Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox Reviewed in the Globe and Mail

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the more-press-is-good-press dept.

Mozilla 615

Eric Giguere writes "Today's Globe and Mail has a Firefox review titled A bug-free surfing zone in its Friday review section. Slashdot readers probably won't like the last phrase, though: 'Until Firefox finds a way around that, you might have to keep Internet ExplORer around -- just for emergencies, of course.'"

cancel ×

615 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

negatives of the review (5, Insightful)

Emugamer (143719) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373847)


"Firefox isn't perfect. It still has some bugs, which isn't surprising considering it only recently came out of "beta" or testing mode. It also can't do much with pages that require features only Internet Explorer has, such as the ability to run Active-X programs. These features are part of the reason IE is so riddled with malware, but they also allow it to interact with certain websites."


Perhaps these websites should move from building apps with ActiveX? just a thought :p

Re:negatives of the review (2, Interesting)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373865)

Doesn't ActiveX only run under Windows? (Or did I miss yet another meeting?) That's OS where it's all but impossible to delete IE, right? Rendering the whole point about keeping IE around kind of moot.

Re:negatives of the review (2, Insightful)

adeydas (837049) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373926)

Firefox is version 1 while IE is version 6, they are 5 versions apart (in IE's terms though ;)). So given the time IE had for development, FF would go places.

Re:negatives of the review (3, Insightful)

PoprocksCk (756380) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373985)

Right, but version numbers are really just marketing schemes in commercial products anyway. In the commercial world 1.0 means "good enough to sell," whereas in the Free/OSS world, it means that it's feature complete, stable, etc.

I do think that IE has had enough rewrites to have changed version numbers a few times... but they really should be calling it 5.x at this point though.

But then again, they're not even shipping standalone versions of IE though, since it's supposedly an "integrated" part of Windows (even though it really isn't). Oh well, Microsoft will continue to fool people, because people don't know any better.

Re:negatives of the review (2, Informative)

JPriest (547211) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374031)

Substituting version numbers for actual mathematical value is fun. But you forget that Firefox actually started as Netscape.

Re:negatives of the review (5, Interesting)

PoprocksCk (756380) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373946)

Yes, exactly. People should begin to understand that Firefox's lack of ActiveX is actually a good thing.

In the article they say that it's a good thing because of security, but the Firefox programmers should find a way around it. Well there is an ActiveX extension out there, if you feel like voluntarily letting people hijack your computer...

Re:negatives of the review (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373973)

"Well there is an ActiveX extension out there, if you feel like voluntarily letting people hijack your computer..."

or using your companies internal web apps that require ActiveX untill the bigwigs can be pursuaded to allocate funds and manpower "to rebuild something that already works."

Re:negatives of the review (2, Insightful)

Simon (S2) (600188) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373950)

"Firefox isn't perfect. It still has some bugs, which isn't surprising considering it only recently came out of "beta" or testing mode. It also can't do much with pages that require features only Internet Explorer has, such as the ability to run Active-X programs."

this article is great. it does a good job at explaining what firefox is and what it can do, and also tells the reader that if you try it and find a bug, don't trash it. give it time and keep it around.

i really like this article. it'S how we all should evangelize ff.

Re:negatives of the review (4, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373952)

Perhaps these websites should move from building apps with ActiveX? just a thought
Absolutely. And they should be more standards compliant, so a web page looks the same on all browsers. And there are a lot of other reasons web servers (or any kind of server) shouldn't rely on Microsoft's baroque, unpredictable, bit-tweaking approach to software.

But the fact is, a lot of web servers do use Microsoft technology, and a lot of people have to be able to deal with that. It's part of their job, or something else that's important to them, and their not interested in any Microsoft-Mozilla religious war. If you forget that, you have have no hope of helping people move away from their dependency on Mister Bill's Empire.

negatives of the review-Face the Music. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11374042)

"But the fact is, a lot of web servers do use Microsoft technology, and a lot of people have to be able to deal with that. It's part of their job, or something else that's important to them, and their not interested in any Microsoft-Mozilla religious war. If you forget that, you have have no hope of helping people move away from their dependency on Mister Bill's Empire."

I wasn't aware that security was a religious issue, but whatever floats your boat. Anyway, what do you suggest that will break the cycle of dependency, without bringing any "religious" issues into the picture?

Sounds to me like sooner or later the IE community is going to have to bite the bullet (pay the piper). Freedom, or slavery?

