Browser Comparison - Firefox 2 b1, IE7 b3, Opera 9

mikemuch writes "The browser wars have heated up again, with Microsoft putting Beta 3 of Internet Explorer 7 out for all to download (not just developers anymore), Firefox coming out with the first beta of its version 2, and Opera releasing version 9. ExtremeTech has a shoot-out of the three browsers, with feature comparisons and tests of resource usage, startup time, and Acid2 standards compliance. Standout features are Opera's built-in BitTorrent support, Firefox's spellchecker for forms, and IE's Quick Tabs view. Firefox is still ahead in extensions, while Opera has some slick UI conveniences."

Comments

Re:/.-ed in the first 5 seconds

[Mascot]

If so they have made a remarkable recovery. Instant loadtime for me.

What?

[BlackCobra43]

I'm having no trouble accessing the article. I'm browsing through it right now....

One Page (printable) version

[xmas2003]

Entire report on one page.

Submitter did a nice summary. BTW, another table shows memory usage, and looks like Firefox Beta 2 comes in a bit heavier (compared to 1.5.04) at least for startup and an initial load of six tabs - unknown if the memory leaks that cause this to skyrocket when viewing dynamic sites (such as this) are fixed.

Also talks about the anti-phishing protection, but says they were unable to have this engage, so maybe it's not functional yet? That seems to be an area where more inovation could be done.

Re:One Page (printable) version

[evil_Tak]

Anti-phishing worked fine for me when I tried it. I didn't do anything exceptional.

Re:One Page (printable) version

[eqisow]

I call bullshit on the startup time for FF 1.5. I'm sitting here encoding a DVD (100% CPU usage) and FF 1.5 still opens in 4-5 seconds, and that's with 13 installed extensions.

Then again, I'm not using the Windows version either.

Re:One Page (printable) version

[Crayon Kid]

[..]unknown if the memory leaks that cause this to skyrocket when viewing dynamic sites (such as this) are fixed.

I must say, I'm not seeing that in the Linux version. And since we're on the subject, the Linux version is much more responsive in certain respects, such as opening the history panel, which happens instantly on Linux and very slow and painfully on Windows. This is with identical extension setups on both installations and comparable history size.

Re:One Page (printable) version

[Anonymous Coward]

So... you're using different software on a different platform and experiencing different results... fascinating. Please tell us more.

Re:One Page (printable) version

[friedmud]

About the memory usage... did it ever occur to anyone that maybe firefox 2.0 is both bigger and slower because it might be compiled in DEBUG mode?

Comparing Betas on memory size and speed is just a dumb idea...

Friedmud

Re:One Page (printable) version

[mikemuch]

The one-page link doesn't work for me. Anyway, how bout supporting web content by giving us the page views? Is it that hard? And if you use Opera, you can just click on the fast forward button.

Re:One Page (printable) version

[plague3106]

History panel (sidebar) opens instantly for me on Windows.

Re:One Page (printable) version

[Tim C]

Well, everyone seems to be complaining about the size and speed of the Vista beta, so it's not like it's without precedent...

That aside, I've used the Firefox beta, and while I will no doubt end up using the finished 2.0, there's no way I can use the beta. I appreciate that it's slow because it's compiled in debug mode, hasn't had last minute optimisations applied, etc - but that doesn't change the fact that for me, on a P4 3GHz with 2 gig of RAM, it's slow enough to be unusable.

I don't use Opera or IE, and so have no interest in the betas, so I can't comment on them.

Re:One Page (printable) version

[killjoe]

Firefox has a preloader. If you really can't wait then load the preloader and then it will act pretty much like IE. With the preloader it launches much faster then IE.

Re:One Page (printable) version

[MADnificent]

uhm, no that is not the report on one page

Re:One Page (printable) version

[Bert64]

It was interesting to see the memory usage of ie6 with 6 tabs (i assume they actually opened seperate windows, since this browser doesnt even support tabs) open...
People often complain about the memory usage of firefox with lots of tabs open, but most users of ie never actually load that many seperate pages because of how awkward it is to switch between them, and also it seems, because of it's memory usage when doing so.

Re:One Page (printable) version

[bwilson]

Ben Goodger is standing over my shoulder (I swear) and says "I've seen some retarded comments, but this is pretty good."

Alphas and betas are not shipped in debug mode.

Re:One Page (printable) version

[Myen]

Actually, nobody release the --enable-debug builds of Firefox. You can tell if you have one, because you'd see a bunch of text in the console (at the minimum, at shutdown when it tells you about the leak stats). If you're on Windows, that means actually opening a console window too.

Re:One Page (printable) version

[OriginalArlen]

Oh god, not this tired old fud again... how many more times...

That is NOT a memory leak in Firefox. It is a RAM cache. IT DOES THIS BY DESIGN.

Re:One Page (printable) version

[cheater512]

IE has a preloader too. Remember how IE is crucially built in to the kernel?
The actual IE ActiveX control is in memory all the time.

Re:One Page (printable) version

[Elektroschock]

At least for all the "missing features" Mozilla addons exist. FF told us the lesson not to overload your tools.

I am embarassed that too little happened with Sunbird development. Mozilla has a lot of money, so why didn't they cross-finance Sunbird properly. FF 1.5 is good enough for me. No need for urgent updates anymore. I am looking for another Phoenix.

Re:/.-ed in the first 5 seconds

[Burlap]

dynamic... loading ok for me too, now.

Re:Beta?

[eln]

Not really, if you're only comparing announced features. You probably shouldn't complain about problems that are clearly bugs though, and this article does just that several times.

It's unfair

[Sohil]

It's unfair to compare Beta versions with a completed version (Opera), besides IE has been out in Beta for ages compared to a few weeks on Firefox's side. And Firefox 2 doesn't pass Acid 2 because no work has been done on Gecko (it still uses 1.8, the same as Deer Park) Firefox 3 (which will use Gecko 1.9) will pass the Acid 2 Test.

Re:It's unfair

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It's unfair to compare Beta versions with a completed version...

Why? This is a comparison of features, not stability, compliance or even speed. Betas are supposed to be feature complete.

Re:It's unfair

[Bogtha]

Firefox 2 doesn't pass Acid 2 because no work has been done on Gecko

Oh come on, don't be such an apologist. Are you seriously saying "It's unfair! They're only behind on that because they didn't work on it!" How is that unfair? They had just as much opportunity to fix things as Opera did, the difference is that they chose not to. That may or may not be a good decision to make, but you can't exactly call it "unfair", can you?

Firefox 3 (which will use Gecko 1.9) will pass the Acid 2 Test.

That doesn't matter, what's planned for Firefox 3 doesn't make Firefox 2 any better. When Firefox 3 is released, we can compare that with Opera 10 and Internet Explorer 8, which will both have moved forward too.

Re:It's unfair

[masklinn]

And Firefox 2 doesn't pass Acid 2 because no work has been done on Gecko (it still uses 1.8, the same as Deer Park)

While i'm as much of a Firefox fan as the next guy (maybe more), this is not an argument, no one cares whether or not work has been done on Gecko, what's tested is the output, and the output is that Firefox doesn't pass acid2.

Re:It's unfair

[El Tonerino]

Internet Explorer 8, which will both have moved forward too.

Yeah... about that... really... quick... dev..el..op..ment.. time ... that ... i...e... is doing.....

Re:It's unfair

[Millennium]

And Firefox 2 doesn't pass Acid 2 because no work has been done on Gecko (it still uses 1.8, the same as Deer Park)

If the Firefox team decides to de-prioritize the standards that people care about and instead work on fluff, then they deserve all the criticism they get for it. To gain your popularity from standards and then consciously choose to allow yourself to fall into dead last among modern browsers in standards support is, to say the least, disturbingly hypocritical.

Re:It's unfair

[IANAAC]

I haven't read the article yet, but even I managed to read this in the summary:

with feature comparisons and tests of resource usage, startup time, and Acid2 standards compliance.

Looks to me like they are comparing all those things. And that being the case, I also don't believe it's fair to compar beta with relased versions.

Re:It's unfair

[JebusIsLord]

Aw come on, they've indicated that the IE team has reformed and will be working on IE8... its not like last time when the whole thing was mothballed.

Re:It's unfair

[bhirsch]

I'm not that much of a Firefox fan, despite using it, and I honestly don't care whether it passes the Acid2 test. In fact, if anything (like backwards compatibility) is sacrificed for it to pass, I would hope that it doesn't.

Re:It's unfair

[theodicey]

Can someone explain to me why Acid 2 is important (or even relevant)?

As far as I can tell it's just a meaningless statistic. It reminds me of the processor clock speed wars. You don't buy a processor because it runs at 3.3 GHz as opposed to 1.9 GHz, you buy it because it's actually faster in real-world usage scenarios.

And in real-world web rendering tasks, Firefox is the best browser I've used.

Re:It's unfair

[Shining Celebi]

If the Firefox team decides to de-prioritize the standards that people care about and instead work on fluff, then they deserve all the criticism they get for it. To gain your popularity from standards and then consciously choose to allow yourself to fall into dead last among modern browsers in standards support is, to say the least, disturbingly hypocritical.

Well, Firefox is still not "dead last" among other browsers. It's still well ahead of IE7 and roughly equal to Opera 9 (iirc Opera has a slight lead, but not much.) Tied for the lead is not the same as dead last. Not only that, but Firefox 3 should put Firefox way ahead, and it's due out May 2007, not exactly the distant future.

Re:It's unfair

[Anc]

Why? This is a comparison of features, not stability, compliance or even speed. Betas are supposed to be feature complete.

That depends on what you understand by features. The features may be already there but it doesn't mean they won't be any significant improvements. IE7 went through major UI changes from beta to beta. It's not a feature per se but it still makes a big difference, doesn't it? Similarly, a couple of improvements are expected to be included in Firefox 2 but haven't made it to beta 1. It's not unfair to compare the final and beta versions as long as we explicitly warn about the potential inaccuracies. TFA did do it, so it's aight with me.

Re:It's unfair

[Bogtha]

Browsers are lousy in terms of supporting the various specifications people have published that define useful things web developers want and need to do. This has numerous effects:

• It slows down and frustrates web developers.
• It raises the costs of web development.
• It makes some things impossible.

All of these are pretty bad for web developers, but they have knock-on effects that end-users suffer from, but don't understand. For example, when was the last time you ran across a bug on a website? Did you ever consider that a web developer would have got around to fixing it before you had trouble with it if he hadn't been busy trying to work around a bug in Internet Explorer?

The Acid2 test is merely a collection of all kinds of ways in which browsers screw up support for particular specifications. The idea is that it contains lots of things that browsers get wrong which cause hassle for web developers, and that browser developers can use it as a check-list for bugs. It's also a gimmick to raise awareness for these bugs to put pressure on the browser developers to fix them.

The more browsers that pass the Acid2 test, the better support there is for web developers. The better support there is for web developers, the higher the quality of the work they put out. And you, as an end-user of that work, benefit. It's too many steps removed for you to see, but it's certainly not the meaningless statistic you think it is.

To use your analogy with CPUs, imagine if every CPU screwed up 10% of the time, and applications like word processors and mail clients had to have 30% more code written to work around the bugs in CPUs. Would you say that was a problem, and demand better quality CPUs, or would you say "Hey, not a problem, the application developers can work around it, right?" Because that's the analogous situation; the "processors" of the WWW are utterly broken, and a huge amount of effort is being wasted because they aren't getting fixed.

Re:It's unfair

[jZnat]

It's the only consensus so far for a large CSS test case since the W3C hasn't provided any along with the CSS specifications. If you pass Acid2, you support and comply to a large majority of the CSS standard.

Re:It's unfair

[z0I!)]

Opera 9 passes the Acid2 test - that means firefox is not tied for the lead.

Re:It's unfair

[The Philosophers Cat]

It's unfair to compare Beta versions with a completed version

Oh come on, anyone would think you've never heard of Google!

Re:It's unfair

[TankerJoe19K]

Why? This is a comparison of features, not stability, compliance or even speed. Betas are supposed to be feature complete.

True, except that this is a comparison of features, stability, compliance, and speed.

At least that is what I got out of reading TFA.

Re:It's unfair

[Bogtha]

It's the only consensus so far for a large CSS test case since the W3C hasn't provided any

W3C CSS test suites.

Re:It's unfair

[Skreems]

The Firefox 2 Beta mutilated smiley is a lot more recognizable than the IE 7 Beta mutilated smiley. What's this "dead last" you're talking about?

Re:It's unfair

[hankwang]

imagine if every CPU screwed up 10% of the time, and applications like word processors and mail clients had to have 30% more code written to work around the bugs in CPUs.

You would be making a fuss about useless ideal standards. If 90% of the market is running this XYZ processor, then it is the de facto standard. :)

Re:It's unfair

[laffer1]

Well maybe some of us don't like Microsoft's idea of the web. Standards bodies are there to try to encourge innovation. At least they think of new ideas. What has Microsoft done with IE in years? Many of the new IE 7 features are just ripped off with a slight twist for MS to save face.

Microsoft has high marketshare but its not all one version either. A 90 percent defacto standard is one thing but when some people still use ie 5.x, it lowers the numbers. In some circles firefox is at 25 percent. That is just firefox not including netscape's gecko based browsers or the mozilla suite.

Another thing to consider is that a 90 percent statistic can't be right. If 90 percent of the desktops in the world run windows, and not all run IE6 how can IE have 90 percent marketshare? Granted not everything is on the internet either. I suspect those statistics are "created" by some online marketing firm or the posters mind. I almost never use IE in windows. It would be nice to see an os/browser breakdown for a change. I'd like to know what percentage of Windows users run IE, Firefox, and Opera. Similarly, I'd like to see what percentage of Linux, BSD, and Solaris users run Firefox, Opera, Konquerer, and so on. Lets not forget the mac either. Most mac users don't use IE anymore. Its been discussed recently on the apple web dev list. Safari and Firefox are very popular. Up until last month I was a mac systems administrator. My macs only had firefox and safari as a choice. I explictly deleted ie from the 10.2 systems and newer versions don't ship with IE. (maybe 10.3 did at release but not with my iBook)

Does anyone know of a log analyzer that can break up user agents by os version? (free or open source is better)

Re:It's unfair

[Shining Celebi]

Opera 9 passes the Acid2 test - that means firefox is not tied for the lead.

The Acid2 test is not the be all and end all of CSS compliance. It tests a limited portion of the standard, including some error handling issues, as I recall. It would be quite possible to support more of CSS than any browser today and fail the Acid2 test miserably. Conversely, you can pass the test and be horrible at rendering CSS. It's just like the Acid2 page says: passing the test doesn't guarantee conformance with any specification.

IMHO, people need to focus less on Acid2 and more on the standards as a whole. Bother Firefox and Opera are doing well, but they can and should do better.

Re:It's unfair

[Excelsior]

Who said anything about de facto standards? De facto standards are completely contrary to what everyone else is talking about when they say "standards". They are generally referring to open standards. Microsoft Word's doc format may be de facto, but it is in no way open. If two vendors implement Open Document Format, they can compete equally, and the one who makes the best document processor will likely win out. Conversely, using the de facto standard .doc, Open Office can never implement a word processor as well as Microsoft. The playing field isn't equal.

The internet was designed from the ground up to be an equal playing field, and we have open standards for a reason. De facto standards are never an acceptable alternative to open standards.

Re:It's unfair

[Bing Tsher E]

When Firefox 3 is released, we can compare that with Opera 10 and Internet Explorer 8,

Not unless there's a native binary of IE8 for NetBSD on sparc, we won't.

I don't know why people even act like there's a competition. IE is a non-player.

Re:It's unfair

[drsmithy]

Standards bodies are there to try to encourge innovation. At least they think of new ideas.

You seem to have that arse-about-face. I really don't see how bodies whose sole purpose is to get everyone doing the same thing can possibly be "encouraging innovation".

Re:It's unfair

[shellbeach]

It's unfair? This is just a simple comparison of browser features, that's all. It's aim is not to award prizes, but to point out what's present and what's lacking. I'll quote from the final paragraph of the article:

"These are all fine apps; we recommend you give them each a spin--it's a free download, after all--and stick with the one you find the most comfortable. Just keep in mind that IE7 is still beta (and you'll need to check the Show Updates box in Control Panel's Add Remove Programs window if you want to remove it), and Firefox is even earlier beta. For most users, it probably makes sense to wait for a later beta for Firefox and go ahead and try IE7 with a little caution."[my emphasis]

Personally, I find it amusing/illuminating/sad that the fact that Firefox is OSS is never mentioned. Surely it's something that's at least of passing interest to a self-designated tech site? *sigh*

Re:It's unfair

[hankwang]

I think you have been taking my comment too seriously. :) I pulled the numbers out of my hat, but a popular non-tech site I maintain has 96% Windows, 85% MSIE, 11% FF. For another site which is has a few popular LaTeX pages it is more like 70, 44, 37%, but let's face it, this is not representative for the general population.

Re:It's unfair

[tbannist]

That's fair. Standards bodies don't encourage innovation, they document it and make it repeatable.

Re:It's unfair

[the web]

"When Firefox 3 is released, we can compare that with Opera 10 and Internet Explorer 8, which will both have moved forward too."

I didn't know that Firefox 3 had a seven year road map...

I've seen better

[dtfinch]

The "Features at a Glance" table is very inaccurate with respect to Opera. For one, Opera has very good theme support.

And the author mixes up kb and mb on another page.

Re:I've seen better

[Chosen Reject]

Not mention that IE 7 has favorites but the other browsers don't. I was unaware that favorites and bookmarks are different in any significant way.

Re:I've seen better

[Khuffie]

Ya, I noticed that. Opera has great theme support which isn't mentioned. The 'download pause' makes it sounds like its worse than Firefox's, you can actually resume pasued downloads in Opera. Doesn't mention that it had the "reopen a closed tab" before Firefox, and one of it's biggest features: built-in mail.

Re:I've seen better

[kerry-buckley]

And the author mixes up kb and mb on another page.

Kilobits and millibars?

Re:I've seen better

[sharkey]

It's a difference in target markets. The "bookmarks" metaphor is to give the user who is used to reading dead tree books and using bookmarks to hold his place in said books a recognizable term to marking a "place" on the Internet. "Favorites" is the metaphor for those who are expected to NOT have ever used a bookmark.

Re:I've seen better

[Chosen Reject]

That's all fine and good, but the functionality is the same, and the table says that Firefox and Opera don't have it. So in essence they are claiming the Firefox and Opera don't have the ability to mark web pages for easy retrieval later. That's like saying the French don't have heads simply because their word for it is tete. Same thing, different name.

Re:I've seen better

[whitehatlurker]

And Opera has text box spelling ... I have just used it on this article.

I can't fathom why any would have those useless thumbnail tab views.

Re:I've seen better

[Petrushka]

Agreed. Also, in spite of mentioning various other "bonus" features (like BitTorrent clients and RSS), they don't mention that Opera is also an e-mail client, IRC client, and newsreader. I kinda wonder why. I can see someone saying, "Well, we think that a browser should render these kinds of pages, download stuff, have an RSS reader and BitTorrent client, but not those other things", but just to keep silent about them? That's ... dodgy, to say the least.

But it took until I saw the figures for memory usage in kB -- lower-than-realistic figures, too, for all three browsers -- to decide that nothing in this article is trustworthy, because it's simply not well-researched.

Of course the "kB" figures are only on the print-formatted version of the article -- oh yes, there are two articles here, and they actually say quite different things in some places.

I notice they've posted a non-apologetic correction about the false claim that Firefox has no "new tab" button (not in the print-formatted version of the article, though); no corrections to their misinformation about Opera though.

Re:I've seen better

[HaydnH]

"...and one of it's biggest features: built-in mail."

I don't see that as a "biggest feature", I see that as a big downfall. What if I am forced to use Notes or similar at work - why would I want built-in mail which provides more code for bugs/security vulnerabilities to hide? At least you can use Firefox as a standalone browser or the Mozilla suite if you want built-in mail. Personally I use Firefox & Thunderbird as I do a lot of browsing/e-mail checking without doing the other - why waste system resources loading the other when it's not being used?

Re:I've seen better

[Khuffie]

A little known fact is that it's actually not loaded unless you setup a mail account. The same goes for the IRC client. If they're not used, they don't use any resources. (The Mozilla suite doesn't offer built-in mail, you still have to pop open another app).

Re:I've seen better

[HaydnH]

"The Mozilla suite doesn't offer built-in mail, you still have to pop open another app"

Errr yes it does... that's why it's called a suite instead of just a browser or e-mail client. From mozilla.com: "Web-browser, advanced e-mail and newsgroup client, IRC chat client, and HTML editing made simple -- all your Internet needs in one application."

Re:I've seen better

[Ebirah]

Opera seems to get a poor press from people who don't use it and who don't know it.
Inside its compact footprint there are awesome quantities of built-in browsery goodness, frequently not supplied as standard with any other browser (and hence generally ignored when comparisons are being made)...

User javascript in Firefox runs via a dodgy extension. In Opera, the same scripts can run direct from the main application.

Mouse gestures: again, in FF via a extension - in Opera built-in. The capability for Mouseless browsing is also built-in.

Content blocking. In FF, via an extension - in Opera built-in.

Built-in mail, news, chat, RSS, and now BitTorrent. (But only if you want them.)

Custom searches that can be added with a couple of mouse clicks.

Menus, toolbars, themes, all very easily customised.

I'm finding Opera's widgets to be almost superfluous, because of the range of things the main browser can already be set up to do.

Oh, and it's portable too: http://www.opera-usb.com/operausben.htm/

Re:I've seen better

[Khuffie]

Claiming something and it being true are completely different things. And that statement doesn't claim it's actually built-in. Yes, you download a single installer for all of the above, but it's still a separate app. The only 'integration' is the fact that there's a link to the email app from within the browser. In Opera it is actually built-in; you never leave your browser to check your mail since they're one app.

Re:I've seen better

[HaydnH]

"Yes, you download a single installer for all of the above, but it's still a separate app.

Oh stop talking about thinks you obviously know nothing about - try this if you want to be proven wrong:

- Download and install the mozilla suite
- Open the task manager and look at the processes tab to note the number of processes (N)
- Run Mozilla Suite and note the processes is now N+1
- Select mail from the window menu or press ctrl-2 to open mail, note processes is still N+1!!
- Close both the mail and mozilla suite and note the processes is N again
- Apologise for arguing incorrect points!

Re:I've seen better

[Khuffie]

Processes? Who cares about processes? So it's a single app that acts like two apps, but the point remains that it still acts like two. How about you go download and install Opera, run it, try out the built-in mail, see the difference between it and Mozilla from an end-user point of view, and then apologize for being too stupid to see my point?

Searching from the address bar

[Tet]

From TFA: the address bar is for URLs, not searches.

I couldn't disagree more. One of the things that kept me with the original Mozilla suite for so long, rather than switching to Firefox was the ability to trigger a search from the address bar. Now that Firefox can do the same (and not waste screen real estate with an unneccesary extra box), I've switched. What do you possibly gain by having a separate search box? I just don't get it.

Now if only they could fix Gecko's inability to render display: inline-block properly, it might become a halfway usable browser. Quite why it's taken so long is beyond me. It's was originally logged as a bug 7 years ago (it's bug 9458, if you want to vote for it). So, Mozilla Organisation, *please* stop adding more and more features that I really don't want, and fix your fscking layout engine. Wasn't that meant to be one of the original goals of Mozilla? To have a browser with a rendering engine that didn't suck? What happened to that concept?

Re:Searching from the address bar

[creepynut]

Also from TFA: in Firefox requires going through menus, or double clicking on the empty space to the right of the last tab (if you knew about that--usability is about making needed features obvious)

Having it in the search bar makes it practially hidden. Having a second bar, which by default has the Google icon, makes it a little more obvious that the browser has built in search capabilities, and where it can be accessed.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[zoney_ie]

I'd like if there was a simple button to switch the text entry field between "URL processing" and "searching". I don't want some bizarre search just because I mistyped a URL.

And I *certainly* don't want the search to default to bringing me to the first result automatically.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[Bogtha]

Now if only they could fix Gecko's inability to render display: inline-block properly, it might become a halfway usable browser. Quite why it's taken so long is beyond me. It's was originally logged as a bug 7 years ago

Seven years ago, that was a proprietary Internet Explorer property. It's been added to the upcoming CSS 2.1, but that's still only a draft. It's not like it's been a missing part of CSS support for seven years, until recently it was totally non-standard, and technically it still is.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to google or wherever, right click on the search box (where you type in your search terms) and select something like "add keyword for this search" and set the keyword to 'g'.

Now, to search with the address bar, just type "g searchterm1 searcheterm2 etc"

In conjunction with the alt-d "goto address bar" shortcut, this rocks.

--Murph

Re:Searching from the address bar

[Tx]

I couldn't disagree more. One of the things that kept me with the original Mozilla suite for so long, rather than switching to Firefox was the ability to trigger a search from the address bar. Now that Firefox can do the same (and not waste screen real estate with an unneccesary extra box), I've switched. What do you possibly gain by having a separate search box? I just don't get it.

I'm totally with you on that. Although I can understand why newbs^H^H^H^H^Hsome people might want a separate search box, the convenience of being able to search from the URL bar is a boon for many.

Actually I type this I'm not sure if we're talking about quicksearches, or just the default "I feel lucky" google search when a non-URL is entered, but I'm a fan of both.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[Tet]

It's been added to the upcoming CSS 2.1, but that's still only a draft. It's not like it's been a missing part of CSS support for seven years, until recently it was totally non-standard, and technically it still is.

Agreed. However, it is an essential layout ingredient (to the point, where many layouts can't be implemented without it, short of resorting to tables). Also, the W3C is shooting itself in the foot by releasing specs so slowly. The last officially approved CSS spec was released in 1999. At this point, no one really expects any significant changes to CSS2.1 before it's approved, and there's not really any excuse for not implementing it fully in a browser released in 2006.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[riflemann]

I couldn't disagree more. One of the things that kept me with the original Mozilla suite for so long, rather than switching to Firefox was the ability to trigger a search from the address bar. Now that Firefox can do the same (and not waste screen real estate with an unneccesary extra box), I've switched. What do you possibly gain by having a separate search box? I just don't get it.

I assume then that you've been on Firefox for a while now. Keyword based searches have been in FF for many years.

In the properties for a bookmark, setting a keyword means that entering " " loads the bookmark with the literal '%s' replaced with .

But I guess now the extra context menu item makes this easier.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[dtfinch]

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9458

Voted.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[doti]

One of the things that kept me with the original Mozilla suite for so long, rather than switching to Firefox was the ability to trigger a search from the address bar.

You should learn to use Quick Searches.

I don't use the search bar in firefox (custumise toolbar and drag it off), rather search directly from the address bar.

These are some I have (removed http:/// so /. won't create links and mess the % char).


g: www.google.com/search?q=%s
img: images.google.com/images?q=%s
w: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%s
man: www.linuxpakistan.net/man.php?query=%s
fm: freshmeat.net/search/?section=projects&q=%s
ext: addons.mozilla.org/search.php?app=firefox&type=E&q =%s
sf: sourceforge.net/search/?type_of_search=soft&words= %s
sl: slackware.it/en/pb/search.php?v=current&t=1&q=%s
pkg: www.linuxpackages.net/search_view.php?by=name&name =%s

Re:Searching from the address bar

[great throwdini]

However, it [inline-block] is an essential layout ingredient.

Is it? Given today's confused state of CSS support amongst browsers, I can't say that I've ever found this to be a "must have" property. Broadening support to include it would be nice, but in day-to-day webwork, I just haven't seen its absence to be a deal-breaker of any sort.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[nanio]

I like have the extra Google text box so that I can retain the search term to facilitate parallel searches over several tabs. It also reminds me of what I started looking for in the first place once I end up distracted by http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/. Hooray for anti-ADHD search boxes!

Re:Searching from the address bar

[Dan East]

What you quoted is in reference to adding a new tab. They complained FireFox hasn't a single-click method of adding a new tab. The first thing I do when I install FireFox on a new computer is add the "New Tab" toolbar button (right-click on an existing toolbar button, select "Customize..." then drag "New Tab" onto the toolbar). Apparently the author of the article is not aware the toolbar is customizable?

Dan East

Re:Searching from the address bar

[mzwaterski]

Great tip. Thanks!!

Re:Searching from the address bar

[jalefkowit]

What do you possibly gain by having a separate search box? I just don't get it.

Predictability.

Power users have no problem absorbing the idea of One Widget That Does Many Things, but less savvy users can find it utterly confusing. "Wait, I type my search in there? I thought you said that's where I type web page addresses." These users benefit from the separated boxes because it becomes clear exactly what you should do with each, and you don't get confusion from failure modes like I-had-a-typo-in-my-URL-so-it-ran-a-search-but-I-di dn't-ask-it-to-search-what-is-going-on.

Firefox is designed for these users, not for power users. So having a box for search and a box for addresses makes a lot of sense.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[_Sprocket_]

Hooray for anti-ADHD search boxes!

Hooray beer!

Wait... what were we talking about?

Re:Searching from the address bar

[pNutz]

Seven years ago, that was a proprietary Internet Explorer property. It's been added to the upcoming CSS 2.1, but that's still only a draft.

Wow, it sounds like Dvorak was right about something.

*ducks*
*no, fuck that, runs*
*runs for his goddam life*

Re:Searching from the address bar

[GigsVT]

What do you possibly gain by having a separate search box? I just don't get it.

Indeed, you don't.

If I have a host named "porn" on my network, and I type "porn" into the address bar, I better damn well get the host I want and not some search.

We have a host named "pegasus" and I can't tell you how many times I've been to the pegasus mail web site and didn't want to be.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[sasdrtx]

The auxiliary search box on Firefox has the advantage of allowing you to select from many different search tools. And add some new ones. I use the dictionary, Wikipedia, and IMDB from time-to-time, whereas more of my Google searches are from my customized Google start page.

However, that feature could probably be integrated with the address bar.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[gsn]

Might help. Works a bit more like the original mozilla though FF gets confused if your search term has a period or slash in it (understandably)

http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/tips#beh_se arch

Re:Searching from the address bar

[jZnat]

Ctrl-L (or Cmd-L, or just C-L for short) goes to the location/address bar in pretty much any browser. C-K goes to the search bar usually, but not always (Safari doesn't do this IIRC). C-W closes a window (or tab) across all browsers. F5 refreshes the page in all browsers.

You should learn these sorts of shortcuts to save yourself the trouble of using the mouse or learning new shortcuts all the time.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[Snover]

Currently, the only way to create elements that are side-by-side with variable widths and the ability to control vertical positioning is by floating block-level elements. The float makes it impossible for them to be centered on the page. There are many other good reasons for inline-block, this just happens to be one I ran up to most recently. It REALLY needs to be implemented.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[Gr8Apes]

One of the things that kept me with the original Mozilla suite for so long, rather than switching to Firefox was the ability to trigger a search from the address bar. Now that Firefox can do the same (and not waste screen real estate with an unneccesary extra box), I've switched.

It's been possible for a long long long time. Create a Bookmark for Google with this as the URL:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&btnG=Google+Sea rch&q=%s (minus the spaces /. puts in)
and in the keyword field, type something you'll remember, like 'g'. Save and close the bookmark/manager.

Now, in the address bar, type "g <something to search for>" and hit return.

Voila - Google results page for <something to search for>.

PS: this can also be used for sites like dictionary.com (prefaced with 'd' for me), and any other site that uses a parameter in the URL.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[Morrigu]

Ctrl-T works just fine for me.

I can understand if you're only using a mouse or trackball or random USB input device, especially in one hand, but browsing without your hands on the keyboard feels like I'm trying to steer a canoe without a paddle.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[The Philosophers Cat]

Opera has a google search box next to the address bar *and* you can search from the address bar (a little drop down menu comes up as you've typing with a "g" next to the word you've typed, click on it and you're away).

Re:Searching from the address bar

[Tim C]

One of the things that kept me with the original Mozilla suite for so long, rather than switching to Firefox was the ability to trigger a search from the address bar.

And one of the first things I switch off in IE (for those times when I have to use it) is searching from the address bar.

If I've typoed an URL, I want to know about it, I don't want something to present me with a list of options or to take me to its best guess at what I meant.

YMM, and obviously does, V.

Now that Firefox can do the same (and not waste screen real estate with an unneccesary extra box)

I have that "unnecessary extra box" right next to the address box; I'm assuming that's the default, as I certainly won't have put it there (if I want to search, I go to google first). This is in 1.5.0.4, although I've upgraded steadily from 1.4ish at a guess.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[Petrushka]

Also you can configure Opera to associate other search engines with other letters -- e.g. "a searchterm" for searching Amazon, "w searchterm" for Wikipedia, etc etc. (Adding new search engines requires first going to one of these sites and right-clicking on a search text-box on the web page to choose "add search engine" or whatever it is; you then go to preferences to associate that search engine with a letter.)

Re:Searching from the address bar

[PhotoGuy]

One of the main reasons I love Opera is that opening "g blah" will do a google search for "blah". There are several other shortcuts. It saves me a lot of time over having a separate search bar/box/menu.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[jez9999]

Woah, don't decry the 'new tab' button just because you don't use it. I'm sur you realise such behaviour is stupid.

I often use it when I'm in 'reading' mode and am not using the keyboard, but am copy/pasting a URL using the mouse.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[jez9999]

Hmm. It does rather sound like you're too lazy to specify a protocol to the browser. Just typing a bareword in there is like saying "I want orange." to the browser. Do you want a list of orange stuff, a drink of orange, the colour orange...? Doing a search doesn't seem any less intuative than going to a certain port on the host so-named...

Re:Searching from the address bar

[GigsVT]

If I type a hostname into an FTP client I think it should assume ftp protocol.

If I type hostname into a web browser, the web runs on http, so of course it should assume http.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[poulbailey]

Almost every browser under the sun has that feature. Even IE can be made to understand keyword searches using a plugin from 1999 no less.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[theLOUDroom]

If I have a host named "porn" on my network, and I type "porn" into the address bar, I better damn well get the host I want and not some search.

That's not a problem with the concept it's a problem with the implementation.

Konqueror does this right:
just type in something => url
type "gg:something" and you get a google seach for something

It's both unambiguous, and not wasteful of screen real estate.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[ta11geese3]

I couldn't disagree more. One of the things that kept me with the original Mozilla suite for so long, rather than switching to Firefox was the ability to trigger a search from the address bar. Now that Firefox can do the same (and not waste screen real estate with an unneccesary extra box), I've switched. What do you possibly gain by having a separate search box? I just don't get it.

I don't know what new feature you're talking about since I haven't read the article, but FF has always been able to trigger searches from the address bar with using keywords. For example, if I wanted to search for "ipod", I'd simply press control-l to get to the address bar, and then type "g ipod". On amazon? Type "am ipod". And so on. Fast and simple. Granted, I could have pressed control k for the search box, but sometimes I have the wrong engine there.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[Sparr0]

I have one hand on the keyboard and one on the mouse in 'reading mode'. It is amazingly efficient. Copy/paste a URL uses both hands at the same time to select, copy, focus, paste. Ctrl+T is just a bit of a stretch for my normal sized hands, but nothing too different from the ever-present Ctrl+R.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[I didn't]

You don't get it either.

In the Mozilla suite the search option is located on the last row of the URL history. Just type the search terms in the address bar, press up to highlight the search option, and hit enter to initiate the search. One less hotkey to remember.

Speaking of search, in Mozilla suite we use Ctrl+Enter to open the search in new tab. Anyone know how to do it in Firefox?

Re:Searching from the address bar

[Hast]

As does Firefox.

The user friendly way to add a custom search in FF is to right click on a search field and select "Add a keyword for this search."

Re:Searching from the address bar

[cout]

Using the search box instead of the address box means you can edit your search later and then do a new search. If the address bar changes (because you clicked on a link), you lose your search text.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[makomk]

IIRC, one of the goals of the reflow work being done is to make it possible to add inline-block support, but that won't arrive until at least Firefox 3.0...

Re:Searching from the address bar

[GigsVT]

What does a browser that a fraction of 1% of the population uses have to do with anything? Mozilla was obselete the day Firefox 1.0 came out.

The only reason it's still around is because of an extremely tiny and vocal minority that can't deal with change.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[ben there...]

Firefox actually does the same. The default is "google Something", but I like to change it to "g Something". You can do it with any search engine easily.

I posted about this thread and GigsVT's post in the Slashback.

P.S. I wonder where the best place to post replies is with all these Slashback dupe stories...

Re:Searching from the address bar

[TheShadowzero]

Unless the URL isn't a hyperlink (which it always should be), you don't need a New Tab button. Middle-clicking the link gives you a new tab with that url, if you don't have a middle mouse button, right-click and "Open link in new tab"

Re:Searching from the address bar

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

So is the solution to gimp the browser, or set up your DNS properly?

I can put local servers on my network into the address bar, without a protocol indicator (ie: mymailserver by itself) and it correctly brings up the web site hosted on that server.

Re:Searching from the address bar

[GigsVT]

It's not gimping the browser, it's making it do what it's supposed to do. If I type in a bad hostname, it should tell me, not try to guess what I might have meant.

Spelling checkers

[Bogtha]

Standout features are Opera's built-in BitTorrent support, Firefox's spellchecker for forms, and IE's Quick Tabs view.

How can Firefox's spelling checker be a "standout feature" when Opera, Safari and Konqueror already have it built in? It's more of a "catch-up feature" than a "standout feature".

Re:Spelling checkers

[yomahz]

let me clarify before the trolls have their field day:

My understanding from the context of TFA is that it stands out because none of the other (reviewed) browsers support it.

Re:Spelling checkers

[Bogtha]

Contrary to your statement, opera does not have spell checking out of the box. It's available as a 3rd party add-on.

I know that's what the article says, but it's highly misleading. Opera hooks into the native spelling checker on each platform it runs on. On OS X, this is an official system service. On other platforms, it uses Aspell - which comes as standard in virtually every Linux distribution and installed on most UNIX systems. Windows doesn't provide a standard spelling checker, but Opera still uses Aspell if it's installed.

So "third-party add-on" is a long way from the truth. It's automatically available without any add-on necessary on most platforms, and it automatically recognises a common spelling-checker if it's installed on Windows. It's nothing like Firefox 1 and the Google extension at all.

Re:Spelling checkers

[Bazman]

And who types into text boxes anyway? Don't we all just install mozex and use our favourite editor? I'm typing this in emacs. M-x ispell-buffer. Sorted.

Re:Spelling checkers

[drinkypoo]

why on earth is having a spellchecker in a web browser a good thing ? is that color or colour ? aluminium or aluminium ? etc etc if you are looking to add bloat to your application by adding huge language specific wordlists and cpu hogging lookups in a fsking webbrowser then i can't think of a better thing to do, other than add email but iam sure thats coming, we all know how software evolves

First: you have to install dictionaries. They have come in various versions for a long time now, including separate versions for US English and UK English. Second: It's not that much bloat. It's useful. I'd personally do it as an extension though - like spellbound. You could choose to install or not install it. I'd just ship the extension with the application.

Third: Email was part of Communicator, nee Mozilla Suite. It's still in seamonkey. It's not in firefox. It's not going to be in firefox, unless someone writes an extension to do it, because they deliberately broke it out already.

Re:Spelling checkers

[Mr. Underbridge]

How can Firefox's spelling checker be a "standout feature" when Opera, Safari and Konqueror already have it built in? It's more of a "catch-up feature" than a "standout feature".

Compared to IE. That's the battle here really, the fight for marketshare on windows PCs. Safari and Konqueror don't run on Windows, and Opera's marketshare is so low as to make it an afterthought.

Re:Spelling checkers

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Is there an "official" release of MozEx that works with FF 1.5.*?

If there is, I can't seem to locate it. Or you use one of the modified versions and would heartily recommend it?

Re:Spelling checkers

[Telex4]

For Konqueror at least it's not any extra code. Maybe some developers are used to having to develop everything from scratch, but here in GNU/Linux we have these lovely things called APIs.

Any KDE application can get spellchecking in forms with no effort. It comes with the KDE libraries. That's just a sensible way to do things, and one reason that Konqueror and applications like it will always require less effect to rock - they inherit improvements made across the platform.

Re:Spelling checkers

[guisar]

bekaus a bunch of mirons cant' spelll and macking its incombenient May hlp 'dem impoov.

Re:Spelling checkers

[drinkypoo]

MacOS provides spellchecking functionality as well. Windows is about the only one that doesn't. I do wonder if it's possible to use the Word spellchecker in other applications, though. Sounds like a nightmare, regardless...

well,

[joe 155]

I've been impressed with what I've heard about IE 7, it really seems like they are making some good moves with it finally. Being a Linux user I'll probably never see it but it seems that I wouldn't be that annoyed using it these days. IE will never be as good as Firefox because of the extensions, there just aren't that many good programmers who would be willing to give up their time to MS for free; so Firefox still has the edge.

I wish they would all get their act together and pass the ACID2 test though.

Re:well,

[Kjella]

I wish they would all get their act together and pass the ACID2 test though.

Well, just vote with your wal... umm, use the browser that supports what you want. Plus, you might find it has most of what you want with considerably less assembly required... /me is using an ACID2-passing browser.

Re:well,

[Derek Pomery]

http://www.nelchael.net/varia/fireflowfox.png
Firefox 3.0

Re:well,

[cerberusss]

Being a Linux user I'll probably never see it

I'm a Linux user too and run IE6 (quite stable!) every now and then for the occasional broken website. I use CodeWeavers' Crossover Office, a commercial version of wine. It won't take long for the Wine hackers to get IE7 running.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[tehshen]

I'm with you here. I'd use Opera much more if it actually looked like the desktop environment it runs under.

Re:Opera?

[creepynut]

Are you also aware that Opera has been free for some time? That is, Opera on the Desktop, their mobile versions still cost money.

No new tab buttion?

[turbo_magic_hat]

One peeve [about firefox]: Why isn't there still a one-click button for adding a new tab?

Not exactly rocket science to add one (Right-click > Customize > Drag the new tab button > Done) but I wonder why it's not there by default.

Re:No new tab buttion?

[ChristTrekker]

I just use Ctrl-T (or Cmd-T on my Mac).

Re:No new tab buttion?

[Kandenshi]

I just middle click on my "home" button. *shrugs*

Loads a new tab for me just fine with only one click. Or did you mean a single keyboard button?

For that, I suggest "e" =D

Re:No new tab buttion?

[AshtangiMan]

Hah, the middle button on home works . . . just tried it. But, I have firefox set up so that my "home" is really a group of 4 pages (slashdot is not one of them). So 4 new tabs opened. This is a little bit annoying . . . I would suggest something like an original page set for opening, but the home would only be tied to one of them (or even a different page altogether). It makes little sense, ie functionality lost, for the home to be tied to multiple pages.

Re:No new tab buttion?

[pisces22]

Use mouse gestures. Just click (or right-click in my case) and drag the mouse straight up. Voilà! New tab.

What about extensions?

[Blimey85]

I don't think comparing stock Firefox with anything is very relevant. You need to compare Firefox loaded with some extensions to show the true power of the platform. Same with the other browsers and their addons or widgets.

One example of not doing this is in the feature comparison table where it says that Firefox can't remember open tabs for the next session. My copy of Firefox not only does that when I want it to, it also has crash recovery so when I restart I can choose to reopen all of the tabs or not.

Re:What about extensions?

[Blimey85]

Another example is the claim that Firefox can only zoom text and not images. There is an image zoom extension that does what the name implies.

Maybe the Firefox developers should do a build that has every (non-conflicting) extension that exists just so the comparison will really show the power of Firefox. How else will people know what it really can and can't do?

After reading this I would think that Firefox lacks a few features that I use, in Firefox, on a regular basis. Maybe the author of the article doesn't use Firefox on a regular basis. Otherwise you'd think he would know about this stuff. Not like these are real obscure extensions that you can't find on the main extension sites.

Re:What about extensions?

[Yvan256]

The problem with FireFox is the extensions. People want a good browser, not fiddle around hunting for what exists. Power users do that, sure, but not regular users.

Zooming images accordingly with the text should be a basic feature on all browsers, zomming the text only makes no sense IMO.

Re:What about extensions?

[CastrTroy]

Yeah, but extensions is a much better way to accomplish additional features without making the browser extremely bloated. I like to have some extensions that I know other people would hate. And other people have extensions that I would never want to use, or even have installed. It's the only sane way to have both lots of features, and not have a browser that feels bloated.

Re:What about extensions?

[baadger]

It's amusing that in one thread, people are complaining that Opera is ugly out of the box and shouldn't be so, and in another somebody else is saying hey extensions are OK and should be considered to compare the Firefox browser to it's full potential.

Your browsing experience is what you make it, no matter what browser you use, it's highly personal. There are no one size fits all solutions, which is what makes Firefox+Extensions and Opera's awesome configurability both truly superior to IE. Most of these feature comparison reviews are useless, as the author of the article says in his last paragraph, download and try them all and use what works for you.

Re:What about extensions?

[diamondsw]

zooming the text only makes no sense IMO

Until you're confronted with a web site that overrides your text preferences and scales the font either way down or way too huge. I've yet to see a site where I did want to scale images (which I imagine would be pretty ugly, unless the extension is doing fancy bicubic interpolation on every image on the page).

Re:What about extensions?

[LWATCDR]

"Zooming images accordingly with the text should be a basic feature on all browsers, zomming the text only makes no sense IMO."
You see I feel the exact opposite. Take slashdot for an example. Why would I want to zoom the logos and icons? All I care about is making the text larger.
I rarely ever want to zoom images and when I do it a single image I want to zoom.

Re:What about extensions?

[TheoMurpse]

Maybe the Firefox developers should do a build that has every (non-conflicting) extension that exists just so the comparison will really show the power of Firefox.

And then when browser comparisons are done, Firefox will have more features, sure, but it's RAM usage will be even higher in the reviews. It's a double-edged sword.

Re:What about extensions?

[drinkypoo]

I disagree. Keeping the functionality in extensions keeps the base install smaller. Pretty much everything should be implemented through extensions. It's a web browser, so it's not like fetching extensions from the web is much of a stretch. All one needs is a nice guide to them, the existing addons.mozilla.org site is quite good but it could use some more help in the "easy to figure out what the hell you're doing if you're a newbie" department.

Re:What about extensions?

[masterQba]

it makes sense to me

Re:What about extensions?

[Breakfast Pants]

It isn't just images that need to be zoomed; it is also the layout. A site like penny-arcade or digg is almost unreadable on my tiny laptop screen because they use a fixed pixel width layout. Opera shines here as it zooms everything. You currently can't get the same out of firefox, even with an extension.

Re:What about extensions?

[Breakfast Pants]

It isn't just zooming images that is the main good thing about say Opera's page zooming; it is that it even zooms pixel based layouts. Slashdot is fine, it uses a flowing layout. Look at digg, it is pixel based; increase the font size in firefox and the margins don't get larger.

Re:What about extensions?

[Espectr0]

I don't think comparing stock Firefox with anything is very relevant. You need to compare Firefox loaded with some extensions to show the true power of the platform.

Are you reading what you are saying? That's like saying it isn't fair to compare a stock small sedan with a stock ferrari because the sedan can be retrofitted with a ferrari engine.

Browsers should be compared on their stock versions, because that's what you will see when you download it. Sure you may be geeky enough to search for extensions, download and install them, but most people aren't like that.

The fact is that Opera 9 has tons of more features than firefox built-in without the need to hunt for extensions. Every time i see a user whine "but...but there's an extension!!one!" i want to cry

Re:What about extensions?

[AK Marc]

I don't think comparing stock Firefox with anything is very relevant.

Why not? For about the same size, same speed, and same memory needs, Opera and Firefox are near equals. Of course, that doesn't take into account that Opera includes many things that you'd need extensions for in Firefox. Want mouse gestures? You have to find one of the many extensions that offer that functionality. Then you have to integrate the 3rd party software into your existing browser. Opera is like Firefox with many useful extensions already tested and bundled, but for the same resources as the frill-free version.

Whenever extensions just work, then Firefox will be more competitive. Have central sites store or link to extensions. Have a testing procedure and stamp them with "approved for version 2.0" or whatever. Have the installation and removal be some automated process that doesn't involve the current trouble of finding and installing them, and not knowing how well they will integrate and work. And no, I'm not saying that it's necessary for anyone reading this. But it is necessary for general users. They don't want to fight with software. And they certainly don't want to have to step down in features with an extensionless Firefox. So, until extensions are better integrated, adding features into the "core" does make sense for increased penetration of Firefox.

Re:What about extensions?

[Blimey85]

Excellent point. You'll never get any large group of people to all like the same thing and that's why we have more than one browser to choose from. If everyone liked just one, then the others would go away from non-use. I like Firefox because of it's power. I can find an extension for pretty much anything and failing that, I can write my own. I can even get pages to render via IE in a tab on Firefox in case Firefox won't show a particular page correctly and it also allows me to use Windows Update without having to use IE.

Out of curiosity, which browser do you prefer?

Re:What about extensions?

[Blimey85]

You might be able to retrofit a stock sedan with a Ferrari engine but considering that one has it's engine in the front and the other has it in the rear, it's going to be a real bitch. One is front wheel drive, the other real wheel drive. I'll stop there... udder madness.

Firefox is designed to use extensions. The whole point of Firefox is to be small and lean (I'm not saying it is those things, just that it's supposed to be) and extensible. The developers want you to install whatever you want. Think of it like a pegboard. Firefox is the pegboard and Opera or IE is a storage shelf. You can hang stuff on the pegboard without using any hooks but it's not ideal. You want some basic hooks and then you can get fancy and use shelves and other doodads that attach to yoru pegboard to extend it's usefulness. When comparing the pegboard and the storage shelf, you wouldn't compare just the board with no hooks. That would be ridiculous.

Why then compare a browser that is designed from the ground up to leave out all but the essentials with a broser that includes much more? You should at the very least explain that yes, Firefox can do most if not all of the things the other browsers can do via extensions. How about taking it one step beyond that and actually installing the various extension it would require to make Firefox as close to the other browsers as possible, and then compare ther results. How do they stack up on a level playing field?

I read the article hoping for some real insight into what the advantages were of the other browsers but I immediately noticed that my copy of Firefox does much more than the authors copy so the data was useless to me. I don't know what the others can do that Firefox can't do and wasn't that the whole point? To really compare the three?

Re:What about extensions?

[Blimey85]

I agree extensions should work better. I've always maintained that Firefox should be avail in multiple versions like other software is. Take WinAMP for example: you can download the barebones version, a bigger version, or yet an even larger more featured version. Firefox could do the same or better yet, why not have a page where you check the boxes for the extensions you want. Just have maybe 10 or 20 of the most popular and maybe even have extension sets so the user could just click a couple boxes, choose a theme, and then download a single installer that would get them up to speed much faster.

As it is you have to download the core, then find the extensions you want and install them. Then find the theme you want. Then try to figure out why Firefox is crashing or why something isn't working right. It can be a real nightmare. For months I couldn't use AdBlock because it crashed Firefox. Even when that was the only thing installed it crashed for me on three different computers yet it's supposedly one of the most popuplar extensions. Eventually I tried it again and it worked fine. I have no idea what was causing the conflict. I've had other extensions cause problems and it took some time to finally figure out what really works and what doesn't. The average user isn't going to want to spend the time to get it to work. They'll just switch to IE and be done with it. May have less features but it never seems to crash (for me anyway and I use it very little so that could be why).

Re:What about extensions?

[fbg111]

The problem with FireFox is the extensions.

Agreed. It's a great option, but installing more than a handful starts affecting performance. Both Firefox and Opera are snappy, but load up FF with enough extensions and it noticeably loses responsiveness.

Re:What about extensions?

[baadger]

IETab is excellent, if only it could wangle the same thing under Linux using winelib or some such thing...

Out of curiosity, which browser do you prefer?

Opera, but for some reason I find myself using Firefox more when running Linux, under Windows i'm a 100% Opera devotee.

Re:What about extensions?

[kthejoker]

The obvious solution to this is that Firefox should make the browser homepage open up and offer you (concisely and quickly) the 10 Most Popular Extensions, and some links to some more.

They should make Extensions part of their introductory spiel, and they should make them more accessible and drawn in. They should have "Extensions Packages" wherein you can download 5 XPIs at once and have them all install. I'm a power user, and even I'm turned off by the prospect of hunting through dozens of extensions to find something worthwhile.

Re:What about extensions?

[anaesthetica]

I thought power users wanted everything and the kitchen sink in the browser (old Mozilla Suite), whereas the common user just wanted something they could surf the web and read MySpace with (Firefox)?

We have two different wrappers around the Gecko engine: SeaMonkey and Firefox. One has everything a developer/power user could want built in. The other has very little built in, but you can add whatever you want, if you so choose.

This is fairly simple people.

Re:What about extensions?

[xtracto]

Opera shines here as it zooms everything. You currently can't get the same out of firefox, even with an extension.

Although I use Firefox everyday and I do not use Opera, I used it some time ago (when it was in version 6 or 7 I think) and one of the things that most amazed me was the ability to zoom in out flash movies. I like that because I play a flash game and sometimes I need to see it bigger. I know the flash player has a zoom feature but I belive it is disabled or it kind of sucks as it zooms a lot. The Opera zoom feature instead zooms everything as it was an image, That is very good behaviour.

And yes I also hate the Firefox zoom behaviour, it really sucks and I try to keep the less "extensions" I can (adblock and foxylicious now) because they tend to fsck firefox.

That is the problem with Firefox, extensions may do great things but they do not have the same standard quality than the main browser, therefore a lot of extensions suck and hence make the browser suck when installed. They generate memory leaks (missusing javascript) or just make the browser unusable (if I disable the copernic agent extension the browser wont start spitting something about no XBL bind found).

THere are hundreds if not thousands of extensions, I guess 90% of them have serious bugs, the only people that maintain them are the creators. That can NOT compete against the hight cohesion and functionality of a fine planed browser as Opera.

But then again, I use firefox, One of the main reasons I believe is because I got used to it while Opera was non free (I highly dislike ads, thats why I block EVERY ONE[even lord googles ones] with adblock).

Re:What about extensions?

[xtracto]

I think what mozilla should do is:

1. Create some kind of Quality Asurance program where extension developers make sure the extensions are fine (no memory leaks, no corruption of the browser or incompatiliby with other extensions).
2. Then, sign the extensions (have you EVER installed a extension which is SIGNED? without the red letters?).
3. When installing firefox, add, to the install wizzard, some screens where the user can select the functions he wants (but please,
do not do it the "open source way", that is showing all of the 12312312 available extensions in a list with unuseful descriptions).
4. Download and install the features at install time. That way the user do not have to re-start the browser after hunting for extensions (that is something that had bothered me since the begginning, why the HECK do I need to restart the browser each time I install a extensions?, I thought that re-start crap was left to the closed source sucky operating systems).

And then, I disagree that everything should be implemented with extensions. I think the browser should be good enough out of the box without anything installed. I always think that a lot of comparisons between memory and speed of IE and Firefox (or even Opera, but hey Opera blows away Firefox in any way) are unfair and FUD because usually the "best results" are with a Firefox without any extensions which has the same usuability (or less) than IE6 SP2 (of course SP2 is by itself some kind of "extension" for the sake of being on slashdot haha).

Re:What about extensions?

[nexthec]

My solution:

First, download the Keyconfig extension.

Then edit your prefs.js file (found in your profile directory)

Add these two lines:

user_pref("keyconfig.main.xxx_key__Zoom Images In", "alt][=][][openUILinkIn('javascript:(function(){ function zoomImage(image, amt) { if(image.initialHeight == null) { /* avoid accumulating integer-rounding error */ image.initialHeight=image.height; image.initialWidth=image.width; image.scalingFactor=1; } image.scalingFactor*=amt; image.width=image.scalingFactor*image.initialWidth ; image.height=image.scalingFactor*image.initialHeig ht; } var i,L=document.images.length; for (i=0;i<L;++i) zoomImage(document.images[i], 2); if (!L) alert(%22This page contains no images.%22); })();', 'current');][");
user_pref("keyconfig.main.xxx_ke y__Zoom Images Out", "alt][-][][openUILinkIn('javascript:(function(){ function zoomImage(image, amt) { if(image.initialHeight == null) { /* avoid accumulating integer-rounding error */ image.initialHeight=image.height; image.initialWidth=image.width; image.scalingFactor=1; } image.scalingFactor*=amt; image.width=image.scalingFactor*image.initialWidth ; image.height=image.scalingFactor*image.initialHeig ht; } var i,L=document.images.length; for (i=0;i<L;++i) zoomImage(document.images[i],.5); if (!L) alert(%22This page contains no images.%22); })();', 'current');][");

It maps a Zoom all images in to Alt+= and Zoom all images out to Alt+-. You can zoom text and images separately.

P.S. You must have javascript enabled as these are bookmarklets.

Re:What about extensions?

[Bert64]

A better idea would be distributions of firefox with extensions by default...
Or perhaps make it easier for newbies to install them, when firefox is executed for the first time (or during the install) provide a list of popular extensions, complete with information about them and a checkbox to select which ones you want.
And ofcourse tell the user how to download more in future.

Re:What about extensions?

[jonathansizz]

The problem with FireFox is the extensions. People want a good browser, not fiddle around hunting for what exists. Power users do that, sure, but not regular users.

One way of overcoming this would be to select the most useful extensions and release a version of Firefox that comes with them preinstalled. Then of course we have the problem of deciding which extensions to include.

But by continuously adding more & more, you get people complaining about useless features and bloat. Extensions are great, but the problem is that many are badly coded and/or don't integrate well with the rest of the browser.

One possibility for overcoming this would be for Mozilla to code their own extensions which would be officially supported. Such extensions could have rigorous quality checks whilst providing functionality not deemed universal enough to incorporate directly into Firefox itself.

Re:What about extensions?

[LainTouko]

Or alternatively, you could use good programming like Opera.

Re:What about extensions?

[thinduke]

I've yet to see a site where I did want to scale images

While I agree with you that I wouldn't want to see JPEG zoomed in, it's not only about photos; when you zoom in, you might want to have also the logos, the image-bullets, and every PNG or GIF in the page to zoom in accordingly, as to preserve the layout and the design of the page.

Actually I'm not sure that's relevant to the browser, I believe it's more a CSS thing. I've seen it done using em width for images, it works fine, and it lets you controls which images have to be zoomed in.

Re:What about extensions?

[Breakfast Pants]

Pixel based layout still won't be zoomed; Some stuff will automatically expand because the images 'stretch' it, but typically only table based sites. Try a site like penny-arcade; zooming all the images still gives you a tiny column of text. In opera everything zooms.

Apples to Oranges?

[FSWKU]

Disclaimer: No, I haven't RTFA yet.

So they're comparing the first FIRST of Firefox 2.0 to the THIRD beta of IE7 and the RELEASE version of Opera 9.0. Call me crazy, but wouldn't a proper comparison look at all three browsers after they have reached their final release versions?

Re:Apples to Oranges?

[the phantom]

As was stated above, they are comparing the features that the different browsers have. Betas are supposed to be feature complete, thus the comparison is fair. As long as they are not comparing render speed, memory usage, &c., there is no reason to cry foul.

Re:Apples to Oranges?

[ben there...]

Well they do have a table of memory usage and startup time.

Re:Apples to Oranges?

[AK Marc]

Well they do have a table of memory usage and startup time.

And in that table, they also list previously released versions for comparison. It's as fair as it can be, whatever the newest is that's available, as well as the most recent full release.

Re:Apples to Oranges?

[animaal]

A comparison between IE6, Firefox 1.5 and Opera 9 might be more fair, but look at the focus of the article (mostly features). People would just end up saying "Yes, Opera 9 can do X, but why does the article ignore the upcoming Firefox 2, and instead focus on old 1.5?".

Re:Opera?

[Amouth]

opera for the desktop is free.. it has been for a while.. you only have to pay for it if you want it for moblie devices or phones and that such..

which by the way Opera on the PocketPC is worth the money it beats the crap out of all mobile browsers

my views

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a firefox user but have all three installed. I like the firefox spellcheck since I am a lousy speller and the Opera torrent downloading since there are times legal downloads are only available in torrent and I do not want the full install. For some reason, msie just seems cleaner. Forget netscape.

The only problem I am having with any of the three is with the firefox beta 2.0 crashing with Vista. The last alpha version did not.

Its going to be an interesting battle.

Re:my views

[masklinn]

Since you're probably running Windows, you should check uTorrents for your torrents: you don't need to install it (it's a single small exe), and it's many times faster than Opera.

Re:my views

[Zelgadiss]

Or you can use Azureus (http://azureus.sourceforge.net/) if you want to use an open sourced client. It has tons of features to manage torrents of course, but it runs on JAVA. I have no problems with it speed or memory consumption, but I suppose it depends on your machine and personel preference as to what is acceptable.

Re:my views

[Frogbert]

Mod that guy +1 Bleeding edge

Re:Opera?

[Knuckles]

very understood the "pay for a web browser" bit

I guess you meant "never". And FYI, it's been a free download for a very long time. IIRC Ubuntu has it even in the package manager

Overlooked: Printing

[dduardo]

I think one major feature that is lacking in Firefox is good printing support.

Re:Overlooked: Printing

[eipgam]

What specific features is it lacking? (Not trying to criticise here, it fulfils all my needs in the printing department so I'm curious)

Re:Overlooked: Printing

[backwardMechanic]

In my case, getting hardcopy out of the printer (v1.5.0.4, cups, linux). If I try to print a web page that should cover several paper pages, I only get the first sheet. Firefox seems to make hard work of paper sizes too. It uses a mystery A4 size that is different enough to the CUPS A4 that my print job is rejected. I've never really chased the problem - Opera just works (tm).

Re:Overlooked: Printing

[WeAreAllDoomed]

i've been less than thrilled with printing from firefox on linux. not sure if it's an issue on windows or not.

at times i've resorted to cut/paste into OpenOffice to print something complex.

Re:Overlooked: Printing

[pe1chl]

Printing is overlooked in Linux in general. Windows has integrated printing support in its GUI system, Linux hasn't.
That makes it much harder for Linux software do have acceptable and consistent (between applications) printing.

And indeed, printing works better in Windows Firefox than in Linux Firefox.

Re:Overlooked: Printing

[drinkypoo]

One thing that pretty much every browser has problems with is correctly printing floated elements. I forget just what causes it to freak out, but it happened to me, I had to give up on having a printable style sheet, at least until I do a fairly serious revamp of the page structure that I'm not willing to do since the whole freaking page design is made up of floats. I mean, you need them all the damned time... But this isn't just a FF problem.

Re:Overlooked: Printing

[nytes]

One of the things I like about FF on Windows is that I can get a decent printout. IE tends to give me big problems with cutting off pages.

Re:Overlooked: Printing

[jp10558]

I'm an Opera devotee, and I'm amazed - usually printing is one of Opera's weaker areas.

A bit off-topic, but...

[Yvan256]

Will Internet Explorer 7 run on Windows 95/98/ME/NT4? If not, then MSIE7 won't be "95% of web users"... And with Nintendo going with Opera for both the Nintendo DS and the Wii, Opera's marketshare might soon explode beyond 1-2%.

Just keep that in mind before jumping into the "MSIE7 has nice proprietary features" train.

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[edflyerssn007]

I really think it is time for people running those platforms to upgrade to something more modern, just for the reason of security. If they choose a windows platform (includes Intel Macs w/ bootcamp or parallels) then they can use IE7 also.

From the IE7 requirements page it seems it can run on a Pentium 233. So it may be possible to get the browser running on those old systems, even though it says it can only run on XP SP2, XP 64bit, and Win2k3 Server SP1. That or people with those older systems can upgrade to XP or maybe Server 2k3 (I read the other day about someone running it on some extremely slow hardware.) So that could be a choice if they want IE 7.

I'm not sure how well it is supported on Linux brands from the Wine side of things though.

-ed

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[misleb]

I read something about Firefox dropping support for older versions of Windows. Maybe it was Firfox 3 though.

-matthew

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[DarkDragonVKQ]

I think Nintendo decided to go with Opera for several reasons. 1) Being they've developed versions of Opera for mobiles, pocket pcs, etc.. 2) If you use Opera you should try out mouse gestures (it's built in). I guess Nintendo imagined people surfing the internet with Wiimote gestures or Stylus gestures, or whatever..

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[Yvan256]

First of all I'm not sure Windows XP is more secure than Win98SE (though it is more stable).

Second, not everyone can afford to pay for a Windows upgrade and/or new hardware. They're not going to switch to Mac anytime soon.

And third but not least, "if it's not broken, don't try to fix it." A lot of people are still using Win95/98/ME because it works fine for them. They're not going to switch to Linux anytime soon.

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[pe1chl]

It will not even run on Windows 2000.

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[diamondsw]

Will Internet Explorer 7 run on Windows 95/98/ME/NT4? If not, then MSIE7 won't be "95% of web users"...

Okay, so only 85% of the market. With Microsoft dropping all support for those platforms, they essentially don't matter. You're talking OS's that are at best six years old.

And with Nintendo going with Opera for both the Nintendo DS and the Wii, Opera's marketshare might soon explode beyond 1-2%.

Yeah, maybe to 2.5%. How many people do you really think are going to do web browsing from their game system? I'll be interested to br proven wrong (I certainly was about the DS vs PSP), but I'll bet damn few, especially compared with the hordes of people on PC's. It won't even be a blip.

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[Valthan]

How do I get this web-browser on my DS?!

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[pe1chl]

I really think it is time for people running those platforms to upgrade to something more modern, just for the reason of security.

Is this based on feeling or on actual facts?
Looking at the monthly updates, it seems like most updates that a required for 2000 and XP list 9x as "not affected".
So what is more secure? 9x in the state it is now, or 2000/XP before next month's updates?

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[Yvan256]

How do I get this web-browser on my DS?!

"Opera DS" will be available In Japan on 2006-07-24. I've heard rumors they'll release a north american/europe version before christmas.

Opera DS Japan will be based on Opera 8.5, not sure if the north american/europe version will be higher.

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[T-Ranger]

FF 3 will (more heavily) use cairo, which is unavailable for older versions of Windows. FF 3 is currently scheduled for release Q1 2007, but as FF2.0 is now at least two months behind schedule, I cant see how they can keep the 3.0 timeframe. (well, since I first started paying some attention, mid-spring, 2.0 has lost 2 months, and the dates for 3 have remained unchanged..) In any event, 98 and ME were EOLd... a couple of weeks ago... On paper, FF3 and Vista should be out at the same time so, realisticly, by then all windows users should be at at least XP.

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[Valthan]

and do I have to buy it, or is it just a firmware update or....

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[jmauro]

It'll be a cart like Mario Kart DS or the New Super Mario brothers. So you'll have to buy.

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[Yvan256]

You have to buy it. It's a DS cart with a GBA memory expansion cart.

It'll be available for both the Nintendo DS and Nintendo DS Lite. The real street price is supposed to be around 33$US.

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[edflyerssn007]

Considering that Microsoft dropped support for Windows 98 and ME, I wouldn't expect them to be putting out patches for those operating systems. And I would say Windows XP and Server 2003 are way more secure than 98/ME because of all the patches that have been rolled out for them, and because they come with a built in firewall. Merits of that firewall aside, it is at least something to start with that 98/ME don't have.

-Ed

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[ClamIAm]

And with Nintendo going with Opera for both the Nintendo DS and the Wii, Opera's marketshare might soon explode beyond 1-2%.

Opera is on other embedded systems as well (cell phones, PDAs, etc), and their install base could become really big because of this. However, I think you glossed over how this works out in reality. Let me explain.

The majority of web browsing is done on "real" computers, and by this I mean desktops, laptops, and similar devices[1]. These are machines that have keyboards, mice, and nice big screens. The screen size is especially important here, as it is big enough to allow text to be displayed at a size similar to a "real" book, magazine, or page of paper.

Cell phones, PDAs, and portable game consoles don't have lots of screen real estate. The lack of keyboard hurts a lot as well. Not a lot of people are going to be doing extended surfing on these things. This translates into Opera getting little to no significant boost in marketshare.

And regarding the Wii, I doubt that lots of people will be using it for Web surfing. As far as I know, it doesn't support HD, so you're stuck with standard TV resolution. I tried using my Dreamcast for web surfing, and it was really not a great experience.

[1] "Similar devices" include things like thin clients and web appliances.

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[pe1chl]

I am not saying they don't supply patches. Of course they don't.
What I am saying is that they distribute security advisiories, and tell that they don't apply to 9x.
I.e. most of the code affected by security advisories appears in the NT line, not in the 9x line.

There can be several explanations for that. One is that the NT line contains more code. More code equals more bugs.
Another is that the security people in the team developing NT were entirely focused on their OS security model (rings, ACLs, etc) and were not paying attention to other aspects anymore. 9x had no builtin security, so its developers were not distracted by a (false) sense of a security model.

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[hkmwbz]

How many people do you really think are going to do web browsing from their game system? I'll be interested to br proven wrong (I certainly was about the DS vs PSP), but I'll bet damn few, especially compared with the hordes of people on PC's. It won't even be a blip.

Not too convinced about that. PCs are scary things. Expensive, complicated, lots of problems...

If you can do the same you could with a PC, only on something a lot cheaper and easier to use - like a gaming console - I think "normal" people will take advantage of that.

Re:A bit off-topic, but...

[hkmwbz]

Not a lot of people are going to be doing extended surfing on these things.

Maybe they will. Gaming consoles are "less scary", cheaper, easier to use, etc. than PCs.

And regarding the Wii, I doubt that lots of people will be using it for Web surfing. As far as I know, it doesn't support HD, so you're stuck with standard TV resolution.

Even HD doesn't help when surfing on a TV, because you are typically not close enough to the TV to read the text anyway.

Which is why Opera has a special rendering mode for TVs. Which is why surfing on your TV could finally turn out to not be a frustrating experience.

Re:Opera?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Honestly, no. Opera dropped off my radar a while ago; just don't know anyone who uses it (and my target audience of corporate users is almost all IE and Mozilla/Firefox). However, I promise to check it out again.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[bartkusa]

Opera's UI is extremely customizable. Skinnable interface and lots of flexibility with toolbar and button placement, on the output side. On the input side, you can set up your own keyboard shortcuts and mouse gestures if you don't like the default ones.

Re:Opera?

[Richard W.M. Jones]

I didn't realize Opera was still a player (very understood the "pay for a web browser" bit),

It's very much a player in mobile applications. I have no less than three devices which were bundled with Opera, and for that Opera gets money. For the same reason that the most popular chip is the ARM (not x86 as most people would think), Opera might well become the most popular browser by numbers if not by mindshare.

(The three devices are a Nokia phone, the Nokia 770 and an early Sharp Zaurus).

Rich.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[Ksevio]

Well you can make it look like what ever you like, just go to tools>appearance and pick a skin.

Of all the browsers, Opera has the smallest (most compact) UI of them. Just because it doesn't look like firefox (which I find to be a bit too clunky slow for my liking) doesn't mean it's an ugly interface.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[nuzak]

That's the nice thing about Opera -- you can slim it way down til it has hardly any interface at all. Me, I'd like to put my bookmark bar in the same place as the menubar in firefox, but that's not going to happen. Why? Isn't it supposed to have a super-flexible UI library for that?

Just use a theme for godsake. It's not like firefox isn't built on themes tool. Of all the things to bitch about, this one's ridiculous.

Re:Opera?

[Troed]

Opera Mini - a-less-than-100Kb Java ME application that makes web surfing on a bog standard phone a joy.

Free, of course.

Paste and Go

[vonsneerderhooten]

One thing i still miss from my opera days is the 'paste and go' feature in the address and search bars. It feels natural. very rarely do i paste something in to either bars and not want to just go there. the rare circumstances of not wanting to go there include the need to edit a url or just observe a url when the site has some annoying scrolling thing at the bottom of the window. Bring 'paste and go' to firefox!!

Re:Paste and Go

[Tiger22]

Well I can simply go into firefox with my buffer-copied URL and middle click in any window/tab (in the window not the address bar) and the URL loads. That's about as 'paste and go' as you can get IMO. Is this some add-on feature I've inherited from an extension because I always thought that was native firefox behaviour? I only bother pasting into the address bar if I have a mangled two line URL from an email I need to concatenate so not having firefox automatically load the first half of a URL into the address bar is exactly what I want.

Re:Paste and Go

[ben there...]

Paste and Go Firefox ;-)

Re:Paste and Go

[Abcd1234]

And Firefox takes this feature one step further! If the text you copied wasn't a valid URL, Firefox will perform an I'm Feeling Lucky Search for you. This is especially fun when the first search result happens to be hardcore porn. And you're at work.

Re:Paste and Go

[Kristoffer Lunden]

I suggested that feature to the Epiphany developers, the result? They called it "crack". Of course, they call a lot of things "crack" if it isn't the absolute bare minimum needed to display a site... and they think that it's a lot better for users to have their tabs mystically disappear when opening more than 5-7, rather than rezising them. The only reason I've actually heard so far is that it is easier to close many tabs if they are same size. And so on...

Would be a great addition to Firefox though, I agree. My favourite would be CTRL-SHIFT-V as default key combo if it isn't taken.

Re:Paste and Go

[Blimey85]

I think does what you want: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/65/

It's the paste and go extension for Firefox. I found this doing a quick google for a paste and go extension. Might be others that are similar and/or work better... dunno.

Re:Opera?

[14CharUsername]

ActiveX empowers webdevelopers. FF extensions empowers users. ActiveX can be used by bad people to exploit your system because it allows remote sites to do stuff on your system. FF extensions are run only on your own system, most of them have nothing to do with the webpages you load. And the ones that do just filter out ads. Some are more complex, such as greasemonkey, but you only run those only on sites you trust.

Also extensions aren't installed by default, so there isn't any danger of a feature you never use compromising your system.

"Favorites button"

[El_Muerte_TDS]

MSIE: Yes
Firefox: No
Opera: No

wtf is a "Favorites button" button? Is it like a bookmark button?

Re:"Favorites button"

[jfengel]

I guess what they're getting at is that IE has a button to let you bring up the bookmarks toolbar, rather than having to go to the menu or use a keyboard shortcut.

Or maybe they're referring to the "Add..." button on the Favorites sidebar.

Either way, I'm sure that if anybody cared enough to create this feature it would be an extension. It sounds like the sort of thing you do as part of a tutorial titled "My First Incredibly Easy Extension". It hardly sounds like a feature on par with a pop-up blocker. And in fact given that it's a button I'd never use I'm just as happy that it's not sucking up screen real estate on the navigation toolbar.

It just goes to show you that one person's completely useless screen-clogging waste is the next person's critical can't-live-without feature.

Re:"Favorites button"

[topher1kenobe]

Yes, it's a bookmarks button. Firefox DOES have one, even in 1.5. Right click on your toolbar, choose customize, and drag the bookmarks button in there. It opens your bookmarks in a tiny little sidebar, just like IE.

This comparision made me wonder the most.

Re:"Favorites button"

[AK Marc]

Well, the functionality with my IE's favorites button is the same as my Opera's bookmarks button. So I guess what you name the button really matters. Be like IE, or be punished in the comparisons done by people used to IE...

Re:"Favorites button"

[MikeBabcock]

Firefox 1.5.0.4

Right-click toolbar, select customize.

Drag "bookmarks" button onto toolbar.

Voila, problem solved.

Re:"Favorites button"

[The Philosophers Cat]

You can do the same with Opera. I think any good browser can do this?

Re:"Favorites button"

[johansalk]

You can customise the toolbar in firefox to put a bookmarks button that opens up a whole sidebar for them.

Quick Tabs vs Tab Thumbnails

[ChristTrekker]

One feature unique to IE7 is its tile view of your tabs, called Quick Tabs, accessible from an icon just to the right of the add favorites icon

Not really unique. In Opera, just hover over the tab for a second or two...you get a thumbnail of the page.

Re:Quick Tabs vs Tab Thumbnails

[skiflyer]

Actually it's quite different... it allows you to see them all at once instead of one at a time.

Also QuickTabs (as well as the Firefox equivalent I mention below) update the images if the page is updated for some reason... so you can open several dynamic pages in tabs, switch to the summary view, then keep a view on the state of all of them at once, pretty nifty. And what the article states as a general case about extensions for Firefox is 100% true here... Viamatic foxPose puts exactly this functionallity into Firefox. And not to sound like a fanboy, but I'm looking at IE7 beta 3 and Firefox (1.5) on the same screen using these features and the foxPose images are MUCH clearer than the IE7 ones, the text in IE7 is so fuzzy I can't even attempt to read the regular headlines on CNN.com

Re:Quick Tabs vs Tab Thumbnails

[grahamrow]

I must second the "not very unique" notion since the feature has been available in the mac browser OmniWeb for quite sometime (as a sidebar). This same browser also allows you to store unlimited sets of open tabs for future use. Then again they want you to pay for the browser...

Re:Quick Tabs vs Tab Thumbnails

[ChristTrekker]

Opera has been a free download for quite some time. The free version isn't "adware" now, either. Completely free (beer).

Re:Quick Tabs vs Tab Thumbnails

[ChristTrekker]

The article mentions Opera's thumbnails on the Opera page and contrasts them with the IE implementation, but the way it was presented on the IE page it was like "OMG, thumbnails, how radical and unique!" Grouping all the thumbnails together, yeah OK, that's different than Opera, and sure some people will find it useful.

Re:Quick Tabs vs Tab Thumbnails

[Blimey85]

I don't think that's how the Quick Tabs works is it? I used to have an extension in Firefox that would load all of my tabs into a single tab so I could see them all at once. Then I could click on whichever one I wanted and it would switch to that tab. From the screenshot it looks like Quick Tabs in IE works the same although it's builtin whereas I had to use an extension.

I think the extension Reveal does that you are describing. I have it setup for my back and forward buttons so it shows me the pages. Not the most useful thing in the world as it's almost always quicker to just switch to the other page and look at it but I guess some people might like it.

Re:Quick Tabs vs Tab Thumbnails

[jp10558]

What's interesting is Opera's fit to width and tiling pages. Better than thumbnails IMHO.

ie on acid

[fuzzandwater]

It's ridiculous that they defend IE by claiming "no pages seem horribly messed up." Clearly the author is not a web developer. If he were, he would know that the reason the pages display correctly in IE is javascript hacks, css workarounds, web developer headaches, Dean's IE7 javascript library, a separate stylesheet for IE, etc... It's not that IE is inherently displaying the sites correctly, it's that the site developers were forced to make them play nice with IE.

Re:ie on acid

[trifish]

Actually, almost every site looks good in IE because webmasters preview/test their sites primarily in IE. Why? Because vast majority of people use IE. Quite simple and reasonable equations.

Re:ie on acid

[dtfinch]

I used to have to make sure all my pages worked in Netscape 4. Some pages just had to be written twice. By comparison, supporting IE is a breeze.

Re:ie on acid

[Enrico Pulatzo]

Regardless of the author's web developing skills, it's a valid metric for evaluating a web browser.

No matter how well Firefox and Opera employ W3C standards, they still need to be able to display poorly created pages just as well as valid, semantic, XHTML-driven sites.

Yes, there are a lot of people who make a lot of workarounds for a lot of browsers. Those who lament this fact should get over it. The companies involved know damn well by now what business they're involved with. Folks have got to stop belly-aching and bitching over these now decade-old problems. They're well-defined problems, which is a good thing. It takes some tricky work to keep your backwards compatibility and introduce new ways of working, ala Internet Explorer's DOCTYPE mode. If they are concerned about people introducing hokey work-arounds that they would eventually have to work around themselves, browser makers would do well to be more involved with the design community.

Re:ie on acid

[hey!]

Clearly the author is not a web developer. If he were, he would know that the reason the pages display correctly in IE is javascript hacks, css workarounds, web developer headaches, Dean's IE7 javascript library, a separate stylesheet for IE, etc...

Yes, the SEP Field strikes again.

That's really what underlies IE dominance. It's been a piece of crap for years, but for MS and the users these have been Somebody Else's Problem. People don't get mad at Microsoft when IE doesn't render a site correctly, they get mad at the site. Since the developers of the site don't want people mad at them, they make sure IE works. So from Microsoft's viewpoint, few of their users are inconvenienced by IE's compatibility problems. And from the user's standpoint, they seldom encounter incompatibilty when using IE; in fact the opposite is the case.

It's like buying a shoe from a factory that dumps pollution in the river. The consumer doesn't experience the problem unless he's one of the few that are living downstream. The vendor sees the problem, but since somebody else has to pay the price of pollution, and they'd have to pay the price of getting rid of it, the status quo remains. The people downstream hate the factory, but it doesn't matter in any meaningful way to the factory's owners.

Re:ie on acid

[baadger]

The author isn't a web developer and wasn't doing it from a web developers perspective, he is not defending IE, merely stating a fact that from the users perspective IE's lacking standards support barely makes a difference. Perhaps web devs should have dropped IE like a brick and broke the web.

Re:ie on acid

[diamondsw]

It's ridiculous that they defend IE by claiming "no pages seem horribly messed up." Clearly the author is not a web developer

Nor are users. Agreed that is sucks hard for us, but end users just don't care about Microsoft's shitty support for standards; they just want the web page to look right and work. Thankfully I almost never see sites that don't support Firefox and Safari these days.

Re:ie on acid

[hyfe]

know that the reason the pages display correctly in IE is javascript hacks, css workarounds, web developer headaches,

That still doesn't change the fact that they actually do display nicely though. Knowing why and all is nice, but that doesn't change reality.

Re:ie on acid

[fuzzandwater]

So you're arguing that the ends justify the means...?

Re:ie on acid

[fuzzandwater]

I wish that were possible. As a fledgling web developer I am presented with an option: do I design sites that are standards compliant, or do I tweak my stylesheet so that IE and Gecko will display them nicely? Unfortunately I have to choose the latter, because otherwise my clients will whine about everything being messed up in IE (and probably Firefox also).

Re:ie on acid

[LWATCDR]

Okay. No you are wrong. It really is that simple. IE doesn't follow standards and doesn't even support PNG files correctly. I use Firefox because I use more than one OS. I love me extensions to Firefox, and because I like it better than IE. It seems like a good number of people use Firefox now. So unless you want to exclude 1 out of 10 users from your site can not support just IE. I will not due business with a company that has an IE only site.
Now the rub is this. IE doesnt support current standards. FireFox has some issue but it is much better then IE and Opera and Safari seem to fully support current standards. Yes web developers have every right to complain about Microsoft ignoring standards and making their life more complicated. Because of IE I can not use PNG files with an alpha channel on websites I design.
Just because most people use junk that is no reason to
a. Not tell them that is junk.
b. Try to get the producers of said junk to make it better.
c. Try to get people to use a better product.

Even if IE was only 10% of the browser market good web developers would still put in all the hacks to support it. It is a stupid professional that wants to send away one tenth of their potential market.

Telling the to get over it? Hell no. Microsoft fix IE 7 before you release it. Get PNGs working and ACID 2.
Mozilla we are still waiting for ACID 2 from you as well. Get it done NOW.

Re:ie on acid

[LWATCDR]

Of course if IE wasn't such a pain to web developers I bet a lot of them wouldn't be so eager to put a get FireFox icon on their page.

Also so many techies might not be pushing their friends to get Firefox.

To use your analogy it will start to matter if they see that shoe company on the news with a bunch of 3-eyed fish and protesters.

Re:ie on acid

[fuzzandwater]

I suspect now that FF has so much market share, those same webmasters have to do the same tweaking and complaining to get the page to display right with Gecko-based browsers. That's terribly inefficient. If browsers were actually standards-compliant, all it would take was running the html and css through w3 validators, then admiring it in any browser and knowing it will look the same regardless of the browser engine. That's the beauty of standards. Efficiency.

Re:ie on acid

[Kjella]

It's ridiculous that they defend IE by claiming "no pages seem horribly messed up."

For an end-user review, it really is that way. It has no relevance to the end user if the browser was written in assembler by monkeys or ruby on rails by circus clowns, or how many hoops the web designers had to jump through. Users in general have no interest in making the life of web designers easier, OSS ideology or anything else not directly contributing to the user experience. Their answer to everything you might say? "It works fine in IE", hence the page is working, hence your browser is broken. QED.

Lack of standards compliance isn't going to be a serious downside for users until you can write "Due to the low standards compliance, many pages are horribly messed up" and mean it. Personally I'm just happy that for the most part, standards-compliant browsers are mostly able to render the web well. There was a long time when "not being IE" was a downside in itself, given how many pages were messed up, standards compliance or not.

Re:ie on acid

[GigsVT]

Microsoft deliberately created many of those terrible pages, specifically to break their competition.

Don't you remember Frontpage spew with missing things like... BODY tags, DOCTYPES, and other very imporant parts! How can you render a document if you don't even know what the type of the document is intended to be?

Re:ie on acid

[Enrico Pulatzo]

One thing that Microsoft does very well is backwards compatibility. IE was created before the standards that they violate existed, and as such Microsoft had to figure out a good way to accomplish two goals: backwards compatibility for their existing implementations (however shoddy they were) and a way to allow for future development to happen. They did this (very well in my opinion) with IE 6 and the DOCTYPE switching.

As for the "doesn't even support PNG correctly" which version of PNG are you referring to? Obviously it's the useful one that everyone would love to use (that works pretty well in IE 7 I think) but as for following the PNG standard they _did_. Alpha channels aren't required to be an implementation of PNG. Indexed PNGs work wonderfully in IE. 24-bit color pngs with 8-bit alpha only so-so. The alpha channel works only against a background chunk which most editors leave out (google tweakpng for a useful editor that allows you to edit that chunk). You can use alpha channel PNGs if you use them in img elements with a DirectX filter, which is well-documented. Alpha PNGs as backgrounds work now in IE 7 as well.

I never said that IE wasn't junk, I certainly avoid it. However, before one complains about the work of others, it's often useful to understand the situation they were in. IE 5 was amazing at the time, even though it sold Internet Explorer down the river to supporting crappy markup and such. Some of the choices the IE team made in the mid-90s locked Microsoft in to some design decisions they are struggling to overcome.

If you want to blame people for the adoption, blame AOL, Dell, Gateway, etc. who could have shipped Opera just as easily as the default (except the price, so maybe you should blame capitalism while you're at it).

Re:ie on acid

[Enrico Pulatzo]

"Don't you remember Frontpage spew with missing things like... BODY tags, DOCTYPES, and other very imporant parts!"

Yeah, Frontpage sucks. That doesn't mean the IE team enjoyed writing the support for a shitty product they didn't make. Frontpage should have been more like a contentEditable or Midas application but it isn't.

"How can you render a document if you don't even know what the type of the document is intended to be?"

Well, there's the content type it's sent as via the server for one. That seems to determine it for most browsers pretty well. Microsoft does go an extra mile to scan for tags to see if it should present the page as a text/html page instead of a text/plain page (which is a choice I don't agree with personally).

What damning evidence do you have that says that they deliberately created many of those pages in order to break their competition? Embrace and extend wasn't about creating shitty documents, it was about creating proprietary features that customers couldn't live without (like marquee, button, and iframe not to mention several CSS properties). Sometimes they work, sometimes they fail.

Re:ie on acid

[GigsVT]

What damning evidence do you have

The fact is that MS released a program to generate web pages only their browser could read, after they already had a large marketshare that it would benefit them to protect.

It would be much more trivial to fix Frontpage than to hack up IE to render FP spew. MS making their products only work with other products that they make, and making no effort for it to work with anyone else is their normal MO.

It wasn't embrace and extend as much as dominate and leverage. They leveraged their IE marketshare to break competitors. ActiveX and VBScripting on the web was a similar ploy. MS wanted a web that would only work with MS products, by any means necessary.

Re:ie on acid

[JacksBrokenCode]

IE doesn't follow standards and doesn't even support PNG files correctly.

Unless I'm mistaken, no browser implements 100% of all specs. And the PNG complaint is valid and thankfully MS finally fixed this in IE7.

unless you want to exclude 1 out of 10 users from your site can not support just IE

I don't think the parent poster was suggesting developing IE-exclusive sites, but that web designers need to stop whining about having to develop for multiple browsers.

I will not due business with a company that has an IE only site.

I know it's petty, but I wouldn't hire a person if they made such an egregious misspelling on their resume.

IE doesnt support current standards

You are technically correct, but if you use the appropriate DOCTYPE it will render *most* things properly.

Because of IE I can not use PNG files with an alpha channel on websites I design.

A very valid complaint.

Just because most people use junk that is no reason to... c. Try to get people to use a better product.

I don't think you meant that.

Microsoft fix IE 7 before you release it. Get PNGs working and ACID 2.

PNGs I agree. ACID 2... eh, fuggit

To use a stupid analogy: Is it reasonable for mechanics to complain about having to learn Ford *and* GM engines because the automakers can't agree on a standard motor? Sure the basics of each motor are the same, but each has it's own unique characteristics and design choices - just like browsers.

You can design a website to conform to the W3C spec and then add a stylesheet for IE. IE is the only browser to recognize its proprietary conditional comments tag so put a IE-only stylesheet inside a IE-conditional comment tag. Other browsers will treat the stylesheet include as a comment and ignore it but IE will treat it as a valid include and use the styles. Is it perfect? No. Does it work? Yes. And if you use a DOCTYPE IE will render *most* of the styles correctly leaving very little "clean-up" work for the IE-only stylesheet.

All I'm saying is that there are ways to efficiently design websites that support standards and use a quick & simple hack for most of IEs problems. The big one is PNG support and using .htc files (in my opinion) is not an acceptable hack since they don't seem to be 100% reliable. The only feature in IE7 that I'm actually looking forward to is the PNG support because now I can have more fun with the art.

Re:ie on acid

[LWATCDR]

"I know it's petty, but I wouldn't hire a person if they made such an egregious misspelling on their resume."
Yes it is petty and this isn't my resume. Since I am Dyslexic I tend to triple check anything like a resume or documentation I write. This is Slashdot so yea it is extremely petty. Of course since I am Dyslexic making fun of my typos and spelling is right up with laughing when a blind man trips.
And to use your analogy
"To use a stupid analogy: Is it reasonable for mechanics to complain about having to learn Ford *and* GM engines because the automakers can't agree on a standard motor? Sure the basics of each motor are the same, but each has it's own unique characteristics and design choices - just like browsers."
If Ford made an engine that required all none standard tools in none standard sizes I would say yes the mechanics would have very right to complain.
Or if GM made a car with the brake on the right and the gas on the left. Or reverse threaded all the fasteners?
If that had happened every car magazine on the planet would scream bloody murder and every competitor would play it up. That car just wouldn't sell. Microsoft has a monopoly so that isn't a problem for them.
Backwards compatibility as an excuse? Why didn't Microsoft follow the standards available at the time?

Safari seems to do very well rendering most sites right now and it can pass the Acid2 test just fine.
Here is what I would like to have happen.
The US federal government require that all of it's websites ONLY use valid HTML and XHTML code. That would ensure that they where not giving any company a competitive advantage.
The US federal government should require all government computers only use browsers that pass Acid2.
I don't see how a browser that doesn't follow standards is any more excusable than a lamp that will not plug into standard wall outlets.

I am not cutting Firefox much slack. They also fail the Acid2 test. They do better than Microsoft but still not perfect.

I have Opera on my system but to be honest I still tend to use Firefox. It just works well for me. I only use IE to check web pages I have to work on. Frankly the problems with IE keep me from adding some features That I would really like to. The time to debug for both IE and Firefox is just to big of a burden for the benefits I would give my user base. I don't have the option to make it a standards only website or an IE only website.
Here is the real reason why it is worth complaining about. It is costing time and money. Every minute that a developer spends coding around some IE issue is a minute that they have to charge the customer for or is a minute that isn't spent putting in a useful feature. It hurts the developers and it hurts the users.
Since standards are in place and IE doesn't follow them Microsoft is to blame.

Re:ie on acid

[killjoe]

"To use a stupid analogy: Is it reasonable for mechanics to complain about having to learn Ford *and* GM engines because the automakers can't agree on a standard motor? Sure the basics of each motor are the same, but each has it's own unique characteristics and design choices - just like browsers."

Yes it's reasonable. Every mechanic probably does complain about one thing or another about the manufacturers. You know what else is reasonable? It's reasonable for a mechanic not to work on one type of car or another. In fact most mechanics are specialized that way. Take a volvo into a honda dealership and they may very well tell you that can't work on it. In every town there are local mechanics who only work on Toyotas, saabs, subarus etc.

One a final note. Every mechanic provides advice to their customers. They may say "next time you buy a car go get a honda" or "don't ever buy a saab from the 1980s" or "this car is a lemon, you need to start thinking about getting rid of it".

So web designers need to take the same approach. Tell your clients they are driving lemons, tell them to get better browsers.

Re:ie on acid

[JacksBrokenCode]

Fair enough. All the major automakers do have proprietary parts in their engines that do require proprietary tools to work on them properly. Yes, the majority of the parts are standardized but there are parts (especially the computer chips) on each engine that require a special tool or proprietary part. IE, while definitely having it's own shit (like the shitty Filter CSS), still renders *most* things the same way as other browsers. I don't do any Gov't work, but I thought they had fairly strict requirements. Or is that only for accessibility features? I don't have a Mac so I don't get the chance to use Safari on a regular basis. I use Firefox for most things but I've been surprised & impressed with the IE7 betas. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's nice to see that MS is moving in the right direction (especially the PNG support). And I do agree that we *shouldn't* have to do hacks & work-arounds at all, but it seems to be unavoidable (yes, I know that's not the "right" attitude).

Re:ie on acid

[JacksBrokenCode]

While it may be understandable for them to complain, I don't find it reasonable. If you have to work on 2 different engines to support the desired client-base, that's a business decision you have made. Since the decision is yours to make, I don't see a reason to complain. Choose to support only 1 browser and take the share of the market that comes with that browser, or choose to support multiple browsers and realize that you'll have a little extra work. I was in agreement with the poster who said, "you knew what you were getting into..." I agree with you about informing my clients to get better browsers, but it's not their browsers that matter it's *their* clients browsers that matter. I do not wish to be a browser evangelist myself nor do I want to have to tell my client to become one. Programming a site that only works in standards-compliant browsers is as wise as programming a site that only works in IE. Perhaps the standards-compliant browsers have the "moral" backing that IE lacks, but IE has the sheer market penetration that compliant browsers lack. I program sites that work in standards compliant browsers and throw in a quick hack to correct any IE errors. Does it suck doing it this way? Perhaps. But it's not as bad as people seem to construe and it's certainly not a surprise to any developers any more.

Re:ie on acid

[miro f]

Opera and Safari seem to fully support current standards.

don't mistake Acid2 compliance with standards support. These are two very different things and people seem to be mixing them up all the time. Let me give you an analogy:

Let's say I went to MS and Google and surveyed 10 random people from each company about their wage, and then printed my findings that MS pays its employees $10,000 more. Let's just say that Google hears about this and decides to give those 10 employees a $50,000 raise.

Does this mean suddenly the average wage at Google is $40,000 higher? Of course not. On the same token, Acid2 compliance simply means that the browsers have fixed the bugs which stopped the particular features Acid2 tests from working. It has no indication on overall browser compliance. You're more likely to see which browser has better standards support by seeing the Acid2 rendering of a browser released before Acid2, when the browser couldn't fix the holes.

Re:ie on acid

[killjoe]

"While it may be understandable for them to complain, I don't find it reasonable. "

Well good for you. God knows you are the final arbiter of what is and is not a reasonable complaint.

"I was in agreement with the poster who said, "you knew what you were getting into..." I agree with you about informing my clients to get better browsers, but it's not their browsers that matter it's *their* clients browsers that matter."

If you care about your clients then you would encourage them to get the better browser.

"I do not wish to be a browser evangelist myself nor do I want to have to tell my client to become one."

But you are doing that if you make your site IE only. You are dictating to your customers not only what browser they must use but also what operating system they must buy. Would you kick clients out of your store for wearing the wrong brand of shirt? Why would you tell them to go fuck themselves because they chose to buy a mac?

"Perhaps. But it's not as bad as people seem to construe and it's certainly not a surprise to any developers any more."

If the developers don't complain it will never get fixed.

Re:ie on acid

[m00nun1t]

Transparency in PNGs is optional in the standard. So, as far as PNGs go IE6 IS standards compliance. I agree, it totally sucks and I wish it would support alpha channels, but it is compliant.

Re:ie on acid

[hyfe]

No, I'm arguing that it's immoral and wrong, but it's the reality any user will meet. If you judge products by how the world should have been, instead of what it is, you're making the potential users a big disservice.

Re:Opera?

[Rob T Firefly]

FF extensions enhance the capabilities of the browser, and only the browser. ActiveX controls can affect your entire computer (hurrah for integrating the browser with the OS!.) Also, the "authentication" of an AX control is being "signed" by something as trustworthy as Verisign, an agency I wouldn't trust to make me a peanut butter sandwich without somehow setting my kitchen on fire and charging me thousands of dollars for the bread before feeding it to some random kid on the street.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[neoform]

Where's the option to turn off the theme and make the browser look like the system's default theme?

Like I need another winamp type app that refuses to use UI standards.

Re:Beta?

[Jerry Coffin]

Hardly seems fair to compare different browsers based on beta builds.

Three points: First, which generates more revenue - fairness or page hits?

Second, by the time some products are released, everybody who cares has been using it routinly for months or (in a few cases) even years anyway.

Third, in a lot of cases, it's hard to tell the difference between beta and released software anyway. Let's have a quick show of hands of all the people who believe that IE 7 will have been officially released for an entire month before a major security hole is found. Hmm...I'm not seeing any hands...and I don't think the fact that I can't see any of you really makes much difference in that.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[masklinn]

Duh... Adblock Plus with the Filterset.G filter is above and beyond anything Opera currently offers...

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[bartkusa]

Tools > Appearance > Skin > Windows Native

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[ArbitraryConstant]

I've found Opera's caching to be way too agressive.

Re:Opera?

[masklinn]

The facts that exceptions don't install under the hood without telling you helps a lot, I guess.

The fact that it takes you 2 clics to list your extensions and 2 more to delete an offending one also helps.

The final reason is that Firefox' extensions are actually extremely useful and add wonderful flexibility to the browser thanks to XUL. They also allow the Firefox dev team to see what the users want (they just have to check the most popular extensions and find out why they're popular in the first place).

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[MaWeiTao]

The application should be clean and intuitive out of the box. It's good interface design.

Being extremely customizable is not always a good thing. Most people would never bother and some will probably be scared by excessively complicated customization.

I used to go out of my way to customize everything I can, and in some cases I still do so. I went as far as creating new visual themes for my Sony Ericsson phone. But more often than not it's a waste of time. Additionally, the vast majority of skins available for every application are unprofessional and sloppy.

Apple interfaces are successful not because of customization. In fact, you're usually stuck with what they give you. However, they clearly put a lot of thought into usability. Those interfaces work because they're clean. I don't necessarily like the visual style, but I appreciate the simplicity.

Microsoft won the last browser war but failed.

[jellomizer]

Well the last war MS won but failed to keep their browser up to date. Thus failed in their primary goal of compleatly controling web standards. With IE 7 it is more of a step forward to following the standards and a step back because they realized they didn't get what they compleatly wanted. Many of the features in IE 4,5,6 which I warned were stupid because of security ended up being bad for security. [Cough] Active X [Cough] But now with .NET making Web Apps more standards Based, things like AJAX being standard, CSS and Javascript there are more robust metods of doing things now and latly IE has been the thorn to web devleopers.

I am somewhat optimistic about IE 7, Vista... Microsoft sience IE 6 and XP has been getting a lot of heat and their stock shows it. Even a company Microsofts size can only make so many mistakes until bulk amounts people start switching. The Aditude has changed a lot sience then too. Before around Windows 95 and 98 Microsoft was (wrongly) considered the Technical Leader and their products were considered to be the best available. Now it is more of a deffeetest aditude of well I am stuck and I don't want to switch and it is not bad enough to switch yet but I am keeping my eyes open. I am not dumb though IE 7 and Vista will not be as great as the PR people make it out to be but it will be better then what they curently have. Much like Windows 2003 Server I havent seen any major problems with it nor do I see people wanting to switch to in in droves.

Re:Microsoft won the last browser war but failed.

[dpilot]

The won/failed are flip-sides of the same coin. Microsoft perceived Netscape as a threat, and they responded to the threat. Once Netscape was asphyxiated, (Remember that the phrase was, "Cut off their air supply.") the threat was gone. They had been expending substantial resources on IE, responding to the Netscape Threat. Once the threat was gone, it was only logical to divert those resources to other more active issues.

This is the very real threat of a monopoly. There is no incentive to improve a monopoly product as a competitive response. Think IE, think of how DOS stagnated before DRDOS came out. On the other hand, it isn't completely this way, because as a monopoly Microsoft has to compete with its installed base. The revenue driver becomes upgrades rather than conversions from a competitor, and they have to give people some sort of reason to upgrade.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[DarkDragonVKQ]

*copies and pastes info from Filterset G into urlfilter.ini in my Opera installaton folder. Tada I do it vice versa, I use Opera as my main browser and Firefox as my backup so I'm always syncing their ad blocks and bookmarks.

In the end, this is just like....

[TemplesA]

Buying a car.

You have choices, a Lexus, Acura, and a Ford.

Ford's come from the factory broken, and continue to break down over time, requiring numerous trips to the dealership, so it's safe to say NO!

Acura's are fancy, and have the speed side down, [Think NSX] and the reliability is good, but there isn't much you can do to the car, unless you buy aftermarket accessories.

Lexus's are really nice, and have tons of options. While they may not be as quick as Acura's, their choices and reliability are almost unbeatable!

In the end, it all comes down to what you want and need [Which is NOT the Ford] - so you choose accordingly.

Opera does have themes. Table says otherwise.

[delire]

Strictly speaking the comparison table on page 2 is incorrect. Opera does have themes, many of them, albeit the browser isn't shipped with them as such.

Some Personal

[unPlugged-2.0]

As a person who has done some personal testing on the same matter except for Opera I have some comments. It is nice to see the results on a more formal article but I am afraid the depth isn't there. Firefox 2.0 beta is not the same kind of release that IE 7 is. Where as FFox2.0 has been in the works for 6 months. They have been working on IE 7 for what 2 years now. So in that way not really a fair comparison. A better comparison would be to look at the nightly builds and ahead to version 3.0 which will arrive much sooner than any updates to IE7 will.

But I digress. My testing is as follows. Please note that I am currently using Firefox and Flock.

IE 7
-------
Pros:
Much better improvement over IE 6
Tabbed browsing is done very well and better than firefox IMO
Security remains to be seen but hopefully better
RSS integration and better search integration

Cons:
CSS is still broken - IE6 was horrible, IE 7 is just bad
Supports Active X - this continues to be the main reason for their flaws and I don't see how this will change things
Similar load times to IE 6 (isn't this supposed to be better)
Tabs take up more memory
Not liking the New UI (personal)

FF 2.0
-------
Pros:
Like the article says incremental improvements - better search ui, better buttons, rss glow
Better Security until IE 7 is tested
worse -> bad memory management

Cons:
Firefox was at 1.x releases forever and now they decide to do huge jumps
Memory Management is still bad
All Firefox browsers are still part of the same process so when one dies everything dies
XUL, XUL, XUL

So overall IE seems to have fired a good shot but falls short in some aspects especially more complex site rendering. Firefox is good as always and the changes are incremental and good.

So I don't expect too many sweeping changes. IE may get to keep some people who were sick of IE 6 and considering a move but it is not likely to attract the Firefox crows. This could stop some of Firefox's market share gains that it has been enjoying but we will have to see what Firefox 3 does.

Re:Some Personal

[WeAreAllDoomed]

Cons:
[...]
XUL, XUL, XUL

what do you dislike about XUL?

Re:Some Personal

[unPlugged-2.0]

Wel actually XUL itself is very powerful and a great standard but the support of it is what I am talking about. It is a Pro and Con simultaneously. While XUL is really Mozilla shining star for the future it is also not very standardized and there is too much variance between platforms. XAML is also another competitor to this and doesn't seem to easily compatible. These are some of the issues but they don't do the full XUL topic justice.

Re:Some Personal

[AK Marc]

As a person who has done some personal testing on the same matter except for Opera I have some comments.

Well, everyone that I've forced to use Opera for a week would never go back. Mouse gestures are great, tabs (in Opera first, and still best, IMHO), and standards support are better in Opera than the other two. Look at the Acid2 results if you want proof of the standards support.

Re:Some Personal

[Rogue Pat]

I'll repeat parts of a post in another article:

Please, please, stop repeating this. Standards Compliance and the Acid Test are only _related_ topics. The Acid 2 Test is not a proof of standards compliance.

Once people like yourself starting seeing the Acid Test as a proof of standards compliance, it stopped having any meaning. Programmers would/could prioritize those bugs standing in the way of passing the Acid 2 Test, while other, possibly more important issues wrt. standards compliance were treated as less important.

Even a moron in a hurry ;) would understand that passing the Acid 2 Test only means you're passing the Acid 2 Test. It doesn't even mean that you properly included the standards needed to pass the Acid 2 Test. And even less that you're (fully) standards compliant.

Please take a look at a comprehensive list comparing standards compliance before claiming lack of standards compliance in Firefox (or other browsers)

Re:Some Personal

[unPlugged-2.0]

Yes I have heard the same about opera as one of our other developers swears by it.

However as a web developer the key matter is that you are coding for what your client base will have and thus even if you code everything according to standards this doesn't help you one bit if your client is all IE.

That is the frustrating aspect especially when you do heavy CSS work as many times we generate bad css just so it works on IE but is broken on Firefox.

So though Opera might be great you have to go with the one that strikes a good compromise between market share and features (ie the Fox)

Re:Some Personal

[AK Marc]

The Acid 2 Test is not a proof of standards compliance.

Can you be standards complaint and still fail the Acid2 test?

Jumping to conclusions...

[Osiris Ani]

From the article:

In one year, the open-source darling Firefox has pulled within a dead heat of browser the browser popularity crown, at least on the ExtremeTech site, where each browser claims just over 43 percent of our viewers.

How interesting. Percentage-wise, visitors to the ExtremeTech web site use Firefox as much as IE. Wow... who would have guessed that Firefox is popular among computer geeks?

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[Pink Tinkletini]

How about the theme to make it look and feel like an OS X app? Beauty is more than skin deep. If themes can't give it a Mac-like Preferences window, integration with Keychain, Services functionality, etc., then themes can't make it a Mac application. I suspect the same is true for Opera's Windows version.

Acid Test

[PinkyDead]

Whether you accept the validity of the Acid Test or not - I would have thought that Microsoft would have recognised the necessity of just passing that one simple test, even if it was even to have a simple 'if(acidtest)- then display this' in the code.

Everyone knows Opera does it and FireFox doesn't - if IE7 did it as well, however it worked, it would have silenced a lot of detractors, at least in the short term. It suggests not just that they are incapable of achieving proper standards compliance - but that in fact they are totally oblivious to the existance of said standards or the tests which prove them.

Re:Acid Test

[backwardMechanic]

You could say exactly the same of the Mozilla devs. Why on earth does Gecko not render Acid2 properly?

Re:Acid Test

[Rogue Pat]

Why on earth does Gecko not render Acid2 properly?

The reflow branch of Gecko 1.9 does this. Not the 1.8.x branch on which FF 1.x and 2.x are based.

Significant changes are made to Gecko (see for instance the work that's ROC's doing on the inclusion of Cairo). It was decided not to change too many things in a single release and not to delay the release of a post 1.5 Firefox waiting for all these changes to be fully implemented/tested/matured.

So yes, there are Gecko versions that already render Acid2 properly. But the work at large is not felt to be ready for a release to end-users.

Re:Acid Test

[backwardMechanic]

Hang on, this is meant to be /. - that was an informed, informative answer. Thank you. I...think I'll go and lie down for a while. And kudos to the Moz team for not rushing something out to shut up whiners like me.

Re:Acid Test

[Simon Donkers]

Simple idea
1: IE's the most popular browser out there so people design sites for IE
2: IE is not standard complient hence sites designed for IE don't work very well in other browers
3: People stick with IE because other browsers "don't work" and can't even display a site
4: ???
5: Profit

Re:Acid Test

[Rogue Pat]

Hang on, this is meant to be /. - that was an informed, informative answer.

*grin*. Sorry, my bad ;)

Pro IE 7

[Henry V .009]

IE 7 is cool. I think I'll switch to it for my Windows computers (despite having used Firefox since its first beta). What I like about beta 3: tooltips that show keyboard shortcuts, in fact an entire list of keyboard shortcuts is available from the option menu on newly opened tab. Also I like the option on shutdown to open up with the current tabs next time.

"But there are extensions for all that!"—In fact that gets me to what I hate most about Firefox. Extension hell. Every time I install Firefox on a new system I have to hunt down a list of extensions for it or my user experience is going to change radically. And all those extensions take up memory and processor time, and often have bugs or security flaws of their own.

Another thing I like about IE 7 is its sandbox mode on Vista. That should, I think, provide several security advantages over competing browsers. (In fact, IE 6 with ActiveX turned off was already reasonably secure.)

Re:Pro IE 7

[metsu]

I'm not that peeved with the 'extension hell' dependancy.
But the fact that an extension is currently needed for proper rendering is quite annoying.

Re:Pro IE 7

[metsu]

er.. that is "proper 'ruby' rendering". --slashcode ate it!

Re:Pro IE 7

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

And all those extensions take up memory and processor time, and often have bugs or security flaws of their own.

And how do you suppose this is different from them being built in? Having an official communication mechanism between components, which everyone knows about is likely to result in more security for interactions, not less. A huge number of vulnerabilitites are the result of a new feature being tacked on in a nonstandard way and without consideration for the security implications.

Another thing I like about IE 7 is its sandbox mode on Vista. That should, I think, provide several security advantages over competing browsers.

sandboxes are a good idea, but I have doubts about the implementation. Maybe they will prove me wrong, but I certainly would not switch until there was some demonstration that it actually helps. MS is notoriously loud about making promises (especially about increased security) and constantly delivering sub par, poorly executed half-solutions that are worked around by the malware development community in short order.

In fact, IE 6 with ActiveX turned off was already reasonably secure.

Compared to what browser? I don't know of any other browser other than IE with active X enabled that is more likely to result in your system being compromised.

Re:Pro IE 7

[robertjw]

tooltips that show keyboard shortcuts...the option on shutdown to open up with the current tabs next time.

You might want to try Opera. Both of those features have been available for years.

Re:Pro IE 7

[schweini]

I'll stick to firefox anyhow, because of its cross-platformy-ness and the extensions, but i feel your pain of having to reinstall extensions that i (and sometime only me) find fundamental - there should really be an install-option that offers different widely used install-profiles, so that if i select e.g. "add standard webdeveloper extensions" it downloads and installs the basics automatically. and an option to point the installer to a custom installation-profile. that would really rock, IMHO.

Re:Pro IE 7

[clgoh]

I'm curious: what extension would that be?

Re:Pro IE 7

[Blimey85]

You can acutally (through the use of two extensions) package up your extensions into a single extension that you can then move to other computers to painlessly get them setup the same way. Well, the extensions anyway and I think it might also include themes. I wanted something like this because I often have people asking me what extensions I'm running and then I have to hunt down url's so they can easily install each one. I have around 40 extensions installed so it's a real pain. Now I just package them all up and send an email. They check which ones they want to install, restart 'Fox, and they've got 'em.

I do get what you are saying about how it's very different once you get it tweaked and the stock install is pretty bland. The idea is for the core installation to be as small as possible. Users can then add whatever they want via extensions. You or anyone else could package Firefox with whatever variety of extensions you like and then people could install that but considering how easy extensions are to install (typically anyway, some end up not working at all or as you say, have bugs or security flaws), it should be fairly trivial for a user to get it setup just how they want it.

You say the extensions take up memory and processor time but you want lots of features enabled by default. I agree that Firefox uses more memory than it should however it would use a lot more if a long list of features were enabled by default. Although maybe the extension system causes features to use more memory than they would need if they were part of the main app.

Re:Pro IE 7

[anaesthetica]

"But there are extensions for all that!"â"In fact that gets me to what I hate most about Firefox. Extension hell. Every time I install Firefox on a new system I have to hunt down a list of extensions for it or my user experience is going to change radically. And all those extensions take up memory and processor time, and often have bugs or security flaws of their own.

But this is really the whole point of having extensions. Think of how bloated and buggy and unstable Firefox would be if every feature was built directly into the browser. It would be a horrible horrible mess. The idea behind Firefox, which everyone seems to be forgetting, is that it's not supposed to include everything. That was Mozilla Suite / SeaMonkey. Firefox is supposed to be lean and mean.

You have the option to extend Firefox however you like, but that's *your* option. Don't blame Firefox for giving you the option to customize your browser--that's absurd. Furthermore, don't blame Firefox for the bugs in the extensions. Yes, that sucks, but Firefox didn't write those extensions. They wrote a lean, quick browser.

Bitching about having to download Firefox extensions is like bitching about the Lean Cuisine meals you got and how they don't have enough calories until you add extra side dishes. If you want a plethora of features, get a browser that has a plethora of features to begin with!

If you want something with everything already included in it by default, get Opera or SeaMonkey.

Re:Pro IE 7

[metsu]

http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/_rubysupport.html.en

Re:Pro IE 7

[Seraphim_72]

Which two extentions do you use?

Re:Pro IE 7

[Bazouel]

Now come on ... Opera has the concept of browsing sessions since a looong time ago. You can save/load your current tabs anytime you want.

About the sandbox mode, that would not be necessary if they made IE secure right from the start. I am using Opera for many years now and I have yet to get a single popup that I did not request. And I don't need to worry about security zones, separate process for each browser, etc. etc. ad nauseam. The optional security settings for IE in XP SP1+ is a JOKE! It makes IE completely unusable! I cannot even browse Google without adding it to my list of trusted site.

I am sorry, even if I think many MS products are cool and that OSS has a lot to do to catch up to them, IE 7 is clearly not one of these.

Re:Pro IE 7

[AnyoneEB]

Unfortunately, the identity of those two extensions is a well-kept secret.

Seriously, will that method also work between Windows and Linux? (I dual-boot.)

Re:Pro IE 7

[Blimey85]

You can get info and download FEBE here:
http://customsoftwareconsult.com/extensions /febe/febe.html

The other one is CLEO and you can get both of them together here:
http://customsoftwareconsult.com/extensions/febe/F EBE-CLEO.html

Re:Pro IE 7

[Blimey85]

Go here and check them out:
http://customsoftwareconsult.com/extensions/febe/f ebe.html

There is a link at the top of that page to a new version for Linux. I'm running Windows so I haven't tried it but the Windows version is solid so I'd expect nothing less from the Linux version. I think you'll need both FEBE and CLEO, both of which are avail on that site.

I agree that they are rather obscure. My wife saw them mentioned on some site and told me about them or I may have never found them, and I've specifically gone hunting for exactly this functionality on more than one occasion.

Re:Pro IE 7

[pembo13]

You could just not install the extensions. Esp. since you wouldn't have them in IE7.

Re:LIES ABOUT FIREFOX

[DarkDragonVKQ]

I think the author meant default functionality as in right when you install. For users like us, we can pretty much make Opera and Firefox do whatever the hell we want. Hell we can even do it with IE (well more like another browser coded with IE's engine). Technically most of the features in FireFox 2 that I find useful are already installed as extensions to my install. But I know plenty of users who never even tried one out. Though the author also got some things incorrect. He said that Firefox has skins/themes but Opera doesn't. But Opera in fact does.

I use Opera

[refriedchicken]

And think it is the best browser available. However, everytime I click a link from Slashdot I get an error about "the server being unreachable". Slashdot must not be using the proper standards.

Re:I use Opera

[refriedchicken]

It's called humor, get sense of it.

Not free. But MS can afford it.

[MarkByers]

there just aren't that many good programmers who would be willing to give up their time to MS for free

True, but there are a lot of programmers that would do pretty much anything for having 'worked for Microsoft' on their CV.

Re:Not free. But MS can afford it.

[WeAreAllDoomed]

True, but there are a lot of programmers that would do pretty much anything for having 'worked for Microsoft' on their CV.

they could achieve the same effect by putting "i have no scruples, self-respect, or sense of taste" in their bio section.

Re:Not free. But MS can afford it.

[WeAreAllDoomed]

no?

Be warned

[The MAZZTer]

DOM Inspector is horribly broken to the point of almost being completely useless in Firefox 2 beta 1. At least it was for me.

It also will crash Firefox very easily.

Re:Opera?

[Tx]

which by the way Opera on the PocketPC is worth the money it beats the crap out of all mobile browsers

Well, I tried it for a while a couple of months back, and I ain't switching from NetFront on my iPAQ. And when I do it will probably be to Minimo (the Mozilla browser for small devices). Opera for PDA/phones is quite fast and stable, but lacks a lot of features.

Missing feature: scalable viewport

[Elkboy]

A freely scalable browser viewport is a killer feature in Opera, IMO. It's perfect for my high-res screen that otherwise makes most web pages very small. If I understand correctly, you'll be able to scale things freely in IE9 with Vista, however.

Re:Missing feature: scalable viewport

[Elkboy]

Maybe I should read the article first, eh? It seems like IE9 supports Opera-like page zooming. Now we only need it for Firefox...

Re:LIES ABOUT FIREFOX

[kasgoku]

so basically... this study is for people that think their computer might explode anytime and try to stay away from it, and not for nerds like us.

Printing support

[chiller2]

The IE7 developers have really improved their printing options. This is an area the Firefox team should focus on.

e.g. In Firefox the scaling to fit the page just squeezes the content between wider margins rather than actually scaling the pages.

Just yesterday a work colleague was trying to print off a page that was split horizontally into two frames. The top one had a company logo, and the lower one the table of figures she actually wanted. Printing normally just output the first bit of the lower frame. I had to view that frame only to get the full table in the frame to print.

Re:Printing support

[pe1chl]

It is usually possible to make websites print decently in many different browsers, including Firefox and MSIE.
Just define a separate stylesheet for printing. This stylesheet can hide the navigation items and specify how the fixed page layout has to be scaled on the paper when printing.

Of course, not every site designer is careful enough to include a printing stylesheet.

Re:Printing support

[donutello]

The website designer should not have to do anything. A decent browser should be able to print the displayed content in a format that the user would want it to be. Website designers are free to provide the ability to print in other ways but being able to print the content as it is displayed should be a given.

Re:Printing support

[pe1chl]

This normally works ok for sites that provide only content, and limited formatting.
But most websites try to provide "pixel-perfect layout" and define many measurements in pixel units.
Telltale signs of this are often the dreaded "this website was designed for a resolution of 1024x768" or similar.

Such websites are causing difficulty when printing, because "pixels" have to be scaled to the printer output.
This process will be helped by a stylesheet that provides the relevant measurements in "points" and/or as percentages of total width.
Similar for font sizes.

(of course it would be ideal when the normal display version could use "point" sizes as well, but there are too many browser and os bugs around to do that now)

Re:Printing support

[dcam]

More to the point firefox should include a "print" option in their context menu for the page and the frame.

yebbut

[mapmaker]

to add one (Right-click > Customize > Drag the new tab button > Done)

You can't place it on the tab bar where it (imo) belongs. This is the reason I still use Moz instead of FF.

Re:yebbut

[Anonymous Coward]

Using the TabMix Plus extension, yes you can. Drag&Drop tab placement. I reorder my tabs to suit my wants/needs all the time.

Re:yebbut

[Atzanteol]

On my Windows laptop that's exactly where it is. But I can't figure out why or how to do it on my Linux machines.

Re:yebbut

[mapmaker]

Ah, very nice. Thanks very much Mr. Coward.

Re:yebbut

[SimplexO]

You can't place it on the tab bar where it (imo) belongs. This is the reason I still use Moz instead of FF.

I wrote an extension for Firefox called New Tab Button on Tab Bar just for this purpose. I even gave it an awefully long name so that people could find it!

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[IanHurst]

Opera's UI is extremely customizable. Skinnable interface and lots of flexibility with toolbar and button placement, on the output side. On the input side, you can set up your own keyboard shortcuts and mouse gestures if you don't like the default ones.

I don't *want* to fucking customize it. Seriously. If I'm to move out of my comfort zone (Firefox, IE - whatever), it must work the way I expect with minimal intervention. This is such a fucking "DUH" thing it's hard to believe I'm writing it in the year 2006. If you want users, do what they expect, only do it better than the competition. Jesus.

-Ian

Re:Beta?

[kimvette]

Comparing bleeding-edge betas to bleeding-edge betas IS fair.

Comparing, say, Firefox 2.0 (beta) to MSIE 6.0 isn't a very fair comparison.

Re:LIES ABOUT FIREFOX

[DarkDragonVKQ]

Exactly. Luckily (hopefully) these people will eventually die out.

Opera theme

[ThreatDown]

The comparison messes up right at the get go, themes firefox yes, IE no, opera NO eh opera DEFINATELY does themes, and you don't even have to restart the browser

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[nuzak]

BTW, I didn't mean to call the parent poster a tool -- I just sort of autopilot-typed the word "too". I turn "the" into "then" all then time tool ;)

I probably shouldn't have flamed at all :-/

Sorry.

You can only do so much

[ben there...]

I use Opera for some sites that make Firefox crawl after a while. It's alright, but I do like Firefox's UI better, even after customizing both.

The biggest thing is tab handling. I frequently open a bunch of tabs from an index/home page. Then CTRL-Tab to the first one. I have a mouse button mapped to CTRL-W. In Opera, if I CTRL-W, it will take me back to the home page that I opened it from (the last tab that was viewed). In Firefox, it will always switch to the next tab (moves to right), until the last tab (moves to left).

So I customized Opera's CTRL-W shortcut to "close tab, switch to next" or something similar. But if I skip some tabs and jump ahead, I'll reach the end and it wraps around to the first, before I'm done with that tab set. Then I have to switch through a bunch of tabs or just click the one I want again. And even with customization, nothing stops a javascript:close() from switching to the wrong tab.

In other cases, I'm just a little more used to the Firefox UI details, but I'm glad to see they took my suggestion (Opera blog comment) of including images in the Transfers window for 9.0. Now if they could just let me customize the rest to make it a slightly more stable, fast version of Firefox.

Re:You can only do so much

[ben there...]

Hahaha, well, sorry about that then. I like it because if I download a few images to different folders I can quickly go find each of them. I think they left out right click->"open target folder" though. That would make it even better.

So...

[DancesWithDupes]

> "...Firefox is still ahead in extensions, while Opera has some slick UI conveniences."

In other words, 'business as usual'.

Re:So...

[GayFUD]

Firefox is gay and bloated. IE7 is queer and won't render digg or slashdot properly. I don't care what they say, Opera feels clunky and conforms to gay standards that no one cares about. See yesterday's post about W3C.

Re:Beta?

[Valthan]

Hell... Ffx 1.5.x to MSIE 6.0 isn't a very fair comparison.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[21chrisp]

I think marking this as Flamebait is unfair. The poster has a valid point. Opera's interface leaves a lot to be desired, and there aren't very many skins that both look nice and integrate well into the native OS look.

Re:Opera?

[Tritoch]

Don't forget that Opera's coming to the Nintendo DS and Wii as well. Being available for those platforms may not gain the browser a lot of market share (the DS version will be sold as a separate cartridge, and it remains to be seen how many people will surf the web on a console), but it will give the browser some long-overdue mainstream exposure that could lead to future converts.

Catch-up features

[ben there...]

Hopefully Firefox (core) never completely "catches up" to all the other browsers. Then it will have every one of their features, and will be much more bloated than it needs to be. That's what the extension system is for: to keep the core somewhat minimal.

Re:Beta?

[ArcticFlood]

Opera 9 isn't in beta.

Memory usage charts wrong

[Dan East]

Their memory usage charts cannot possibly be right:

Memory Usage Loading Six Tabs
Firefox 2 Beta 1: 73K
Internet Explorer 7 Beta 3: 70K
Opera 9.0: 52K
IE 6.0: 155K
Firefox 1.5.0.4: 56K

A single image on one of those pages could require more RAM than what the entire program is consuming. That's way, way off. What's even more amazing is, going by their charts, Opera actually consumes LESS ram with 6 pages loaded than when it first starts up! 53k -> 52k

Dan East

Re:Memory usage charts wrong

[DarkDragonVKQ]

It has something to do with their cacheing I think. I know in Opera at least (don't remember how to do it in Firefox) that you can limit the memory cache usage. Mine's set to 20 MB.

Re:Memory usage charts wrong

[AndreiK]

I would say they meant MB, as currently, with one tab, Firefox is at 36,000K

Re:Memory usage charts wrong

[animaal]

Memory Usage Loading Six Tabs
Firefox 2 Beta 1: 73K
Internet Explorer 7 Beta 3: 70K
Opera 9.0: 52K
IE 6.0: 155K
Firefox 1.5.0.4: 56K

A single image on one of those pages could require more RAM than what the entire program is consuming.

What, you mean Opera (52K) can't run on a Commodore64 after all?

Re:Memory usage charts wrong

[Blimey85]

Maybe the K is supposed to be an M. Firefox needing 73M to load six tabs seems reasonable. My Firefox (1.5.0.4) with two tabs open is using 66.7M but I often see it use over 130M after it's been running for a while. Granted I usually have a lot of tabs open and they don't seem to give up all of their memory after they are closed.

Re:Memory usage charts wrong

[drew]

I'm more curious how he managed to load six tabs in IE 6.

Re:Memory usage charts wrong

[mennucc1]

Probably that article page was changed after you read it; now it says Memory Usage in MB Loading Six Tabs.
What I find strange is that it claims that Opera would consume 53 Mb of RAM with no web page, and 52MB of RAM with 6 web pages shown!

Re:Memory usage charts wrong

[quakeroatz]

From TFA
"Memory Usage in MB Loading Six Tabs"

"A single image on one of those pages could require more RAM than what the entire program is consuming. That's way, way off."
Not if you READ the article and use MB.

"Opera actually consumes LESS ram with 6 pages loaded than when it first starts up!"
All the others increased in footprint. I'm sure Opera must have another thread holding this data.

Re:Memory usage charts wrong

[cbhacking]

There's an add-on to IE6 called the MSN (or Live) Toolbar that gives tabbed browsing capabilities. It's inferior to IE7, or even Firefox out-of-the-box (which is also inferior to IE7), but it sure beats stardard IE6. Of course, 6 is still less secure, far less standards compliant, and has an inferior UI, but for those of us who must use it at work, it is acceptable.

Re:Memory usage charts wrong

[mikemuch]

Sorry, that was supposed to be MB; the correction has been made in the article.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[Kamots]

There's settings for that...

Tools -> Preferences -> Advanced -> History

Re:Opera?

[freakified]

"ActiveX controls can affect your entire computer (hurrah for integrating the browser with the OS!.)" Actually, Firefox extensions CAN affect the entire OS, so long as the user has permission to do so, by including executable files and running them.

Re:Opera?

[TheRaven64]

Two of the devices you mention are made by Nokia, who are actively developing WebKit based browsers. They have a GTK one and a Symbian one underway, which makes Opera's position on their devices look somewhat uncertain in the future.

This is how they win all wars.

[Onan]

Well the last war MS won but failed to keep their browser up to date.

Recall that this is exactly what Microsoft does in all markets. And, sad to say, it doesn't seem to work out too poorly for them.

Products like Word, Excel, and IE were genuinely good pieces of software back when Microsoft was first entering those markets, and had to bend all their efforts toward defeating a real competitor. But once they had eliminated Wordperfect, Lotus, and Netscape as real threats, Microsoft's offerings languished. Updates became more rare, and more inclined toward bloatware features than stability or performance.

This is how Microsoft has always operated, and as much as I wish it were not the case, it has not yet manifested as an exploitable chink in their armor. The most optimistic thing I can possibly think is that Netscape rising from its grave as zombie-Mozilla might keep Microsoft in "competing" mode for a while, thus creating slightly better products than they would have otherwise.

But I honestly don't really think that'll much happen. None of the brood of Mozilla is likely to seriously displace IE, partially because of the fact that Netscape-derived browsers have also been going way downhill for about a decade now. So they're just never going to be the kind of threat that can spur Microsoft into less-sucky mode, much less actually push Microsoft off the hill.

Firefox Theme Support

[infestedsenses]

From TFA:

But all the themes we found merely changed the interface buttons and perhaps added an image to the top menu area; they don't change the window borders the way you can with WindowBlinds.

This statement is a little misleading. Perhaps they didn't find themes that change the whole UI, but Firefox fully supports this and there are themes that do exactly this, without the need for proprietary, system-wide applications.

PimpZilla is a good example for this: It even goes so far as to completely re-style the option menus.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[nick.ian.k]

Close but not quite. Yes, the interface should be arranged in a logical way that's obvious to most users, but it should still be customizable. To put it another way: customization should be accounted for but remain optional, while common usability should be possible out of the box with little to no effort on the part of the end user. The notion that imitation with only minor improvement is the key to success is the mentality that results in real-dog new versions of popular software. Much as I'm sick to death of hearing about Opera, they brought cool features like tabs to market...only hardly anybody used Opera. Others started to copy a feature that the average web user neither expected or would know how to use out of the box, and now its standard in the major browsers. That's pretty damned unexpected, wouldn't you say so?

Re:Opera?

[twistedsymphony]

IIRC The Nintendo Wii will have browser capabilities via a version of Opera as well...

I wonder if they'll leave the bit-torrent feature intact, that could be dangerious

Give me my +5 insightful mod

[Vexorian]

The Firefox developpers should focus on fixing bugs and the giant footprint.

Hey statistically speaking if I add that comment on a topic about firefox I have a 0.99 probability of getting +5 insightful.

My big question:

[HoboMaster]

Can anyone explain why MS cares wheter IE is the dominant browser or not? They don't get any money from the whole thing. What would MS lose if they just had Windows come with Firefox or Opera? Is this whole thing just a mindshare battle? If so, wouldn't it be more beneficial just to make Firefox or whatever part of the Windows suite of apps and make it to where people immediately associate that program with Windows? It seems like MS is wasting lots of money working on IE to no real gain.

Re:My big question:

[Wizard Drongo]

Mindshare. IE is Microsoft, and to a lot of people, they see IE as part and parcel of windows. Which it is. So when they see a new version of IE out, they don't just think they're updating their browser, but they're updating Windows. This is why anti-trust was so important. And why it was so bad the US Govt caved in to Microsoft. No absolutely massive huge fines from them, or actual company breakage (although that was rumoured to on the cards, probably just to scare Microsoft shitless. Mind you, I don't think the EU politicians have campaign funding from Microsoft. Probably because campaign finance laws are a hell of a lot stricter here than in the USA. You guys actually have people who are paid to buy politicians off for big business (lobbyists). How the hell can that be right, and more relevantly, how the hell can a small, independent relatively poor outfit like the Mozilla Foundation hope to compete with Microsoft, who if they wanted could probably buy the USA outright, and if that failed, could afford the money for a military campaign to win the USA by conquest.

Re:My big question:

[HoboMaster]

So it is a mindshare thing. Wish a decent marketing push, Microsoft could spin the increasing Firefox marketshare as a good thing. Not their style though, I guess. I won't even get into the rest of your response.

Re:Opera?

[codename.matrix]

Can you give me a source for that? I thought about using a next gen console as a HTPC and the Wii would be excellent with the capabilities and that price.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[__aahtpi2051]

totally agree. the opera interface is the least intuitive of all the browsers i've tested. on my freebsd box its also the fastest to open and navigate, but the bookmarks bar default setting of auto-hideing, is totally annoying. i think unless a team has an innovative reason for creating a new interface [i.e some new feature that demands it] they shouldnt really change how a user expects to interact with the information.

i think the biggest problem for opera is organizing the features in a more intuitive manner so new users can access them and customize them, and also keeping the features from taking up all the space. opera definantly feels cluttered at times

Re:Opera?

[Eljas]

I can't recommend Opera Mini enough, especially if you have MIDP 2 compatible phone. I can even read Slashdot with my Siemens CX75, something that is practically impossible with the phone's built-in browser.

Opera gets no respect

[AK Marc]

I like Opera. I use Opera. I read the comparison, and Opera looks to come out favorably. Then I read the comments. Firefox compared to IE, again and again. Reasons why Firefox is better. Reasons why IE is better. Reasons why more people use IE. But there are fewer comments on Opera. I can't understand why. It has lots of things that Firefox needs extenstions for built right in (and without significant differences in resources), and some things, like bittorrent support, that aren't available in any extension. It has better standards compliance than the other two. It has Widgets (like extensions) if you want to expand it more. But yet, a 3-way comparison is treated as a 2-way comparison. I thought this would be more of an eye opener, "Wow, I didn't know Opera did all that and did it better than the other browsers!" But instead, the comments read like the posters glanced at the IE and Firefox pages of the article (if they read it at all) and hopped right back on the IE vs Firefox war. I find it sad that a competitive browser receives to little consideration, especially from a group that is supposedly early adopters.

Re:Opera gets no respect

[lee1]

I like Opera. I use Opera.

Me, too. I think there is a reflex to ignore Opera becuase for so long it was pay- or ad-ware.

Re:Opera gets no respect

[tomasgal]

Don't get me wrong, I really like Opera a lot. But the fact is that when I am using it, some sites I visit frecuently just don't behave correctly (i.e. at the airline member page, the same login page is shown again after submitting the credentials). I have always to check the page with other browser in order to know if the problem is on the site itself or it is just that it doesn't work in Opera. This uncertainty is what make me go back to Firefox again and again.

Re:Opera gets no respect

[renoX]

I like a lot Opera: it's much faster than FF, it has the 'Ctrl+F11' set to reflow a webpage to avoid horizontal scrolling, it remembers open tab if you quit the application or if it crash.
All this by default, no need to waste your time managing extensions.

But I also hate Opera, it's tab management is *stupid* when you're used to FF, there is an option in Opera9 which is supposed to make it work like FF, but it doesn't work..

Re:Opera gets no respect

[hkmwbz]

But I also hate Opera, it's tab management is *stupid* when you're used to FF

That's too bad, because Opera's tab management is a lot more flexible, powerful and useful than Firefox's.

there is an option in Opera9 which is supposed to make it work like FF

Hmm, I don't think that's true.

Re:Opera gets no respect

[jp10558]

What's interesting is I feel the same way about FireFox's tab management. That said, being different isn't being worse. I do wish there was a way to get either to behave like the other, but I guess on either side it would be re designing much of the low level tab code.

Re:Opera gets no respect

[renoX]

You can configure Opera such as 'ctrl w' close the tab, and go to the next tab in windows order, but I haven't found how to do the same thing on closing a tab with the mouse :-(

Re:Opera gets no respect

[renoX]

I wouldn't call Opera's tab management flexible: it cannot be configured fully emulate Firefox's tab management.
It's just different, it tries to be intelligent, but I prefer dumb and *simple* management.

Re:Opera gets no respect

[C_Kode]

I hate firefox tabs management. If I'm viewing the second of 5 tabs and I open a new tab to view a link. Once I close that tab I want to be back at the originating tab, not the 5 tab which could me my email or something. Give me the xy stacking of tabs in used order. Screw the right to left order that I wasn't using them in.

It's nice to have all of your "always open pages" open on startup also. (Yahoo Mail & Google Mail, calendar, slashdot, google news, etc) I've always hated opening each tab everytime I start the browser.

Re:Opera gets no respect

[ben there...]

Personally, I hate returning to the first page (usually an index/home page) when I close each-and-every page that I opened from that page. It's annoying as hell in Opera.

It's nice to have all of your "always open pages" open on startup also. (Yahoo Mail & Google Mail, calendar, slashdot, google news, etc) I've always hated opening each tab everytime I start the browser.

You can do that in Firefox by either clicking "Use Current Pages" for your homepage (built-in feature) or installing Session Saver or Tab Mix Plus (extensions).

Re:Opera gets no respect

[renoX]

For the tab order, I agree that it is a purely personnal preference point of view, but you do agree with me that once you're used to one way, it very annoying to change to a browser with a different way..

As for keeping the current pages open of Opera, I definitely agree that it is a very nice feature (that plus the Ctrl+F11 reflowing of webpage), and that FF developpers should put it by default not relegate it in the purgatory of extensions..
In that FF is very sad: it lacks many things by default and users says just use extension XXX for your need (no thanks I have better things to do than playing with extensions), but as soon as you complain about some problem in FF (say memory leaks), then users say that it is surely a problem caused by an extension (not true in the case of memory leaks/poor behaviour with many tabs opened)..

Re:Opera gets no respect

[C_Kode]

Personally, I hate returning to the first page (usually an index/home page) when I close each-and-every page that I opened from that page. It's annoying as hell in Opera.

For Firefox style tabbed broswing. (Right to Left tab ordering)

Tools->Preferences->Advanced Tab->Cycle in Tab Bar Order.

On that note, why open the link in a new page (tab) if you hate closing that link and returning to the original page? Just Click Through! (TM)

You can do that in Firefox by either clicking "Use Current Pages" for your homepage (built-in feature) or installing Session Saver or Tab Mix Plus (extensions).

Nice. Someone should mod this little tip up about the multiple home pages. I didn't realize Firefox supported this feature too!

Re:Opera gets no respect

[insignis]

As with every other program I've used with plugins/extensions, this feature is both the good and the bad of the entire program. It's good that it's extensible--really it is. The developers shouldn't have to include every single feature that less than 10% of their users will ever use. When you do, you get Microsoft-style bloatware (excepting Explorer, but I'm getting to that). The bad is that everyone and their mom and their mom's dog can write extensions, and really the only thing you as a user have got to go by is how popular it is. I periodically check in on FF extensions, and I download the most popular ones that sound useful to me--and on every one of my three computers with which I routinely browse the web, FF is unstable. I get consistent CPU and memory hogginging in the 50-100% range. I get crashing. I get hanging. I get staying-resident-after-I-kill-it-with-Task-Manager . I even had it kill popup menus system wide. Now that's impressive. No file menus, no context menus, no dropdowns from toolbars, with any program until I killed FF. Worst of all, I have no good way of telling which of my many extensions is causing me grief without systematically going through them, uninstalling one, and then using the browser for a few days to a week to see if that fixed it (nevermind bugs caused by multiple, conflicting extensions). I have had similar luck with the Google Desktop Sidebar, Explorer, and every other program I've ever used that supports extensions. For that reason I'd like to see more stability, whether that come from incorporating more extensions into the core application, or otherwise.

I recognize that more functionality in the core slows core development, and I personally don't mind downloading and configuring extensions--I actually prefer tweaking the application myself--though a number of people have already expressed comments otherwise.

Re:Opera gets no respect

[hkmwbz]

Emulating Firefox's limited and rather poor tab management is not exactly a goal... Opera's tab management is based on MDI, which has been around for years and years. Sure, it's simple if that's what you want, but it's also got a lot of flexibility if you need that. You can have it both ways: Simple and easy to use, and at the same time it is possible to do more advanced stuff. That's Opera.

Re:Opera gets no respect

[renoX]

> Emulating Firefox's limited and rather poor tab management is not exactly a goal.

Well it should be! There are much more FF users than Opera's users, so if it want to grow (IE users are not a likely target: if they wanted/were capable to switch they would have already done so).

And no, Opera's tab management is *not* simple, for someone used to FF it's too complex.
And as you cannot configure to Opera to emulate correctly FF tab management, so it's very annoying for FF users.

Re:Opera gets no respect

[hkmwbz]

There are much more FF users than Opera's users

Not because of the tab handling.

And no, Opera's tab management is *not* simple, for someone used to FF it's too complex.

As a FF switcher, I disagree.

Re:Opera gets no respect

[kingturkey]

I know the feeling. I use Opera and I feel that it is better than FF and IE, yet it gets no attention. I feel it deserves a bigger marketshare, but then I remember that a bigger marketshare means more security problems. I'm happy as long as Opera maintains a share big enough to keep it in business and producing a quality browser. I like to see them gaining a bit of a share as it means more money for a very deserving product and more support, but if people choose to ignore it then it's really just their loss and our gain.

Bad review

[Apraxhren]

They don't even mention IE's open search which can allow you to add a site's search engine from that site, the search option will change color when on a page that has it. You can then just select it from the drop down, and even add it permanently if you like. Of course it sounded like they just picked up both Firefox and IE and never used them before. Picture Example: http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/9344/searchvv7. gif

Re:Bad review

[citizenr]

>They don't even mention IE's open search which can allow you to add a site's search engine from
>that site, the search option will change color when on a page that has it. You can then just select
>it from the drop down, and even add it permanently if you like. Of course it sounded like they just
>picked up both Firefox and IE and never used them before. Picture Example: http:///
>img105.imageshack.us/img105/9344/searchvv7. gif

Opera had it a full YEAR AGO. Also quick view tabs IS in opera from the first 9.0 betas.. and forms spellchecked. Terrible article.

Re:Spellchecker nice, but wrong direction

[Grishnakh]

Yep, Konqueror/KDE has this, and it's quite nice. The same spellchecker used in Kword is used in Konqueror.

I don't know how Firefox does its spellcheck, but perhaps it reuses one of the open-source spellcheck libraries like ispell. But they probably would need to do some extra work to integrate their spellchecker with those of Gnome and KDE so that user-added words work in all apps.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[eyeye]

I used to use Opera and they made the interface unintuitive and like you say nothing like apps normally behave.

While I am here, Is there anyway to have your bookmarks open without some icon bar down the left hand side of it wasting space?

Extensions/Add-ins

[grassh0pper]

I wonder about how the extensions/add-ins are best handled. Throughout this discussion there a number of people saying "there is an extension to do that"...and then wonder why the average user still hasn't caught on to Firefox. And this is also why reviews like this automatically discard the extensions as not being part of the "base featureset" so they don't count. The average person just won't find/use them. Buttons count...features you have to search through a menu for don't. Same goes for extensions. The problem comes up all of the time where Firefox has a browser that CAN do most things - but will not catch on to the average crowd unless there is an easier way to customize it. Maybe there should be a way to "create your own Firefox". They could create 3 seperate editions - Basic, developer, and home. Or some variation of that with each having the most common menu setup and extensions for that type of user. Then a user would just need to pick which one fits best and download that...or go through a quick series of "would you like to be able to do...?" kind of questions that would lead them to a download that is ready to go all in one. Extensions could of course be modified from there in the usual way but that would allow people to get what they wanted without going through the time it takes to download, browse through all of the extensions looking for things that may be useful, and install. Just download your edition with all of the menus and extensions pre-set up for a typical use in that category. Thoughts?

Re:Extensions/Add-ins

[Supergibbs]

Yes I applaud firefox in not bloating up their browser too much and having a great plugin interface. I think they should convert as many of their features as possible to extensions and then include them by default. Then Users can truely have full control over their setup. There are firefox features I don't really use and I could save memory disabling them. Having a few versions (with different default extensions) is a great idea too.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[Grismar]

What most people seem to forget is that most (other?) people suck at custimization. To actually improve your browser usability, by customizing it to your needs, you need to be knowing what you're doing. If my friends and family (the non-geek, non-tech, non-designer ones, i.e. most of 'em) are a decent sample at all, people suck at it.

Half-hearted attempts, misunderstanding of the possibilities or simply the lack of a clue what usability means in the first place prevents these people from customizing their browser to make it more productive, prettier or accessible.

They are best off with a browser that has a decent, balanced interface right out of the box. My money is on Firefox, though the new IE isn't half bad.

Re:Beta?

[kimvette]

Opera 9 is not in beta, but isn't it bleeding-edge where Opera is concerned, or have they already released previews of 9.x or 10.0?

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[IanHurst]

Close but not quite. Yes, the interface should be arranged in a logical way that's obvious to most users, but it should still be customizable. To put it another way: customization should be accounted for but remain optional, while common usability should be possible out of the box with little to no effort on the part of the end user. The notion that imitation with only minor improvement is the key to success is the mentality that results in real-dog new versions of popular software.

I certainly don't disagree. I was trying for "terse", rather than "thorough".

The parent's post was a response to the statement that (paraphrasing) the one thing keeping people from switching to Opera is its interface itself. Exclaiming "but it's totally customizable!!" badly misses the point. If the authors of Opera want these people who don't like the interface to switch, they need to just work on the out-of-the-box interface.

In my opinion, Opera's issues are analogous to that of the Mozilla suite: its great featureset remains - after years and years of hard work - trapped in a UI mess. A comparison of the suite's success to Firefox' is - to the non-fanboy eye - telling.

Much as I'm sick to death of hearing about Opera, they brought cool features like tabs to market...only hardly anybody used Opera. Others started to copy a feature that the average web user neither expected or would know how to use out of the box, and now its standard in the major browsers. That's pretty damned unexpected, wouldn't you say so?

I would argue (if I had the energy) that whoever invented tabs, it was Firefox that exposed the wonders of tabbed browsing to the public, and it's to Firefox UI designers and marketers that credit should largely go. But that is a much touchier subject.

-Ian

Re:Opera?

[twistedsymphony]

Here you go

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[Haeleth]

*copies and pastes info from Filterset G into urlfilter.ini in my Opera installaton folder.

So you have to find a text file buried deep within your directory structure and edit it by hand? Gotta hand it to those Opera guys -- they clearly have the whole user-friendly UI thing down to a tee! None of this clunky Firefox crap where you have to put up with the tedious process of letting the filterset keep itself up to date without any user intervention at all.

Seriously, Opera has a lot of nice features, and it makes Firefox look embarrassingly slow and resource-hungry -- but I can't imagine admiring its interface.

Re:Spellchecker nice, but wrong direction

[Vexorian]

Firefox uses the same dictionaries as Thunderbird and can also use OpenOffice's dictionaries

IE 7 and PNG

[Vexorian]

why is that PNG IE7 still won't support PNG transparency? Besides of GIF(propietary) there is no other option for transparency in web development...

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[Haeleth]

Apple interfaces are successful not because of customization. In fact, you're usually stuck with what they give you. However, they clearly put a lot of thought into usability. Those interfaces work because they're clean. I don't necessarily like the visual style, but I appreciate the simplicity.

Yeah, Apple's UI is wonderful, isn't it?

So intuitive. So clean and simple.

Let's be honest with ourselves here. Apple's UI sucks. It just sucks less than anybody else's; like democracy, it's the least worst idea anyone's come up with. But that doesn't make it perfect.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[Camus SoNiCo]

You must be jocking? Everything is customizable in opera UI, plus you have skin support!!!
Please, check it out before giving comments.

