Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => Applications => Topic started by: Aloone_Jonez on 1 January 2010, 00:55
-
I've had enough with the bloatware that Firefox has become.
I'm moving back to Opera, at least on the Windows platform.
I only used Firefox because if Adblock, now I've discovered how to block adverts on Opera it doesn't mater any more.
Opera has other features which I find handy: speed dial, notes and being able to paste stuff into the Google/address bar and it'll take you to the site without having to press enter. I know it's possible to get them with Firefox via extensions but they're available in Opera native. The Firefox speed dial is also slower than a slug on morphine.
There are only thing I prefer with Firefox is the page search bar but it's no big deal.
In general I do prefer FOSS but I'm not going to use it when there's a blatantly superior non-free alternative which doesn't lock me into using it by having proprietary formats and standards. On the contrary, Opera rivals Firefox and other FOSS browsers when it comes to supporting open standards.
On the Linux platform, I might switch to Swiftfox. I had a quick go at installing Opera on Fedora which was a failure and going from my memories of running Opera under Ubuntu and Vector Linux, it was slower loading than Firefox but maybe it's improved since then.
-
Uhh, Chrome anyone?
It supports open standards, is licensed under BSD License and is a space saver.
-
Chrome doesn't have mouse gestures. And other features like the trash can and tab locking that I consider basic.
I was an Opera user for quite some time, but somehow I liked Firefox better because of the addons and the customability. I have learned to use some features in Opera, that are also in the Tab Mix Plus addon for Firefox. The browser can be a slow sometimes, I hope they fixed that in 3.6.
I do know a lot of Opera users, and I still use Opera on my mobile and Wii.
-
I've never used mouse gestures before, I don't see what the fuss is about and speed dial isn't that important to me, even though it's handy.
I've switched browsers a few times: Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, Firefox and now Opera again. I'm aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the aforementioned browsers and keep on trying them all out because the goal posts move every now and then. To be honest, I think even Internet Explorer has come a fair way since version 6: competition from Firefox and Opera has certainly put a rocked up Microsoft's arse.
Notes and Adblock are the only features I'm really bothered about but speed is the most important thing. Firefox's Adblock extension is still much better than Opera's: with Firefox you can subscribe to a list of blocked elements which gets updated every fortnight with Opera you download a list manually and append it to a .ini file and manually update it. The only reason why I use Adblock is there's one site I visit which is littered with adverts and as long as I can block them all, I don't care.
Opera is much faster loading and it's memory management seems to be much more intelligent. It seems to suck up memory up to a certain point and hold on to it for a certain length of time which probably depends on the available resources, then bang it releases the memory. I remember it taking up to 120MB after opening loads of tabs, I closed the tabs and the memory usage didn't go down much; I looked at the memory usage a bit later and it had gone down to 20MB. Pages also seem to load much faster under Opera.
I've played with Google Chrome but I've never warmed to it. I don't like the way you have to install it per user under Windows for a start and it just seems very basic and minimalist.
-
NoScript addon in Firefox with Cookie Monster is the safe way. Firefox is slow to render. I just got a 13.3" MacBook Pro to replace my G4 laptop and there is a huge difference in rendering speed. I like Opera's built-in torrent client.
-
I've used NoScript before, it's installed and enabled by default on the Windows administrator account.
I think it's overrated security wise unless you don't have any trusted sites on it, there's always a risk that one of your trusted sites could get compromised.
Firefox does warn you before entering a site that Google says contain malware but I don't know if Opera does this too. There again Opera does have less vulnerabilities than Firefox over all so even if it doesn't warn you, you're still reasonably safe.
-
The firefox warning thing for "bad sites" is not necessarily for malware either. It is often used with phishing sites that may pose as PayPal or some other legitimate site to try and steal your identity. I would be surprised if Opera did NOT have this feature.
-
I know it has an anti-phishing filter.
Anyway I don't know because I'm currently using Firefox in Fedora.
-
Good to see that not much has changed around here :D
The most under-rated security feature in any web browser is Firefox's auto-updater.
Ah I've been out of the loop with all the browsers, there are A LOT of good choices nowadays. I just use Firefox cuz its free and it comes on all my Ubuntus, and I've used it for I duno how many years with no problems. Theres a lot of interesting stuff happening to it too, ie Mozilla Labs: Weave (syncing different Firefoxes and mobile Firefoxes), Jetpack (web-page format extensions, yeah click an "install" button and the extension will appear without restarting), Personas (I don't particularly fancy this feature but you have to see the appeal lots of users see, if they can simply do this and create a top-class (HUGE) website of community created themes, why not?). Soon these things and more will be a part of Firefox (all in Firefox 4 2011, Personas in Firefox 3.6 coming soon, rest can use beta-level extensions for now).
Firefox extensions, now Personas, soon Jetpack. The essence of the power of Firefox is in its COMMUNITY. It's ridiculous. And that's why it's the worlds 2nd most popular web-browser. If you account for the the auto-updater, I'd argue it's the #1 safest web-browser for these numbers too. (I dont know if chrome etc have updaters as effective as Firefox, I assume opera still doesnt?)
http://www.pcworld.com/article/185562/firefox_roadmap_a_look_at_versions_36_to_40.html (http://www.pcworld.com/article/185562/firefox_roadmap_a_look_at_versions_36_to_40.html)
EDIT: this is a very important question. Does Opera (stable releases) support native OGG video? When I googled I got to the experimental builds, worrying if thats all there is. Wouldnt make sense either.
edit: I see the answer is no. That's a pretty big surprise..
-
To be honest, I haven't had too much of a problem with Firefox, it's stable, reliable and has extensions, I've just come to the conclusion that it isn't the best browser, as far as I'm concerned. I knew this whilst I was using it before but I put up with it because I liked Adblock so much.
I don't like auto-updaters because I want to install software when I want to, not when some community/company says so. Auto-update is the first thing I disable, regardless of whether it's Windows, Linux or an application such as Firefox or OpenOffice.org.
The auto-updater is useless as far as I'm concerned: it's a normally disabled under Linux because the distro's update system takes over and under Windows the auto-updater is only any use if you're using the insecure default configuration i.e. running a administrator for everything.
I don't care about OGG support, it's so easy to open in VLC. EDIT: Opera comes with a plug-in preinstalled.
I don't care that Opera totally pawns Firefox when it comes to the Acid 3 test.
