Page 2 of 2

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:44 am UTC
by Jesse
IE worked fine for me up until the point that it didn't anymore. Now FireFox fulfills my needs and I've seen no good reason to move. I never have more than 4 tabs open at once anyways and I've got a decent processor and RAM coming out of my earholes.

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:47 am UTC
by taiki
Firefox meant to me the promise that I could one day come into work and not have to deal with a call from some jerk who didn't realize that Bonzi buddy wasn't really his buddy.

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:30 am UTC
by Birdman
taiki:
Welcome.


...it's just a browser.


And a crappy one at that. Opera 9.2 for the win. That said, I usually recommend Firefox to people when I'm trying to get them off IE - mostly because it's an easier transition for most of them.

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:35 am UTC
by Jack Saladin
... I can understand preferring Opera, but how is Firefox "crappy"?

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:42 am UTC
by Aaron Haynes
For me, this sort of thing usually happens during that irritating period when you almost fell asleep, but one particular thought was so important it had to wake you back up so you can contemplate it harder.

And it's usually something stupid like "oh my god, i'm going to die one day."

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:54 am UTC
by Teaspoon
beinsane wrote:Every time I hear someone bitch about IE not being standards-compliant, I want to start screaming about how any "standard" that the browser that 80% of the world uses won't handle properly is no standard at all, and if anything, IE is the standard and it's the W3C that isn't standards-compliant...


I agree with you here. A little bit.

For early versions of HTML, the standards should probably just be redefined to whatever IE does. But when, say, CSS was invented and Microsoft included it in CSS, they buggered it up and made it behave differently to what the inventors of CSS said it should. Can anybody you know write CSS that works flawlessly in IE? If it does, does it still look like clean CSS?

Microsoft don't innovate in any of the popular blanguages*, and their implementations of everybody else's innovations don't work.

*If a "web log" can be abbreviated to "blog", I can damn well call a "web language" a "blanguage"!

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:34 am UTC
by Babbler
In all seriousness, the comic is right. It's just a browser.

BTW, have you seen the Firefox Facebook group? It calls people to become "campus reps", who:

<blockquote>Tell everyone you know why you think Firefox is the browser choice of your generation. Is Firefox prominent on campus? Help make it so! This is an awesome opportunity to meet other open source enthusiasts, develop new ideas, and gain amazing experience to add to your resume. Our passionate community is what keeps Firefox alive, now is your chance to jump in!</blockquote>

That's ... too much. Really, it sounds just a stupid as that Stephen Baldwin book I saw at Chapters (hardcore faith ... what the hell is that?).

Re: JERK

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:38 am UTC
by Pathway
rektide wrote:MrBawn ok i'm gonna bust out the rude stick here for a second.

of course you have no fucking idea what i'm talking about,
your running firefox with 4.5 times the ram jerk.
of course you can open plenty of tabs.
your 750 mhz pentium iii is also significantly faster than my 800mhz crusoe.


All that tells us is that Opera's better when you have a dinosaur for a machine. In the modern era, computers have a gig or two of RAM to play with.

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:45 am UTC
by RealGrouchy
My initial reaction to this thread was that this discussion simply isn't the same when you don't have the "-1: Overrated" at your disposal.

Then I realized I'm a mod on this forum...

My subsequent reaction was "mwahahaha...."

- RG>

My bark is worse than my bite. I rarely use my mod powers.

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:57 am UTC
by rektide
All that tells us is that Opera's better when you have a dinosaur for a machine. In the modern era, computers have a gig or two of RAM to play with.


tell that to one laptop per child, tell that to my cell phone, tell that to the dual celeron bp6 i donated to my parents, tell that to big iron running massive numbers of users, tell that to gumstix and blackdog, tell that to anyone that has to buy cheap used laptops on craigslist or anyone not stupid enough to think a web browser should need 256mb of ram just for itself.

even in a plentiful environment, its rude to be a total resource hog unnecessarily.

firefox is a very simple program with a propensity for running like dogfood and consuming resources like Donald Trump. to this date, firefox is the only case i've ever seen in the entire history of computing where people will defend to the death a programs right to be slow and require require modern hardware, and yet its a frakking web browser.

its easy to write out anyone without as much ram or mhz as yourself, but the fact that firefox requires that kind of resources in the first place is really an insult to proper coding everywhere.