MS IE preloaded

[leandrod]

One must, when running Firefox, either remove MS IE totally (not only with MS tools) or preload Firefox in order to compare their memory usages.

Re:MS IE preloaded

[GayFUD]

You're gay! Didn't you read that they rebuilt the prefetch cache. That argument is mental masturbation for firefag users.

Eight reasons not to care about IE 7

[dtjohnson]

So, after 5 years, Microsoft is finally updating Internet Explorer from v6 to v7 in response to the overwhelming current advantages of using Firefox/Sea Monkey/Mozilla rather than IE. Here are eight reasons that no one should even bother to consider using Internet Explorer 7:

1) Microsoft is only updating IE so that it will be good enough to keep people from going to the effort and trouble of downloading, installing, and learning Firefox. Microsoft will let IE wither on the vine again as soon as Firefox stops gaining market share.

2) Using IE means you are supporting Microsoft's vision of DRM in the future.

3) Microsoft does not support open standards for IE unless they have to.

4) Firefox will be continuously updated and improved with new ideas and features into the future while IE new releases will be infrequent by comparison.

5) Security. Firefox will always be much more secure than anything IE from Microsoft due to all the extra duties Microsoft wants their browser to do for them in addition to browsing the web for you.

6) Microsoft is a convicted anti-competition monopoly. No one should ever let themselves be locked into anything from such an outfit.

7) Firefox runs on most OS platforms. IE 7 only runs on Windows and only on the newest version of that. Do you want to upgrade your OS so that you can upgrade your browser?

8) Features. Firefox has more of everything...and probably always will.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[Cili]

Tools > Appearance (or right-click on a toolbar) Select the 'Windows Native' skin

Hehe

[bepe86]

Man, wish I had mod points right now, someone please mod parent funny :)

Irrelevant comparisons

[njdj]

I don't really care about features (except tabbed browsing, a must-have, but they all have that). I care about standards compliance. Apparently Opera is in the lead here, with the rest nowhere.

Re:Irrelevant comparisons

[ClamIAm]

This article barely touches on web standards at all. The only thing they cover is whether or not each browser renders Acid2 correctly. They don't cover any other aspects of CSS, and they mention none of the other standards browsers must deal with (HTML, DOM, etc). In fact, their section on Acid2 simply has screenshots of how each browser renders the test. They don't even go into what Firefox or IE get wrong!

How can you claim that "Opera is in the lead, with the rest nowhere"? Citing this article as your basis for comparison regarding web standards is completely illogical. That said, there are other comparisons which are much better. Unfortunately, you mention none of them. Better luck next time.

Could it be...?

[ravenlock]

I don't run any Firefox extensions, but can someone explain why Firefox gets lauded for "lots of extensions" while IE gets dinged for lots of ActiveX controls?

... perhaps it's because the majority of Firefox extensions are actually beneficial to the user? That, and the fact that Firefox has a huge repository of nice and useful stuff whereas I can't recall ever having knowingly installed a single ActiveX control (unless you count plugins for Flash and Java).

Re:Could it be...?

[whitehatlurker]

A previous post says this slightly differently.

Extensions are tools the user downloads and uses to do things they want to do - the ActiveX stuff is usually sent by the web developer to the user and then these are used by the developers to help do things they want to do.

It is all in who does the using, I guess. Kinda like life, eh?

Re:Beta?

[whitehatlurker]

Opera 9.01 is out for testing. However, it is mostly tweaking.

Question about ACID2 test

[c0d3h4x0r]

If getting browsers to pass the ACID2 test is such a huge high-priority item for all you web developers out there, why aren't you pressing harder on the Firefox development team or the IE7 development team to get them to make it a high priority item?

Instead of bitching about it on Slashdot, why aren't you entering (or adding votes for) bugs against Firefox, or sending e-mails to the IE7 development team members (many of whom have public-facing blogs, etc, where you can contact them)?

It won't get fixed by the development teams until they decide it's high priority, and they won't decide that until large percentages of users start bitching extremely frequently and loudly.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[file terminator]

While I agree that the defaults should be clean and intuitive... you are aware that the grandparent (as far as I can tell, at least) complained about the looks of the interface, not its layout or functionality? And that the parent started by mentioning skinning, and then went on to talk about its configurability?

In any case, I disagree with your statement that being extremely customizable is not always a good thing. I can't intuitively come up with a case where having less options is a good thing. But that is in no way incompatible with having a good default UI layout and functionality. Having good defaults lessens the need for customizability, but it doesn't make having the option to do so, a bad thing. Neither does the fact that available skins (in your opinion) are unprofessional and sloppy make it a bad thing. Neither does the fact that it takes time to customize everything make it a bad thing. More options is good. If you never have the need to avail yourself to those options because the defaults are well designed, even better! But if you'd choose to, or even need to, for one reason or another, you have that power. And that is good. I don't see anyone complaining about the possibility of using Firefox extensions, either. In fact, with Firefox you have the option of getting the source and making changes to your heart's content, and building it yourself--so you have even more options. So how is this not a good thing?

The only bad thing about extreme customizability is that the time spend to make the UI just that, might (and this need not be universally true) have been better used to improve application performance and/or functionality instead. But that is largely dependent on how the application is built in the first place; with the right tools the cost of making the UI just so doesn't need to be particularly severe, and I also imagine that the "cost" of reconfiguring UI design mistakes in said defaults drops (as opposed to having to change the layout of all UI components when using a more fixed design). As a developer, you typically won't even need to recompile in order to test the changes, which can be considered a win in itself. (And as a power user with a UI that doesn't do exactly what you want it to, you might be able to get the UI to let you do that, even without having to modify the source, which you don't have access to in this case anyway. Of course, it might also be that you won't be able to do so, but that leaves you no worse off than when you have an UI with limited configuration options.)

Auto next

[dFaust]

I didn't see this mentioned in the comments, and won't be able to read the article until tonight, but one feature I enjoy is Opera's auto "next" feature. I don't know the official name, but basically when you're on a page that has a next button, such as this article, or a Google search, you can navigate to the next page via a "forward" shortcut assuming you're at the most recent page in your browser's history (otherwise you'll just go forward in your history). It somehow automatically locates that "next" link (I'm not quite sure how, and it doesn't work on all pages with "next" links... but it often does). I prefer to activate this feature with button rocking. I don't know if button rocking is improved in Firefox 2, but in FF1.5 to rock two pages forward, for example, you have to press and hold the left button, then press the right button... then RELEASE both buttons, and repeat. In Opera, you can just hold the first button (so the left button if rocking forward) and repeatedly hit the second button. Much nicer, and can make navigating through search results or other pages much more convenient.

Another nice feature is if you're looking at a thumbnail gallery (of uh... game screenshots, you prevert) and the thumbnails link to images rather than another html page or javascript, you can click on a thumbnail and then use your forward shortcut to go to the next thumbnail. You can continue to do this through all of the images on the thumbnail page. Once you get through all of the images, it returns you back to the thumbnail page. Quite nice.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[nick.ian.k]

Absolutely agree on why Opera and the Mozilla Suite haven't caught on. I'd lump in the fact that neither's had a big marketing push ala Firefox, but then one could argue that both of the former apps were never in fact intended for the average user...otherwise they'd have done a proper job in terms of interface implementation and design and not hinge the whole damned thing on the user taking the time to configure things themelves. Same reason why in 2006 plenty of people still use webmail, even though many webmail users may in fact deal with enough correspondance to warrant use of a proper client -too much percieved legwork when something else seems to work good enough. And yes, Firefox popularized tabs. I'd like to pretend it originated tabs... :)

Re:Opera?

[fireboy1919]

Opera has been free since September 2005. That was only nine months ago.

Strange definition of a long time there. Before that it was adware and paid only.

Searching from the address bar

[wintermute1974]

FWIW, Opera can search from the address bar too. It also automates the creation of your own custom searches.

Re:Printer stylesheet?

[drinkypoo]

I'm curious, have you tried creating a seperate stylesheet for printed media?

Short answer: Yes.

Long[er] answer: Floats are typically not positioned correctly when printing. If you are doing things the CSS way and centering items (etc) using floats, then they probably will not print properly. You can unfloat them in your print style sheet, but since my page appearance depends on the elements being floated, that is not remotely close to a working solution. The sad thing is that if I used tables, and the center tag, then everything would print fine, AND I could still control my document by having a separate print-only style sheet.

FF finally (tries to be) useful on Macintosh

[dankelley]

Finally, at version 2, FireFox obeys system-wide key bindings on my Macintosh. This makes it into a usable application, e.g.I can use control-A to go to the start of a text-input box, just like on all other applications.

However, it's not completely perfect ... it crashed as I was typing the first version of this post :-(

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[Vexorian]

That doesn't remove the fast that Opera's default interface is ugly (seriously) and I had to download the plastic theme, a good feature for next opera would be making the plastic theme the default one it is neutral and good enough for that

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[Buelldozer]

Yes, but Adblock Plus and Filterset.G are not included with FF. Opera SHIPS with this functionality! Opera will also not trap you extension hell when you upgrade to a newer version.

Now here's where I launch into MHO.

FF's extension system sucks and it's one of the reasons I left FF behind for Opera.

1) Just finding the extensions is a hassle. You end up downloading them from about 15 different places, oh and you have to add every single one of those places to your trusted list.
2) You have to know they exist in order to use them.
3) Extension hell. You know it, I know, don't argue it.

Yes the Adblock Plus extension with Filterset.G is more powerful then what Opera ships with; you also have to contend with all of the above in order to use it.

Opera also spanks the ass off of FF for memory handling, speed of launch, reliability, built in features, and download size. It also runs on as many platforms as FF does, and perhaps more since I've never seen FF running on a mobile phone.

Opera, FTW.

WebDAV (web Folders)

[CypherOz]

Does Firefox 2 support WebFolders like IE or Konquer?

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[DarkDragonVKQ]

Yeah I have to agree, I wish there was some way to do it thru the Opera block content UI but I asked on the forums and there's no other way. But I already tweak Firefox and Opera so its no big deal to me. I think there is a way to get something like the filterset G but an Operaized version though I never bothered.

No IE for joo!

[destiney]

with Microsoft putting Beta 3 of Internet Explorer 7 out for all to download

_All_ of you idiots still running windoze anyway.. Thankfully this virus will not be spread to my Mac, Linux, and FreeBSD boxes.

KDE snubbed too.

[twitter]

It's funny, that after they call Konqueror "obscure" they go on to complain about this:

But all the themes we found merely changed the interface buttons and perhaps added an image to the top menu area; they don't change the window borders the way you can with WindowBlinds. And beware that most themes haven't yet been updated to work with Firefox 2.

That's such a pathetically windoze centric point of view. In the free world, you have a choice of skinable window managers which you can mix and match as you please. "Extreme Tech, where we dare to leave the Start Menu." Kudos to the for noticing this "Linux" thing an including it on a chart. Brickbacks for hanging onto a six year old interface that sucks.

Re:KDE snubbed too.

[jb.hl.com]

Maybe if you skinned your wife so she didn't look so fugly, you wouldn't be so bitter.

Opera needs to use the native file-chooser

[Muramasa]

I love Opera, but I find this incredibly fustrating.

I'd imagine the Opera file-chooser looks okay in Windows because it's designed to look exactly like the Windows one. But, when you're using KDE, Gnome or Xfce the file-chooser stands out like a sore thumb and is also much less usable than the KDE or Gtk+ choosers.

Please, for the love of god.

acid

[tezbobobo]

I liked the IE Acid test result. Very picasso.

I did my own little review today

[Dark_MadMax666]

IE7 beta 3
  Firefox 1.5.0.4
  Opera 9.1

Opera is fast .Blazing fast. Very sleek and neat on surface.Auto saving sessions combined with blazing fast startup/rendering is easily the most attractive feature. Underneath it though... -Interface for customizing toolbars/search engines is awful .In fact I didn't find a way to resize search bar . Widgets are just toys and I didn't . find any useful ones. But damn its blazing fast

Firefox.. -well good old firefox I was using since beta and on my linux boxes.Though I stopped recently due to being annoyed by crashes and incompatibility with MSDN. -Well inspired by opera I found extension which saves sessions - remedies crashing problem.IEtab extensions renders msdn well (but not exchange web access). Still pretty slow - but extensions make up for it. Would be my browser of choice if was more stable and ietab is more polished. -Extensions really bring firefox over competition .

IE7.. .well better than IE6. They fixed annoying bug with disappearing link addresses in status bar. Tabs are done well (ie they did not screwed anything up) .Tab preview is on par with firefox extension. Other than that.... - Their session save things is annoyance (each time you close browser you have to checkbox and click button -no way to save sessions by default). No real innovation besides tabs and no good "add-ons" (ie7 lsita as addons mostly 3d party progs such as getright ). But well it renders MSDN and exchange webmail access the BEST!
  Tab preview extensions easily better than ie7/opera one

Average Joe does not care which browser is best.

[master_p]

I have been using Opera 9 lately and it feels a little more polished than Firefox. I would say Opera 9 is the best browser out there, but does it matter? Firefox is excellent for 99% of the cases. And soon IE will be on par with both.

I think that all 3 browsers are mature enough so as that their differences are important for computer people only.

Firefox's spellchecker for forms

[fph il quozientatore]

Firefox's spellchecker for forms
Well, Konqueror already comes with it -- as well as tabs, Acid2 compliance and integration with KDE's bittorrent client. Haven't you forgotten a worthy competitor?

Re:Firefox's spellchecker for forms

[ClamIAm]

Comparing Firefox to Konqueror is like comparing vi to emacs.

Re:Firefox's spellchecker for forms

[charleste]

So... are you saying Konqueror or Firefox is better?

Hehehehehehe

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[shish]

Apple's UI sucks. It just sucks less than anybody else's

Compared to the ideal of having the computer read my mind and do what I wanted before the thought even reaches my conscious, yes, everything sucks. But seeing as that's not going to happen within my lifetime, I think it fair to set my standards a little lower...

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[hkmwbz]

Opera's interface is no more ugly than Firefox or any other browser.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[hkmwbz]

Are you serious? Just because Opera doesn't have a feature which exists in some third party extension, the interface is bad?

Lack of a specific feature does not equal "bad interface", Firefox fan.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[hkmwbz]

the opera interface is the least intuitive of all the browsers i've tested

How can a browser which looks just like any other browser be "unintuitive"? Have you actually tried Opera lately? It has more page viewing space by default than Firefox!

i think the biggest problem for opera is organizing the features in a more intuitive manner so new users can access them and customize them, and also keeping the features from taking up all the space. opera definantly feels cluttered at times

That's it. You didn't even bother to try Opera before commenting. How is having one more button in the address bar than Firefox, and fewer menus by default, "cluttered"? Also, how is having more space for the actual page than Firefox "cluttered"?

Either you are lying and never tried Opera, or you customized Opera and made it cluttered yourself.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[hkmwbz]

Opera's interface is just like that of any other browser. It's even got more page viewing space by default than Firefox.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[hkmwbz]

The interface looks just like any other browser. If Opera is "unintuitive", then so is everything else.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[hkmwbz]

The application should be clean and intuitive out of the box.

Opera? It already is. It looks like any other browser.

Re:Average Joe does not care which browser is best

[jseale]

The only problem with Opera 9 is that it's widgets are tied to the browser which means that if you terminate Opera your widgets die also. If you're gonna' do the widget thing, you're much better off running Yahoo Widgets along with IE or Firefox.

IE 7's toolbar placement is kinda' weird right now. Gone is the Windows logo icon that 'glimmers' when a site is being loaded and which takes you to the Windows Explorer website when clicked on. The Firefox-like search bar is a nice touch though but it's still missing quite a few sites (Answers.com, BitTorrent to name a few).

New IE Alpha Channel Support adn Web Standards

[sanguisdev]

Amongst all the bitching in these articles and comments I have not found out the 2 things that I want to know about IE 7. Does any one have the answerers? 1.Will IE 7 handle PNG's with alpaha channel transparency like every body else. As in no Active x controls and proprietary scripting methods in the html. Can I drop my browser detecting code and separate servings of markup or css based on the browser? 2.The Box Model, is the math 9in IE finally not backwards from every one else, does it now make sense? Will Border not be full scree when I just set them to '30px' Oh one thing I am happy about in Fire Fox that is a long time coming for me is the spell check, I wonder how it will work with online WYSIWIG editors?

Re:New IE Alpha Channel Support adn Web Standards

[The MESMERIC]

1. yes 2. dunno

Re:Average Joe does not care which browser is best

[Nicolay77]

An Opera user never has to close Opera.

At least I never do.

Thanks!

[sir_montag]

Thanks for that tip! For anyone else that didn't quite catch how to, here's a link to a firefox how-to: Firefox quick searches / smart keywords

Re:IE 7 and PNG

[Aighearach]

the patent on GIF compression expired a few years ago. They're free to use now, just another Standard format.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[RQuinn]

If you go right click on the icons and click Customize, then choose the Toolbars tab of the Appearance dialog that shows you, you can change the placement of the toolbar so it is above your bookmarks or even off completely.

I am amazed...

[charleste]

...at what is considered a "feature" these days. If I install the new FF 2.0, I'll have to spend alot of time disabling things... such as Search suggestions now appear with search history in the search box for Google, Yahoo! and Answers.com, New microsummaries feature for bookmarks, Inline spell checking in text boxes, Support for client-side session and persistent storage. Not my idea of features, just Pain-in-the-Arse "whiz-bang" things for people who are not me and future-exploitable security holes. Just MHO.

PS I am not a cynic, really. I'm a realist (at least in my reality) ;-)

Browser compatibility

[thisguyiknew]

I'm going to risk sounding like a smug git here, but you really don't have to write any browser-specific code for these three. I develop for Opera, Firefox and IE simultaneously (and I'm going to include Safari as soon as I can convince the company we need a Mac) and all of my code works without any major differences.

In fact the only browser specific code blocks I have to use (that I can think of), are:

Creating an XML object for AJAX stuff:

if(window.XMLHttpRequest)
        this.setXMLObject(new XMLHttpRequest());
else if(window.ActiveXObject)
        this.setXMLObject(new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP"));

Disabling selecting items with mousedown drag:

style="-moz-user-select: none;" onselectstart="javascript:return false;"

(The style is for mozilla, the javascript for IE. Opera doesn't allow this - I presume for the same reasons that it doesn't allow right click scripting actions by default: it's really irritating when things don't do what you expect them to do, or worse still, when people try to stop you "stealing their code/content", especially when it's so trivial to circumvent. FTR, I use this when I want to drag application elements like XML graphs or images/text blocks in content designers etc. without the cosmetic cost.)

Everything else is achieved using the same code and to be honest, it's very rarely that I come across a site that doesn't work in Opera (my personal favourite), but of course there's always the trade-offs (although it could easily be argued that at least the first four of these shouldn't in fact be considered trade-offs, but simply good coding habits):

1. Your markup and scripting needs to be extremely verbose.
2. You need to be very strict with code structure - the order of both elements and tags is very important.
3. You need to develop for all three from the start and a little at a time.
4. Try to keep code as simple as possible, especially with scripting - performance of javascript rendering across browsers is really variable - transforming multiple layers simultaneously for example can give hideous performance (in IE...)
5. To be really compatible, you can't even rely on javascript being enabled - try to write as much as you can server-side to provide at least some kind of basic functionality (as long as you can afford the load).
6. It's often a good idea to use absolute positioning for elements and can be crucial for transforming in Firefox (otherwise in certain circumstances, you can get a nasty flickering effect as though you're lacking a backbuffer). You also need absolute positioning for dragging.
7. Flash???

Legacy compatibility is another question - I mean, how far back should you go in a bid to support users with older software? I tend to test on the current and previous official releases, but make no guarantees for stuff like Netscape and IE4/5 etc. Then again, if you want things like funky interactive AJAX apps, there's only so much as a developer you can do (and to be honest, supporting five-year old software isn't very realistic in a lot of cases).

On a final note, I don't know how difficult it would be to include Konqueror as well but I suppose I consider the Linux guys to be technically savvy enough to get around any HTML rendering problems that they come across (and you're probably using Firefox anyway). I could make excuses that I haven't got the time to setup and play around with a Linux box, but the truth is that I'm both lazy, and indeed far too cozy in my world of Windows, Visual Studio and dare I say, computers that work how I expect them to.

Microsloth - innovation through idea borrowing

[alkamar]

I see that Microsoft is taking the key features of Firefox and incorporating it into their internal explorer. Many in the tech industry have known for some time that Firefox is a superior product and it is starting to trickle into the average user base. Now that Microsoft is creating their version of Firefox, many people will not bother to switch if many of the key selling points are copied. It will make it that much harder to get users to deviate from the dominant I.E. (Internal Exploder) I'm waiting to see how much of a pounding it will take from security vulnerbilities.

RSS feeds

[MobileC]

"Unlike the other two browsers in this roundup, IE7 has an RSS button that's always there below the address bar. If a site contains a feed, the button turns orange and lets you subscribe."

Um. So does Opera.

Re:Opera's UI is slick?

[eyeye]

That works great thanks, my gf has been bitching about that forever.