I care far more about speed and the features I want more than anything else.
I just discovered another thing I miss with Firefox, it remembers the zoom setting for pages I've visited but on the plus side Opera's zoom is faster and easier to use.
Hell it's personal preference for the most part, I can understand why people use Firefox but I think it's only so popular because it was the first really viable alternative to MS IE. Back in the days of IE 6, the Mozilla suite was to big and clunky and Opera was adware so Windows users had no real choice apart from IE, then Firefox came along and change all of that.
-
Opera does seem to be better at supporting IE only sites. It comes with a user agent switcher built-in. Firefox needs an extension which doesn't seem to be as effective as Opera.
I tested a few sites from the list of IE only sites here: http://toastytech.com/good/badsitelistframe.html (http://toastytech.com/good/badsitelistframe.html)
Some have since been fixed, or maybe it's Firfefox that's been fixed, most won't work in Opera or Firefox, but there are some which work in Opera and IE but not Firefox.
https://carelink.minimed.com/patient/entry.jsp?bhcp=1 (https://carelink.minimed.com/patient/entry.jsp?bhcp=1) Works in Opera with the user agent set to mask as IE, doesn't work in Firefox regardless of the UA setting.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/gamechannel (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/gamechannel) Works in Opera with the UA set to identify as Opera or Firefox. This is obviously not an IE only site, it's just listed as such because it won't work in Firefox. It also works with Chrome, which indicates that Firefox needs fixing, not the site. I wish Firefox zealots would get their facts straight before blaming sites.
https://esp.rci.rogers.com/EAMWeb/TCSP/ENU/Common/servlet/login.xml?ReturnUrl=%2fEAMWeb%2fTCSP%2fENU%2fAPI%2fservlet%2fAdminGetUserProfile.ewfm (https://esp.rci.rogers.com/EAMWeb/TCSP/ENU/Common/servlet/login.xml?ReturnUrl=%2fEAMWeb%2fTCSP%2fENU%2fAPI%2fservlet%2fAdminGetUserProfile.ewfm) - Same again, works perfectly in IE, Chrome and in Opera (not quite perfect but still works) but not at all in Firefox.
http://datawarehouse.hrsa.gov/DWOnlineMap/MainInterface.aspx (http://datawarehouse.hrsa.gov/DWOnlineMap/MainInterface.aspx) Works in Opera and IE but not in Firefox or Chrome. I'll let the zealot off on this one, it does say it requires IE >6 on non-compatible browsers but it doesn't block non-IE browsers, it works under Opera with the UA set to Opera.
http://www.topjob.com.br/ (http://www.topjob.com.br/) Opera, Chrome and IE not Firefox
https://pcws.wal-mart.com/cws/seeker.html (https://pcws.wal-mart.com/cws/seeker.html) Opera, Chrome and IE not Firefox
I know that there are some sites which render better in Firefox than Opera (the MES is one of them) and there are probably sites which work in Firefox and IE but not Opera. I think that designers should ensure their sites work in all browsers but it does piss me off when people automatically assume that just because a site doesn't work in Firxfox it's the site designer's fault and not their favourite browser. I always test a site in gecko and WebKit and Opera before I blame the site designer. It's fair enough blaming them if it blocks non-IE browsers but that's often not the case.
Note: I didn't check all the sites on the list.
-
I suppose it could be a FireFox issue why they aren't working, but what if it IS a coding error on their part, and Opera/Chrome are just better at working around those errors?
-
https://carelink.minimed.com/patient/entry.jsp?bhcp=1 (https://carelink.minimed.com/patient/entry.jsp?bhcp=1) Works in Opera with the user agent set to mask as IE, doesn't work in Firefox regardless of the UA setting.
Doesn't work on a Mac in any browser. Which means it probably uses Windows-based program hooks that are only available in IE. I suspect that even if it loads in Opera, it isn't fully functional.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/gamechannel (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/gamechannel) Works in Opera with the UA set to identify as Opera or Firefox. This is obviously not an IE only site, it's just listed as such because it won't work in Firefox. It also works with Chrome, which indicates that Firefox needs fixing, not the site. I wish Firefox zealots would get their facts straight before blaming sites.
This site works fine for me in Firefox. You're the one who needs to get your facts straight.
https://esp.rci.rogers.com/EAMWeb/TCSP/ENU/Common/servlet/login.xml?ReturnUrl=%2fEAMWeb%2fTCSP%2fENU%2fAPI%2fservlet%2fAdminGetUserProfile.ewfm (https://esp.rci.rogers.com/EAMWeb/TCSP/ENU/Common/servlet/login.xml?ReturnUrl=%2fEAMWeb%2fTCSP%2fENU%2fAPI%2fservlet%2fAdminGetUserProfile.ewfm) - Same again, works perfectly in IE, Chrome and in Opera (not quite perfect but still works) but not at all in Firefox.
This page shouldn't work in any browser. The fact that it does in most of them only proves how many browsers are willing to work around shitty programming and how many are not. I don't fault Firefox for not loading this page at all.
http://datawarehouse.hrsa.gov/DWOnlineMap/MainInterface.aspx (http://datawarehouse.hrsa.gov/DWOnlineMap/MainInterface.aspx) Works in Opera and IE but not in Firefox or Chrome. I'll let the zealot off on this one, it does say it requires IE >6 on non-compatible browsers but it doesn't block non-IE browsers, it works under Opera with the UA set to Opera.
This site baffles me. I've pored over their code, including all their linked JavaScripts, and can't find the section of code that does the browser check. In fact, if you look at the file javascripts/actions.js, you'll see that there is code that checks if the browser is IE5 or Navigator 4, and then programs the appropriate JavaScript calls. There's actually client-side code in there designed to facilitate old and/or non-IE browsers! But they must do some sort of server-side browser check somewhere.
http://www.topjob.com.br/ (http://www.topjob.com.br/) Opera, Chrome and IE not Firefox
Works just as well in Firefox and Safari as it does in Opera. Hard to tell, though, since I don't speak Portuguese very well.
https://pcws.wal-mart.com/cws/seeker.html (https://pcws.wal-mart.com/cws/seeker.html) Opera, Chrome and IE not Firefox
Should not work in any browser. Have you looked at the source? Fucker has embedded tables down to 5 layers:
<TABLE><TABLE><TABLE><TABLE><TABLE></TABLE></TABLE></TABLE></TABLE></TABLE>
And that's just the beginning. That's irresponsible coding, and I'm sorta glad Firefox doesn't allow it.
I think in most of the examples you've cited here (that really don't work in Firefox), the coder is at fault, for not running his site properly. Choosing to use coding hooks that only work on Windows is ridiculous. Automatically blocking certain browsers from the server side is just plain mean, especially if your coders are facilitating them from the client side. Illegal XML and HTML code shouldn't be coddled by a browser, it should be burned and discarded by a browser. I see Opera's behavior in this arena as kowtowing to the clusterfuck that Microsoft and IE have made of web standards.
Think about the two of the most popular websites on the internet - Google.com and Amazon.com. Both work with all modern browsers on all platforms. No messages, no warnings. As a matter of fact, those sites probably don't even use workarounds any more - they've streamlined the processes so well that simple code is able to do complex things. This is how the internet can and should work.
-
https://carelink.minimed.com/patient/entry.jsp?bhcp=1 (https://carelink.minimed.com/patient/entry.jsp?bhcp=1) Works in Opera with the user agent set to mask as IE, doesn't work in Firefox regardless of the UA setting.
Doesn't work on a Mac in any browser. Which means it probably uses Windows-based program hooks that are only available in IE. I suspect that even if it loads in Opera, it isn't fully functional.
I haven't tested it under Linux yet.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/gamechannel (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/gamechannel) Works in Opera with the UA set to identify as Opera or Firefox. This is obviously not an IE only site, it's just listed as such because it won't work in Firefox. It also works with Chrome, which indicates that Firefox needs fixing, not the site. I wish Firefox zealots would get their facts straight before blaming sites.
This site works fine for me in Firefox. You're the one who needs to get your facts straight.
Yes, that was my mistake, I forgot to disable Adblock, it works without it.
This site baffles me. I've pored over their code, including all their linked JavaScripts, and can't find the section of code that does the browser check. In fact, if you look at the file javascripts/actions.js, you'll see that there is code that checks if the browser is IE5 or Navigator 4, and then programs the appropriate JavaScript calls. There's actually client-side code in there designed to facilitate old and/or non-IE browsers! But they must do some sort of server-side browser check somewhere.
My guess is it doesn't do a browser check, if a script fails to execute it presumes you're not using IE.
If it did a browser check, it would fail on Opera with the US set to Opera.
http://www.topjob.com.br/ (http://www.topjob.com.br/) Opera, Chrome and IE not Firefox
Works just as well in Firefox and Safari as it does in Opera. Hard to tell, though, since I don't speak Portuguese very well.
Might fault again for not disabling Adblock.
https://pcws.wal-mart.com/cws/seeker.html (https://pcws.wal-mart.com/cws/seeker.html) Opera, Chrome and IE not Firefox
Should not work in any browser. Have you looked at the source? Fucker has embedded tables down to 5 layers:
<TABLE><TABLE><TABLE><TABLE><TABLE></TABLE></TABLE></TABLE></TABLE></TABLE>
And that's just the beginning. That's irresponsible coding, and I'm sorta glad Firefox doesn't allow it.
What's the limit on the number of levels of nesting for an embedded table?
Whilst it seems strange that anyone would nest that deep, it also seems odd that a browser should limit it, that seems like a lame excuse to me. My guess is that Firfox imposes an arbitrary limit to nesting and other browsers don't.
-
There are schools of thought (FOR EXAMPLE ITS THE PURPOSE OF XHTML) that suggest even if browsers can work out what a developer intends, under circumstances that it is not complying with standard specifications the browsers should not only fail to render the page fully, but should actually abort and display an error.
In fact I'm 50/50 XML demands user agents abort for syntax errors. If thats true then Firefox does the correct thing and other browsers are breaking the spec for this page:
https://esp.rci.rogers.com/EAMWeb/TCSP/ENU/Common/servlet/login.xml?ReturnUrl=%2fEAMWeb%2fTCSP%2fENU%2fAPI%2fservlet%2fAdminGetUserProfile.ewfm
this is to prevent the future of the web (that looks like an xslt page) from being fucked over like html was.
the last time i was keeping track firefox was the holy king of rendering internet explorer specific shit. if it still was you could argue thats a BAD THING.
aloone, ever run into any problems with firefoxes rendering while you were using it? what about opera?
-
Fortunately most sites I visit work with both browsers, albeit with the odd rendering error. I haven't had a problem with either of them yet.
Here's an example of a rendering error I get with Opera but not Firefox.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/ee/bedford_forecast_weather.html (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/ee/bedford_forecast_weather.html)
I have a feeling it's due to a conflict between Opera and Windows system font being set to large. I don't think I'd get this error if I set the font size to normal. I'm not going to try now because it would involve rebooting; got to love Windows. ::)
-
It was the Windows font setting that was causing the problem. It's still Opera's fault because the developers should have tested it with the large font setting. All of the other browsers don't seem to have this problem.
This just goes to show that there are many variables that can influence how well a browsers renders pages.
-
This site baffles me. I've pored over their code, including all their linked JavaScripts, and can't find the section of code that does the browser check. In fact, if you look at the file javascripts/actions.js, you'll see that there is code that checks if the browser is IE5 or Navigator 4, and then programs the appropriate JavaScript calls. There's actually client-side code in there designed to facilitate old and/or non-IE browsers! But they must do some sort of server-side browser check somewhere.
My guess is it doesn't do a browser check, if a script fails to execute it presumes you're not using IE.
If it did a browser check, it would fail on Opera with the US set to Opera.
If a script failed to execute, an error or warning would be generated, yes? I've been keeping the Firefox error console open while loading these pages, so I would have seen a JavaScript fail. Also, as I said, I have looked over the code - there is no client side JavaScript that tests for browser or loads the browser check failed page that you get in Firefox. So ergo it must be happening on the server side.
Also, Opera, as an also-ran, can fall through if it isn't tested for. Consider the following sample code:
if browser = Firefox
then fail
else browser = IE
Obviously, this sample is an exaggeration, but I think you see how less popular browsers can fall through the cracks.
-
I went there on an Intel Mac running Firefox 3.5.6 with NoScript running. I got a small window box upper right that said I needed to enable JS to get all the features. I also have to allow OpenX.org scripts to run. They didn't seem to care about cookies if you were just looking.
-
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<!--[if IE]>
<style type="text/css">
#expander, #wrapper1, #wrapper2, .outer a, .container-left, .container-right, .outer, h2 {zoom: 1;}
/* The above rule gives hasLayout to some page elements so that IE will not be buggy, oy... */
</style>
<![endif]-->
<link title="default" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/climatechange/lib/css/cc.css">
document.cookie="fxlocation=bedford"
<ul id="hnav">
<li class="top"><a class="mtab" id="mg1" title="" href="/weather/"><strong>Weather</strong>
<!--[if gte IE 7]><!--></a><!--<![endif]-->
<!--[if lte IE 6]><table><tr><td><![endif]-->
<ul class="sub">
<li><a class="mtab" title="" href="/weather/uk/"><strong>UK</strong></a></li>
<!--[if gte IE 7]><!--></a><!--<![endif]-->
<!--[if lte IE 6]><table><tr><td><![endif]-->
<ul class="sub">
<li><a class="mtab" title="" href="/climatechange/news/"><strong>News and events</strong></a></li>
<!--[if lte IE 6]></td></tr></table></a><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte IE 7]><!--></a><!--<![endif]-->
<!--[if lte IE 6]><table><tr><td><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte IE 7]><!--></a><!--<![endif]-->
<!--[if lte IE 6]><table><tr><td><![endif]-->
<!--[if lte IE 6]></td></tr></table></a><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte IE 7]><!--></a><!--<![endif]-->
<!--[if lte IE 6]><table><tr><td><![endif]-->
<!--[if lte IE 6]></td></tr></table></a><![endif]-->
</li>
<li class="top"><a class="mtab" id="mg6" title="" href="/learning/" accesskey="L"><strong>Learning</strong>
<!--[if gte IE 7]><!--></a><!--<![endif]-->
<!--[if lte IE 6]><table><tr><td><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte IE 7]><!--></a><!--<![endif]-->
<!--[if lte IE 6]><table><tr><td><![endif]-->
<!--[if lte IE 6]></td></tr></table></a><![endif]-->
</li>
<!--[if gte IE 7]><!--></a><!--<![endif]-->
<!--[if lte IE 6]><table><tr><td><![endif]-->
<ul class="sub">
<!--[if lte IE 6]></td></tr></table></a><![endif]-->
</li>
0"name="pcodeform" action="javascript:isarrayloaded();locationfind(document.pcodeform.postcode.value,locations);">
<label for="postcode"><strong>POSTCODE</strong></label>
<div class="ddList">
<p>JavaScript must be enabled to view this page correctly. </p>
<p><a href="/faqs/#faq1.3a">See our FAQ</a> for instructions on how to do this.</p>
<p>Alternatively, go to a <a href="/weather/uk/ee/bedford_forecast_weather_noscript.html"><strong>non-JavaScript (text-only) version of this page</strong></a></p>
</div>
</div>
</noscript>
<
<!--/* OpenX Javascript Tag v2.8.2-rc25 */-->
<script type='text/javascript'><!--//<![CDATA[
var m3_u = (location.protocol=='https:'?'[url=https://d1.openx.org/ajs.php':'http://d1.openx.org/ajs.php']https://d1.openx.org/ajs.php':'http://d1.openx.org/ajs.php'[/url]);
var m3_r = Math.floor(Math.random()*99999999999);
//]]>--></script><noscript><a href='[url=http://d1.openx.org/ck.php?n=ae68da3e&cb=1978175']http://d1.openx.org/ck.php?n=ae68da3e&cb=1978175'[/url] target='_blank'><img src='[url=http://d1.openx.org/avw.php?zoneid=85267&cb=1978175&n=ae68da3e']http://d1.openx.org/avw.php?zoneid=85267&cb=1978175&n=ae68da3e'[/url] style='border:none;' alt=''></a></noscript>
<!--/* OpenX Javascript Tag v2.8.2-rc25 */-->
<div class="tintpanel folding">
<h2 class="ghead230 foldlink">Gadgets and widgets</h2>
<div class="foldingpart" id="gadgetsFoldingContentLink">
<p><a class="noUnderline" href="/weather/uk/gadgets/vista.html"><img src="/weather/uk/gadgets/vistalogo_small.gif" alt="Vista weather gadget"> Vista</a><br><a class="noUnderline" href="/weather/uk/gadgets/firefox.html"><img src="/weather/uk/gadgets/firefoxlogo_small.gif" alt="Firefox weather gadget"> Firefox</a><br><a class="noUnderline" href="/weather/uk/gadgets/igoogle.html"><img src="/weather/uk/gadgets/igooglelogo_small.gif" alt="iGoogle weather gadget"></a> <a class="noUnderline" href="/weather/uk/gadgets/igoogle.html">iGoogle</a></p>
<p><a class="noUnderline" href="/weather/uk/gadgets/">Weather gadgets</a> </p>
<p><a class="noUnderline" href="http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/pws/components/">Weather widgets</a> </p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/lib/includes/javascript/common_bottom.js"></script>
<!-- Warning: The two script blocks below must remain inline. Moving them to an external -->
<!-- JavaScript include file can cause serious problems with cross-domain tracking. -->
<script type="text/javascript">
//<![CDATA[
var _tag=new WebTrends();
_tag.dcsGetId();
//]]>>
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
//<![CDATA[
// Add custom parameters here.
//_tag.DCSext.param_name=param_value;
_tag.dcsCollect();
//]]>>
</script>
<noscript>
<div><img alt="DCSIMG" id="DCSIMG" width="1" height="1" src="http://statse.webtrendslive.com/dcshckprv00000spazrt5ckdq_6d2t/njs.gif?dcsuri=/nojavascript&WT.js=No&WT.tv=8.6.2"></div>
</noscript>
<!-- END OF SmartSource Data Collector TAG -->
</div>
</div>
<!-- end #expander -->
</div>
<!-- end #sizer -->
<!-- <!End of data insert. > -->
</body>
</html>
-
I never saw that JavaScript anywhere. It isn't called by the main page.
-
The rendering error I mentioned above is definitely caused by the font setting: I get the same problem using Firefox under Linux. Perhaps it's the site's fault?
Here's my view regarding the standards debate and whether Gecko, Webkit, Opera etc. should support workarounds for IE only sites.
After working in the engineering profession for eight years, I realise that what matters in real life are standards that have been widely adopted. It doesn't matter whether if the W3C or ISO say X is the standard, if no one uses it, it isn't a standard. If a certain standard is supported by Opera, Internet Explorer and the Web Kit engine, then it might be a good idea for the Firefox developers to implement it, regardless of whether it is a W3C recommendation or not. I think that some IE quirks should be implemented by other browsers simply because some sites rely on them but it shouldn't be a priority and they shouldn't be implemented if doing so would break other more standards compliant sites.
I definitely do support open standards driven by many software companies and web designers, not just one fat corporation setting proprietary standards locking everyone into their software. Fortunately things seem to have improved a lot in the last five years and I think users not only have a choice between IE and Firefox but also, Opera Chrome etc. is a really good thing. My main gripe with IE at the moment is not supporting SVG in favour of Silverlight. SVG is quite popular and is widely used by many sites including Winpedia, virtually no one uses Silver light so SVG should be a priority.
-
A gaping question for me to you Aloone is, on your own day to day browsing of the web are you actually experiencing less rendering issues on Opera than on Firefox? This is the only question that needs to be answered when it come to rendering engine support from the users point of view.
Bear in mind that here's a webpage we've forgotten to bring up: the microsuck homepage. edit: guess that applies no more?
Firefox doesn't do user agent switching for websites that deliver different content based on UA string, it doesn't have developer-written site specific style sheets saved to work around the problem on a page-by-page basis, it has instead simply become as far as I know, the best at the best for rendering IE hacks over the years in getting to where it is, and if it fails somewhere, click Help > Report a Problem on a misbehaving page. If it's an actual problem for Firefoxes webpage support, I'm sure someone will fix it for the four hundred million or so users*.
One webpage can be wrong.
* Firefox has 24.72% market share according to Wikipedia, and there are 1.7 billion internet users according to http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm)
-
A gaping question for me to you Aloone is, on your own day to day browsing of the web are you actually experiencing less rendering issues on Opera than on Firefox? This is the only question that needs to be answered when it come to rendering engine support from the users point of view.
I don't get very many rendering issues with either browser so I haven't notice much difference.
It's just something I noticed when looking at a few the supposedly IE-only sites on the list with Opera. Some of the sites didn't work on Firefox or Opera so I decided to use UA switching (both in Opera and in Firefox, using the extension) to spoof IE. The result of my very unscientific test I noticed that Opera generally did a better job of rendering sites that actively block it. Chrome also did a good job at rendering some IE only sites, although I didn't try UA spoofing because I didn't know how/if it's possible.
Bear in mind that here's a webpage we've forgotten to bring up: the microsuck homepage. edit: guess that applies no more?
I lately discovered that it was a problem for all browsers. The animated gif with fireworks had been replaced with "{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C}" in between me visiting this site with Firefox and Opera.
Firefox doesn't do user agent switching for websites that deliver different content based on UA string, it doesn't have developer-written site specific style sheets saved to work around the problem on a page-by-page basis, it has instead simply become as far as I know, the best at the best for rendering IE hacks over the years in getting to where it is, and if it fails somewhere, click Help > Report a Problem on a misbehaving page.
Opera doesn't do anything clever like automatically switch the UA according to the site, you need to do that yourself. It also has the facility to report broken sites to the developers.
If it's an actual problem for Firefoxes webpage support, I'm sure someone will fix it for the four hundred million or so users*.
One webpage can be wrong.
* Firefox has 24.72% market share according to Wikipedia, and there are 1.7 billion internet users according to http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm)
For a start there are many different measures of browser market share and since when did that make a difference to quality? Internet explorer has over four times Firefox's market share, it must be better. ::)
I've just got Opera installed on Linux, it looks pretty good, not much different than it did under Windows. I've still got to get round to setting up adblock but when I do I'll start using it as my main browser.
EDIT:
You know the rendering error I was experiencing with Firfox under Linux and Opera under Windows?
It doesn't occur with Opera under Linux.
It's funny how changing the OS reverses the situation. One might have though that an OSS browser would work better under an OSS OS. ;D
-
Worker, the code snippets I posted are part of the Page Source taken by right-clicking Firefox while mouse hovering the fully loaded page. I only posted part of the code because it is so long it won't post here (>32k chararcters).
I had to allow both the host url and Openx to run scripts and allowed cookies. I think maybe there is an OpenX server running locally that handles some function calls.
The page renders well for me.
-
Why not attach it?
I've just tried Chromium for Linux and it seems really good. It has extensions, including Adblock. The Adblock isn't as good as Firefox's, some elements appear then vanish and I've only managed to find one extension that blocks annoying content link and even then it didn't block it completely, the blue link appears, it just doesn't pop-up then the mouse is moved over it. From what I've gathered this is an inherent flaw in Chromium rather than any of the three extensions I tried. I hope it gets fixed soon because it's putting me off using it at the moment.
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom
It's faster than Firefox apart from on some ad-infested pages which take slightly longer to load the elements then hide them and it seems to do a better job at loading IE-only sites. Best of all it's open source which will keep the FOSS fanboyz happy.
I've come to the conclusion that WebKit>Gecko, it just seems lighter, faster and the fact that most WebKit browsers pass the Acid3 test seems to suggest better standards compliance too.
-
Here's a site which doesn't render correctly in either Firefox or Opera but it works perfectly in Safari and Chrome for Windows. It also breaks in IE 8, unless the compatibility mode is turned on. I've yet to try it under Linux.
http://www.quranicpath.com/ (http://www.quranicpath.com/)
EDIT:
The site got fixed.
-
A gaping question for me to you Aloone is, on your own day to day browsing of the web are you actually experiencing less rendering issues on Opera than on Firefox? This is the only question that needs to be answered when it come to rendering engine support from the users point of view.
I don't get very many rendering issues with either browser so I haven't notice much difference.
It's just something I noticed when looking at a few the supposedly IE-only sites on the list with Opera. Some of the sites didn't work on Firefox or Opera so I decided to use UA switching (both in Opera and in Firefox, using the extension) to spoof IE. The result of my very unscientific test I noticed that Opera generally did a better job of rendering sites that actively block it. Chrome also did a good job at rendering some IE only sites, although I didn't try UA spoofing because I didn't know how/if it's possible.
Bear in mind that here's a webpage we've forgotten to bring up: the microsuck homepage. edit: guess that applies no more?
I lately discovered that it was a problem for all browsers. The animated gif with fireworks had been replaced with "{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C}" in between me visiting this site with Firefox and Opera.
