Mozzila Firefox
Alcapwn
"War is the science of destruction" - John Abbot Join Date: 2003-06-21 Member: 17590Members
"War is the science of destruction" - John Abbot Join Date: 2003-06-21 Member: 17590Members
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">Wow...</div> Wow this is the best thing ive downloaded in a while....really easy to use with tons of plugins and features. i <3 firefox!
Espcially the tabbed browsing! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Espcially the tabbed browsing! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
EDI: Nvm i got it too work....
--Scythe--
Firefox seems faster than IE and doesnt have the security holes either :>
yup it rocks
MyIE2 looks a bit 'fat' <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi
Theres some great custom toolbars/icons too <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Mozilla > IE ... it's simple math
Um, with IE to firefox it does it for you automatically. If it doesn't go the same way for Opera, just look at the properties of one of your bookmarks (right click) and see if it tells you where it's located on the hard drive. Or do a file search on the name. Then you can copy-paste it to the new, Firefox folder.
<a href='http://kb.mozillazine.org/index.phtml?title=Firefox_:_FAQs_:_Importing_Opera_Bookmarks' target='_blank'>Transferring Opera bookmarks to Firefox</a>
Only thing I can fault it on is that it has a lot of trouble displaying animated gifs (or at least when there are a lot of them on a page) and bogs down the system quite a bit, whereas IE doesn't. That's my ONLY gripe. IE is still there for incompatible websites, but I'd never choose it over firefox if I had to decide between the two.
The only way for firefox to be able to do that would be to make their HTML rendering engine as slack as IE's. Firefox (and Mozilla) follows the W3C standards pretty damn strictly (or at least a lot stricter than IE), and doesn't like it when things aren't right. Where firefox/Mozilla say "this isn't right, I refuse to render it. FIX IT NOW, ****", IE just says "Meh, close enough". That's why sites get broken. Blame the makers of the website, not the browser <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Oh, and whenever IE has less security holes and tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, favorites bar and integrated popups, THEN I might think about switching because everything is supposedly IE compatible before anything else.
I understand with what you're saying, and for the most part, I agree with it (I tried to make that clear in my previous post, but I appear to have failed). The main problem with web standards, at the moment, is that they <b>aren't</b> web standards. While the W3C was started by the inventor of the Internet, the web itself doesn't always hold true to the languages and/or syntax he has recommended. This is mainly due to Microsoft's lack of motivation to submit to the recommendations by the W3C, and since Internet Explorer is such a popular browser, the problem is far reaching.
My point was that Firefox takes the proper approach, and supports all CSS and XHTML that Internet Explorer can't understand. But it takes the wrong approach when rendering websites not coded to proper standards. Often it doesn't render them at all, or at least shows them in a format not intended by the webmaster. This is a problem when Mozilla wants Firefox to be an alternative to Internet Explorer. Most novice Internet surfers won't be too willing to change to a browser that doesn't display the websites Internet Explorer does.
"Conforming" to web standards is a good idea to ensure that all computers across the world will see the exact (or very close to exact) same render of a website across the globe. However, just as there are VHS recorders still available (despite the presence of digital recorders and DVD R), the "solution" to Internet Explorer's security/rendering issues shouldn't be one that is so exclusive when it comes to rendering websites. It should also be noted that there are VHS/DVD players available on the market today, which is exactly what I think Firefox should be - much more "transitional" (or at least having the option to lower the "standards" of the browser to allow more Internet Explorer-coded websites to render).
I personally have made the switch to W3C standards, and code most of my web projects in XHTML 1.0 Strict. I have found designing a layout to be much more cumbersome, but definitely more logical in layout. But, designing the website to look the same in Internet Explorer <b>and</b> Firefox is an arduous task. However, the use of tables, while deemed "deprecated" by the W3C, works well in every browser: until I saw the options available to me by switching to standards, I thought it quite silly to do so. It was only after careful consideration that I made the change. I didn't realize what I was getting myself into, because I didn't believe the task of coding for multiple browsers was going to be all that difficult. I was wrong! Until either Microsoft repairs the issue with Internet Explorer's rendering, I don't see standards "clicking", because of two reasons: 1. People are lazy: why bother taking the time to learn XHTML when HTML works just fine on Internet Explorer?, and 2. Why design a website in code that is "harder" to use, when tables make the page all nice and pretty without any sweat?
On top of that, I find that many XHTML 1.0 Strict/Transitional websites that claim to be "voyaging" into the new frontier of standards (example: AListApart.com) all have a tendency to look the same - boxy, plain, almost boring. It's a problem very few of these websites have even thought over, let alone discussed. "Pretty" seems to be as important to most novice users as "content" is to advanced. And since companies like AOL and MSN cater to the novices of the Internet, I feel the chances of web standards "clicking" anytime soon are quite slim.
Which brings me back to my main point - Firefox is a nice browser (and I think the best of all three, save for Opera's better tab management), but I think it is far too strict in its rendering choices. Too much so that it excludes users who would make the switch to avoid Internet Explorer.
---------
<b>Cereal:</b>
Despite using various extensions and changing multiple options, I have yet to find a way to force Firefox to <b>always</b> open in a new tab. I think it comes down to the way Firefox handles tabs and javascript-resized new windows (such as comment pages on blogs). I much prefer Opera's method of tab management, in that I can adjust the sizes of each tab <b>inside</b> the main Opera window, rather than having to adjust the size of the Firefox program to get one tab to change.