View Full Version : Firefox : The Guerilla Approach To Reloading The Web
Shinigami
11-24-2004, 12:07 PM
Firefox, many would have us believe, is taking over the world. As I write this article, I'm told the browser has been downloaded almost six million times in just over two weeks, and one survey is suggesting Internet Explorer use has dropped to below 90% for the first time in years. Onestat.com's statistics say IE usage has dropped by 5% since May, while Mozilla Browsers have grown by just the same amount. IE6 is being used by just under 81%; IE5 by 4.2% and 5.5 by 3.7%. Firefox usage is sitting around 4.5%.
This has all prompted claims from its advocates that it's going to take over Internet Explorer's crown as the most-used browser on the net. Unfortunately, open-source fans, that just isn't going to happen.
[Source: Neowin] (http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?category=main&id=25869)
A really cool article on Firefox and whether or not it can really overtake Internet Explorer. It mainly centers around how stupid most computer users are--well, how much they "don't care"; whatever. It gets a bit corny in the end when he exploits the "guerilla" in the title of the article, but I guess it's true. I've done it to a friend of mine (though his parents and sister still use the AOL browser. Yeah, they're pretty low, even compared to most of the computer illiterate) but, as I just said in those parenthesis, it wasn't the most effective. That brings warped situation up, where they've used the AOL browser because they check their email and probably don't know they have anything else, but... well, it's a good article, anyway.
Nice find. :tup:
I actually started using FF (http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/) when I saw Neox's pinned thread on how improving net security, in this sub-forum. I had a few apps of mine that helped IE (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.asp) a lot but still, it wasn't enough. ;) Maybe some day he sees the apps I suggested and changes the thread itself if he likes'em... :rolleyes:
Again, FireFox is the better solution (freeware) so far in my eyes. It may cost at 1st 2 addapt (I know, I did) but when u get the hang of it, u wouldn't want another thing. Most of the extras (extensions n' themes) are awesome.
But hey, I'm biased. If u don't believe my word, just try it 4 urselves! :angel:
No Hammock, this isn't a thread fitted 4 u and rest assure, we know 'bout it. :devil:
Yeah IMO, with more and more popular sites being restructed around Firefox or just Mozilla that people are going to start switching. FF has made it so easy anyways -- it will import favorites and stuff.
EDIT: I mean the FF buttons. Not that people are optimizing sites exclusively for FF lol. I see FF icons everywhere now, its really surprising.
That and I actually find it renders some pages better then IE -- which I never thought would happen.
FF has hit about 4 million dls last I heard. IE may not be on its death bed, but unless MS does something soon they are going to be hurting in the future -- especially if AOL Ever gets off their asses and gets Netscape going (it would be really nice to see the AOL Browser switched to Netscape)
The more people realize that you can do more with FF the more they will switch. That and people are getting more and more impatient with browser hijacks -- its simply impossible to hijack FF, heh. Though I have had FF crash out on me, but rather that then infection.
-Neo
Basan
11-25-2004, 10:08 AM
The more people realize that you can do more with FF the more they will switch. That and people are getting more and more impatient with browser hijacks -- its simply impossible to hijack FF, heh. Though I have had FF crash out on me, but rather that then infection. Same here (only with it's latest updates, more in the extensions branch). :cry:
Rather that than an infection by those add/spyware 'viruses' we get by mere IE browsin'. :D
Edit: Any1 who wants 2 curse at uncle Bill Gates, just try this (Windows Update) (http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/) when using another web browser than IE. :mad2:
It's both inaccurate and insulting to label IE6 users as people who are "too stupid to download Firefox". I don't use Firefox because I dont want it. I've tried tab browsing and I don't like it or find it useful. I'm not impressed by Firefox's plugins, especially plugins that just bring it up to IE functionality (clicking and dragging the Intelliwheel is one I remember). In general, Firefox just looks and feels like an old application (see the aforementioned lack of Intellwheel support). There is nothing wrong with not caring about changing browsers. If IE meets all my needs, why change?
WeekendLazyness
11-26-2004, 1:44 AM
Tim, autoscrolling has been included since version 0.8. Plus, you have to realize that releases prior to that were beta. Now I believe that Firefox is a great program, but if you like the program you are using, stick with it. I just think you should give Firefox another chance, as it is now version 1.0.
It's both inaccurate and insulting to label IE6 users as people who are "too stupid to download Firefox". I don't use Firefox because I dont want it. I've tried tab browsing and I don't like it or find it useful. I'm not impressed by Firefox's plugins, especially plugins that just bring it up to IE functionality (clicking and dragging the Intelliwheel is one I remember). In general, Firefox just looks and feels like an old application (see the aforementioned lack of Intellwheel support). There is nothing wrong with not caring about changing browsers. If IE meets all my needs, why change?
Uhm, yeah, what the heck? Wheel Support has been in it since i started using it.
Not only that but I love the (once again free here) plugins (extensions) like Adblock. It lets me block ANY Banner, ANY image, ANY frame, ANY Flash/Shock/other animation I want. At anytime.
