13-2004, 05:46 AM

Amen ROJ ,ever since the browser wars on this forum ,i've too noticed some crap that I shouldn't have to deal with from the mozilla family and with my browser in general,i have firefox,and MyIE2 installed and i would rather use the myie2 browser,as for webpage developers not using the so called "standards" maybe the browser developers should adapt to the users standards not the webpage developers adapting to the browser developers standards!

Roj

06-13-2004, 06:24 AM

as for webpage developers not using the so called "standards" maybe the browser developers should adapt to the users standards not the webpage developers adapting to the browser developers standards!In my long experience it seems that this trait is more common than uncommon amongst developers (thank God that Paul is the exception which proves the rule):

Many (most?) feel that the user should conform to them rather than them serving the user who inevitably will make or break their product. I mean, you'd think that this rather obvious point would occur to them but alas, more often than not this salient point eludes them. We fight that battle daily where I work - the Lotus Notes devs have not the faintest clue about what makes an interface easy and intuitive to use and their annual leave tracking application is truly a work of art... NOT.

Heigar

06-13-2004, 07:00 AM

Many (most?) feel that the user should conform to them rather than them serving the user who inevitably will make or break their product. I mean, you'd think that this rather obvious point would occur to them but alas, more often than not this salient point eludes them. . Wonder why that is ? "obvious" is the keyword they don't think that word exsists.:grin:

Most is the right term seeing that "most" think the way they do it is the way that the user should be happy with.(In which in perspective is not the way it should be).If someone wants to develop a piece of software(like qcd) they should listen to the users not what the so called "standards" should be.Like you said ROJ "make it or break it" !!!!

maybe someone should move these last couple posts to the appropriate section before someone has a hissy fit.

Roj

06-13-2004, 02:26 PM

maybe someone should move these last couple posts to the appropriate section before someone has a hissy fit.
Where would you suggest?

acozz

06-13-2004, 03:03 PM

Where would you suggest?

I've got this one.

This is moved from the QCD v. Winamp thread. Enjoy.

Roj

06-13-2004, 04:03 PM

I've got this one.

This is moved from the QCD v. Winamp thread. Enjoy.That was SOME neat trick moving part of a thread instead of the whole thing. :)

acozz

06-13-2004, 04:11 PM

That was SOME neat trick moving part of a thread instead of the whole thing. :)

You can do it too. ;)

matty28carter

06-13-2004, 04:16 PM

odd bit of page rendering goin on here in IE6 & MyIE2, doesn't happen in Firefox 0.8... (you can see it in all four corners)

acozz

06-13-2004, 04:20 PM

odd bit of page rendering goin on here in IE6 & MyIE2, doesn't happen in Firefox 0.8... (you can see it in all four corners)

I just tried it. It was pretty cool how it like slid from the right side towards the middle of the page. But yeah, definitely something weird going on in IE there.

Rex_Mundi_Incarnit

06-13-2004, 04:57 PM

And another thing, for a BAAAAD UI, check out Opera 7.5- can you say *cluttered*? Don't get me wrong, I like Presto, but the damn thing just hs too many quirks. And User agent sniffers don't work with Opera and deny access even when the browser is compatible.

Well you can get rid of all that, which is what i did. Hell, i even prefer to use opera in linux because it renders most pages i visit much better than mozilla eventhough mozilla renders pages exactly as they were written. Also in linux, mozilla uses a font that is soo small and ugly, its barely readable. Increasing font size only makes webpages look like crap too. :bored:

Inthewoods

06-13-2004, 06:19 PM

I just tried it. It was pretty cool how it like slid from the right side towards the middle of the page. But yeah, definitely something weird going on in IE there.

Funny, I don't have that issue on my system at all. IE6/MyIE2 v0.9.27.68, WinXP Pro, SP1.

Inthewoods

06-13-2004, 06:29 PM

I guess I don't understand why everybody's so worked up about it. Just use what you like, and let others do the same. All I know is what happens on my system. IE6 isn't perfect, but with MyIE2, it gives me all I want and it is the "standard" from the standpoint of web design. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just that that's the way it is. I don't use Opera because I don't want to buy it. As for Mozilla/Firefox, I may switch to it someday, after the bugs are fixed to a point where it doesn't start eating up all my system resources after 30 minutes.

matty28carter

06-14-2004, 07:08 PM

I've been trying out MyIE2 now for a few days, its pritty good. One gripe. IT OPENS EVERYTHING IN A FRIGGIN' TAB. ...well not everything but if say i want something to open in a new window (not tab) like a little audio player i want it in a little box window - will it do it? will it my arse. I've ticked/unticked/licked/shot/killed/banana everything i can think of to see if that works and it don't. I only want it to open a new tab when I want it in a new tab i.e i press "open in new tab" or press the middle button on my mouse wheel. Anybody please help me if i can do this before i go insaine!

Inthewoods

06-14-2004, 07:18 PM

Inthewoods

06-14-2004, 07:45 PM

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, just right click and "Open in new window"

OK, I thought about this some more and I'm guessing that maybe you mean how to resize a tabbed window. Just use the sizing controls like you would for any IE window. See the pic. I hope this helps.

Roj

06-14-2004, 08:53 PM

I guess I don't understand why everybody's so worked up about it. Just use what you like, and let others do the same.I agree.

I just get a bit green when someone champions a product as the be-all and end-all when it is 1) demonstrably seriously buggy on a repeated basis 2) only somewhat usable because of those bugs and various other design shortcomings and 3) is incapable of doing the same job that other available options perform admirably. Attempts to use the excuse of so-called "open standards" to justify those shortcomings don't wash worth a darn, not in the boardroom and not at home.

However, I will add that if it floats your boat then use it in happiness.

brian

06-19-2004, 05:25 PM

I'm trying out Opera 7.51. So far I'm pretty pleased with it in general, but there's something about the QCD web pages which it doesn't seem to like - it takes forever to load all the images. No problem with other websites. Any one have any idea why this might be happening, please? (Roj?) Many thanks.

drewkeller

06-20-2004, 03:51 AM

Aaron

06-21-2004, 06:34 AM

I like firefox because it is more configurable than IE. The extensions are a good example of this. Yay for adblock. Yay for no popups. Sure, it's not for all users. Sure, it's still buggy, but after all, it's a beta release. (many users in the firefox forums also complained about the large number of bugs in 0.8) And it doesn't do some things that other browsers can do, but it is still a beta release.

i think it is a very good browser even the way it is now, and it will be even better when the real release comes. i hardly ever use IE any more.

Yes and they freely admit to it being a 'technology preview'.

"Firefox 0.9 is a Technology Preview. While this software works well enough to be relied upon as your primary browser in most cases, we make no guarantees of its performance or stability. It is a pre-release product and should not be relied upon for mission-critical tasks."

I'm of much the same opinion as yourself with regards to the extensions. Adblock is neat. Some other extensions I like include 'Web Developer', 'Download Sort', 'Download Manager Tweak', and 'Sage'. 'Sage' is a great little rss aggregator that adds a sidebar for rss feeds. :cool:

Roj

06-21-2004, 11:39 AM

Yes and they freely admit to it being a 'technology preview'.

"Firefox 0.9 is a Technology Preview. While this software works well enough to be relied upon as your primary browser in most cases, we make no guarantees of its performance or stability. It is a pre-release product and should not be relied upon for mission-critical tasks."
If they want to be taken seriously, they have to drop the excuses and the "technological preview" rhetoric and take full responsibility for their product in the hands of end-users. This is not a new code base; it has been around in various forms for *a while* and in fact uses the Mozilla core (the bugs that can easily be replicated between the two browsers are evidence enough of that). Many other Open Source projects took that plunge, notably Audacity and Open Office (use 'em, love 'em) and those are both rather complex pieces of software.

In short, it's time to crap or get off the pot.

Aaron

06-21-2004, 11:34 PM

In short, it's time to crap or get off the pot.

Not a bad one-liner :)

Traditionally software development is in beta up to a 1.0 version wherein it is a 'release product'. For me, like drewkeller, the pre-1.0 of firefox is 'good enough' to use when weighing up the bugs against the features it provides.

Sure the core of the browser ('gecko') is a reasonably mature component. So is the core of IE but that has its own problems.

I don't know if their pre-1.0 disclaimer if refers to the core as such or the 'firefox' specific code. I think if they have known bugs and are making it available - then a disclaimer is certainly better than none at all.

Good to hear that you like some open-source software (e.g. Open Office). I also think Open Office is very good. Based on your earlier posts I was guessing you would rip into them like a fat kid on a cupcake. (no offense but that's *my* favourite one-liner hehe).

My own views are partly based as a developer who has benefitted from open-source tools and libraries. I've written open-source code of my own http://gldata.sourceforge.net/, also contributing to http://aiplanet.sourceforge.net/).

I can appreciate your point of view however :ninja:

Cheers,

Aaron

Roj

06-21-2004, 11:50 PM

Not a bad one-liner :)

Traditionally software development is in beta up to a 1.0 version wherein it is a 'release product'. For me, like drewkeller, the pre-1.0 of firefox is 'good enough' to use when weighing up the bugs against the features it provides.

Sure the core of the browser ('gecko') is a reasonably mature component. So is the core of IE but that has its own problems.

I don't know if their pre-1.0 disclaimer if refers to the core as such or the 'firefox' specific code. I think if they have known bugs and are making it available - then a disclaimer is certainly better than none at all.

Good to hear that you like some open-source software (e.g. Open Office). I also think Open Office is very good. Based on your earlier posts I was guessing you would rip into them like a fat kid on a cupcake. (no offense but that's *my* favourite one-liner hehe).

My own views are partly based as a developer who has benefitted from open-source tools and libraries. I've written open-source code of my own http://gldata.sourceforge.net/, also contributing to http://aiplanet.sourceforge.net/).

I can appreciate your point of view however :ninja:

Cheers,

Aaron
Mozilla is also referred to as a tech preview and it is up to 1.7. As you no doubt know being a part of the open source community, rev numbers mean little in OpenSourceLand - there are products there that have been in active development for years that are yet to reach non-beta status.

A quick list of stuff I use that's open source:

CDex
Audacity
VirtualDub
OpenOffice
Media Player Classic
FileZilla
HTTrack
FLAC
OGG Vorbis

OpenOffice started life as an OS/2 spplication eons before going open source and would never have survived there were it not for Sun's Terminal Microsoft Penis Envy. :)

I just happen to view MozillaLand as mostly hype and not much delivery commensurate with that vast hype surrounding them given their long history and shall we say "uneven" results.

No worries, mon! :)

Aaron

06-22-2004, 12:14 AM

A quick list of stuff I use that's open source:

CDex
Audacity
VirtualDub
OpenOffice
Media Player Classic
FileZilla
HTTrack
FLAC
OGG Vorbis

You have good taste in open source software. Don't forget bzflag for fun (www.bzflag.org).

You do make a good point that mozilla did hype themselves up a lot early on to their detriment and the resulting 'M' series of builds prior to 1.0 were notoroisly unstable. On the other hand I think that they have turned the corner and their product is progressing *in general*. Some of the new features/extensions are nice. It would be good however if they address some of these long-standing bugs in gecko that you alluded to earlier in this thread.

Speaking of new software I'm eagerly awaiting whats next in the devolpment series of QCD...

Cheers,

Aaron

Roj

06-22-2004, 12:43 AM

You have good taste in open source software. Don't forget bzflag for fun (www.bzflag.org (http://www.bzflag.org)).
Thank you. :)

Gonna have ot check that out...

You do make a good point that mozilla did hype themselves up a lot early on to their detriment and the resulting 'M' series of builds prior to 1.0 were notoroisly unstable. On the other hand I think that they have turned the corner and their product is progressing *in general*. Some of the new features/extensions are nice. It would be good however if they address some of these long-standing bugs in gecko that you alluded to earlier in this thread.
It would be nice - Firefox does have promise. If some of the devs would get over their anti-MS schtick... The way to beat a foe is to learn his game, play it better than he does and in so doing ram his own rules down his throat. One doesn't do it by sticking one's nose in the air and pretending to be elitist.

Speaking of new software I'm eagerly awaiting whats next in the devolpment series of QCD...
I'm not at all sure what Paul can add ot this thing. I mean, it does just about everything a boy could want in a player. Perhaps some new skinning APIs and some refinements to the plugin architecture but as for new features, what could there be?[/QUOTE]

hedge

06-22-2004, 02:54 AM

I'm not at all sure what Paul can add ot this thing. I mean, it does just about everything a boy could want in a player. Perhaps some new skinning APIs and some refinements to the plugin architecture but as for new features, what could there be?
Media Library, Anti Aliasing, some of the many other feature requests...
I wonder what he has been working on for these past months. :ponder:

Inthewoods

06-22-2004, 01:55 PM

I'm not at all sure what Paul can add ot this thing. I mean, it does just about everything a boy could want in a player. Perhaps some new skinning APIs and some refinements to the plugin architecture but as for new features, what could there be?
I can think of a few (VERY few) things I'd like to see, but I'm not gonna risk my neck saying them. I've been chewed up and spit out already once this month...LOL

jkrzok

06-22-2004, 04:07 PM

I'm not at all sure what Paul can add ot this thing. I mean, it does just about everything a boy could want in a player.

I figure I must be satisfied with how QCD is now because I no longer try to find another media player. I mean I used to haunt download sites on almost a daily basis looking for something I liked. In my pre-QCD days if an announcement of an update to Windows Media player was announced I would be at MS's site like a flash. Now I just don't care.

QCD does what I want. It's as simple as that.

acozz

06-22-2004, 04:40 PM

I figure I must be satisfied with how QCD is now because I no longer try to find another media player. I mean I used to haunt download sites on almost a daily basis looking for something I liked. In my pre-QCD days if an announcement of an update to Windows Media player was announced I would be at MS's site like a flash. Now I just don't care.

QCD does what I want. It's as simple as that.

And 4.51 is holding up quite well in terms of bugs, which is an added bonus. Haven't had many bug reports lately.

matty28carter

06-22-2004, 04:46 PM

4.51 has left me wanting little else. Still looking forward to "QMP" or "QCD 5.0" tho... :ditsy:

One thing i have noticed (perhaps i oughta put this in general support) is that when i play something (load a song into QCD when it hasn't been playing) i get a "pop" before playback. I've come to the conclusion that it must be the playback plug-ins opening. Its really annoying tho, i want it to stop; as its only QCD that does it.

matty28carter

06-22-2004, 04:50 PM

One thing i have noticed (perhaps i oughta put this in general support) is that when i play something (load a song into QCD when it hasn't been playing) i get a "pop" before playback. I've come to the conclusion that it must be the playback plug-ins opening. Its really annoying tho, i want it to stop; as its only QCD that does it.

Dont u love it when u post about something and then it stops doing it? ...let that be a warning to u computer :reallymad
it must know that its doing wrong and stops doing it... hmmm

rorythedog

09-04-2004, 02:06 AM

No, I'm not trying to stir things up again. Honest. I just thought those who do use Firefox might like to look HERE (http://www.tweakfactor.com/articles/tweaks/firefoxtweak/1.html)

jkrzok

09-14-2004, 03:54 AM

Firefox hits 1.0PR Tuesday.

http://news.com.com/Firefox+browser+to+hit+1.0+milestone/2100-1032_3-5364165.html?tag=nefd.top

Rex_Mundi_Incarnit

09-14-2004, 06:50 AM

Opera rulez :biggrin:

Sheepeh

09-14-2004, 04:17 PM

Opera rulez :biggrin:

After using 7.60Preview for a while, I would tend to agree.

M2, you are my saviour.

hedge

09-14-2004, 05:31 PM

After using 7.60Preview for a while, I would tend to agree.

M2, you are my saviour.
Tried opera, spent about 2 hours trying to set it all up like i want it (which just happens to be the way firefox is setup :silly: ), then went straight back to using firefox.
For my usage, i really can't see any advantage in using opera. Firefox (for me) runs rock steady, has all the functionality i want and use, and is what I'm used to.
The 1.0PR sees a few new features implemented, like RSS live bookmarks, and a host of bug fixes. Can't say I've found too many bugs at this stage.

Tokelil

09-14-2004, 05:56 PM

Anyone knows if it is posible to place the tabs at the bottom in firefow?

Anyone know of a plug-in that can somehow make the favorite menu behave like Maxthons when it is set to auto hide? (The way it is at default is reason enough for me not to use Firefox...)

jkrzok

09-14-2004, 07:36 PM

So what does Opera 7.6 do that's new?

Rex_Mundi_Incarnit

09-14-2004, 07:36 PM

Anyone knows if it is posible to place the tabs at the bottom in firefow?

I know you can do it in opera which is actually what ive done ;)

I like opera more than firefox because it looks better, has more stuff to configure, has mail support, i like how the bookmarks are configured, navigation is quick and easy using hotkeys and mouse strokes, and the browser is just as fast or maybe faster than firefox. About removing the banner...well you know ;)

Qaz

09-14-2004, 07:39 PM

So what does Opera 7.6 do that's new?
http://snapshot.opera.com/windows/w760p1.html

Rex_Mundi_Incarnit

09-15-2004, 11:55 AM

Im having a problem with opera and firefox. Everytime i download something i dont see how long its still gonna take. I just see "??" Ie both browsers dont know how big the file is that i download. It started happening a couple of days ago. I have no clue to what is causing this. Ive tried reinstalling the browsers but its still a problem. It doesnt matter what i download from whatever protocol, ftp or http. Did anyone else ever see this happening as well?

Zayoos

09-15-2004, 12:26 PM

acozz

09-15-2004, 12:29 PM

I've seen that happen in firefox but not for every download. I assumed it had to do with the download server.

Tokelil

09-15-2004, 09:10 PM

Not sure if it is new SP2 feature of Maxthon or what but I wound this quite funny when I tried to download the newest Thunderbird:
http://www.noer.it/images/misc/mozilla_vs_sp2.png

madjo

09-15-2004, 09:49 PM

Not sure if it is new SP2 feature of Maxthon or what but I wound this quite funny when I tried to download the newest Thunderbird:
[image]
that is a new thing of Firefox/mozilla... to prevent from bad installings :-) you now have to whitelist a server first before you can auto-install something using the xpi thingy...

