This is topic Mozilla Firefox 0.9 - Opinions? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003557

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-14-2004, 05:31 PM:
 
I've been using Mozilla 1.7 for a few months and decided to try out Firefox 0.9 (as well as the Thunderbird e-mail client). So far, Firefox seems to work pretty well. I haven't had any spyware/adware threats pop up in my machine at all after several days of browsing. It also blocks unrequested pop-ups without any add-on toolbars and other shit that tends to install its own spyware (like Google or Yahoo toolbars). By contrast, you only need to surf with IE for mere minutes before you get stuff in your machine you have to clean with AdAware, Spy Bot Search and Destroy or any other decent any-spyware app.

The only nits I have to pick with Firefox is lack of browser themes (I liked the chrome theme in Mozilla 1.7). Also the icon of the fox wrapped around the globe disappeared on the upper left corner of my browser window, only to be replaced by the generic Windows logo. OTOH, this is the first browser I've used where all the website icons stay intact on my bookmarks page (they would disappear in Mozilla and IE).
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-14-2004, 05:41 PM:
 
I believe 0.9.3 addresses the icon issue.

The preview release (release candidate) 1.0PR was released today.

I've been using Firefox for nearly a year now, and I've got no complaints.

Currently there are 38 themes... I'm sure there will be more once 1.0 is released.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-14-2004, 06:33 PM:
 
I had 0.9.3 and have just installed the 1.0PR release, but still had the icon bug with both installations. In checking available themes again for 0.9, I did find a good number of them (some were pretty cool). But they're incompatible with 1.0PR. Small potatoes complaint really. I'm sure with all the attention Firefox is getting from Wired Magazine and PC Magazine (mainly from John Dvorak) a lot more people will be using this browser thus causing a lot more themes to be created and/or ported over from previous versions of Firefox and Mozilla.

Overall, this is a much safer (and more featured) alternative to IE.
 

---

Posted by Jacob Szewczyk (Member # 2513) on 09-14-2004, 06:35 PM:
 
I like firefox, works good. It's efficient and a lot better then IE. The only problem is I can't get the stupid extensions to work
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-14-2004, 06:51 PM:
 
What extensions are you trying to install -and what version of Firefox are you using? I just updated to the 1.0PR version. It doesn't have any new themes yet, but I was at least able to get some of the "mandatory" things (for me anyway) installed, such as Flash SWF support. Haven't tried installing the Shockwave Arcade plug-in into FF 1.0PR yet.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-14-2004, 07:46 PM:
 
You have to install plug-ins? That's what I like about the Mac. Otherwise Macs are completely useless machines. All the browsers share the same plug-ins, so you never have to install any of them more than once, and it works across the board.
 

---

Posted by Jacob Szewczyk (Member # 2513) on 09-14-2004, 08:06 PM:
 
I'm trying to install the foxy tunes extension and I'm using Firefox 0.9.3
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-14-2004, 09:10 PM:
 
Did you try the newer 0.61 version?
http://www.iosart.com/foxytunes/firefox/
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-14-2004, 09:43 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

You have to install plug-ins? That's what I like about the Mac.

---

That's only good until some "genius" out there gets his hands on some new version of Flash and re-does all his SWFs in that. Then you wind up having to do something to update your IE, Safari, Opera or whatever browser you're using on the Mac. There's no such thing as a web browser that will never need updating.

The lack of some plug-ins and "features" is really one of the benefits to using Firefox, or even Mozilla, on a Windows machine. You don't have to worry about so many of the nasties out there meant to attack Internet Explorer.

Of course, all this is good until Firefox starts commanding a big share of the browser market. Then the asshole hackers out there, I'm sure, will find some way to attack it -just like the fact if most people used Macs hackers would be exploiting all kinds of issues there as well. Those guys are just going after the biggest target.

FWIW, Firefox is an open-source browser. There are Mac and Linux versions of it available. Mozilla.org also makes the Camino browser, exclusively for Mac OS X.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-15-2004, 12:06 AM:
 
Yeah but I only have to update once, and then all browsers are taken care of. I don't have to update IE, update Opera, update Safari, update Camino, update Firefox, etc all individually.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-15-2004, 01:14 AM:
 
Some of the updating also depends on how each browser add-on is developed. For Flash to some extent, and to a greater extent the Shockwave Arcade thingie, you have to download separate flavors for whatever browser you're using. But for other items like Quicktime, it works automatically.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-15-2004, 02:29 AM:
 
I've been using it for around six months and it's easily the nicest browser I've ever come across. As others have pointed out, it stops pop-ups, seems to be totally compatible with every site you care to visit and manages favourites and downloads quickly and easily. I especially like the 'allow for session' feature for cookies, which is very useful if you're only ever visiting a site once or infrequently and which won't work without cookies, but don't like the idea of having tons of them on your machine and having to muck them out periodically.
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 09-15-2004, 03:37 AM:
 
I'm currently testing out the 1.0PR.

I like the simplicity, not overwhelming me with toolbars and icons that are usually not necessary. I believe my college carries the 0.9... not certain but it is to me more efficient than IE. Similarities to Netscape and IE... I really like that. But a slight inconvenience I found was that the minimized tabs disappeared leaving the active one the only visual. It kind of freaked me out at first, this was after a new window opened when viewing Quicktime. Fortunately I was able to retrieve those missing windows again. I guess it was just a one time occurrence. This could just be my DSL connection being faster due to the time period or this browser actually loads pages faster.

I noticed the option to Import icons and bookmarks from other browsers. I thought that was nice of them to ask. That's probably just an option on other browsers I haven't encountered before or ignored them when asked. I do know that Netscape carries over IEs 'Favs'.

Another convenient part was downloading multiple files it only uses up one window. I've never seen that done with a browser before. I could just be sheltered with just IE and NS...

I guess if you've already seen what I've mentioned on browsers I apologize for informing you with useless dabble.
 

---

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 09-15-2004, 11:59 AM:
 
I use 0.9.3 currently and I love it. A few sites will not load correctly on it, so I use IE in extreme circumstances, but I use Firefox 98% of the time.

I first started using it b/c the computers in our libraries had it installed with IE disabled. I've been a fan ever since. And, if you are a real security nut and you use public computers; pop this on a USB Flashdrive and run it off of it. Everything comes with you, and you can always format it.
 

---

Posted by Brandon Willis (Member # 2345) on 09-16-2004, 11:21 AM:
 
They have it on the public terminals in the library at my college, and (at least here,) it's slow as hell.
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 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!)
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 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.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Luby (Member # 2520) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Jeff Akin (Member # 1198) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 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 ]
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-04-2005, 05:59 PM:
 
Ya might want to consider getting a real Mac!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 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
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 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
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-05-2005, 06:09 PM:
 
I don't think Apple is hurting in any way financially and the Mac is not in any danger of going away. Personally I don't want the Mac to see too much of a higher market share because then losers will start writing viruses and whatnot for it. Even though my Windows machine has never gotten a virus, I am perfectly content with the Mac not being a target. And really, Macs aren't THAT much more expensive for what you get. The entry-level iMacs, which come with their own LCD screen, aren't something that a family who wants to send e-mails or burn CDs would or should balk over.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-05-2005, 09:40 PM:
 
I can't view F-T forums in Firefox. Can't get past the disclaimer page.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-06-2005, 08:32 AM:
 
Which version of Firefox are you running (and on what OS?). I'm running the 1.0 release and have had no problems on machines running Win98 SE, WinME and WinXP Professional.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-06-2005, 02:28 PM:
 

quote:

---

Ya might want to consider getting a real Mac! [Smile]

---

I seriously want to Joe, but the cash flow is not there. There's nothing wrong with my PC, I just thought it was ugly. However, I'd like to get a new notebook. If I did, it'd be a Mac all the way. I have my PC for certain applications, and I'd use the Mac for surfing the web, Office, etc. I'm also addicted to iTunes.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-06-2005, 06:48 PM:
 
Bobby, it was just a proxy issue. I forgot I have to have the browser bypass the proxy for F-T. A year or two back some changes made on the site made it incompatible with Proxomitron and I had to set IE bypass it as well. Firefox 1.0 on XP/Home here since you asked.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-29-2005, 09:36 PM:
 
BUMP

Mozilla released Firefox 1.5 late today. Pretty funny coincidence. I downloaded the third beta release of Firefox 1.5 with every intention of installing it. The final release beat me to the punch.

The browser basically looks the same and seems to render pages faster than before. One difference I've noticed is that it is using larger fonts in the tabs.
 

---

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 12-05-2005, 04:05 PM:
 
I have a question about the tabbed web browsing.
Lets say I have Film-Tech open and I also have a folder in my bookmarks for theater chains with bookmarks for AMC, Cinemark, and Regal.
If I go to that folder in my bookmarks and click "Open In Tabs" Firefox will open all three websites in their own tabs, but one of them wil take over the tab I was using to look at Film-Tech.
Is there a way to adjust the settings so that clicking "Open In Tabs" will open those bookmarks in new tabs but also keep the tab with Film-Tech in place?
I've been playing around with the setting but haven't been able to figure anything out.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-05-2005, 07:18 PM:
 
If I'm reading one page and want to keep that open, I just go to File>New Tab before selecting a bookmark or group of bookmarks to open in new tabs. I think if you create the new tab first the previous one you were viewing (such as Film-Tech) should stay put in that tab.
 

---

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 12-06-2005, 09:00 AM:
 
I actually tried that as well and it didn't work.
You can have 20 different tabs open, but if you open a folder with 4 bookmarks, those 20 tabs are closed and replaced with 4 tabs housing the websited from your bookmarks.
I may just have to deal with it
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 12-06-2005, 11:50 AM:
 
Open a new window first. It's easy, fun, gives the L1 & L2 cache something to do, and is only a dual keystroke away... ctrl+n.
 

---

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 12-06-2005, 03:33 PM:
 
That actually wouldn't have worked since I would have wanted to keep the original web page in the same window as the new tabs and that page has is part of a work application that actually opens up in a new window from within the application.
I wanted to get to that page first and THEN open the other tabs.
But I did find an extension that took care of it for me.
 

---

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 06-18-2008, 10:45 PM:
 

It has been 925 days since the last post.

 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-18-2008, 10:45 PM:
 
Bump.

Anybody else using Firefox 3?
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-18-2008, 11:11 PM:
 
I installed it on my home computer this morning. I haven't really had to play with it much, but so far I don't see anything significantly different besides the default theme.

I was really disappointed they didn't integrate the "minimize to tray" extension. The main thing to remember if you upgrade this early is that some of your favorite extensions may not have updates yet.
 

---

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 06-18-2008, 11:12 PM:
 
Um, mostly use IE with an assload of caution, and some sceurity programs. Sorry hardcore people. Its what I'm used to, as well like 99.99999999% comatible, whereas Firefox won't work on some sites with funky scripting. Though it does work on most. I do have Firefox, but I'm not sure what vers. Probably 3 since I don't mind being of the bleeding edge of things and often participate in beta programs.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-18-2008, 11:34 PM:
 
Aah! Classic FUD!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

I use FF3 on the machine in my backstage office.
Works well. No problems at all. I don't think it's any great shakes better than previous but I haven't really taken it out for a good spin. I just use it for mundane daily junk. (i.e. I haven't taken it to websites that I know will put it to the test.) Then, again, in all the sites I go to in a normal day, I haven't found any problems, wither.

On all the front office machines, there is still FF2. All the Macs are on FF 2.0.0.6 All the PCs are using some other version but I don't know which because I rarely ever use Microsoft products unless I have to.
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-18-2008, 11:36 PM:
 

quote: Charles Greenlee

---

Probably 3 since I don't mind being of the bleeding edge of things and often participate in beta programs.

---

quote:

---

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008060309 Firefox/3.0

---

It's been available for Linux since the beginning of the month.
They actually pushed the update.

I suppose if you wanted beta you could have gotten it sooner but, I don't often go in for that sort of thing unless it's something I really, really want to check out.

I like the smart bookmarks feature in FF3. Beyond that, I've only dicked around with the prefs a little bit.
 

---

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 06-19-2008, 01:29 AM:
 
It says 3.0.0.0a. So I'd think that means it'd be 3. But the site says the current version is 3.0, as does the installation file. So I'm guessing mine's a beta, or other pre-release version. Anyhow, I decided to up/downgrade, and the setup ran with no complaints. Looks about the same, and sure enough the version info says simply 3.0.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-19-2008, 01:35 AM:
 
Speaking of firefox... since their official website has had slowdowns due to an influx of users downloading (what with the new version being released), apparently users were using other sites to download it from only to find that the download on these sites was actually spyware. At least that's what I just read on zdnet when I was bored.

The problem is with a fake windows binary, so us linux users are ok.
 

---

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 06-19-2008, 01:40 AM:
 
So whatcha got against us Windows users? Other than the fact that we're slaves to the microsoft machine?
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-19-2008, 02:05 AM:
 
No, Chris just loves working with Linux, as others love using MAC ... whatever floats the boat.

..but Firefox has it's qualities being from the same Mozilla parent that put out Netscape..
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-19-2008, 10:13 AM:
 
Aside from the fact that FF is a better program, it's free and open source. You're not bound by the terms of a restrictive license just by using it. You can download it, use it, modify it and, if you see fit, you can simply throw it away and you'll be none the worse for the wear for having done it.

The second reason I like it is because, no matter what platform you use it on, the program looks and behaves virtually the same. You can use it on a Windows XP machine or with Vista. You can run it on a Mac or a Linux box and a few kinds of computers that most people have never even heard of. But, no matter what computer you use, it is the same. (Variations in operating system behavior notwithstanding.)

One of the most important things to remember, IMO, is that computers should bend to the will of the user, not the other way around. When a person sits down in front of a machine, it should behave the way he expects it to behave. He shouldn't have to learn a new way of doing things just because he's using a different machine than he did yesterday.

If I tell you to go to a certain website, I shouldn't have to worry about whether you are using Microsoft Windows Vista-Service Pack 2 and Explorer 7.1 or whether you are using Ubuntu Linux and Firefox 3. The website should just work.

When you go to a website and it says that it doesn't work with anything but Microsoft Internet Exploder it is like telling you that you can't drive your car on I-90 unless you have Michelin tires.

If you tried to drive your car on the freeway but somebody stopped you and tried to tell you that you can't use the road because you have the wrong tires, you'd be rip-shit! You'd be mad as hell! You should be able to drive your car on any road you want without worrying about what brand of tires you have. And, when you drive on that road, your car should behave just the way it did the last time you drove it on that road, or on any other road. You shouldn't have to learn to drive all over again because you choose to take a different route to your destination.

So, why do people happily accept that restriction because Microsoft shoves a new piece of software down their throats and tells them their computer won't work unless they use it?
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-19-2008, 10:20 AM:
 

quote: Charles Greenlee

---

So whatcha got against us Windows users? Other than the fact that we're slaves to the microsoft machine?

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

the program looks and behaves virtually the same. You can use it on a Windows XP machine or with Vista. You can run it on a Mac or a Linux box and a few kinds of computers that most people have never even heard of. But, no matter what computer you use, it is the same. (Variations in operating system behavior notwithstanding.)

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

If I tell you to go to a certain website, I shouldn't have to worry about whether you are using Microsoft Windows Vista-Service Pack 2 and Explorer 7.1 or whether you are using Ubuntu Linux and Firefox 3. The website should just work.

---