Slashdot: News for Nerds


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!

cancel ×


Obligatory Manuel Quote (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16566860)

Que? :-P

Re:Obligatory Manuel Quote (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567188)

I always refer to the Mozilla© products as "fucking gay communist bullshit", especially when one of my employees uses it unauthorized (luckily, I have surveillance-tools installed on every machine, in case someone does something private during her working time). I mean, Internet Explorer is the standard for all web protocols, so why change it? I credit the efforts of the former Netscape employees who really try to use their time of unemployment to create something useful, but they just keep on missing the needs of their target audience. Perhaps Netscape could provide them with their newest code instead of letting them just reuse their obsolete Netscape 4.x code. Who knows.

This leaves us waiting for Windows® Vista©, which will once again set a new standard in productivity.

Re:Obligatory Manuel Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567450)


Re:Obligatory Manuel Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567930)

Creo que el cabron esta de broma. I think.

Re:Obligatory Manuel Quote (0)

hurting now (967633) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567576)

You're kidding, right?!?

IE isn't the standard, no, it just happens to READ standard code on the internet.

What you're telling me is that you don't know how to lock down your network very well and put in proper controls. I'm guessing you are using a proxy to control what is being browsed and you are afraid of people using Firefox or a Mozilla product to browse, because you cant enforce the proxy within the program. If you would just setup your network correctly, your users wouldn't be able to bypass the proxy and then do that evil personal browsing on company time. And then, you could allow them to use a quality product such as Firefox - because your users would HAVE to enter the proxy information in the connection field.

Mod parent Funny (2, Funny)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567734)

I mean:

Internet Explorer is the standard for all web protocols


Windows® Vista©, which will once again set a new standard in productivity

Opportunity (5, Interesting)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566864)

I'll agree with the author on a number of things. Most critical is that IE7 requiring XP or later is an opportunity for other browsers [] , particularly Firefox and Opera. The majority of Windows users out there are on XP, but Windows 2000 and Windows 98 are sizable minorities. I know one site's stats aren't enough to judge the whole internet by, but my own site, with ~92% Windows users, shows 83% on XP, 5% on Win2k, 2.2% on Win98, and 1% on WinME. (That 1% on Windows Me is scary -- I'd almost rather run Windows 98.)

Firefox will go through the same thing next year, since Firefox 3 won't run on Windows 98 or Me, but it'll still run on Windows 2000. Of course, that's another 8-10 months for some users to upgrade (those percentages are about a third of what they were a year ago) -- and if you've gotten them hooked on Firefox while they're on Win98, they'll probably stick with it when they move to a new machine with XP/Vista. And in a year or two, as IE7 supplants IE6 and websites start targeting it, those holdout Windows 98 users might decide they're better off with a slightly-outdated Firefox 2 than a massively-outdated IE6.

Re:Opportunity (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566938)

The problem with your theory is that people that are still running 98 or (shudder) ME are probably doing so because it came with their computers and they are not into upgrading anything. The people that do not upgrade their OS, even after 6 or 8 years, are not likely to be the ones jumping on the latest browser upgrade either.

Sure, you can try and get your 98 and ME-using friends to use Firefox, but suggesting that it might be a good idea for the project as a whole to go after a small and shrinking segment of the population, particularly when that segment of the population is defined in part by not liking change, does not seem to be a winning strategy to me.

Re:Opportunity (5, Interesting)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567302)

My mom ever so recently was told to upgrade by her ISP; in fact they told her to buy a whole new computer or else they wouldn't support her. After I screamed at them for this kind of attitude and for advising someone who is ignorant of such matters that they would need a whole new computer, I went out and bought her a new system and installed Ubuntu on it. Now her scanner, printer, digital camera that my brother bought her and speakers all work great. She never worries about viruses and LOVES firefox. It took her awhile to get used to tabs but now that she is, she wouldn't switch back to IE even if you paid her to move to Windows. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that at least 10% of these outdated systems may eventually switch. If they get fed up enough with things, they will. And I'm speaking as someone who has refused to upgrade my Win2k machine because it still works just fine for me including for playing games; I don;t have reason to upgrade but do want to use a decent browser.

Re:Opportunity (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16568072)

After I screamed at them for this kind of attitude and for advising someone who is ignorant of such matters that they would need a whole new computer, I went out and bought her a new system

So basically, you screamed at them for telling her exactly the same thing you did?

Re:Opportunity (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567308)

You are a little short sighted, my GF (yes!) has a 600 mHz PIII Packard Bell Le Diva with only 128 Mb of memory and although it's running fine on W98 we'll be damned to spend money on upgrading it to XP.

Still it's nice to have the latest FF browser if only because we know it gives some of the security that Windows never had.

(I'm typing this from a 500 mHz Compaq PIII that was to upgraded to Xubuntu with FF2.0 including Flash9b)

Re:Opportunity? For what else? (3, Interesting)

Gracenotes (1001843) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567080)

It's both good and bad that IE7 may be, in a sense, a wildcard. For one, it's good because those not running XP may switch to Firefox, as Kelson mentioned. The bad part is not that the masses who will use it will get a bad internet experience: IE7 should be fine for most people's internet needs (and wants). It's the fact that once the masses continue to take up IE7, Microsoft's potential whims on HTML code, and especially CSS, will have to become normal or else many will *gasp* become inconvenienced.