Yesterday I tried installing 1.0PR of Firefox.. and everything went smoothly, but most of the plugins I have installed (and use quite regularly) don't work (yet) with that version... so, I'm gonna wait a while, till the plugins have been adapted to suit the new 1.0 version. :-)

btw, M2 of Opera works like a charm (have been using it for quite some time now and I loooooove it)

jkrzok

09-15-2004, 11:32 PM

I too love Opera's M2. It took a little getting used to but was worth the effort. I love their spam protection. It's been the most effective I've tried to date.

I liked how Firefox automatically updated my out-dated plugins and promised to continue looking for new versions of what it couldn't update.

Now for something positive about IE.....

Still thinking....

Got it! It allows you to download Opera! :biggrin:

bmc152003

09-16-2004, 03:05 AM

that is a new thing of Firefox/mozilla... to prevent from bad installings :-) you now have to whitelist a server first before you can auto-install something using the xpi thingy...

Yesterday I tried installing 1.0PR of Firefox.. and everything went smoothly, but most of the plugins I have installed (and use quite regularly) don't work (yet) with that version... so, I'm gonna wait a while, till the plugins have been adapted to suit the new 1.0 version. :-)

btw, M2 of Opera works like a charm (have been using it for quite some time now and I loooooove it)
yeah that made me mad put i can live without em for a little bit :cry:

madjo

09-17-2004, 12:08 AM

yeah that made me mad {b}ut i can live without em for a little bit :cry:
:-) you could, I couldn't :D
I put back the backup I made.. because I really need my mousegestures.

I will try it again later this week.

madjo

09-17-2004, 12:19 AM

If they want to be taken seriously, they have to drop the excuses and the "technological preview" rhetoric and take full responsibility for their product in the hands of end-users. This is not a new code base; it has been around in various forms for *a while* and in fact uses the Mozilla core (the bugs that can easily be replicated between the two browsers are evidence enough of that). Many other Open Source projects took that plunge, notably Audacity and Open Office (use 'em, love 'em) and those are both rather complex pieces of software.

No offence Roj, (and sorry to bring this up so late in the discussion...)
but I think they will 'get of that pot' (or rather they will crap :)) once FF reaches 1.0 for real... right now it IS still a Technological Preview... and it IS still beta.

You wouldn't dare to call QCD 0.9 a full product, now would you?

Audacity and OpenOffice.org have grown out of the 0.x vesions a long time ago (especially OOo).. so that's comparing oranges with apples...

Of course, if you want to use IE or Opera or Safari or Konqueror (or whatever... lynx) be my (and everyone else's) guest. But the truth IMO is that FF has potential to grow big.
I, for one, have used it since the days of 0.7 and that it was still called firebird, and have only noticed a few bugs and a handfull of crashes. So from my point of view it is really stable.

Todd The Kiwi

09-17-2004, 11:05 PM

tokelil - you need to put that in the joke thread man ha ha ha irony...?
i've been using fire"fox" since it was "bird" too
i reckon .9 sucks compared to .8
i'm fully not going to bother with 1.0 for a bit
same as i'm not going to bother with sp2...
opera 'out of the box' shits on mo'fox
but it's way too busy for me i just want a browser not all the other (admittedly) cool stuff
my only 'optional extras' are "Doodle" theme and "Downloadwith" getright extension thingy

Rex_Mundi_Incarnit

09-18-2004, 08:46 AM

opera 'out of the box' shits on mo'fox

:scared: Shocking that is!

I expected some credit from you Todd about opera ;)

bugmenot

11-14-2004, 02:34 AM

(Ducks from angry Opera mob...)

Get firefox 1.0 NOW! (http://www.getfirefox.com)

If you are not convinced, there is the new livebookmarks, the searchbar, the adblock extension, the superdragandgo extension and most importantly, more viewing area by default! Still not convinced? Visit here. (http://www.spreadfirefox.com)

For those diehard opera users, the adbar extension brings the *best* feature of Opera to firefox: the google adbar!

bugmenot

11-14-2004, 02:41 AM

Roj

11-14-2004, 03:34 AM

By the way, this release is *NOT* a technological preview and so far it hasn't crash on my AMDK6-2, 64mb, windows me computer. If it crashes on your computer, maybe you should scan for spywares first. Lastly, according to Secunia, Firefox so far has 0 out of 0 security bugs, while Opera still has to patch the "Opera Tabbed Browsing Vulnerability" rated moderately critical.Heheheh.

Methinks you shouldn't check out the Firefox 1.0 Launch thread elsewhere onthis board then.

Let's just say I think they have a ways to go yet before they're ready for prime time. In fact I pretty much view all the hype as "much ado about nothing".

The second coming it ain't. :)

Rex_Mundi_Incarnit

01-09-2005, 10:19 AM

Ha ha ha look at this (http://secunia.com/advisories/12889/). GO IE!! :gasmask: :skull: :grimreape

Roj

01-09-2005, 12:34 PM

Ha ha ha look at this (http://secunia.com/advisories/12889/). GO IE!! :gasmask: :skull: :grimreape
I haven't checked this particular one out but let's just say that I take Secunia with a hefty grain of rocksalt. More than one of their so-called "exploits" couldn't be duplicated by other security specialists and then their postings on the given subject aparrently just "disappeared".

Now if CERT were saying this...

max77

01-09-2005, 09:11 PM

Firefox powaa! :reallymad

Seal

01-09-2005, 10:27 PM

I haven't checked this particular one out but let's just say that I take Secunia with a hefty grain of rocksalt. More than one of their so-called "exploits" couldn't be duplicated by other security specialists and then their postings on the given subject aparrently just "disappeared".

Now if CERT were saying this...

This vulnerability is very real. I've posted a functioning example at my own site, which can be found here:
http://www.jmcardle.com/?postid=77

In my demo, it makes a folder on your C:\ drive called "ie6vulnerability.jmcardle". But it can quite possibly be edited to do something more nefarious, such as "del C:\Windows\system32\*.dll" or something. This only seems to work on default installs of WinXP SP2 (which includes WinXP Media Center Edition 2005). All the user has to do to make this flaw work is simply click a "bad" link.

Runelord

01-16-2005, 03:07 AM

Still think Maxthon > Firefox. :grin:

madjo

01-16-2005, 11:26 AM

Still think Maxthon > Firefox. :grin:
Maxthon = a beautified IE... so the same security holes (activex anyone?) as IE...

indeed also firefox has holes in it... any program has, but firefox is not embedded into Windows (as opposed to IE), so its danger is somewhat lesser...
It can't manipulate files, the same way that IE does... (sure you can download, but you have to start those downloaded files yourself)

Tokelil

01-16-2005, 01:51 PM

I have never understood the "it is not part of windows" argument. Its not like IE runs in ring 0 AFAIK... Something infesting Firefox can delete/create/whatever with all files anyway.

madjo

01-16-2005, 02:37 PM

not entirely true...
in order to get infested in Firefox.. you have to accept the download first, and of course, a lot of less computer savvy people will probably accept and run it, the same way that they do in IE... but unlike IE, FF will not start the transfer automatically, by just opening a page.

Another thing.. Explorer.exe is using the same engine as IExplore.exe, try entering an Internet address in the address bar you have in Explorer (not IE), and you will see the website. (so basically it is running very close to Ring 0)

In IE it is far easier to write a script that manipulates your files (or hang your computer, or installs spyware), than in FF, (not to say, that it can't be done in FF)

Roj

01-16-2005, 02:56 PM

Maxthon = a beautified IE... so the same security holes (activex anyone?) as IE...

indeed also firefox has holes in it... any program has, but firefox is not embedded into Windows (as opposed to IE), so its danger is somewhat lesser...
It can't manipulate files, the same way that IE does... (sure you can download, but you have to start those downloaded files yourself)As a security specialist, I can tell you that the hype surrounding ActiveX controls is rather overrated. For starters, if you don't like it, just turn it off. For finishers, you'd have to go to a questionable site that intentionally had malicious code embedded in it (rare) and then willingly download the ActiveX control (stupid) and not have an AV program or malware detector installed (insane) to experience any of the mess.

Also, the author of Maxthon makes it a point to fix the relevant IE holes in each release of his product.

There is also the undeniable fact that there is a LOT of ActiveX out there and it will only become more prevalent, not less.

For my money Maxthon is:

1) Faster than Firefox

2) More compatible than Firefox

3) More feature rich and configurable than Firefox

4) More integrated into the OS than Firefoix by virtue of its IE heritage (I *like* OS integration and find it one of MS' more useful concepts - one the original Netscape creators passed on when MS gave them the chance years ago)

This leaves me with no reason to use Firefox.

No "religion" or "anti-MS propaganda BS" here - just a straightforward analysis of functionality and risk.

Roj

01-16-2005, 03:04 PM

Another thing.. Explorer.exe is using the same engine as IExplore.exe, try entering an Internet address in the address bar you have in Explorer (not IE), and you will see the website. (so basically it is running very close to Ring 0)Wha??? Just because a URL gets passed to another object doesn't mean that the process is running at ring zero. Given that the kernel runs at ring zero, the OS at ring one and priveleged code at ring two with applications finally at ring three, I'd say IE ran at ring two.

In IE it is far easier to write a script that manipulates your files (or hang your computer, or installs spyware), than in FF, (not to say, that it can't be done in FF)Not quite so but not from the slant you'd suspect. FF uses Java and that language is just as full of holes as ActiveX despite the sandboxing. The difference is that no one aims their gunsights at Java because it's Sun's darling and not MS.

Young Twig

01-16-2005, 05:21 PM

www.positioniseverything.net
Look at all of IE's bugs.

Roj

01-16-2005, 05:48 PM

www.positioniseverything.net (http://www.positioniseverything.net/)
Look at all of IE's bugs.Lots of bugs. The folks at Zillaland have no fewer.

The funnuest heading there is Windows EWxplorer vs. The Standards.

IE **IS** The Standard and has been For Years. Think about it:

When over 90% of internet users are using your product, that implies they're also using your extensions. That pretty much makes you It.

I wonder how long it's going to take for the ostriches to get their heads out of the sand and recognise reality?

brian

01-16-2005, 07:16 PM

Yawn...

Sheepeh

01-16-2005, 11:44 PM

Lots of bugs. The folks at Zillaland have no fewer.

The funnuest heading there is Windows EWxplorer vs. The Standards.

IE **IS** The Standard and has been For Years. Think about it:

When over 90% of internet users are using your product, that implies they're also using your extensions. That pretty much makes you It.

I wonder how long it's going to take for the ostriches to get their heads out of the sand and recognise reality?

Over 90% of users use Winamp - does that mean Winamp is The Standard and anything that QCD can't run doesn't matter because it's not The Standard? Get your head outta your own arse and remember why The Internet was invented. Free communication needs standards, and those standards are set by someone other that Microsoft.

Use what you want, but give up the bullshit about IE being any sort of "Standard". It can't even keep a standard from one version to the next.

Heigar

01-16-2005, 11:48 PM

Yawn...
I agree......

Roj

01-17-2005, 12:07 AM

Over 90% of users use Winamp - does that mean Winamp is The Standard and anything that QCD can't run doesn't matter because it's not The Standard? Get your head outta your own arse and remember why The Internet was invented. Free communication needs standards, and those standards are set by someone other that Microsoft.

Use what you want, but give up the bullshit about IE being any sort of "Standard". It can't even keep a standard from one version to the next.Standards are set by those with clout - period. That's the way the world has, does and always will work. Don't believe me? Where is XGA now? Beta? Wonderful standards they were. Dead they are.

As to communications needing standards, someone forgot to tell the Brits that. Their telephone system is a retroactive abortion. Someone also forgot to mention that to the folks with steering wheels on the *right* side of the car.

Don't run off any high and mighty rhetoric about "standards" to me. The nice thing about so-called "standards" is that There Are So Many To Choose From.

The one with the most market share wins - that's a reality of life. So, about those rose colored glasses...

Get 'em de-tinted. :) :) :)

Edit:

Now, don't go off thinking I'm exclusively pro MS. Again as a security specialist I take issue with the fact that they never bothered to do proper bounds checking when they wrote their code. That's the root of a lot of their security issues (and also why Longhorn keeps being continually delayed - an OS re-write is a troublesome thing). Their DRM policy gives me the shudders as well. However, I'm tired of seeing pinheads pick on nonsense just because 1) it's trendy to bash Microsoft and 2) they can't MS being successful.

rorythedog

01-17-2005, 03:02 AM

Standards are set by those with clout - period. That's the way the world has, does and always will work. Don't believe me? Where is XGA now? Beta? Wonderful standards they were. Dead they are.

As to communications needing standards, someone forgot to tell the Brits that. Their telephone system is a retroactive abortion. Someone also forgot to mention that to the folks with steering wheels on the *right* side of the car.

Don't run off any high and mighty rhetoric about "standards" to me. The nice thing about so-called "standards" is that There Are So Many To Choose From.

The one with the most market share wins - that's a reality of life. So, about those rose colored glasses...

Get 'em de-tinted. :) :) :)

Edit:

Now, don't go off thinking I'm exclusively pro MS. Again as a security specialist I take issue with the fact that they never bothered to do proper bounds checking when they wrote their code. That's the root of a lot of their security issues (and also why Longhorn keeps being continually delayed - an OS re-write is a troublesome thing). Their DRM policy gives me the shudders as well. However, I'm tired of seeing pinheads pick on nonsense just because 1) it's trendy to bash Microsoft and 2) they can't MS being successful.

Being one of those numpties with a right-hand drive car, it suits me fine. Being left-handed and, having managed to drive a "stick-shift", I find it very comfortable. Also, round these parts, most people tend to drive on the left. I find it safer to follow suit. :ponder:

Sheepeh

01-17-2005, 03:15 AM

Standards are set by those with clout - period. That's the way the world has, does and always will work. Don't believe me? Where is XGA now? Beta? Wonderful standards they were. Dead they are.

As to communications needing standards, someone forgot to tell the Brits that. Their telephone system is a retroactive abortion. Someone also forgot to mention that to the folks with steering wheels on the *right* side of the car.

Don't run off any high and mighty rhetoric about "standards" to me. The nice thing about so-called "standards" is that There Are So Many To Choose From.

The one with the most market share wins - that's a reality of life. So, about those rose colored glasses...

Get 'em de-tinted. :) :) :)

Edit:

Now, don't go off thinking I'm exclusively pro MS. Again as a security specialist I take issue with the fact that they never bothered to do proper bounds checking when they wrote their code. That's the root of a lot of their security issues (and also why Longhorn keeps being continually delayed - an OS re-write is a troublesome thing). Their DRM policy gives me the shudders as well. However, I'm tired of seeing pinheads pick on nonsense just because 1) it's trendy to bash Microsoft and 2) they can't MS being successful.

Those things you qouted aren't standards. They are products. Failed ones. Remember Dreamcast? It failed for the same reason, and it wasn't a standard it was a platform. So, answer the question - would, if QCD was renedered unable to play mp3, ogg, or FLAC, you say "oh well, I'm not using the Standard Player, my bad" - and download Winamp?

If Microsoft made the standard, Microsoft will lock everyone else out. Linux will not be able to use the Internet. Consoles will no longer be able to use the Internet. Mobile phones, no longer able to use the Internet.

I'm not bashing Microsoft, I'm bashing you and your opinions - nowt trendy about that. If IE had all of Opera's features, I'd be much more likely to consider using it, but without a choice, I'd have nothing to consider. The day I'm locked in to using IE is the day I stop using the Web.

rorythedog

01-17-2005, 03:21 AM

I knew there used to be a good reason for it.

"About a quarter of the world drives on the left, and the countries that do are mostly old British colonies. This strange quirk perplexes the rest of the world; but there is a perfectly good reason.

In the past, almost everybody travelled on the left side of the road because that was the most sensible option for feudal, violent societies. Since most people are right-handed, swordsmen preferred to keep to the left in order to have their right arm nearer to an opponent and their scabbard further from him. Moreover, it reduced the chance of the scabbard (worn on the left) hitting other people.

Furthermore, a right-handed person finds it easier to mount a horse from the left side of the horse, and it would be very difficult to do otherwise if wearing a sword (which would be worn on the left). It is safer to mount and dismount towards the side of the road, rather than in the middle of traffic, so if one mounts on the left, then the horse should be ridden on the left side of the road.

In the late 1700s, however, teamsters in France and the United States began hauling farm products in big wagons pulled by several pairs of horses. These wagons had no driver's seat; instead the driver sat on the left rear horse, so he could keep his right arm free to lash the team. Since he was sitting on the left, he naturally wanted everybody to pass on the left so he could look down and make sure he kept clear of the oncoming wagon’s wheels. Therefore he kept to the right side of the road.

In addition, the French Revolution of 1789 gave a huge impetus to right-hand travel in Europe. The fact is, before the Revolution, the aristocracy travelled on the left of the road, forcing the peasantry over to the right, but after the storming of the Bastille and the subsequent events, aristocrats preferred to keep a low profile and joined the peasants on the right. An official keep-right rule was introduced in Paris in 1794, more or less parallel to Denmark, where driving on the right had been made compulsory in 1793".

It's also interesting to note how "standards" change.

Roj

01-17-2005, 04:11 AM

Being one of those numpties with a right-hand drive car, it suits me fine. Being left-handed and, having managed to drive a "stick-shift", I find it very comfortable. Also, round these parts, most people tend to drive on the left. I find it safer to follow suit. :ponder:I started that way. you have no idea how unsettling it was to me to come to North America and find them on the other side of the street, so to speak. My aunt scared the living hell out of me when we first got here by driving (quite unintentionally) on what for her was the "normal" side of the highway directly into uncoming traffic. It was a VERY intense two minutes until we switched sides.

Inthewoods

01-17-2005, 04:21 AM

As a security specialist, I can tell you that the hype surrounding ActiveX controls is rather overrated. For starters, if you don't like it, just turn it off. For finishers, you'd have to go to a questionable site that intentionally had malicious code embedded in it (rare) and then willingly download the ActiveX control (stupid) and not have an AV program or malware detector installed (insane) to experience any of the mess.

Also, the author of Maxthon makes it a point to fix the relevant IE holes in each release of his product.

There is also the undeniable fact that there is a LOT of ActiveX out there and it will only become more prevalent, not less.

