Firefox, just showing off!

Another feature of FF which I sorely miss when I'm restricted to IE use in the office is right clicking on an image on a site and getting the "Copy image location" option. Extremely useful, particularly if you want to post pics from other sites in forums like this one. In IE you have to right click, Properties and then manually select the image URL from the properties dialog :rolleyes:

Also Paul, I'd draw your attention to a particularly important paragraph on the FireFox homepage:

Firefox is a Technology Preview.

While this software may work well enough to be relied upon as your primary browser, we make no guarantees of its performance or stability in its pre-1.0 state and it should not be relied upon for mission- critical tasks. See the License Agreement for more information.
Click to expand...

..so they are not claiming it's ready for prime time yet but even in this pre 1.0 state it's still more stable than IE for me.

Michael.
 
I have just phoned my mate Bill Gates and he has finally agreed with me that browsers are dead,as a concept they are just useless and should be replaced

he will use something else he says,probably word or excel,i agreed with him and didnt charge him for my advice because he is a mate

yuo heard it hear first
 
I have a policy of working backwords now, I design the site for Mozzila then get it to work in I.E. Mozzila supports W3C where as I.E is rusty.

So when a site dosn't display in Mozzila its not Mozzila's fualt its the ediot web developers! I've managed to get my new music site to look identical in both I.E and Mozzila and both the CSS and HTML is W3C complient.

Mozzlia is much better than I.E
 
Originally posted by PBirkett
Hmm, my opinion is based on the fact that IE6 works ALL of the time, whereas the others are not. Thats a fairly measurable benchmark for success, AFAIC. All the features IE lacks can be added. Even Avant, while I like its features, is buggy compared to using IE6 on its own.

Firefox, just from using it in the last hour again, proves it has a lot of catching up to do, IMHO. I am not just saying this to be akward, but it clearly is not as stable / reliable as IE6.
Click to expand...

I have had no problems at all with Mozzila Fireboxs stabability it seems faster and more stable than I.E.

Some sites don't work in Mozzila but if they don't they are breaking accessability laws and don't deserve my visit anyway.

Around 12% of web users now use Mozzila.
 
Originally posted by amazingtrade
I have a policy of working backwords now, I design the site for Mozzila then get it to work in I.E. Mozzila supports W3C where as I.E is rusty.
Click to expand...

Given how that is the browser with the problem, then thats probably wise; You KNOW that IE will display it properly.

So when a site dosn't display in Mozzila its not Mozzila's fualt its the ediot web developers! I've managed to get my new music site to look identical in both I.E and Mozzila and both the CSS and HTML is W3C complient.
Click to expand...

I think it could well be six of one half and half a dozen of the other, that is, assuming IE6 really isnt standards compliant... And from what I have read, its not that IE6 isnt standards compliant, it is, as you say, the developers - its just IE6 is forgiving, Firefox (and other browsers) are not.

Mozzlia is much better than I.E
Click to expand...

I disagree. I tried using it today for a few hours, and I just cannot get used to its clunky design - the favorites menu is the worst - why does it not use the standard .URL files? Thats irritating IMO. If we are talking about features then a browser called Opera ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS firefox - even Avant browser seems to be more fully featured. For stability, then IE6 all the way for me. Its not perfect, but Firefox certainly aint perfect either.

Anyway, I've had enough arguing about browsers, I dont suppose any of us will change our views on this, so best to leave it at that, I think ;)
 
4 the mod

Sir,
Am I alone in thinking that this is a porn type spam due to all the talk about EXTENTIONS and who makes the best use of their EXTENTION?:confused:
 
any of the mac bods tried out Camino yet?

christ it's quick! :eek:


pushes the boat out a bit from FF too, methinks. very nice.

lmao, it may be quick, but it doesn't know what a "£" is :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Camino is quick but theyt stopped development of it, its the same people who are doing firefox.

Opera is worth a punt as well, in terms of how a web browser can look in OSX, unfortunatly its dog slow.
 
I think it could well be six of one half and half a dozen of the other, that is, assuming IE6 really isnt standards compliant... And from what I have read, its not that IE6 isnt standards compliant, it is, as you say, the developers - its just IE6 is forgiving, Firefox (and other browsers) are not.
Click to expand...

There are very few sites that Mozilla or Firefox are unable to render correctly, and those are sites that are poorly designed, by web monkeys who have no real clue who should be sent on a basic html course.

why does it not use the standard .URL files? Thats irritating IMO.
Click to expand...

Because they're not standard, they're only used by IE and its derivatives.

I like Firefox, dislike Mozilla (too big and unwieldy), and think Opera is nice enough but not worth paying for given the quality of the free alternatives. I occasionally have to use Windows machines that only have IE installed. it's OK, but very feature deficient (the lack of tabbed browsing is a deal killer for me).

-- Ian
 
Originally posted by sideshowbob
Because they're not standard, they're only used by IE and its derivatives.
Click to expand...

Actually, all browsers will open .URL files, they are not only used by IE, and the fact that they will open these standard windows shortcuts, but then go on to use cumbersome HTML files for bookmarks is irritating to me. URL files are much easier to deal with overall.
 
Originally posted by PBirkett
Actually, all browsers will open .URL files, they are not only used by IE, and the fact that they will open these standard windows shortcuts, but then go on to use cumbersome HTML files for bookmarks is irritating to me. URL files are much easier to deal with overall.
Click to expand...

Sorry Paul, your only talking Windows there. The API to deal with .URL files is an MS invention (it's documented in the Windows API), but it's not a standard, and certainly not for cross-platform browsers. I'm not even sure if IE on the Mac uses .url files, must check.

-- Ian
 
Originally posted by sideshowbob
I'm not even sure if IE on the Mac uses .url files, must check.
Click to expand...
it doesn't IIRC (removed it pretty much the first day i had the mac) and it is a far cry from its Windows counterpart.
 
One vote for Firefox here. Once you've tabbed, you'll never go back! Not to mention the massive reduction in the amount of spyware you get coming in, the faster loading times, and that warm feeling you get inside when you abandon Microsoft for a better alternative! :D
 
By faster load times, do people mean the time it takes to view a webpage, or does it refer to start up speed for the browser.

Firefox has never crashed on me, I like tab browsin, I don't really find it any faster or slower than IE. But it does seem to take a fair bit longer to open the actual browser. :confused:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top