Back when Netscape was around en bloc and layers were the norm for many users, it was hell to code for both Netscape and Explorer, and often websites were split into two sections. So if Microsoft is trying to create a new and "better" standard, I don't fear Microsoft; I fear the complaining masses. The burden of being the (relatively) knowledgeable minority!

Re:Opportunity? For what else? (1)

mgv (198488) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567236)

It's both good and bad that IE7 may be, in a sense, a wildcard. For one, it's good because those not running XP may switch to Firefox, as Kelson mentioned. The bad part is not that the masses who will use it will get a bad internet experience: IE7 should be fine for most people's internet needs (and wants). It's the fact that once the masses continue to take up IE7, Microsoft's potential whims on HTML code, and especially CSS, will have to become normal or else many will *gasp* become inconvenienced.

Actually, its the growth in apple, plus a bit of linux, plus win 2k/98, etc that will drive things the other way.

Firefox is the only single browser that runs everwhere. Easier to develop your website on that; once IE drops below 80% Firefox starts to get very attractive as an option.


Re:Opportunity? For what else? (2, Informative)

Barsteward (969998) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567766)

"Firefox is the only single browser that runs everwhere. " eh? Does it run my phone like Opera?

Re:Opportunity? For what else? (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 7 years ago | (#16568086)

Well it may be a replay of the WWW standards war but the web is different now, with more separation between content and presentation and (barely) enough browser independent functionality.

Also, a growing number of users will be relying on the web for running web apps, so:

- IE6 is a PITA as a webapp client (try selecting from a longish dropdown menus typing the first letters on the keyboard...)
- IE7 won't be available for web clients with linux embedded, a big market in the near future IMHO
- FF2 spelling checker in the client is a very good idea
- It is possible (and I suspect many web app developers will require their clients) to keep two browsers: FF configured for your web app (java and javascript on, flash off, persistent cookies, remembering passwords and fields, custom toolbar and feeds) and IE for... dunno, getting to microsoft support.
- It is possible many businesses will prefer FF+web apps+openoffice to upgrading all machines for Vista and new Office stuff.

All of these make people discover FF, once they do the idea of a platform bound software like IE becomes irrelevant.
If I were M$ i'd be developing IE7 for embedded and older hardware as fast as i can. For linux, too.

Re:Opportunity? For what else? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567274)

As a web developer and designer, my biggest worry is that a significant proportion of my target audience (too large to ignore) will be stuck with IE6 for the forseable future, and that will further complicate the development process.

I doubt that many people who aren't running XP will switch to Firefox - the likelihood is that anyone in that situation who hasn't already switched won't understand and won't care.

Re:Opportunity (2, Insightful) (653730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567484)

Most critical is that IE7 requiring XP or later is an opportunity for other browsers

Also notice that IE7 *requires* a legal copy of Windows XP, you need to run through this WGA thing. And even if it's possible to circunvent it, it's unlikely that most of the people (who doesn't have windows license) will do it. So it's possible that a big number of XP users *will* install firefox, just for not being left behind of the IE7 users and firefox users.

Re:Opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16568104)

Has it occurred to you that they might just stick with IE6?

Do you think these users were waiting for the day that IE7 came out, found out that it is not supported on their OS and thought: "Well, thats it I am going to switch to Firefox"?

These people dont care (dont know, rather) about what browser they are using.

Breaking apps? (1)

uid100 (540265) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566910)

We are really concerned that the forced (unless you take action) ie7 upgrade will break some business apps.

Such as Oracle's Jinitiator.

Re:Breaking apps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567088)

It's not really a problem. We use Oracle here as well but we use WSUS to deploy patches and simply don't allow IE7 to be deployed. We also block access to the link that lets users download IE7 manually. This is a trivial problem even for a small company.

Re:Breaking apps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567726)

You make it sound like a bad thing.

how about IE7 from a links2 user? (4, Funny)

Tama00 (967104) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566920)

This article was so bias.

Huh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16566934)

Isn't this a tad like a Nazi reviewing a new Synagogue?

Tarnished Brand (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16566948)

I said it before and I'll say it again: the Internet Explorer brand is tarnished. No matter how great Microsoft makes IE in terms of functionality and security, most, if not all who have switched to Firefox or Opera (or Safari if they just went out and bought a Mac) have already made up their minds about IE.

All Microsoft can hope to do at this point is prevent more users from switching away, but that'll only work so long as IE7 doesn't become an exploitfest like its mildly-retarded predecessor. The next year or so will determine that as more IE6 users and malware authors migrate to IE7.

IE 7 RSS reader? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16566950)

No mention of the fantastic RSS reader that comes built-in with IE7.

Re:IE 7 RSS reader? (-1, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567400)

That's cause no-one gives a shit about RSS except smelly Web2.0 freaks.

Before taking on Firefox and Opera? (4, Insightful)

King_of_Crunk (763543) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566966)

You talk as if IE isnt the most used browser out there...
/me waits for troll comments :P

Re:Before taking on Firefox and Opera? (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567186)

Not from people who don't just blindly use the default browser.