For my money Maxthon is:

1) Faster than Firefox

2) More compatible than Firefox

3) More feature rich and configurable than Firefox

4) More integrated into the OS than Firefoix by virtue of its IE heritage (I *like* OS integration and find it one of MS' more useful concepts - one the original Netscape creators passed on when MS gave them the chance years ago)

This leaves me with no reason to use Firefox.

No "religion" or "anti-MS propaganda BS" here - just a straightforward analysis of functionality and risk.

What Roj said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:foureyes:

Roj

01-17-2005, 04:30 AM

Those things you qouted aren't standards. They are products. Failed ones.
Beta is still used extensively in the entertaiment industry, specifically broadcasting. It's a standard there. It died everywhere else.

If Microsoft made the standard, Microsoft will lock everyone else out.
That's called business. Deal with it. it's been going on for several hundred years now.

Linux will not be able to use the Internet. Consoles will no longer be able to use the Internet. Mobile phones, no longer able to use the Internet.
Rubbish. The infrastructure for the internet was laid long before MS got here and will still be here a long time after MS is gone. Read your net history and learn why. There's such a thing as inertia and even MS can't control that.

I'm not bashing Microsoft, I'm bashing you and your opinions - nowt trendy about that. If IE had all of Opera's features, I'd be much more likely to consider using it, but without a choice, I'd have nothing to consider. The day I'm locked in to using IE is the day I stop using the Web.
Nobody's locking you out of using anything and as to bashing my opinions,feel free if that floats your boat.

Just don't expect it to change reality one iota.

I'm all for products other than MS' especially when they bring more to the table and will praise them if it's deserved. When they don't, or when religion or FUD get used as a rationale for them, I'll pan them or if not the product (because it doesn't deserve to be panned) then the religion or FUD being used to justify them.

Pretty straightforward, really.

FireFox is a decent effort. It's just not the Second Coming or the Panacea For The Web Standards Evangelists or any of that rot. It doesn't match up to Opera or Maxthon IMNSHO and it won't until the builders get their heads out of *their* arses and realize that they're living in the real world and have to support the standards prevalent in that world.

Not a difficult concept to grasp, unless you're blinded by religion or FUD.

Sheepeh

01-17-2005, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by Roj
Standards are set by those with clout - period. That's the way the world has, does and always will work. Don't believe me? Where is XGA now? Beta? Wonderful standards they were. Dead they are.

Note how the Roj in his natural habitat is valiently fighting his side against the evil open standards of doom, coming up with great examples of failed "standards"...oh wait what's this...?

Beta is still used extensively in the entertaiment industry, specifically broadcasting. It's a standard there. It died everywhere else.

Here we see the Roj using one of many contradictions. Standards such as beta are dead, they are. Oh except for still being used extensively in the entertainment industry, where it's a standard. Riiiight.

That's called business. Deal with it. it's been going on for several hundred years now.

It's called a monopoly. Deal with it. It's been being fought against by every democratic and right-minded governement for several hundred years now.

Rubbish. The infrastructure for the internet was laid long before MS got here and will still be here a long time after MS is gone. Read your net history and learn why. There's such a thing as inertia and even MS can't control that.

Explain then, how Linux is going to be able to emulate the undocumented, big-ridden mess that are your Holy MS Standards. Sure, Linux can use the internet, as long as you don't want to use any web-pages (all in MS Standard, of course). But of course Microsoft wouldn't do that to lock out Linux and keep people on Windows. Ooooh no. They'd never play dirty like that.

Just don't expect it to change reality one iota.

Bashing your opinions won't, no. Helping a global cause to keep the internet free will keep it from falling in to your distorted view of "reality".

I'm all for products other than MS' especially when they bring more to the table and will praise them if it's deserved. When they don't, or when religion or FUD get used as a rationale for them, I'll pan them or if not the product (because it doesn't deserve to be panned) then the religion or FUD being used to justify them.

Firefox brings more security, no matter which way you swing it. Even if the only reason was sane default options. Joe Average doesn't even know what ActiveX is, let alone how to turn it off. Having the option there doesn't mean it's useful. How do you explain the current rash of spyware slowing down newbs computers, that magically subsides when using Firefox? (I use Opera by the way, but if you're going to compare Firefox to Opera, you're comparing apples to oranges)

/QUOTE]

Oh, and for the 2nd post running you failed to answer the question posed about QCD and Winamp. Is there a reason for that by any chance?

Aaron

01-17-2005, 07:11 AM

I love the smell of flamewar in the morning :bandit:

Lots of bugs. The folks at Zillaland have no fewer.
The funnuest heading there is Windows EWxplorer vs. The Standards.
IE **IS** The Standard and has been For Years.

I noticed with interest that Microsoft is a member itself of the World Wide Web Consortium. Take a look http://www.w3c.org/Consortium/Member/List

Presumably they had some input into the specs "The Standards" proposed by the W3C? Just curious here about the history.

Anyway I'll let you boys get back to 'handbags at 10 o'clock'. :shocked:

madjo

01-17-2005, 12:06 PM

Apologies right up front for the Usenet quoting style - I'm a lazy typist / mouser.

>>Yes, indeed you can turn it off, but how many newbies know this feature?

How many newbies know about FF?

>>You just have to get 1 email with a link to such a page, and some people
>>will click on it... and get infested, then we, the 'computer-nerds', get to fix
>>it again for those less-savvy people...

I charge for that. :)

If you're stupid enough to click on a link from an unknown person ("if you're stupid enough to have unprotected sex")...

>>Remember, everyone uses a computer these days... apparently, you can't
>>expect them to have a computer-licence (although I'd welcome it!)

Then people had best become educated and take some responsibility. Get AV software at a bare minimum. Your car analogy is closer to reality than you might expect. I wonder how far I'd get if I said the following:

"But officer, I didnt know I had to pay attention to the red lights and stop signs."

Usage of ANYTHING carries responsibility. Unfortunatley the crybabies of society in general seem to feel that the world owes them a lot of handholding. It doesn't.

Were you biorn with innate computer knowledge? Was I? Thought not. What we did others can do.

>>how much faster does a browser need to be.. or did you mean startup
>>time? Indeed, firefox is a slow starter... but a fast runner.

I like snappy startup and snappy display.

>>compatible with what?

Prevalent web standards. There is no requirement for a chintzy button that in effect says "I can't display the multitude of sites coded for IE so I'm going to dump you over to the competition that I'll bad mouth on every possible occasion (even though it just happens to be the market leader)"

>>extensions! How much features do you need? and how much configuration
>>do you need?

As much as possible - it's always nice to have Built In.

Firefox has cross-platform covered... which IMHO far better... People using a mac, see the same thing as people using Linux or Windows... larger market = larger userbase

I've got news for you - the vast majority of people out there run Windows. If you're on a niche platform, you're on your own. That's life. The same thing happens with hardware and no amount of whining is going to change that any time soon either.

>>but if you are happy with IE/Maxthon, then by all means use it..

I view FF in the same light. :)

What I take exception to is the pinhead nitpicking, the Perpetual Gate Penis Envy and the unreasonable praise for a product that isn't even innovative but gets praised as if it's the best thing since sliced bread.

It Gets Tiresome.

Inthewoods

01-17-2005, 12:41 PM

compatible with what? Compatible with the overwhelming majority of web pages designed with MS's so-called "non-standard" features

extensions! Extensions! extensions! How much features do you need? and how much configuration do you need? (about:config, for starters... then all those extensions for "more options"...
I never realized that being configurable and having a lot of features was a negative thing. Given your statement, I'm surprised you are using QCD and not Coolplayer:biggrin:

firefox has cross-platform covered... which IMHO far better... People using a mac, see the same thing as people using Linux or Windows... larger market = larger userbase
Nope!!! larger market = larger POTENTIAL userbase, you still have to deal with market demand and product desirability

but if you are happy with IE, then by all means use it.. but don't you come crying to me, if you get hit by spyware, or browser hijacks, because those two are gonna become more prevalent in the future, not less!
The idea that Firefox is somehow "safer" than IE, is simply not true. This illusion is due EXACTLY to the larger user base, resulting in a larger, more desirable target for hackers. This is the same as the old security arguments perpetuated by the Mac crowd against Windows.

Qaz

01-17-2005, 01:38 PM

It doesn't match up to Opera or Maxthon IMNSHO
Just curious, what makes you choose Maxthon over Opera?

madjo

01-17-2005, 02:49 PM

I never realized that being configurable and having a lot of features was a negative thing. Given your statement, I'm surprised you are using QCD and not Coolplayer:biggrin:
I didn't say that it was a bad thing... it was merely to prove a point that Firefox too has many configurable options, and many extendable features through extensions...

Roj

01-17-2005, 02:57 PM

Note how the Roj in his natural habitat is valiently fighting his side against the evil open standardsMuch snippage - didn't read the rest.

I'm not against open standards. I'm against *meaningless* standards in the face of *prevalent* standards, be they de facto or "officially blessed by the disembodied voice from on high".

Reality bites - market share rules. He who has the market share makes the rules.

Deal with it.

madjo

01-17-2005, 02:59 PM

Fact: IE does not adhere to standards MS helped create, by being member of the W3C.. now why is that?

Fact: Currently more leaks are being discovered for IE then for FF, perhaps just a matter of time, but the developerbase of FF are more eager to fix those bugs, than MS has ever been. (fixing leaks months after their discovery, leaving millions of people unsecured for months!)

Fact: MS has proven to be a true monopolist, and always tries to lock their customers in... (MS Office anybody?) I see the same with these "standards" that IE keeps, and Frontpage uses.. lock your users in, so that other companies can't get a foot in the market.

Roj

01-17-2005, 02:59 PM

Just curious, what makes you choose Maxthon over Opera?
It's free and not adware. :)

Roj

01-17-2005, 03:19 PM

Fact: IE does not adhere to standards MS helped create, by being member of the W3C.. now why is that?They found a better way? just guessing based on past MS history...

Fact: Currently more leaks are being discovered for IE then for FF, perhaps just a matter of time, but the developerbase of FF are more eager to fix those bugs, than MS has ever been. (fixing leaks months after their discovery, leaving millions of people unsecured for months!)Take a look at the Zilla bugs spotted in the last week *along with* the IE bugs? This fact doesn't hold water. Also, patches for IE and other security holes come on on Patch Tuesday every month. The security holes are best described as mitigated risks - something that affects an ant underground during the fifth phase on the moon on Aldebaran if the the user intentionally downloaded a chunk of code with no protection is not a serious issue.

The organization I work for has 10K users. We use IE. Every user has Internet access. If there were massive encroachments into our security or infestations of malware from sites, I'd hear about it rather quickly. It's been pretty quiet over the last year or so (tongue squarely in cheek).

Fact: MS has proven to be a true monopolist, and always tries to lock their customers in... (MS Office anybody?) I see the same with these "standards" that IE keeps, and Frontpage uses.. lock your users in, so that other companies can't get a foot in the market.So it's a monopoly. So are many other businesses out there - the recording industry and motion picture industry come immediately to mind. We live with them daily. The nature of big business IS to lock customers in and destroy the competition. You want a nice "everyone gets along" business world? Then move off this planet - it hasn't been that way for several thousand years (see the Phoenicians and how they jealously protected their trade routes - with death).

Please, no Pollyanna attitudes - this is the real world. MS arguably has issues but they're not the anti-Christ. They *are* successfuly they way other companies doing the same thing are successful. That's life in the big city.

Roj

01-17-2005, 03:39 PM

DAMMIT! I did it again!

My apologies to Madjo - I accidentally hhit Edit instead of Reply to your post with the net result that I butchered the original. This is what happens when you answer things in a hurry...

Here is what resulted:

Apologies right up front for the Usenet quoting style - I'm a lazy typist / mouser.

>>Yes, indeed you can turn it off, but how many newbies know this feature?

How many newbies know about FF?

>>You just have to get 1 email with a link to such a page, and some people
>>will click on it... and get infested, then we, the 'computer-nerds', get to fix
>>it again for those less-savvy people...

I charge for that. :)

If you're stupid enough to click on a link from an unknown person ("if you're stupid enough to have unprotected sex")...

>>Remember, everyone uses a computer these days... apparently, you can't
>>expect them to have a computer-licence (although I'd welcome it!)

Then people had best become educated and take some responsibility. Get AV software at a bare minimum. Your car analogy is closer to reality than you might expect. I wonder how far I'd get if I said the following:

"But officer, I didnt know I had to pay attention to the red lights and stop signs."

Usage of ANYTHING carries responsibility. Unfortunatley the crybabies of society in general seem to feel that the world owes them a lot of handholding. It doesn't.

Were you biorn with innate computer knowledge? Was I? Thought not. What we did others can do.

>>how much faster does a browser need to be.. or did you mean startup
>>time? Indeed, firefox is a slow starter... but a fast runner.

I like snappy startup and snappy display.

>>compatible with what?

Prevalent web standards. There is no requirement for a chintzy button that in effect says "I can't display the multitude of sites coded for IE so I'm going to dump you over to the competition that I'll bad mouth on every possible occasion (even though it just happens to be the market leader)"

>>extensions! How much features do you need? and how much configuration
>>do you need?

As much as possible - it's always nice to have Built In.

Firefox has cross-platform covered... which IMHO far better... People using a mac, see the same thing as people using Linux or Windows... larger market = larger userbase

I've got news for you - the vast majority of people out there run Windows. If you're on a niche platform, you're on your own. That's life. The same thing happens with hardware and no amount of whining is going to change that any time soon either.

>>but if you are happy with IE/Maxthon, then by all means use it..

I view FF in the same light. :)

What I take exception to is the pinhead nitpicking, the Perpetual Gate Penis Envy and the unreasonable praise for a product that isn't even innovative but gets praised as if it's the best thing since sliced bread.

It Gets Tiresome.

madjo

01-17-2005, 03:57 PM

hehe, it can happen Roj, ;)

it is great to argue here.. but you have your points of view, and I have mine...
I think it is safe to say, that we can agree on disagreeing :)

I have had too many complaints about defaced IE installations, more than I would love to remember... and I too ask money for repairing their computers, but repairing those systems too gets tiresome. And somehow they still mess things up... even though I have written down how to work with their systems...
I would really love it, if people were forced to follow a computercourse, when buying a computer, because then you get better understanding of the machine.

Indeed Firefox isn't the new messiah, but it is a breath of fresh air...
And yes, I don't like the music industry as it is now.. same with the movie industry... And I try not to support them, by not buying certain albums, and certain movies.

Firefox in my eyes, has the potential to break the monopoly of Microsoft... at least in the field of browsing.

Roj

01-17-2005, 03:59 PM

Now we'll come back to this ersatz:

>>Here we see the Roj using one of many contradictions. Standards such as
>>beta are dead, they are. Oh except for still being used extensively in the
>>entertainment industry, where it's a standard. Riiiight.

No contradiction - just fact. Beta died as a standard in the commercial user world. It survives in the niche entertainment world. OS/2 did the same thing for years.

>>It's called a monopoly. Deal with it. It's been being fought against by every
>>democratic and right-minded governement for several hundred years now.

Go home polyanna - the world doesn't work that way. The very fact that you can buy a computer, a car, a refrigerator, a TV means that bis business and monop[olies are alive and well.

Legislation can pay lip service to curbing it but curb it in actuality it can't.

Oh, and democracy is a myth. have a look at how elections happen today and the true ideals of democracy - you'll find little similarity.

>>Explain then, how Linux is going to be able to emulate the undocumented,
>>big-ridden mess that are your Holy MS Standards. Sure, Linux can use the
>>internet, as long as you don't want to use any web-pages (all in MS
>>Standard, of course). But of course Microsoft wouldn't do that to lock out
>>Linux and keep people on Windows. Ooooh no. They'd never play dirty like
>>that.

Who said it's dirty? It's reality and competition. Quit whining. I'll bet you're the same one who'll whine that your new hardware isn't supported for a niche OS by the big bad hardware vendors (or maybe that's somehow MS' fault too) without stopping to think that the reason they don't is beacuse they won't make any money doing it.

"But That's Unfair."

No - that's business.

>>Helping a global cause to keep the internet free will keep it from falling in to
>>your distorted view of "reality".

Feel free to charge Hell with your bucket of water. Money and business rule this planet and have for some time. Again, they guarantee that you can buy a car, a TV, a computer...

>>Firefox brings more security, no matter which way you swing it. Even if the
>>only reason was sane default options. Joe Average doesn't even know
>>what ActiveX is, let alone how to turn it off. Having the option there
>>doesn't mean it's useful. How do you explain the current rash of spyware
>>slowing down newbs computers, that magically subsides when using
>>Firefox? (I use Opera by the way, but if you're going to compare Firefox to
>>Opera, you're comparing apples to oranges)

Take responsibility for your actions. Use AV. Use a spyware blocker. Don't have unprotected sex. Don't drink and drive. Don't smoke, you'll get cancer.

When you're number one, people target you. When you're lil Abner, people don't care - you're not even on the radar. FF is lil' Abner so fewer exploits are developed for it.

>>Oh, and for the 2nd post running you failed to answer the question posed
>>about QCD and Winamp. Is there a reason for that by any chance?

QCD is analagous to FF. It's niche. It may achieve mass market share but I seriously doubt it. It's up against AOL and all the money and hype that company has as its disposal. It's up against the Product That Got There First. It might as well be up against Media Player or Real Player or Quicktime.

Actually, that brings up another interesting point. IE dethroned the product that got there before it (Netscape) much as Netscape did previously (Mosaic). Could FF do this? Not unless their get their heads out of the sand and beat the competion at its own game - that's the only way anyone ever wins.

madjo

01-17-2005, 04:16 PM

>> Fact: IE does not adhere to standards MS helped create, by being member of the W3C.. now why is that?
They found a better way? just guessing based on past MS history...
Why not argue that with the W3C to get it added to the standard?
They are member of it, so why not make that move? It is an easy step for them...

Then we would not have this "w3c-standard vs ie-standard" discussion.

Roj

01-17-2005, 04:18 PM

>>hehe, it can happen Roj, ;)

I feel SOOOOOOOOOOOO dumb for that and I can't apologies enough.

>>it is great to argue here.. but you have your points of view, and I have
>>mine...
>>I think it is safe to say, that we can agree on disagreeing :)

I do that on occasion. :)

BTW, nothing personal. I play hard as do you. :)

>>I have had too many complaints about defaced IE installations, more than I
>>would love to remember... and I too ask money for repairing their
>>computers, but repairing those systems too gets tiresome. And somehow
>>they still mess things up... even though I have written down how to work
>>with their systems...

