I agree with most of what you said. I hate that any company uses proprietary stuff but lets leave PSP's media out of this. The PSP is a handheld game console and it's expected to use proprietary media. It's not like Nintendo is making handhelds that use regular dvd's, nor should they be expected to. For things like digital cameras we only need one standard. All cameras could use the same cards and then we wouldn't need 15-n-1 card readers anymore. But when I buy a game system I expect to have to use whatever media the games come on. It might be cartridges or discs of some sort or who knows what.
Or were you talking about the PSP using memory stick duo cards? If so, ignore what I've said.:)
This seems ridiculous to me. I get that wi-fi has some advantages and I think it's great that it supports internet based phone calls but what about when I'm not near a wifi connection? Wouldn't it make more sense to at least include an option to have standard service? I'd be interested in getting a phone like this if I could use it with my Cingular service. Let it use wi-fi when it can find a connection and Cingular when it has to.
Another downside of it not supporting standard mobile service is that no mobile service provider is going to subsidize the device. How many people pay full price for mobile phones? You can almost alway save a lot on whatever phone you are interested in through deals that the various carriers offer. I've actually never paid a dime for any of my phones, after rebates at least.
This is what it's all about. I own a media center pc that I like quite a bit but it won't fit in my av cabinet next to my tv. It's not designed for that even though it's a media center pc. That makes no sense to me.
Two things need to happen: First, as you pointed out, change the case. Give us something no larger than an amp and we'll be happy. Give us something the size of a dvd player and we'll be even happier. Doesn't have to be a slimline dvd player, a full height one would be fine. Then get the price in line with other av equipment. I'm thinking $350 tops and if you really want it to sell it needs to be down around $200 to $250.
I can understand Sony wanting to move to a diskless system. That should help with piracy and a lot of other issues however they forgot one huge thing which is backwards compatibility. The reason I bought a PS2 right after it came out was that it could play all of my PS1 games and it had a dvd drive. The reason I'm wanting a PS3 right when it comes out is that it can play all of my PS2 games and it has a BluRay drive. The reason I won't be buying a PS4 is that it can't play my old games (unless of course they do what Nintendo is doing and release them all online but that's for a fee... why should I pay to dl games I already own) and won't have some spiffy new drive. For a while my PS2 was my only dvd player and I expect my PS3 to be my only BluRay drive for quite some time.
I think Sony should focus on making a cheaper console when it comes time to design the PS4. I think Nintendo will do quite well with the WII partly because it's the cheapest and partly because of the access to old games. Old games aren't as much fun as they were when we first got them but a lot of them still have many hours of fun left in them. Sony and Nintendo both seem to understand this, although this is the first time that Nintendo has offered anything like this. Sony knew backwards compat was important with the PS2. It's a damn shame MS missed the boat on this. I know the 360 is somewhat compat but I've heard everything from some games don't work at all to they all work great so I don't know who to believe. I have a lot of XBox games but they weren't all mainstream games that were uber popular so I've no idea if they will work. I never had a problem with any of my PS1 games in my PS2. Here's hoping the PS3 doesn't dissapoint in that area.
I was thinking the same thing and was utterly confused after reading the article. I looked at the phone and thought that's pretty damn cool. 64 graphics cards in their own case... I wonder how they power it... then I read... then I'm like WTF Mate?!?!?! It's only 2 cards! What the hell happened to the other 62? It's like marketing said build us a unit with 64 and production sent out a unit with only 2 but forgot to tell marketing.
If you were to connect 64 off the shelf $400 cards it's run you $25,600 but you'd expect a quantity discount so I could see it going for $17,500. But two cards with two gpu's each for $17,500? That's nuts.
Not buying CDs because something better will come out is just ignorant because there is no alternative.
No alternative? I believe the parent mentioned iTunes and then of course you have mini-disc, sacd (still a "cd" but not a standard cd), and one or two dvd formats such as DVDA (I think that's what it's called).
If however you meant there is no easily accessible alternative for the majority of music then yea, you'd be correct. I know there isn't much on the dvd formats, or if there is I can't seem to find it which is why I only own a dozen or so titles in that format. I don't think much if anything was released on mini-disc... wasn't that more of a record-it-yourself format? And iTunes while being wildly popular doesn't yet have the selection of standard cd's.
People like my sister and her friends. She knows pertty much nothing about a computer other than how to get AOL fired up so she can chat or check her email. For her AOL is great. For people like you and I it just gets in the way and as people learn more about computers, they have less reliance on services like AOL.
I'm surprised that AOL never had an internet appliance like WebTV from MS. My Dad has one of those and he loves it. Unfortunately the newer version is designed for broadband and doesn't work very well on dial up. I bought him the new one for Christmas '04 and it was slower than the original. It had some new features and could handle more audio and video formats but overall it didn't work very well for him so I returned it.
AOL already had a huge subscriber base and pretty decent software (the newer versions anyway). Why didn't they come out with a set top box of their own or maybe do a partnership with Tivo or ReplayTV to combine services? It seems to me like that could have worked well for them. I have no idea how well WebTV did for MS but seeing as how they made a second version I assume it did fairly well. Then again I keep hearing that they lost a ton of money on XBox and they still made the XBox 360 so who knows.
My sister uses AOL and a few months ago one of her friends called AOL to cancel his service. He told the customer service rep that he couldn't afford the service any longer and was then asked how much he could afford. He said he could afford ten bucks a month and the rep asked if he would continue his service if they would lower his cost to $10. He then called my sister and told her what happened. She called AOL, got the same question, and told the person she could only afford "maybe $7 or $8 a month" and now pays $7 per month for her service. Of course she told everyone else she knows that uses AOL.
I know a lot of companies do this but most companies aren't a network of people that like nothing more than to sit around all day bs'ing on the web.
Regular channels show good movies every once in a while but I seldom watch because of commercials. I watch HBO and the similar channels so I don't have to see any of that crap. I almost never watch live tv because commercials waste too much of my time. At some point I started downloading tv shows and noticed that they are usually in widescreen and never have commericals. So I get a better quality item than what I can get with my DISH service.
Tivo is great and this should help make ads better. Advertisers can see what is being watched and what isn't and modify their ads accordingly. But in the end we still don't have what we need.
How about we go away from the channel model to focusing on the content? I don't care if it's on HBO or Showtime or Cinemax. A movie is a movie and a show is a show. I subscribe to the channels because they have content I like, but I don't care about the channel. I have no brand loyalty when it comes to my tv habits. What I want is quality content. I also really like on demand viewing which is why I use my dvr so much. I don't care what day and time my favorite shows are on because I won't be watching then anyway. I have my own schedule and I do things when I want. I think most people are like me so why not offer a service that truly reflects what people want?
Why not offer an on demand service for all content? You pay so much a month to watch unlimited tv and you choose what you watch and when you watch it. Maybe rotate the content each month. Shows could still have air dates but then from that point forward you can watch whenever. Basically it's just one big dvr that records everything and you watch what you want, when you want it. But here's the thing, offer two versions, one with commercials and one without. The service provider will drop in the commericals for that version or show the non-commercial version if you pay a bit more.
I pay just over $100 for my DISH service and I'd be willing to pay $150 for something like I just described. Then again I basically get that via BitTorrent. I download what I want, commerical free, and watch it whenever I want. And for all intents and purposes it's free.
The first thing I thought when I read the 120 gals per hour part was a bunch of guys with 5 gallon cans trying desperately to keep the tank full. This thing must need it's own tanker truck for that kind of usage. How large is the generator itself? You just leave it on a flatbed while you use it or what?
I can understand why you would need something like this but MySpace is a bit different. First, they probably never thought this would happen so didn't plan for it. Second, I know a lot of people who rely on the data center to handle everything and the data center thinks their 3 tier approach (power grid to ups to generators) is bullet proof because well, it's never failed before. I think it's odd they had everything in a single data center but maybe they do that to keep things simple and a bit easier, although once you get beyond a single machine it doesn't matter where the additional machines are located except of course for bandwidth between machines and maybe that was their problem. You can have a lot of machines connected on an internal network and that works great. Very fast and cheap. Move half to the other side of the country and if you need to move mass quantities of data between the two sites you run into speed and bandwidth issues.