Firefox doesn't do user agent switching for websites that deliver different content based on UA string, it doesn't have developer-written site specific style sheets saved to work around the problem on a page-by-page basis, it has instead simply become as far as I know, the best at the best for rendering IE hacks over the years in getting to where it is, and if it fails somewhere, click Help > Report a Problem on a misbehaving page.
Opera doesn't do anything clever like automatically switch the UA according to the site, you need to do that yourself. It also has the facility to report broken sites to the developers.
If it's an actual problem for Firefoxes webpage support, I'm sure someone will fix it for the four hundred million or so users*.
One webpage can be wrong.
* Firefox has 24.72% market share according to Wikipedia, and there are 1.7 billion internet users according to http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm)
For a start there are many different measures of browser market share and since when did that make a difference to quality? Internet explorer has over four times Firefox's market share, it must be better. ::)
You're still this immature?
goddamn
-
You're still this immature?
goddamn
Why are you calling me immature?
I'm not the one who started name calling.
-
You're still this immature?
goddamn
Typical reply to Microsoftist evangelists.
-
Typical reply to Microsoftist evangelists.
What me?
I was being sarcastic.
I don't like IE.
Firefox is much better but I don't think it's as good as many say and I'm tired of the zealotism.
-
Typical reply to Microsoftist evangelists.
What me?
I was being sarcastic.
I don't like IE.
Firefox is much better but I don't think it's as good as many say and I'm tired of the zealotism.
Way to fight the zealotism.
Theres none of that going on here at all thanks to you ::)
Why are you calling me immature?
I'm not the one who started name calling.
I thought it was an immature response because I wasnt for a second suggesting that Firefox was the 2nd best browser because it has the 2nd highest market share, got it?
Also considering what you posted about standards, why are you considering acid 3 an iimportant standard when its supported by a few 10s of millions of users browsers perhaps, but open video is supported by firefox 3.5 which has hundreds of millions of users?
Just googled for some stats and in fact, Firefox 3.5 has more users than IE 7: it is the worlds most popular browser http://gigaom.com/2009/12/21/firefox-3-5-now-worlds-most-popular-browser/ (http://gigaom.com/2009/12/21/firefox-3-5-now-worlds-most-popular-browser/) EDIT: better mention this is clearly according to stat counter as of that date a few weeks ago
Now, numbers dont make firefox "better". But it means fixing rendering problems that shouldnt occur throughout the web are a serious priority, and additionally it means web developers should be more likely to make sure they arent doing something wrong to break firefox support, unless theyre trying to.
-
I thought it was an immature response because I wasnt for a second suggesting that Firefox was the 2nd best browser because it has the 2nd highest market share, got it?
Well, you didn't make that very clear, I'm glad you've explained that.
Also considering what you posted about standards, why are you considering acid 3 an iimportant standard when its supported by a few 10s of millions of users browsers perhaps, but open video is supported by firefox 3.5 which has hundreds of millions of users?
I think the Acid3 test is important for improving standards across the Internet in general. Whether a browser passes the Acid3 isn't important to me personally, as I said before, I don't use Opera because it pawns Firefox at the Acid3 test, I use it because it's faster, gives me everything I need without a huge number of extensions.
Just googled for some stats and in fact, Firefox 3.5 has more users than IE 7: it is the worlds most popular browser http://gigaom.com/2009/12/21/firefox-3-5-now-worlds-most-popular-browser/ (http://gigaom.com/2009/12/21/firefox-3-5-now-worlds-most-popular-browser/) EDIT: better mention this is clearly according to stat counter as of that date a few weeks ago
No doubt IE 7 usage will continue to decline and IE 8 will eventually overtake Firefox, according to that counter.
Statistics vary depending on the counter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_market_share#Summary_Table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_market_share#Summary_Table)
W3Counter says IE only has 50.3% market share, last month and TheCounter says it had 68.94% - a huge difference. The W3Counter also says IE 8 is just above Firefox and I'm not saying that it's right and the article you linked is wrong.
Now, numbers dont make firefox "better". But it means fixing rendering problems that shouldnt occur throughout the web are a serious priority, and additionally it means web developers should be more likely to make sure they arent doing something wrong to break firefox support, unless theyre trying to.
I agree.
-
I'm really curious how all the Chrome ads will effect browser statistics.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2533/4231296240_33e6c73654.jpg)
Will they really work?
Most old people don't know what a browser is. They just click on Start, then on Internet, so they can book flights and buy lots of stupid shit on eBay.
-
Most old people don't know what a browser is. They just click on Start, then on Internet, so they can book flights and buy lots of stupid shit on eBay.
When my parents got a new computer, I deleted Outlook Express and IE while they were sleeping, and replaced them with Firefox and Thunderbird. It took 30 seconds and a sticky note to convince them that everything was normal, and they have been Moz users for over 5 years now.
A huge percentage of browser users are corporate/office people surfing at work. Large companies tend to have software policies in place, and most of them don't allow employees to install their own browsers. For whatever reason, this usually means IE is the only browser available, and that probably represents 40-50% of the market. So nobody besides IE is going to have more than 50% market penetration for quite some time.
As a matter of fact, I know an IT person at King County (Seattle/Bellevue/Redmond) who thinks Firefox is a toy that only people who hate Windows would want to play with. I suspect that's actually a common sentiment with enterprise IT people, whose goal is to have as few pieces of software in their systems as possible. They probably have no idea why Firefox is better, and don't want to - it's just another part of a system that could break at any time. Staying with IE is theoretically simpler, and therefore better. Us home users can switch browsers every hour or so without any adverse effects, and we can pick and choose components to customize our experience.
Metcalfe's Law states that the computing power of a network is equivalent to the square of the number of nodes on the network. Well, enterprise IT difficulties are more like the cube of the number of nodes in the office. These fuckers are basically lazy, and they want one OS, one browser, one mail client, and one word processor - all made by the same company, if possible. So guess who wins?
-
...I use [Opera] because it's faster, gives me everything I need without a huge number of extensions.
Finally, the truth comes out. You like Opera because its subset of functions matches perfectly with your desired subset of functions. That's fine, best of luck. Now you just need to learn that desiring a different subset of functions does not make other users zealots or fanboys.
-
Metcalfe's Law states that the computing power of a network is equivalent to the square of the number of nodes on the network. Well, enterprise IT difficulties are more like the cube of the number of nodes in the office. These fuckers are basically lazy, and they want one OS, one browser, one mail client, and one word processor - all made by the same company, if possible. So guess who wins?
I can understand the logic, although the new batch of IT networking specialists are less ignorant, and battle whether Firefox, Opera or Chrome is better.
However, less applications means less pressure for the Servicedesk department, and eventually the whole IT department. That's why Internet Explorer should be removed, and Firefox installed instead. It's better, since upgrades to newer versions aren't forced down your throat like Microsoft has done with IE 6 --> IE 7 (which screwed up some specialised intranet applications).
-
A huge percentage of browser users are corporate/office people surfing at work. Large companies tend to have software policies in place, and most of them don't allow employees to install their own browsers. For whatever reason, this usually means IE is the only browser available, and that probably represents 40-50% of the market. So nobody besides IE is going to have more than 50% market penetration for quite some time.
I agree with the policy of not allowing people to install what browser they like on their computers because one browser means lower support costs and has the added advantage of only requiring them to make their corporate Intranet comparable with one browser. The reason why many use IE is because it's what they've always done and it might be difficult to change because the Intranet site only works with IE. They used to block Firefox where I used to work, until I noticed them installing it on sme PCs because some other software depended on it, I don't know why maybe it needed the rendering engine? Even then Firfox wasn't the default browser and the company Intranet didn't work very well in Firefox.
I myself would choose a different browser such as Firefox or Safari for obvious reasons.
I installed Firefox and OpenOffice.org on my works computer. I only really needed OOo to work on college work but I thought I'd install Firefox to make the Internet easier to use. I knew I was risking a disciplinary but nothing bad happened even though someone from IT noticed.
Finally, the truth comes out. You like Opera because its subset of functions matches perfectly with your desired subset of functions. That's fine, best of luck.
You need to read more thoroughly: I said that along time ago.
Hell it's personal preference for the most part, I can understand why people use Firefox
Now you just need to learn that desiring a different subset of functions does not make other users zealots or fanboys.
No it doesn't but personally attacking or being aggressive towards someone because they've criticised their favourite browser (as I feel someone here has done, not mentioning any names) does make them a zealot/fanboy.
-
No it doesn't but personally attacking or being aggressive towards someone because they've criticised their favourite browser (as I feel someone here has done, not mentioning any names) does make them a zealot/fanboy.
Please tell us who is attacking because you criticized their favorite browser?
I think the browser world is changing and this decade internet explorer will be dethroned. If you look at the graphs firefox is getting bigger and bigger, but there are many more alternatives now too. I dont care if firefox/chrome/opera/IE have equalish shares of 80% market share in 2020 or firefox has 80% share by itself. But the only browser I would put in that top spot is Firefox to be sure due to its more open nature that is better inline with the philosophies of the web, and with fewer vested interests.
Mozilla was created to turn the open source Netscape code into something more useable and produce an open browser. Firefox was created to, basically, conquer the fucking world. The web was a piece of shit and the only way to make it better was with a good browser, but a good browser that WON THE FUCKIN BATTLES. It was all, as I recall, to do with marketing and it possibly turns out to be the biggest idea since keeping ownership of DOS.
All the while there has been Opera, a really great browser compared to IE but all it did is hang in ther with 1-2% market share (or whatever) tweaking their software as if that was the problem. Firefox changed the world meanwhile. How? Because, excuse the pun, Firefox CONNECTED. And its still making the most of its world-changing community.
Good for Google that theyre trying something different and getting Chromes name out there. Opera proved that sitting watching people download firefox, doesnt gain opera market share. lol
-
No it doesn't but personally attacking or being aggressive towards someone because they've criticised their favourite browser (as I feel someone here has done, not mentioning any names) does make them a zealot/fanboy.
Please tell us who is attacking because you criticized their favorite browser?
I don't want to fan the flames so I'll let it drop.
I think the browser world is changing and this decade internet explorer will be dethroned. If you look at the graphs firefox is getting bigger and bigger, but there are many more alternatives now too. I dont care if firefox/chrome/opera/IE have equalish shares of 80% market share in 2020 or firefox has 80% share by itself. But the only browser I would put in that top spot is Firefox to be sure due to its more open nature that is better inline with the philosophies of the web, and with fewer vested interests.
I'd rather have a couple of browsers with roughly equal market share.
Mozilla was created to turn the open source Netscape code into something more useable and produce an open browser. Firefox was created to, basically, conquer the fucking world. The web was a piece of shit and the only way to make it better was with a good browser, but a good browser that WON THE FUCKIN BATTLES. It was all, as I recall, to do with marketing and it possibly turns out to be the biggest idea since keeping ownership of DOS.
How can Firefox really be considered as FOSS?
The binaries which are allowed to bear the trademark are proprietary, only the versions complied from source are really free i.e Swiftfox.
All the while there has been Opera, a really great browser compared to IE but all it did is hang in ther with 1-2% market share (or whatever) tweaking their software as if that was the problem. Firefox changed the world meanwhile. How? Because, excuse the pun, Firefox CONNECTED. And its still making the most of its world-changing community.
That's right one of the main reasons for Firefox being successful is down to very clever marketing, as well as being better than IE. The license has also benefited Firefox because it's compatible with most Linux distributions.
Opera hasn't been anywhere near as good at marketing and their choice of licensing model hasn't done them any favours either. First of all Opera was payware, then they realised that people had stopped buying it - the idea of paying for a browser had gone out of fashion. Their solution was to make it adware, not the malicious type, all it did was display small adverts in a bar below the address bar. People found the adverts annoying so they decided to make it freeware. Note that this only applies to their PC browser: the phone version is still payware and the EULA of the free version prohibits installation on phones.
Opera could probably double their market share overnight, just my open sourcing it but they'll need to find another business model as they'll no longer be able to sell their software for use on phones.
Good for Google that theyre trying something different and getting Chromes name out there.
Have you tried Chromium?
It's the FOSS version Google Chrome which much better and it supports extensions like Firefox. The only criticism I had was of the Adblock but if you don't use it, it won't matter.
-
Mozilla was created to turn the open source Netscape code into something more useable and produce an open browser. Firefox was created to, basically, conquer the fucking world. The web was a piece of shit and the only way to make it better was with a good browser, but a good browser that WON THE FUCKIN BATTLES. It was all, as I recall, to do with marketing and it possibly turns out to be the biggest idea since keeping ownership of DOS.