I've written procedure, I've cajoled, I've threatened grievous bodily harm, I've promised to cast souls into Hell, all to no avail.

Users are cattle - at least for this generation.

The next generation will be different - they won't have a choice.

>>I would really love it, if people were forced to follow a computercourse,
>>when buying a computer, because then you get better understanding of
>>the machine.

No argument from me.

>>Indeed Firefox isn't the new messiah, but it is a breath of fresh air...

Yes.

>>And yes, I don't like the music industry as it is now.. same with the movie
>>industry...

I loathe abhor and despise them both. That's being polite.

>>And I try not to support them, by not buying certain albums, and certain
>>movies.

I've said on numerous occasions that given their gouging price structure which caused 12" vinyl product to rise from $3.99 to $25.00 in less than three years when I was a DJ, I'm entitled to rip them off *mercilessly* for the rest of my natural life and I *still* won't break even.

>>Firefox in my eyes, has the potential to break the monopoly of Microsoft...
>>at least in the field of browsing.

It *could* - but they'll have to get off their high horse and play by the rules of the existing game. They're in no way, shape or form in a position to make their own rules at this point.

Roj

01-17-2005, 04:21 PM

Why not argue that with the W3C to get it added to the standard?
They are member of it, so why not make that move? It is an easy step for them...

Then we would not have this "w3c-standard vs ie-standard" discussion.
Given anti-MS sentiment out there (not the least of which is on the part of the other members of that body), what do you think the chances of being successful at that would be?

Slim and forget it and Slim has already left town. :)

Unfortunately they';re taking the approach of one of their own adversaies - IBM.

"We're IBM and we'll do what we want - after all, we're IBM".

Young Twig

01-17-2005, 04:24 PM

Lots of bugs. The folks at Zillaland have no fewer.

Come on, Roj. Have you ever tried to design a site with CSS? I've run into tons of IE bugs. Never ran into a Gecko bug (that I can remember).

The funnuest heading there is Windows EWxplorer vs. The Standards.

IE **IS** The Standard and has been For Years.
The standard is to have magically disappearing content, magically doubled margins, etc.? I think MS will even tell you, those are bugs.

When over 90% of internet users are using your product, that implies they're also using your extensions. That pretty much makes you It.
90%? Where are you pulling that from? I'm seeing about 70-75% everywhere I go. It's still a high number, but that doesn't make it a standard. Speed limits are a standard. Everybody drives over the speed limit. It's still illegal to go over the speed limit. No, they won't pull you over for a few miles over, but you can't just go around driving 100mph everywhere. The standard still stands.

I wonder how long it's going to take for the ostriches to get their heads out of the sand and recognise reality?
When I design, I make sure my site looks fine in IE. It's a pain in the ass, but I do it because, yeah, most people use IE. (Actually, most people that visit my site are Firefox users, but there's a significant number of IE users, too.) I like Firefox because, when I design to w3 standards, 99% of the time, it works fine. IE works fine about 70% of the time.

BTW, I like Microsoft, I just think IE is a piece of trash.

Roj

01-17-2005, 04:53 PM

>>Come on, Roj. Have you ever tried to design a site with CSS? I've run into
>>tons of IE bugs. Never ran into a Gecko bug (that I can remember).

I can't comment on web design bugs - I'm not a web designer. I *can* comment onsecurity bugs - and those were what I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion.

>>The standard is to have magically disappearing content, magically doubled
>>margins, etc.? I think MS will even tell you, those are bugs.

Quite likely - I don't know.

>>90%? Where are you pulling that from? I'm seeing about 70-75%
>>everywhere I go.

Look on ZDNet and Cnet and the rest of the popular press. They seem to think it's a lot higher than that.

>>It's still a high number, but that doesn't make it a standard.

It the vast majority - that makes it a de facto standard.

>>Speed limits are a standard. Everybody drives over the speed limit. It's still >>illegal to go over the speed limit. No, they won't pull you over for a few >>miles over, but you can't just go around driving 100mph everywhere. The >>standard still stands.

Except in Canada where it's 60Mph. Or somewhere else where it's differnet like the AutoBahn in Germany.

Wonderful things, standards - so many to choose from. :)

>>When I design, I make sure my site looks fine in IE. It's a pain in the ass,
>>but I do it because, yeah, most people use IE.

I rest my case.

>>(Actually, most people that visit my site are Firefox users, but there's a
>>significant number of IE users, too.) I like Firefox because, when I design
>>to w3 standards, 99% of the time, it works fine. IE works fine about 70%
>>of the time.

So convert - they're the majority. There's "easy to develope" and then there's "reality". I feel your pain from that perspective but that doesn't change the reality. With all due respect, developer viewpoints don't matter - their clients' viewpoints do however and in this case, the cleint is the person accessing your site - usually with IE to judge by the statistics.

>>BTW, I like Microsoft, I just think IE is a piece of trash.

Hey, I use Maxthon because I don't like the IE interface. However, I do like my pages to display properly, bugs or no bugs, so an IE compatible browser it will be for me. I think you'll find the vast majority of net users will subscribe to the same viewpoint. Why? Because they use IE, warts, farts and all.

The FF devs need to learn that oh-so-simple fact.

If and when they gain ascendancy (and given their current attitude, I'd say the chances were pretty slim), THEN they can change the rules because THEY will be in the driver's seat.

But right now, they're not.

Aaron

01-17-2005, 07:07 PM

Come on, Roj. Have you ever tried to design a site with CSS? I've run into tons of IE bugs. Never ran into a Gecko bug (that I can remember).
The standard is to have magically disappearing content, magically doubled margins, etc.? I think MS will even tell you, those are bugs.

I agree with these comments as a part time web designer getting IE to do what you want with CSS is indeed a pain in the arse.

Aaron

Roj

01-17-2005, 07:15 PM

I agree with these comments as a part time web designer getting IE to do what you want with CSS is indeed a pain in the arse.
Yeah but you do it anyway. Why? Because your *clients* require it.

madjo

01-17-2005, 08:52 PM

Given anti-MS sentiment out there (not the least of which is on the part of the other members of that body), what do you think the chances of being successful at that would be?

Slim and forget it and Slim has already left town. :)
Come on, They are not small children... otherwise MS wouldn't even be in that group.

madjo

01-17-2005, 09:01 PM

Yeah but you do it anyway. Why? Because your *clients* require it.
not by choice... it is needed for now, but it would very much be prefered if IE were to hold themselves to standards that can be met by all parties, such as they were developed by the w3c!

Roj also said this:
>> I can't comment on web design bugs - I'm not a web designer. I *can*
>> comment onsecurity bugs - and those were what I was referring to. Sorry
>> for the confusion.

what standards do you think we were talking about?
you kept saying that the standards IE keep are the defacto standards.. Sorry but most webdevelopers tend to disagree with you there!
they have to include numerous hacks just to get it right in all browsers...
for firefox and opera most things just works (about 99% of it, perhaps opera supports 95%), they mostely listen to the standards set by w3c, same goes for konqueror... but it is just IE that those hacks are needed...
Do you get the point now?

It is also the viewpoint of the developers that counts! We are not nothing!

Roj

01-17-2005, 09:26 PM

not by choice... it is needed for now, but it would very much be prefered if IE were to hold themselves to standards that can be met by all parties, such as they were developed by the w3c!

Roj also said this:
>> I can't comment on web design bugs - I'm not a web designer. I *can*
>> comment onsecurity bugs - and those were what I was referring to. Sorry
>> for the confusion.

what standards do you think we were talking about?
you kept saying that the standards IE keep are the defacto standards.. Sorry but most webdevelopers tend to disagree with you there!
they have to include numerous hacks just to get it right in all browsers...
for firefox and opera most things just works (about 99% of it, perhaps opera supports 95%), they mostely listen to the standards set by w3c, same goes for konqueror... but it is just IE that those hacks are needed...
Do you get the point now?

It is also the viewpoint of the developers that counts! We are not nothing!
To my way of thinking, there's a difference between a bug in an implementation of an existing standard and a different method of obtaining the same display result - in other words, an alternate standard.

I know IE has quirks - however you can't change those quirks so the quirks, like it or not, become the standard. An alternate example is the Windows API itself which is chock full of stuff like that.

Regarding developers and with all due respect:

Yes you are nothing without clients. They justify your entire reason for being. I know. I work in a client oriented environment in security and have spent a LOT of my career dealing with them. It ain't easy. In short, they pay my salary. Yours too. Too many developers forget that. They think that THEIR way is the best way of doing things. They forget about things like usability and interface. The Gimp is the classic example: a program designed by geeks. The client doesn't care about the dev's way. He or she only wants to click on a button or so something with software as easily as possible. That is what I'm referring to.

Roj

01-17-2005, 09:28 PM

Come on, They are not small children... otherwise MS wouldn't even be in that group.A lot of so-called heavy hitters who are on many a standards committee fit that bill. Sun and Oracle come immediately to mind. So do the folks from Zillaland. one has only to read their thetoric.

This is not to say that MS doesn't behave the same way - Bill's temper tantrums are legendary in the biz.

madjo

01-17-2005, 10:01 PM

To my way of thinking, there's a difference between a bug in an implementation of an existing standard and a different method of obtaining the same display result - in other words, an alternate standard.

I know IE has quirks - however you can't change those quirks so the quirks, like it or not, become the standard. An alternate example is the Windows API itself which is chock full of stuff like that.

Regarding developers and with all due respect:

Yes you are nothing without clients. They justify your entire reason for being. I know. I work in a client oriented environment in security and have spent a LOT of my career dealing with them. It ain't easy. In short, they pay my salary. Yours too. Too many developers forget that. They think that THEIR way is the best way of doing things. They forget about things like usability and interface. The Gimp is the classic example: a program designed by geeks. The client doesn't care about the dev's way. He or she only wants to click on a button or so something with software as easily as possible. That is what I'm referring to.
You forget one thing.. most open-source programs are built because of an itch some developer has... so he created a program to scratch that itch.
Indeed, they wouldn't be important without users, but without those developers the users would have nothing!

From the developers point of view, the users indeed hold importancy, but it is more of a symbiosis...

The gimp indeed has a horrible layout, but it works, and it uses that layout because it uses small programs in the background.

But you have to get used to any program, when you first work with it!

Roj

01-18-2005, 03:36 AM

o2xygen

01-18-2005, 12:25 PM

According to cnet Rating:
Maxthon:4/5
Firefox:5/5

According to cnet's User Reviews
Maxthon:81% http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/cn/ttu.gif with 21 votes
Firefox:95% http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/cn/ttu.gif with 3381 votes

Cnet's Total Downloads
Maxthon:3,665,612
Firefox: 1,757,120

Downloads Last Week
Maxthon: 16,649
Firefox:72,191

As we can see, Firefox has clearly better reviews, Cnet gives its vote as well, and has 500% more downloads than Maxthon every week...

http://www.download.com/Maxthon-formerly-MyIE2-/3000-2356-10136776.html?part=dl-mysoft&subj=dl_maxthon&tag=button
http://www.download.com/Mozilla-Firefox/3000-2356_4-10335582.html?tag=lst-3-1

Roj

01-18-2005, 12:36 PM

According to cnet Rating:
Have you ever bothered to read the rabble who post on CNet and ZDNet? My toenail clippings have more intelligence. :) Try it some time for laugh factor.

Sheepeh

01-18-2005, 04:12 PM

Look on ZDNet and Cnet and the rest of the popular press. They seem to think it's a lot higher than that.

According to cnet Rating:
Maxthon:4/5
Firefox:5/5

According to cnet's User Reviews
Maxthon:81% with 21 votes
Firefox:95% with 3381 votes

Cnet's Total Downloads
Maxthon:3,665,612
Firefox: 1,757,120

Downloads Last Week
Maxthon: 16,649
Firefox:72,191

As we can see, Firefox has clearly better reviews, Cnet gives its vote as well, and has 500% more downloads than Maxthon every week...

Have you ever bothered to read the rabble who post on CNet and ZDNet? My toenail clippings have more intelligence. Try it some time for laugh factor.

Roj, don't claim a source, and then slag it when proved wrong. It doensn't help your argument.

BALTY

01-18-2005, 04:28 PM

madjo

01-18-2005, 04:37 PM

>>From the developers point of view, the users indeed hold importancy, but it is
>>more of a symbiosis...

I read the first two lines of your post *before* reading hte above and you know what word popped into my mind?

Symbiosis. :)

Then I read the above line.

>>The gimp indeed has a horrible layout, but it works, and it uses that layout
>>because it uses small programs in the background.

That doesn't excuse extremely poor layout and interface design. They should have found a way to cloak that. Paint Shop pro and Photoshop are hardly monolithic pieces of code - they do the same thing. BUT they had the user in mind when the interface was designed.

>>But you have to get used to any program, when you first work with it!

To a point, yes. however when the layout is so atrocious that the learning curve is disproportionately high...
You do realise that a lot of people work with it, and believe some of the graphics of a major blockbuster was made in Gimp... (If I'm not mistaken that blockbuster was Titanic, granted what was used was a modified version of Gimp (http://www.fxguide.com/article112-print.html), but Gimp none-theless)...
So a lot of people have taken that disproportionately steep learning curve, and actually use the program to their satisfaction.

I for one can't work with Photoshop (too much bells and whistles on the screen), but I know how to work with The Gimp, though with both programs I couldn't do what I wanted it to do, but that was me asking too much of either programs.

You just bash The Gimp because it uses middleware like GTK...

If the Gimp were commercial, it wouldn't sell - it's just as well that it's given away.
Perhaps, but it isn't commercial (though there are some companies which sell special compilations of the Gimp for Windows)

and to get back on track...
Firefox is easy to use, sleak (especially out of the box), easily extendable. More safe than IE (for now). And cross-platform.

Besides that the Internet is open, so it needs open standards, and not one set by just one large company.

rorythedog

01-18-2005, 05:00 PM

Can someone tell me, if I were to change to, let's say "Firefox", what would be the ramifications when using some other programs that automatically open a browser window as to view something? Would it open firefox, or try to open EI? How do you set the default browser? I'm thinking of changing browsers but concerned of creating problems. Thanks in advance~ :confused:

Links will open in whatever you have set as you're default browser. Only a few don't, usually Microsoft sites. Still, no loss there. There is an extension available for Firefox called "IEView". This adds the option of viewing any page in IE by right-clicking.

Go on, take the plunge. You won't regret it.

Roj

01-18-2005, 05:09 PM

Roj, don't claim a source, and then slag it when proved wrong. It doensn't help your argument.I nitted the subscribers who post there as I have often nitted their "technical expertise", particularly in audio. A fine point which may have escaped you. Read more carefully.

Roj

01-18-2005, 05:17 PM

>>You do realise that a lot of people work with it, and believe some of the
>>graphics of a major blockbuster was made in Gimp... (If I'm not mistaken
>>that blockbuster was Titanic, granted what was used was a modified (http://www.fxguide.com/article112-print.html)
>>version of Gimp, but Gimp none-theless)...

I'm not disparaging the power - only the POS interface. Big difference.

>>So a lot of people have taken that disproportionately steep learning curve,
>>and actually use the program to their satisfaction.

Most users don't have the time or inclination. if you've ever worked front line support (and I know you have by your comments) then you already know this.

>>I for one can't work with Photoshop (too much bells and whistles on the
>>screen)

I hate Photoshop for the same reason. Adobe have an unerring tendency to make life FAR more complicated than it needs to be. :)

>>but I know how to work with The Gimp, though with both programs I
>>couldn't do what I wanted it to do, but that was me asking too much of
>>either programs.

I like Paint Shop Pro. Simple and powerful. Now that Corel has bought them however, I do believe the Golden Age is at an end and the long slide into mediocrity and bugginess is about to begin.

>>You just bash The Gimp because it uses middleware like GTK...

Nah. That's ANOTHER reason to dislike it but my main beef is that POS interface.

>>Perhaps, but it isn't commercial (though there are some companies which
>>sell special compilations of the Gimp for Windows)

Did they at least revise the interface?

>>Firefox is easy to use

Yup.

>>sleak (especially out of the box)

Yup.

>>easily extendable

Yup.

>>More safe than IE (for now).

Debatable.

>>And cross-platform.

Nice to have but not essential.

>>Besides that the Internet is open, so it needs open standards

When they mean something, yes.

>>and not one set by just one large company.

You wouldn't have a computer to connect ot the internet if that hadn't happened.

Roj

01-18-2005, 05:19 PM

There is an extension available for Firefox called "IEView". This adds the option of viewing any page in IE by right-clicking.
There's the KLUDGE and the ultimate irony of that browser. Can you say "wannabe"? Yes boys and girls, I knew you could.

Aaron

01-18-2005, 05:55 PM

>>And cross-platform.

Nice to have but not essential.

See how you long you keep that opinion given how much I suspect you like DRM .

Aaron

madjo

01-18-2005, 06:30 PM

There's the KLUDGE and the ultimate irony of that browser. Can you say "wannabe"? Yes boys and girls, I knew you could.
*deep sigh*... it merely opens the IE browser, and is useful if you encounter a website that does not adhere to the open standards, and only looks good in that craptacular browser that is called Internet Explorer.. (which is the only browser in which that particular site looks good)

or for those sites, which block other browsers than IE... Those are still around...

matty28carter

01-18-2005, 07:16 PM

and only looks good in that craptacular browser that is called Internet Explorer

"Craptacular" LMAO. :knocked-o what a fantastic word!

I've used FireFox since it was called Firebird, not very long granted (about a year and a half) and I must say I hated it at first. It took ages to load up and for some reason simple things like clearing the cache took ages. Since then, after a format of my PC I decided to give it another go and I've stuck with it. I'd say that out of every 10 websites I visit only 1 will not work properly and I'll have to load up IE. It only throws a tantrum with certain em-bedded windows media streams, but I can live with that. I'm not one of these "I Love Firefox, You should too" people either. If someone asks for an alternative to IE, or if they're having problems with IE I'll *suggest* Firefox. I like the whole tabbed browsing idea etc. I've tried Maxthon, but I don't like the way it handles pop-ups.
I don't have any problems with MS either. They make some brilliant stuff. Windows (XP that is, we won't mention ME) is great, MS Hardware is also excellent in my experience. Their new AntiSpyware programe is shaping up to be pritty good too. Lets hope that it stays free :paranoid:. If MS does something radical with IE and I decide I like it, I'll use it. I *don't* use FF just because its adheres to standards and all that tosh, that just helps webmasters (I agree though there should be a standard for the web, but I don't believe MS should be able to dictate it).

jkrzok

01-19-2005, 03:48 AM

Can someone tell me, if I were to change to, let's say "Firefox", what would be the ramifications when using some other programs that automatically open a browser window as to view something? Would it open firefox, or try to open EI? How do you set the default browser? I'm thinking of changing browsers but concerned of creating problems. Thanks in advance~ :confused:

If you install a new browser it should ask you if you want to set it as the default browser sometime during its install process, most often when it first starts.

