What are you on? The original is almost devoid of story/plot, the battle engine sucks, and the graphics aren't that good. It really shows its age.
The battles go really slow unless you adjust some setting. Characters will hit air if they were commanded to attack the same enemy as one that another character killed before their turn.
And have you seen the dialogue window in action? Talk about sluggish and annoying.
Firefox fixes vulnerabilities before they're exploited in the wild. That's what counts. And in the rare occasion that such code exists in the wide while Firefox is vulnerable, they'll quickly push out a fix, like happened one time in the past already, in only 9 days.
You haven't answered my UI question. How is K-Meleon's UI not native? Again, it's not XUL, and I wasn't talking about security at all when mentioning XUL.
You'll be happy to know that K-Meleon treats XPIs just like any other file. The act of installing an extension isn't trivial, though...
Frankly, back when I last tried it, in June or July, it was so far from ready for prime time that I didn't do much more than install it and play with it for a few minutes.
In what way isn't it ready? Lots of people, including non-techie ones, seem to be happy with it.
In any case, I think I should have said something more to the effect of "it's a pity that there isn't a decent lightweight browser for Windows using the native UI *at all*".
It is native. It's not XUL. Or do you mean the look?
By the way, I don't understand what you mean with this insecure XPI thing. Is it the concept? Or the fact that in Firefox they use a white-list? Or that you think it can't be turned off? At least in SeaMonkey, you can.
I see you didn't even take the time to read the main page. It explicitly mentions using Gecko. Everything else shows that as well, like for instance, the user agent string. Oh, and did you see the favicon they use? That's Mozilla, Netscape's mascot.
You probably let yourself be fooled because of the name, which starts with a K.
KHTML didn't even exist on Windows yet until the recent release of Safari 3 beta, while K-Meleon has a long history.
So Firefox doesn't work out for you. That's fine. But why the hell are you using IE as an alternative?! It's unstable and uses an ancient engine that is very much lacking in web standards support. You could have tried Opera, or even the other Gecko-based browsers like K-Meleon and SeaMonkey.
However, if I'm going to use Firefox without the extensions, then I might as well be using IE or Opera.
I disagree about IE, because it's an unstable piece of shit that is severely lacking when it comes to supporting web standards, which means web pages of lower quality for you.
The browser speed test you cite is bogus. Firefox, during all of my time being involved with its development and release, has always been faster at start-up, new window, and pageload, than the Suite
Yet there are plenty of users who switch to SeaMonkey that mention it being faster for them than Firefox. Further evidence is that when SeaMonkey switched from XPFE to toolkit there was a performance hit.
And that bullshit about telling users not to download Mozilla is just that, bullshit. You're remembering pre Mozilla 1.0 days. I was responsible for those pages and when I shipped 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7,and all of the dot releases in between, all of them messaged the Suite as a strong and community supported end-user offering. Claiming otherwise is simply lying.
If you were really there, you would remember how 1.0, 1.4 and 1.7 were stable releases, with the 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 releases being technology previews, and 1.5 and 1.6 being something inbetween.
Look at this page. Note how it says "We make binary versions of Mozilla 1.0 available for testing purposes only! We provide no end user support.". It also says "We do not guarantee that any source code or executable code available from the mozilla.org domain is Year 2000 compliant.". It is like that even when Mozilla 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 are released.
And a version of this page in mid-2003, where it says "our latest stable development branch".
You also haven't addressed the fact that Firefox got a lot of marketing which the Suite never did.
It seems to me that Microsoft is caught in a legacy trap. If they move to full compliance, they break web sites that are coded to their old implementation.
That's only one aspect, which is IE's lenient parsing. That doesn't stop M$ from implementing HTML and CSS fully.
And it doesn't address my argument of advocating closed standards. We all know M$ wants to control the web, and we all know how they let their browser rot for almost 5 years because the competition was crushed.
(insert trust arguments here)
The model you're advocating is broken. No website can be trusted, and IE's model was broken from the start. Web browsers should be relatively secure from the start. They should never expose themselves. Only visiting trusted sites doesn't cut it; trusted sites get hacked with malicious code. The answer is secure browsers.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you on? The original is almost devoid of story/plot, the battle engine sucks, and the graphics aren't that good. It really shows its age.
The battles go really slow unless you adjust some setting. Characters will hit air if they were commanded to attack the same enemy as one that another character killed before their turn.
And have you seen the dialogue window in action? Talk about sluggish and annoying.
However, IE isn't the only web browser supporting document.all. Firefox has silent support for it, and Opera just plain supports it.
Firefox fixes vulnerabilities before they're exploited in the wild. That's what counts. And in the rare occasion that such code exists in the wide while Firefox is vulnerable, they'll quickly push out a fix, like happened one time in the past already, in only 9 days.
