«

Leonidas Jones wrote:
> SteveG wrote:
>
>> Andy J. wrote:
>>> On 2006-12-04, SteveG <_@_._> wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> When is firefox going to get with the times?
>>> [..snip..]
>>>
>>> Well, thankfully nobody is making you use it so you can happily go on
>>> using I.E. and I for one will not care one bit.
>>>
>>> Andy J.
>>
>> Sorry, but what is this about?
>>
>> I love Firefox and don't have ANY issues with it - it works perfectly
>> on my system and with the way I have it set up.
>>
>
> I am quite sure that Andy's reply was intended for the OP, not you.
>
> Lee

Hi Lee, yeah, I kinda figured that about 30 secs after I'd responded

--
Regards

Steve G

SteveG wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 22:21:20 +0000, Charani <> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:31:07 -0500, Ray Hobin wrote:
>>>> But I too have experienced intermittent times when FF could not
>>>> access Acrobat and Windows Media Player.
>>> I had problems with Acrobat, so I uninstalled it and installed FoxIt
>>> instead. I haven't had a problem with .pdfs since. FoxIt is much
>>> faster than Acrobat.
>>>
>>> As for Windows Media Player: I have it blocked.
>>
>> Foxit is a much better program. Adobe acrobat has always been a
>> bloated memory hogging piece of crap, and keeps getting worse.
>> I was glad to remove it from my computer. Foxit is great !!!!
>> I dont know how well it loads on FF though. I am on dialup, so I
>> always download PDF files to my drive, and then view them on my own
>> puter, rather than wait for pages to load.
>>
>
> Foxit is fine if all you need/want to do is read pdf files but it
> doesn't allow editing or the adding of comments.
>
> I agree that Acrobat could be better but I use it all the time to
> create, edit and comment on pdf's created by other people and don't have
> any problems with it. It is a powerful application so I don't mind it
> being big
>

Compare Foxit to the Acrobat Reader, as a free application. Its great.

Foxit also offers a paid version with much of the functionality that you
desire.

http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

See the bottom of the page for the paid addons.

Lee

On 2006-12-04, <> wrote:

> Which is exactly what I am saying. Obviously IE is the "accepted"
> standard. So, why dont the programmers of FF make it compatible?

Because there is already a standard from the world-wide web consortium
that supercedes Microsoft's proprietary "standard."

> Woudn't this just make sense? FF can be different in every other way,
> and that is actually appreciated, but the method of rendering webpages
> should be the same or follow a standard.

The standard exists, but it is Microsoft that has chosen not to follow
it.

> I have written a few basic
> html webpages, and I found that even my SIMPLE pages did not always
> work properly.

Did you run them through the W3C validator tool (validator.w3.org)? W3C
(the aforementioned "world-wide web consortium") is the *GLOBAL* body
charged with developing standards for the world-wide web. Chances are
you used a proprietary Microsoft tool (e.g. "Frontpage") to create your
content, and that content is not W3C compliant.

> Why should a web site maker have to make it compatible
> with both. There should be a standard, and FF should be able to view
> webpages the same as IE.

There is a standard, established by international consensus from the
world-wide web consortium. Microsoft, for their own proprietary reasons
has chosen not to follow it. Simple compliance with established W3C
standards would allow pages to render properly in any browser.

> It's not like there should have to be a
> separate webpage for IE another for FF, another for Opera, etc.

Exactly. Why did Microsoft choose to ignore the established W3C
standards with IE? These were established long before IE became the
dominant browser.

> Here is another problem. FF SHOULD be offering these plugins for the
> common stuff like flash, media player, etc.
> Wether it's FF, Opera, or any other software, it should follow the IE
> standards for viewing webpages. This is EXACTLY what I am complaining
> about.

>>Plugins are not the responsibility of Firefox. FF has nothing to do
>>with them. They are created from 3rd party developers for their
>>programs -- IE winamp, wmp, QT, Real Audio, etc.

> Better yet include them with the program.

Plugins are developed by third parties, not Firefox. What part of that
don't you understand?

> I dont want to see the download size increase
> drastically, but plugins are small, and SHOULD be included for the
> common things such as Media Player, etc.

Really? You earlier complained that Windows Media Player was 28MB and
you didn't want to have to download it. Adobe's Acrobat Reader is over
50MB if you want to use that plugin. Are those "small" by your
definition? If so, why the complaint about having to download them?

--

John ()

On 2006-12-04, <> wrote:

> Why dont the programmers of FF make it compatible? Woudn't this just
> make sense?

It would, except for the fact that most of the non-standards-compliant
stuff IE uses depends on proprietary Microsoft Windows-only features.
Firefox is cross-platform; it works the same way on Windows, linux, Mac,
Solaris, *BSD, OS/2, etc. but there's no support for those proprietary
features on non-Microsoft platforms. That's the reason the World-Wide
Web Consortium (W3C) was formed, way back in 1994, before IE was
released, when Bill Gates was still dismissing the Internet as a
passing fad. W3C's mission is to develop standards interoperability for
web applications so users would always be able to access content
regardless of the hardware and software they happen to be using. Firefox
and most other web browsers support these standards; Microsoft's
Internet Explorer does not. The solution is not for Firefox to embrace
Microsoft's "standards" (which as noted would break Firefox's platform
neutrality and force all users to use Windows), but for Microsoft to
support the established standards. Apparently IE v7 has addressed this
to some extent, but since I don't use Windows I have no direct
experience to relate.

--

-John ()