If Frefox doesn't, just go to Tools>>Options>>General. There's a check box there to have FF ask you if you'd like it to check to see if its the default browser upon startup. Check it and choose 'yes' the next time FF asks.

It works just fine with other apps, except Windows Update (that's IE only).

Roj

01-19-2005, 04:31 AM

*deep sigh*... it merely opens the IE browser, and is useful if you encounter a website that does not adhere to the open standards, and only looks good in that craptacular browser that is called Internet Explorer.. (which is the only browser in which that particular site looks good)

or for those sites, which block other browsers than IE... Those are still around...
What it merely does is show that the dev team isn't mature or farsighted enough to see beyond their noses and grasp that the only way to win is to 1) play the game according to the rules today until they gain ascendancy and 2) THEN change those rules once they're in a power position. Refusing to provide compatibility with de facto standards (warts, farts and all) and resorting to kludg-a-rama cloaked in the banner of "open standards" is a thinly disguised excuse for misplaced religious zeal that will prevent FF from ever living up to the potential it posesses. I mean, coming across as a petulant teenager by shouting "WON'T do it! won't Won't WON'T" ain't gonna get 'em mass market acceptance or leverage to change things to the way they want them to be.

It'll only get them sidelined.

A few percentage points of market share don't amount to a hill of beans in the long run when faced with millions of users.

Maturity and strategic planning are demonstrated by a team that recognizes when a strategic retreat will pave the way for a large scale victory later.

I see no evidence of that in Zillaland.

Rex_Mundi_Incarnit

01-19-2005, 07:41 AM

Todd The Kiwi

01-19-2005, 10:38 AM

"Craptacular"
"Craptastic"
these two don't need to ask me what neologism means... ;)

madjo

01-19-2005, 01:05 PM

You know what's hilarious?
When IE first started out, it followed the Open Standards set by the W3C most perfectly, that is how it beat Netscape in the first place (next to OS integration).

Now competition for IE comes into view, and suddenly people start screaming, FF isn't worth my money, because FF doesn't adhere to the "defacto standards" (= FF isn't the same as IE).

I'm sure, those same arguments were there, when IE first started out... "It doesn't follow Netscape standards".
We see now, what the result was. Indeed marketleadership for MS... for now!

Just give it some time.

And it is very childish to even think that FF should do the exact same thing as IE... Should QCD sound exactly the same as Winamp, or should it sound better?

Inthewoods

01-19-2005, 03:30 PM

Now competition for IE comes into view, and suddenly people start screaming, FF isn't worth my money, because FF doesn't adhere to the "defacto standards" (= FF isn't the same as IE).?
Now?....NOW??? MosiaNetZillaFox and friends have been on the scene for over 12 YEARS. User's needs and wants come and go, but the bottom line is you gotta give the people what they want!

Just give it some time.?
See above......

And it is very childish to even think that FF should do the exact same thing as IE... Should QCD sound exactly the same as Winamp, or should it sound better?
Better of course!! But is it "childish" to expect my QCD player to be able to playback every file in every format at least as well as Winamp? And should not my playlist be easy to edit? (ever try to manually edit a "bookmark" file?)

This is not to say that FF has nothing to offer. But there are plenty of ideas (in audio/video playback for example) that were good ideas at the the time that never were accepted, and were superceded. quadraphonic LPs, LaserDisc movies, Betamax, Elcassettes, 8-track (and 4-track) tapes come to mind.

The bottom line as I see it is that to succeed, any new piece of software must offer 2 things:

1. A good, solid, well designed product, that delivers what it promises, without compromises or excuses.

2. A package that gives the people what they want. (the promises mentioned in #1 must meet the users' needs)

ZillaFox and friends have made considerable progress on item 1. Now they need to read item 2.

Rex_Mundi_Incarnit

01-19-2005, 06:43 PM

2. A package that gives the people what they want. (the promises mentioned in #1 must meet the users' needs)

ZillaFox and friends have made considerable progress on item 1. Now they need to read item 2.

Ever looked at the number of extensions and themes available for FF? Plenty of stuff to fill a respectable sized package :)

rorythedog

01-19-2005, 08:02 PM

Aye, but I think the IE guys want it pre-installed.

Young Twig

01-19-2005, 08:43 PM

I can't comment on web design bugs - I'm not a web designer. I *can* comment onsecurity bugs - and those were what I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion.
No problem. Every browser has its rendering bugs, IE has the most by far. It's a pain to design for because the bugs make no sense at all. A lot of times, I have to go ask super-geeks when I have an IE problem. :)

It the vast majority - that makes it a de facto standard.
Yeah, a de facto standard, but nothing more than that.

Except in Canada where it's 60Mph. Or somewhere else where it's differnet like the AutoBahn in Germany.

Wonderful things, standards - so many to choose from. :)
There's only one official set of rules on the internet when it comes to developing websites.

So convert - they're the majority. There's "easy to develope" and then there's "reality". I feel your pain from that perspective but that doesn't change the reality. With all due respect, developer viewpoints don't matter - their clients' viewpoints do however and in this case, the cleint is the person accessing your site - usually with IE to judge by the statistics.
I understand that. It's life. However, from a developer's point of view, Firefox (or any Gecko browser) is a better browser.

Hey, I use Maxthon because I don't like the IE interface. However, I do like my pages to display properly, bugs or no bugs, so an IE compatible browser it will be for me. I think you'll find the vast majority of net users will subscribe to the same viewpoint. Why? Because they use IE, warts, farts and all.
Yeah, but it is not FF's fault that the pages display incorrectly. It is bad work by the developer. This bad work would not be around if IE didn't decide to make its own standards (specifically DOM, ActiveX). If (ideally) there was only the w3 standards, you couldn't make non-cross-browser crap (except with backward-compatibility).

But in reality, yeah, IE does render more pages correctly, but that doesn't make it a better browser.

The FF devs need to learn that oh-so-simple fact.
Ha... They do. They realize most people aren't going to use their product, they're just trying to support the w3 standards and security. They also seem to be doing a lot better than you seem. As o2xygen pointed out, Firefox is getting 5x the downloads Maxthon is at CNet/ZDNet.

If and when they gain ascendancy (and given their current attitude, I'd say the chances were pretty slim), THEN they can change the rules because THEY will be in the driver's seat.

But right now, they're not.
Well, unfortunately, you cannot please everyone. If they did that, developers would hate Mozilla. It wouldn't work anyway. The only way for Firefox to gain more popularity than IE is to be installed with Windows which I doubt will happen.

Roj

01-20-2005, 01:00 AM

I think Mozilla Firespider is a very...oh wait i mean firefox...is a very good browser in terms of security. In terms of webpage display it doesnt always do its job properly especially with an intergrated outlook webmail account.It's a browser.

it's job is to display pages.

If it can't do that properly, it's failing at what it was desgined for.

Not too complicated a concept...

Roj

01-20-2005, 01:15 AM

>>No problem. Every browser has its rendering bugs, IE has the most by far.
>>It's a pain to design for because the bugs make no sense at all. A lot of
>>times, I have to go ask super-geeks when I have an IE problem. :)

Granted.

>>Yeah, a de facto standard, but nothing more than that.

De facto standards are dominant astandards and quite often displace the ones agreed to by the so-called "officialese". In short, they matter more than official standards because they are actually in use.

>>There's only one official set of rules on the internet when it comes to
>>developing websites.

Who cares if the others get used more. It becomes academic at best.

>>I understand that. It's life. However, from a developer's point of view,
>>Firefox (or any Gecko browser) is a better browser.

From a user's point of view who cares what the developers prefer. And they rule (and also pay the bills).

>>Yeah, but it is not FF's fault that the pages display incorrectly. It is bad >>work by the developer. This bad work would not be around if IE didn't
>>decide to make its own standards (specifically DOM, ActiveX). If (ideally)
>>there was only the w3 standards, you couldn't make non-cross-browser
>>crap (except with backward-compatibility).

You can keep crying over spilled milk that ain't changing or you can support what's out there and satisfy your users / pay your bills. Your choice.

I'm a pragmatic / practical soul by nature and wishing never did anyone any good.

>>But in reality, yeah, IE does render more pages correctly, but that doesn't
>>make it a better browser.

Better, schmetter. The best solution isn't always the best technical solution - in fact it often isn't. The best solution is the one that gets the job done for the majority in most cases.

>>Ha... They do. They realize most people aren't going to use their product,
>>they're just trying to support the w3 standards and security. They also
>>seem to be doing a lot better than you seem. As o2xygen pointed out,
>>Firefox is getting 5x the downloads Maxthon is at CNet/ZDNet.

Maxthon isn't as high profile as FF and didn't grandstand by taking out an ad in the New York Times. If it did, I daresay the result would be rather different.

>>Well, unfortunately, you cannot please everyone.

No, but you're pretty damned stupid if you don't please the majority if you want ascendancy.

>>If they did that, developers would hate Mozilla. It wouldn't work anyway.

And this is different from now? Devs may love Mozilla but users hate it which is why there is a FF in the first place. Mozilla is a bloated buggy hippo in a tutu. And again, I have to say to you: who cares about the devs. They get paid by clients. Clients want compatibility with the maximum number of users out there who access their pages. I'm sorry but in that equation, devs are expendable. If one won't do what you want, another will.

>>The only way for Firefox to gain more popularity than IE is to be installed
>>with Windows which I doubt will happen.

MS gave Netscape devs the opportunity to have Windows integration back around IE2. The Netscape folks, in typical shortsighted fashion, said "no".

You reap what you sow.

Inthewoods

01-20-2005, 03:11 AM

Yeah, but it is not FF's fault that the pages display incorrectly. It is bad work by the developer.
I guess you define "bad work" as creating web pages which display properly on the browser that the overwhelming majority of people use...strange definition of "bad work" if you ask me...ok I know, you didn't ask me....:silly:

Aaron

01-20-2005, 07:23 AM

I guess you define "bad work" as creating web pages which display properly on the browser that the overwhelming majority of people use...strange definition of "bad work" if you ask me...ok I know, you didn't ask me....:silly:

I think we are talking at cross-purposes here about some of the rendering issues in web browsers.

Young Twig is correct that "There's only one official set of rules on the internet when it comes to developing websites." but perhaps that statement could be put in a better way.

In basic layman's terms a web page is written in a language called HyperText Markup Language (HTML). Like any language it has rules about its form called the syntax. The syntax is set by a group of people called the World Wide Web Consortium (www.w3.org) of which Microsoft is a member.

All the talk about "official" standards and "de-facto" standards is misguided. There is a one syntax that defines HTML and the differences are in how that syntax is interpreted/rendered. We don't have a Microsoft-HTML if that's what some people are thinking?

As I see it there are two types of file
1. HTML that has correct syntax
2. HTML that has broken syntax

Lets look at both in turn.

1. HTML with correct syntax. Here there should be no ambiguity - the file should be rendered as per the syntax rules.
FireFox (and Opera, Safari) in general do a better job of rendering valid HTML syntax than Internet Explorer. Indeed IE is lacking in some areas here (transparent PNG files, CSS support). This is because of a lack of recent development in the IE rendering engine. YoungTwig provided a link to alistapart.com which illustrates some of the issues.

2. HTML with broken syntax. Here the browser has to guess to some extent on what to display. Sometimes people call this 'quirks' mode.
Interestingly enough Firefox/Mozilla has a quirks mode - however it will only deal with a certain smallish level of quirkiness. IE's quirks mode is very robust and can deal with most bad pages. As far as I can tell the Mozilla people have moved away from more support of quirky pages for philosophical reasons.

Whether this decision will bite them will be seen on the market share they take of IE. I'm not quite sure right now - Roj makes some good points about this issue - although there is some backlash in the media about malware in IE. Be interesting to see.

So InTheWoods you are only half correct in your original statement. IE will probably display bad pages (with broken HTML syntax) closer to what the author intended.

However pages with correct HTML syntax will more likely be rendered better with one of the other browsers I have mentioned.

I put a fair amount of blame at WYSIWYG HTML editors (like FrontPage) that produce bad HTML.

Anyhow I wish we had a new version of QCD to talk about than this tired horse :(

Aaron

Roj

01-20-2005, 11:12 AM

Interestingly enough Firefox/Mozilla has a quirks mode - however it will only deal with a certain smallish level of quirkiness. IE's quirks mode is very robust and can deal with most bad pages. As far as I can tell the Mozilla people have moved away from more support of quirky pages for philosophical reasons.

THERE is the problem. "Religion" and an irrational dislike of MS drove them to abandon the one feature of their product which now stands squarely in the way of them gaining them ascendancy. At the end of the day, ascendancy is what it's all about - period. Unless you have control, you can't change things. That desicsion by them has got to be one of the stupidest head-in-the-sand attitudes I've seen in quite some time - it's cutting your nose off to spite your face. It's best illustrated (and I've brought this up before) by the comment by a Zillanland dev who said he'd be damned if he spent his time "supporting MS standards". It was in reference to the Mozilla e-mail client adding support for Hotmail - another de facto standard out there, at least until MS started to shoot itself in the foot recently with their new "buy the service or piss off" attitude but the mindset rather obviously applies across the board.

My point blank answer to him:

"Um, if you want to ever be near the drivers' seat you will - grow up."

Whether this decision will bite them will be seen on the market share they take of IE.

It already has bitten tham and will continue to. If it hadn't I believe that they'd already be grabbing market share by leaps and bounds.

I'm not quite sure right now - Roj makes some good points about this issue - although there is some backlash in the media about malware in IE.

Malware in IE is much less of a problem with SP2 which most people out there will run (I as you know refuse to for my own reasons). Also, you've read my comments on ovrehyped security risks already. I personally mitigate the risk in part by running Maxthon (it's not the main reason I run Maxthon - the ease-of-use of the revamped interface is) but someone running pure IE can do so them easily as well by keep up to day with patches via automated Windows Update.

However pages with correct HTML syntax will more likely be rendered better with one of the other browsers I have mentioned.

Agreed - if certain devs would get their heads out of their ass and build a browser that COULD gain ascendancy.

I put a fair amount of blame at WYSIWYG HTML editors (like FrontPage) that produce bad HTML.

It's kind of a vicious circle - the editors build in the quirks which in turn the browser supports which in turn is supported by an easy to use toll that builds in quirks...

I wonder how many MS extensions of HTML depend on those quirks. That could be a reason why Front Page isn't being altered.

Anyhow I wish we had a new version of QCD to talk about than this tired horse :(

Yeah, the situation in the browser world isn't going to change any time soon. I'd settle for a finished BASS plugin - QCD is about as complete as I'd like it.

Aaron

01-20-2005, 05:40 PM

Malware in IE is much less of a problem with SP2 which most people out there will run (I as you know refuse to for my own reasons). Also, you've read my comments on ovrehyped security risks already. I personally mitigate the risk in part by running Maxthon (it's not the main reason I run Maxthon - the ease-of-use of the revamped interface is) but someone running pure IE can do so them easily as well by keep up to day with patches via automated Windows Update.

That's probably true - however IE has had a lot of bad press recently about security and malware. (Also how well protected are people not running XP SP2. There are still quite a few people running 2000 for instance.)

The security perception whether it is overhyped or not must surely be starting to get out into the public. I have seen articles in the local New Zealand herald a few times about spyware and IE.

This is a separate issue from rendering HTML pages.

Whether the security perception influences a migration of people away from IE to alternatives remains to be see. In part it depends on if (when?) other serious exploits happen.

Aaron

Roj

01-20-2005, 06:07 PM

That's probably true - however IE has had a lot of bad press recently about security and malware. (Also how well protected are people not running XP SP2. There are still quite a few people running 2000 for instance.)

I actually covered that back somewhere in this long and convoluted thread. Essentially, you have to knowingly put yourself in harm's way. You have to:

1) Surf to a site that contains malicious code (definitely not the run of the mill sites)
2) Not be running any malware or AV protection (insane at best)
3) Willingly download a browser object of some kind containing that code (you'd have to be pretty dumb to go to a new site and download a browser object of any kind given the high visibility of malware these days)

Quite the list of sillines you'd have to accomplish.

The security perception whether it is overhyped or not must surely be starting to get out into the public. I have seen articles in the local New Zealand herald a few times about spyware and IE.

The press loves to jump on anything and everything that smells of sensationalism. It sells papers.

This is a separate issue from rendering HTML pages.

Indeed.

Whether the security perception influences a migration of people away from IE to alternatives remains to be see. In part it depends on if (when?) other serious exploits happen.

Exploits happen daily. However, simple prudence mitigates a lot of that. I ran IE (actually, I still do - under Maxthon - but this was before Maxthon). I had a free popup blocker installed. I had Spybot Search & destroy. I had avast! 4 Home edition. I was fine. I did encounter one site with malware on it but I had knowingly put myself in harms way and intentionally gone there (I needed a keygen for evaluation purposes :) :) :) ). My AV caught it.

Aaron

01-20-2005, 06:21 PM

Exploits happen daily. However, simple prudence mitigates a lot of that. I ran IE (actually, I still do - under Maxthon - but this was before Maxthon). I had a free popup blocker installed. I had Spybot Search & destroy. I had avast! 4 Home edition. I was fine. I did encounter one site with malware on it but I had knowingly put myself in harms way and intentionally gone there (I needed a keygen for evaluation purposes :) :) :) ). My AV caught it.

Well that sounds pretty simple to me - and in fact I use spybot and an AV program too.

However for an 'end user' e.g. my grandmother thats a few convoluted steps to take for an operating system/browser (tied together) that should work out of the box and without reading the manual or configuring anything.

