Why Firefox 2.0 Rocks
-
Installation 1) Windows restart not needed (IE7 requires a long restart) 2) Take less than 1 minute to install (IE7 took almost 5-10 minutes) 3) Even I removing the previous versions, Firefox maintained my settings and add-ons (IE7 I need set the home page again) Using 1) FAST!!! (IE7 SLOW!!!) 2) Unobtrusive Syntax Checker (I will post in CP with Firefox - less typos!) 3) My website is nicest in Firefox (IE7 is not standards compliant - not fixed the table height problems yet...) 4) I talked before what is FAST??? (IE is in each version more slow...) Cheers...
Jesus is Love! Tell to someone! :badger:
Clickok wrote:
- Windows restart not needed (IE7 requires a long restart) 2) Take less than 1 minute to install (IE7 took almost 5-10 minutes)
One of the worst features of MS apps. is that they typically take longer than comparable products to install. The Restart scenarios are poor as well.
Kevin
-
Clickok wrote:
less typos
That should be "fewer typos".
-
Clickok wrote:
less typos
That should be "fewer typos".
Well, it could be less typos too. Fewr is less of a typo than frwee. :)
-- Federal law prohibits changing the channel
-
:laugh: The server made me do it!!!
-- The Show That Watches Back
-
Clickok wrote:
- Windows restart not needed (IE7 requires a long restart)
That's definitely a plus although it's just a one time thing, so no big deal.
Clickok wrote:
- Take less than 1 minute to install (IE7 took almost 5-10 minutes)
Again, that's great but in the grand scheme of things it's a one time savings.
Clickok wrote:
- Even I removing the previous versions, Firefox maintained my settings and add-ons (IE7 I need set the home page again)
Hmm, IE7 retained my home page just fine.
Clickok wrote:
- FAST!!! (IE7 SLOW!!!)
They seem to be about the same to me.
Clickok wrote:
- Unobtrusive Syntax Checker (I will post in CP with Firefox - less typos!)
Spell check is a good addition. It doesn't fix a common problem though: the people who really need it can't write in the first place. Spelling is the least of their problems. I do like the spell check though - it is handy.
Clickok wrote:
- My website is nicest in Firefox (IE7 is not standards compliant - not fixed the table height problems yet...)
I don't know about you, but as a developer I make sure my sites look good in all the common browsers.
Clickok wrote:
- I talked before what is FAST??? (IE is in each version more slow...)
I just don't see this. IE7 seems faster than 6 on my machine. On another note, I took a look at your website. You may want to have a native english speaker review it for you. It looks like you used an online translator and, unfortunately, it did a pretty bad job. Just thought you might like to know. Cheers, Drew.
Drew Stainton wrote:
Clickok wrote: 1) FAST!!! (IE7 SLOW!!!) They seem to be about the same to me.
I've yet to notice any significant difference in speed between the various browsers despite repeated claims (I run IE, FF and Opera). Most of the wait time is network latency so any differences in speed seem moot. I switch browsers based on feature set rather than speed or security.
Kevin
-
Clickok wrote:
- Windows restart not needed (IE7 requires a long restart) 2) Take less than 1 minute to install (IE7 took almost 5-10 minutes)
One of the worst features of MS apps. is that they typically take longer than comparable products to install. The Restart scenarios are poor as well.
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
One of the worst features of MS apps. is that they typically take longer than comparable products to install. The Restart scenarios are poor as well.
Until you try Adobe at which time you can't wait to go back to Microsoft. Just installing updates to their CS2 package last week required 2 restarts. The full install took over 90 minutes (and a restart). Cheers, Drew.
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
One of the worst features of MS apps. is that they typically take longer than comparable products to install. The Restart scenarios are poor as well.
Until you try Adobe at which time you can't wait to go back to Microsoft. Just installing updates to their CS2 package last week required 2 restarts. The full install took over 90 minutes (and a restart). Cheers, Drew.
Only Adobe I've used is the Reader.
Kevin
-
I'm running IE7 :) Though I seriously that was how you spelled it.
Matt Newman
Even the very best tools in the hands of an idiot will produce something of little or no value. - Chris Meech on IdiotsMatt Newman wrote:
Though I seriously that was how you spelled it. (sic)
And a missing word checker. ;)
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
One of the worst features of MS apps. is that they typically take longer than comparable products to install. The Restart scenarios are poor as well.