The tab extension is also great -- lets you drag and drop frames around, duplicate tabs (basically lets you do a whole bunch with them). I also enjoy the Spell Checker i installed (not that I use it lol)
I dont think I mentioned IE Users as stupid, I hope I didnt. I used IE forever before I switched to Firefox, which is better IMO, in every way. Now that FF is 1.0 (not beta) you can even specify new windows to show up as new tabs -- you can browse all from one window. That is nice. I never liked having 10 IE Windows open anyways. Though thats a moot point with Windows XP which groups them together.
If your going to 'dis' something, at least take the time to review it. FF 1.0 is really nice now, and although I don't like the default theme, themes are easy to find, and look awesome most of the time (nAoi eXtreme anyone? ^^)
IE Offers no Tabs, No popup blocking, No theme support (unless youve got windowblindws or equivelant, but thats not IE Specific), the only 'add ons' are usually browser hijacks, or things you dont need. I mean, you can enjoy using IE all you want -- switch, don't switch, I dont care, but dont dis something just becuase you love everything MS xP
I admit that I didnt like tabs at first either, but I fell in love later when I started working on my website more often. PLus, does IE have an addon that lets you use IRC? (chatzilla), or an option that lets you switch your User Agent (very useful I might add, more usefuly then I thought it would be).
The only thing IE might have over FF is that it can (sometimes) load faster. But I dont always find that to be true.
-Neo
EDIT: Besides that you know something is wrong when Firefox displays a website better then IE (Even when that Website is supposodely IE-Optimized?)
I use my web browser for ... browsing the web, not chatting on IRC or skinning so it looks pretty and matches my wallpaper. IE has had popup blocking (without 3rd party add-ons or plugins) since SP2 and it works great, in fact Firefox copied the information bar from them. Also, there are a handful of useful browser extensions I use that aren't spyware, such as a form spell checker. And actually, I've had Firefox since October 2003, before it was even called Firefox and before its newly aquired "popularity". Performance. Now here's something I care about and I've found that IE seems to outperform it. I don't have numbers, but the IE browsing experience seems much more fluid than the Firefox browsing experience.
To be honest, one of the things I hate most about Firefox is the company. I don't agree with their fanatical marketing (ads in the newspaper) and their whole Get Firefox ad campaign.
Not to mention the constant bragging about the latest download count. According to their marketshare, that would put IE at around 100 million users. You can whine all you want about Microsoft's "unfair browser/e-mail/media player/etc/etc/etc/etc integration", but Firefox can't do anything about that. The company seems to be more focused on getting everyone and their mother to use Firefox than they do about anything else. I read this on another blog and thought it was very true. Firefox is just starting to gain on a three year old browser and that Microsoft has the money and manpower to literally extinguish Firefox (no pun intended).
I use my web browser for ... browsing the web, not chatting on IRC or skinning so it looks pretty and matches my wallpaper. IE has had popup blocking (without 3rd party add-ons or plugins) since SP2 and it works great
For Windows XP Only. What about the rest of us? There are many people who still use Win2k or earlier.
in fact Firefox copied the information bar from them. Also, there are a handful of useful browser extensions I use that aren't spyware, such as a form spell checker. And actually, I've had Firefox since October 2003, before it was even called Firefox and before its newly aquired "popularity". Performance. Now here's something I care about and I've found that IE seems to outperform it. I don't have numbers, but the IE browsing experience seems much more fluid than the Firefox browsing experience.
THey had to change names from Firebird (was it? gosh) becuase of clashes with another project. What information bar are you talking about? (I dont understand that).
If you have not used the NEW Firefox then you can't keep saying its performance is worse then IE. It would be like me saying AOL 9.0 is faster then IE4. Obviously you would be better off testing IE 6 vs something newer. The same applies for Firefox, Opera, IE, etc...
To be honest, one of the things I hate most about Firefox is the company. I don't agree with their fanatical marketing (ads in the newspaper) and their whole Get Firefox ad campaign.
Oh, but Microsoft's ads are alright? They dont really have to run any though, since Windows comes on everything, and people are to lazy or just stubborn to try anything else. Not to mention that Mozilla is basically Open Source. Their are people who work on it from AOL's Netscape division, Linux Red Hat, and various other places, not to mention the community developers that help.
Not to mention the constant bragging about the latest download count. According to their marketshare, that would put IE at around 100 million users. You can whine all you want about Microsoft's "unfair browser/e-mail/media player/etc/etc/etc/etc integration", but Firefox can't do anything about that. The company seems to be more focused on getting everyone and their mother to use Firefox than they do about anything else.
Mozilla is basically open source. No one can compete with Microsoft, but that doesnt mean they shouldnt even try. Firefox is one of the best browsers -- you can't say its not just becuase you like IE more -- the simple fact that it can't be hijacked bumps it up to the to. Becuase of that fact alone people should use it over IE. Anything else is immaterial.
I read this on another blog and thought it was very true. Firefox is just starting to gain on a three year old browser and that Microsoft has the money and manpower to literally extinguish Firefox (no pun intended).
How does that work? Microsoft hasnt updated IE for years. It hasnt patched possible/real exploits -- I mean when i have to go to a third-party site becuase MS wont patch something (Becuase patching it means it existed) then theres something wrong.
Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies offers the latest security enhancements for the Windows operating system. Learn more about Windows XP Service Pack 2 and what improvements it brings to Internet Explorer and Outlook Express specifically.
Microsoft remains committed to providing security updates to our customers for all supported Windows versions. For customers not using a Windows XP operating system, here are some things you can do to help secure your PC:
You know what I find to be bullshit? Is that Microsof is pushing Windows XP over user security. They are screwing the rest of us over. I use Windows 2k, becuase its more stable. And I dont need to the bloat from XP. But becuase of that, I cannot update IE, or anything else specific to SP2. Not that I care, since SP2 screwed over alot of things.
At least Firefox can be run on any system, and can be updated for free at anytime. Apparently to use the latest IE, I have to go out and Buy Windows XP, then dodge the Blaster and other varients to update said XP, then fight through any programs that clash with SP2 and then I get to enjoy the new 'secure' IE?
-Neo
I'm not sure of it but I think that some of the initial XP security stuff was kinda 'exported' from the 2k version. At the office I've witnessed many crashes from the computers with the XP version and only a few with the '98 or 2k 1's. When our tech support comes in, is usually 2 fix some crap with the PC's with XP. :( Please folks, not another war between OS systems.
When I had the IE as default browser, I've add 2 tag along Secret Maker (http://www.secretmaker.com/), PeerGuardian (http://www.methlabs.org/methlabs.htm) (with 1 of it's largest lists) and a few others, some from this thread (http://www.warboards.org/showthread.php?t=4133) (read Spyware Blaster).
I agree with Neox on most of it, tough. Since I use the 2k in my laptop system as well (n' '98 at old home PC). ;)
It may be harder 2 addapt 2 FF on the 1st couple of usages time but later on (with experience from use) u'll be way better. And the extensions is definetly a plus.
And the themes 2 change the dull looks of the browser is a plus as well.
nAoi eXtreme anyone? ^^ But I prefer Pheonity myself. :)
Now the apps that I got 2 aid IE are less used, according 2 it's own statistics (Secret Maker at least does n' PeerGuardian rejects far less IP's). So 2 me, FF is safer n' therefore keeps our PC more 'clean' from exploit attempts.
I mentioned this above but no one seemed to catch it. I AM using Firefox 1.0.
When SP2 came out, this functionality was added to IE:
http://www.timpinkawa.net/tim/ie.png
Only a week or so later, this strangely similar feature was added to Firefox:
http://www.timpinkawa.net/tim/firefox.png
They seem awfully similar...
A web browser (and a computer for that matter) are only as secure as the user using them. I've used IE since 3.0 and have NEVER had a problem with exploits or IE targeted viruses. And yes, even with Firefox 1.0 I still find the IE browsing experience to be smoother. Microsoft ads? When was the last time Microsoft was telling you that all other browsers are old and insecure and that you absolutely ought to use IE? I don't see any other open source project in existence paying newspapers to run ads for them, other than commercialized open source projects like SuSE/Novell and Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
IE has been patched numerous times for any security exploits that arise. I think what you're complaining about is they haven't added any glitzy toys or eye candy. If the IE's user experience isn't broke (which it isn't), don't fix it. I'd rather they not add tabs to IE, or at least add an option to disable them. If tabs and themes are your holy grail of internet usage, there are free IE based alternatives like Maxthon. After all, you're downloading an alternate browser in the first place, why not get Maxthon? I finally blogged about Win 2K vs. Win XP because I was tired of hearing all the wrong information over and over again (bloat, stability, etc.) so please read this post:
http://blogs.timpinkawa.net/timp/archive/2004/10/13/187.aspx
Exedore
11-26-2004, 2:08 PM
TimP, a year ago, Mozilla had the option to block all pop-ups and would display an icon in the browsers status bar. IE 6.0 on WinXP now has that functionality. They seem awfully familiar...
I agree about the "bloat" arguement for 2k vs XP. I turned all of it off in XP and other than a few icons that have different art, it's almost indistinguishable, including program performance. However, the WinXP firewall, IE improvements and OE improvements are total bullcrap reasons as far as WinXP being better than 2k. Outlook Express is still a prime reason for the spread of internet viruses (helped immensely by user stupidity of course), the windows XP firewall seems to do more harm than good, although there hasn't been an exploit for winXP with which to guage its effectiveness yet. And the pop-up blocker in IE has been long overdue and has been supported by other browsers and numerous IE plugins for a while. I wonder if IE6 fixed the javascript printer exploit...
I prefer the "one program for one function" thing instead of having a big suite for everything, as that is rarely the most efficient solution: thats why i like w2k more.
wxp has firewall software builtin, w2k does not. not a big deal, youll like a third-party firewall more than the default in xp (i dont find the firewall that great in usability, it keeps blocking things it should not, and configuring ports isnt easy. some nice worms get through it anyway.)
wxp has nice themes, w2k does not have more than the default. not a big deal either, as i prefer functionality over candy.
wxp clusters windows in taskbar, w2k does not. not a big deal either, i dont have more than four programs on it at a time, at most six.
i dont have anything to say on the stability, both crash just as often.
aye, the IE isnt broke, but several exploits (not to name any now, they take a while to fix anyway) and lack of features (when comparing to fox) keep me from using it whenever possible (i.e. not a public computer), as fox' features are just more efficient for my use (abusing rss feeds w/ bookmarks and tabs, not to mention dling is smoother). id just say that fox is better for the power user.
fox does have some exploits, but those get fixed quite fast, thanks to efficient bugtracker usage and large developer base.
if you have your opinion on this, go ahead. convert me if you dare.