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:05 pm UTC
by Birdman
... I can understand preferring Opera, but how is Firefox "crappy"?


In an unfair and overstated way, of course. It's "crappy" because it doesn't have the handy things and comfortable Opera interface I've grown to love. It's "crappy" because every time I do the "hold-RMB + click-LMB" for "back" mouse click, it doesn't work (and a host of similarly unimportant things) and makes me a tiny bit irritated.

See others' posts for resource usage etc (this post was written using Opera on a 933Mhz Mobile Pentium III with 256 MB RAM and it was smooth as silk...).


It really comes down to "Mozilla is crappy because I prefer Opera and Mozilla isn't Opera."

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:02 pm UTC
by zealo
i just downloaded opera to see what it was like, in 30 seconds i decided i like firefox because the top right search bar would not let me select wikipedia.

wikipedia search bar rules

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:00 pm UTC
by Torn Apart By Dingos
zealo wrote:i just downloaded opera to see what it was like, in 30 seconds i decided i like firefox because the top right search bar would not let me select wikipedia.

wikipedia search bar rules

i just downloaded firefox to see what it was like, in 30 seconds i decided i like opera because the top right search bar would not let me select wikipedia.

Go to wikipedia (or any site with a search function), right click the little search box and click "Create search...". Done! It's a christmas miracle!

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:23 pm UTC
by EvanED
Torn Apart By Dingos wrote:
zealo wrote:i just downloaded opera to see what it was like, in 30 seconds i decided i like firefox because the top right search bar would not let me select wikipedia.

wikipedia search bar rules

i just downloaded firefox to see what it was like, in 30 seconds i decided i like opera because the top right search bar would not let me select wikipedia.

Go to wikipedia (or any site with a search function), right click the little search box and click "Create search...". Done! It's a christmas miracle!


It's not even that hard... click on the drop down in the box, choose "Add Engines", choose Wikipedia. You don't have to do something unrelated like the "Add a keyword for this search..."

Though really... eBay and Amazon are included but not Wikipedia?


A question for the Opera users:
I'm a big fan of FF extensions, and that's the reason that I stay with it. I like the extra functionality. But I haven't used Opera in a while, and haven't really looked into it. Does it have extensions too? A couple of the things like mouse gestures that I use are native to Opera, but there are some decidedly esoteric things like the "Fark-it" extension I think it's called which adds some functionality specifically for fark.com. Then there are some that seem like they *might* be in Opera because they're useful and not hard to see, but I don't know, like FlashBlock. (This extension used to be called Flash click-to-play, because it displays a box where the flash animation would be, and you have to click it for it to show up. Note that something that blocks flash entirely is no good.) How is Opera in this area?

Also, is there an equivalant to FF's "add keyword to this search"? That might be another killer feature of FF right now. I know there's the search box, but for some reason I don't use it. Instead I have keywords so "g <blah>" searches google, "gi <blah>" searches google image, "w" for wikipedia, "man" a repository of man pages (the man system on the computer's I'm using is very poorly set up), etc. I think part of this might be habit of just never using the search box, but a large part is also definitely that I don't know how to change the search engine that's active via the keyboard, or make new ones (like for the man pages).

Oh, and aldimond, clearly you're delusional. Emacs really is the One True Editor. ;-)

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:13 pm UTC
by Torn Apart By Dingos
EvanED wrote:It's not even that hard... click on the drop down in the box, choose "Add Engines", choose Wikipedia. You don't have to do something unrelated like the "Add a keyword for this search..."

I know how to do it. :) I was just mocking zealo because he made a stupid comment about something not being built-in in Opera when it wasn't built-in in Firefox either.

Does it have extensions too?

It has userjs (some Firefox-specific userjs works in Opera, some does not), and custom buttons. Then there's widgets, which I don't consider very useful.

The following site has userjs for Opera. I've used a Flashblock thingy before, I think it was this one: http://userjs.org/scripts/general/enhan ... de-objects

Here are a lot of buttons: (but if you're into editing text files, you can make them yourself) http://operawiki.info/CustomButtons

Also, is there an equivalant to FF's "add keyword to this search"?

Yes, that is precisely the feature I described above. When you have clicked "Create search..." you can choose a keyword for the search. In Opera, the search engines with keywords are the same as the ones in the search box to the upper right.

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:21 pm UTC
by EvanED
Torn Apart By Dingos wrote:
EvanED wrote:It's not even that hard... click on the drop down in the box, choose "Add Engines", choose Wikipedia. You don't have to do something unrelated like the "Add a keyword for this search..."

I know how to do it. :) I was just mocking zealo because he made a stupid comment about something not being built-in in Opera when it wasn't built-in in Firefox either.


Yes, that is precisely the feature I described above. When you have clicked "Create search..." you can choose a keyword for the search. In Opera, the search engines with keywords are the same as the ones in the search box to the upper right.


Oohhh, oops. I saw the repeated (or nearly repeated) line, didn't notice the change of name from Opera to Firefox, and assumed it was a quoting error. Then thought that you were talking about FF's ability to do that, and suggesting it as a way to get Wikipedia searching...

*slinks off*

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:42 pm UTC
by rektide
opera not searching wikipedia automatically is massively frustrating. its one of the few changes i'll make to a owners computer without their permission. that, adjusting the refresh rate of 60hz, and downlading putty into c:/windows/system32.

just to call the boo-ya on all you firefox kids, today there was a slashdot on opera being ported to the XO (one laptop per child). i sincerely hope firefox can tighten its belt and deliver a comparable experience.

the biggest problem with opera is that the SDK is commercial. my understanding is that opera is incredibly flexible and powerful and manipulable, but all these functionalities are locked in the SDK, sold to vendors and distributors who want customized browsers to present to customers. its unfortunate, but to me its understandable & justified: opera has to make money somehow.

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:44 pm UTC
by rektide
ps, the emoticon block makes this site work really really poorly in elinks. this text entry box is 1/2 the screen.

if SVGTATextMode worked i guess it wouldnt be a problem. but i havent gotten widths other than 80 working on this p1120 laptop. kinda criminal, i know.

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:28 pm UTC
by TheTankengine
Birdman wrote:
... I can understand preferring Opera, but how is Firefox "crappy"?


In an unfair and overstated way, of course. It's "crappy" because it doesn't have the handy things and comfortable Opera interface I've grown to love. It's "crappy" because every time I do the "hold-RMB + click-LMB" for "back" mouse click, it doesn't work (and a host of similarly unimportant things) and makes me a tiny bit irritated.

See others' posts for resource usage etc (this post was written using Opera on a 933Mhz Mobile Pentium III with 256 MB RAM and it was smooth as silk...).


It really comes down to "Mozilla is crappy because I prefer Opera and Mozilla isn't Opera."


I use FFx2. When I do the "hold-RMB + click-LMB" it works. Also if I hold RMB and drag left it goes back. I also have about 100 other mouse gestures. I also have a download bar across the bottom and a very condensed menu in the upper right to maximize screen and complete adblocking and a host of other things as well.

The point I'm making is, Opera has some great features, and mostly they are turned on by default. FFx does not come with as many features, but it is much easier to add all those functions as well as a plethora of features that Opera does not have and will not have soon. That is the beauty of "Extensions" and the Open Source model. Don't see the feature you want? Make it. If there is a feature in Opera that you want but isn't present, I could you could apply for a job as an Opera dev? Or make requests that probably don't have very high priority?

Opera is a damn good browser (and its going to make my Wii even more addictive come friday!) but its closed source. For me, that presents some problems.

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:31 pm UTC
by TheTankengine
rektide wrote:opera not searching wikipedia automatically is massively frustrating. its one of the few changes i'll make to a owners computer without their permission. that, adjusting the refresh rate of 60hz, and downlading putty into c:/windows/system32.

just to call the boo-ya on all you firefox kids, today there was a slashdot on opera being ported to the XO (one laptop per child). i sincerely hope firefox can tighten its belt and deliver a comparable experience.

the biggest problem with opera is that the SDK is commercial. my understanding is that opera is incredibly flexible and powerful and manipulable, but all these functionalities are locked in the SDK, sold to vendors and distributors who want customized browsers to present to customers. its unfortunate, but to me its understandable & justified: opera has to make money somehow.