Re:Before taking on Firefox and Opera? (4, Insightful)

aeoo (568706) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567330)

No. He's just talking from his own perspective. He sees himself as a battleground upon which Firefox and IE struggle. So far Firefox has won on that particular battleground (a.k.a. the author of the article). So he's talking about what IE has to do to win him over.

It's a completely valid and highly useful way of looking at things. It actually makes more sense to me personally than going by aggregated statistics which lump all things together. Some sites are dominated by Firefox users. Other sites are not. The sites that are dominated by Firefox represent valid and lucrative markets in and of themselves. Of course if you aggregate everything together into one big lump, then in terms of numbers, IE is "winning". But that's not a very meaningful way to look at things. For exactly the same reason GDP is a horrible way to estimate economic health of a nation, and all the sane economists know this.

sure... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16566998)

"but still has some way to go before taking on Firefox and Opera"

Well, considering it has the majority market share, it looks like they need to do nothing. They've already won the battle, it's up to Firefox and Opera to take on them.

Re:sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567106)

Right on. If you're winning a race you don't need to be moving faster than your opponent. Just the same speed or quick enough to get there before he catches you.

Plus, IE is sleek and easy to use. No buttons and controls that look thrown together and out of place.

Re:sure... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567502)

It's not a race, because there's no end. And whether you're talking about corporate dominance or even winning a race, the quickest way to lose first place is to act like you're in first place once you're there. If you keep acting like you're in second place even when you're in front, you're driven to succeed and you are more likely to stay ahead. Microsoft actually proved this by not updating IE in a long time, and losing a bunch of marketshare. Too bad they didn't wait even longer to do a new browser release.

Re:sure... (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567534)

They've already won the battle. . .

Another such victory and we are lost.


ie better than firefox and opera in xml/ xsl (3, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567004)

firefox has a dtd bug in xml it hasn't fixed for years: it doesn't reference external entities []

and opera flat out just doesn't support xsl formatting []

nevermind ie7, ie6 does both, just fine

in my book, as an xml/ xsl programmer, ie is light years ahead of firefox and opera

Re:ie better than firefox and opera in xml/ xsl (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567086)

interesting, but nobody was saying that ie was worse at absolutely everything. just the most important things. taking years to get tabbed browsing going and being terribly, terribly behind on basic css and image support, etc.

Re:ie better than firefox and opera in xml/ xsl (1)

MBC1977 (978793) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567326)

Why is tabbed browsing so coveted? I've used it in both IE and Firefox and in both applications its a memory hog? Not to mention, and perhaps I'm wrong about this, but if one tab crashes does it take down all of the others with it? At least with separate windows, you can set up the system to kill just the one window rather than all of them at once.

Re:ie better than firefox and opera in xml/ xsl (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567564)

tabbed browsing uses less memory than opening a bunch of windows, so no, it's not a memory hog. Nice try though. But you are right that if you lose one tab in a window you lose the whole window. Of course, if a web page is crashing your browser, then your browser needs help... Most of the time it's because of a plugin or similar.

Re:ie better than firefox and opera in xml/ xsl (1)

renoX (11677) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567870)

Crashing is not so much a problem with tab with a decent browser which don't crash often and recover the opened webpage after any crash (Opera9), but the main problem is that if one tab becomes busy, usually you cannot use anymore the window :-(

In Mozilla, this happen quite a lot, in Opera less so, but it is still not interactive responsive enough for my taste (even though that's the best I know), with multiple window when one window was frozen, you could still use the other without trouble: that's a definitive minus point on the current tabbing implementation (that I know).

It's a matter of putting priority fixes first (2, Insightful)

cppgenius (1009857) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567356)

The developers of Firefox focus on high priority bugs, that's why they don't care about xml bugs, especially if it won't jeopardise the security of Firefox. Microsoft doesn't mind any kind of bug whether it is critical or not. []

Re:ie better than firefox and opera in xml/ xsl (0, Flamebait)

bergeron76 (176351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567410)

So one bug in FF makes you consider "ie is light years ahead of firefox"?

Perhaps you should stick with making Low Budget Filipino Films as your signature suggests.

You're clearly unfit to be a credible computer user.

Re:ie better than firefox and opera in xml/ xsl (4, Interesting)

wrook (134116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567718)


I can't understand this. IE doesn't even preserve the encoding type on an XSL transform. I can't use it *at all* for my Japanese documents.

And it has unbelievably poor support for CSS. It won't even do tables. Not even in IE 7...

Your comment kind of blows me away...

i agree with you (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567846)

we're kind of on the cutting edge with xml/ xsl at the browser. so support is spotty, at best, for everything, in all browsers. even though what we're doing is the way of the future: shove the raw data to the client, let them format and transform

as xml and xsl support improves, i'd say that the way you and i are working is the foundations of web 3.0 ...but if that assertion strikes you as odd, considering the age of xml/ xsl, remember web 2.0 and it's "ajax" is really just iframe tricks from the late 1990s put to novel use by some google programmers recently

Is there any other kind? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567916)

"I'm making a Low Budget HDV Filipino Horror Movie in NYC "

I suppose you're protesting against all those high budget filipino horror films?

Mod parent way, way down (3, Insightful)

Snover (469130) | more than 7 years ago | (#16568000)

If you'd bother to read the Opera page you linked to you'd see this:

XSLT, XPath, and XSL-FO

Opera has near-complete support of XSLT 1.0 and XPath 1.0

Now let's see. IE can't handle application/xhtml+xml. Its JavaScript implementation doesn't support any of the namespaced DOM functions (createElementNS, getAttributeNS, etc.) making it pretty much useless for any sort of dynamic handling of XML that contains multiple namespaces. Hell, IE7 fails 38% of the W3C's DOM test suite.

Obviously, MoFo has omitted several rather important things from their browser product, one of them happening to be the ability to load external entities. But to say that Opera doesn't support XSLT is just blatantly wrong, and while I certainly don't advocate working around broken browser behaviour, it's certainly something that's done a lot for IE -- I bet you could do it for Firefox's flaw, too, if you spent less time complaining and more time working.

Memory Issues (4, Insightful)

zenithcoolest (981748) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567020)

The article does not reflect the Memory consumption of each of the browsers. Unless, you tweak the firefox, it hogs a memory a lot when multiple tabs are open.

Re:Memory Issues (1)

hkgroove (791170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567304)

It's still up there in usage. But with FF2.0 (release from today), with a browser I've been using for the past 2.5 hours, memory consumption is half of what it used to be (120 instead of the usual 24/250). Granted it's still a long way from IE - but as someone who has no clue could it be IE fleshes out most of its work to the operating system and doesn't have to rely on memory in one app or would that just make no sense?

Are there any memory comparisons for IE vs FF on OSX? (Yes, I know IE is worthless on OSX).

Re:Memory Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567332)

So does IE, but since it's part of the OS, it is not readily apparent in normal process viewing tools.

Well.... (4, Insightful)

kclittle (625128) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567022)

Microsoft has come a long way but still has some way to go before taking on Firefox and Opera.

I can't speak to Opera, by Firefox 1.5 crashes on me much more than IE6 ever did (based on experience with two different machines), and my experience with IE7 is that it is solid. And some sites using fancy forms (for example, my LinkSys/Cisco home router) don't work with FF at all.

Don't get me wrong, Firefox is still my default browser (I'm using it now), but by some meterics IE is more than a match.

Re:Well.... (2, Interesting)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567144)

Firefox works with my linksys router's config pages just fine. And as for it crashing, I'm sure its happened, but I can't remember the last time.

Re:Well.... (4, Informative)

the_rev_matt (239420) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567208)

I would dispute this, I'm running firefox on OS X, Windows, and SUSE Linux across a half dozen machines and have been since the beta releases of firefox. I have had three linksys routers (still using 2) and a linksys NSLU2 'storage server'. Firefox has had no problems doing anything including the firmware updates.

Re:Well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567262)

FF has its issues, and IE has its issues. Both browsers have crashed on me in the past. As a web/CSS developer/designer and having to have both browsers open 99% of the time at work, I've seen the ups and downs of both browsers. I was around for IE vs. NN, the very first version of Opera, and good old pre-Google days. I stick with IE surfing whenever I don't need to be testing websites, simply because it loads slightly faster for me, and I hate tabs.

Yes -- as much as it shames me to admit it, I like having a gazillion windows open on my desktop.

Re:Well.... (2, Insightful)

Vicegrip (82853) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567392)

LOL.. I've used Firefox regularly on at least 15 different computers over the years since the first releases (Mozilla and then Firefox). I don't remember crashes but do recall the occasional bad behavior. My experience with IE has been considerably worse but tolerable.

IE7.. got it.. nothing to write home about. Cute upgrade. Still like Firefox a lot more.

Here's something to chew on. I know a whole bunch of people whose machines were seriously pwned because of IE exploits. Thats enough to turn you off a piece of software no matter how pretty they make it.

Of late it's keylogger crap to steal WoW accounts. Know three people who got caught by them. Not statistically worthwhile I agree. But if you knew three people who owned a Ford that exploded on them, chances are you wouldn't be wanting one of the same model not matter what the deal.

Re:Well.... (1)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567468)

Firefox is very stable browser. It is almost impossible to get it to crash, unless you have a corrupted installation, corrupted profile or you are using some unstable extensions. So what you are experiencing is not normal and there should be a fix for it. See if this article helps you: []

Re:Well.... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567618)

I just want to chime in and say that I've configured about five different models of linksys router with nary a problem, and I've been using firefox since the first beta version (and mozilla before that.) Only things I use IE for are windows update and downloading firefox (and actually, I have portable firefox on my usb key these days so I don't even need it for that.)

Drawback (4, Insightful)

tasukisempai (931149) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567060)

The drawback is that if IE ever gets usable it will be more difficult to make people switch to Firefox, they will just stick with IE because it works.

Re:Drawback (1)

Typhon100 (641308) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567372)

A drawback for Firefox, yes. But IE7 being "usable" isn't inherently a bad fact its a good thing because the millions of people who simply lack the (motivation | ability | know-how | *) to switch are getting a better experience.

Re:Drawback (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567390)

That's not a drawback. If competition causes IE to become better than Firefox and Opera, the only result is more good choices for the user.

Re:Drawback (1)

Achoi77 (669484) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567432)

Sorry, but if IE7 Just Works, then moving to FF (and getting others to move to FF) is not going to be worth the effort. I'll work with whatever is most convenient (from a user perspective), and if the answer is IE7, then I'm going for IE7. As of right now, my ass is deeply rooted in FF, so I don't have any immediate plans to swith to IE7. But if FF2 starts to crash out on me or bork out when it tries to load a flash file (which it's actaully done today incidentally), I'm going to drop FF like a bad habit in favor for something else. Maybe IE7, maybe Opera, who knows. In the mean time I'm not going to do anything untill the browser starts to crash on me with certain regularity up to the point where I just get annoyed.

Love for a brand has no place in the software world, be it OSX, Ubuntu, Visual Studio or Firefox. It's all about convenience.

Re:Drawback (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567578)

The drawback is that if IE ever gets usable it will be more difficult to make people switch to Firefox, they will just stick with IE because it works.

On the bright side, if they happen to be Linux or OS X user, IE won't work at all.

Re:Drawback (1)

Doctor Crumb (737936) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567610)

Luckily, IE7 is actually *less* usable than IE6.

Re:Drawback (2)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567984)

Assuming that usable means something more than chrome and cosmetics. I switched to Firefox not because it was prettier, 'easier to use', or because I'm anti-Microsoft. I, and many, many others have switched to Firefox because of security. I know beyond a shadow of doubt that no ActiveX malware will infect my machine because of use of Firefox. Security in and of itself ought to be the reason people switch to Firefox.

That's a drawback?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16568092)

Wow, I don't know if you are just innocently idiotic or plain trolling. You seem to be getting the priority of things wrong buddy.

Repeat after me, "Stable is good".

This reminds me of an article I read a few days ago arguing that crime is good because it keeps police employed.

IE7 Catching Up (1)

sco_robinso (749990) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567076)

I love firefox for a great many things, but I'm not your average user (neither is 99.9% of slashdot readers). I think for Joe user, there is less of a case for Firefox than before, now that IE7 is out. I still definately think there is a case to move to Firefox, but now that IE7 has tabs, it's a tougher sell. I recommend all my users/friends/etc to switch to Firefox, but now that IE7 is out, it will be a harder sell once IE7 makes it's way on most machines. Security, functionality, and ease of use are all as high as ever on IE7.

I think with IE7 the ball is back in Firefox's court to try to convice Joe User why Firefox is better. Before IE7, this was a no-brainer.

IE7 Text Rendering (3, Interesting)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567148)

I installed IE7 out of curiousity the other day. I use firefox but my wife uses IE. One thing that was immediately clear to me was that IE had substantially improved their text renderer. Text rendered in IE is substantially more readable and easy on the eyes than either IE6 or FF. If you don't believe me, try it within FF using IE tabs. Any idea on what they did to make the text so readable and how we get FF to render like this?

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567198)

It's called ClearType, and can be enabled somewhere in the desktop properties, there's a button called Effects on one tab. Can't check exactly where as I'm running Vista where it's on by default, and those dialog boxes have changed.

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (2, Interesting)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567334)

Interesting. So IE7 renders using ClearType regardless of the Control Panel's display settings (display:appearance:effects ). For those who are interested - changing that setting in the OS obviously works for FF too. Thanks!

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (1)

iso (87585) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567458)

Go to Display Properties (right click on Desktop, Propertis), Appearance tab, then hit the Effects button. Under "use the following transition effect for menus and tooltips" select ClearType.

Thanks for the reminder: I had forgotten to turn on ClearType on this new work laptop.

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567232)

Is it ClearType?

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567306)

Turno on ClearType.

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (1)

illegalcortex (1007791) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567314)

For the ACs saying it's ClearType, I don't think that's it. The poster was saying to open an IE tab in FF (it's an extension). If he's seeing the difference between IE and FF on the same system, it's not ClearType. ClearType is a global setting in the Display control panel and FF is affected by it.

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567360)

No, it's ClearType. IE just ignores the global setting and has it always on.

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567380)

Um, no. IE7 has cleartype enabled by default even if your system isn't set to use cleatype.

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (2, Informative)

Zildy (32593) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567384)

Yes, it really is ClearType [] , and the setting isn't system-wide, it's in IE's "Advanced" options screen.

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (1)

illegalcortex (1007791) | more than 7 years ago | (#16568100)

Well, we're all right and we're all wrong. ClearYype is a system-wide setting, IE7 just chose to "innovate" it into an application level setting that ignored the system-wide setting. And as I said in my original post, if you turn on the system-wide ClearType, FF will get the benefit.

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567386)

IE7 has the option to use ClearType rendering even if ClearType is turned off in the Display settings.

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (4, Informative)

rnelsonee (98732) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567374)

Yeah, that's ClearType - a very nice Microsoft innovation that uses subpixels of LCD displays to make smoother text (basically it will address each R, G, and B segment of each LCD pixel rather than just giving the pixel a color value). For some inane reason, it's off by default on XP, and IE7 is the first app to use it by default. If you can take advantage of ClearType that means that a) you're running XP, and b) you've got an LCD monitor. To use ClearType in all applications (including Office and Firefox), right-click the desktop -> Properties -> Appearance -> Effects..., then select ClearType under the "... smooth fonts" item.

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (1)

vp0ng (751157) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567706)

Not true, i am running XP, but not using an LCD display. i'm using a regular CRT monitor and there is a very noticable difference in the text. I did the test with both running in FF in seperate Tabs and IE7 is much easier to read.

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (1)

vp0ng (751157) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567772)

my bad, it's partiually true. with clear type enabled, both FF and IE7 look the same. Only discrepancy is that it works great on my CRT.

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (4, Insightful)

nazh (604234) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567886)

Regardless whether or not you like cleartype or not. IE7 should obey the system settings for that setting. I have turned off cleartype in XP, the text is to blurry for my taste, so it was quite annoying that IE7 did come with cleartype turned on by default and ignoring my system wide settings. How to turn off cleartype wasn't very intuitive either. Who would know that that setting is listed below multimedia?

Re:IE7 Text Rendering (4, Informative)

NullProg (70833) | more than 7 years ago | (#16568122)

Yeah, that's ClearType - a very nice Microsoft innovation that uses subpixels of LCD displays to make smoother text

Minor correction, your sentence should say assimilation not innovation .
Microsoft did not invent ClearType. []


Re:IE7 Text Rendering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567860)

They didn't improve their "text renderer." All they did was enable ClearType by default. You can do this system-wide by going to Display Properties > Appearance > Effects and smooth edge of screen fonts using ClearType.

LiveBookmark Folders (4, Interesting)

binaryspiral (784263) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567194)

Uhg... Microsoft's implementation of RSS feeds sucks so bad.

I enjoy FireFox's live bookmarks because it gives me a quick and screen friendly way of scanning stories on sites like BBC, /., Wired, Woot, and all the other places I just don't have time to visit.

Microsoft's Answer: display as a normal website with prettier formatting - and advertisements.

One saving grace for IE 7's implemenation of RSS feeds - it syncs them with Outlook 2007, where I can scan them easily as if they were email messages.

My verdict? Firefox still wins this match.

Re:LiveBookmark Folders (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 7 years ago | (#16568082)

Microsoft's Answer: display as a normal website with prettier formatting - and advertisements.

Yeah, it really surprised me the first time I saw IE's RSS page rendering when I was testing my own Drupal-based site. I thought at first that Drupal had applied a CSS or XSL transformation to it, and wondered where that code came from.

It's kinda cool that they use the categories supplied with the items to generate a menu though. It works very well with Drupal's feeds [] (the menu on the right).

IE dejavu all over again... (1)

woodsrunner (746751) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567230)

The IE team sent a congratulatory cake to firefox to celebrate shipping success.,br> /fromredmondwithlove.jpg []

It has an erie deja vu feeling of when Apple put an ad out welcoming IBM to the PC market.

Re:IE dejavu all over again... (1)

kurtis25 (909650) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567662)

IE works as well as the cake looks.

By the way (1)

rikkards (98006) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567240)

I went to getfirefox and lo and behold by removing the version number for 1.5 and putting 2.0 in ala: l?product=firefox-2.0&os=win&lang=en-US []
I started downloading it.

(Mind you it is really slow and stopped at 33kb)

Re:By the way (1)

SpyPlane (733043) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567300)

I did the same thing, and it worked. It downloaded from a mirror in Japan.

FF 2 lacks a real page zoom (3, Interesting)

Sleepy (4551) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567264)

[disclaimer: this could have snuck in FF 2RC3 and I wouldn't have known... I only tested RC2, and don't see this feature in the RC3 release notes]

FireFox 2 lacks page zooming, which from a my perspective is impossible to live without on certain displays.
I'm a web developer (sometimes), and I love FireFox. As a developer I love FireFox because the Gecko team show consistent progress towards standards. From this perspective, FireFox is what the web should be. The worst thing about developing for FireFox is... writing broken code with comment hacks to support IE's nonstandard ways. But that's not FireFox's fault.

For DEMO or home theater purposes, FireFox is (on a high-res display) very very unusable.
FireFox 2 has no page Zoom. FireFox offers unchanged as a featurem plain old "Text zoom", which is not the same.

The fact that many pages don't scale to different resolutions well is not FireFox's fault.
But until all websites adopt a consistent method of page scaling, the workaround is going to be Page Zoom.

On a 42" LCD (1920x1080p), a fullscreen FireFox browser is legible from about 3 feet away (with my eyes).
If you make the text bigger, the page layout goes toast in FF. SURE, you can go in and change your video resolution to a non-native size and cause everything to get bigger, but that is not fun and it messes with other apps. The solution for now is some kind of liner scaling on the page.

On a 42" LCD (1920x1080p), a fullscreen Opera browser is legible from about 6 feet away (with my eyes), if you use Page Zoom of 180-200%. 200% really isn't needed, but there's some annoying artifacing In Opera if you resize at a factor of 1.8. 2x looks very nice!

I see IE has page zoom now, and I've done a little bit of testing. It seems no better than opera's at first glance. But it's THERE.

I'll continue rooting for FireFox privately, but it's hard to sell people on FireFox's importance... when you have to use Opera or MSIE on the big panel display.

Here's to FF 2.5 including this feature. One hopes! :-)

Re:FF 2 lacks a real page zoom (1)

illegalcortex (1007791) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567354)

Likewise, real zoom is a boon for lower res displays. I have a media PC hooked up to a TV and webpages are often unusable under FF/IE6. I had never used Opera before but knew it had this feature. Worked like a charm. I agree the FF (actually, ALL browsers) should have this feature, but I imagine it's a bit of a bear to implement.

Re:FF 2 lacks a real page zoom (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567478)

I haven't tried Firefox 2.0 yet, but at least under Linux Firefox 1.5 offers its own display resolution setting under Edit > Preferences > Content > Advanced button in Fonts & Colors > Display Resolution. I usually tweak that to a nonstandard value to bump the font size up without destroying layout, and it appears independent of the system display resolution (doesn't mess with other apps).

I've never seen Page Zoom in action so I don't know if this is a poor imitation or reasonably similar...

Re:FF 2 lacks a real page zoom (1)

Mitchell Mebane (594797) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567518)

I've heard that one of the benefits of moving to Cairo in FF 3 is that it FF will finally have real page zoom. I can't remember where I heard this, but I sure hope it's true.

Re:FF 2 lacks a real page zoom (1)

hughk (248126) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567776)

I have a Logitech MX5000 keyboard for my laptop when I'm at the desk. I discovered that page zoom was working extremely well by accident after accidentally hitting the control pad rather than the volume next to it. FireFox 1.5 rescaled very nicely, even smoothly,

I can't imagine that Logitech wrote a bit bit of code for FF support so I would guess that the support is in there. It just needs a key binding to activate.

GUI is bad (2, Interesting)

M0b1u5 (569472) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567452)

Sorry, but the GUI of IE7 is like someone without any knowledge of HCI or how people use browsers or PCs in general is responsible for the disaster that is IE7.

They had a clean slate to work with, and could have produced something truly intuitive, and highly usable, but instead they produce something which is only half a step away from dogshit. Honestly, separating the functional buttons is just stupid. To me, it appears that absolutely no research was done for the GUI, and they only spent money on the back end, and the graphics.

Removing the file menu is retarded.

So, to me, it doesn't matter how good IE7 is behind the curtains, the curtains themselves suck so bad that I simply will not use it.

The sad thing is that I'm not the least surprised by this: a unique opportunity completely missed, and Internet usability has been set back by at least a couple of years.

Re:GUI is bad (1)

nostrad (879390) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567810)

I'm in total agreement with this, somethings weird with the IE dev team. I tried out IE 7 today and I wanted to enable the menu to ease my transition a little.

Well, perfect, there's a huge amount of space to the right of the menu, why not move the toolbar from the right of the tabs to there and get more space for the tabs. Uh, no, that wasn't allowed (and yes, I disabled the lock on the toolbars). Also, even though the menu is "movable", there was no obvious way to move it above the address bar.

Given that I sometimes open up to 50 tabs in Firefox I really need space in the tab bar (the new tab menu in Firefox 2 is great btw). That said, and that I still get a load of rendering errors in ie7, I'm sticking to Firefox (or Konqueror, Opera, whatever render stuff correctly and knows that a tab bar is supposed to have room for more than two tabs).

"long-time Firefox user" (2, Interesting)

matt me (850665) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567494)

Is there such a thing? It's still a child. It's not yet two years since the 1.0 release. I'd installed Firebird about a year before that. Before that it was the browser component of mozilla, and then way back it was netscape navigator! Essentially the interface is no different from it's ancestors. Much of what we like about Firefox is really the extensions (adblock, decent tab functionality) or disabled by default (find as you type) - and all this was upstream in Mozilla. The greatest distinction between Firefox/mozilla/etc and IE is the tabs, and frankly this is apalling "out the box" without any extensions. Multiple tabs, one window: fantastic. Multiple windows of IE = alright. Firefox "out the box" multiple tabs in multiple windows, new ones coming from nowhere all shapes and sizes = Confusing as hell. It's hardly surprising new users want to disable it, when they must guess at random what opens a window, what opens a tab.

The majority of the older mozilla userbase is on linux, think back to when mozilla was the default browser in debian, red hat, suse. only with firefox 1.0 did the development shift from this technical userbase to the hysterical evangelicals of firefox vs IE.

Re:"long-time Firefox user" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16568140)

I'm glad somebody brought this point up, FF isn't really that old so saying "I'm a long time firefox user" doesn't really mean anything!

Why do I care about limited platform support? (1, Insightful)

klubar (591384) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567504)

The application either works on my platform or it doesn't. If it works on my platform then I'll use it... otherwise I'll pass. The platform issue is moot... sort of like saying the iLife suite is bad because it doesn't work on my PC.

On the otherhand, close integration between the OS and the browser can make for a more seamless experience (and DOJ interactions). IE 7 works on 75+% of the PCs in the world and probably nearly 100% of the PCs in companies with more than 500 employees.

Picking the nit (1, Insightful)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567764)

Good: Tabbed browsing, full page zooming, quick tab view, improved security alerts.
Bad: Non-standard user interface, very limited customization, very limited platform support

Non-standard interface? Who's standard?

Limited customistation - ok you might have a point here. But honestly what do we need tool bars for?

Limited platform support !? What do you expect. You can't possibly list this as a con (well I guess you just did, but let be reasonable)

One of the biggest mistakes Microsoft made was dropping Windows 2000 support for IE so soon.

Why, w2k is 6 years old. That's old. In addition it is the last unencumbered version of windows, it is also going to be EOL'd soon. From a software developer perspective, I don't want people using w2k, it's old, and dirty.

fairly minimal interface, however, once you open a few tabs this interface starts to look cluttered because of the buttons placed along the right side of the tab bar... The menu bar is missing by default which further adds to the confusion. To make it appear hit ALT or right click on the toolbar and enable the menu bar.

First, it is a minimal interface. I think MS finally figured out that IT'S A WEB BROWSER. The browser is for browsing pages and that's really all the browser needs to do, contain pages. No really, why is a menu needed by default? I applaud this shift. There is no need to loose 30px of real estate to a menu that is used .00001% of the time.

As fot tabs; if they get croweded you can do one of three things. Open a new window with a new group of tabs. Not open so many tabs, I mean after all you can only usefully use one page at a time. Change the bar arrangement.

liked the thumbnail view of open tabs, however it'd be good to see the thumbnails scale so that if there's only a few tabs open they'd be larger and many tabs open they'd be smaller to reduce the need for scrolling

Man, everyone is a critic. My guess is scaling each page image dynamically would hurt performance. you'll notice that they are live previews of the pages (the refresh and stuff).

Also IE7 has gained a search bar much like most other browsers. By default it's set to Windows Live Search (aka MSN) but changing the default is as simple as clicking the dropdown arrow and installing a new search engine. It's a shame that there's not more choice in the default list but to be fair they've made it fairly simple to add new search engines. So the first thing I do is make Google the default.

It's not MS's job to go drum up a list of favorite search engines for everyone. If they were to be "fair" that list would be quite long. If you have a preference you can choose, if you don't you have a search engine sounds well engineered to me.

First impressions aside now it's time to get down to using the browser on a day to day basis. The first thing that I did was import my Firefox bookmarks.

Wait, I though you already added Google as the default search engine as the "first thing" you did?

Lack of bookmark import support is a good find! But honestly who is going to move from firefox to IE ;-)

I was unable to crash the browser through standard day to day usage and performance was reasonable on most websites, although performance on some sites that were heavy on JavaScript (such as AJAX sites like Gmail) was slower than Firefox and Opera.

You talk as if IE 6 crashes all the time, it doesn't ... Some support for performance would be nice (loading times etc.)

I think some logic consistency checking needs to be implemented in the authors head.

The idea of using the information bar was to stop bombarding users with dialog boxes. However, in their infinite wisdom they decided to put up a dialog box saying 'Did you notice the information bar?' ... Of course, it has an option to never show this again but some people just habitually hit OK when they see a dialog and will get that annoying box each time. This behaviour is also in IE7, can we not just scrap this dialog?

There is a check box, like every other one time feature found in just about every application ever made. In fact there were several check boxes like this earlier in the review (tabbed browsing comes to mind). It says "don't show me this again", just check the box and move on, and no we can't scrap the dialog because the question would be "where are my pop up windows?"

That's all that really caught the eye with IE7, it's definitely a major enough improvement to warrant the 7.0 version number but there's still a lot of work to do before I ditch Firefox as my day to day browser.

What work?

it's not possible to place the menu bar at the top of the window where it should be.

So you don't like change eh? How about just try using the menu where it is - it's not like it gets used much in the first place. The IE team was right on, why waste screen real estate for an under-used feature. How many times did you need it in a week?

All in all, I fail to see why the author doesn't consider IE 7 adequite for day to day use. Most of the nit-picks were superficial and didn't have any real impact in usability. In some ways IE 7 has stream lined the browsing experience quite a bit. The bar clutter is much less than it used to be in IE 6 providing more room for pages. Also, the primary browser controls are nicely grouped together.

slow (2, Interesting)

kurtis25 (909650) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567882)

IE7 is to slow to be of use. I'm not on the best computer (not the worst either) but it's slow, takes forever to load a tab and to long to open up. FF is much faster on my machine, which is the biggest usability point. If I want to use a Web 2.0 ap say the ap formally known as writely I want it to open fast so I can take a note or check email quickly and move on with life. I don't want to wait for my computer to load things up. Two clicks to get to my RSS is two clicks to many. RSS didn't make much sense. It didn't pull over new articles for me to read I had to click on the feed. Oh wait they are probably going to start dropping MSFT ads into the feeds they display so the more pages I visit the more ads I see. Speed and simplicity are my bench marks. which makes the score IE 0 FF 2
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account