my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Mozilla Firefox 0.9 - Opinions? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Mozilla Firefox 0.9 - Opinions? Ian Price Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1714 From: Denver, CO Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-24-2004 11:38 AM                     Yesterday I downloaded and installed Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird. They work well here are my impressions. They are both slow to load. ( I have a 5-year old Compaq Presario with an AMD 500 Mhz processor and 190 something RAM and only a 4 Gig hard drive.) They both work a little slower than IE & Outlook Express. (I just lost the rest of my post doing Spell Check.) But they don't work so slow as to drive me batty. The pop-up blocker works very well. Every time I tried to place that Graemlin there (above) it moved it to the end of the post. I finally had to cut and paste it where it belonged. The cursor keeps flashing. I don't know what that means? I like the tab windows for additional web pages in the browser. Other than that, the browsers very much like IE. Thunderbird, the email client, has a very nice Spam filter. Some HTML emails don't come through complete. But some do come through very nicely. It doesn't download email till you tell it to. But a tone sounds when you receive email. I don't like that it opens messages when you hover the cursor over it. In Outlook express you could turn that feature off. They work well enough that they are both my defaults and I will keep them for a while. I'm sure to discover features as I go along. I have hidden IE and Outlook Express. I never did like Opera that much and never made it my default browser. I like these better. Opera did work faster however. (Graemlin in the wrong place!)  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 09-24-2004 04:11 PM                        In the event that the spell checker says "what" just close the spell check window, your post is still there. It does this when you have certain graemlins in your post. Since I have no control over the spell checker backend (it being a third-party servce I've subscribed to), I can't fix this without a tremendous amount of work. If your post isn't 'correct' in the spell check window, just close the spell check window by clicking the X in the upper right hand corner -- don't click any of the buttons on the spell check window. The only way the spell checker can lose your post is if you let it.  |  IP: Logged William Hooper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1879 From: Mobile, AL USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-27-2004 03:09 AM                        Firefox has for me these deficiencies compared to Opera: No button to turn off loading pictures (great if you're out somewhere on a laptop on a slow connection) Nothing similar to Opera's "Quick Preferences" to turn off Java & Javascript on the fly Similar to above, nothing resembling IE's "security level" settings to clamp down on different sites as neccessary I :heart: my Yahoo toolbar with access to yahoo bookmarks when logging in to various computers. Firefox doesn't accomodate that yet. From the above, I note with interest that there are available graemlins for anger & frustration , but not a little heart-shaped 'I :heart: NY' - type graemlin. It just goes straight to . I :heart: Reese's Cups, but I don't them.  |  IP: Logged Ryan Luby Film Handler Posts: 70 From: Minneapolis, Minnesota Registered: Jun 2004 posted 09-27-2004 11:16 AM                     I've been using Firefox and Thunderbird for about a year now and love them. I've never had a popup on Firefox, which is reason enough for me to keep it. I like the interface, too. There are a few sites that don't load properly but those are few and far between. Thunderbird has been great as well. I use it for my school email. I just purchased Office Professional 2003 with Outlook 2003, though and might check that out some. Overall Mozilla gets an A in my book.  |  IP: Logged Jeff Akin Film Handler Posts: 48 From: Salem, OR, USA Registered: Mar 2002 posted 09-27-2004 12:27 PM                        I'll chime in on Joe's earlier comments. I use Safari on all of my Macs. I also have IE for those few sites you need it on, and I used to use Opera. Updating ALL of your browsers takes all of about 1 minute....if you're trying to be slow, and maybe doing something else at the same time. I've finally settled on Safari. It does it all. I haven't had a single pop-up since it was released. It has a nice, small footprint, and is very snappy.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 09-27-2004 04:28 PM                        quote: William Hooper No button to turn off loading pictures (great if you're out somewhere on a laptop on a slow connection) No button, but there is a checkbox under Tools -> Options -> Web Features. FireFox was designed specifically to be light weight, and stable. Plugins to add all these extra features people speak of will come in due time.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 09-27-2004 05:16 PM                     I also add that it is very easy to turn off Java and JavaScript in Firefox. Just go to Tools > Options and click the web features icon. You have separate checkbox options for Java and JavaScript.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 01-04-2005 03:22 PM                     I'm using Firefox 1.0 for WinXP, but I have completely skinned it to look life Safari from Mac OS. The browser itself has always worked well for me, but now it just looks plain awesome. Take a look here at my current desktop. I love tabbed browsing too...how convenient! AJG [ 01-04-2005, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Joe Redifer ]  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 01-04-2005 05:59 PM                        Ya might want to consider getting a real Mac!  