For the vast majority of users that use IE they are hopefully using an anti-virus program but I seriously doubt they have anything else installed.

However that's beside the point - people believe what they read in the media - so if the press is saying IE has problems with spyware etc. than the public are going to start believing it (regardless of if its overhyped).

Aaron

madjo

01-20-2005, 06:32 PM

Interestingly enough Firefox/Mozilla has a quirks mode - however it will only deal with a certain smallish level of quirkiness. IE's quirks mode is very robust and can deal with most bad pages. As far as I can tell the Mozilla people have moved away from more support of quirky pages for philosophical reasons.

THERE is the problem. "Religion" and an irrational dislike of MS drove them to abandon the one feature of their product which now stands squarely in the way of them gaining them ascendancy.
what is your problem? As far as I see, there is no problem... I'm a poweruser yes... but I can deal with any page I come across in Firefox.
almost 99% of all pages I come across display perfectly in FF, it's just that 1% I get, that needs the use of IE.
And every nitwit out there, is able to do the same thing (even the most computer-illiterate ones). If they can make the choice of Firefox they can also make the choice to have both browsers installed. (at least in Windows, if you're on Linux or a mac, you are out of luck.. IE for Mac is just a travesty of a travesty)

Remember, we are not forcing you to use firefox... but I can wholeheartedly recommend it to you.. if you don't want to run it, fine. but please leave the defacto standards and the official standards.. or as Aaron pointed out very excellently: good html and bad html.

Indeed the Mozilla team has decided to not develop their 'quirksmode' any further, we don't want a IE number 2... we want a wholly different browser, and that is what you get with Firefox or Opera or Konqueror or Safari or Lynx...

Whether this decision will bite them will be seen on the market share they take of IE.

It already has bitten tham and will continue to. If it hadn't I believe that they'd already be grabbing market share by leaps and bounds.
the growth of Firefox is already fenomenal... considering that before version 0.7 it barely existed on the charts.

It's a browser.
it's job is to display pages.
If it can't do that properly, it's failing at what it was desgined for.
Not too complicated a concept...
It works for me... it displays pages 99 out of a 100 times perfectly... so it is no f-ing failure!

It is also very easy to bash Mozilla, isn't it?
I will now stop monitoring this thread, because I am getting tired here...

Qaz

01-20-2005, 06:51 PM

Quite the list of sillines you'd have to accomplish.

But yet it happens.

Rex_Mundi_Incarnit

01-20-2005, 07:30 PM

The good ol' browser wars :cheeky:

Roj

01-20-2005, 09:17 PM

However for an 'end user' e.g. my grandmother thats a few convoluted steps to take for an operating system/browser (tied together) that should work out of the box and without reading the manual or configuring anything.

Come on Aaron, you know as well as I do that the world is LONG past that point.

For the vast majority of users that use IE they are hopefully using an anti-virus program but I seriously doubt they have anything else installed.

They do if they have SP2 whether they want it or not. ;P

However that's beside the point - people believe what they read in the media - so if the press is saying IE has problems with spyware etc. than the public are going to start believing it (regardless of if its overhyped).

There are indeed a lot of stupid people out there. :)

Roj

01-20-2005, 09:20 PM

The good ol' browser wars :cheeky:
BTW, I have a bone to pick with you!

If you'd read my freeware article, you'd know that I'm not against open source in the slightest. I don't believe it's entirely practical because this planet is in fact driven by money and support issues from a corporate perspective can be an issue but it's still a viable source of quality code - well, some of it is at any rate. ;P

Roj

01-20-2005, 09:22 PM

But yet it happens.As I pointed out elsewhere, there are stupid people out there.

Roj

01-20-2005, 09:37 PM

what is your problem? As far as I see, there is no problem... I'm a poweruser yes... but I can deal with any page I come across in Firefox.
almost 99% of all pages I come across display perfectly in FF, it's just that 1% I get, that needs the use of IE.

I hit BetaNews, it doesn't display the same as IE. I hit File Flash my fonts shrink to miniscule sizes but are fine in IE. Those are common sites.

'nuff said on that point.

And every nitwit out there, is able to do the same thing (even the most computer-illiterate ones). If they can make the choice of Firefox they can also make the choice to have both browsers installed.

Why use two if ONE gets it right? Religion?

Remember, we are not forcing you to use firefox... but I can wholeheartedly recommend it to you.. if you don't want to run it, fine. but please leave the defacto standards and the official standards.. or as Aaron pointed out very excellently: good html and bad html.

I don't recommend products that do a half-assed job so I don't recommend FF. I *do* recommend Maxthon - no display problems there. I don't care if it's good HTML or bad HTML. neither does 99% of users out there. They just want it displayed correctly.

One browser does it correctly 100% of the time.

One doesn't.

End of discussion.

Indeed the Mozilla team has decided to not develop their 'quirksmode' any further, we don't want a IE number 2... we want a wholly different browser, and that is what you get with Firefox or Opera or Konqueror or Safari or Lynx...

Fine. It's pretty obvious at this point that you're in the minority (I don't see any browser other than IE with more than 80% market share) and that's OK. People who want a different OS run Linux and they're in the minority too.

the growth of Firefox is already fenomenal... considering that before version 0.7 it barely existed on the charts.

Hype, advertising and fads are powerful things and always have been. A full page ad, being the darling of the net pundits and the latest trendy anti-MS toy - what else could be expected? Those weren't the only reasons - the browser does indeed have merit - but they certainly helped A Lot.

It works for me... it displays pages 99 out of a 100 times perfectly... so it is no f-ing failure!

I'm glad you're happy with it. The simple fact however is that it fails to display all pages correctly. Neither your rhetoric nor anyone else's can change that. It will also continue to do so because of design decisions. If people want to go with a browser that doesn't display everything correctly then that's their right. My guess is that they won't but time will tell (I personally know people who tried it and stayed with it and even more who tried it and DIDN'T for that very reason).

It is also very easy to bash Mozilla, isn't it?

When something is done that poorly, it certainly is. Its creators did, both openly and tacitly by creating FF. If you get near a point, make it.

I will now stop monitoring this thread, because I am getting tired here...

Sleep well... :) :) :)

duckie

01-21-2005, 06:41 AM

I hit BetaNews, it doesn't display the same as IE. I hit File Flash my fonts shrink to miniscule sizes but are fine in IE. Those are common sites.

'nuff said on that point.

Just curious, how is BetaNews different? I don't see it.

As for File Flash, the font size defined in CSS is "xx-small", as in "extra extra small". Yeah, I know you don't care that FF is displaying it accurately and IE isn't. Its just for information's sake.

Aaron

01-21-2005, 08:15 AM

Just curious, how is BetaNews different? I don't see it.

As for File Flash, the font size defined in CSS is "xx-small", as in "extra extra small". Yeah, I know you don't care that FF is displaying it accurately and IE isn't. Its just for information's sake.

I didn't see any difference either in betanews.com..although I did recognise Roj's acerbic reviewing style right away...:nervous:

Actually this appears to be an example of IE not displaying the site properly and FireFox doing exactly what the designer intended - that is displaying it extra extra small. Poor consideration of accessibility though in that site but perhaps the author wanted to cram a lot of information in...you would have to ask them.

Firefox's interpretation of 'extra extra small' seems more reasonable that IE's. However it seems 90% + of people disagree.

As you say I agree it's just for information. There is just no arguing with some people... :cross-eye:

Aaron

rorythedog

01-21-2005, 10:20 AM

Speaking as a "Joe Bloggs" type user, I don't have any problems viewing the sites I go to regularly. The only problem I do have is on "Super Tuesday" when, obliged to go to Windows Update, I have to revert to IE because it's coded in such a way that Firefox can't deal with it. Given that the only reason I am at that site is to patch holes created by Microsoft, it would seem to me that Microsoft ARE THE DEVIL! :carrot: :carrot: :carrot:

Roj

01-21-2005, 10:28 AM

Just curious, how is BetaNews different? I don't see it.

The last time I tried it (which was before Christmas - FF is now gone form my system and won't be retrning), the colums were off a bit.

As for File Flash, the font size defined in CSS is "xx-small", as in "extra extra small". Yeah, I know you don't care that FF is displaying it accurately and IE isn't. Its just for information's sake.

:) :) :)

Roj

01-21-2005, 10:32 AM

I didn't see any difference either in betanews.com..although I did recognise Roj's acerbic reviewing style right away...:nervous:

Do tell! What was i reviewing?

Actually this appears to be an example of IE not displaying the site properly and FireFox doing exactly what the designer intended - that is displaying it extra extra small. Poor consideration of accessibility though in that site but perhaps the author wanted to cram a lot of information in...you would have to ask them.

Man, it's pitiful! It's like fishing fly crap out of chili with boxing gloves.

Firefox's interpretation of 'extra extra small' seems more reasonable that IE's. However it seems 90% + of people disagree.

Yeah, they can't read it. The point is that users don't care about the reasons - just the results.

As you say I agree it's just for information. There is just no arguing with some people... :cross-eye:

Yeah, I know... :) :) :)

Roj

01-21-2005, 10:38 AM

rorythedog

01-21-2005, 10:41 AM

Works fine in maxthon (no surprise there). Are those carrots or peppers?

Peppers, minus fly-crap.

o2xygen

01-21-2005, 12:50 PM

Just for the record

BetaNews - InternetExplorer

IE (http://briefcase.pathfinder.gr/download/christos_00/16695/374167/0/Capture_2.jpg)

BetaNews - FireFox
FF (http://briefcase.pathfinder.gr/download/christos_00/16695/374166/0/Capture.jpg)

Roj

01-21-2005, 04:26 PM

hedge

01-21-2005, 05:01 PM

Wanna hear something funny? Your pics don't display for some reason.
Work fine here... maybe a problem with IE? :evil: joke :P
But yeah lets take a look at the issue of displaying html and css in terms of what they are, languages. Languages have rules, standards, and if they aren't adhered to and the compiler/ viewer doesn't interpret it correctly, well thats the fault of the dev's. Program dev's should know better then coding a program that doesn't display things as they should, and site designers should know better then writing code that doesn't adhere to the language specs.

Now if IE has signed an agreement saying they will adhere to the standards, why they hell don't they?

Aaron

01-21-2005, 05:51 PM

Do tell! What was i reviewing?

Your 'best' work was in the reviews of mozilla products. Microsoft really need to head hunt you quick as an Internet Explorer 'evangelist' :grin:

Just for the record

BetaNews - InternetExplorer

IE (http://briefcase.pathfinder.gr/download/christos_00/16695/374167/0/Capture_2.jpg)

BetaNews - FireFox
FF (http://briefcase.pathfinder.gr/download/christos_00/16695/374166/0/Capture.jpg)

They look exactly the same...and they display just fine. Perhaps maxthon has issues with images? :evil:

Well actually that's true - try using it to look at any site with PNG files with transparency.
Heres an example http://www.schaik.com/pngsuite/pngsuite_trn_png.html
you can play 'spot-the-difference' on - the images that say 'transparent' should have a transparent background. IE 6 renders five of them wrong.

Now if IE has signed an agreement saying they will adhere to the standards, why they hell don't they?

I think they call that 'embrace and extend'.

Aaron

Hanzo

01-21-2005, 06:14 PM

Hey fellas, I've been reading this thread and I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents worth of dissapointment with Firefox.

I got Firefox on my machine at work, because as it's supposedly lighter than IE and my machine is not as fast as the one I've got at home I thought I could run all the websites I use for reference with Firefox and be happy, well things went far from what I planned, pages load slowly, the program gets unresponsive with only 5 tabs open... I only use 'general pages' like Google, the Microsoft website, the Dell website, the DHL website, one internal website that has basic javascript (I've looked the code myself) for navigation and a page I created with references to KB articles, pure HTML here, no java, no vbscrip, what a let down... with such a light 'load' after a few hours Firefox starts to get unresponsive, takes a long time to swap between tabs and eventually locks up...

I'm not looking for some advice, just putting here my opinion about the browser, I'm not pro-microsoft nor pro-mozilla, but I when I use the same webpages with IE, never locks up or gets unresponsive for the whole lenght of my shift (8 hours) and sometimes I have let the system on overnight with all the windows up, and still when coming back next day would work fine (just a bit slower) but with Firefox, when I tried that, it took over a minute for it to display and the same thing when swapping tabs...

I guess I'll have to resort to IE only back again...

Roj

01-21-2005, 07:55 PM

Aaron

01-21-2005, 08:10 PM

Your 'best' work was in the reviews of mozilla products. Microsoft really need to head hunt you quick as an Internet Explorer 'evangelist' :grin:

Hey, it worked where the other didn't.

I still can't get those two images to display. Mind you, I'm at the office and our firewall rules...

They look exactly the same...and they display just fine. Perhaps maxthon has issues with images? :evil:

I'll try again when I get home.

No worries.

I forgot to add in the "pet peeve" thread that I hate firewall's. A neccessary evil. The IT department at my work has blocked msn which really pissed me off until I found: http://webmessenger.msn.com :)

This thread could go on for ever you know. Neither IE or Firefox is perfect right now - for different aspects as been highlighted by different people. From the user's point of view the competition between them is surely a good thing regardless of which browser you prefer.

Aaron

BALTY

01-21-2005, 08:53 PM

:ermm: I'm sorry I asked about " switching over to FF. and what browser will default, etc." You guys have a lot of passion on this subject!
I'm out! :dead:

Roj

01-21-2005, 09:00 PM

No worries.

I forgot to add in the "pet peeve" thread that I hate firewall's. A neccessary evil. The IT department at my work has blocked msn which really pissed me off until I found: http://webmessenger.msn.com (http://webmessenger.msn.com/) :)

This thread could go on for ever you know. Neither IE or Firefox is perfect right now - for different aspects as been highlighted by different people. From the user's point of view the competition between them is surely a good thing regardless of which browser you prefer.

AaronYou have to understand that I'm not against FF. It's a good browser. It could be better and the main area I have problems with is what I consider to be the elitist decisions made by the design team that prevent a good browser from being a GREAT browser. I'm quite sure that it'll come back to bite them in the ass but time will tell.

The other thing I take exception to are all the fanboys claiming that it's the second coming.

It Ain't.

That's pretty much it.

jkrzok

01-21-2005, 11:16 PM

My mom taught me to never talk about three things in polite company.

Sex
Politics
Religion

I'm adding a fourth as I raise my kids

Browsers.

Browsers are like sex; there's always the thought that it could be better.

Browsers are like politics; aside from some tinkering on the edges it's pretty much "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Browsers are like religion; they too attract their fundamentalist adherents to whom no amount of rational discussion will ever make a difference.

All that being said, Go Opera!

Roj

01-21-2005, 11:36 PM

Zayoos

01-21-2005, 11:38 PM

All that being said, Go Opera!
Amen! :silly:

Sheepeh

01-22-2005, 02:33 AM

Browsers are like sex; there's always the thought that it could be better.

Browsers are like politics; aside from some tinkering on the edges it's pretty much "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Browsers are like religion; they too attract their fundamentalist adherents to whom no amount of rational discussion will ever make a difference.

LOL!!

Excellent!!!

All that being said, Go Opera!

If only it were free...

Opera is one of the few pieces of software I have absolutely no qualms about paying for, Opera Software is even upgrading all version 7 users to 8 for free because of 7's shorter than usual lifespan.

Great stuff.

Young Twig

01-23-2005, 03:39 AM

I guess you define "bad work" as creating web pages which display properly on the browser that the overwhelming majority of people use...strange definition of "bad work" if you ask me...ok I know, you didn't ask me....:silly:
Non-cross-browser code is bad work. Code that works in IE, but not Gecko is bad. Code that works in Gecko, but not IE is bad. You should code for all browsers as much as is possible. It's always possible to support all the modern browsers. It's just a matter of how many hacks you have to use, or how you want to revise the code. Personally, I'm against hacks, so I will revise my code if another browser can't display it. Put another way, when IE's bugs get in the way of my code, I change my design so it can be cross-browser.

De facto standards are dominant astandards and quite often displace the ones agreed to by the so-called "officialese". In short, they matter more than official standards because they are actually in use.

Who cares if the others get used more. It becomes academic at best.
As Aaron said, MS is part of the "so-called 'officialese.'" They just fail to correctly implement their crap.

From a user's point of view who cares what the developers prefer. And they rule (and also pay the bills).
I care. And that's all that matters.

You can keep crying over spilled milk that ain't changing or you can support what's out there and satisfy your users / pay your bills. Your choice.
Or I can do both.

I'm a pragmatic / practical soul by nature and wishing never did anyone any good.
Yeah, no kidding. That wasn't the point. The point is, most of non-cross-browser crap can be blamed on IE.

Better, schmetter. The best solution isn't always the best technical solution - in fact it often isn't. The best solution is the one that gets the job done for the majority in most cases.
Firefox "gets the job done for the majority in most cases." It's pretty rare that something doesn't display correctly.

Maxthon isn't as high profile as FF and didn't grandstand by taking out an ad in the New York Times. If it did, I daresay the result would be rather different.
But it didn't happen, so you cannot prove anything about the effect of a Maxthon ad.

No, but you're pretty damned stupid if you don't please the majority if you want ascendancy.
How many pages actually display incorrectly in Firefox? I honestly doubt that most people who download Firefox get rid of it because it doesn't render most pages correctly. The main reason Firefox is so far behind IE is becuase it doesn't come with Windows. That's why Maxthon, Opera, Avant, and all the other non-OS standard browsers are so far behind. That's common sense.

And this is different from now? Devs may love Mozilla but users hate it which is why there is a FF in the first place. Mozilla is a bloated buggy hippo in a tutu. And again, I have to say to you: who cares about the devs. They get paid by clients. Clients want compatibility with the maximum number of users out there who access their pages. I'm sorry but in that equation, devs are expendable. If one won't do what you want, another will.
Non-cross-browser code is bad work. Code that works in IE, but not Gecko is bad. Code that works in Gecko, but not IE is bad. You should code for all browsers as much as is possible. It's always possible to support all the modern browsers. ;)

Roj

01-23-2005, 03:49 AM

At the organization I work for we made a choice. We used to have Netscape as our standard. A year or so ago we ditched it and switched to IE. Now all our sites are done for IE and that includes the public ones. It's just more cost effective that way. Rather than doing work for both, we chose to support the de facto standard. It was a straightforward business decision.

We're not alone in that mindset.

