Why is Firefox so Popular?

Discussion in 'Firefox' started by businessman@nomail.com, Mar 19, 2007.

  1. Guest

    We all need an alternative to IE, at least the older versions of IE,
    since I have heard that IE 7 is a big improvement, but have not yet
    tried it.

    However I have struggled with Firefox for several years and find
    myself often using IE, because FF just does not want to cooperate.

    I am not intending to bash FF or start a flame war. I am only being
    honest, and in doing so, I going to be honest and say that FF is one
    of the worst browsers I have ever used.

    On the positive side, I will say that it's pretty stable and does not
    crash real often, unlike other browsers I have tried. Another plus,
    is that its small and dont require a new harddrive to install it,
    unlike IE. Beyond that, I think FF is a pain in the ass to use. I
    have never had a browser that begs for plugins as often as FF. I get
    so sick and tired of "missing plugin" errors. Then when I click on the
    link to download the plugin, I'd estimate they dont exist or wont
    install about 80% of the time. Worse yet, FF never clearly states
    what plugin it needs. This is one of those times that I get so darn
    fed up with the whole ordeal that I copy the URL to IE and close FF.

    My next major complaint is the settings, where I am required to type
    "about:config", and go thru this gigantic list of code that only a
    computer geek might understand. Give me a break. Why cant FF have an
    understandable menu for settings like IE and other browsers? That
    "about:config" list reminds me of the days when my computer was run by
    Dos and I had to memorize a few hundred commands to make a program
    work. Or should I compare it to the Unix codes that I had to type
    back in those days to access some of the BBS's. I can not think of
    any other software since the 1980's that uses such an outdated method
    to adjust the settings.

    Then there are the plugins, which are made by any tom dick or harry
    and half of them dont even work. OK, it's a good thing to allow
    everyone to make plugins, but why cant Firefox themselves offer those
    that are common and offer the ones that work. For example, i can not
    stand Flash content in webpages. Yeah, I enjoy a few videos from time
    to time, but not using flash for advertising, or for the actual web
    page itself. Anyhow, why cant FF include this commonly desired plugin
    right with the browser? It seems that everytime I change the version
    of FF, I need a different flash blocker and far too many dont work at
    all. This is just one of many plugin problems that I have
    encountered, and everytime I upgrade the FF version, it seems I have
    to spend weeks or more upgrading the plugins. I really dont want or
    need the hassle.

    Then comes page rendering. FF often does not render pages correctly.
    Yeah, I have read more than one comment that says IE is not the
    standard, and IE has their own ways of rendering pages that is not the
    "standard". Fine and dandy, but it seems that most webpages are
    designed for IE, so why cant FF have a one click button that makes
    pages render according to IE methods? A simple button to toggle from
    the "generic" web code to that used to render pages in IE would solve
    this, but FF seems to avoid these needs.

    FF keeps adding updated versions quite regularly, but they never
    address the issues and complaints that many of us seem to complain
    about over and over and over.

    There are other browsers, such as Avant Browser, that dont have all
    these problems and issues. I am not promoting Avant, and I am aware
    that Avant runs under IE and is likely as much of a security risk as
    using IE itself (I am not sure about this). But Avant contains all
    the bells and whistles that IE lacks, and is much easier to use than
    FF. It's just the security issues that prevent me from using Avant as
    my main browser.

    The bottom line is this: How did FF become as popular as it did, when
    it is such a pain in the butt to use? Most of the people I know are
    not computer geeks, but they use FF and are always complaining about
    the missing plugin errors and other stuff. Is it just the lack of any
    other decent (and safe) browser that makes so many people use FF, or
    what? I just dont understand.....

    I hope someone that works with the development of FF reads this
    message. And when they do, I sure hope they start to make FF more
    user friendly. The basic browser is a great start to being something
    good, but it needs a big reworking in both the settings and the
    plugins department. Rather than adding more useless bloat to the next
    version, how about adding these basic needs.

    Jerry
    , Mar 19, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    On Mar 18, 10:05 pm, wrote:
    > We all need an alternative to IE, at least the older versions of IE,
    > since I have heard that IE 7 is a big improvement, but have not yet
    > tried it.
    >
    > However I have struggled with Firefox for several years and find
    > myself often using IE, because FF just does not want to cooperate.
    >
    > I am not intending to bash FF or start a flame war. I am only being
    > honest, and in doing so, I going to be honest and say that FF is one
    > of the worst browsers I have ever used.
    >


    for me IE is the worst browser I have ever used.

