Back when everything was 16-bit, programmers were already glueing variables together to sort of make 21 or 22-bit variables. They needed the space.
Now, though, no one is yet needing 64-bit. If you do because of larger memory, then I would argue that the memory is too big, or that you should unbloat your program.
Vista is not appropriate for older PCs that are underpowered, but neither was XP when it came out.
I have a problem with this prevalent attitude that assumes that as PCs get older they get obselete, and that newer Windows operating systems don't run on older hardware because they're better.
It's not true. Newer Windows operating systems are designed to hog your CPU more than the last version, crammed with more features you might not need, to fuel the next wave of upgrades so companies like Intel can get sales from people that don't know any better.
I think most people here will agree that Linux is better than Windows, and guess what? Linux still runs on old hardware! How's that for proof?
Especially considering that most people only use a PC for browsing the Internet and sending e-mail, a machine from 5 years back or a couple more does the job adequately - as long as you don't install software designed to work well only on newer hardware, aka bloated.
It's a fact that bug reports rapidly get less useful the older your build is. You should test a recent nightly build first. Reporting a bug that's already fixed is a waste of time not only for you, but also for anyone looking at your bug.
Yes, this bug exists, but other things are more important.
This may be hard to understand for some users (I have trouble with it sometimes too), but there -really can be- more important things.
No one has posted a TalkBack report. [If they had read the bug report, they would know that there is never a TalkBack report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too, or a TalkBack report is not generated.]
TalkBack is a separate program, how the hell can a crashed Firefox crash it? It's true that it doesn't always get called because Firefox has crashed so hard that it doesn't get to call the crash reporter, but this is not a common occurence.
If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug.
This is true. If the given report is so cryptic and lacks the required details, the problem can't be located and it doesn't get fixed. It seems not everyone can understand this point, and thinks they have provided enough information.
You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself. [Then when you have done most of the work, tell us what causes the problem, and we may fix it.]
This is open-source. The developers are not there to do your bidding. If they aren't interested in your problem or can't see it themselves, you go run a debugger to find the cause yourself.
Your problem is probably caused by using extensions. [These are extensions advertised on the Firefox and Mozilla web site, and recommended.]
I admit that this is a mess. Extensions are supposed to be these third-party pieces of code that the first-party developers aren't responsible for, so that's why they say this. But yeah, then Mozilla created an Add-Ons site and later started reviewing extensions, so the separation got muddled.
Your problem is probably caused by a corrupt profile.
This is a possibility, which is why you test the problem on a clean profile first, or make sure that the profile doesn't have anything to do with this.
Actually, how Gecko does it IS the standard. XHTML is to be served as application/xhtml+xml, not text/html. When served as text/html, it's essentially HTML4, and thus what you're asking is not standard at all.
Re:It should NOT evolve into more that just a brow
on
Marketing Mozilla
·
· Score: 1
You're wrong, everyone knows IE got market share by having it bundled with Windows by default.
The trouble with this is that they effectively killed off the original Mozilla suite because it was getting too bloated, and hence Firefox was born.
Firefox was born long before the Mozilla Suite was dropped. Also, the Mozilla Suite wasn't killed off because it was bloated. Firefox was just more popular, and for some unexplained reason the Mozilla Foundation liked stand-alone applications better.
They killed the original Mozilla suite because it was bloated with things you don't need while browsing.
Maybe for you, but there are plenty people out there who browse while having their e-mail client open. It's nice to see a notification of new e-mail while browsing. Other people like to be on IRC a lot and browse in-between.
As a web browser, it did a basic job - "but wait, there's more! You also get this email client you may not need, which doubles as a newsreader; you get an IRC client, an HTML editor, and let's see what else we can cram in here!"
Ah, the popular "But I want just a browser!" argument. People talk as if they're being forced to install everything. They're not. At setup, you can choose "Browser only", "Complete", or "Custom". The suite is modular.
There are enough people out there who want just a browser, but use SeaMonkey (the successor of Mozilla) because they prefer it as a browser over Firefox.
Likewise, Mozilla being bloated is a popular misconception started by the Firefox developers when they forked from Mozilla, because they didn't like the current management.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see that happening on servers and corporate systems, but come on, on consumer machines? I don't think so.
There's another one who jumped the M$' bandwagon of "The EU is bad!".
64-bit is useless. There's no need for it.
Back when everything was 16-bit, programmers were already glueing variables together to sort of make 21 or 22-bit variables. They needed the space.
Now, though, no one is yet needing 64-bit. If you do because of larger memory, then I would argue that the memory is too big, or that you should unbloat your program.
It's not true. Newer Windows operating systems are designed to hog your CPU more than the last version, crammed with more features you might not need, to fuel the next wave of upgrades so companies like Intel can get sales from people that don't know any better.
I think most people here will agree that Linux is better than Windows, and guess what? Linux still runs on old hardware! How's that for proof?
Especially considering that most people only use a PC for browsing the Internet and sending e-mail, a machine from 5 years back or a couple more does the job adequately - as long as you don't install software designed to work well only on newer hardware, aka bloated.
This may be hard to understand for some users (I have trouble with it sometimes too), but there -really can be- more important things.
TalkBack is a separate program, how the hell can a crashed Firefox crash it? It's true that it doesn't always get called because Firefox has crashed so hard that it doesn't get to call the crash reporter, but this is not a common occurence.
This is true. If the given report is so cryptic and lacks the required details, the problem can't be located and it doesn't get fixed. It seems not everyone can understand this point, and thinks they have provided enough information.
This is open-source. The developers are not there to do your bidding. If they aren't interested in your problem or can't see it themselves, you go run a debugger to find the cause yourself.
I admit that this is a mess. Extensions are supposed to be these third-party pieces of code that the first-party developers aren't responsible for, so that's why they say this. But yeah, then Mozilla created an Add-Ons site and later started reviewing extensions, so the separation got muddled.
This is a possibility, which is why you test the problem on a clean profile first, or make sure that the profile doesn't have anything to do with this.
Actually, how Gecko does it IS the standard. XHTML is to be served as application/xhtml+xml, not text/html. When served as text/html, it's essentially HTML4, and thus what you're asking is not standard at all.
You're wrong, everyone knows IE got market share by having it bundled with Windows by default.
Adblock is a problematic extension when it comes to memory before the 042 nightly: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Problematic_extensions
The Mozilla Foundation wanted it to be clear that they weren't maintaining it, so they had to change the Mozilla name to something else.