Re:negatives of the review (1)

(Jehuty) (848693) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374001)

I reckon you could solve the ActiveX stuff with a spare windows computer, VNC and some dodgy plugins

Re:negatives of the review (1)

wildBoar (181352) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374016)

I use the open in Internet Explorer extension.

It is useful to have.

Big prob with IE is a) its built-in to Windows and b) stuff like Update require it. So you are in fact forced to have it - of course this isn't monopoly abuse ! ....honest.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373852)

fp

My favorite Firefox story (5, Funny)

Staos (700036) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373853)

Microsoft used Firefox [nwsource.com] in a press image they sent out promoting their MSN Search.

Re:My favorite Firefox story (1)

till.k (103739) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373862)

Thumbs up for this. :)

Re:My favorite Firefox story (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373892)

My favorite is this article...

"A bug-free surfing zone [...] Firefox isn't perfect. It still has some bugs"

Did the editors who came up with the headline even READ the article?

Wait, I thought only Slashdot editors did that... GOOD LORD, "Globetechnology" is a front for Taco!

Re:My favorite Firefox story (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373907)

This article was not found or it has expired.

Hmmm... wonder why...

Re:My favorite Firefox story (1)

Bootle (816136) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373911)

This article was not found or it has expired.

Awww... That's not fair...

Re:My favorite Firefox story (1)

Staos (700036) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373935)

Aww, you probably need a subscripion to see the old articles. WFM.

Re:My favorite Firefox story (1, Troll)

onewing (754420) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374024)

Stop spreading misleading information.

They were showing how the MSN search beta would work with other broswers.

Re:My favorite Firefox story (3, Informative)

binkzz (779594) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374099)

No they weren't. They flat-out denied having used Firefox in the press release, despite the obvious screenshots. If they now claim they were showcasing MSN search in different browsers (something they never do), it's a lame attempt to try and save some face. Here's a link to the newsarticle that does work: http://www.nrg.co.il/online/10/ART/825/507.html

might have to keep it around? (5, Informative)

Vermyndax (126974) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373857)

You might have to keep IE around? What else are you going to do with it? It's integrated into the OS. The only way to get rid of it completely is to uninstall Windows. What's not to like about that statement? It's certainly worth a chuckle.

Mac IE is removed easily (5, Funny)

Vandil X (636030) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373882)

It's integrated into the OS. The only way to get rid of it completely is to uninstall Windows.
On my Mac, I just drag the "Internet Explorer" icon from my /Applications folder to the trash.


It's uninstalled :)

Re:Mac IE is removed easily (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11374088)

How do you know it fits in the trash???

Re:might have to keep it around? (1)

greypilgrim (799369) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373893)

That's the point I think. I know I don't use any website that require IE, so I got rid of it.

Re:might have to keep it around? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373933)

If you're on a residential Windows machine, and you refuse to use Iexplore.exe, then how do you get your Windows updates?

Re:might have to keep it around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373967)

You don't. Hey, no one said it was a particularly good idea. Or maybe it is, Windows Update can fuck your computer sometimes.

Re:might have to keep it around? (1)

greypilgrim (799369) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373971)

You don't... My experience with windows update is that it is useless. I keep one machine running windows xp just in case, and with the exception of service pack 1, no updates have ever been installed. No virii, no adware, no popups, no spam, ever. (and yes, it is actually connected to the net)

Re:might have to keep it around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11374076)

If you turn on automatic updates, you don't need IE.

Re:might have to keep it around? (4, Informative)

enosys (705759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374080)

XP has automatic updates [microsoft.com] , a program that can check for updates, download updates using the Background Intelligent Transfer Service [microsoft.com] and even install them automatically. That program doesn't appear to use Internet Explorer.

Re:might have to keep it around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373903)

sir, you are right on the mush

good point

Re:might have to keep it around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373916)

Delete iexplorer.exe and the BROWSER is gone.

The underlying network libraries, also called Internet Explorer, are much tougher to get rid of, but still possible with a little work [aroundcny.com] .

Re:might have to keep it around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373934)

Actually, it's not as integrated into the OS as you might think. If you start up in Safe Mode, and use some magical Windows jiggery-pokery, you can permanently remove iexplore.exe, so that when you try to open a link from a program which doesn't support the Windows default browser feature you'll get an error saying it can't find the damn thing. :)

Re:might have to keep it around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373989)

better yet instead of removing iexplorer.exe, you rename firefox.exe to it

ricardo

Re:might have to keep it around? (2, Informative)

enosys (705759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374019)

IEradicator [litepc.com] is a tiny script that uses the Windows setup engine to surgically remove Internet Explorer versions 3 through 6.0 from Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium and Windows 2000(sr1).