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-04-2005 06:10 PM                     Rumors are flying about a new low cost iMac. Some are saying it will come without a monitor but will be priced around $500. Might not be a bad thing to have on a home network to use in reading e-mail and surfing the 'net.  |  IP: Logged Ron Yost Master Film Handler Posts: 344 From: Paso Robles, CA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 01-04-2005 10:51 PM                     Why don't they just lower the price on 'real' Macs so they'd actually sell a few?? Ron Yost  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 01-05-2005 12:24 AM                        Probably because (and this is just my opinion) the Mac is more of a media machine. It's the platform you want to use when you create video and sound, etc etc etc. It can also do e-mail and web, but primarily it's a media machine. The Windows machine is more for mundane things like e-mail, web, taxes, and computer games. Why the Windows OS costs more than the Mac OS is beyond me, though.  |  IP: Logged Ron Yost Master Film Handler Posts: 344 From: Paso Robles, CA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 01-05-2005 10:57 AM                     I know, Joe. I was just joshin'. Ron Yost .. has thrown many a rock at WinBlows over the years.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-05-2005 10:57 AM                     It's that good 'ol two tiered pricing model. Stick unsuspecting users with crappy Win XP Home. Then when they need their machine to talk to other computers running different flavors of Windows (or even a Mac) then they have to spend a healthy amount of money to upgrade to WindowsXP Professional. The same kind of thing occurs when you want to run an industry specific program like AutoCAD. There's a growing number of professional applications whose Windows versions only run on Win2000 or WinXP Pro. IMHO, WinXP Home should not even be sold. But hey, Microsoft and various PC makers bring in more cash that way. quote: Joe Redifer The Windows machine is more for mundane things like e-mail, web, taxes, and computer games. Windows PCs are great for computer games and other office productivity stuff. With the right applications and hardware configuration they're even good for graphics use. You can even do professional video and sound editing on such machines, again with the right hardware (such as an Avid PC setup with their media storage RAID setup --$$$). But Windows machines are a big liability when it comes to web and e-mail use. It wouldn't be so bad if ISPs would stop being so damned ignorant about traffic on their mail servers and auto-delete all malware content as it arrives on their servers. You can make a Windows machine safe and secure with a number of steps and common sense mail/web surfing practices. It's really not difficult at all, but it does take a little extra work. And most users are too damned lazy to bother with it. Mozilla Firefox is a great web browser and their Thunderbird e-mail client is an excellent alternative to Outlook Express. Both will severly cut down on spyware attacks and virus exploits. Still, very few people I know personally in my town have installed it. I've usually taken the initiative to install both programs on my friends' computers. With that kind of ambivalance persisting, this is exactly where Apple could score big with an inexpensive iMac. Most PC users are scared of the idea of spending $2000 or $3000 on a new Mac and having to buy licenses of their software all over again (not to mention have compatibility problems with many of the legacy files they have backed up). But a low cost iMac stands to sweeten the deal. Millions of Windows-only users have bought iPods. Many many more are tired of spyware and malware targeting their PCs. A simple, low cost iMac would probably allow them to get more out of their Apple-branded music devices and be able to surf the 'net in a much safer manner. If the rumored low-cost iMac performs well (at least better than the very sloooowww $499 PCs I see lacking any dedicated graphics cards and doing stupid "shared" memory) then it could be a hell of a tool in getting lots of PC users to migrate over to the Mac platform in a much more comfortable transitional manner. Frankly, I hope such a machine does incredibly well. It's going to take something like that for Bill Gates and his cronies at Microsoft to pull their heads out of their asses with regards to PC security and get the initiative to make real progress. Their implementation of ActiveX controls and allowing 'net based applications access so deep into the OS continues to make Windows in its default out-of-the-box configuration a security nightmare.  |  IP: Logged Ron Yost Master Film Handler Posts: 344 From: Paso Robles, CA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 01-05-2005 12:12 PM                     Yes, Mac's are nice machines and they 'just work' (they should, being a nearly closed system that's not forever legacy-impaired). But, IMHO, there's 0 real reason Mac's should cost what they do; not anymore (not ever, really). They could be cranking them out by the millions and vastly lowering the price. There's nothing 'rare' or 'special' about anything they're made of, after all, and they certainly aren't hand-made. This would cause great angst amongst the Mac-snobs, of course. At this point it's all desparate image-retention, IMHO. They better worry more about market-share, and perhaps the 'new' machine is a sign they are. I hope so. I hope they have great success with their new machine. I'm sure they feel a little 'dirty' doing it, tho. Ron Yost  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.