Almost always use Firefox. Only time I use Internet Explorer is when something doesn't support Firefox.
I use firefox, even though I find it annoying sometimes when plugins don't work or if pages don't display properly. Tabbed browsing is awesome though.
I still use IE.
I've got Firefox installed on my computer, but I haven't yet completely switched over to it. My reasons for not switching to Firefox have dwindled down to the following:
1) Firefox doesn't allow me to open multiple browser windows by using a bound keyboard shortcut (CTRL+ALT+E)
2) Just as MSIE has the annoying, hard-to-get-rid-of "Links" folder in its Favorites menu, Firefox has its own required "Bookmark" directory which it will not let you delete.
3) Firefox still renders many pages oddly. Yes, I know this is because a lot of web pages have been developed with MSIE's bugs in mind. Regardless, it is still annoying.
4) I've got buttons on my Logitech keyboard that are bound to launch certain websites. However, when I make Firefox my default browser and I try to use these buttons nothing happens. I know this is related to how IE is intertwined with Windows, but still, it is another reason why I am sticking with IE for now.
I've got Firefox installed on my computer, but I haven't yet completely switched over to it. My reasons for not switching to Firefox have dwindled down to the following:
1) Firefox doesn't allow me to open multiple browser windows by using a bound keyboard shortcut (CTRL+ALT+E)
2) Just as MSIE has the annoying, hard-to-get-rid-of "Links" folder in its Favorites menu, Firefox has its own required "Bookmark" directory which it will not let you delete.
3) Firefox still renders many pages oddly. Yes, I know this is because a lot of web pages have been developed with MSIE's bugs in mind. Regardless, it is still annoying.
4) I've got buttons on my Logitech keyboard that are bound to launch certain websites. However, when I make Firefox my default browser and I try to use these buttons nothing happens. I know this is related to how IE is intertwined with Windows, but still, it is another reason why I am sticking with IE for now.
ActiveX is @ss. It's impossible to protect a webbrowser that supports it.
Some versions of mozilla-based browsers have supported ActiveX in the past. Namely later versions of Netscape from AOL.
I suppose that Firefox could support ActiveX if it wanted, too, and I wouldn't be suprised if it can be enabled thru extensions, but you don't want activeX.
Anybody who makes a webpage that requires ActiveX support is a moron. Your asking your customer/clients/whatever to open themselves up to all sorts of nasty flaws and crap.
Even WinXP SP2 has a whole slew of problems securing ActiveX, and it's worse for OSes like Windows 2000 that MS neglected to fix.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Because ActiveX is a stupid idea, hell the only site I can think of that requires it off hand is WindowsUpdate. Can you name something useful that FF doesn't implement?
Actually that's probably just a bug in the Logitech software, as long as FF is registered as the URL handler any program asking Windows to open a URL should get FF launched. The fact that nothing at all happens means they're doing something extremely stupid. If you have the time why not call support and ask them, it would only take a few minutes (depending on time on hold) or email them if they have a support address.
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
I'm not here to point out everything FF doesn't support. I'm pointing out your wording is an attack against web designers when the fault lies in the browser. It's a lie that you need to stop spreading. I don't care whether activeX is useful or not, that is all moot.
I'm not being a prick about it. Once again you are saying things that are untrue, blaming other people instead of the browser. You have shown on several occassions that you are the definition of fanboy. You cannot grasp the concept of your browser having faults, and you blame everyone else saying it's their problem. Wake up and smell the roses.
I'm not saying FF sucks, and I'm not anti-FF, I'm anti-fanboyism.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Your wording was just as much an attack against FF as mine was against people that actually use ActiveX. You can't call lack of support for something a fault when it's actually a good thing. That's like saying it's the fault of my company that I have to use an electronic badge to get into the buildings, the policy was put into place for a reason and even if it's a little inconvenient sometimes it's a good thing over all.
What do you care anyway? I would bet there's more people using Linux on their desktop than there are websites with ActiveX controls on them.
Riiiiight. And even if that's true, you sure do seem fanatical about your anti-fanboyism...
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
You are beating around the bush still. It is a fault, irregardless of how you word it. A website is developed using activex, FF doesn't support it, therefore it is the fault of the browser's lack of support that keeps it from rendering the page correctly. That is proper wording whether you like it or not. Just admit it's not the fault of the web designer that your browser can't render their site and we're done here.
It's not a bad thing to be fanatical, if the cause is right.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
And a website using CSS2 and PNG alpha transparency won't be supported properly by IE and those two things are actually standards instead of a corporate controlled interface, so I tend to favor them.
But it is the fault of the web designer because (s)he has a choice in what technology to use, there are alternatives to ActiveX and quite frankly just about everyone already uses them since I have yet to see a webpage other than WU that uses custom ActiveX controls.
Ah, so fanboyism is fine as long as it's in favor of something you believe in? So if I were a big Opera fanboy you would be standing right beside me loud and proud?
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
The faults of IE have nothing to do with this.
Once again, the problems with activex are not what's in dispute here. Saying it's a web designers fault for FF not rendering a site properly is ridiculous, and that is what I'm disputing.
I'm not a fanboy. You are. I don't stick by a company if I find something better, I switch in a heartbeat.
not supporting standards IS one of the faults of IE.
Microsoft should be perfectly capable of making a secure browser that is standard complient. People working with a fraction of the budget and developement resources can do it. KDE did it with konquerer, Opera developers did it, Mozilla did it more then once.
So why can't Microsoft do it?
It's silly to think that Firefox should model itself after the flawed developement that produced IE in order to work on websites made by inept developers.
I'd rather have everybody use a browser that is capable of working with websites that use modern software technology rather then being stuck in the time-warped wastelands of 1998 that IE currently has the world wide web stuck in. Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, Konquerer, Safari, Epiphany, Galeon... anything. Anything other then IE. Everybody would be better off.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter