Topic awaiting preservation: The SpreadFirefox movement goes one step further.

After more than 5.3 millions of downloads of FireFox 0.10 Preview Release, the SpreadFirefox movement goes one step further and launch a campaign to get a Firefox 1.0 full-page ad in The New York Times. If it succeeds, it gonna be the first-ever, full-page advertisement in a major daily newspaper created and paid for by the open source community. Wow!

Go Firefox! Go!



(Edited by poi on 10-19-2004 21:16)

cheers, thats awesome! ^^ Go Firefox! go!

Foxy

The tao of the fox

If it replaces Micro$oft, I'm for it.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Hey! there's no need to use the 'H' word buddy! :P

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

I like FireFox but I don't like the fact that you have to download all those extensions and have to restart the entire browser just to activate them plus I don't see any session saving like in Opera. And there alot of things Opera has by default that FireFox doesn't have even after downloading the appropriate extension. Still I have it as my default browser just 'cos it loads more faster than Opera otherwise Opera's my fav.

How quickly does Firefox load for you templar654? Since upgrading to the 1.0 Preview release, I find that it takes between 10 and 12 seconds for Firefox to load initially, which is a lot slower than the previous version which took about 6 seconds.
This may be due to the extensions I have installed perhaps:

• DictionarySearch 0.6.3
• IEView 0.82
• Image Zoom 0.1.7
• Mozilla Calendar 0.8+
• All-in-One Gestures 0.12.4
• Translate0.5.8
• Gmail Notifier 0.3.3
• Adblock v.5 d2 nightly 39

:::tao::: ::cell::

I wuv my Firefox!

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

I prefer Mozilla. Not like there's a huge difference, but my main reasoning is:

If I'm going to use ThuderBird for mail anyway, why not have them both in the same program?

Also, since I'm one to open and close windows like mad, having Mozilla keep itself loaded at all times means instant page-popping for me.

Plus, Mozilla tend to be a tad snappier than Firefox in the DHTML department. Not entirely sure why, on that.

But anyway, yay for Firefox! Here's to the future and the hopefully-not-changing-the-name-again!

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke
"Any sufficiently arcane magic is indistinguishable from technology." -- P. David Lebling

InI: Kudos, for that shift of behavior.
To really enjoy FireFox, one need to find several extensions that really enhance his/hers experience. For instance I feel naked when I use another browser and can't tweak the CSS via EditCSS+URIid, zoom in/out the images, or use the userAgent switcher to identify myself differently ( which I use to activate the "admin mode" on one of my sites because I find it more convenient to use than a login/pwd thing )

InI, not trying to raise the XSLT argument again, but can't you at least try to be a little objective?



First of all, this "decent engine for dhtml" you are talking about, is that compared to iew? Sure, there are plenty of cases where iew is actually faster, especially those relying on number crunching, but in general the greater number of DOM performance tests - the most important area for DHTML performance - have given either op7.6 (sometimes the slowest by an order of magnitude, often the fastest by a few milliseconds) or moz the price recently. That given, code optimised for iew will never run as well in the others, because iew's strong points tend to be their weak points.


Second, as far as I know, iew doesn't even handle association of XSLT sheets per the specification, so I wouldn't say moz is any worse when it comes to reality use. (I mean, if you as a document creator need to sidestep the standard to get any compatibility with iew, what use is the standard, really?) Besides, how many sites do you see out there that actually use XSLT?
Sure, it's an interesting technology, but the mozilla project is more interested in real world techniques. CSS is used far more on the net. JavaScript is far more used on the net. DOM is far more used on the net. PNG is far more used on the net. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if VBScript is far more used on the net.


Third, "the most crappiest support of XML"? That doesn't sound anything like what I've seen. Both Opera and Mozilla use early forks of expat, Safari uses libxml2, iew uses MSXML2.0 or MSXML3.0 depending on version. Now, expat is pretty much the ultimate XML1.0 parser. It's support is not complete, but it's the least incomplete of all. It's also the fastest pure XML parser. libxml is closing in on expat, and supports more than the spartan expat when it comes to surrounding technologies. In comparison, the XML support of even MSXML4.0 lags behind, not to speak of the earlier versions. I doubt this true XML support is what you mean by XML support, though, since you seldom work directly with the parser in any document made for display by a browser. Now, let's talk about the technologies that are most likely to crop up inside a browser:
- XML namespaces: this is something that iew makes a mess of, but moz/saf/op handles just fine. (CSS/DOM issues, really)
- XHTML namespace recognition: same here.
- XHTML1 support: iew lacks it, msn/op/moz/saf has it (this goes deeper than just the 'application/xhtml+xml' MIME type being unsupported, and is strongly related to the previous and the following point)
- DOM: Sure, the support is reasonable (though not great) if you use MSXML through ActiveX, but nowhere near that of saf/moz/op if used directly on a document.
- CSS: Now, here's the big hole. Since XML doesn't provide any semantics, CSS support of reasonable level must be present to be able to display XML documents in the browser. iew is far from as good at this as moz/op/saf/msn.
- XML language/namespace recognition: iew recognises XSLT. Op recognises XHTML1, RSS (and Atom?). Saf recognises XHTML1, and will in the next release also recognise XSLT, RSS and Atom. Moz and/or ff recognises XHTML1, simple XLink, XSLT, RSS, Atom, MathML, XUL, XBL, XTF, and on certain builds SVG.
- XSLT support: Yeah, here the MSXML engine actually gives a slightly better support for iew than moz. However, XSLT in moz is a moving target that is bound to improve. The XSLT support of the next saf version will as a benefit of using the libxml2 engine have the so far most complete XSLT engine.


Fourth, the XUL language isn't in any way promoted as a replacement for XML or anything. It's an XML language, and absolutely necessary for the browser. The iew interface is written in a compiled language, everything hard coded for the processor architecture (and OS version) into the browser binaries. Moz takes another solution, hard coding only the redering system for the processor and the os, implementing the same interface cross platform in XUL to be rendered on that rendeering system. You could say that the role XUL plays in moz is the same as the role the win32 api plays in windows. Or the same role that XAML/Avalon will be playing in Longhorn.




However, of all of your complaints with moz so far, I would say what you need is a mentor and guide to using moz more than any real changes in the browser.

--
var Liorean = {
prototype: HTMLGuru.prototype,
abode: "http://codingforums.com/",
profile: "http://codingforums.com/member.php?u=5798"};

Ini: Please refer back to the post Wes made about the use of their, there, and they're.

Kthanksbye.

:::11oh1:::

Tao: Actually I've noticed the latest release of FireFox is slower than the last one, but it's faster than Opera which compared starts slower than FireFox but is much much more faster when surfing

FireFox relatively takes about 10 or so seconds on my system while Opera would take 12-15. The last version of FF was about 4-8 much faster.

I don't care about the time FireFox takes to starts as I start it once per day and keep it open all day long.



(Edited by poi on 10-22-2004 09:45)

This is true poi heh I do pretty much the same myself.. I think I have been in a finical zone of late. Actually I have not been able to load flash on pages I browse with Foxy since version 8 and I still prefer it. I have tried all the suggestions offered in the Moz help pages to no avail. So I got the extension (Open page in IE) and that will suffice as a stopgap measure.
Thanks for the info too templar654

:::tao::: ::cell::

quote:

---

templar654 said:

FireFox relatively takes about 10 or so seconds on my system while Opera would take 12-15. The last version of FF was about 4-8 much faster.

---

Do you have a slow system? FireFox loads in less than two seconds on my system (1Ghz Athlon, 1GB SDRAM), which isn't that great.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

FF isn't compilant with windowblinds and that sucks All in all I don't like this browser either. I stick with the maxthon browser :mosh:

metahuman: I've got a 933 Mhz Processor with 256 RAM, compared to your's I don't think there's much different it's just that my system's been through alot of extensive repairs that really shook it up

Xdreamer.ch: I don't need WindowBlinds, StyleXP works perfect with FireFox and Opera

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

templar654: there's a huuuuge difference : you only have 256Mb. I hope you don't use WinXP with that little ram.

InI: I wasn't completely wrong about integers. Actually I was rather right for the precise case we talked about, but indeed for advanced usage of bit shiftings ( i.e. to combine several fixed point variables into a single variable ) I totaly agreed with you since the very begining.

Do you enjoy FireFox aside the xsl support ? what kind of extenstions do you use ?



(Edited by poi on 10-23-2004 16:30)

poi: Actually I do use WinXP Professional and it works very smoothly sometimes yeah it does get a bit buggy after a looooooooong game of WarCraft but a quick reboot fixes that in a sinch.

Ini, I congratulate you on taking the time to use FireFox for a while to learn what it is about the browser that you don't like.

You, Xdreamer.ch, and a couple of others have stated that you don't like FireFox and have a preferance for other browsers. I hope you will take the time to go to the mozilla web site. They have a link on their front page asking people to let them kmow what things about FireFox they don't like so the developer can improve the browser.

-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.