Re:might have to keep it around? (1)

Gary Destruction (683101) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374078)

Go to Litepc.com [litepc.com] . You can get 98lite or 2000/XPlite which will make Internet Explorer an uninstallable component in the add/remove programs section.

It's the Globe and Mail (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373858)

This isn't exactly a trustworthy news source in the first place, and they're quite sloppy to boot, even when you think they're talking about something they couldn't possibly be biased about. Take this whole article with several grains of salt.

Re:It's the Globe and Mail (1)

corsair2112 (813278) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373918)

This statement by the AC applies to Slashdot as well.

Re:It's the Globe and Mail (1)

Picard102 (803951) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374095)

Unlike the Toronto Star or the papers from Alberta?

HAHAHAHA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373859)

You made teh explorer funny. LOL OMG WT^9^9^(&&&&[NO CARRIER]

Oh, wait, I do have a carrier. You fucking tard.

Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373867)

How come I've got this little activeX plugin via crossover office in firefox on linux...?

Sure, it doesn't work with everything, but it does have some capabilities..

I thought there was one for windows too?

choice (3, Interesting)

Antonymous Flower (848759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373868)

'Until Firefox finds a way around that, you might have to keep Internet ExplORer around -- just for emergencies, of course.'
Not like Windows users have much of a choice..

Similar Article Review (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373874)

I found great insight from a review written by an open source developer on the recent trend of Firefox and its overall effect on the browser market. They also mention details regarding the marketshare of browsers, and how it effects global economy in regards to open source development. Definitely a must read for anyone who follows Firefox closely.

Here is the review [google.com] .

Windows Update (5, Informative)

IO ERROR (128968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373876)

Windows Update [microsoft.com] is the big reason Firefox users keep having to use Internet Explorer. There's an ActiveX plugin for Firefox [www.iol.ie] out there, but I don't know if (with masquerading the user agent) it will run Windows Update. Anyone tried this? There's also an extension that adds Windows Update to Firefox's Tools menu [mozilla.org] .

Re:Windows Update (0, Troll)

Antonymous Flower (848759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373920)

Solve both problems at once:
Linux!

Re:Windows Update (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373964)

Some of us just want a good browser to use. We're not here to buy into your bogus Linux religion.

Modpoints. (0, Offtopic)

Freston Youseff (628628) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373994)

If I had modpoints, I'd give positive ones to the parent comment. Amusing.

Firefox and it's supposed speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373880)

Firefox is bloated. I kid you not... after all the useful extensions (that imho make this product) opening new tabs takes a while and page rendering slows considerably. After a half hour of surfing, it takes up 135+++ mb of memory! Please this must be fixed!

Otherwise I love it and even with the above, miles ahead of IE.

Re:Firefox and it's supposed speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373919)

It's absolutely true. I'm up to 109MB right now of sweet, sweet memory being sucked by Firefox. Should be called Firepig. What's the deal with this? 109MB??? For a browser? Good thing I've got enough RAM to handle it. Before you mod this troll, why not check in on Task Manager first?

Re:Firefox and it's supposed speed. (1)

MasterOfMadmen (843047) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373982)

Odd, I've had tons and tons of pages open before and never seen it go above 40 MB. And as far as the page rendering goes, I've never had Firefox act slowly. As a matter of fact, Internet Explorer usually takes longer to load and render pages.

Re:Firefox and it's supposed speed. (1)

Chess_the_cat (653159) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374092)

Odd, I've had tons and tons of pages open before and never seen it go above 40 MB.

You're right. That is odd because I've just started FF and I'm at 53MB. I've seen it hit 180MB before. It's absolutely crazy. But I'll stick with it until it effects my machine's performance.

Re:Firefox and it's supposed speed. (1)

Jane_Dozey (759010) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374005)

IIRC its something to do with a problem left over from the old netscape days. It "grows" in memory because it doesn't clear up after itself very well. Unfortunatly I hear that it'll take a fairly big effort to sort it out since the inherited problem is so old and hence ingrained in the software.
Lets hope they've got someone working on it already. It's the one problem I have with FF.

DISCLAIMER: I'm no expert on FF or the memory growing problem so please correct me if I'm wrong (I'd like to know) but keep the flaming to a minimum.

Re:Firefox and it's supposed speed. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11374087)


I'm fairly certain there's no actual Netscape code in Firefox. It's based on Gecko which was written from scratch by the Mozilla team, so I doubt there's much there.

Re:Firefox and it's supposed speed. (1)

froggero1 (848930) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374039)

Uh, let's just say that you actually are using 135MB RAM for firefox... let's compare that to my system right now.

three tabs open in firefox -> 33168KB
three windows open in IEXPLORE -> 32788KB

Wow, that seems quite close... but you know what? For the added security that firefox brings, I don't mind the extra meg or two of RAM that it takes.

Oh and by the way, in IE, where's my mouse gestures, gmail notifier, foxytunes, smooth mouse wheel, various dictionary lookups tools (top right, beside the address bar), and countless other extensions? Pretty sure that if IE had all that stuff it would take up plenty more space that firefox

Re:Firefox and it's supposed speed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11374066)

Huh? Not sure what Gmail Notifier you're talking about but mine runs in my system tray. I've got Dictionary.com's dictionary lookup running nicely in IE. As for countless other extensions; that's the problem. You need to download, install, and manage loads of extensions for FF to have 1/10 the functionality of IE. Sorry, you fail it.

Well some things (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373881)

The payroll system for my employer is written entirely in ActiveX. There's really no way to do that in the fox.

Re:Well some things (1)

CdXiminez (807199) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374049)

Why on earth would you want to program a payroll system in ActiveX?

Re:Well some things (1)

wildBoar (181352) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374067)

Payroll system in ActiveX :-(

Does your company specialise in S&M or is it just too blinkered to MS to consider its options.

Saying that a lot of good products have fallen by the wayside due to companies wearing their MS goggles.

Sorry if this is a bit of a flamebait.

Today is not Friday (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373884)

Today is not Friday.

Keeping explorer around (1)

djsmiley (752149) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373886)

In the end, keeping explorer around will be a good thing.

As people will sometimes acidently find them selfs browsing using I.E. and then when they have finished, will notice all the spyware and maybe infections on their machines.
As they browse they will notice the annoying ad's, they will notice the most annoying and obtrusive things some websites do.

It will just remind them that they like firefox and mozilla more.

It will also cause them to question, "Why do i have to use I.E.?" The user HATES it when they dont have a choice, they detest it to the upmost degree, and once they realise that somesites are forcing them to use internet explorer, they will turn away and shun the site.

Peace out.

Re:Keeping explorer around (1)

crazy_pikachu (838912) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374057)

I dont see why it is such a big deal that you should'nt use IE along wiht mozilla. I use mozilla on all of our computers but you never know when a virus or a hole will be found in the code of mozilla that will cause you to use IE and besides is it rally that big of a deal to have the icon on your desktop.

Re:Keeping explorer around (2, Informative)

PhoenixFlare (319467) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374089)

First, I use FireFox probably 99% of the time now. Due to quirks of my system somewhere, visiting a few of my favorite Flash-using sites still forces me to use IE from time to time.

That said:

As people will sometimes acidently find them selfs browsing using I.E

How do you "accidently" find yourself using IE? Have I missed something and it can't be quit anymore? Either you're using it to browse the page you're currently looking at and you know it, or you're not using it. And yes, I know about it being integrated with Windows, but it doesn't seem as if you're talking about that.

then when they have finished, will notice all the spyware and maybe infections on their machines.

I used IE exclusively for almost 5 years before I discovered Phoenix/Firebird/FireFox. I still use it from time to time for certain sites. I never had a problem with spyware or viruses. It all depends on what sites you visit, what you download, and what you install.

Perhaps FireFox is better at protecting users from the consequences of their own stupidity, but the browser is not completely to blame.

As they browse they will notice the annoying ad's, they will notice the most annoying and obtrusive things some websites do.

Spend a few minutes to install the Google toolbar or any of a bazillion free popup blockers, problem solved.

once they realise that somesites are forcing them to use internet explorer, they will turn away and shun the site.

People here love to claim how they'll never visit *insert site here* ever again, because they had to use IE/it had annoying animated GIFs/used Flash/etc., but do you really see normal users reacting that way? I'm not so sure.

Personally (2, Interesting)

Kipsaysso (828105) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373889)

I haven't used IE to surf since I got firefox. And I have spread it around campus and have received only one complaint. Long live open source!

Re:Personally (1)

BossMC (696762) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374059)

I have gotten a few complaints about Firefox, of which few are even remotely valid.

I always make a specific effort to not force things on people. The only reason I get to telling them to use firefox is when they rant about spyware or whathaveyou from IE. However, once it's installed and not a verbatim IE copy, some of them start to pout and say that it's stupid. They don't like how "Copy Shortcut" is now "Copy Link Location," and so on.

Firefox is certainly not perfect, but from _my_ vantage point, the only people that have complained about it are the same people that can't figure out how to use Windows Explorer instead of My Computer, and have no idea where C:\ is. I am _not_ a zealot, but I do have a bottom line, and these people are below it.

Firefox or IE? (4, Insightful)

narl (802378) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373890)

Slashdot readers probably won't like the last phrase, though: 'Until Firefox finds a way around that, you might have to keep Internet ExplORer around -- just for emergencies, of course.'"

It isn't about using Firefox or Internet Explorer. Some of us don't have a Windows machine, so we don't even have the option of running Internet Explorer.

Re:Firefox or IE? (1)

Tandoori Haggis (662404) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373942)

My back up browsers are:

Linux - Konqueror & Opera (I fact I use Konqueror quite often)

Win 98 - Opera

I don't need or want "AEIEEEE!!!"

Re:Firefox or IE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373955)

I'm on debian, i have the option of running internet explorer.. so why don't you?

Re:Firefox or IE? (1)

tasinet (747465) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374000)

As in, Microsoft Internet Explorer for Mac?

MSIE runs okay in WINE (1)

Krankheit (830769) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374062)

If you need MSIE for some sites that employ ActiveX, you can use this to automate the installation of MSIE 6 on *nix via WINE: http://sidenet.ddo.jp/winetips/config.html Sidenet works pretty well.

What do you mean? (5, Insightful)

October_30th (531777) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373897)

Slashdot readers probablyt won't like the last phrase

And why would I object to it? It's a pretty well known fact that there are pages that just won't work with anything else than IE.

At work, for instance, I can't use Firefox for certain tasks because the Java-based admin pages (finances and grading) at our University won't work with it. Java apps load and work to some extent, but the layout is so screwed up in a Firefox that the pages are essentially useless. In Linux the pages won't work at all because of some weird Java problems (I thought Java was supposed to be platform independent?).

Complaining won't help, because IE is such a de facto standard that, according to the people who maintain the admin software, there is no support for "non-compliant" software such as Firefox and never will be.

Re:What do you mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373944)

Slashdot readers probablyt won't like the last phrase

I see you've installed SlashCopy-N-Paste(TM).

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373948)

An app written in java is only as platform independent as the programmers make it...

So sounds like those programmers need to get a grip and realize windows +ie isn't the only combo out there. What kind of hacks are they anyway?

Don't programmers have respect for the code and the users who run it? *shakes head*

Re:Well... (2)

October_30th (531777) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373992)

So sounds like those programmers need to get a grip and realize windows +ie isn't the only combo out there

I think it's a question of how the system (which is used in every one of our national institutions such as universities and government) was specified to begin with. I suspect that in order save money the compatibility issues were limited to Windows and IE only. The poor code-monkeys have just taken the easiest, specification compatible route.

Re:Well... (1)

kerrle (810808) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374097)

That seems doubtful if they were using Java. More likely, they just had no experience with anything else, and so didn't care.

Re:What do you mean? (1, Troll)

St. Arbirix (218306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374101)

You must have missed the several months of complaining back when I think Windows XP was first being released and Microsoft announced that they would include their own implementation of the Java runtime with Windows.

FUD is one ways of doing the mean things they do, the other way is called "embrace and extend." They embraced the Java API (or whatever it is that's standardized and documented about Java) and extended it with some goodies that only worked with their runtime. As with rendering webpages, the Microsoft way of doing it follows the general idea behind the standards, but it's still going to be a little off from what you'd expect by purely following the standards. The tweaking required to get things to run perfectly on IE can often break it for other platforms.

Windows Update (3, Interesting)

s.o.terica (155591) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373898)

Yes, it's another entirely ironic aspect of Windows: you have to use their insecure web browser to update their buggy OS. I'm really surprised that the detaching of WU from IE wasn't part of some antitrust settlement.

Re:Windows Update (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373958)

It would be nice if Windows Update was browser-neutral.

I recently re-built a Windows 98 machine for a friend and Windows Update wouldn't work with IE4. Took me a while to figure out that I could download the IE6 SP1 installer to get the upgraded IE browser. After that, Windows Update worked fine downloading the 66 patches that I needed to bring Windows 98 up-to-date.

Market Share? (2, Interesting)

bstadil (7110) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373901)

What drivel of an article. Someone tell the author that you can't really "remove" IE anyway>

That being said anyone have recent penetration statistics. FF was gaining 0.5% every two weeks through Mid Decemeber but this is the last data I have seen. Anyone tracking this on their own site, the absolute is maybe less important the the trend.

Re:Market Share? (1)

jcraveiro (848243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373931)

That's more than right: the freaking EXE even recreates itself, if you delete it.. btw: is that capital "OR" on the word "explorer" deliberate? ;)

Yes, you can remove Internet Explorer (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374052)

There are tools for removing Internet Explorer [litepc.com] . IE is removed, system components that call it are adjusted, some icons disappear from the file browser, Windows File Protection is properly updated for the new no-IE state, and you have a system free of the IE nightmare.

Active X? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373904)

Never mind Active X. How about all those crappy sites that use Javascript to check the browser by name/version instead of using professional methods that check the browser's capability?

One day (in the far distant future, no doubt), Javascript (/VBscript) will have either been seen to be the quick/dirty solution and deprecated with dynamic pages being server based or, the DOM will have been agreed as a proper object model with an agreed API. Perhaps then, a decent script language that is consistent across builds/OSes and even the same build on different OSes will act the same way.

I'm not holding my breath tho'...

well firefox has something to learn too (1, Informative)

earthstar (748263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373923)

The last phrase isnt that bad as you said.Nothing wrong in keeping Internet explorer for emergencies.I have seem quite a few pages that refuse to work in netscape - apart from those sites whose contents get juggled ( Yes ,Evene in firefox 1.0).

Next,The start up time when I double click a html file in my hard disk :- IE is much faster than Firefox to open files in my hard disk.(WinXX).

Firefox needs to have a confirmation box when its main window containing the tabs is clicked for close.many a time i have accidently clicked the close and all the tabs are gone!

Re:well firefox has something to learn too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373939)

they do...you must have removed it...

Re:well firefox has something to learn too (1)

s.o.terica (155591) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373947)

Firefox on the Mac asks you "You are about to close X open tabs. Are you sure you want to continue?" Safari, unfortunately, works how you describe.

Re:well firefox has something to learn too (2, Informative)

TheBadger (131644) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373954)

Erm it does. You must have disabled it.

Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> Tabbed Browsing -> Warn when closing multiple tabs

Re:well firefox has something to learn too (1)

cyklo (795952) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373960)

Firefox needs to have a confirmation box when its main window containing the tabs is clicked for close.many a time i have accidently clicked the close and all the tabs are gone!
Have you tried Tools / Advanced / Tabbed Browsing / Warn when closing multiple tabs recently?

Re:well firefox has something to learn too (4, Informative)

SuperficialRhyme (731757) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374002)

Is this a joke?

I was going to ignore it thinking it was, but just incase you're serious I will respond.

The last phrase isnt that bad as you said.Nothing wrong in keeping Internet explorer for emergencies.I have seem quite a few pages that refuse to work in netscape - apart from those sites whose contents get juggled ( Yes ,Evene in firefox 1.0).

You're right here, this happens. MSIE is VERY good at rendering malformed HTML. Some have speculated that this was done to prevent HTML standards from being followed by most developers, but in any case, the HTML you're seeing messed up *is* malformed. At a fundamental level it's the website's fault. If you do have to use one of those pages, do make sure you e-mail the maintainer. Often they will fix it. As FF's marketshare increases, expect this to change.

Next,The start up time when I double click a html file in my hard disk :- IE is much faster than Firefox to open files in my hard disk.(WinXX).

This is because MSIE is preloaded in RAM. I'm not familiar enough with windows to tell you how to preload FF at startup but there is a way. You can use about:config changes in firefox to speed up page rendering if you'd like. You should look into both of these if you are often opening files from the hard disk.

Firefox needs to have a confirmation box when its main window containing the tabs is clicked for close.many a time i have accidently clicked the close and all the tabs are gone!

Ahh, finally to the reason I think you are joking. This is the default behavior in Firefox. If your copy isn't doing this it is because you turned it off. Turn it back on and once more it will ask for conformation.

Re:well firefox has something to learn too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11374004)

"Firefox needs to have a confirmation box when its main window containing the tabs is clicked for close.many a time i have accidently clicked the close and all the tabs are gone!"

It did, but you must have checked "Don't display this warning again" the first time you saw it. Or at least it did on windows.

Re:well firefox has something to learn too (1)

jabberwocky_rt (792361) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374070)

"Firefox needs to have a confirmation box when its main window containing the tabs is clicked for close.many a time i have accidently clicked the close and all the tabs are gone!"

You prob turned it off:

Tools > Options > Advanced > Tabbed Browsing > Check Warn me when closing multiple tabs

Article text (-1, Redundant)

AmigaAvenger (210519) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373936)

Remember the Web browser war? Way back in the mists of time -- Internet-wise, at least -- there was a battle between a tiny startup company with a piece of software for browsing the Web (Netscape) and a giant software company with a reputation for playing hardball (Microsoft). The software giant won the war, and Internet Explorer now has about 90 per cent of the market for Web browsers.

The story doesn't end there, however. Microsoft's browser won, but along the way it also became a magnet for every advertising popup maker and malicious hacker in the known universe (much like the Windows operating system). For many computer users, Internet Explorer is now so cluttered with spy-ware, advertising-ware, toolbars, popups and home-page hijackers that it has become virtually unusable. But what can anyone do about it?

The good news is that there are solutions for frustrated Internet Explorer users, and one of the most popular is a distant cousin of Netscape. The original company was bought by America Online and its Web browser gradually faded into irrelevance, but a group of programmers took the guts of Netscape and created a new browsing "engine" called Gecko, one that was developed in a co-operative fashion along with the "open-source" software community. That engine forms the basis for a new browser called Firefox, which is free for Windows and Mac users.

One of the best things about this approach is that Firefox doesn't suffer from any of the annoying pop-ups and malware that make using Internet Explorer such a pain. Since the browser uses completely different software, none of the usual tools that hackers have used to infiltrate Internet Explorer work with Firefox. Although this might change as the browser becomes more popular, the open-source nature of the project means that fixes will likely be easier to make and will also be available much faster .

Firefox has a number of features that make it obvious how little Internet Explorer has changed over the past several years. One of the most popular is the use of "tabs," which allow a user to open multiple pages within the same window. You can set Firefox so that when you click on a link it opens that link in a new tab, and the tabs you have open are grouped together in a tab toolbar at the top of your browser window. You can store a group of tabs and open them all when you load Firefox.

Other alternative browsers, such as Opera, have this feature, too, but they don't share one other thing Firefox has going for it -- its adaptability. One benefit of the open-source format is that any programmer who wants to can write a bit of software called an "extension," which adds features to the browser. There are hundreds of these extensions listed already at Firefox's home page (http://getfirefox.com), including everything from a plug-in that lets you play music from your browser toolbar to one that lets you search an on-line dictionary by clicking on a word.

Firefox isn't perfect. It still has some bugs, which isn't surprising considering it only recently came out of "beta" or testing mode. It also can't do much with pages that require features only Internet Explorer has, such as the ability to run Active-X programs. These features are part of the reason IE is so riddled with malware, but they also allow it to interact with certain websites. Until Firefox finds a way around that, you might have to keep Internet Explorer around -- just for emergencies, of course.

Panda... (1)

JohnPerkins (243021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373951)

I make use of Panda Software's [pandasoftware.com] ActiveScan (free online virus scanner). It doesn't work in Firefox, saying it "requires the browser Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later version." That and my bank's web site are the only things I still need IE for. But I still need to get into those 2 places, so I can't avoid having to use IE now and then.

Firefox vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11373956)

Unfortunately the online banking facilities offered by UK banks (such as Nat West) simply refuse to work with anything other than IE. Its the only reason I still have a windows box in the house. (My arthritus stops me from going into town much so online banking is a must).

Devil's advocate vs. Go Firefox! (1)

solafide (845228) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373959)

To start, here goes the IE fan.