Couldn't you with a site like MySpace have half in each of two locations and route users to the correct one depending on which user they were viewing? Then just do local backups of both databases... no need for mass data exchange.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What is to stop MS from fighting back in some way? Maybe pulling all of their products from areas governed by this? I think that would sure shake things up a bit. I'm sure this will never happen but I think it might make a very strong point. MS provides something that millions of people need or at least think they need. How they got to be in the position they are in is pretty irrelevant at this point. They have a huge market share and if they really wanted to flex their corporate muscles, what could the Europeans do about it?
DRM no matter who it's from is still DRM. Just because you haven't hit a limit with Apple's DRM doesn't mean that other users haven't. IMHO there is absolutely no way to effectively stop pirating. Maybe if we started beheading people for pirating we might be able to slow things down but I'm not certain that even something that drastic would have much effect.
We all have this "I'll never get caught" attitude and so no matter what happens to the next guy, we feel immune. Lots of people got sued by the RIAA but I never had a problem finding any song I was looking for. Soulseek still worked as well as ever. Their threats and subsequent action in the form of lawsuits did nothing to deter me nor millions of other people from pirating songs, movies, whatever.
So what good does DRM, threats, lawsuits, or any of the other tactics that have been used, what good does any of it do? It doesn't stop piracy. It doesn't even seem to slow it down. Torrent sites get taken down and new ones pop up. Software such as Napster gets shut down and other software comes along to fill the void. The train keeps on rolling. The people who get hurt are the ones who our buying the material legally or who have bought hardware that has restrictions. My Sony network music player (can't really call it an mp3 player since it's primary use is to play atrac files) allows me to transfer whatever I want to the player, but I can't move the songs back off the player to my computer. I had a Creativer player previously that allowed me to move everything both ways and it was a lot less hassle. Sure Sony's format takes up a lot less space and I like the fact that it's offered but I'd also like to be able to convert back to mp3 if I want to move the songs off the device. Especially songs that I've kept in the mp3 format. These limits haven't stopped me from pirating music, they've just frustrated me and made me consider devices from other companies that don't have the same limitations.
The media companies need to realize that there is a way to make more profit but it's not by forcing limitations on us. Make things easier and more available through legit channels and more and more people will abandon piracy. Give us downloads that we can use however we want for a very small fee and people will flock to that. Give us tv shows without commericals for $.99 each that are avail the same day as the episode airs on tv and let us subscribe to the shows we want to see. I'd pay good money for that service. As it is I download my shows the day after they air and I never see any commercials plus I get the widescreen versions even though I don't have an hdtv. The downloaded episodes look better on my tv than what I can get from using my dvr. I'm not going to watch the commericals either way but I am willing to pay for a high quality, fast downloading, widescreen version of my favorite shows as long as it's better than what I'm doing now. Give it to me sooner, faster, and for only maybe $.99 and you'll rake in the dough.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with most of what you said. I hate that any company uses proprietary stuff but lets leave PSP's media out of this. The PSP is a handheld game console and it's expected to use proprietary media. It's not like Nintendo is making handhelds that use regular dvd's, nor should they be expected to. For things like digital cameras we only need one standard. All cameras could use the same cards and then we wouldn't need 15-n-1 card readers anymore. But when I buy a game system I expect to have to use whatever media the games come on. It might be cartridges or discs of some sort or who knows what.
:)
Or were you talking about the PSP using memory stick duo cards? If so, ignore what I've said.
The answer of course, is 42. ;)
This seems ridiculous to me. I get that wi-fi has some advantages and I think it's great that it supports internet based phone calls but what about when I'm not near a wifi connection? Wouldn't it make more sense to at least include an option to have standard service? I'd be interested in getting a phone like this if I could use it with my Cingular service. Let it use wi-fi when it can find a connection and Cingular when it has to.
Another downside of it not supporting standard mobile service is that no mobile service provider is going to subsidize the device. How many people pay full price for mobile phones? You can almost alway save a lot on whatever phone you are interested in through deals that the various carriers offer. I've actually never paid a dime for any of my phones, after rebates at least.