Everything you mentioned can be disabled in XP. I'd like to know why you think Firefox is more suitable for "power users".
I mentioned this above but no one seemed to catch it. I AM using Firefox 1.0.
When SP2 came out, this functionality was added to IE:
http://www.timpinkawa.net/tim/ie.png
Only a week or so later, this strangely similar feature was added to Firefox:
http://www.timpinkawa.net/tim/firefox.png
They seem awfully similar...
Thanks for clearing that up for me, Heh, I can't use IE SP2 so I have no clue if you mention newer features. They do seem similar, but /pif. Big deal. The look like they are using the default ToolTip colors anyways. Its a nice feature -- in either browser.
A web browser (and a computer for that matter) are only as secure as the user using them. I've used IE since 3.0 and have NEVER had a problem with exploits or IE targeted viruses. And yes, even with Firefox 1.0 I still find the IE browsing experience to be smoother.
I've used IE for years as well, I never had any problems. But I always had to be cautious about what I did, where I went, etc... I got tired of having to 'secure myself' and then later 'securing my computer from my family' -- Firefox for me allieviates alot of trouble I have had in the past. Main of which is that my Family can use it, they love the tabs, and I don't have to worry about my annoying brother visiting *Cough* some site that might install a negative, or hijack BHO or similar things.
Microsoft ads? When was the last time Microsoft was telling you that all other browsers are old and insecure and that you absolutely ought to use IE? I don't see any other open source project in existence paying newspapers to run ads for them, other than commercialized open source projects like SuSE/Novell and Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Well the first thing is that MS can't say that -- since IE isnt secure in the first place. Second thing is that they don't have to -- Who would MS be competing with?
Also I was mistaken about Mozilla being completely open source -- they are OS-Like in the way that code is released under... whatever Liscence. But they are basically connected with the Netscape division under AOL (which makes one wonder why the fuck AOL is still using that POS Browser "AOL Browser" or whatever-the-hell its called).
I think Mozilla is like between OS and... Not? But seriously though -- they have ads for something that you get for FREE -_- Its not like they are charging a few hundred dollars for it.
IE has been patched numerous times for any security exploits that arise. I think what you're complaining about is they haven't added any glitzy toys or eye candy. If the IE's user experience isn't broke (which it isn't), don't fix it. I'd rather they not add tabs to IE, or at least add an option to disable them. If tabs and themes are your holy grail of internet usage, there are free IE based alternatives like Maxthon.
Becuase I like Firefox more. That what it comes down to. I dont care for themes really, but its nice to have that option (like you mentioned -- the option to use tabs, Firefox has the same option, you can use it like IE, you won't even SEE a tab if you don't want to). There are numerous IE Exploits that have not been patched -- or have taken 'obscene' amounts of time to patch.
After all, you're downloading an alternate browser in the first place, why not get Maxthon? I finally blogged about Win 2K vs. Win XP because I was tired of hearing all the wrong information over and over again (bloat, stability, etc.) so please read this post:
http://blogs.timpinkawa.net/timp/archive/2004/10/13/187.aspx
As for this issue:
This is another false statement I hear all the time. Although some people just prefer Windows 2000 for whatever reasons, i.e. already having it installed, using it at work, don't want to pay for an upgrade, etc. I don't have any prejudice against Windows 2000 users, in fact I used it for several months last year and it's a rock solid operating system. Given the choice between Windows 9X and Windows 2000, I'd pick 2000 in a heart beat.
Now what does get to me is when people say Windows 2000 is better than Windows XP. Granted the differences between Windows 2000 and Windows XP aren't as ground breaking as the differences between 9X and XP, but XP does have a lot of exclusive features by itself. One such feature is legacy emulation mode which allows users to run their legacy software in emulated classic Windows environments. This feature has saved me several times when I wanted to run some games that weren't even very old, just heavily dependent on the 9X operating system.
Bloat IMO. Ok its a nice feature at some point, but really most people aren't going to use it/need it.
A common reason I hear is that “Windows XP is too bloated for me.” Just about every feature added to Windows XP that affects performance can be turned off. You can either turn them off through the My Computer settings or simply disable the Themes service.
Themes are fine. Themes arent the problem
So with 10 or 15 minutes of tweaking settings, you can be back to the Windows 2000 look and performance. I don't think anyone would say that Windows 3.1 is better than Windows 2000 because it's less resource intensive. The performance excuse is often a bit exaggerated, too. I don't think anyone with a 2+ Ghz PC should be complaining about the performance hit of a shadowed cursor or fading windows.
Windows XP requires more (RAM) to run smoother then Win2k. Most computers with WinXP on them -- factory wise -- have 128mb. Wtf is that?