Until you try Adobe at which time you can't wait to go back to Microsoft. Just installing updates to their CS2 package last week required 2 restarts. The full install took over 90 minutes (and a restart). Cheers, Drew.
Drew Stainton wrote:
Until you try Adobe at which time you can't wait to go back to Microsoft. Just installing updates to their CS2 package last week required 2 restarts. The full install took over 90 minutes (and a restart).
Maybe is Adobe developing some operating system... take more time and restarts than Windows XP installation... :wtf:
Jesus is Love! Tell to someone! :badger:
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
:laugh:The server made me do it!!!
That's odd...the server usually catches me:wtf:... Roswell
"Angelinos -- excuse me. There will be civility today."
Antonio VillaRaigosa
City Mayor, Los Angeles, CA -
Only Adobe I've used is the Reader.
Kevin
-
Drew Stainton wrote:
Clickok wrote: 1) FAST!!! (IE7 SLOW!!!) They seem to be about the same to me.
I've yet to notice any significant difference in speed between the various browsers despite repeated claims (I run IE, FF and Opera). Most of the wait time is network latency so any differences in speed seem moot. I switch browsers based on feature set rather than speed or security.
Kevin
IE takes forever to stop loading a page when you hit stop, sometimes it won't stop at all. Firefox stops immediately.
-
Installation 1) Windows restart not needed (IE7 requires a long restart) 2) Take less than 1 minute to install (IE7 took almost 5-10 minutes) 3) Even I removing the previous versions, Firefox maintained my settings and add-ons (IE7 I need set the home page again) Using 1) FAST!!! (IE7 SLOW!!!) 2) Unobtrusive Syntax Checker (I will post in CP with Firefox - less typos!) 3) My website is nicest in Firefox (IE7 is not standards compliant - not fixed the table height problems yet...) 4) I talked before what is FAST??? (IE is in each version more slow...) Cheers...
Jesus is Love! Tell to someone! :badger:
-
IE takes forever to stop loading a page when you hit stop, sometimes it won't stop at all. Firefox stops immediately.
Hey wait a minute there I had that happen in FF when I had multiple tabs open. So FF doesn't always stop immediately I had to terminate the browser and it was still stuck in memory till I killed it via Taskman. This might be more of a browser independent problem something with either how the page was coded, the server is configured or even just a temporary connection problem?
Where did my glasses go...
-
Installation 1&2) Heaven forbid you step away from the computer for a few minutes and experience what is called "real life". 3) OMG the horror! Though it remembered my start page. Using 1) It turns out they are equally as fast on my computer 2) Too bad it doesn't have an obtrusive grammer checker. 3) Odd my website looks nicest in IE (standards are defined by market share, not idealists) 4) Umm, wow... they really need a grammer checker.
Matt Newman
Even the very best tools in the hands of an idiot will produce something of little or no value. - Chris Meech on IdiotsMatt Newman wrote:
(standards are defined by market share, not idealists)
Standards? *cough*.. W3C standards must be the idealism you speak of then. Which standards were you referring to? IE standards?
This statement is false.
-
I am glad and find it works pretty well but still find FF 2.0 and other browsers to be less then ideal, oh well perfection will never exist. I find there are web sites that kill FF 1.5 and 2.0 that IE7 doesn't choke on. While earlier releases of IE7 were definitely sucking up memory the last one isn't. I think but I haven't checked it out thoroughly but FF still seems to have a memory leak. Yeah I use two addins so that might be why I am getting that maybe I will investigate or maybe I will just accept it? I tend to disagree with some of the sentiments about standards as the open source community I believe may be guilty of creating some standards just to thwart MS. Proving that they have done this credibly might be difficult and Ms is not without sin in this department either. So it is kind of a moot argument and just a matter of personal perspective. It would be nice if there ever were standards that got ahered too but unfortunately that seems to be our continuous battle that never gets resolved. It would be real nice if I could use either FF or IE to use SharePoint, OWA or Project Server but that unfortunately is still not the case. That also means that I need to have IE available to use such products which I frequently do use. Now on the plus side for FF and other Open Source products I say thank God they exist because without them I have no idea how much more we would have to spend on software then we currently do. So I remain as I have been already a dual browser user and add this thought. If you do web sites you have to factor your design/development to work with both (or more) or you are asking for trouble with employers and customers...