Two things need to happen: First, as you pointed out, change the case. Give us something no larger than an amp and we'll be happy. Give us something the size of a dvd player and we'll be even happier. Doesn't have to be a slimline dvd player, a full height one would be fine. Then get the price in line with other av equipment. I'm thinking $350 tops and if you really want it to sell it needs to be down around $200 to $250.
I think Sony should focus on making a cheaper console when it comes time to design the PS4. I think Nintendo will do quite well with the WII partly because it's the cheapest and partly because of the access to old games. Old games aren't as much fun as they were when we first got them but a lot of them still have many hours of fun left in them. Sony and Nintendo both seem to understand this, although this is the first time that Nintendo has offered anything like this. Sony knew backwards compat was important with the PS2. It's a damn shame MS missed the boat on this. I know the 360 is somewhat compat but I've heard everything from some games don't work at all to they all work great so I don't know who to believe. I have a lot of XBox games but they weren't all mainstream games that were uber popular so I've no idea if they will work. I never had a problem with any of my PS1 games in my PS2. Here's hoping the PS3 doesn't dissapoint in that area.
I was thinking the same thing and was utterly confused after reading the article. I looked at the phone and thought that's pretty damn cool. 64 graphics cards in their own case... I wonder how they power it... then I read... then I'm like WTF Mate?!?!?! It's only 2 cards! What the hell happened to the other 62? It's like marketing said build us a unit with 64 and production sent out a unit with only 2 but forgot to tell marketing.
If you were to connect 64 off the shelf $400 cards it's run you $25,600 but you'd expect a quantity discount so I could see it going for $17,500. But two cards with two gpu's each for $17,500? That's nuts.
Not buying CDs because something better will come out is just ignorant because there is no alternative.
No alternative? I believe the parent mentioned iTunes and then of course you have mini-disc, sacd (still a "cd" but not a standard cd), and one or two dvd formats such as DVDA (I think that's what it's called).
If however you meant there is no easily accessible alternative for the majority of music then yea, you'd be correct. I know there isn't much on the dvd formats, or if there is I can't seem to find it which is why I only own a dozen or so titles in that format. I don't think much if anything was released on mini-disc... wasn't that more of a record-it-yourself format? And iTunes while being wildly popular doesn't yet have the selection of standard cd's.
People like my sister and her friends. She knows pertty much nothing about a computer other than how to get AOL fired up so she can chat or check her email. For her AOL is great. For people like you and I it just gets in the way and as people learn more about computers, they have less reliance on services like AOL.
I'm surprised that AOL never had an internet appliance like WebTV from MS. My Dad has one of those and he loves it. Unfortunately the newer version is designed for broadband and doesn't work very well on dial up. I bought him the new one for Christmas '04 and it was slower than the original. It had some new features and could handle more audio and video formats but overall it didn't work very well for him so I returned it.
AOL already had a huge subscriber base and pretty decent software (the newer versions anyway). Why didn't they come out with a set top box of their own or maybe do a partnership with Tivo or ReplayTV to combine services? It seems to me like that could have worked well for them. I have no idea how well WebTV did for MS but seeing as how they made a second version I assume it did fairly well. Then again I keep hearing that they lost a ton of money on XBox and they still made the XBox 360 so who knows.
I know a lot of companies do this but most companies aren't a network of people that like nothing more than to sit around all day bs'ing on the web.
Tivo is great and this should help make ads better. Advertisers can see what is being watched and what isn't and modify their ads accordingly. But in the end we still don't have what we need.
How about we go away from the channel model to focusing on the content? I don't care if it's on HBO or Showtime or Cinemax. A movie is a movie and a show is a show. I subscribe to the channels because they have content I like, but I don't care about the channel. I have no brand loyalty when it comes to my tv habits. What I want is quality content. I also really like on demand viewing which is why I use my dvr so much. I don't care what day and time my favorite shows are on because I won't be watching then anyway. I have my own schedule and I do things when I want. I think most people are like me so why not offer a service that truly reflects what people want?