FF has bugs, which isn't surprising considering it is barely out of "beta" or testing mode and is not by Microsoft. It also can't do much with pages that require features only Internet Explorer has, such as the ability to run Active-X programs. These features are part of the reason IE is so riddled with malware(what malware?), but they also allow it to interact with certain websites. Until Firefox finds a way around that, you might have to keep Internet Explorer around -- just for emergencies, of course(Why bother switching when you can just use IE all the time?). Firefox has a number of features that make it obvious how little Internet Explorer has changed over the past several years(We are comfortable and see nothing else that needs change). One of the most popular is the use of "tabs," which allow a user to open multiple pages within the same window. You can set Firefox so that when you click on a link it opens that link in a new tab, and the tabs you have open are grouped together in a tab toolbar at the top of your browser window. You can store a group of tabs and open them all when you load Firefox.(I've never found that necessary or desirable, so why use them??). FF's greatest feature is adaptability(Get with the program - the IE program!). One benefit of the open-source format is that any programmer who wants to can write a bit of software called an "extension," which adds features to the browser.(That's real malware!) There are hundreds of these extensions listed already at Firefox's home page (http://getfirefox.com), including everything from a plug-in that lets you play music from your browser toolbar(why?) to one that lets you search an on-line dictionary by clicking on a word(Big deal!). (Lots of toys and geektweaks in my opinion!) Don't take this seriously or troll me please! Its a joke!

I am actually a FFFan, but ya'll are good enough defenders of FF. Go Firefox!!!!!!

Billy

Re:Devil's advocate vs. Go Firefox! (3, Funny)

kingjosh (792336) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374050)

Previous place of employment: Me: Can I switch to Firefox? Boss: What's that? Me: A browser that is much better than IE. It's open source and doesn't suffer from all the malware that IE does. Boss: No, its open source so it might be insecure. We've always used IE, we need to stick with that. Me: Can I install Thunderbird? Boss: What's that? Me: An email client that's much better than Outlook Express. It's free too! Boss: Definitely not. Me: What about OpenOffice.org? Boss: What's that? Me: An open source, easy to use Office suite. It's free and the database inside the spreadsheet is really powerful. You can save things like you are in MS Office, but it doesn't suffer from a lot of the problems, like broken AutoCorrect. Boss: No way, it could be hard to uninstall. Me: Fuck it, I quit.

Developing to IE only (2, Interesting)

bcarl314 (804900) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373978)

I work in a shop that is exclusively IE. In fact, they have a militant attitude to anything non-MS. Needless to say, I downloaded Firefox onto my workstation and opened up our corporate intranet site, the thing was a mess. Turns out the developers decided to use non-standard HTML and CSS along with sloppy coding practices. Of course, I'm sure someone got a huge contract for developing the site, but I fear that heads will roll once IE catches up to actually implementing standards.

I only wish I didn't submit my resignation last week, because it would have been fun to watch the IT head honchos get it when IE 7 comes out. Of course that assumes that IE 7 might implement standards. Not holding my breath though!

IE (1)

TheBadger (131644) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373983)

I was only using IE to connect to my works terminal services page. Some clever bugger in the office managed to get it working under Linux a couple of days ago... so I suspect that I'll be able to drop IE once I read his how-to!

Memory Leaks (5, Insightful)

rrowv (582861) | more than 9 years ago | (#11373990)

My big complaint with FF isn't that you can't use Active-X. It's the massive memory leaks with tabbed browsing. FF routinely gets up to 350MB of memory usage. I use the internet *heavily* for research and reading news, so I open and close a huge number of tabs a day. Having to bookmark all the pages I have open every night so I can close down FF is a real pain (if I didn't, it would truely eat all my vm space). They really need to work on that...

(It's been a known issue for a long time, but nobody seems to be able to fix it)

I've said it before (1)

pcgamez (40751) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374058)

...and I will say it again. There's a catch22 with the whole situation. Users dumb enough to have lots of spyware and other crap installed are usually unable to understand how to use Firefox.

Uninstall Problem? (1)

earthstar (748263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11374061)

I had Firefox 0.9 on my win 98 PC.Later I installed ver 1.0 over it and was working fine. Recently when i ran through the add/remove programs of windows , both firefox 0.9 and Firefox 1.0 showed up.I thought "why have 0.9 still on comp when i have 1.0 on my comp".

Guess what happened?Full firefox was removed! I was shocked and sad.I think I could have been warned that removing the previos version removes the latest also. or May be both 0.9 and 1.0 should not show up in the list.Whatever.

has anyone had this prob?

Dear Sir (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11374100)

I believe the problem you are experiencing is known as "Windows 98." Please backup your important data and head yourself to a linux distribution site, and shed the unfortunate OS known as "Windows 98."

http://linuxcentral.com/ [linuxcentral.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?