Where did my glasses go...
_alank wrote:
open source community I believe may be guilty of creating some standards just to thwart MS
Oh come on... the standards that aren't being supported by IE is the W3C standards which is what defines the standards for the internet. They don't favor any implementation. They just define what is expected by an implementation. MS having the dominant market share defines their own standards by only implementing part of the W3C standards and adding their own extensions. This is problematic for any web developer that targets the general audience as now you need to code around this. If they supported the standard set by the W3C then you could just write one code base and it would work across all browsers. As most browsers support the standard. This is the same as it was for C++ at the compiler level. Its nothing new.
This statement is false.
-
_alank wrote:
open source community I believe may be guilty of creating some standards just to thwart MS
Oh come on... the standards that aren't being supported by IE is the W3C standards which is what defines the standards for the internet. They don't favor any implementation. They just define what is expected by an implementation. MS having the dominant market share defines their own standards by only implementing part of the W3C standards and adding their own extensions. This is problematic for any web developer that targets the general audience as now you need to code around this. If they supported the standard set by the W3C then you could just write one code base and it would work across all browsers. As most browsers support the standard. This is the same as it was for C++ at the compiler level. Its nothing new.
This statement is false.
I agree. It's really strange what Microsoft has billions and billions and cannot invest a really small bit of time and money to turn IE7 standards compliant or just put some option in the browser "compliance mode". It is one initiative what really will bring developers more happy with MS and IE, and will grow the MS popularity and reliability too. I was really happy and surprised when Visual Studio 2005 supported fully W3C XHTML, then I wondered if IE7 too, but I was wrong. :( Let's wait IE8 then...
Jesus is Love! Tell to someone! :badger:
-
Clickok wrote:
- Windows restart not needed (IE7 requires a long restart)
I can install VS2005 and use it without restart. So?
Clickok wrote:
- Take less than 1 minute to install (IE7 took almost 5-10 minutes)
That is because the distribution size is small.
Clickok wrote:
- Even I removing the previous versions, Firefox maintained my settings and add-ons (IE7 I need set the home page again)
I would consider this a bad thing. I am sick of having to manually remove the leftover after uninstalling an application.
Clickok wrote:
- My website is nicest in Firefox (IE7 is not standards compliant - not fixed the table height problems yet...)
I am glad to know that your website is nicest in Firefox. But if you are implying that your website isn't nice under IE, you have a big problem. I am not againsting Firefox,but I think it just isn't as good as everyone seems to think.
.jpg wrote:
I can install VS2005 and use it without restart. So?
Irelevent in this context. But, even then, I installed Visual Studio Express last week, and it made me restart. It just depends on whether any of the files that it wants to replace is in use. But, you have to accept that Firefox developers have taken the effort to make sure that there are no system files being replaced.
.jpg wrote:
That is because the distribution size is small.
It shows clear direction. A small executable is an essential feature of a web-based distribution scheme. It is a big plus -- There are still a number of people using dialup connections. Also, there is no *fooling* the user with an installer that is 1MB in size, only to find that the installer has to download another 100 MB.
.jpg wrote:
I am sick of having to manually remove the leftover after uninstalling an application.
Excellent point. I think Ubuntu Linux's Package Manager is the best in this regard. It gives you the options - "removal" -- removing only application files, and "complete-removal" -- removing everything including user preferences.
.jpg wrote:
I am not againsting Firefox,but I think it just isn't as good as everyone seems to think.
I have no idea what others think. But, I use FireFox with an Ad-blocker extension called Adblock with a filter called Filterset.G. In my opinion, that extension alone gives you enough reason for using FireFox. There are a number of things that are not properly supported in Firefox -- for example, dynamic fonts. There are pros and cons to FF and IE -- it is an individual preference based on the feature set. I think that Firefox team is more responsive to the needs of the users than the IE team. Thomas
-
IE takes forever to stop loading a page when you hit stop, sometimes it won't stop at all. Firefox stops immediately.
UltraCoder wrote:
Firefox stops immediately
I've had the exact opposite experience many times. In the last few days, I've had Firefox stall so bad I had to shut it down. At least twice a month I have to resort to use End Task in Task Manager. With IE, it's more about once every two months though I can't remember the last time I had to use it; I think it was sometime during the summer.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke