Firefox 1.0 out Sept 2004

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/roadmap.html

 

You really do spend far too much time on that site!

 

I only have one question.

What's with the ridiculous version numbers?? Are they going out of their way to seem geeky??? Whats wrong with good old v1, v2 etc ??

Oh and is it finally going to be bug free?? Till it isn't I'm just going to stick with boring old IE. I'm no great fan of M$ company practices but you have to admit they make using a computer easy, not the over complicated, techy nightmares that a lot of other software houses insist on producing. I think 99% of software writers need to get out in to the real world more often.. maybe then they'll see how it works


GTM

 

GTM if you believe Microsoft make computing easy you need to get out in the real world more often.

But yes I agree I tend to use fire fox for about a day then just give up on it, the interface is a bloody mess for this day and age.

 

I agree, its still far from perfect to me. I dont see this as a worthy successor to IE / Avant (or other IE based derivatives) just yet.

The back bug for starters, happens on lots of sites.

Its still too complex to get the features you want.

The interface sucks, unless you download additional skins.

Oh and Garyi, Windows XP is miles ahead of OS X for usability. OS X is still stuck using a "traditional" GUI approach, where one must know which application to use in order to get something done. Windows XP has a task based interface which makes life very easy for those who dont know what application does what. It presents simple concepts like the start button (click that as the starting point), and other tasks, simply described in a fashion like "Email this file" and stuff like that. I dont deny WXP does not look as pretty as OSX, but from what I've seen of it, WXP has it beaten in usability hands down. OSX is only easy if you already know what to do. I aint saying you need to be a rocket scientist to use OSX, I am sure its pretty easy to use for any computer literate person, but where Microsoft excels is in creating an operating system and applications that anyone can use, not just computer geeks.

 

It's not a bug with the browser, it's a bug in the way sites use "no-cache" headers. If a page is marked as "you shouldn't cache this" then it's perfectly legitimate for a browser to interpret the page that results from a "back" action as loading a brand new page which may be totally different from what it was 5 minutes ago so "where you were" is not a meaningful place.

It has all the features one (certainly, I) could reasonably want built in. The way extensions work is way better than the cack handed attempts at retrofitting features to IE that some people have tried.

Download the "Qute" skin (takes about 20 seconds) - job done. You can hardly say the IE interface is any better

I'm not even going to bother commenting on your anti-OS X rant. I use XP and I like it but I think OS X is better in many ways. There's really no debate about whether Windows or Macs are more user-friendly - it's Macs, hands down. If you've used Windows for years then of course there'll be some getting used to it but that's not a fair comparison.

Getting back to FireFox, it's the quickest, fastest most featured and least buggy browser I've ever used. It's already streets ahead of IE and the rest of the competition.

Michael.

 

Granted, but theres FAR too many sites do it. When Avant / IE doesnt do it, then why should I bother putting up with it?

Does it really, thats why I've just returned to Avant, because it does everything I want in a single download, and doesnt slow to a crawl like Firefox can do with a load of extensions. It takes a bloody age to get all the extensions I want anyway.

You are one arrogant git, do you know that? Theres no debate eh? Well, I have given reasons why I think WXP is a pretty reasonable OS, but you give no reasons. Dont bother even replying if your just gonna say "OSX is better end of story, no arguments", because frankly its boring, and typical of someone who is stubborn and who doesnt have any kind of open mind. Oh, Microsoft is evil... its all I hear all the time, and its sad.

Neither OS is perfect, and I didnt say it was, but you give no reason why my view is wrong. Next!!

Yep, you are right, as always

 

You expressed your opinion, I expressed mine. It's called a debate, something that happens sometimes on forums

I'll just take one of your opnions:

That is precisely what is so good about Macs . They are easy for anyone to use whereas you have to be a computer geek to get to grips with Windows. I've lost count of the number of computer novices I know who've instantly worked out how to use a Mac and have struggled for ages with a PC. It's not just the software either. When you come to add extra hardware to a Mac it really is plug and play whereas with XP it's more often than not, plug and pray...then download new drivers....then tweak the settings in control panel a bit....and finally, your device is working as it should .

Michael.

 

Because it's customary not to use v1.00 until it's a proper finished product. Until v1.00, FireFox is still pre-release software allthough it's the most stable "beta" software I've ever used!

Michael.

 

Right I see. So it's still not "officially" released then? Seems a bit odd that they have it available on the website for download and general use in that case.

So the Sept release will be the first official version of the browser?


btw - I downloaded their email application, and hit a barrier with its use straight away. There didn't seem to be any way to set up more than one email alias/account using the same server/username/password. In Outlook Express, my wife and I can both have separate email addresses and log on to the server using the same username/password. My ISP allows me to have up to 3 emails on each username/password and I'm not about to change my ISP mail configuration just to suit a new email application which can't handle such a simple and widespread email client/server function. Seems like a fundamental lack of flexibility to me.

GTM

 

Paul,

Spoken like someone who has never used a Mac.

TBH they are so easy to use you could pop one on someones desk who had never used a computer before and they would pick it up way quicker that if it was running XP, I've seen it at work and I bet Michael has too.

Apple have been into GUI's for years m8.

Just for the record I use XP and I use Firefox and Thunderbird.

PS if you do an help -> about in IE it will say "NCSA Mosaic", that's the first ever internet browser, I do wonder how old some of the code in IE actually is, I remember compiling Mosaic 1.1 many years ago (1993 I think)

Opps showing my age now.

 

But there is less hardware available for Mac's and it does cost more.

 

Well, Opera was the best, until they gave up trying to fit it on 1 floppy. Opera 2.2 would be my preference, except all those dumb web designers insist on putting kak I dont want all over the place [see webpagesthatsuck.com] which it doesnt understand. Still, at least when you want to stop it running, it will.

 

No. A debate is putting points across, which I have done, and you havent. All your opinions are always stated as though they are facts. I can just imagine a conversation with you face to face, any disagreement would be met with you talking down to the other and rolling your eyes, as proved by your liberal use of where anyone disagrees.

Like it or not, you are a very stubborn chap. The football threads proved as much - you simply could not admit England deserved to win their match with Portugal, and you simply could not admit Greece deserved to win the final, even when everyone else disagreed. You cannot have a debate with people so stubborn - I have friends like this, and having conversations with them can prove very hard work sometimes, a bit like here then.

That is absolute crap. I would hardly call my mother a computer geek, yet she can navigate around windows no problem. If you cannot get to grips with XP and at least carry out basic tasks, then you should not be using a computer.

I dont buy this at all. Maybe you need to read this extract comparing the two operating systems.

In Windows XP, everything begins, appropriately enough, with the Start button, which launches a new Start Menu. This menu contains just about everything you need to get to work, your most commonly accessed applications, your most recently used documents, and a list of commonly accessed system locations. In Mac OS X, there is no equivalent to this. You are forced to hunt and peck for things. Let's say you want to change the resolution of the screen. How might you accomplish this in OS X? Holding down the mouse button on the desktop does no good. Choosing View from the Finder menu offers no clue. Choosing Finder Preferences lets you change icon sizes, but not the screen resolution. And so on. How about System Preferences? In System Preferences, the Mac equivalent of the Windows Control Panel, we see a set of icons much like that used in versions of Windows circa two years ago. Let's se... hmm.... Is it Displays, General, or Screen Saver?

The approach in XP is different. You could still spend some time wandering around, I suppose, though right-clicking the desktop and choosing Properties would work. But if you choose Control Panel from the Start Menu, you will see categories of options, rather than a slew of icons. One of them says Appearance and Themes, and none of the other categories could possibly be misconstrued as a possible choice. When you click this, you are confronted with tasks. One of them is "Change the screen resolution." Done.

Rubbish. If you cannot add a piece of hardware to a WXP based computer, you shouldnt be using it. This is how it goes whenever I have added hardware: Open computer, insert card, close computer, boot up, log in, it finds the device, and more often than not, asks for the included CD. Pop it in, it goes away and installs the device. WTF is hard about that?

I'll leave you with a final thought, although what good it will do I dont know, since you simply clearly just have it in for MS, and to be honest, I dont really care, but I do feel the need to challenge some of this bullshit talk that goes on here sometimes. Mac zealots are worse than Mana zealots, and thats saying something.

I think that the Mac OS has benefited from Windows as much as the reverse, but then that's the nature of evolution. Just remember that innovation is a two-way street.

FWIW, I have nothing against Mac's. Just their owners.

 

Paul, the speed at which a non-user can learn IT should not be a deciding factor, unless your company p's off secretaries every week. I would argue that Wordstar 4 was the most productive wordprocessor, with no GUI at all.
IMO, personal IT went down the pan with data CD-R, a format that shouldnt have been licenced. Until then, 'Office' etc was about 15 floppies - I've probably got a set somewhere..Copying, other than making safe back-ups, was fiddly - so hardly a major worry for the software people. They filled apps with fonts and garbage just to make it less copyable. Autocad had a dongle on a port to make it work - surely the best idea?
Once CD writers were around, they started fooling around with dll's/api's/ole's/.dats/ and all the other garbage just to make it less 'rippable'. Everything then bloated 100fold, and for what benefit? Wallpaper - why?

No piece of software should need more than an *.exe; a *.ini; and maybe a few extra files. In one folder too, thank you

 

:SLEEP:

FWIW I don't own a Mac, nor have I ever owned one allthough my dad had one for a long time so I've spent quit some time using one. I've always used PCs running Windows OSs (currently XP Pro). I always used IE and OE until something better came out which it did in the shape of FireFox and Thunderbird. I don't use Microsoft alternatives out of principle, I use them if they are better.

I don't use a Mac because I have an investment (and knowledge) in PCs and Windows and because I need to use a PC for my work. If I didn't have these conditions I probably would have a Mac instead of a PC.

The "comparison" you quoted is clearly a piece of anti-Mac propaganda so can be safely ignored. If you think I'm a Mac zealot then you're mistaken. I like both systems but it gets on my tits when Microsoft zealots like yourself lay into Macs without any good reasoning.

No, you should be using a Mac and you'd be fine

Michael.

 

Tools -> Account Settings -> click "Add Account"

Michael.

 

Is that the best you can do, reply with smileys?

You speak about Firefox as if it is a FACT that it is better than IE. But its not a fact at all. Its every bit as subjective as the very topic you base your forum on.

Does Firefox render all sites I visit correctly? No
Does it come with all of the features that I get with Avant, out of the box? No
Does it have a collection of annoying bugs? Yes

I'm sorry you find it so hard to accept that I would use an IE-engine front end browser like Avant, and like it better than your beloved Firefox. Unlike you though, I can admit the software I use is not perfect, you seem unable to accept that IE does some things better than Firefox, and it clearly does. You also clearly have a problem with me stating that I think XP is a good product. Well I think you talk bollocks, quite honestly.

There is a new kind of zealot in town - the firefox zealot.

 

novice firefox user here,and i likes it,no more do's my internet browser cause my machine to lock up for sevral minutes,or my machine to close down without warning yes there are one or 2 quirks but hey its free and its still in beta.As for some sites not apearing as they should,isnt this down to microshaft not playing by the rules?
know if i could olny get this dam copy of suse to install id be free from billy nomates and his naff software

 

Maybe this is the case, but the average user doesnt care about that. All they see is that a page will display "correctly" in IE, and not in Firefox. Their conclusion therefore will be that it is the browser that doesnt display it correctly, and I empathise with this view (unlike most computer geeks, it would seem).