I'm not sure how many of you are aware of this tabbed browser called Maxthon, but I'm using it right now and I think it's the best thing around. Granted I haven't tried firefox or opera, so to me Maxthon is the best, and I've seen no need to try any other browser. Sometime in the future I'll test out the other browsers though.
New FireFox
Beldaran wrote:Since a great many people who are far more educated and sucessful than you disagree with this, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the keyboard cowboy from the videogame forum is flat wrong.
Starkist wrote:
You're right Starkist, I should never seriously consider the advice of trained professionals. I should just make things up and think whatever makes me feel good. Oh wait, that's religion.
I'll stick to my "illogical" practice of believing what highly educated professionals say, as I find it slightly superior to accepting whatever Breaker says (whether he backs it up or not) as the ultimate truth.
Not everything is an arguement, Beldaran. Besides, you're really not even worth the effort. =/
I don't mean to take sides, but I have to agree, this arguement is, well... dumb.
I mean, geez, a person likes what a person likes. Browsers have their strengths and weaknesses, but all that really matters is if it works for the person who uses it. Recommendations, stated opinions, that's all great, but what's the point of arguing about it?
That is all. I will no longer post in this thread unless I'm offered anime, money, or perhaps a jelly baby from The Doctor.
I like firefox, because its lighter on my computer than Opera and handles websites better than IE. It would seem to me microsoft doesn't understand the meaning of "web standards." I program for firefox and IE all the time, and more often then not after a first revision my standards compliant webpage works perfectly in firefox and is totally fuckin screwed in IE. So I have to go back and reprogram all my shit to work right in both browsers. IE handles tables oddly, redundantly applies space where none should exist, and has virtually no concept of the purpose of CSS. All in all firefox is a better browser, you IE fans just dont want to admit it because microsoft finally figured out how to make a tab-based browser, so now you're all jizzin your pants over a decade-old technology that mozilla masterfully executed with firefox long before IE7 was even in beta release. As for the security enhancements, RSS support, and other such redundant features of IE7, they are simply useless and pointless. With a good firewall, and a decently programmed browser, you don't need any extra security. Firefox supported RSS from the start, so don't try to hold that bullshit over my head. And IE7s search feature, old skool opera came out with that first, even before firefox. Printing features? If it wasnt so screwed up in the first place, it wouldn't need enhanced printing features.
As for firefox being a RAMhog, not anymore than IE6 is. I run both on my win98, 166mhz, 64MB RAM dinosaur, and they both take an equally long time to load up. After they finish starting, its as quick as it could ever hope to be on such a slow ass computer, but truly I get a smoother and quicker response time from firefox...can't say why. All in all, IE7 truly is the Internet Exploder.
I wasn't going to reply to this thread anymore, but you really do need to lighten up. As I said earlier, I'm an Opera fan, but you're just being a ranting fanboy here.
Executioner of Deities wrote: All in all firefox is a better browser, you IE fans just dont want to admit it because microsoft finally figured out how to make a tab-based browser, so now you're all jizzin your pants over a decade-old technology that mozilla masterfully executed with firefox long before IE7 was even in beta release.
Opera had it before you, and I'm pretty sure someone else had it before that.
Executioner of Deities wrote:As for the security enhancements, RSS support, and other such redundant features of IE7, they are simply useless and pointless. With a good firewall, and a decently programmed browser, you don't need any extra security.
Okay, so you complain that the browser isn't safe, but you then complain when they try to fix the safety issues? Um, yeah, that works.
Executioner of Deities wrote:As for firefox being a RAMhog, not anymore than IE6 is. I run both on my win98, 166mhz, 64MB RAM dinosaur, and they both take an equally long time to load up. After they finish starting, its as quick as it could ever hope to be on such a slow ass computer, but truly I get a smoother and quicker response time from firefox...can't say why.
Actually, on my old '98 60MB (I forget the processor) PC, IE6 loads and executes faster as long as I'm not working with a half dozen tabs or windows. Not by any amount of time worth noting, but it's faster.
Seriously, just lighten up. It's a browser. No need to go evangelical.
Kairyu wrote:
Actually, on my old '98 60MB (I forget the processor) PC, IE6 loads and executes faster as long as I'm not working with a half dozen tabs or windows. Not by any amount of time worth noting, but it's faster.
Gee, who would have thought that the people who wrote the operating system could build their web browser into it and make it run faster by denying outsiders the knowledge necessary to wring performance out of their shit cake OS?
Im not being evangelical...Im just trying to give a good arguement for firefox, which apparently no one cares to do, *shrug* And Im certainly not a fanboy...Opera has alot of stuff better than firefox, its just more RAM consuming than firefox is as a result, or thus is my experience. Opera's skins certainly are cooler. What I don't understand is why anyone would want to be an IE posterboy, for cripes sake its microsoft...the fact that they waited how many years to put out a modern tabbed-based browser ought to be enough to skew them away from the arguement altogether (it took the success of firefox and the infringement on IE's users for them to open their eyes), not to mention their lack of first party plugin support, which I didn't even cover. I love the plugins in firefox, I have a kickass FTP client, a download manager, countless skins...its just frkin great being givin the opportunity to completely customize your browser, inside and out. Microsoft would never encourage community based development or genuine customization of any of their products, and that pisses me off the most.
Executioner of Deities wrote:Im not being evangelical...Im just trying to give a good arguement for firefox, which apparently no one cares to do,
Actually, Beldaran seems to be doing a decent job of it. And he's doing it without resorting to half as many insults.
Executioner of Deities wrote: *shrug* And Im certainly not a fanboy...Opera has alot of stuff better than firefox, its just more RAM consuming than firefox is as a result, or thus is my experience.
I've never had actual RAM issues with any of the big three browsers as long as I didn't do anything stupid (i.e. open 300 tabs/windows at once). I don't do much online gaming, though, so maybe it's more of an issue for other people.
Executioner of Deities wrote:What I don't understand is why anyone would want to be an IE posterboy,
It's possible for someone to say something good about something without automatically becoming a fanboy for it. I can say the PS3 will certainly have the most powerful processor of the next-gen systems, but I'm certainly not a PS3 fan.
Executioner of Deities wrote: for cripes sake its microsoft...
Yeah... and... so? It's not like Microsoft is a corporate incarnation of the anti-Christ. They're clearly not a paragon of good practice and fairness, but that doesn't mean they don't get things right every once in a while.
Executioner of Deities wrote: the fact that they waited how many years to put out a modern tabbed-based browser ought to be enough to skew them away from the arguement altogether (it took the success of firefox and the infringement on IE's users for them to open their eyes),
How many years did it take them to add support for tabs after most of their userbase actually started asking for them? That's not a rhetorical question, I honestly don't know the number.
Executioner of Deities wrote:Microsoft would never encourage community based development or genuine customization of any of their products, and that pisses me off the most.
If you don't use IE anyway, why would it piss you off that they are or are not doing something?
Im a webmaster, it pisses me off because most people do use IE, so I have to program for it. What is with all your quoting? You can just reply, you dont need to rhetort on every point I make quoting the whole way through. Its really unnecessary, people can scroll up 200 pixels and see what I said for themselves.
And Microsoft does suck, they suck now and they always have sucked and they always will, because they're always trailing behind the latest advancements, they're always playing catchup to community based development teams, and they're always fucking something up around every corner trying to make it "user-friendly". They may not be the corporate embodiment of the anti-christ, but they seem like the technological anti-christ to me.
Lets talk about standards for a moment, does microsoft even know who the W3C is? IE6 treated CSS like it was some unnecessary add-on to HTML, hardly even recognizing the way it was meant to work and be displayed. Tables in IE are like a foreign language in and of itself, it hardly reacts the way every other browser in the world does. IE seems to beleive space should be added where none should exist, screwing up absolute positioning all over a page and forcing a programmer to script arbitrarily just for the exploder. I've heard IE7 improves upon standards support, but still doesn't quite hit the nail on the head, whereas Opera, Firefox, Netscape, Safari, Knoqueror and every other browser there is in the world displays and has displayed for years CSS and HTML perfectly the way it was meant to be.
I dunno, I am happy that IE7 improves upon the deficiencies of IE6, it makes my job a little easier. But I won't stand aside and let someone say its a better browser than firefox, because it isn't. It's a product of Microsoft's fear of loosing people to firefox, and thats the truth.
Executioner of Deities wrote:...Take your Mozilla Defense Force over to QuirksMode. You'll notice that not only does Microsoft support W3C fairly well, when you balance the features MS gets right vs. the features others get wrong (excluding the Microsoft-specific extensions) you'll find they are all equally almost-compliant.
Remember, missing one point is as bad as missing 100 when you want to claim full compliance.
I don't think IE is the best browser on the planet but it is hardly the stinking pile of non-compliance that most zealots make it out to be. For that matter, Firefox has its share of problems.
You whine and complain that MS is behind the times on things that community development projects have had but you seem to misunderstand this is the natural result of their business model.
Microsoft sells software. To this end, it is important that they keep their own trade secrets and protect their source code from outside developers. This means their QA and R&D efforts are limited to what resources they can field. While this stifles innovation and prevents a very evolutionary product, it does promote consistency and a model where the compiled binary, rather than the source or support, is the item sold.
The Mozilla Foundation runs an open-source project that is open to developers worldwide. When run properly, an open-source project is not for profit, and while there are "head developers" the project belongs to all of the developers. If a feature is desired it is added; weak or useless features are pruned. QA and innovation are limited only by the number of participants, though project consistency tends to be lower as the QA end of software isn't as well-liked as the coding end.
So why is it that MS has more problems and less features? Their product is closed-source and proprietary. There is no amount of money they can throw at this problem, and hiring the world's best programmers will not fix it either. The only way these alleged failures of IE can be addressed is through widespread developer support, which Microsoft does not allow for obvious reasons.
For the average user, IE does everything they need it to do and Firefox/Opera are just an annoyance. I have discussed the virtues of tabs with my parents and other less technologically-inclined people, and their verdict is usually "I don't need to have 12 pages open."
So why can't we all be content to let people drive a compact car if they want to, and you can choose to drive the sporty or luxury model (Firefox, Opera, etc.) if you feel like you need it?
A community-driven open source project (when run properly) follows an evolutionary model and new features can be integrated quickly. However, to run this project properly a few
I dont care who drives what kind of browser to wherever they want to drive it to, Im not trying to make converts, Im not saying the average user needs firefox, Im just not letting anyone say something that is so blatantly untrue without giving them a fight. And Im finished doing it now, so bleh.
Beldaran wrote:Gee, who would have thought that the people who wrote the operating system could build their web browser into it and make it run faster by denying outsiders the knowledge necessary to wring performance out of their shit cake OS?I'm pretty sure shitcake is one word. [SIZE="1"][1][/SIZE]
AtmaWeapon wrote:Jesus Christ save us all when nerdrage over internet browsers escalates to the point that people start calling each other out over completely made up compound profanity words that only exist within dictionaries that define other useless nerd words.Someone needs to put a warning in the thread title for women to stay out of the thread because the nerdfight inside has such concentrated power might make your boobs fall off and your uterus dry up.
Hey guys can someone c/d Windows is better than Linux?