I highly doubt the XO will ship with Opera. They turned down OS X with no cost to them because the top layers are proprietary. They want to create an ecosystem of truly free software so anyone with access to the laptop can completely get into the meat of it and hack away. Opera would not allow this to happen. Therefore, Opera on the XO will not happen, certainly not by default.

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:04 pm UTC
by rektide
My point wasnt that Opera is going to be the XO web browser, its that it can run on the XO and allegedly runs quite nicely. My suspicion is that Firefox on the XO will be a no-fly for performance reasons, sans extremely heavy rewriting & trimming.

browsers

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:06 pm UTC
by cracky
First of all: rektide, I'm generally in complete agreement with you, but I did choke on your use of "irregardless" in your first post. (And yes, I know it's actually a word - just a bad one. And yes, I know I shouldn't start a sentence with "and").

As for Firefox, I agree its performance sucks. I have to restart it every morning even if it hasn't hung or crashed just to get my memory usage back to something reasonable. Thank god for the "TabMixPlus" plugin -- session management that actually works (unlike the built-in session management of 2.0). Which brings me to Opera: I like it a lot. Great performance, and great session management. Unfortunately it doesn't work with the webmail we have to use a work, so it's either Firefox or Safari for me. Safari is nice, but feature lacking, unfortunately.

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:33 pm UTC
by Birdman
TheTankengine

I understand the attraction of Firefox but, to me, the attraction of Open Source is that someone else has made the feature I want -- my programming is limited to helpful scripts in Octave/Matlab. As someone else has already made the features I want and put them in Opera it's the browser solution for me.

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:36 am UTC
by william
Torn Apart By Dingos wrote:
meso wrote:Firefox on Windows, though... Thinking about checking out this Opera thing, though. I hear it's actually better?

Yes! Faster, smaller, less security holes, passes the Acid2 test. But just try it out and you'll see for yourself if you like it.

Opera is good with the exception that its Javascript implementation sucks pink and white striped monkey balls. I have to use the "basic HTML" version of Gmail with it or it crashes. This deeply annoys me.

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:08 am UTC
by Vandole
TheTankengine wrote:um, IceWeasel anyone?


I'm not really into pokemon.

I'm using FFx2 here, made the transition from IE6 about a year ago. I apparently fall into the "computer with massive amounts of ram" thing so I've never experienced any severe problems. Randomly it will crash, but it seems to be specific pages that cause it, so I just don't go there.

Also, is it just me, or is IE7 actually a step backward in GUI intuitiveness? I can't find anything in it now.

EDIT: And having just tried Opera, it seems decent, but the little things bug me. Like how I can't find a preference to set scrolling speed. And somehow, that breaks Opera for me. Plus going from Firefox to Opera is weird. The tabs and windows options just aren't intuitive at all.

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:11 am UTC
by Ephphatha
Torn Apart By Dingos wrote:
zealo wrote:i just downloaded opera to see what it was like, in 30 seconds i decided i like firefox because the top right search bar would not let me select wikipedia.

wikipedia search bar rules

i just downloaded firefox to see what it was like, in 30 seconds i decided i like opera because the top right search bar would not let me select wikipedia.

Go to wikipedia (or any site with a search function), right click the little search box and click "Create search...". Done! It's a christmas miracle!


Ctrl-t

"wikipedia I feel like searching for something"

It's a christmas miracle!

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:21 am UTC
by taiki
just think, fifteen years ago we were at each other's throat over Vi or Emacs.

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:33 am UTC
by aldimond
taiki wrote:just think, fifteen years ago we were at each other's throat over Vi or Emacs.


And if you say, "Emacs," we still are. :evil:

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:58 am UTC
by taiki
aldimond wrote:
taiki wrote:just think, fifteen years ago we were at each other's throat over Vi or Emacs.