    > On the positive side, I will say that it's pretty stable and does not
    > crash real often, unlike other browsers I have tried. Another plus,
    > is that its small and dont require a new harddrive to install it,
    > unlike IE. Beyond that, I think FF is a pain in the ass to use. I
    > have never had a browser that begs for plugins as often as FF. I get
    > so sick and tired of "missing plugin" errors.


    Really, I sure don't get that.

    > Then when I click on the
    > link to download the plugin, I'd estimate they dont exist or wont
    > install about 80% of the time.


    Interesting. I've never had that problem

    > Worse yet, FF never clearly states
    > what plugin it needs. This is one of those times that I get so darn
    > fed up with the whole ordeal that I copy the URL to IE and close FF.
    >
    > My next major complaint is the settings, where I am required to type
    > "about:config", and go thru this gigantic list of code that only a
    > computer geek might understand. Give me a break.


    I would have to agree with you on that, but most posters will tell you
    what to look for so it shouldn't be that hard to find what you want.

    > Why cant FF have an
    > understandable menu for settings like IE


    It does! Where!?

    > and other browsers?


    what other browsers?

    > That
    > "about:config" list reminds me of the days when my computer was run by
    > Dos and I had to memorize a few hundred commands to make a program
    > work. Or should I compare it to the Unix codes that I had to type
    > back in those days to access some of the BBS's. I can not think of
    > any other software since the 1980's that uses such an outdated method
    > to adjust the settings.
    >
    > Then there are the plugins, which are made by any tom dick or harry
    > and half of them dont even work.


    you mean extensions

    > OK, it's a good thing to allow
    > everyone to make plugins, but why cant Firefox themselves offer those
    > that are common and offer the ones that work.


    The FF people are only interested in developing the program. They
    have nothing to do with extensions. Those are developed by third
    parties. If you're going to install them, then you do so at your own
    risk.

    It just like IE, if you want to install the yahoo toolbar or the
    google toolbar, then you're doing so at your own risk. MS has nothing
    to do with those extensions.

    > For example, i can not
    > stand Flash content in webpages. Yeah, I enjoy a few videos from time
    > to time, but not using flash for advertising, or for the actual web
    > page itself. Anyhow, why cant FF include this commonly desired plugin
    > right with the browser?


    I've already explained aboved why!

    > It seems that everytime I change the version
    > of FF, I need a different flash blocker and far too many dont work at
    > all.


    Most extension developers will wait until the final version of FF
    comes out. This is because FF may decide to change the coding at the
    last minute. When that happens then the extension coding would have
    to change aswell. Thats why they wait.

    > This is just one of many plugin problems that I have
    > encountered, and everytime I upgrade the FF version, it seems I have
    > to spend weeks or more upgrading the plugins. I really dont want or
    > need the hassle.
    >


    WEEKS!!! A few minutes. And if you don't need it, then why did you
    install it in the first place.

    > Then comes page rendering. FF often does not render pages correctly.
    > Yeah, I have read more than one comment that says IE is not the
    > standard, and IE has their own ways of rendering pages that is not the
    > "standard". Fine and dandy, but it seems that most webpages are
    > designed for IE, so why cant FF have a one click button that makes
    > pages render according to IE methods? A simple button to toggle from
    > the "generic" web code to that used to render pages in IE would solve
    > this, but FF seems to avoid these needs.
    >


    I would have to agree with you on that. But then, if I can't view it,
    then I'm not all that interested in that site. I'll move on.

    > FF keeps adding updated versions quite regularly, but they never
    > address the issues and complaints that many of us seem to complain
    > about over and over and over.
    >
    > There are other browsers, such as Avant Browser, that dont have all
    > these problems and issues.


    The reason for that is Avant is IE in disguise. Thats why it doesn't
    have the problems. If it was a browser all by itself, then it would
    have problems.

    > I am not promoting Avant, and I am aware
    > that Avant runs under IE and is likely as much of a security risk as
    > using IE itself (I am not sure about this). But Avant contains all
    > the bells and whistles that IE lacks, and is much easier to use than
    > FF. It's just the security issues that prevent me from using Avant as
    > my main browser.
    >
    > The bottom line is this: How did FF become as popular as it did, when
    > it is such a pain in the butt to use?


    lots of people don't have the problems you're having. I for one
    don't. It works the way I want it. And I have only the extensions I
    want.

