Slashdot Mirror


Google Firefox Toolbar Out Of Beta

wellington map writes "Google has released Firefox search toolbar (Version 1.0.20050923) after two months in beta. One interesting addition is Google Suggest, which guesses what you're typing and offers useful suggestions in real time."

181 comments

  1. Shame it doesn't work with 1.5.. by Dogers · · Score: 3, Funny

    Claims it's not compatible and refuses to install. Don't they support other beta programs? :)

    --
    I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    1. Re:Shame it doesn't work with 1.5.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      download the .xpi, edit the install.rdf in the archive, set max version to 1.5. YMMV.

    2. Re:Shame it doesn't work with 1.5.. by job0 · · Score: 5, Informative
      You can fix this but at your own risk, the extensions will load but they might not be compatible with the changes in that version of firefox. All extensions have a file called install.rdf. There is a section called maxVersion that Firefox checks to see if it should enable or disable the extension. If maxVersion is lower than the current version, then Firefox automatically disables the extension because it considers it to be incompatible.

      To modify install.rdf do the following

      1. Close Firefox
      2. Open %APPDATA%\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\
      3. Delete extensions.rdf
      4. Go to the extensions folder.
      5. Now you'll have to go to every folder there and edit its install.rdf file with a texteditor such as notepad.
      6. You will see something like this:
      CODE
      <em:targetApplication>
          <Description>
            <em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em :id>
            <em:minVersion>0.8</em:minVersion>
            <em:maxVersion>1.0+</em:maxVersion>
          </Description>
        </em:targetApplication>
      Change maxVersion to 1.4, save the install.rdf.

    3. Re:Shame it doesn't work with 1.5.. by jeffehobbs · · Score: 5, Informative

      Install the Nightly Tester Tools extension and it will work just fine.

      ~jeff

    4. Re:Shame it doesn't work with 1.5.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      1) Download the toolbar .xpi ("save as" over the link)

      2) Open the .xpi as a zip file. It has seven folders and 2 files. One is "license.txt" and the other is "install.rdf"

      3) Edit "install.rdf" in your Notepad-style text editor.

      4) Look for this:
      <em:minVersion>1.0</em:minVersion>

      <em:maxVersion>1.0+</em:maxVersion>


      5) Change the valor "1.0+" to "2.0+" or so (it must target your firefox number version (1.5 or whatever)).

      6) Save the changes.

      7) Install the extension (Ctrl+O and choose the "google-toolbar.xpi" already downloaded in your PC and just changed)

      Hope this works. Cheers.

    5. Re:Shame it doesn't work with 1.5.. by masklinn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Virtual +1 informative to parent, this tool is a blessing (even though it's nout enough for some extensions) for anyone using 1.5 beta of the 1.6 dev versions

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    6. Re:Shame it doesn't work with 1.5.. by veg_all · · Score: 3, Informative

      3. Delete extensions.rdf

      Ouch. Careful there. You should back up your profile before mucking around in that XML. Also, the entire proposed solution sounds a little drastic. If you can download the .xpi (I remember google having made this a little difficult) you only need edit that extension. Instructions here.

      --
      grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
    7. Re:Shame it doesn't work with 1.5.. by kalman5 · · Score: 1

      Not be mad about it, install the Clusty toolbar ( www.clusty.com ) and enjoy your searches with a clean search engine. IMHO google gives you more useless result than clusty does.

  2. Wait.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    why? doesnt firefox have a built in one...?

    1. Re:Wait.. by gitreel · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does.

      --
      Never have so few words meant so little to so many people.
    2. Re:Wait.. by gid13 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, but it has limited functionality by comparison.

      The new Google toolbar is neat, but it can't compete with the open source Googlebar (which Google, to their credit, offers a link to on the Google toolbar download page). Many more features like the use of Google Maps, and so forth.

      The difference is so great that my browsing is significantly less efficient when browsing at someone else's computer, even if they're using Firefox.

    3. Re:Wait.. by hey · · Score: 1

      Too bad you don't offer a link.

    4. Re:Wait.. by NMZNMZNMZ · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the official Google Toolbar is much more useful. When I switched to FF, the Google Toolbar was the thing I missed most from IE. Probably my favorite feature is that the toolbar matches what you type in the google search box.

      As an aside, does anyone know how to change the order of the toolbars in FireFox? I want my bookmarks folder toolbar to be below the google toolbar. Any way to do this? I couldn't find it in the customize menu...

    5. Re:Wait.. by jpaz · · Score: 3, Informative
      Here is your link to Googlebar.

      Googlebar

    6. Re:Wait.. by masklinn · · Score: 1
      As an aside, does anyone know how to change the order of the toolbars in FireFox? I want my bookmarks folder toolbar to be below the google toolbar. Any way to do this? I couldn't find it in the customize menu...

      I don't think you can easily (and it's a damn shame, though you can probably do it by fidding in the XUL files *shudder*), but you can probably switch every control from one to the other manually while in Customize mode... if you're not in a hurry that is...

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  3. Google toolbar by timecop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As most of you know, the more extensions you add to FIREFOX the slower it becomes.
    With standard firefox taking ~1second to open a new window, after loading Google toolbar and couple other "extensions", opening new window in FIREFOX will take several seconds.
    I'm not even talking about starting a new copy of firefox after the old ones crash, that takes anywhere from 3 to 10 seconds depending how much of it was moved out of disk cache.

    Perhaps it's time FIREFOX/Mozilla developers stop adding useless features, and concentrate on making FIREFOX *fast*? I'm sorry, but opening a new window of ANY application on a Pentium-M 2.13Ghz with 1.5GB memory should NOT take more than 0.01second. IE6SP1 opens instantly, and so do new windows of the same browser. Food for thought.

    1. Re:Google toolbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wasn't the whole idea behind Firefox (Phoenix back then) was to be a much faster, more lightweight Mozilla?

    2. Re:Google toolbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to switch to Opera, my friend.

    3. Re:Google toolbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this, a Star Wars scroll?

      "Open Source spies managed to steal the plans to Microsoft's ultimate weapon, FIREFOX, A browser with enough stablity to run at work"

    4. Re:Google toolbar by The+New+Andy · · Score: 1, Funny
      On my computer doing some time trials these are the results I get for loading times:

      Firefox:
      68, 69, 69, 72, 65

      IE
      81, 81, 75, 71, 75

      Opera
      93, 103, 103, 107, 103

      All of these were timed by hand using a stopwatch, so the results aren't perfect. The units are 1/100s, and each test was opening a new browser window from the exectable (not from within the running application). My system is a P4 2.4 Mobile, 512, XP Pro. Each application was loaded 5 times untimed before being timed to make sure they were cached.

      My firefox install is also the one with the most crap in it (15 extensions), with IE having the google toolbar, and Opera having nothing extra.

      From this, I'd say that the performance in firefox is pretty awesome when it comes to startup times. (Or my IE is really slow)

    5. Re:Google toolbar by Taladar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      All of these were timed by hand using a stopwatch, so the results aren't perfect. The units are 1/100s
      And from this I'd say you are nuts. You can't stop anything below a second by hand accurately.
    6. Re:Google toolbar by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 1

      Wow, spend a few of your precious seconds and look at the big picture.
      Compare the time it takes to open the browser to the time you will spend browsing. Unless you use Firefox for less than a minute before closing it again, the time to open is meaningless.

      This kinda reminds me of people who spend 5 minutes looking for a good parking spot which will save them 30 seconds of walking, just to spend the next half hour walking around the grocery store.

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    7. Re:Google toolbar by kevin_conaway · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anyone else find it humorous that a guy named timecop is complaining about the time it takes to open an app?

    8. Re:Google toolbar by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      "should NOT take more than 0.01second. IE6SP1 opens instantly,"

      That's because its library files are loaded in to memory the moment you boot your windows installation . Its really quite easy to start up instantly if you have already started

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    9. Re:Google toolbar by synaptiv · · Score: 1

      Yes and IE is also built into the system like a shell with processes that are already running before IE starts up, food for thought. Besides, you are always free to help in the development of firefox, well here is your chance.

    10. Re:Google toolbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the Mozilla team that makes these extensions. And you are certainly free no to install it. Those who want them can, however, which I think is great.

    11. Re:Google toolbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry, I replied on the wrong post

    12. Re:Google toolbar by lscotte · · Score: 1

      As most of you know, the more extensions you add to FIREFOX the slower it becomes. With standard firefox taking ~1 second to open a new window

      As most of you know, timecop (16217) needs to lay off the crack. Perhaps you are still using your mommie's 386; opening a new window is instantaneous with about a dozen extensions loaded.

      --
      This post is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
    13. Re:Google toolbar by fupeg · · Score: 1
      Perhaps it's time FIREFOX/Mozilla developers stop adding useless features, and concentrate on making FIREFOX *fast*?
      I think that is exactly their focus. Compare any of the 1.0.x builds vs. the 1.5 beta . The beta is much faster. Part of how they've made it faster is by keeping it slim, i.e. minimal features. Of course more extensions means that those extensions will require some RAM and some CPU cycles. Just how much RAM/CPU they consume is a function of the extensions, not Firefox. Of course there is some overhead for Firefox to "manage" the extensions, but many people have noted that they have lots of extensions without performance problems so that overhead is not too bad.
    14. Re:Google toolbar by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that greasemonkey is the most sluggish addin to date, the stalling problem has gotten noticable since installing it (some complex pages take ~10seconds of freeze). I suppose it could be the same with any addin that scans the entire page and makes modifications to it.

      Add to that the fact there are 5 different addins all doing slightly different things to the page, but each scanning them seperately, I tend to look for addins and scripts which combine actions and modifications in one sweep (for instance remove redirects, and remove mouseevent handlers).

      Using javascript is cool, but when are we going to get a faster model for precompiled addins?

      As for crashing, I haven't had FF crash on me for a while (since I uninstalled forecastfox actually, but thats another story).

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    15. Re:Google toolbar by FinalCut · · Score: 1

      I wish I could say the same. After installing xp sp2 it takes apx ten of second for a second IE window to open. If i right click and say open link in a new window it takes even longer.

      The first IE window opens fast - but that is it.

      I'm close to doing a complete reinstall it is so tedious. Especially since ESPN fantasy football doesn't work quite right in FF.

    16. Re:Google toolbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great Troll!!!1 A++ Would use again!!!!1111oneone!!!

    17. Re:Google toolbar by croddy · · Score: 1
      opening a new window takes 0.5 seconds. a cold start of firefox takes 1.8 seconds. this is a 2.0 GHz AMD system with 1.0GB of memory. I have fifteen extensions installed, including the google toolbar, web developer, tab browser preferences, gmail notifier, and all-in-one gestures.

      perhaps there is something else wrong with your system.

    18. Re:Google toolbar by rick1live · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that anti-virus software can have a tremendous impact on Firefox. For example, opening the "find" toolbar would take several excruciating seconds! Disabling or uninstalling the anti-virus brought back "teh snappy".

      Of course, given this, I don't have a practical answer-- to live with or without anti-virus, for that is the question.

    19. Re:Google toolbar by kramtark · · Score: 1

      You can get within about 1/10th of a second accurately, with a little bit of practice.

    20. Re:Google toolbar by White+Shadow · · Score: 1

      Some of the features of the Google Toolbar are a bit computationally expensive (although I'm surprised creating a new window is so slow). One thing you can do is to remove buttons that you're not using from the toolbar; they won't use any extra CPU that way. This can be done by going to View -> Toolbars -> Customize (or right click on the toolbar and select Customize). From there, drag away any buttons that you don't plan on using. Also, simply hiding the toolbar isn't sufficient, you need to remove it from the toolbar completely. I hope that helps speed up your browser.

    21. Re:Google toolbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the handful of mods who modded you up, and Mrs. Crabapple's 4th grade class.

    22. Re:Google toolbar by moro_666 · · Score: 1

      yeah ... it's actually very interesting ... phoenix itself was amazingly fast and worked just fine .... why did they have to mess it up with the slow extensions and gui module ?

      i still use galeon/epiphany by default, because they are a lot faster than mozilla-firefox ... althrough the html rendering engine itself is the same gecko, something is always very wrong and slow in the "mainstream" mozillas ...

      as for the opera trolls, opera is still quite much off the dhtml stuff (like modifing iframe contents at real time (very very very many online content editors depend on that, mozilla and ie pull it off, opera doesnt)) , and it still has very many issues with plugins under linux x86-32, so dont suggest something that aint comparable yet ... aside from that, opera is really fast indeed and also seems to have a solid memory management, so my respect to those writers at opera ... but they still have some points that need to be tuned before i could possibly start to use their stuff ...

      in the meanwhile, someone plz drop that firefox stuff and give us back the blitz fast phoenix, cause whatever is burning on the fox, it doesnt smell good :(

      --

      I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
    23. Re:Google toolbar by liloldme · · Score: 1
      Hmm, my IE6 doesn't open instantly, there's noticeable load time involved, just as with Firefox.

      Never bothered to measure which is faster though, I don't really care. I keep the browser open all times anyway.

      Now what does bother me is that Firefox seems to be not releasing a lot of memory when in sustained use. I'd much rather see them working on that -- either it's an actual memory leak or providing some type of flush() to release whatever is being cached that is eating up the memory.

      Startup times < 3s ... who cares?

    24. Re:Google toolbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IE6SP1 opens instantly, and so do new windows of the same browser.

      Strange, on my machine it takes minutes. From the bios POST has finished, and IE starts loading, until the first IE window opens takes waaay too long.

    25. Re:Google toolbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to talk about how quickly Internet Exploder opens in comparison with other browsers, don't forget to mention the fact that it's pre-loaded on startup, whereas other browsers don't have that same luxury. You can't compare bundled software like IE to counterparts without taking that into consideration. Let's not spit out half-truths here, give all the facts. Personally, I would never use Microsoft's virus propogation tool IE, but to each their own.

  4. Google and Beta by Kylere · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wish Microsoft and Google could merge, then Microgle would produce beta products that worked already, and alpha products that are not impressive enough to upgrade to!

    1. Re:Google and Beta by blair1q · · Score: 1

      it'd have to be goosoft, because that's how their corprank sorts, now

    2. Re:Google and Beta by Jettamann · · Score: 1

      And the new corporate slogan could be:
      "Evil or Not To Be Evil; That is the Question"

      --
      - No Sig for you!
  5. Worth noting.. by footissimo · · Score: 5, Informative

    ..that google suggest is available as a seperate extension (and is quite useful)

    1. Re:Worth noting.. by DaoudaW · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. Google Suggest works just fine without adding any more mass to Firefox. Just put a shortcut on your Bookmarks Toolbar and ignore the extensions.

  6. Why RedHat only? by bogaboga · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have seen that when most software companies are to release software for Linux, the impression they give is that Linux *is* RedHat, which is wrong. Take Google for example. I have just installed the toolbar on Kubuntu with Firefox 1.0.7 with absolutely no hitches, but Google advertises RedHat alone. The same goes for Yahoo with their online games. These games run fine on any Linux distro I have tried with java properly configured, but Yahoo says somewhere on their site that [name-of-game] is not compatible with Unix or Macintosh computers. Heck RedHat is primarily a server OS...sheesh!

    1. Re:Why RedHat only? by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      I don't really know what rock you're living under, but Linux *is* Redhat to a whole lot of people, especially PHBs. Thus, if you advertise to your clients, they understand what you are talking about.

      Anyone who's educated enough to know what Linux is, knows that Redhat isn't the only distribution, but if you've only ever heard of Redhat Linux, then there's a huge chance you've never heard of any other kind of Linux.

      More than anything, it's marketing.

      Oh yeah, and Yahoo says it's not compatible with Unix or Macintosh operating systems; Never said anything about OS X or Linux (both are Unix derivatives, but are not UNIX).

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    2. Re:Why RedHat only? by rheotaxis · · Score: 1

      OK, it is just marketing, but IMHO it's wrong. Don't I just need to know the Linux kernel version that the binaries were built with, so I know if I have up-to-date libraries? OK, so we don't expect most people to worry about libraries, etc. Still, I think we need one single "metric" that gives all Linux users a clue about what they should know, and that IMHO is the kernel version.

      --
      Software freedom...I love it!
    3. Re:Why RedHat only? by BarryNorton · · Score: 1
      if you've only ever heard of Redhat Linux, then there's a huge chance you've never heard of any other kind of Linux
      I'd say the probability's pretty high...
    4. Re:Why RedHat only? by cerelib · · Score: 2, Informative

      They probably do that because they really do not care about supporting every linux distro. They are just throwing linux a bone. Do you think google is going to test it on Debian, Suse, Redhat, Gentoo, and Slack? Why would they? They know that most distros can at least be configured to have the same things as Redhat so just test it on Redhat and let the linux users figure it out. Like you said, it did not deter you from trying it on Kubuntu. It is cost-benefit. The linux community likes the fact that they released anything for linux and that is all they wanted. They still know that the Windows user base is the big target.

    5. Re:Why RedHat only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe, if you only have one computer, there's also a huge chance you don't have two computers.

    6. Re:Why RedHat only? by jrcamp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Google should be smart enough to know that extensions work the same in Firefox on every operating system Firefox supports. It's not like we're talking about having to worry about ABI compatability here. It's just a bunch of javascript.

    7. Re:Why RedHat only? by .com+b4+.storm · · Score: 1

      It's simple - they only want to have to support a given distribution. If you say "Linux" or even just "Red Hat Linux" without a specific version range, God knows what kind of weird rpm/dpkg/whatever problems users will get into that you're not equipped for. Granted, they're only going to "support" a toolbar to a point, but this concept is especially true for larger-scale projects.

      Companies just don't want to support 300 distros, or even 3.

      --
      "Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
      -- Ryan Stiles
  7. The browser should be functional by infoterror · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I agree. Before we start another trendy "reinventing the browser" drive, whether Flock or something else, we should at least make one that's rock-solid and fast. Firefox is great in many ways, because it's more secure than IE, but it's slower and crashes more than IE. When I develop, I almost always use IE because I know there will be less downtime from crashes and cache-related bugs.

    1. Re:The browser should be functional by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 3, Informative
      "When I develop, I almost always use IE because I know there will be less downtime from crashes and cache-related bugs."

      I prefer to develop using the Mozilla Suite (aka Seamonkey) or FireFox. I very rarely have more than one browser window open - I just Ctrl Tab though the tabs. This is not slow at all.

      I have the Tidy plugin at the bottom right of the browser informing me of W3C code validity. MSIE can't do this. In my experience, Mozilla crashes no more than MSIE (about once every 2 weeks for me).

      If you want to force Mozilla based browsers to download files every time, type about:config into the address bar. Then find browser.cache.check_doc_frequency and set it to 1 (it defaults to 3)

      As a developer, in my dev environments I ensure that every page is set to expire immediately in the request header. (I have never had cache-related bugs from either MSIE or Mozilla.)

      I have never had downtime due to "crashes and cache-related bugs". Maybe I'm just lucky?

    2. Re:The browser should be functional by masklinn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry? developping with MSIE?

      MSIE's cache blows, MSIE's refresh blows, MSIE has no development tools (no JS console, no JS debugger even remotely close to Venkman, and the recent Web Dev Toolbar is sub-par compared to Chris Pederick's, including the godawful DOM Inspector), MSIE doesn't allow you to see the current (interpreted/DOM-modified) source of your web page, MSIE doesn't allow you to change your CSS on the fly.

      Firefox does.

      Dev'ing with MSIE is like ripping your arms off before starting to write a book, you can still do it but the extra pain and harshness ain't quite worth it.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    3. Re:The browser should be functional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.

      FireFox leaks memory like a sieve and is S L O W at rendering. Sometimes the browser just locks up while it is rendering a page. This isn't a slow box either - 2Ghz /w 1GB of RAM.

      MSIE works out much better for me.

  8. Not for Deer Park by broothal · · Score: 4, Informative

    Please note, that the toolbar is incompatible with Firefox 1.5 (Deer park).

    1. Re:Not for Deer Park by timdorr · · Score: 1

      You can force it to the compatible with the Nightly Tester Tools. However, at least on my system, it broke the ability for form fields to have that little drop down with saved information. Unfortunately, that killed this extension for me, so I'm using the A9 toolbar instead (and as a bonus, now I have a small discount at Amazon).

      --
      Tim Dorr
      Owner/Manger
      A Small Orange
  9. Official by michaelzhao · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is the only official Google release. Its really not that big of a deal when there are several other 3rd party Firefox extentions that add the same functionality. The only thing it does different, is add the Google suggest which I have found annoying to begin with. However, it is still a big win for Google as they have a bunch of happy Firefox users. If those happy Firefox users also happen to be stockholders, well... you get the picture.

  10. "I already have googlesearch in Firefox" by Sweetshark · · Score: 2, Informative
    Well, yes guys, there is a searchtool in Firefox. However, the googletoolbar ist more a google-Setup-GUI. Its even usefull when its hidden.
    • Contextmenu with "search for selected text", backward links, similar pages, and translation
    • google suggest in der searchbar
    • setup for hightlight colors etc.
    • etc.
    Its really pretty usefull.
    1. Re:"I already have googlesearch in Firefox" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Contextmenu with "search for selected text"

      This has been a standard part of the firefox context-menu for years... (as has the google search box, and the keyword search)

  11. My 'puter's suggestions aren't usually smart by almound · · Score: 1

    Every time something pops up on my 'puter's screen the message is generally so off-base as to be laughable. ("We're sorry, your computer has commited an irrecoverable error," for example.)

    Google's "Similar pages" link found next to each and every hit from their search engine produces a ton of unusuable schlock. Google is gonna have to be pretty smart if they can come up with anything that gives even remotely relevant advice from a toolbar.

    I'll believe it when I see it.

    1. Re:My 'puter's suggestions aren't usually smart by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Is a "'puter" what they give you when you sign up for AOL?

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  12. I know I will probably get modded down by iamnerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but am I the only one that thinks toolbars are a waste of space?

    1. Re:I know I will probably get modded down by myukew · · Score: 3, Funny
    2. Re:I know I will probably get modded down by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Depends of the features, I find the Web Developper extension is much more accessible and useable as a toolbar than a contextual menu (it does both), and some toolbars such as the StumbleUpon one can be hidden with a keystroke (CTRL+F9).

      Most Firefox toolbar builders are smart enough to at least include an on/off switch button to display/hide theirs even when they don't actually register keystrokes (both platypus and Web Dev Toolbar have one for example)

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  13. Does it block popups? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I won't use it unless it blocks popups!

    1. Re:Does it block popups? by Joey+Patterson · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, Firefox already blocks popups, so Google's Toolbar doesn't need to block them, unless you're looking for a popup blocker blocker.

    2. Re:Does it block popups? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Firefox already blocks popups, so Google's Toolbar doesn't need to block them, unless you're looking for a popup blocker blocker.

      1. turn on the Firefox popup blocker
      2. visit this site http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/tabs/toto_tabs.htm
      3. click the first link (99 Guitar Pro Tab)

      A popup will display (tested on 1.07) that goes through the Firefox blocker. It's annyoing as hell, because everytime I click on on of those links the popup shows up...

    3. Re:Does it block popups? by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      That didn't popup for me, but I have seen similar on other sites. What's happening is the site owner adds javascript code which acts "onClick". FF can't block these because it would catch most legitimate popups as well.

      What I did was add the PrefButtons extension which gives you a JavaScript on/off button on your toolbar.

      There's still popup code out there that gets past both Firefox and GoogleToolbar -- sfgate.com runs it for example.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    4. Re:Does it block popups? by Jekler · · Score: 1

      Using FireFox for about 2 years now, never, ever visited a site that opens a popup. I think it's probably related to having both FireFox popup blocker enabled and have the adblock extension installed.

  14. Google suggest isn't new by NineNine · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've been using the toolbar, along with Google Suggest in Firefox for several months. It ain't new. Marginally useful, but it certainly isn't "new".

    1. Re:Google suggest isn't new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is a Google product that isn't Beta any longer. THAT'S NEW!

  15. Silly Speed Fetishes by FhnuZoag · · Score: 5, Insightful

    13 extensions installed, still takes less than a second on mine. This is on a 1.5 GHz with 256 MB ram. Perhaps there is something wrong with your computer? Spyware, perhaps, from Internet Explorer use?

    In any case, Firefox isn't really about windows - rather, tabs, which open in the background. If you learn to use that, you will get much better performance. IE meanwhile is designed to open new windows, and is also preloaded as part of the operating system. Obviously it has an advantage here.

    Nor is it the fault of the Mozilla devteam that people are making, and using slow extensions. The whole point of firefox is the customisability. What is useless to you certainly isn't useless to other people. To people like ME, speed is itself useless - page download times massively eclipse time taken by the browser itself. The firefox developers can't be all things to all people. If speed is a priority over customisability and compatibility, perhaps you are better off using a different browser (like Opera, or maybe Lynx) instead.

    1. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by PhoenxHwk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I still have a gripe in this regard. Each tab should really open in its own thread, so that its loading and rendering does not stall the whole interface. Drives me nuts when I start opening a bunch of new tabs (a la while looking at the slashdot front page or other forums) and then I have to sit through a stall before opening a new one. That's one spot where I definitely prefer Opera.

    2. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take it to bugzilla.

    3. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by timecop · · Score: 0

      Wow, did you like, totally miss the point?

      Have you ever considered that some people have a way they do things?
      I don't like tabbed UI.
      It wastes space.
      It doesnt integrate into my workflow.
      Pressing Ctrl-Tab is a lot harder than pressing Alt-Tab.
      I like doing things MY way.

      Why the fuck should I be forced to use tabbed UI in order to avoid what is obviously a bug in the software? Firefox/Mozilla take forever to open new window, pegging cpu at 100% while doing so. That is fact. No amount of trolling/bullshit/anti-microsoft FUD is going to change that. I've used firefox on a number of different systems, and its always SLOW. And please for fuck sake stop bringing up "spyware in IE" as the reason for firefox slowness. IF IT WAS SPYWARE's fault THEN IE WOULD BE JUST AS SLOW RIGHT? LOL.

    4. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by Silverlancer · · Score: 1

      I've never had a tab load anything but instantly. I can open 20 new tabs before I can click on a button to open a 21st (using, say, right click on Latest Headlines and open in tabs). Sounds like you've got spyware. Having a borked Windows install or a Pentium 2 is not a reason to prefer Opera.

    5. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1
      Have you ever considered that some people have a way they do things?... Why the fuck should I be forced to use tabbed UI in order to avoid what is obviously a bug in the software?

      Oh, I am so terribly sorry for not noticing the gun that the mozilla people are holding to your head.

    6. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by op12 · · Score: 1

      One possible speed increase (on Windows) can be acheived by adding " /Prefetch:1" after the target portion in the properties of the icon(s) you use to open Firefox. Then subsequent launches of Firefox should happen quicker.

    7. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pressing Ctrl-Tab is a lot harder than pressing Alt-Tab? How does that work? Why would one key combo be "a lot harder" than another?

    8. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by oh_bugger · · Score: 1

      does that really work? I'm no expert on the fiddly bits of windows but there's sites like this that say it doesnt.

      --
      Go home and shave your giant head of smell with your bad self
    9. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by Malor · · Score: 1

      If you use Acrobat Reader, the UI freeze on loading a PDF in a new tab is a well-known bug. I'm not sure if there will ever be a resolution... the last time I read about it, there seemed to be lots more finger-pointing than fixing.

    10. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do me a favor and hit Ctrl+Esc, and then d+f. Which one is easier?

    11. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by masklinn · · Score: 1
      It wastes space.

      F11

      Pressing Ctrl-Tab is a lot harder than pressing Alt-Tab.

      Yeah, right, the ALT and CTRL buttons are like, at least 0 inches apart, maybe up to 2 if your keyboard has these stupid windows keys, makes a heck of a difference.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    12. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by op12 · · Score: 1

      Damn, I found the tip on enough sites that I believed it. I did think that I noticed a speedup, though perhaps that was coincidence since I installed Firefox, noticed it loading slowly a few times, tried this tip, and noticed a speedup. It could be possible that Windows standard prefetching started only after I did the change (since before the change I hand only opened Firefox a handful of times), and thus appeared as though the change made it load faster. I'll have to take the prefetch out and see if I notice any slowdown in load time. At any rate, it shouldn't hurt anything.

    13. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by njyoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      is also preloaded as part of the operating system. Obviously it has an advantage here.

      That's not a valid excuse, Firefox is slow due to poor optimization. MSIE doesn't have access to super magical rendering features that Firefox doesn't. It wasn't until Firefox 1.5 Beta that they got speeds comparable to IE's and before then all the apologists were stepping in to say that IE had some magical advantage.

      Nor is it the fault of the Mozilla devteam that people are making, and using slow extensions.

      The extensions aren't slow, Mozilla's Javascript interpreter is slow. The fact of the matter is, if you want certain functionality, you will inevitably slow down Firefox regardless of how well optimized the Javascript is. You want to know why you don't receive complaints concering speed for plugins for IE? Because they're all compiled--making them super fast. There's no reason why Mozilla couldn't at least compile to bytecode or JIT it.

      There should be a name for this phenomenon. When there is a performance issue or other fundamental issue with some technology, apologists first shift the blame on third parties (e.g. people who develop stuff for it). Then years later when they finally get their act together and fix the problems and make it run well and the same exact third party stuff runs very fast, they suddenly say "oh yeah it was slow in the past, but now it's really totally awesome, which totally excuses our past dishonest behavior where we claimed it was everyone elses fault!"

      I get sick of this intellectual dishonesty. People only admit it's a problem with the group that they're defending only AFTER it's all been fixed and is a thing of a past. While it's a problem, before it's a fixed, it's always someone elses fault. Whether it be performance, security or something elses, there's always something.

      To people like ME, speed is itself useless - page download times massively eclipse time taken by the browser itself.

      They do? Are you on dial-up? Because the page actually downloads faster than Firefox can render it for me for many pages and I'm on a 2Ghz P4. Most pages will download in a fraction of a second and with all the AJAX/javascript stuff out there, rendering time greatly increases. No, it's not because of spyware, stop using that BS excuse, this is a common problem reported by everyone. The fact that 1.5 beta managed to speed things up shows that it was, in fact, an issue with the developers of Firefox and not spyware.

      The firefox developers can't be all things to all people.

      So they must have a slow browser? You act as if speed is an unimportant feature, that's ludicrous. With the rising popularity of AJAX technology, optimizing their Javascript and rendering better damn well be a priority.

      If speed is a priority over customisability and compatibility, perhaps you are better off using a different browser (like Opera, or maybe Lynx) instead.

      That is the silliest false dichotomy I've ever heard. Why must either of those be sacrificed? There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why they can't optimize their code while maintain customizability and compatibility.

    14. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by Silverlancer · · Score: 1

      Solution: Don't use PDF. That happens to me in internet explorer, Opera, and even in windows itself. Its Adobe's, not Mozilla's, fault. And adobe needs to die for it *rolls eyes*.

    15. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is your hand shaped differently than most people's? Ctrl-Tab is quite awkward for me and many other people.

    16. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Have you ever considered that some people have a way they do things?
      I don't like tabbed UI.
      It wastes space.
      It doesnt integrate into my workflow.
      Pressing Ctrl-Tab is a lot harder than pressing Alt-Tab.
      I like doing things MY way.


      Why the fuck should I be forced to use tabbed UI in order to avoid what is obviously a bug in the software?


      You sound like someone complaining that their screwdriver handle isn't as good for hammering as the hammer you're used to. Don't be such an idiot. If you don't like the tool, don't use it. But if you're going to use it, get a fucking brain and learn to use it in the fashion it was designed. If you were used to driving an automatic transmission and won a stick shift, would you drive around grinding your gears because a clutch isn't what you're used to? Because that would be on about the same level of idiocy as your post.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    17. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by dorkygeek · · Score: 0

      How this is possible?

      Man, well, I guess you should have a look at his keyboard. Too much pr0n made some keys quite sticky I guess...

      --
      Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
    18. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by masklinn · · Score: 1

      I don't see how so, unless you're using the right CTRL key that is, it's merely the matter of bending my thumb to move it a few inches to the left instead of having it on the ALT key...

      Yes, it requires you to use just about 2 more muscles than an ALT-TAB, but I fail to see how "awkward" it is.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    19. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      Solution: use Opera (or IE).
      Opera 8.5 opens PDFs in Acrobat Reader (not in the browser), at least that's why my copy does.
      In respect to PDF handling, FF is the worst. MS IE is OK.

    20. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      i use both tabs and windows, i have a 3 row windows taskbar that often fills to the point of having a scrollbar mainly with ff windows and some of those windows may well have thier tabbar full to the point where tabs dissapear behind the x (highly annoying behaviour that)

      generally i use windows for different sites and tabs for different bits on the same site especially if the site is running slow or i wan't to do some mass editing on a wiki etc.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    21. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can roll your eyes all you want. I do NOT have this problem with Opera. Adobe might suck, but there is no reason a buggy app should crash your browser, or even cause it to become unresponsive.

      And NOT using PDF is not a viable solution to most people.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    22. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is fixed in 1.5.

    23. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by loopdloop · · Score: 1
      Adobe PDF Reader is junk. If you are using Windows, I highly recommend Foxit Reader:

      http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

      (Note: I have no affiliation with Foxit. They just make a better free Windows PDF Reader.)

    24. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by Silverlancer · · Score: 1

      I've never had Mozilla *crash* when opening a PDF file, so I have no idea what you're talking about. It goes slow for about 3 seconds while it loads, but that is it.

    25. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by jesser · · Score: 1

      It's possible that it has been made less annoying in 1.5, but it's definitely not fixed. Firefox still uses a single thread for layout and scripts in all tabs, and there are still circumstances under which layout or a script doesn't pause to let other events be processed by the main thread for a few seconds.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    26. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by jesser · · Score: 1

      This is bug 40848, btw.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    27. Re:Silly Speed Fetishes by Hydroksyde · · Score: 1

      I find MSIE6 better on old PCs, on a Pentium 233Mhz laptop with 32MB of RAM and Windows 98, it ran a lot faster than firefox. This will probably change when IE7 comes out, as this is probably only because IE hasn't been updated in so long.

  16. Also by heavy+snowfall · · Score: 1

    Also worth noting: Google suggest itself is itself still in beta, but apparently, that doesn't stop them from including it in a non-beta product...

    --
    Best firefox extensions

    1. Re:Also by asavage · · Score: 1

      The google suggest extension works for the firefox search bar in the top right corner. The google suggest feature that comes with the google toolbar works only with the google toolbar search box.

  17. IE is preloaded in memory, mozilla seamonkey too by free2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    if you like the fact that IE is preloaded in memory, you should try mozilla seamonkey (the full suite) that offers this option too

  18. Re:Slashdot playing favorites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The FAQ clearly states that submissions from bland usernames will be rejected outright. Try changing it to "HOTBabe18NotWearingPantiesRightNow" and your articles will be accepted immediately.

    Also, try lowering your UID. 917138 is awfully high to be taken seriously by the editorial staff.

  19. I know what you mean by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Informative

    one of my extensions used to check for update every time a new window was installed, thinkg was the update web site has disappeared so it was waiting to time out. I managed to stop this behaviour using /etc/hosts. Perhaps your extensions are doing simlar things. Time to tcpdump!

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  20. And before they start... by bugbeak · · Score: 0, Troll

    Let's please not cry lack of privacy just because there are useful suggestions.

    Okay?

  21. A successful troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, congratulations, you've caught a bunch of people that (somehow) have even less knowledge than you. Get back in your cave...

  22. and for everyone that hates on google by k3v0 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    because they don't come out with linux versions:
    Windows XP/2000 SP3+, Mac OS X 10.2+, or Red Hat Linux 8.0+
    1. Re:and for everyone that hates on google by Andrew_T366 · · Score: 1

      Why are XP and 2000 SP3+ the only versions of Windows the Google toolbar for Firefox is compatible with? This is the only Firefox extension I know of that's incapable of working on Windows 9x.

    2. Re:and for everyone that hates on google by artson · · Score: 1

      It seems that Google has abandoned Windows 98 and ME in favour of Windows XP. I don't know why they've done this for their Google/Fox Toolbar (and other Google software). So far as I can tell there is no reason other than bloody-mindedness behind it. I'd be interested in hearing a rationale having to do with programming and code. I don't know how many installations of Win 98 there are on this planet, but I suspect it's quite a lot, as there are a great many computers out there that will not support Win XP. It's a big planet, why not write software that everyone can use?

      Insisting that their Toolbar is only compatible with Redhat Linux is just misleading crap.

      --
      In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.
  23. Seamonkey *is* designed for speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if you've tried the next-generation suite based off the old Mozilla browser, but SeaMonkey is amazingly fast on my computer. It loads in about a second, compared to about 3 seconds for Firefox. I am a former Internet Explorer user who finally gave in to Firefox when it hit 1.0. Unfortunately, with each release, it seems to get slower and take up more memory. I've switched to Seamonkey because it integrates an email client with the browser and uses the same amount of memory as Firefox alone (I had never used Thunderbird, I always stuck with Outlook Express). Extensions like Adblock and Multizilla make the Seamonkey transition worthwhile. It wouldn't hurt to try it out.

  24. Re:Talking of Firefox... by masklinn · · Score: 1

    Have you installed any tab-related extension? There are quite a lot out of there, including Tabbrowser Extension, Tabbrowser Preference and TabMix (which are "packages", big extensions with lots of features) and many single feature ones.

    Check your extension list for them.

    Oh, and I'd advise you to install TabMix Plus (2.4.1 beta) to handle your tabbed browsing needs, it's stable and gives quite a lot of options (TBE is much more configurable, but even it's author considers it as an unstable crash prone piece of junk...)

    --
    "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  25. The alphabet according to google suggest by markh1967 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    a is for amazon
    b is for bbc
    c is for currency converter
    d is for dictionary
    e is for ebay
    f is for firefox
    g is for gmail
    h is for hotmail
    i is for ikea
    j is for jokes
    k is for kelly blue book
    l is for lyrics
    m is for mapquest
    n is for news
    o is for orbitz
    p is for paris hilton
    q is for quotes
    r is for ryanair
    s is for spybot
    t is for target
    u is for ups
    v is for valentines day
    w is for weather
    x is for xbox
    y is for yahoo
    z is for zip codes
    1 is for 1
    2 is for 24
    3 is for 3m
    4 is for 411
    5 is for 50 cent
    6 is for 60 minutes
    7 is for 7th heaven
    8 is for 89.com
    9 is for 911
    0 is for 02

    --
    Input error. Replace user and press any key to continue.
    1. Re:The alphabet according to google suggest by Pneuma+ROCKS · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So, if somebody produces a new product or company and expects to be google's favorite, they should try and use a first letter with a "weaker" association, say ryanair. God know you can't beat Paris Hilton. Not for the next 15 minutes, at least.

      --
      Favorite quote: &quot;
    2. Re:The alphabet according to google suggest by GrungyLotG · · Score: 1
      8 is for 89.com
      Am I the only one that feels that /. contributed much to this ranking? (89.com is a porn directory)
    3. Re:The alphabet according to google suggest by DJCouchyCouch · · Score: 1

      with all the pr0n on the internet, I was thinking 6 was gonna give another two digit number.

      djcc

    4. Re:The alphabet according to google suggest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Numbers are not part of the alphabet. =)

    5. Re:The alphabet according to google suggest by DeadSea · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is also interesting to see the most popular web sites. Start by typing www. into google suggest. The top 10 are:

      1. www.yahoo.com - Search/Directory
      2. www.hotmail.com - Email
      3. www.google.com - Search
      4. www.ebay.com - Shopping
      5. www.msn.com - Portal
      6. www.aol.com - Portal
      7. www.ebay.co.uk - Shopping
      8. www.irs.gov - Government
      9. www.mapquest.com - Maps
      10. www.amazon.com - Shopping

      Typing one more letter shows you the top sites for that letter. Here is the top for each letter:

      This is some random commentary to make sure that my post has enough characters per line on average to get by the lameness filter. Just a few more words should do it. Then I will be over the limit. Maybe you would like to hear a bit about my projects: Attesoro - A internationalization editor for Java programs. Coinmill - A currency conversion website with many currencies, and features such as abilty to parse English sentences asking for currency conversion. Java Utilities - Utilities for common task in the Java programming language such as parsing CSV files and string manipulation.

    6. Re:The alphabet according to google suggest by JahToasted · · Score: 1

      p is for pedantic

  26. Up to date libraries by jurt1235 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't I just need to know the Linux kernel version that the binaries were built with, so I know if I have up-to-date libraries?

    That is called the Linux Standard Base, to which about all commercial and several non commercial linux distributors adhere to. So, if it is LSB compatible (would be a handy note from google), it will run on Redhat, but also on Debian, SuSE, mandrake and many others.

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
  27. Re:Slashdot playing favorites? by rheotaxis · · Score: 1

    Just curious, has /. UID 1,000,000 been issued yet? Can we get it on eBay?

    --
    Software freedom...I love it!
  28. Spell Check by SumDog · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think the most useful feature of the google toolbar is the spell check. Many places, such as slashdot, don't have spell check and some places, such as Livejournal, have spell check but it really sucks.

    I realize now that there are probably many other firefox extentions out there with spell check, but the first one I came across and used was in the google toolbar.

    I currently use it with Gentoo and on some firefox releases I had some trouble with the toolbar crashing/hanging as well as the spell check correction box appearing half way down the page. I am anxious to try out this new release and see if a lot of these issue have been solved.

    1. Re:Spell Check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      many other firefox extentions out there with

      Not using that spellchecker right now, I see.

    2. Re:Spell Check by Mechcozmo · · Score: 1
      OS X-- System wide spell checking. Instead of a million different spell checkers, there is just one, standard, system of checking your spelling.

      Something that I would like to see copied into a Linux distro, as it is extremely helpful.

    3. Re:Spell Check by SumDog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well there is aspell/pspell (which replaced the older ispell) which is the standard library most Linux apps link into, but you're right. There is no system wide spell check like Mac OSX has. I also like the OSX system wide speech synth you can use with almost any application. My old roommate used it to read off Something Awful pages while we ate dinner. He really hated Safari (and Konquror for that matter) and wished the option existed in Firefox as well.

    4. Re:Spell Check by Kethinov · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google toolbar's spellcheck is better than Safari's on Mac because it highlights words that are misspelled within the form. In Safari, you have to right click on each one.

      Take a look at this screenshot

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    5. Re:Spell Check by Mechcozmo · · Score: 1
      Really because Safari seems to do quite well.

      Off topic, things Linux should take from OS X... Command+Shift+4 is a nice feature under OS X-- selective screen shot. Press the Space Bar and you can take a screen shot of various elements-- window, menu bar, icons, etc. without getting other crap in the way.

      ftp://nichrome.serveftp.com/Picture%201.png

    6. Re:Spell Check by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      alt+printscreen takes a screenshot of a single window.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    7. Re:Spell Check by Mechcozmo · · Score: 1
      What about a single icon, toolbar, menu, drop-down box, etc.?

      http://www.xvsxp.com/power_user/ sheds some insight on screen shots.
      But the fact is, I can take a screen shot of anything I damn well please without getting my background in there too. :D

    8. Re:Spell Check by maaleron · · Score: 1

      That's the one good thing I love about KDE's component reuse. I get the same editor component when entering text into a website's 'text entry' field in Konqueror as I do in KWrite or even Kopete. As much as you might hate that damned red-underlined text in Word, that concept does come in quite handy when you've had a few 'pops' and you think of something to say.

    9. Re:Spell Check by sootman · · Score: 1

      Surprised no one else caught your factual error. In Safari: Edit -> Spelling -> Check Spelling as You Type. I've been using this for ages. And yes, using a systemwide dictionary rocks.

      See this screenshot: http://apple.newbox.org/pics/spelling.png

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  29. Slow script warning by nonpareility · · Score: 2, Informative

    I hope they've fixed the bug that caused "A script on this page is causing mozilla to run slowly. If it continues to run, your computer may become unresponsive. Do you want to abort the script?" to show up. Extensions that don't work correctly is one thing, but it's unacceptable when they affect other parts of the browser.

  30. Better yet - try Yahoo! instant search by mrklin · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Try http://instant.search.yahoo.com/ Get answers as you type.

    I have also found that in Yahoo! advanced search (http://search.yahoo.com/web/advanced?ei=UTF-8) you can now search for Creative Commons content!

    Google remains my primary search engine but Yahoo! is an extremely close second with results every bit as relevant.

    1. Re:Better yet - try Yahoo! instant search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? Fx already has a CC search engine plugin by default.

  31. What do you mean by Beta? by gaanagaa · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought "Google Beta" was the full name and "Beta" was the surname for Google.

  32. now it's opera's turn by TTL0 · · Score: 1

    now that they finished the FF toolbar they can get started on one for opera.

    --
    Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
    1. Re:now it's opera's turn by croddy · · Score: 2, Funny

      opera has around 0.09% of the browser market. google's time would be better spent on a custom distribution of Lynx.

    2. Re:now it's opera's turn by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Not as useless, since Opera and Google have a business relationship now. I think market share won't be the deciding factor whether or not to spend development effort on this. Besides, if it was all about market share, they wouldn't bother with spending money and time developing for Firefox, just spend money developing IE. There's obviously other reasons for development.

  33. Re:Waste of space by bwilson · · Score: 1
    I agree that toolbars are a waste of space. Which is why I think the best feature of this new version (which I haven't seen mentioned here yet) is support for the toolbar customize palette.

    Right-click on any toolbar and go to customize. Now you can drag your favorite buttons from the Google toolbar onto your regular toolbar. Now, *turn off* the Google toolbar.

  34. RE: Toolbars by BACPro · · Score: 1

    No, not at all.

    I use a commercial app that retains the browser toolbar, add a couple of its own, then opens a PDF under that. The PDF toolbars are moveable, but who wants to do that every time? Customizations are not sticky and I am tired of clicking OK for "a newer version is available... blah blah blah.) The check box: "don't show this again" is not retained between browser sessions... /rant

    This results in a viewable window less than 50% of the screen dimension.

    F11 (fullscreen) helps somewhat, but even the F11 shortcut is hit and miss.

    M

  35. Similar search for Safari (including suggest) by waffffffle · · Score: 1

    http://www.inquisitorx.com/

    Inquisitor puts Google Suggest into the search field in the Safari toolbar. You can also map different key commands (such as control-enter) to different search sites. I often will use Google Suggest's autocomplete to help me type something but search for the term in wikipedia.

    Right now this software is free but this same author used a bait-and-switch model with his RSS reader software, NewsFire. NewsFire was free until version 1.0, which became nagware, after myself and many others got hooked on the software. I am not averse to paying for shareware but I feel like the expectations of the software should be properly set up front. I thought more highly of the software because it was free, which lowers the standard by which I would evaluate such software. Regardless, I still like NewsFire and have paid for my copy. This author has also been accused of selling GPL'd code as part of his Acquisition gnutella software. This guy makes some good stuff but I question his morals.

    1. Re:Similar search for Safari (including suggest) by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Did the 0.x version expire? If not, I'd hesitate to call it "bait and switch", since you still have a working, albeit lower-versioned, copy. If not, and it's a forced-timeout beta... yeah, that's kinda crappy.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    2. Re:Similar search for Safari (including suggest) by waffffffle · · Score: 1

      Yes, it expired. Won't launch unless you set your clock back.

  36. Big fucken woopty doo!! by LS · · Score: 1, Troll

    Isn't there anything more interesting going on?? When did simple toolbar software become big news? If we're going to be talking about toolbars, why not something on one of the other 1000 toolbars out there that do more interesting shit? I think Slashdot has a serious case of celebrity obsession (or greased palms). This reminds of the fucking 5th masturbation in an hour when only air comes out...

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    1. Re:Big fucken woopty doo!! by Milton+Waddams · · Score: 1

      Computer news doesn't get more exciting than this. It's Google AND Firefox in it.....Open source and all that jazz. Magnificent!

    2. Re:Big fucken woopty doo!! by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      This reminds of the fucking 5th masturbation in an hour when only air comes out...

      okay... that was a mental image i really could have done without...

  37. News? by Bubba · · Score: 0


    Welcome to last week! It's not even the top item on Google's blog anymore: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/

  38. Re:Waste of space by masklinn · · Score: 1

    Uh, toolbar customisation in Firefox is hardly something new...

    --
    "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  39. An even more-inclusive extension by lpret · · Score: 1

    A better extension is Customize Google. This extension will add several functions to make Google even more powerful.

    --
    This is my digital signature. 10011011001
  40. It depends on the extension by DrIdiot · · Score: 1
    There are two commonly used extensions I know that noticably slow down Firefox.

    The first is Tabbrowser Extensions. This one is a killer in terms of speed. Use TabMix Plus instead: TMP
    I have the functionality of Opera in Firefox plus some more (for instance, my tabs are located on the bottom of the screen and to switch tabs I mouseover them) and minus the things I don't want. There's no noticable speed difference, I've compared them.

    1. Re:It depends on the extension by DrIdiot · · Score: 1
      Sorry, I forgot the second.
      The second is Linkification. This is expected. After all, it has to scan the source of a webpage another time just to make text links into HTML tagged links. It's expected, then, for large webpages, that it would slow down Firefox.

  41. firefox preloader available now! by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 1
    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
  42. Why would I want that? by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 1

    With the "CustomizeGoogle" extension you also get search suggestions, plus you can throw away Google ads and stuff, and it's much lighter. Not sure what the Google toolbar exactly does, but I'm not comfortable with huge commercial companies like Google trying to sneak into the Open Source software like this, when you know their intentions are anything but close to the notion of freedom that OSS promotes...

    1. Re:Why would I want that? by Pichu0102 · · Score: 1

      Well, let's see.
      If Google can hook people into using their search engine more, such as giving them extra features in their preferred software such as spellcheck, then those people might think of using their search engine more often and possibly even other tools of theirs, increasing profit from ads and so forth.
      Also, you may not want it, but there are some people would did want it (Like me). Some people might have stopped using Google unless they released their own toolbar for Firefox, and they didn't want to lose people, so they made one themselves.

  43. Re:Waste of space by poulbailey · · Score: 1

    > Uh, toolbar customisation in Firefox is hardly something new...

    That wasn't his point; it's new in this version of the Google Toolbar.

  44. Not released till it's out of "beta"? by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 1

    Google has released Firefox search toolbar after two months in beta.

    So from that I guess we can conclude that Gmail hasn't been released yet.

  45. Credit Card Autofill by sjwoo · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who is unable to see/use the credit card info portion of AutoFill? If so, what the hell am I doing wrong?

    1. Re:Credit Card Autofill by rcamera · · Score: 2, Funny

      we at slashdot would love to help you. please fill in all dialogs for autofill, take a high-quality screenshot of the window, and reply to this post with a link to the image. upon seeing the entered information, we should be able to help you with your problem.

      regards,

      --
      Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
  46. Stories Don't Get Much Lamer Than This by Cheirdal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh joy, a story about a freaking toolbar. Yay. I thank you for keeping us informed of cutting edge technology like the google toolbar. It's an invaluabe resource for those of us too lazy to type in "google" or click on our booksmarks to bring up Google. The real bottom line is Google is a commercial entity. They're not here to help you. They're in business to make money. I'm not putting a commercial entities toolbar (or any toolbar) on my browser. If I want to use Google, and quite often I do, I'll go to their site directly and type in my queries. I don't care about their lame auto-fill in feature and other garbage that comes with their remarkable toolbar.

    1. Re:Stories Don't Get Much Lamer Than This by alfrin · · Score: 1

      Well I'm sorry you, unlike the rest of the Slashdot crowd, doesn't find Google actually take something out of Beta as an important AND amazing story.

  47. I hate that damn ad by evilviper · · Score: 1

    You know, I really HATE the Google toolbar for Firefox. Well, actually, it's not that I hate it at all, I really don't want to use it in the slightest, but that it exists shouldn't bother me. The fact that I have to see a DAMMED AD for it at the bottom of EVERY SINGLE PAGE OF SEARCH RESULTS, EVERY SINGLE TIME is what I HATE.

    I figured maybe there's be a preferences option to turn that god dammed repetitive ad off, but no. I either have to forge my user-agent, or switch to Clusty.com

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  48. Oh the irony by GileadGreene · · Score: 1

    Amusingly enough, this story is most likely simply an attempt by the submitter to significantly boost their Google pagerank by getting links to their website inserted into Slashdot. Both this story and the immediately preceding one were submitted by "wellington_map", with the submitter name linking to "http://wellington.iclod.com/". Just yesterday there was a submission by "christchurch_map", which linked to "http://christchurch.iclod.com/". Both websites appear to provide maps and business directories for their respective cities (Wellington, on New Zealand's North Island, and Christchurch on the South Island).

  49. Re:Waste of space by jesser · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it just me, or does the Google Toolbar come back when you open a new Firefox window or instance? I'm using Mac OS X and a recent Firefox build from the MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH, and I installed Google Toolbar using Nightly Tester Tools to override Firefox's compatibility check.

    --
    The shareholder is always right.
  50. useless, and annoying by Felipe+Hoffa · · Score: 1

    The biggest gripe I have is they (as a company) are coming out somehow as hypocrites: Every time I search something they add a big image banner at the bottom of the page telling me to download their toolbar. Why are they doing this? I have no use for their bar, I've already got Firefox.

    This would be normal at any other place, there will always be someone from marketing trying to promote their stuff that doesn't care about adding more senseless noise, but Google was supposed to be different. What happened to them? They were the guys that told the world "Enough with the senseless crap! People are annoyed by unrelated banners (and blind to them)! Whenever we do ads, we will do text ads that people will find interesting because they will be related to their task!".

    And I thought they were right. They provided an alternative to the search portals alternatives we had 10 years ago, and they did great. Everything had meaning, magically every detail worked just as I felt it should work. But now? Now their customers have to invest efforts in products like CustomizeGoogle or Greasemonkey to bring back Google to a comfortable point. I just hope they don't start a cease&desist rampage against them.

    Fh

  51. Google Suggest numbers by freaktheclown · · Score: 1

    firefox security issues - 1,380,000
    internet explorer security issues - 16,300,000

  52. to bad it doesnt work with ff 1.5 beta 1 by kjcdude · · Score: 0

    to bad it doesnt work with ff 1.5 beta 1

    --
    http://DiabloHeat.com | http://Kyle.TheOCSucks.com | http://TheOCSucks.com
  53. Something Google is out of beta by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

    Something Google is out of beta - and in related news, the temperature in Hell is down to 31 degrees F. :)

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  54. Autocomplete by fatwreckfan · · Score: 1

    Autocomplete doesn't work for me anymore now that I've installed the update toolbar. This has happened on 3 different computers...has anyone else seen this?

  55. Obviously... by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    ... this was spoken from the mouth of someone who has never actually done commercial development.

    It does not matter if the toolbar does actually work in all versions of Firefox. Unless the Google QA team has test machines that encompass every possible version of Firefox across every platform, then they cannot test said platforms and thus can not sign off on the product actually working.

    Also, despite what you may or may not think, there *are* differences between Firefox on different platforms. Different vendors compile in their own patch sets, which may or may not break that particular extention that you want to use. I have even seen differences between the exact same official released versions of Firefox when comparing Windows vs. OSX vs. Linux builds. A certain page will render differently on one than the other two.

    Unless they can actually test it on all the platforms, then they can't be 100% sure, so they are perfectly justified in not supporting that particular combination. Otherwise they wouldge tons of complaint emails and bug reports on something they never actually tested.

    1. Re:Obviously... by cerelib · · Score: 1

      Finally! I was starting to think that everybody on /. was completely clueless about corporate practices. Thank you for restoring a little bit of my faith in the /. crowd.

  56. Is there any difference from the web version? by jriskin · · Score: 1

    I've been using http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=1&hl=en/ for months...

  57. Keyboard shortcuts by daemler · · Score: 1

    One thing I liked about Firefox's built-in Google search was I could hit command-k (control-k on Windows) and the cursor would be placed in the search box. Is there a comparable shortcut for the Google toolbar?

  58. google-toolbar.xpi surgery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Timely... just today when I noticed that a majority of my extensions that had "broken" since upgrading to firefox 1.4 had updated and were now functioning I decided to see what it would take to force google-toolbar.xpi to install. It turned out to be really simple and I'm sure any of you could figure it out for yourselves but for those who haven't yet, in the interest of not duplicating effort, I documented what I did on this page:

    http://www.dfw.net/~scottvr/google_toolbar-xpihack .html

    Interesting is that the quick googling I did to see if anyone had a quick how-to or patch didn't result in anything obviously useful but upon reading this thread, I see mentions of a slightly different way to go about the same thing. I performed surgery on the XPI itself, which I think is worth mentioning since there is always the possibility that someone wants to install the Google Toolbar Extension who didn't already have a previous install from a supported version of Firefox.

    --VR

  59. but it works fine if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seems to work fine if you force it..

    http://www.dfw.net/~scottvr/google_toolbar-xpihack .html