You can't trust any site. They can be hacked. Their remote content could be hacked. It happens, and that way malicious code shows its ugly rear.
Still, as long as you aren't using IE and don't accept sudden download prompts, you should be fine. I mostly practice the same as you.
Untitled Document
SeaMonkey didn't make a release equivalent to Firefox 2.0.0.10, though. It was withheld when it was found out that there was a canvas regression.
They're listed here, with links to articles that offer more details: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html
Nah. I surf for free porn on my Win95 box (with SeaMonkey, though), without firewall (but behind a router), and I haven't had problems in years. ;)
You haven't answered my UI question. How is K-Meleon's UI not native? Again, it's not XUL, and I wasn't talking about security at all when mentioning XUL.
You'll be happy to know that K-Meleon treats XPIs just like any other file. The act of installing an extension isn't trivial, though...
In what way isn't it ready? Lots of people, including non-techie ones, seem to be happy with it.
It is native. It's not XUL. Or do you mean the look?
By the way, I don't understand what you mean with this insecure XPI thing. Is it the concept? Or the fact that in Firefox they use a white-list? Or that you think it can't be turned off? At least in SeaMonkey, you can.
I see you didn't even take the time to read the main page. It explicitly mentions using Gecko. Everything else shows that as well, like for instance, the user agent string. Oh, and did you see the favicon they use? That's Mozilla, Netscape's mascot.
You probably let yourself be fooled because of the name, which starts with a K.
KHTML didn't even exist on Windows yet until the recent release of Safari 3 beta, while K-Meleon has a long history.
So Firefox doesn't work out for you. That's fine. But why the hell are you using IE as an alternative?! It's unstable and uses an ancient engine that is very much lacking in web standards support. You could have tried Opera, or even the other Gecko-based browsers like K-Meleon and SeaMonkey.
JAR URL (JAR files really are just renamed ZIP files) was already supported in Firefox 2.0.
You misunderstand. Firefox development is separate from the Core. Work done on the Firefox UI does not take away resources to work on the Core.
Also, the developers have never ignored memory use. That's a popular myth.
I disagree about IE, because it's an unstable piece of shit that is severely lacking when it comes to supporting web standards, which means web pages of lower quality for you.
Go go K-Meleon!
By the way, neither Camino or K-Meleon are derivatives of Firefox. They're just native browsers using Gecko and everything that comes with it.
I'm fine with Windows 95 OSR2. It does what I want, and is mostly crap-free (no IE either!).
I've tried GNU/Linux, but the lack of standards, the confusing directory and the ever-present developer mentality holds me back.
17 years? What year are you from? It's been 12 years since Windows 95.
And that Places bar debuted with Windows XP (or maybe 2000).
What's even richer is that you choose to ignore my evidence and statements and pull up some baseless statement. :)
Hurray for revisionism.
Yet there are plenty of users who switch to SeaMonkey that mention it being faster for them than Firefox. Further evidence is that when SeaMonkey switched from XPFE to toolkit there was a performance hit.
If you were really there, you would remember how 1.0, 1.4 and 1.7 were stable releases, with the 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 releases being technology previews, and 1.5 and 1.6 being something inbetween.
Look at this page. Note how it says "We make binary versions of Mozilla 1.0 available for testing purposes only! We provide no end user support.". It also says "We do not guarantee that any source code or executable code available from the mozilla.org domain is Year 2000 compliant.". It is like that even when Mozilla 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 are released.
And a version of this page in mid-2003, where it says "our latest stable development branch".
You also haven't addressed the fact that Firefox got a lot of marketing which the Suite never did.
There are no "minimalist browser" roots. Firefox was always meant to be a web browser with 'right set' of features. Check the roadmap.
Wladimir Palant, the driving force behind Adblock and Adblock Plus, doesn't want to get any cash for it.
As far as I'm concerned, the stupidest thing about the iPhone is its name. It should have been called the iPDA, which comes with a phone feature.
For people who have AZERTY keyboards, WASD is horrible. Any developer that hard-codes this button lay-out should be shot.
That's only one aspect, which is IE's lenient parsing. That doesn't stop M$ from implementing HTML and CSS fully.
And it doesn't address my argument of advocating closed standards. We all know M$ wants to control the web, and we all know how they let their browser rot for almost 5 years because the competition was crushed.
The model you're advocating is broken. No website can be trusted, and IE's model was broken from the start. Web browsers should be relatively secure from the start. They should never expose themselves. Only visiting trusted sites doesn't cut it; trusted sites get hacked with malicious code. The answer is secure browsers.