And if you say, "Emacs," we still are. :evil:


PICO

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:24 pm UTC
by aldimond
taiki wrote:
aldimond wrote:
taiki wrote:just think, fifteen years ago we were at each other's throat over Vi or Emacs.


And if you say, "Emacs," we still are. :evil:


PICO


Oh my. I'll just leave you alone then. *backs away*

(vi, even vim, is far from the ideal editor for today's modern computers. But pico? Bleh.)

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:29 pm UTC
by william
taiki wrote:just think, fifteen years ago we were at each other's throat over Vi or Emacs.

If you reverse "Emacs", you get "scamE". Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:40 pm UTC
by Peshmerga
william wrote:
taiki wrote:just think, fifteen years ago we were at each other's throat over Vi or Emacs.

If you reverse "Emacs", you get "scamE". Coincidence? I THINK NOT!


On that note;

What's the opposite of progress? Congress.
Santa is an anagram of Satan.

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:13 pm UTC
by OmnipotentEntity
Mother-in-Law is an anagram of Woman Hitler.

Coincidence?

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:02 pm UTC
by Pathway
Ah, Aned34, it's good to hear from you. You bring a much-needed... what do we call it... sleaziness to this forum.

As for rektide:

rektide wrote:tell that to one laptop per child, tell that to my cell phone, tell that to the dual celeron bp6 i donated to my parents, tell that to big iron running massive numbers of users, tell that to gumstix and blackdog, tell that to anyone that has to buy cheap used laptops on craigslist or anyone not stupid enough to think a web browser should need 256mb of ram just for itself.

even in a plentiful environment, its rude to be a total resource hog unnecessarily.

firefox is a very simple program with a propensity for running like dogfood and consuming resources like Donald Trump. to this date, firefox is the only case i've ever seen in the entire history of computing where people will defend to the death a programs right to be slow and require require modern hardware, and yet its a frakking web browser.

its easy to write out anyone without as much ram or mhz as yourself, but the fact that firefox requires that kind of resources in the first place is really an insult to proper coding everywhere.


All I have to say to that is... you're correct. I didn't think of that. But those concerns don't matter for most of the computers I use, and I'm an extensions kind of guy, so I'll keep Firefox.

Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:59 am UTC
by EvanED
william wrote:
taiki wrote:just think, fifteen years ago we were at each other's throat over Vi or Emacs.

If you reverse "Emacs", you get "scamE". Coincidence? I THINK NOT!


And 'vi' backwards is 'iv'... who wants to use an editor named for needles they stick into your arm? NOT ME! ;-)

Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:41 am UTC
by aldimond
EvanED wrote:And 'vi' backwards is 'iv'... who wants to use an editor named for needles they stick into your arm? NOT ME! ;-)


Dude, I don't know what you had put into you last time you were on IV... but I know when I was, that shit was fiiiiine. I was trippin' all day.

I could live like that.

I couldn't afford it, but if I could...

Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:10 pm UTC
by LE4dGOLEM
I think, however, we can all agree againt netscape.

Re: "Perspective" Discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:57 pm UTC
by hypersapien
Out of curiosity, if you like firefox so much, why do you use alt tags that won't fit into firefox's tooltip?

Re: "Perspective" Discussion

Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:49 pm UTC
by '; DROP DATABASE;--
The main things that bothered me about Opera were A) ad blocking system is nowhere near as good as AdBlock, B) interface seems a lot less customizable (or at least is a lot more difficult to customize) and C) there seemed to be a lot of string handling bugs in the version I used (wrong strings being used often). It is a very nice browser though.

Re: "Perspective" Discussion

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:25 am UTC
by Dobblesworth
hypersapien wrote:Out of curiosity, if you like firefox so much, why do you use alt tags that won't fit into firefox's tooltip?


Firefox Long Titles add-on solves this. It's not just xkcd that gets burdened for those with out it.

I've been a Firefox user for 2.5 years now and I definitely find it superior to IE. Tabbed browsing, customisation, faster browsing and everything is fun. Maybe other browsers are better, but I'm content with FF and get by with standard IE at my office workstation, but the newer graphically-updated Windows Internet Explorer confuses me, and I try to stay clear of it.