The only time I've ever distinctly noticed the performance hit was using Windows XP Pro on a P3 500 Mhz computer, which probably should have themes disabled in the first place. I run Windows Server 2003 on a P3 800 Mhz with Themes enabled (performance fanatics don't bother chastising me for this) and there is no noticeable performance hit.
Good for (you). My mother has a 1.2 ghz machine with 128mb of RAM that is slow on the uptake. Even without themes, mouse menus take awhile to show up, switching between applications can even have lag times -- and this is after the computer is up for only maybe an hour or two.
Gamers, granted, are going to have 512 or more RAM and therefore XP isnt going to be that big of a resource hog, but it DOES take more then Win2k.
Windows 2000 users used the release of Windows XP Service Pack 2 as sort of a bragging right that their operating system didn't need the service pack and was obviously more secure. Not so. The new, more powerful firewall is a feature that would benefit Windows 2000, too.
Funny, I use ZoneAlarm. Pretty sure its better then MS's answer.
The popup/ActiveX blocker in Internet Explorer and image blocker in Outlook Express are also features that Windows 2000 users could use.
Funny again, I can do the same thing.
They both use Internet Explorer 6.0 and are affected by the same browser exploits. If anything, Service Pack 2 would be a convincing reason to upgrade to Windows XP. Windows 2000 and Windows XP use the same code base, so any new exploit in Windows XP is likely to affect Windows 2000 anyways.
Well that takes the cake doesn't it? If I don't use WinXP I stay screwed. Thats nice. Especially now that WinXP SP2 is available to anyone -- even those with pirate XPs. Funny how MS is pushing XP isn't it?
With these myths and rumors out of the way, I really can't find a single reason why Windows 2000 is better than Windows XP. They're both similar and Windows 2000 is in no way a bad operating system, but I think the cocky Windows 2000 home users who think they're somehow more “hardcore” by using Windows 2000 over Windows XP need to open their eyes and see that their operating system is not better than XP.
The extra's in Windows XP seem really similar to other programs that people have used for years, for instance, the Unziping thing (WinZip, PKZip, WinRAR, WinAce). The image viewer (ACDSee, Irfan, etc...). Hell for that matter the Themes Support (Winblinds).
Granted that most of these third party programs cost you money, you get more then just upgrading to XP and getting the defaults.
WinXP is very easy to use though, and thats fine. People don't want things to be hard, why do people use Macs (Heh -- don't hurt me AJ).
Just becuase there is a Blog about it doesnt mean anything. Windows 2000 IS very stable. Thats why so many people use it. Also it has that 'different' feel then WinXP. Eyecandy is nice, and I was tempted to upgrade to XP, but I decided to live without the special theme support for Clocks and 'special start menus'
The way that XP is being pushed more and more nowadays is scary. Its fine that WIndows XP is 'better' or whatever, but that doesn't mean all of us Win2k users should switch!
Hell, the only reason I did like my mother's XP machine over mine first off was MSCONFIG -- but thats a moot point now that I simply copied it from that machine and put it on mine. Lol.
Stoopid me and my rambling.
What I do miss is the 'hide inactive taskbar icons' things that XP has. I would really enjoy using that. Not to mention that it would be nice if WindowBlinds could skin me entire OS, it has problems on the Taskbar, but /pif, I can live with it :)
What also is interesting is that MS seems to rarely have 'original' ideas. It seems like they intend to support things at a minimum (IE: the unzipper in XP) so that people dont have to look to other 'unzipers'
wxp has nice themes, w2k does not have more than the default. not a big deal either, as i prefer functionality over candy.
You can use Third Party programs like Windowblinds and stuff (*Cough torrent) to get theme support.
Neo's Win2k Desktop: http://www.kupatrix.com/neo/neosdesk.jpg (caution 1024x res)
I like it just fine thanks ^^
-Neo
EDIT: http://diggler.mozdev.org/ | http://adblock.mozdev.org/ | http://www.iosart.com/foxytunes/firefox/ | http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/ So uhm... Got anything for IE thats similar in functionality and is free?
AdBlock - Use the built-in blocker if you're using XP or the MSN or Google bar if you're not.
Diggler - Neat concept, but how much do you actually need it? You could accomplish the same thing with the Google deskbar if you actually needed it.
FoxyTunes - I don't care about it. It has nothing to do with web browsing.
Spellbound - I use ieSpell which is free.
Although I do find it a bit hypocritical that you praise Firefox because you can integrate everything and a bag of chips (music? useless) into it and then later talk about how bad it is that XP has integrated zip compression (useful).
You seem to be obsessive compulsive about bloat. You seem to think that everything you don't personally use is bloat. Windows 2000 can connect to Active Directory domains, but it isn't in XP Home. Is that bloat? What about NTFS file compression and encryption? More bloat? Smartcard services? Bloat again? Until they make the NeoX Operating System, there is always going to be functionality in an operating system you don't use. I don't know how you can possibly call an OS emulation layer bloat when it's only used when you need it. It's not like it runs all your software emulated. It has, in fact, saved me a number of times when trying to run older software or improved performance on older software. Whenever someone asks me how to run a certain DOS or Win16 app on XP, the first thing I tell them to try is emulation mode and it has worked the majority of the time.
