Firefox amazes me any time I use it!

[Celeryman]

Excellent post omegaalpha. I will make use of these. A little extra speed never hurts.

 

[screw3d]

Originally posted by: omegaalpha
If you guys are into Firefox so much, you might as well try versions that are *optimized* for your CPU. The upshot, these versions have better patches, are more stable, are more current in the development track, and are hella faster than the official builds!

My favorites can be found here: http://moox.ws/tech/mozilla

Other sources include http://pryan.org/mozilla and http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=42

:thumbsup:

I use optimized builds from Moox too.. it IS the shiznit

 

[Schadenfroh]

im using the M2 optomized build, it doesnt come with an installer and when i go to install flash and stuff it confuses it, have to manually point it places, wish the guy would include an installer

 

[kylef]

in XP you can group similar items in taskbar.

In XP, you can retain the IE rendering engine and still improve the speed and usability of your browser drastically if you use Avant Browser.

It has ad-blocking, pop-up blocking, tabbed browsing, configurable search, etc. You can block Java, Flash, ActiveX, Sounds, etc. It's freeware with no ads or spyware. And like I said, the best feature is that it renders stuff exactly like IE since it uses the MS HTML engine.

It's like a 1 meg download. Give it a try, you might like it.

 

[stickybytes]

i use to use ie but i will never go back to it again, that is unless i have to do windows updates. Tab browsing is like a godsend for those people who multitask on the web. A good example is ebay/paypal. Using ie, i use to need two ie windows opened, one to buy my item on ebay, the other to login to my paypal account and pay. In firefox, i just open up a new tab.

the darnest thing is that firefox is so small. at 4.7mb's, even a 56ker can download that in no time. how do they pack so much goodness in such a small file?

 

[Slappy00]

I also use Firefox 0.9.3 I use it for all of my "normal" browsing. I have GMail in one tab Fark in one and whatever im browsing in the others. On occasion i need IE for certian Multimedia (flash) to show up, but thats it. Firefox is imo the best free browser out there.

 

[screw3d]

Originally posted by: kylef

in XP you can group similar items in taskbar.

In XP, you can retain the IE rendering engine and still improve the speed and usability of your browser drastically if you use Avant Browser.

It has ad-blocking, pop-up blocking, tabbed browsing, configurable search, etc. You can block Java, Flash, ActiveX, Sounds, etc. It's freeware with no ads or spyware. And like I said, the best feature is that it renders stuff exactly like IE since it uses the MS HTML engine.

It's like a 1 meg download. Give it a try, you might like it.

Actually one of the reasons of avoiding IE is the engine itself.. the Gecko engine is superior to IE engine in many ways, most importantly being standards-compliant

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: screw3d

Originally posted by: kylef

in XP you can group similar items in taskbar.

In XP, you can retain the IE rendering engine and still improve the speed and usability of your browser drastically if you use Avant Browser.

It has ad-blocking, pop-up blocking, tabbed browsing, configurable search, etc. You can block Java, Flash, ActiveX, Sounds, etc. It's freeware with no ads or spyware. And like I said, the best feature is that it renders stuff exactly like IE since it uses the MS HTML engine.

It's like a 1 meg download. Give it a try, you might like it.

Actually one of the reasons of avoiding IE is the engine itself.. the Gecko engine is superior to IE engine in many ways, most importantly being standards-compliant

never understood the standards thing, i mean, if the vast majority of the market use IE, isnt it the standard?

 

[kylef]

never understood the standards thing, i mean, if the vast majority of the market use IE, isnt it the standard?

Exactly.

But even beyond that point, the so-called "standards-compliant" Mozilla and Firefox browsers have several standards compliance problems that most people don't even realize.

For example, how the engine handles root certificates is anything but standard. Read this investigation.

 

[zixxer]

is there an option where by default when you click on something it opens a new tab instead of a new window?

 

[Mannkind]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: screw3d<BR>

Originally posted by: kylef<BR>

in XP you can group similar items in taskbar.

<BR><BR>In XP, you can retain the IE rendering engine and still improve the speed and usability of your browser drastically if you use Avant Browser.<BR><BR>It has ad-blocking, pop-up blocking, tabbed browsing, configurable search, etc. You can block Java, Flash, ActiveX, Sounds, etc. It's freeware with no ads or spyware. And like I said, the best feature is that it renders stuff exactly like IE since it uses the MS HTML engine.<BR><BR>It's like a 1 meg download. Give it a try, you might like it.