Why not offer an on demand service for all content? You pay so much a month to watch unlimited tv and you choose what you watch and when you watch it. Maybe rotate the content each month. Shows could still have air dates but then from that point forward you can watch whenever. Basically it's just one big dvr that records everything and you watch what you want, when you want it. But here's the thing, offer two versions, one with commercials and one without. The service provider will drop in the commericals for that version or show the non-commercial version if you pay a bit more.
I pay just over $100 for my DISH service and I'd be willing to pay $150 for something like I just described. Then again I basically get that via BitTorrent. I download what I want, commerical free, and watch it whenever I want. And for all intents and purposes it's free.
Maybe we can all chip in and bribe someone at the data center to "lose" those backups. I'm in for $20.
I can understand why you would need something like this but MySpace is a bit different. First, they probably never thought this would happen so didn't plan for it. Second, I know a lot of people who rely on the data center to handle everything and the data center thinks their 3 tier approach (power grid to ups to generators) is bullet proof because well, it's never failed before. I think it's odd they had everything in a single data center but maybe they do that to keep things simple and a bit easier, although once you get beyond a single machine it doesn't matter where the additional machines are located except of course for bandwidth between machines and maybe that was their problem. You can have a lot of machines connected on an internal network and that works great. Very fast and cheap. Move half to the other side of the country and if you need to move mass quantities of data between the two sites you run into speed and bandwidth issues.
Couldn't you with a site like MySpace have half in each of two locations and route users to the correct one depending on which user they were viewing? Then just do local backups of both databases... no need for mass data exchange.
http://customsoftwareconsult.com/extensions/febe/
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.
http://customsoftwareconsult.com/extension
The other one is CLEO and you can get both of them together here:F EBE-CLEO.html
http://customsoftwareconsult.com/extensions/febe/
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).
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?
Out of curiosity, which browser do you prefer?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What is to stop MS from fighting back in some way? Maybe pulling all of their products from areas governed by this? I think that would sure shake things up a bit. I'm sure this will never happen but I think it might make a very strong point. MS provides something that millions of people need or at least think they need. How they got to be in the position they are in is pretty irrelevant at this point. They have a huge market share and if they really wanted to flex their corporate muscles, what could the Europeans do about it?
We all have this "I'll never get caught" attitude and so no matter what happens to the next guy, we feel immune. Lots of people got sued by the RIAA but I never had a problem finding any song I was looking for. Soulseek still worked as well as ever. Their threats and subsequent action in the form of lawsuits did nothing to deter me nor millions of other people from pirating songs, movies, whatever.
So what good does DRM, threats, lawsuits, or any of the other tactics that have been used, what good does any of it do? It doesn't stop piracy. It doesn't even seem to slow it down. Torrent sites get taken down and new ones pop up. Software such as Napster gets shut down and other software comes along to fill the void. The train keeps on rolling. The people who get hurt are the ones who our buying the material legally or who have bought hardware that has restrictions. My Sony network music player (can't really call it an mp3 player since it's primary use is to play atrac files) allows me to transfer whatever I want to the player, but I can't move the songs back off the player to my computer. I had a Creativer player previously that allowed me to move everything both ways and it was a lot less hassle. Sure Sony's format takes up a lot less space and I like the fact that it's offered but I'd also like to be able to convert back to mp3 if I want to move the songs off the device. Especially songs that I've kept in the mp3 format. These limits haven't stopped me from pirating music, they've just frustrated me and made me consider devices from other companies that don't have the same limitations.
The media companies need to realize that there is a way to make more profit but it's not by forcing limitations on us. Make things easier and more available through legit channels and more and more people will abandon piracy. Give us downloads that we can use however we want for a very small fee and people will flock to that. Give us tv shows without commericals for $.99 each that are avail the same day as the episode airs on tv and let us subscribe to the shows we want to see. I'd pay good money for that service. As it is I download my shows the day after they air and I never see any commercials plus I get the widescreen versions even though I don't have an hdtv. The downloaded episodes look better on my tv than what I can get from using my dvr. I'm not going to watch the commericals either way but I am willing to pay for a high quality, fast downloading, widescreen version of my favorite shows as long as it's better than what I'm doing now. Give it to me sooner, faster, and for only maybe $.99 and you'll rake in the dough.