Sheepeh

01-23-2005, 01:10 PM

Roj

01-23-2005, 01:31 PM

I can tell you if a company's website refuses to work with my browser of choice they just lost custom. The SECOND I see a "upgrade to IE 4 or NN 4" message, I go somewhere else. Even if I pay more.

I'm not alone in that mindset, either.Well and good but the percentage of users is so small that the costs outweigh the benefits. Simple accounting.

You can't beat dollars.

Sheepeh

01-23-2005, 01:39 PM

Roj

01-23-2005, 01:53 PM

What functionality does the site provide that Opera/FF/NextBigThing can't handle? My main beef with sites is that they use shite browser sniffing to block out browsers for no reason, even when it's perfectly usable with Opera or FF.

Is it purely a "we can't be arsed to write good code" thing, or a "we need functionality X that no other browser but IE can do"?I don't know the details but it came across as a "there's no reason to pay devs to write code for two separate browsers when the features we want to use on the site work well with the browser that owns the market". It may have boiled down to MS extensions but I'm not sure. In any event it happened a while back.

Sheepeh

01-23-2005, 01:56 PM

Linkage?

duckie

01-23-2005, 03:48 PM

I don't know the details but it came across as a "there's no reason to pay devs to write code for two separate browsers when the features we want to use on the site work well with the browser that owns the market". It may have boiled down to MS extensions but I'm not sure. In any event it happened a while back.

I work as a "proper" (C++/Java/SQL/etc.) programmer but HTML/CSS/Javascript is a hobby and passion of mine, and I consider myself very proficient. Thing is, if code is properly written, it should work across all modern browsers with just minor tweaks. There is no need to write for "two seperate browsers" anymore unlike the bad old days, by which I mean the late 90s. Developers who still insist on supporting IE only are just not keeping their skills and knowledge up to date.

Young Twig

01-23-2005, 07:26 PM

Aaron

01-23-2005, 08:51 PM

Well and good but the percentage of users is so small that the costs outweigh the benefits. Simple accounting.

You can't beat dollars.

The percentage is creeping up to 10% by some accounts.

While I haven't seen the website in question writing syntactually correct HTML is hardly rocket science.

There shouldn't be a significant amount of cost for interoperability - and if there is the people responsible (the web editors) should be taken to task.

If my marketing department were automatically loosing a hypothetical 10% of the market because of sloppy work I would do a Donald Trump and fire them quick smart.

Aaron

Roj

01-23-2005, 09:42 PM

The percentage is creeping up to 10% by some accounts.

While I haven't seen the website in question writing syntactually correct HTML is hardly rocket science.

There shouldn't be a significant amount of cost for interoperability - and if there is the people responsible (the web editors) should be taken to task.

If my marketing department were automatically loosing a hypothetical 10% of the market because of sloppy work I would do a Donald Trump and fire them quick smart.

Aaron
Quick comment in between studying for my CISSP ( go to www.cissps.com (http://www.cissps.com) to feel my pain):

Basically if I remember correctly there were some extensions they wanted to use with IIS that would have been more problematic to implement the other way and they were tired of supporting two browsers. I don't remember the details. There were / are a number of organizations that went the same route. The whole concept of a site with the notation "Best with Internet Explorer" is where it's at and is extremely common.

I'm gonna be real sporadic for the next week. The exam is on the 29th (next Saturday), six (6) hours long and a REAL bitch.

Now it's back to shoving a basketball into my skull...

Young Twig

01-23-2005, 09:44 PM

Thing is, if code is properly written, it should work across all modern browsers with just minor tweaks. There is no need to write for "two seperate browsers" anymore unlike the bad old days, by which I mean the late 90s.
It should work properly, but it doesn't becuase of bugs. So, you do have to code for two (or three or four) different browsers.

The whole concept of a site with the notation "Best with Internet Explorer" is where it's at and is extremely common.
It's common among beginners. I mean honestly, what big corporations have "Best viewed in IE" on the bottom of their pages? I'm not seeing it on Microsoft's website, Canon's website, Apple's website, Google, or Yahoo. Best viewed in IE was what I wrote back on my old Geocities sites.

Aaron

01-23-2005, 09:59 PM

It should work properly, but it doesn't becuase of bugs. So, you do have to code for two (or three or four) different browsers.

I think it's a big stretch to call it coding.

Perhaps we should say you have to edit for two (or more) browsers.

Most of the issues are CSS bugs or incomplete CSS support that require certain workarounds. Of course it depends on what sort of design you are trying to achieve.

Aaron

Young Twig

01-23-2005, 10:07 PM

I think it's a big stretch to call it coding.

Perhaps we should say you have to edit for two (or more) browsers.

Most of the issues are CSS bugs or incomplete CSS support that require certain workarounds. Of course it depends on what sort of design you are trying to achieve.

Aaron
Good point.

Oh, did I mention IE doesn't support the latest version of HTML? Yeah, XHTML 1.1 pages, when served properly (Content-type: application/xhtml+xml), are offerred as a download in IE. 1.1's been around for almost 4 years now, too.

IE also doesn't support the <abbr> tag.

Inthewoods

01-24-2005, 12:22 PM

It's common among beginners. I mean honestly, what big corporations have "Best viewed in IE" on the bottom of their pages? I'm not seeing it on Microsoft's website, Canon's website, Apple's website, Google, or Yahoo. Best viewed in IE was what I wrote back on my old Geocities sites.
I've actually had clients request "Best viewed on Internet Explorer" to be added to their homepages. In fact, in one case, a national organization requires that statement on the local chapter's web site or the organization will not host the affiliate. And I am NOT a "beginner", nor an amateur.

Thing is, if code is properly written, it should work across all modern browsers with just minor tweaks. There is no need to write for "two seperate browsers" anymore unlike the bad old days, by which I mean the late 90s.
Exactly!! Even those sites where I've inserted the "Best viewed.." at the client's request view equally well on Mozilla/Firefox.

Gee, I sure hope we get a new version of our favorited player soon...this topic is gettin' old....

rorythedog

01-24-2005, 01:20 PM

I couldn't think where else to put this link so here will do.

To increase the already fast browser speed of Firefox, GO HERE (http://users-guide.org/index.php?c=text&id=29)

It worked for me, although I bottled it at the last and set my "pipelining.maxrequests" to 8.

Young Twig

01-24-2005, 07:46 PM

I've actually had clients request "Best viewed on Internet Explorer" to be added to their homepages. In fact, in one case, a national organization requires that statement on the local chapter's web site or the organization will not host the affiliate. And I am NOT a "beginner", nor an amateur.
I never said all coders with "Best in IE" on their site are n00bs.

Toe

01-24-2005, 07:57 PM

Good point.

Oh, did I mention IE doesn't support the latest version of HTML? Yeah, XHTML 1.1 pages, when served properly (Content-type: application/xhtml+xml), are offerred as a download in IE. 1.1's been around for almost 4 years now, too.
There's also one way to serve it up (can't remember exactly how) where it just displays the DOM tree instead of rendering it as a page. Class!

I couldn't think where else to put this link so here will do.

To increase the already fast browser speed of Firefox, GO HERE

It worked for me, although I bottled it at the last and set my "pipelining.maxrequests" to 8.
A note about the page draw delay 'speedup' - it actually slows down page loading, not speed it up. That's because it forces Firefox to start trying to draw the page before it really even has enough data loaded to do so. That makes it waste CPU cycles because it then has to go back and redraw what it just displayed when it has the rest of the page loaded.

Pipelining is a definate 'no' when you're on dialup. And even if you're on a fast connection, 24 is almost certainly overkill, heck, I doubt you'd actually need 8 connections open. Do remember that for each connection, there's additional tcp/ip overhead involved. If you're anywhere near maxing out your connection, those extra connections are just slowing things down.

There's a reason why this stuff ain't enabled by default, folks.

Aaron

01-24-2005, 08:30 PM

Basically if I remember correctly there were some extensions they wanted to use with IIS that would have been more problematic to implement the other way and they were tired of supporting two browsers.

Any reason why the organisation in question went with a minority web server application that has a spotty security record ;)

Certainly given that IIS apparently only has ~ 20% of the web server market (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html). Seems strange that they went for IIS and specific extensions when the 'de-facto' standard is clearly Apache.

Aaron

Young Twig

01-24-2005, 10:07 PM

There's also one way to serve it up (can't remember exactly how) where it just displays the DOM tree instead of rendering it as a page. Class!

I think it will load the DOM tree if you serve it as application/xml or text/xml. I believe that's what it's supposed to do, though. :)

o2xygen

01-25-2005, 06:08 PM

There is already an extension that does this pipelining thing
tweak Network settings (https://addons.update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?application=firefox&id=327)

However I see no difference... I don't know because pages actully load fast so its a matter of fractional seconds

Roj

01-25-2005, 06:24 PM

Any reason why the organisation in question went with a minority web server application that has a spotty security record ;)

Certainly given that IIS apparently only has ~ 20% of the web server market (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html). Seems strange that they went for IIS and specific extensions when the 'de-facto' standard is clearly Apache.

Aaron

Yeah - the same reason many do:

It's fast, easy and cheap and can be secured.

Roj

01-25-2005, 06:37 PM

Warnng - strong message to follow. If you're a Zillaland fanboy, don't go beyond this point. You have been warned.

OK, I had about 45 minutes to myself between studying and the usual work-infested row my life has become (Saturday can't come fast enough) so I thought I'd download FF again (I hadn't since 0.9) and give it a whirl to see if anything had changed and to give some of the opinions expressed here the benefit of the doubt.

My first impression was "What are you people on about? This interface is CLUNKY!".

I can't move the address bar or any other toolbar elements. I have no facility for adding apps to the toolbar. I can't configure how tabs behave beyond the bare minimum. Where are start a new tab with a new entry in the address bar / with links within a page / with a history entry / with a search bar result? I can't choose the order of where new tabs are placed. In short, the whole tabbed interface is very Lil' Abner and needs work to bring it up to something approximating the configurability and versatility of Maxthon. Actually, that comment is applicable to the *entire* UI. I mean being able to move the address bar is BASIC functionality. NOW I remember why I ditched this porker - it's just unusable to someone who likes having multiple windows open at once and is forever open ing and closing browser windows. After twenty minutes I was seriously questioning what all the hype was about and then It dawned on me:

It's All Overblown Hype.

The claims about the great interface have No Substance. Neither do the claims for Great Speed - it's certainly no faster than Maxthon.

Now I fully expect to get flamed for this and you know what? I Don't Care. Why? Because the flames Won't Change Anything. The Interface Will Still Be Half-assed. I have no rose colored glasses preventing me form seeing if the emperor is wearing new clothes or not and baby, with this browser he's Buck Naked.

Forget standards, be they psuedo, de facto, meaningful or meaningless.

Forget good code / bad code drivel.

Forget "quirks mode" or a lack thereof.

It's all academic BS in the face of something Far More Basic:

The Interface Sucks!

Then I downloaded Thunderbird and got even more frustrated but that's a whole other story.

Let me just say this:

GEEZ!!!!!!!!! (extreme snort of disgust) I expected Much better than this to hear you folks carry on about it. If these are the guys in whom you're placing your hopes for the advancement of browsers and e-mail packages then you'll definitely get what you deserve. If OpenOffice were this clunky (and it was once - thank God it isn't now since they ditched that miserable all-in-one interface) I'd *never* use it. I call 'em as I see 'em and this is Nothing to rave over.

Back to studying...

Aaron

01-25-2005, 06:52 PM

Yeah - the same reason many do:

It's fast, easy and cheap and can be secured.

I don't want to divert the thread from clients to servers but with respect Apache is fast, easy, free, and more secure (and the de-facto standard).

That's beside the issue of placing much faith in a Windows based OS in a server capacity (I don't).

Aaron

rorythedog

01-25-2005, 07:18 PM

Young Twig

01-25-2005, 07:29 PM

Haha... After 45 minutes, you still couldn't figure out how to move the address bar? :D

Sheepeh

01-25-2005, 07:30 PM

I must say, Roj, your post is nothing but FUD. As Rory says, it is EASY to move the address bar. I'm not an FF user, but I know anything I need I can ask at MozillaZine if I need to (not that I had to ask to work out it's REALLY SIMPLE UI).

I'm an Opera user but I have given FF to many newbs, and they have LOVED it.

By the way, have you been taking lessons from Steve Gibson in How To Add Capitals To Make Nice Little Soundbytes? Sounds like SoMeonE iS SuFfErIng fRom FalSE AutHoRiTy SyNDromE.

And Apache is cheaper than IIS, more secure than IIS, and is the de-facto standard (well said Aaron). Care to comment?

Young Twig

01-25-2005, 07:33 PM

This is off topic, but does IIS have a mod_rewrite equivalent?

EDIT: Did a Google search. Apparently there's a bunch of add-ons, but most cost money.

Roj

01-25-2005, 07:44 PM

Roj, get a grip. Have you been possessed by demons or something? The address window can be moved quite simply. Right-click any icon, choose customize, then drag & drop! It's not rocket science.

No no - I want to move the whole bar to another area of the browser. I keep may bar on the same level as the menu text (File, Edit, etc.) I know I can change the icons - that's not what I'm tlaking aobut.

I frankly couldn't give a sh*t what browser anyone uses. Not if it's going to cause all this grief. I think it would be preferable if everyone used Firefox or Opera or any other standards compliant. Maybe if everyone did then these half-arsed sites that "...don't work in Firefox" would start to disappear.

I don't care what they use - it's like sex: whatever floats yer boat. :) I was just totally shocked at the inflexibility I encountered given the claims. I mean, I hadn't used the thing since effectively last fall so I thought "maybe I'm up my arse and need to give this another try". So I grabbed it again.

The argument constantly used by yourself in favour of IE is what I call the lowest common denominator. That ain't me. I'd prefer to support companies and organisations who are trying to push things ahead, rather than the ones that simply cow-tow. How boring.

I agree. I've also realized that most users are sheep who don't care.

Finally, if you're going to assess something objectively then you should read the docs for it. I found out how to customize Firefox within minutes. You could have politely asked one of the Firefox users on this board whether this was possible. But you chose conflict. I'm disappointed.

You're gonna laugh and raise an eyebrow at this one. In all my years of work with systems, I've typically used the manual about one tenth (if that) of the time. Most software for me is load an' go. It just sort of "happens" for me. On the odd occasion where that doesn't happen, it's usually because the system was very comp[lex (configuring a MTA to process SMTP mail) or had a really poor interface (earlier incarnations of OpenOffice when it was an OS/2 app).

My post wasn't intended to create conflict - it was more of an indication of the extreme disappointment I felt regarding something I expected to be a LOT more than it turned out to be.

EDIT:

You're right about the address bar. I just reinstalled it Again and found that I have to do Configure Toolbar to move it. An "unlock tollbar" / drag and drop a la IE / Maxthon is SO much more intuitive but it can be done. The tab implementation is still far less versatile than Maxthon though - it drives me nutz.

Roj

01-25-2005, 07:51 PM

I must say, Roj, your post is nothing but FUD. As Rory says, it is EASY to move the address bar. I'm not an FF user, but I know anything I need I can ask at MozillaZine if I need to (not that I had to ask to work out it's REALLY SIMPLE UI).

Maxthon has a simple UI - I hd it twistedinto my own image and likeness in less then ten minutes. The problem with FF for me was its LACK of configurability.

I'm an Opera user but I have given FF to many newbs, and they have LOVED it.

Given that they likely used a non-tabbed browser (IE / Netscape) before, I could see why. However, anyone who used Maxthon / opera / a competent tabbed browser...

By the way, have you been taking lessons from Steve Gibson in How To Add Capitals To Make Nice Little Soundbytes? Sounds like SoMeonE iS SuFfErIng fRom FalSE AutHoRiTy SyNDromE.

Eh? You've lost me...

And Apache is cheaper than IIS, more secure than IIS, and is the de-facto standard (well said Aaron). Care to comment?

Yeah - the servers in question run Win2K Server and we installed BackOffice. We had a policy of not using any freeware / open source stuff then (and hardly do now). BackOffice was cheaper than the commercial competition.

rorythedog

01-25-2005, 07:55 PM

As above

Sheepeh

01-25-2005, 07:58 PM

Like , THIS (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/michael.morgan3/Firefox.JPG) Roj?

Pff.

Roj

01-25-2005, 07:59 PM

As above

See my above edit. You were right, I was wrong.

rorythedog

01-25-2005, 08:01 PM

And if I'd been a bit sharper, that screenie would have demonstrated my tabs open along the BOTTOM of the browser window. Sorry. :o

Sheepeh

01-25-2005, 08:04 PM

Or one of the MANY MANY MANY extenstions to change tab prefs.

Aaron

01-25-2005, 09:10 PM

My first impression was "What are you people on about? This interface is CLUNKY!"

Perhaps the interface is different in the respect that FireFox was designed to run on at least three operating systems. Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux.
Although that is just my guess. Other's may wish to comment.

There is the option of something like K-Meleon which is a similar product to FireFox (uses an embedded Gecko engine) with native Windows toolkit.

http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/

I haven't used this but they probably have toolbars more similar to what you are used to Roj.

Lots of choices here. The licencing terms of Gecko (MPL) allow for these choices and this isn't something we should lose site of in this discussion.

Yeah - the servers in question run Win2K Server and we installed BackOffice. We had a policy of not using any freeware / open source stuff then (and hardly do now). BackOffice was cheaper than the commercial competition.

This type of thinking really pisses me off. I have it here at work as well - e.g. its an open source product how can it be any good etc.
Even in the case where the open-source option Apache is in my opinion clearly superior to IIS on a number of points AND is used by ~ 3 times as many people. Grrrrrr. :mad:

The main reason I brought up the analogy here is that Apache clearly is the defacto standard. So I was just suprised that your organisation chose to go with IIE and IIE specific extensions (it seemed to be a bit contrary to your earlier arguments about de-facto standards etc.)...

The tab implementation is still far less versatile than Maxthon though - it drives me nutz..

I wondered about this as well (lack of tab configurability). Reading about it on mozillazine they have made the decision to keep it fairly simple for the basic user. Part of the gripe with mozilla suite was the poor UI and huge number of preferences that just confused the end user.

I think that is a fair enough design point of view to keep the core application as light-weight as possible.

There are plenty of extensions around to provide really advanced tab configuration for the power-user.

The extensions module really is quite good - you can customise a lot of how the browser behaves through it. Install as few or as many extensions as you want (or none at all).

Aaron

Qaz

01-25-2005, 09:58 PM

Nice to see that K-Meleon got itself updated :)

Roj

01-25-2005, 10:43 PM

Or one of the MANY MANY MANY extenstions to change tab prefs.

Do explain to me why I should waste my time hunting and pecking for extensions of dubious quality (they are after all third party), when I can get the attached thoroughly tested out of the box (and that's *just* the tab options).

Roj

01-25-2005, 10:45 PM

Do explain to me why I should waste my time hunting and pecking for extensions of dubious quality (they are after all third party), when I can get the attached thoroughly tested out of the box (and that's *just* the tab options).

Hmmmm - my three file attachments (screenshots) aren't showing up in my previous message. Can anyone see them?

Aaron

01-25-2005, 10:54 PM

Hmmmm - my three file attachments (screenshots) aren't showing up in my previous message. Can anyone see them?

I can't see them. Perhaps its a browser issue? :laugh:

(sorry couldn't resist)

Aaron

Sheepeh

01-25-2005, 11:04 PM

Most problems are between the chair and the keyboard.

:ponder:

Aaron

01-25-2005, 11:06 PM

Most problems are between the chair and the keyboard.

:ponder:

Ahhhh a classic case of "PEBKAC" you reckon?

Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair

(originally from the User Friendly cartoon)

rorythedog put forward a theory of demonic possession a few posts back although haven't others had trouble with attachments?

Aaron

rorythedog

01-25-2005, 11:27 PM

I had trouble attaching my most illuminating screenshot. So I had to "manage" my attachments by losing a picture of a rather lovely young lady. So to anyone in future who stumbles upon that thread in great expectation...sorry.

Roj, I find it unbelievable that you, of all people, would encourage people to use bloatware. Firefox provides these functions as extensions specifically to keep the browser light. As most people use IE, and IE doesn't come with these functions, wouldn't it be fair to assume that this is a good marketing decision? I mean, what if most folks just want a simple, safe, stable and secure browser? Isn't that precisely what Firefox provides. If people want to load up Firefox with extensions, then they can. I'm sorry, but I just don't get your point.

Toe

01-25-2005, 11:46 PM

Do explain to me why I should waste my time hunting and pecking for extensions of dubious quality (they are after all third party), when I can get the attached thoroughly tested out of the box (and that's *just* the tab options).
Honestly, that's supposed to be one thing they're planning to do for v1.1-1.5 development: evaluating various extensions available for firefox for possible functionallity inclusion (not necessarilly the extension itself, just the same functionality) into Firefox itself. Heck, tabbed browsing was first seen in the old Multizilla extension for Mozilla, which came out around milestone 0.6 or so. (and that's Seamonkey 0.7, not Firefox)

Roj

01-26-2005, 01:41 AM

C'mon guys, it's weird!

If I edit the post I see three attachments, namely tag-1.jpg, tag-2.jpg and tag-3.jpg. I typed my reply and then clicked on Manage Attachments, browsed to the first file and once I selected it, clicked on Upload. It appears in a list at the bottom of the message. I did that two more times with the remaining files and then clicked Submit Reply. Now obviously it IS trouble between the keyboard and the chair because I must be doing something wrong. Anyone care to enlighten me as to what? I thought the process looked pretty straightforward but I've obviously missed something. In my current VERY burned out state (I'm continually studying four to six hours a night evrey night at this point and have been for the last three weeks) anything is possible.

I'm on break from studying the last chapter, specifically Law, Investigations and Ethics. Pretty dry stuff but boy does it ever teach me copyright law and how the US has debauched that with DMCA - but that's another topic for another thread. Thank God I live in Canada.

rory, Maxthon isn't bloatware. If anything it's much slimmer than IE because it uses the IE core and weaves a new and richer interface around it. It's SMALL - go to the site and check it out. If you do and decide to install it, check out the tab options - that was what I was trying to upload screen captures of (I slimmed them down to just the dialog without the rest of the 1024x768 desktop).

I'm no fan of bloatware and if Maxthon was, I wouldn't use it. Mozilla was a terrific example of bloatware - FF isn't. If you do investigate Maxthon you'll see what I mean by configurability. Hey, I downloaded FF *twice* today to check out the things you guys were saying and the second time was to verify a point you made - a correct one I might add. Have a look at this and you'll see I'm not exactly blowing smoke. Humor me.

Roj

01-26-2005, 01:43 AM

Honestly, that's supposed to be one thing they're planning to do for v1.1-1.5 development: evaluating various extensions available for firefox for possible functionallity inclusion (not necessarilly the extension itself, just the same functionality) into Firefox itself. Heck, tabbed browsing was first seen in the old Multizilla extension for Mozilla, which came out around milestone 0.6 or so. (and that's Seamonkey 0.7, not Firefox)

Now THAT'S a positive thing and I can appreciate why it didn't make it into the first release. You put a stake in the ground or you'll be a slave to scope creep. So now it's out and proven and they'll start to hopefully fix that interface. It's a quantum leap above Mozilla but God knows it has a LONG way to go.

Maxthon didn't get there overnight - it had a long teething period.

Young Twig

01-26-2005, 02:09 AM

Do explain to me why I should waste my time hunting and pecking for extensions of dubious quality (they are after all third party), when I can get the attached thoroughly tested out of the box (and that's *just* the tab options).
I completely agree with you here. I hope Toe's right about the extensions becoming part of the browser. :)

Sheepeh

01-26-2005, 02:18 AM

/me raises the Opera Flag

Now that Firefox is making more and more sites be standards compliant, Opera is a dream to use. Custom built how *I* like it, a raft of options, a version for my SPV...

Young Twig

01-26-2005, 03:40 AM

Bleh. I don't care for Opera too much. It's not free and it's too feature rich. Double-click a word and a context menu pops up!

Roj

01-26-2005, 04:24 AM

/me raises the Opera Flag

Now that Firefox is making more and more sites be standards compliant, Opera is a dream to use. Custom built how *I* like it, a raft of options, a version for my SPV...Now that Firefox is making more and more sites be standards compliant

ROFLMAO!!!!!!

You CANNOT be serious. No browser can do that - that's just pie-in-the-sky rubbish. A site becomes standards compliant if the developer chooses to write standards compliant code or even more realistically chooses a tool that does it for him. The concept that a browser causes this is sheer fantasy bordering on the ridiculous.

C'mon mon, get real.

Roj

01-26-2005, 04:26 AM

Bleh. I don't care for Opera too much. It's not free and it's too feature rich. Double-click a word and a context menu pops up!

And *I'M* the one posessed by demons? "Too feature rich"? What kind of nonsense is that??? I've lived to see this: a product that has myriad features, is eminently configurable and gives the user a plethora of options is now a bad thing.

I'm sorry mon - give your head a shake.

rorythedog

01-26-2005, 05:42 AM

rorythedog

01-26-2005, 05:45 AM

rorythedog

01-26-2005, 05:48 AM

Young Twig, on the one hand you're hoping that Firefox will come with the extensions built-in, and on the other you condemn Opera because it's too feature-rich! What's it to be?

Inthewoods

01-26-2005, 06:25 AM

/me raises the Opera Flag

Now that Firefox is making more and more sites be standards compliant,............

WHAT?? Isn't that a bit like saying "Now that Windows Media Player is making more and more music sites offer songs in WMA format..........."?

It's obvious to me that this thread might possibly go on forever ..(uuggghhhh).
I guess it's just a topic where we'll just agree to disagree. When the "page rendering" topic lost focus, it drifted into security (non) issues, then to feature set, and now to standards compliance.

The bottom line for me is that I use Maxthon because it suits my needs, plain and simple. Not anybody else's idea of what a tabbed browser should be, or what features it should have or how secure or standards compliant it should be, but rather what it is, namely a browsing tool that works for me. And it's not about being pro MS or anti-alternative either, or I'd be using WMP instead of QCD.

It's all about needs and perspective. I have a very good friend/neighbor who has the "light is right" philosophy and he insists that the IE/Maxthon browser combo is more "bloated" than his Firefox. His media player of choice? Why, it's Winamp5 of course........... go figure....

I'm just glad we live in a world where we don't all have to drive Geo Metros....or H2 Hummers.....

/philosophical drift OFF ;)

Rex_Mundi_Incarnit

01-26-2005, 08:00 AM

Sorry firefox wins: 3,2,1,...Fight! (http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=firefox&q2=maxthon&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us)

Or if you think myIE2 should fight, you lose again: 3,2,1,...Fight! (http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=firefox&q2=myIE2&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us)

Now for a fight between firefox and opera: 3,2,1,...Fight! (http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=firefox&q2=opera&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us)

Opera wins, oh yeah!

Even a battle between internet explorer and opera, opera wins (http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=opera&q2=internet+explorer&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us)

:silly:

Roj

01-26-2005, 10:12 AM

Roj, I only ever compared Firefox with Microsoft IE, not Maxthon. Of course a browser can force standards compliance. The only reason that these non-compliant sites exist is because IE exists. If, and I admit it's unlikely, but if everybody used Firefox then these sites would outlast their usefulness. Nobody is going to write code for a website that nobody can access, are they?

That's a very big "if", mon. :)

MInd you, that's the whole idea behind FF gaining dominance. You play the game the way the domninant guy does (only better) until YOU become the dominant guy and then you effect change... But first you have to play the game the way the other guy does...

Roj

01-26-2005, 10:15 AM

And no, I won't be trying Maxthon anytime soon. I like the ethics of Mozilla. I like supporting the wee guy. If Firefox ever did become the defacto standard, I'd probably start using something else. Just for the hell of it. :carrot:

Hey, I only suggested you try it to see what I was talking about - I wasn't suggesting you marry it. :)

Roj

01-26-2005, 10:17 AM

Young Twig, on the one hand you're hoping that Firefox will come with the extensions built-in, and on the other you condemn Opera because it's too feature-rich! What's it to be?

DING! I see you found the inconsistency. :) :) :)

Roj

01-26-2005, 10:18 AM

rorythedog

01-26-2005, 10:24 AM

Roj

01-26-2005, 10:33 AM

Roj, my "bottom line" is the same as Inthewoods. Firefox works for me. I also have Opera installed and that's pretty good too. I don't like paying for a browser though, so that's another reason for my use of Firefox. I haven't criticised Maxthon. I only jumped in here when you started giving Firefox unwarranted stick.

No worries - I got that. I only threw FF on my system to see if I'd given it unwarranted stick, as you say. The reason I suggested you do the same with MT was to see the screens I tried to post (and couldn't for whatever reason - I stil haven't figured out why they didn't display in my message) so you wouldn't think I was talking out my arse. Kind of a "install, look, see the configuration screens, uninstall" sort of thing - a picture is worth a thousand words. That's all.

rorythedog

01-26-2005, 10:44 AM

I'm downloading Maxthon now. So if you don't hear from me for a while you'll know it's all went horribly wrong.

Thing is, the way I see it, Firefox is more secure. I accept the argument that this is because it's targeted less, for now. But the thing is, as long as people keep using the browser that's targeted the most, then their computers will continue to get infected. As long as their computers are infected, my computer is at risk. And I'm sick of learning more and more about computer security when I'm struggling trying to learn how to use the very programs that I bought the computer for in the first place.

That's all.

Aaron

01-26-2005, 10:46 AM

Suprised no one has jumped in to start a flame war yet on RSS aggregators :evil:

Me I use an extension for Firefox called sage. http://sage.mozdev.org.
It works fairly well. I like it because you can apply a custom css file for the feed summary.

Perhaps this should be in its own thread but it is browser related kinda.

EDIT: I started a new thread http://www.quinnware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3065
for best RSS feeds.

Aaron

rorythedog

01-26-2005, 10:54 AM

Roj

01-26-2005, 11:01 AM

I'm downloading Maxthon now. So if you don't hear from me for a while you'll know it's all went horribly wrong.

Good Lord, I hope not.

Thing is, the way I see it, Firefox is more secure. I accept the argument that this is because it's targeted less, for now. But the thing is, as long as people keep using the browser that's targeted the most, then their computers will continue to get infected. As long as their computers are infected, my computer is at risk. And I'm sick of learning more and more about computer security when I'm struggling trying to learn how to use the very programs that I bought the computer for in the first place.

Security IS my thing (that's what this CISSP I'm studying feverishly for is all about) and unfortunately, what you speak of is not limited to browsers but is applicable to ALL software - and it's growing by leaps and bounds. Too many people with too much time on their hands, folks searching for their five minutes of fame, script kiddies...

It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

You can't afford to NOT know about computer security these days, even as a new user.

Aaron

01-26-2005, 11:02 AM

Sorry

Aye, I'm using that one too. Gives me the BBC right on my bookmarks toolbar. Pretty handy.

No worries. Do you use rss much? I find it saves time as I can skim the headlines on a number of news sites such as slashdot etc.

Getting really used to reading my news electronically (PocketPC with Avantgo mainly).

Aaron

rorythedog

01-26-2005, 12:09 PM

No worries. Do you use rss much? I find it saves time as I can skim the headlines on a number of news sites such as slashdot etc.

Getting really used to reading my news electronically (PocketPC with Avantgo mainly).

Aaron

I only really use it for BBC news. You're right though. I think it's the only way to get the REAL news. The papers over here are owned by the right.

Sheepeh

01-26-2005, 03:20 PM

Opera has RSS support out of the box ;)

I agree with your comment about not being able to afford to not know about seccurity these days, but I'm sure you're aware that the majority of new users can't give a monkey's armpit about security. They just browse about with IE, picking up all kinds of shite from email attatchments, downloading stuff through MSN Messenger with no AV and no firewall...

Letting them play with Firefox is akin to letting them play out in the street in the summer, whereas IE is letting them play on the motorway at rush hour. Does Maxthon have any measures over and above IE to stop that kind of thing from happening (out of the box)?

If you want to email me those screenshots Roj (the link in the profile works) I will post them here so you can make the point you were trying to make.

hedge

01-26-2005, 03:43 PM

Young Twig

01-26-2005, 06:29 PM

And *I'M* the one posessed by demons? "Too feature rich"? What kind of nonsense is that??? I've lived to see this: a product that has myriad features, is eminently configurable and gives the user a plethora of options is now a bad thing.

I'm sorry mon - give your head a shake.
EDIT: Time to rewrite this post:

"Too feature rich" was a bad choice of words. I like features, I just found Opera had lots of annoying ones turned on by default. I was completely turned off by the double-click-a-word-context-menu especially. The auto-hide status bar also finds its way to my nerves (non-cahced/pre-loaded rollovers, anyone?). Opera interferes with my multimedia keyboard, which is also annoying as hell. I don't particularly care for Opera's RSS or email support, but then again I don't care for most RSS crap (although I do like LiveBookmarks a bit). The default look is ugly (IMO) and there's too many toolbars you need to disable. (Getting rid of them was actually a little tricky. I was expecting your basic check off "Bookmarks Toolbar," but I had to go into the customize: layout to turn it off.)

So do I like Opera? Out of the box, no. After you go through all of Preferences (I just unchecked everything that sounded annying. I don't know what half of it was, but it got rid of most of what was pissing me off.), yeah, it's alright. Nothing I'd go pay for, though, as I prefer the other, free choices.

Young Twig

01-26-2005, 06:43 PM

Firefox has 'LiveBookmarks' built in as well, but at this stage its rather klunky in comparison to sage... So until they get their act together on that one its the extension over the built in support.
I can't say I liked Sage too much. LiveBookmarks is fine. I love the auto-subscribe buttons at the bottom, too.

Sheepeh

01-26-2005, 06:44 PM

It's you. And the status bar has been changed by default in Opera 8.0. Opera's interface is *THE* most customisable interface around, you don't want a status bar? OK. You want it at the top? OK. You want it purple with polka dots on? OK.

Mine sits in the address bar, and stays there.

Qaz

01-26-2005, 06:46 PM

There's too much useless crap enabled by default. If I accidentally double click, I don't want your stupid menus to popup. That's why I have a 2 (actually 5) button mouse. I also hate their "eye candy" buttons. Are there other skins for it?
The default interface is much improved in Opera 8 (now in beta stage). Sreenshot (http://my.opera.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=793816)

As for skins (and there's a new default skin too): http://my.opera.com/community/customize/skins/index.pl?show=rec

The pop-up menu you're talking about is possible to disable. But in fact, I found it pretty handy time to time.

Young Twig

01-26-2005, 07:10 PM

The default interface is much improved in Opera 8 (now in beta stage). Sreenshot (http://my.opera.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=793816)

As for skins (and there's a new default skin too): http://my.opera.com/community/customize/skins/index.pl?show=rec

The pop-up menu you're talking about is possible to disable. But in fact, I found it pretty handy time to time.

Ah... I see.

I just found that menu annoying as I have a habit of using the mouse and keyboard as percussive instruments (really bad, annoying habit: keyboard=kick; left mouse button=snare). I would prefer the menu as a right-click thing. (I don't think that's possible, right?)

Roj

01-27-2005, 12:21 AM

Opera has RSS support out of the box ;)

Okeee - I don't use them and barely know what they are. I'm assuming they're news feeds of some kind?

I agree with your comment about not being able to afford to not know about seccurity these days, but I'm sure you're aware that the majority of new users can't give a monkey's armpit about security.

Unfortunately yes - I am aware.

They just browse about with IE, picking up all kinds of shite from email attatchments, downloading stuff through MSN Messenger with no AV and no firewall...

Well, as much as I'm against it for my own reasons, SP2 does provide some safety from that sort of thing. IE was significantly revamped for SP2.

Letting them play with Firefox is akin to letting them play out in the street in the summer, whereas IE is letting them play on the motorway at rush hour. Does Maxthon have any measures over and above IE to stop that kind of thing from happening (out of the box)?

Yup. It has built in popup and ad blockers and the author fixes all relevant IE bugs and security glitches with each release. Many of IE's security holes are in the interface so Maxthon has an immediate advantage there for those worried about that sort of thing.

If you want to email me those screenshots Roj (the link in the profile works) I will post them here so you can make the point you were trying to make.

Whoa! Talk about timing. I had JUST dumped them into the Recycle Bin when I read your post - I have since rescued them. I'll mail 'em now - thank you.