Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Appears Ready to Crack 20% Share Next Month
CWmike writes "Mozilla's Firefox browser is on pace to hit the 20% market-share mark next month. Net Applications marketing VP Vince Vizzaccaro didn't pin all of Firefox's increase on a change last month to its update dialog; he did note the new approach. 'Mozilla has implemented a change in Firefox 3.0 [Release Candidate 1] where the installation now has a checkbox that defaults to making Firefox your default browser,' he explained. He refused to ding Mozilla for the practice. 'The option is clearly displayed and labeled, unlike Safari, which misleadingly labeled the Safari install as an "update" [but has] since correctly changed to an 'install.' However, this practice is a break from the traditional practice browsers employed of defaulting this option to off.'"
Immoral? What about tricking people into using a particular webbrowser by including it with your operating system?
I am not really here right now.
Firefox 3.0 is much more slower than 2.0 branch and there are tons of CSS bugs waiting to be fixed. It is not going to be visible to avarage users but for toolkit developers the performance hit will be significant. The so called new layout engine tagged Gecko 1.9 just slowed down the browser. Webkit on the other hand renders at least 2x faster than IE and Firefox.(note that I prefer IE on windows). My next browser of choice will definetely the Safari/Webkit for windows, not Firefox not anymore.
Because IE's a bitch to develop with. On a javascript error, it tells you the correct line number but it can't tell you which file it's in.
It can if you break into the debugger.
It doesn't allow anywhere near the quality of plugins that firefox does, so it doesn't get firebug,
Yeah, but to be fair, Firebug cribs a lot from IE's DOM Explorer. True, the implementation is better.
Finally, IE doesn't comply with the standards very well, so it's a lot harder to get the site looking how you want it to.
I've yet to head a compelling reason for me to worry about web standards as opposed to simply making my site look good in all the major browsers.
Converting the final product to something IE can render is a lot easier to working with IE the entire way.
Doesn't that imply that the standards support isn't nearly as bad as everyone says?
Comment of the year