<BR><BR>Actually one of the reasons of avoiding IE is the engine itself.. the Gecko engine is superior to IE engine in many ways, most importantly being standards-compliant

<BR><BR>never understood the standards thing, i mean, if the vast majority of the market use IE, isnt it the standard?

Never understood the standards thing? How is using IE a standard? It's called a browser, it's not a standard. The standard is what IE should be using and reading, not whatever the heck it is using and reading now. IE might be the standard browser because most people use windows, but then your "standard browser" means run-of-the-mill browser, general browser. It does not mean that IE is now the standard for the web. It does not mean that how IE renders pages is now the standard of the web.
Wouldn't it be nice, if whatever platform a person was on they could view the webpage the same as everyone else? Yes? Oh, crazy, but that is what standards are for... and that is (one) reason IE is no good, because it cannot follow standards, it allows things that shouldn't be allowed, and that's why some pages come up weird and don't display correctly.

 

[screw3d]

Originally posted by: kylef

never understood the standards thing, i mean, if the vast majority of the market use IE, isnt it the standard?

Exactly.

But even beyond that point, the so-called "standards-compliant" Mozilla and Firefox browsers have several standards compliance problems that most people don't even realize.

For example, how the engine handles root certificates is anything but standard. Read this investigation.

Well, the good thing about Mozilla is this - near-instant bug fixes (at least in software development time scale).

IE does not render standards-compliant code.. there is no quesion about that. Mozilla is not perfect but it damn near is!

 

[kylef]

... and that is (one) reason IE is no good, because it cannot follow standards, it allows things that shouldn't be allowed, and that's why some pages come up weird and don't display correctly.

This logic is exactly why standards-oriented people will never win this argument.

People do NOT want to see errors on web pages. They simply do not care if the site has an error on it: that's the site's problem.

IE makes a best-effort attempt to render non-standards-compliant web pages without forcing errors into users faces, or giving up. If that is a breach of "standards compliance", then non-compliance is what users want.

If IE were an HTML validator, then you might have a point. But it is not. It is a web browser for end-users.

 

[SonicIce]

Opera :thumbsup:

 

[1sikbITCH]

TabBrowser Extensions
http://white.sakura.ne.jp/~piro/xul/_tabextensions.html

Fully configurable - lets you put the tab bar at the bottom if you want, normal click opens every window in a tab (same tab or a new one) if you want, plus a million other options.

 

[Mannkind]

Originally posted by: kylef

... and that is (one) reason IE is no good, because it cannot follow standards, it allows things that shouldn't be allowed, and that's why some pages come up weird and don't display correctly.

This logic is exactly why standards-oriented people will never win this argument.

People do NOT want to see errors on web pages. They simply do not care if the site has an error on it: that's the site's problem.

IE makes a best-effort attempt to render non-standards-compliant web pages without forcing errors into users faces, or giving up. If that is a breach of "standards compliance", then non-compliance is what users want.

If IE were an HTML validator, then you might have a point. But it is not. It is a web browser for end-users.

Right, it isn't a HTML validator. However, it is something designed to display HTML. Thus, if it were to display only valid HTML, then the users who are designing sites with bad HTML would then have to fix their site, correct? Then all browsers be able to render the code correct, instead of having only ones that will render improper code.
I don't think there is a way to 'win'. The problem is IE allows non-standard code, if it would stop that, well then it would be all the better. It would force people who are producing bad code to produce good code, thus no errors anywhere, instead of just no errors in IE.
IE isn't the end users problem, it is a problem for the developer because it allows non-standard code. I do agree people do not want to see errors on webpages, but those errors wouldn't be there in the first place if IE wouldn't render. The people designing the webpages would fix the errors and continue on. Instead because IE display non-standard code, the developers miss their mistakes.

 

[kylef]

IE isn't the end users problem, it is a problem for the developer because it allows non-standard code. I do agree people do not want to see errors on webpages, but those errors wouldn't be there in the first place if IE wouldn't render. The people designing the webpages would fix the errors and continue on. Instead because IE display non-standard code, the developers miss their mistakes.

Hey, I agree that the world would be a better place if we elite few could control everything for the ignorant masses... as undemocratic as that sounds. But the "user experience" and "gui design" people seem to have won that war. I just think it's silly trying to fight it. But regardless, put the blame where it lies: with the noncompliant web sites. IE is just picking one of two or three possible methods to deal with such sites.

Don't mean to take this off-topic too far, but I just noticed that we joined around the same time. Back when I joined, Windows 2000 still hadn't been released. Man, that seems like ancient history in computer time. I was running a Pentium Pro 200 with 64 megs of RAM and Windows NT 4.0. I've been gone a while... How many old-timers are still around, anyway?