    > Most of the people I know are
    > not computer geeks, but they use FF and are always complaining about
    > the missing plugin errors and other stuff. Is it just the lack of any
    > other decent (and safe) browser that makes so many people use FF, or
    > what? I just dont understand.....
    >
    > I hope someone that works with the development of FF reads this
    > message. And when they do, I sure hope they start to make FF more
    > user friendly.


    no, you're in the wrong group for that. They don't follow this group.

    > The basic browser is a great start to being something
    > good, but it needs a big reworking in both the settings and the
    > plugins department. Rather than adding more useless bloat to the next
    > version, how about adding these basic needs.
    >
    > Jerry
    , Mar 19, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On 18 Mar 2007 23:39:09 -0700,
    wrote:

    >On Mar 18, 10:05 pm, wrote:
    >> We all need an alternative to IE, at least the older versions of IE,
    >> since I have heard that IE 7 is a big improvement, but have not yet
    >> tried it.
    >>
    >> However I have struggled with Firefox for several years and find
    >> myself often using IE, because FF just does not want to cooperate.
    >>
    >> I am not intending to bash FF or start a flame war. I am only being
    >> honest, and in doing so, I going to be honest and say that FF is one
    >> of the worst browsers I have ever used.
    >>

    >
    >for me IE is the worst browser I have ever used.
    >


    As far as security issues, I agree, but for ease of use, I like it.
    Some of the more geekier types seem to want more complicated software,
    but myself, I just want to go to websites and not do anything else.

    Once I have installed a piece of any software, and taken care of the
    initial settings, I prefer to not have to do any further messing with
    the software itself, and just use it. It's about the same as moving
    into a new house. When I first move in, I expect to paint the walls
    and install some new cabinets and hardware and stuff like that. Once
    I am settled in, I dont want to have to do any further repairs other
    than changing a faucet washer or loose hinge screw from time to time.

    FF reminds me of a house that is never finished and needs constant
    repair. Worse yet, about the time i finally get it working fairly
    well, it's upgrade time and time to start all over again, which means
    it always in a state of disrepair.

    >> On the positive side, I will say that it's pretty stable and does not
    >> crash real often, unlike other browsers I have tried. Another plus,
    >> is that its small and dont require a new harddrive to install it,


    >> "about:config" list reminds me of the days when my computer was run by
    >> Dos and I had to memorize a few hundred commands to make a program
    >> work. Or should I compare it to the Unix codes that I had to type
    >> back in those days to access some of the BBS's. I can not think of
    >> any other software since the 1980's that uses such an outdated method
    >> to adjust the settings.
    >>
    >> Then there are the plugins, which are made by any tom dick or harry
    >> and half of them dont even work.

    >
    >you mean extensions


    Either !!!

    >> OK, it's a good thing to allow
    >> everyone to make plugins, but why cant Firefox themselves offer those
    >> that are common and offer the ones that work.

    >
    >The FF people are only interested in developing the program. They
    >have nothing to do with extensions. Those are developed by third
    >parties. If you're going to install them, then you do so at your own
    >risk.
    >

    Which if you ask me is one of their biggest faults. FF should include
    those commonly used extensions such as popup stoppers, flash blockers,
    and the like. Everyone want these things, and if not, they can be
    turned on an off. Why do we have to download al this separately?

    >It just like IE, if you want to install the yahoo toolbar or the
    >google toolbar, then you're doing so at your own risk. MS has nothing
    >to do with those extensions.
    >

    Yeah, but thats a different matter. That is specific to Yahoo users
    and many of us dont want that stuff. I for one wont use them. I WANT
    popup stoppers and flash blockers just to prevent junk like toolbars
    getting installed, and that is what I most have against IE, it allows
    things like that without my knowledge.

    >> This is just one of many plugin problems that I have
    >> encountered, and everytime I upgrade the FF version, it seems I have
    >> to spend weeks or more upgrading the plugins. I really dont want or
    >> need the hassle.
    >>

    >
    >WEEKS!!! A few minutes. And if you don't need it, then why did you
    >install it in the first place.


    Well, it seems FF never has all the plugins it needs. I have Foxit
    reader installed, IE will open a PDF in it. FF wont.