If the menus on your mothers computer are taking too long to show up, theres a good chance you don't have the Performance tab in My Computer tweaked.
Funny, all firewalls have the same purpose: hiding ports. I don't know how you can say ZoneAlarm does it better. It's like saying that Western Digital stores my data "better" than Seagate or that Microsoft Word saves my files "better" than Notepad. It's the same thing. ZoneAlarm may have some extra features, but it doesn't make it any better of a pure firewall than the Microsoft firewall. As in my analogy, Word can save formatted documents and Notepad can't, but in the end, they both save text.
I don't see how it's "funny" that a company pushes a new version of software. Microsoft isn't pushing XP any more than they pushed NT 4 users to upgrade to 2000. You can't expect MS to backport all the newest technology to a five year old operating system or else they'd still be trying to backport Windows 2000 (1999) features to DOS 6.22 (1994).
First of all, Compressed Folders (the built-in zip support) has been around since Plus! for Windows 98 (1998). The general idea you seem to be missing is that Microsoft is not trying to push XP on you overnight. It's been out for three years now. I think they have given users a more than adequate time for upgrading. As I said above, you can't expect to use Windows 2000 forever or else Windows 3.1 users would be complaining that Windows 2000 functionality is missing from their operating system. Microsoft has purposely added the option to run XP identically to 2000 so 2000 users can easily make the switch on the same hardware. I've actually found Windows Server 2003 (with themes on) to run better than 2000 did on the same machine. You have to realize that not all new versions mean slower performance, they actually do increase performance between versions.
AdBlock - Use the built-in blocker if you're using XP or the MSN or Google bar if you're not.
Diggler - Neat concept, but how much do you actually need it? You could accomplish the same thing with the Google deskbar if you actually needed it.
FoxyTunes - I don't care about it. It has nothing to do with web browsing.
Spellbound - I use ieSpell which is free.
Although I do find it a bit hypocritical that you praise Firefox because you can integrate everything and a bag of chips (music? useless) into it and then later talk about how bad it is that XP has integrated zip compression (useful).
Well the things i use don't have (pay-to-use/buy) alternatives that were there first. Just becuase you think 'music' is useless, alot of us may listen to it while browsing -- I do alot especially when I am changing back and forth between my browser and ftp client making changes -- especially since there is nothing but crap on TV during late night.
Add: So your telling me that IE's new built in Blocker blocks anything I would need it to? Does this include Images (specifics or from an entire domain, or specific domain's folder?). Does IE also allow you to block IFrames? Do it let you block specific JS files that could be ad-related? I can actually set up Adblock to view a Tripod page with NO ads. None at all. Can IE do the same?
You seem to be obsessive compulsive about bloat. You seem to think that everything you don't personally use is bloat. Windows 2000 can connect to Active Directory domains, but it isn't in XP Home. Is that bloat? What about NTFS file compression and encryption? More bloat? Smartcard services? Bloat again? Until they make the NeoX Operating System, there is always going to be functionality in an operating system you don't use. I don't know how you can possibly call an OS emulation layer bloat when it's only used when you need it. It's not like it runs all your software emulated. It has, in fact, saved me a number of times when trying to run older software or improved performance on older software. Whenever someone asks me how to run a certain DOS or Win16 app on XP, the first thing I tell them to try is emulation mode and it has worked the majority of the time.
First off, how the hell would NTFS be considered bloat? Win2k uses it -- so does WinXP -- when did I ever complain about that? Windows 2k and Windows XP at the very core are very similar -- there are few differences. I know this, Ive said it before.
Emulation: For normal peopel it doesnt matter. It causes more confusing then it helps. I have actually had to fix programs because people try to screwing around with the legacy options. A normaly user has no need for it -- and those that do (Gamers, or the occasional oddball) I am sure find it useful. But generally I would consider it bloat. But its a nice feature.
Funny, I've used DOS Programs on WIndows XP by... using the command prompt. Didnt have any problems. But then again, as a rule, how many people are going to want to run old dos or 16bit programs?
If the menus on your mothers computer are taking too long to show up, theres a good chance you don't have the Performance tab in My Computer tweaked.
I don't assuime your an idiot I would appriciate the same consideration. Of course I have tweaked the machine -- numerous times. I keep it updated, I keep Spybot and Adaware active, I make sure that its just fine so my Mother won't have problems with it. Why would I complain about its lag if I hadn't already tried the blaring obvious?
Of course if someone uses full theme support + effects + extras a 128mb ram, 1.2 ghz machine is going to have problems running it.
Funny, all firewalls have the same purpose: hiding ports. I don't know how you can say ZoneAlarm does it better. It's like saying that Western Digital stores my data "better" than Seagate or that Microsoft Word saves my files "better" than Notepad. It's the same thing. ZoneAlarm may have some extra features, but it doesn't make it any better of a pure firewall than the Microsoft firewall. As in my analogy, Word can save formatted documents and Notepad can't, but in the end, they both save text.
ADD: Hmm that arguement seems familar doesn't it? Windows XP maybe more featured... but does that make it better?
Well lets see, youcould go here: https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2 (or http://grc.com if that link doesn't work and go down to Shields Up! link and test your computer's common ports) So, did you computer pass? Did the MS firewall block everything its supposed to? Windows is known to keep certain ports open -- regardless of firewalls. Hell in the past even ZA had problems blocking them.
ZA Stealths every port. Does the MS Firewall do the same? Does the MS Firewall ask if every program or service is allowed to access the internet? Does it flag programs that have been changed that are trying to access the internet? (ie: a hijacked IRC Client, or maybe a trojaned program). Does the MS Firewall have a convieniant to use GUI? I mean, can someone not into computers come along and figure it out in a few minutes?
That is why ZA is better. It allows you to keep a more secure computer. Wouldn't you be glad if ZA caught a new Worm or Trojan that was trying to hijack your passwords?
I don't see how it's "funny" that a company pushes a new version of software. Microsoft isn't pushing XP any more than they pushed NT 4 users to upgrade to 2000. You can't expect MS to backport all the newest technology to a five year old operating system or else they'd still be trying to backport Windows 2000 (1999) features to DOS 6.22 (1994).
Win2k is only 5~ years old. But it is the last OS before XP (besides what, ME? Now lets talk about a mistake...). Just becuase I don't want to upgrade, I am not allowed access to IE SP2. Becuase of this I have ot resort to other alternatives (Firefox for instance).
The only reason for not supporting older software is pure laziness -- I can't imagine its that hard to give WIn2k users a stand alone IE that is equivelant to the SP2 version.
First of all, Compressed Folders (the built-in zip support) has been around since Plus! for Windows 98 (1998). The general idea you seem to be missing is that Microsoft is not trying to push XP on you overnight. It's been out for three years now. I think they have given users a more than adequate time for upgrading. As I said above, you can't expect to use Windows 2000 forever or else Windows 3.1 users would be complaining that Windows 2000 functionality is missing from their operating system. Microsoft has purposely added the option to run XP identically to 2000 so 2000 users can easily make the switch on the same hardware. I've actually found Windows Server 2003 (with themes on) to run better than 2000 did on the same machine. You have to realize that not all new versions mean slower performance, they actually do increase performance between versions.
The performance relies heavily on your computer hardware -- yes the OS is a factor, but a 300mhz AMD computer with 64 mbs of ram (like what, pc100?) isnt going to run Windows XP faster then it runs WIndows 98.
By the same token, my computer isnt going to run Windows XP faster then Windows 2k. Ok granted it might since I am a nerd and I would change settings and everything, but thats besides the point. As for themes, I use Windowblinds -- Its taking up, at this moment, 430k~ in memory. Can you tell me that Windows XP Themes (or '03 server) takes up less memory for themes?
Not everyone can upgrade even if they want to. I dont have $99 or more to spend on Windows XP when my Win2k machine works just fine for anything I need it for. Not only that but I have to think about future things like if I ever rebuild my computer, or build a new one -- I then have to buy the full version of Windows XP (or for that matter Win2k which is still over $100 retail) which means even MORE money.
Hell I don't even think you can use the full version to upgrade with -- I would love ot be able to buy (1) one cd and just buy seperate liscences/keys/whatever-the-hell instead of throwing away 100 or so for each computer I have and/or build.
-Neo
Everything you mentioned can be disabled in XP. I'd like to know why you think Firefox is more suitable for "power users".
it can be disabled, yes. but the thing is, that i dont want to buy things i'd disable anyway.
about the "power user" thing: firefox just does it better. if you dont want new (and mostly useful) features, stick with IE, but i like the fresh features foxy offers. tabs and the live bookmarks stand first on the features i like most.
also, i dont like to be hijacked or infected by a random worm with just doing normal things (*cough*IFRAME*cough*). fox keeps me safer, this far.
firefox's bug fixing quite a lot more efficient than IE's. bugzilla says something? no critical vulnerabilities here.
buying a overpriced OS to get some big-ass security patches to a feature-poor browser just isn't for me. i'd rather just DL a 5MB browser for free.
If you're not going to buy it, then don't complain about XP features not being backported. Complaining about the lack of SP2 then saying you don't need it seems a bit hypocritical. The next generation of Microsoft technologies (Avalon and Indigo) will be Longhorn/2003/XP only.
There's no reason to keep bringing up old security exploits in IE that have been fixed. If I recall, Firefox was also vulnerable to the JPEG exploit and it's had a few high profile holes in the past. IE can block frames across domains (including IFRAMES), so this solves most conceivible security exploits, unless you were purposely visiting a known malicious site. If you're so concerned about JS and IFRAME exploits, disable both of them. I've never had a problem with either.
If you would've read what I said, I said that features of NTFS could be considered bloat by the "if I don't use it it's bloat" mindset. I'm talking about specific NTFS features (file compression and encryption).
Also, I hope you realize that running apps through MS-DOS prompt is the same as using Run or just double clicking them. MS-DOS does not exist in Windows 2000 or XP. If the application doesn't work being double clicked, it's not going to work in MS-DOS prompt.
If the menus you're talking about are the fade-in menus, then yes, you obviously missed something. Otherwise they would slide in and would be no more "bloat" than the menus in 2000/98/95.
"Hmm that arguement seems familar doesn't it? Windows XP maybe more featured... but does that make it better?"
You tell me, you're using it as an argument for Firefox.
Microsoft sets their end-of-life policies based on age, not based on whether or not it was the last major operating system. An outdated operating system is outdated regardless of how many releases have come since it.
If you were such a performance/bloat fanatic, you wouldn't run WindowsBlinds in the first place. I'm sensing more of an anti-MS sentiment than a pro-performance sentiment.
I havent been pro-performance at all. Your the one who brought up Win2k -XP stuff. So I just responded. XP isnt some grand OS that we should all switch to. I am not Anti-MS either -- I use Office, and Frontpage, and Outlook Express, I love them all, even though I am sure theres some better OS (or Like) alternative.
It really comes to each his own -- thats fine. Windows 2k is a great OS -- and its very stable -- yes XP can be very stable to, no ones arguing that -- the thing is that Windows 2k ISNT Windows 98/95, where its fine to stop supporting them now, since newer things have come along, better, etc... whatever. But not porting something like Security Fixes, or even a new IE to Win2k seems more like laziness then anything -- Windows XP and Windows 2k arent THAT different when you get down to it. There are alot of visual differences, and more user-friendly stuff in XP, not to mention the additions like Firewalls and what not. Windows 2000 is STILL ON THE MARKET. Becuase of that MS should still be supporting it. Especially when it retails for $300 (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=1051806307304&skuId=3844246&type=product) or cheaper from sources like Newegg.
If Microsoft doesn't want to support something like Win2k, then perhaps they need to say so, and then take it off the market. But I doubt theyll do that, becuase Windows 2k is still being sold (otherwise, why would places carry it?).
Exclusive: Microsoft Drops Windows 2000 SP5, Plans Security Rollup Instead
A source close to Microsoft today sent me documentation about an Update Rollup for Windows 2000 that the software giant will release in 2005 in lieu of a Service Pack 5 (SP5). "The Update Rollup will contain all security-related updates produced for Windows 2000 between SP4 and the time when Microsoft finalizes the contents of the Update Rollup, and a small number of important non-security updates," the documentation reads. "Because Microsoft believes the Update Rollup will better meet the needs of customers than a new service pack, there will not be a Service Pack 5 (SP5) for Windows 2000. Therefore, SP4 becomes the final service pack for Windows 2000." So there you go.
Not that MS isnt supporting it anymore, I am sure we will get updates, but itl just take longer, lol.
EDIT: And since i am tired of seeing the Compatibility mode pushed:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/43388/43388.html
WB uses less memory then XP theme-controls -- in Windows 2000 and XP, so performance isnt really an issue (though Stardock has had a few years on Microsoft to help support skinning-other things)
-Neo
Sauvastika
11-30-2004, 12:23 AM
This is why I think Firefox > IE
This is why I think Firefox > IE
*Lol* My feelings exactly.
I don't want 2 have 10 browsing windows open (n' shown in the taskbar) while I do have other apps up n' running. That's pesky. And since I do most posting in work related places, hence my choice 4 FireFox. :)
Graeme
11-30-2004, 4:25 PM
This is why I think Firefox > IE
Yeah, but other than when you're looking at porn, how often do you open up 10 windows//tabs? ;)
Shinigami
11-30-2004, 5:18 PM
Ten tabs is pretty standard for me. Whether I'm saying I look at porn constantly or not is up to you. ;)
I can't say I've ever needed ten tabs at once. I usually don't go much over four.
Well then lets all go off what your needs are.
When I am really into something -- or even browsing forums, I will open tabs up for each unread post I am interested in -- thus not making me guess when things change to read even though I haven't read them. Its really rather useful.
That and 10 tabs is nothing when I am out searching up site stuff.
-Neo
Basan
12-01-2004, 11:48 AM
Yeah, but other than when you're looking at porn, how often do you open up 10 windows//tabs? ;) I can't say I've ever needed ten tabs at once. I usually don't go much over four. The answer? See below.
Well then lets all go off what your needs are.
When I am really into something -- or even browsing forums, I will open tabs up for each unread post I am interested in -- thus not making me guess when things change to read even though I haven't read them. Its really rather useful.
That and 10 tabs is nothing when I am out searching up site stuff. Very useful 4 searches or forum browsing (especially when u have some dandy extensions). It eased up my life 'round here a lot! :devil:
I kinda solved my problem in post #4. Just started to use the User Agent thingy (https://update.mozilla.org/extensions/showlist.php?application=firefox&version=1.0&numpg=&category=Configuration) extension.
My real problem is now how to configure that extension from the Windows XP into the 2k OS... :concern:
Edit add (way later): My main problem is that I've got an Windows 2K NT, not the 'pretty' XP! Due to that I can't access the instant search for updates that it does... :cry:
I just need to find out how to make FF recognize the 2K OS, instead of XP.
So far, in that extension (User Agent), I've made a copy of IE - XP config and changed and renamed it IE - 2K.
And then fussed a little with the number following NT (from 5.1 to 5.0). It let's the webpage load but doesn't search the updates instantly. It simply frozes... must continue tweaking. I guess. :P
That or allow java scripts to that webpage. When I find'em...
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.