    >> Then comes page rendering. FF often does not render pages correctly.
    >> Yeah, I have read more than one comment that says IE is not the
    >> standard, and IE has their own ways of rendering pages that is not the
    >> "standard". Fine and dandy, but it seems that most webpages are
    >> designed for IE, so why cant FF have a one click button that makes
    >> pages render according to IE methods? A simple button to toggle from
    >> the "generic" web code to that used to render pages in IE would solve
    >> this, but FF seems to avoid these needs.
    >>

    >
    >I would have to agree with you on that. But then, if I can't view it,
    >then I'm not all that interested in that site. I'll move on.


    While some web pages are just plain defective, most seem to work
    fairly well in IE, but far too many dont work in FF. When I find
    sites that are actually DEFECTIVE. I move on too, but if I find a site
    of interest I want to use that site, and far too often taht means
    copying the URL to an IE page. After awhile that gets tiring and I
    find myself just using IE more than FF.

    >
    >> FF keeps adding updated versions quite regularly, but they never
    >> address the issues and complaints that many of us seem to complain
    >> about over and over and over.
    >>
    >> There are other browsers, such as Avant Browser, that dont have all
    >> these problems and issues.

    >
    >The reason for that is Avant is IE in disguise. Thats why it doesn't
    >have the problems. If it was a browser all by itself, then it would
    >have problems.
    >


    Yeah, i know it's a shell for IE, but I must admit I really like the
    way it works. It works like IE but has tabs and much more to offer
    for options than IE. The reason I dont use it all the time is because
    I am concerned about security issues. Since it's running under IE, I
    assume there are issues, but so far I am not positive about that.
    Maybe Avant has more protection built in? I'm not sure????



    >> I hope someone that works with the development of FF reads this
    >> message. And when they do, I sure hope they start to make FF more
    >> user friendly.

    >
    >no, you're in the wrong group for that. They don't follow this group.
    >

    Where should I post this then? I'd be happy to do so. I am not
    trying to cut down FF, but I do believe that the developers should get
    user feedback both pos and neg.

    >> The basic browser is a great start to being something
    >> good, but it needs a big reworking in both the settings and the
    >> plugins department. Rather than adding more useless bloat to the next
    >> version, how about adding these basic needs.
    >>
    >> Jerry

    >
    , Mar 19, 2007
    #3
  4. Guest

    On Mar 19, 10:27 am, wrote:
    > Where should I post this then? I'd be happy to do so. I am not
    > trying to cut down FF, but I do believe that the developers should get
    > user feedback both pos and neg.


    I have to agree. FF isn't the easiest program to learn and use. But
    neither was windows when you first learned how to use it.

    The best newsgroup is mozilla.support.firefox which is on the
    news.mozilla.org server. This is a user support group. People
    helping other people. They're not developers of the program.
    Programmers may monitor the group but they don't answer questions.

    Just post everything that you've mentioned in the last 2 postings with
    me.

    Warning: you may get a lot of backlash from the others. They might
    tell you you're an idiot, crazy, and completely stupid. Especially
    for using Avant. Don't let that deter you.
    , Mar 19, 2007
    #4
  5. On 2007-03-19, <> wrote:

    > I am not intending to bash FF or start a flame war. I am only being
    > honest, and in doing so, I going to be honest and say that FF is one
    > of the worst browsers I have ever used.


    Maybe we should turn the question around and ask "Why is IE so popular,
    given its dismal security record, vast resource requirements, poor
    standards compliance, lack of legacy support, and so on?"

    > Then comes page rendering. FF often does not render pages correctly.
    > Yeah, I have read more than one comment that says IE is not the
    > standard, and IE has their own ways of rendering pages that is not the
    > "standard". Fine and dandy, but it seems that most webpages are
    > designed for IE, so why cant FF have a one click button that makes
    > pages render according to IE methods?


    Are all the IE specific rendering tricks fully documented and available
    under an open enough license that projects such as Firefox can actually
    use them in this manner? Do they avoid Windows-only APIs that would
    break Firefox's cross platform support? Based on history I suspect the
    answer is "no" in both cases.

    > A simple button to toggle from the "generic" web code to that used to
    > render pages in IE would solve this, but FF seems to avoid these
    > needs.


    There is an "IE-View" extension that purports to do something like this,
    although since I don't use Windows I can vouch for its effectiveness.
    And as I understand it, Netscape-8 is based on Firefox code, but can use
    either the native Gecko rendering engine or IE's renderning engine as
    appropriate. Once again, Windows only, so I have no personal experience
    with it.

    > FF keeps adding updated versions quite regularly, but they never
    > address the issues and complaints that many of us seem to complain
    > about over and over and over.
    >
    > There are other browsers, such as Avant Browser, that dont have all
    > these problems and issues.


    Yes, Avant is basically just a new front-end for IE, not an entirely
    separate browser.

    > I hope someone that works with the development of FF reads this
    > message. And when they do, I sure hope they start to make FF more
    > user friendly. The basic browser is a great start to being something
    > good, but it needs a big reworking in both the settings and the
    > plugins department. Rather than adding more useless bloat to the next
    > version, how about adding these basic needs.


    I don't work on development of Firefox, just a satisfied user. But I
    hope I've clarified some of the issues for you in a way that helps you
    see why they might not be resolved as easily as you might think.

    --

    John ()
    John Thompson, Mar 19, 2007
    #5
  6. History Fan Guest

    I can only explain my reason for choosing Firefox: it is incredibly
    customizable. It is like a piece of clay you can shape to whatever figure
    you want. I can do tasks on the Internet with Firefox that are virtually
    impossible with Internet Explorer.
    History Fan, Mar 19, 2007
    #6
  7. Guest

    On Mar 19, 2:44 pm, John Thompson
    > Maybe we should turn the question around and ask "Why is IE so popular,


    because its the only one that is prepackaged with windows. And its
    the only one that is forced upon the users. From there, it comes the
    only one people know about, until someone tells them there's something
    else.
    , Mar 19, 2007
    #7
  8. Guest

    On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:19:28 -0400, "History Fan"
    <> wrote:

    > I can only explain my reason for choosing Firefox: it is incredibly
    >customizable. It is like a piece of clay you can shape to whatever figure
    >you want. I can do tasks on the Internet with Firefox that are virtually
    >impossible with Internet Explorer.
    >


    Why has no one at least come up with some sort of easy to use "click
    and go" menu to replace the "about:config" mess. At least make it
    into a something with icons that explains the settings in common
    english with an explanation. I am no computer geek, but I am fairly
    computer literate, and that "about:config" list is worse than all the
    old BBS software that required pages of settings.
    , Mar 20, 2007
    #8
  9. wrote:
    > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:19:28 -0400, "History Fan"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I can only explain my reason for choosing Firefox: it is incredibly
    >> customizable. It is like a piece of clay you can shape to whatever figure
    >> you want. I can do tasks on the Internet with Firefox that are virtually
    >> impossible with Internet Explorer.
    >>

    >
    > Why has no one at least come up with some sort of easy to use "click
    > and go" menu to replace the "about:config" mess. At least make it
    > into a something with icons that explains the settings in common
    > english with an explanation. I am no computer geek, but I am fairly
    > computer literate, and that "about:config" list is worse than all the
    > old BBS software that required pages of settings.



    The 'about:config' was never meant for the average user.
    You really have to know what you are doing when using about:config, so
    simply follow directions if you want/need to change a setting there.

    And it really is simple to use in any case. Double click the setting you
    want to change, set the new value. If you dont know what the setting
    means, then dont change it.
    Moz Champion (Dan), Mar 20, 2007
    #9
  10. elaich Guest

    wrote in
    news::

    > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:19:28 -0400, "History Fan"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I can only explain my reason for choosing Firefox: it is
    >> incredibly
    >>customizable. It is like a piece of clay you can shape to whatever
    >>figure you want. I can do tasks on the Internet with Firefox that are
    >>virtually impossible with Internet Explorer.
    >>

    >
    > Why has no one at least come up with some sort of easy to use "click
    > and go" menu to replace the "about:config" mess. At least make it
    > into a something with icons that explains the settings in common
    > english with an explanation. I am no computer geek, but I am fairly
    > computer literate, and that "about:config" list is worse than all the
    > old BBS software that required pages of settings.


    Most of the settings a user needs to change are right there under Tools>
    Options. Exactly what you claim isn't there.

    --
    A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
    Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
    elaich, Mar 20, 2007
    #10
  11. Glenn S. Guest

    John Thompson <2.dhs.org> wrote in alt.fan.mozilla...

    >Maybe we should turn the question around and ask "Why is IE so popular,
    >given its dismal security record, vast resource requirements, poor
    >standards compliance, lack of legacy support, and so on?"


    You're joking, right?
    Glenn S., Mar 21, 2007
    #11
  12. Glenn S. wrote:
    > John Thompson <2.dhs.org> wrote in alt.fan.mozilla...
    >
    >> Maybe we should turn the question around and ask "Why is IE so popular,
    >> given its dismal security record, vast resource requirements, poor
    >> standards compliance, lack of legacy support, and so on?"

    >
    > You're joking, right?
    >
    >



    Not at all. IE has a dismal security record, takes vast resources, has
    poor standards compliance and a lack of legacy support. So asking why it
    became so popular is a valid question.

    Why? The answer is simple, it came with every computer with a Microsoft OS.
    Moz Champion (Dan), Mar 21, 2007
    #12
  13. bob from oz Guest

    Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    > Not at all. IE has a dismal security record, takes vast resources, has
    > poor standards compliance and a lack of legacy support. So asking why it
    > became so popular is a valid question.
    >
    > Why? The answer is simple, it came with every computer with a Microsoft OS.


    agreed. imagine the usage patterns if no browser came with the OS. if it
    was exactly as difficult to download and install each of the browsers?
    that i'd like to see...

    bob

    PS. does MS still compile an IE for the Apple platform? i wonder what
    the uptake was for that browser under and Apple OS?
    bob from oz, Mar 21, 2007
    #13
  14. bob from oz wrote:
    > Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >> Not at all. IE has a dismal security record, takes vast resources, has
    >> poor standards compliance and a lack of legacy support. So asking why
    >> it became so popular is a valid question.
    >>
    >> Why? The answer is simple, it came with every computer with a
    >> Microsoft OS.

    >
    > agreed. imagine the usage patterns if no browser came with the OS. if it
    > was exactly as difficult to download and install each of the browsers?
    > that i'd like to see...
    >
    > bob
    >
    > PS. does MS still compile an IE for the Apple platform? i wonder what
    > the uptake was for that browser under and Apple OS?



    As a result of the five-year agreement between Apple and Microsoft in
    1997, it was the default browser on Mac OS before it was replaced by
    Apple's own Safari web browser in 2003. Internet Explorer remained
    available for the Mac OS until January 31, 2006. However, no major
    updates had been released since March 27, 2000 aside from bug fixes and
    updates to take advantage of new features in Mac OS X.

    On June 13, 2003, Microsoft announced that it was ceasing further
    development of Internet Explorer for Mac. The browser was not included
    in default installation of Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger" which was released on
    April 29, 2005. Microsoft discontinued support for the product on
    December 31, 2005 and removed the application from their Macintosh
    downloads site on January 31, 2006. Microsoft recommends "that Macintosh
    users migrate to more recent web browsing technologies such as Apple's
    Safari." [1]
    Moz Champion (Dan), Mar 21, 2007
    #14
  15. Guest

    On Mar 21, 6:40 am, "Moz Champion (Dan)" <>
    wrote:
    > bob from oz wrote:
    > > Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    > >> Not at all. IE has a dismal security record, takes vast resources, has
    > >> poor standards compliance and a lack of legacy support. So asking why
    > >> it became so popular is a valid question.

    >
    > >> Why? The answer is simple, it came with every computer with a
    > >> Microsoft OS.

    >
    > > agreed. imagine the usage patterns if no browser came with the OS. if it
    > > was exactly as difficult to download and install each of the browsers?
    > > that i'd like to see...

    >
    > > bob

    >
    > > PS. does MS still compile an IE for the Apple platform? i wonder what
    > > the uptake was for that browser under and Apple OS?

    >
    > As a result of the five-year agreement between Apple and Microsoft in
    > 1997, it was the default browser on Mac OS before it was replaced by
    > Apple's own Safari web browser in 2003. Internet Explorer remained
    > available for the Mac OS until January 31, 2006. However, no major
    > updates had been released since March 27, 2000 aside from bug fixes and
    > updates to take advantage of new features in Mac OS X.
    >
    > On June 13, 2003, Microsoft announced that it was ceasing further
    > development of Internet Explorer for Mac. The browser was not included
    > in default installation of Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger" which was released on
    > April 29, 2005. Microsoft discontinued support for the product on
    > December 31, 2005 and removed the application from their Macintosh
    > downloads site on January 31, 2006. Microsoft recommends "that Macintosh
    > users migrate to more recent web browsing technologies such as Apple's
    > Safari." [1]



    you have a [1] there Dan. Are you referencing something?
    , Mar 21, 2007
    #15
  16. wrote:
    > On Mar 21, 6:40 am, "Moz Champion (Dan)" <>
    > wrote:
    >> bob from oz wrote:
    >>> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>>> Not at all. IE has a dismal security record, takes vast resources, has
    >>>> poor standards compliance and a lack of legacy support. So asking why
    >>>> it became so popular is a valid question.
    >>>> Why? The answer is simple, it came with every computer with a
    >>>> Microsoft OS.
    >>> agreed. imagine the usage patterns if no browser came with the OS. if it
    >>> was exactly as difficult to download and install each of the browsers?
    >>> that i'd like to see...
    >>> bob
    >>> PS. does MS still compile an IE for the Apple platform? i wonder what
    >>> the uptake was for that browser under and Apple OS?

    >> As a result of the five-year agreement between Apple and Microsoft in
    >> 1997, it was the default browser on Mac OS before it was replaced by
    >> Apple's own Safari web browser in 2003. Internet Explorer remained
    >> available for the Mac OS until January 31, 2006. However, no major
    >> updates had been released since March 27, 2000 aside from bug fixes and
    >> updates to take advantage of new features in Mac OS X.
    >>
    >> On June 13, 2003, Microsoft announced that it was ceasing further
    >> development of Internet Explorer for Mac. The browser was not included
    >> in default installation of Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger" which was released on
    >> April 29, 2005. Microsoft discontinued support for the product on
    >> December 31, 2005 and removed the application from their Macintosh
    >> downloads site on January 31, 2006. Microsoft recommends "that Macintosh
    >> users migrate to more recent web browsing technologies such as Apple's
    >> Safari." [1]

    >
    >
    > you have a [1] there Dan. Are you referencing something?
    >



    No, it was a straight copy from this article
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_for_Mac

    Didnt notice the reference when I posted sorry, if I had I would have
    deleted it
    Moz Champion (Dan), Mar 21, 2007
    #16
  17. On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:47:11 -0500, wrote:

    > Why has no one at least come up with some sort of easy to use "click
    > and go" menu to replace the "about:config" mess. At least make it
    > into a something with icons that explains the settings in common
    > english with an explanation. I am no computer geek, but I am fairly
    > computer literate, and that "about:config" list is worse than all the
    > old BBS software that required pages of settings.


    Most of the options in about:config don't normally need to be changed by
    most people. Despite this, there is help for good help for of the settings.
    Simply put the name of any setting into a google search, and the first link
    to appear is usually the mozillazine help for that item. This works well
    for about 85 percent of the settings. The rest can be more difficult to
    find help on, which typically means they shouldn't be touched.

    To me, about:config is about as easy as it gets. If I don't know what a
    setting means, or what the options are, I look it up on google. That takes
    about the same amount of time as it would to look it up in a manual or a
    help file, if they existed. If I truly can't find the info I want, then I
    don't mess with that setting. What more can someone want than an neat
    alphabetical listing of all the possible settings, with generally good help
    just a google search away?

    If someone wants to simply change their about:config settings, without at
    least googling for what they mean, just to see what they do, they should
    definitely keep a recent backup of their profile around.
    --
    FoxWolfie
    FoxWolfie Galen, Mar 22, 2007
    #17
  18. Andy Luddy Guest

    FoxWolfie Galen wrote:
    > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:47:11 -0500, wrote:
    >
    >> Why has no one at least come up with some sort of easy to use "click
    >> and go" menu to replace the "about:config" mess. At least make it
    >> into a something with icons that explains the settings in common
    >> english with an explanation. I am no computer geek, but I am fairly
    >> computer literate, and that "about:config" list is worse than all the
    >> old BBS software that required pages of settings.

    >
    > Most of the options in about:config don't normally need to be changed by
    > most people. Despite this, there is help for good help for of the settings.
    > Simply put the name of any setting into a google search, and the first link
    > to appear is usually the mozillazine help for that item. This works well
    > for about 85 percent of the settings. The rest can be more difficult to
    > find help on, which typically means they shouldn't be touched.


    I guess the OP has never had to run regedit. To me, about:config is
    sort of like the Mozilla equivalent of editing the registry in Windows.
    Most settings that you are likely to need to change can be done
    through Tools/Options, but for everything else, if you really need to
    change it, there's about:config.

    --
    Andy Luddy
    Perform appendectomy to reply
    Andy Luddy, Mar 22, 2007
    #18
  19. Guest

    On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:41:26 GMT, "Moz Champion (Dan)"
    <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:19:28 -0400, "History Fan"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I can only explain my reason for choosing Firefox: it is incredibly
    >>> customizable. It is like a piece of clay you can shape to whatever figure
    >>> you want. I can do tasks on the Internet with Firefox that are virtually
    >>> impossible with Internet Explorer.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Why has no one at least come up with some sort of easy to use "click
    >> and go" menu to replace the "about:config" mess. At least make it
    >> into a something with icons that explains the settings in common
    >> english with an explanation. I am no computer geek, but I am fairly
    >> computer literate, and that "about:config" list is worse than all the
    >> old BBS software that required pages of settings.

    >
    >
    >The 'about:config' was never meant for the average user.
    >You really have to know what you are doing when using about:config, so
    >simply follow directions if you want/need to change a setting there.
    >
    >And it really is simple to use in any case. Double click the setting you
    >want to change, set the new value. If you dont know what the setting
    >means, then dont change it.


    OK, but how come I have to ask on this or another newsgroup everytime
    I want to set something in there? At least someone could make a text
    file that explains the purpose of every setting and what how it is
    commonly used or set. It dont need to be a big fancy webpage, just a
    simple explanation in laymans terms. That's my biggest gripe about
    FF, it lacks an easy way to change settings, but to make matters
    worse, there are no decent texts to explain it. Once again, I'll say
    that it reminds me of much of the old dos software, where there were
    pages and pages of documentation to change the settings. I still
    recall having to set the old dot matrix printers. They came with a
    200 page book and after reading it, I'd scratch my head and hope for
    the best. Then came the time I wanted to set up a BBS. Between
    hundreds of modem settings and program settings, I finally gave up. I
    had a nice menu made up, but there were pages upon pages of settings
    and over half were not understandable.

    I have tried several other browsers, and none of them are as
    difficult to change settings.
    , Mar 27, 2007
    #19
  20. Guest

    On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:18:03 -0500, FoxWolfie Galen
    <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:47:11 -0500, wrote:
    >
    >> Why has no one at least come up with some sort of easy to use "click
    >> and go" menu to replace the "about:config" mess. At least make it
    >> into a something with icons that explains the settings in common
    >> english with an explanation. I am no computer geek, but I am fairly
    >> computer literate, and that "about:config" list is worse than all the
    >> old BBS software that required pages of settings.

    >
    >Most of the options in about:config don't normally need to be changed by
    >most people. Despite this, there is help for good help for of the settings.
    >Simply put the name of any setting into a google search, and the first link
    >to appear is usually the mozillazine help for that item. This works well
    >for about 85 percent of the settings. The rest can be more difficult to
    >find help on, which typically means they shouldn't be touched.
    >

    Thanks for the info, but good grief..... I got to look up each and
    every setting..... You mean to tell me that not a single person has
    ever put them all int one text file, so all I have to do is search the
    text file from Notepad. And consider how is one supposed to search
    google when changing settings? Yeah, I do have IE installed too, but
    there has to be a better way !!!!

    >To me, about:config is about as easy as it gets. If I don't know what a
    >setting means, or what the options are, I look it up on google. That takes
    >about the same amount of time as it would to look it up in a manual or a
    >help file, if they existed. If I truly can't find the info I want, then I
    >don't mess with that setting. What more can someone want than an neat
    >alphabetical listing of all the possible settings, with generally good help
    >just a google search away?
    >
    >If someone wants to simply change their about:config settings, without at
    >least googling for what they mean, just to see what they do, they should
    >definitely keep a recent backup of their profile around.
    , Mar 27, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,240
  2. You HAVE NO IDEA

    Why Why Why

    You HAVE NO IDEA, Apr 22, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,475
    billyw
    Apr 24, 2004
  3. lbbs

    Are Dvd-R more popular then the +? Why?

    lbbs, Jan 5, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    601
    Richard Baker
    Jan 8, 2004
  4. lbbs
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    2,506
  5. professorguy

    Why is Linksys WRT56G so popular?

    professorguy, Jan 23, 2007, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    6,136
    professorguy
    Jan 23, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page