How can Firefox really be considered as FOSS?
He didn't say it was open source, he said it was open. Which is enough of a difference to make your question spurious at best. The mere fact that I've seen the source code for Firefox means that it is open enough, even if it's not as redistributable as GPL stuff.
-
Theres a lot of interesting stuff happening to it too, ie Mozilla Labs: Weave (syncing different Firefoxes and mobile Firefoxes), Jetpack (web-page format extensions, yeah click an "install" button and the extension will appear without restarting), Personas (I don't particularly fancy this feature but you have to see the appeal lots of users see, if they can simply do this and create a top-class (HUGE) website of community created themes, why not?). Soon these things and more will be a part of Firefox (all in Firefox 4 2011, Personas in Firefox 3.6 coming soon, rest can use beta-level extensions for now).
I just installed the Firefox 3.6 RC and I have to say. Personas are an AMAZING feature. I didnt think id take a fancy for this feature, but people will fall in love with this.
Also I've just looked at Jetpack. Its goal is to change how Firefox extensions work, so that extending firefox is something that anyone who can add a link to a webpage can add a button to firefox. So that its simpler and so that the concept reaches out to everyone who knows basic html and javascript. If you have a clue of javascript, and youve time to spare, I recommend installing jetpack and taking the tutorial. Fucking killer.
Heres a sample jetpack extension:
jetpack.future.import("menu");
jetpack.menu.context.page.on("img").add(function(target)({
label: "Edit Image",
icon: "http://pixlr.com/favicon.ico",
command: function(){
$.get("http://developer.pixlr.com/_script/pixlr_minified.js", function(js){
var doc = target.document;
var win = target.window;
var script = doc.createElement("script");
script.innerHTML = js;
doc.body.appendChild( script );
win.wrappedJSObject.pixlr.overlay.show({
image: target.node.src,
title: "Edited Image"
});
});
}
}));
Do you know what this does? It adds a menu item to the context menu for images "Edit Image". If you click Edit Image, the image is posted to an online image editor. Just that code. Nice. Nice.
-
I didn't know that Firefox did not have skins, Opera has had that for years, Chrome has had that feature since day one and even IE has been skinable sine 6 but it wasn't easy to use. No doubt that skins, oh sorry Personas, have been added to compete with Chrome.
I don't know any Java and only a tiny bit of html so Jetpack won't me much use to me. It sounds like one of those wonderful geeky tools that's brilliant for programmers. Does it pose a potential security vulnerability though?
What about security? Are there any plans to do as Chrome does and load every tab as a separate process so one page crashing doesn't take the whole browser down?
-
[chromium]
It's faster than Firefox apart from on some ad-infested pages which take slightly longer to load the elements then hide them and it seems to do a better job at loading IE-only sites. Best of all it's open source which will keep the FOSS fanboyz happy.
I've come to the conclusion that WebKit>Gecko, it just seems lighter, faster and the fact that most WebKit browsers pass the Acid3 test seems to suggest better standards compliance too.
I love webkit. I was developing a poker heads up display that used webkit for rendering the hud (since im a web nerd, and since people like to customise their huds, and since using web technologies for this task is so sweet), and it could do some extremely sexy things for me combined with Qt. It's plenty light for the job for sure, and I wouldnt use gecko for the same task, given the option of webkit.
But I also love gecko. I use it almost every day on my eee pc to browse all over the web and it works like a charm. Now, using firefox 3.6 and catching up with new web technologies (because I wasnt up to dat eprobably since the last time i had an involved discussion here about it), I've got to call you up on your standards support remarks.
Firefox has excellent support for html 5 video, while no other browser has any to my knowledge (unfortunately I know nothig about Chrome in particular). It also supports offline storage, downloadable fonts (does opera? please screenshot http://www.alistapart.com/d/cssatten/poen.html (http://www.alistapart.com/d/cssatten/poen.html) it should have dotted font for 'css' 'zen' and 'garden'. I think I did this test before and opera passed, but i dont know for sure ), web workers, async javascript scripts (as of 3.6), ..
these features are big strides forward for the web. Particularly open video, because the web has developed a huge dependence on Adobe Flash for this feature, and if you have the faintest idea of what the webs purpose is you know sombody needs to take back the web.
I dont think referring to an acid test for obscure futuristic css properties is a smart way to compare standards compliance: it is for those specific standards, but thats all. I get 94/100 in acid 3 on FF 3.6, but what is firefox missing? There are particular things that might take a long time to sort out so that FF perfectly meets the specification, its a rigorous bitch of a thing to implement and I'm pretty sure noone intended for it to be implemented over night, but supporting the important bits such as gradients is necessary, and firefox supports all the major new parts of css that I understand. If you can aactually shed some light on the meaning behind 94/100, please tell me what features Firefox is lacking?
-
Opera does support downloadable fonts otherwise it would fail the Acid3 test.
It doesn't render the page you linked correctly though, the text at the bottom is horribly fucked up.
Chromium does which is surprising because I thought it didn't support downloadable fonts due to a perceived security risk. I think that applies to Chrome and Chromium is more bleeding edge but is probably less stable.
What's a hud?
-
Firefox 3.6 is the first browser to support WOFF - the web open font format.
[edit] Web Open Font Format
The Web Open Font Format (WOFF), a format developed during 2009, is essentially a wrapper that contains sfnt-based fonts (TrueType, OpenType or Open Font Format) that have been compressed using a WOFF encoding tool to enable them to be embedded in a web page.[7]. The format uses zip compression[8], typically resulting in a filesize reduction from ttf of over 40%[9]
The format has received the backing of many of the main font foundries[10] and, on October 20th, 2009, Mozilla announced that it would provide support for WOFF in Firefox 3.6.[11] During the October 2009 Typ09 conference, Microsoft were reported as saying that they were 'considering' supporting WOFF in Internet Explorer 9.[12] WOFF is "a strong favourite" for standardization by the W3C Web Fonts Working Group.[13]
Acid 3 or no acid 3, you cant say Firefox isnt on top of supporting standards.
-
That's weird, it now works in Opera.
I zoomed in and out and the text all corrected itself. I reloaded the browser and it still works.
Perhaps it was a problem with the network or server?
-
HUD = Heads Up Display, which in this context is placing information directly on the screen, as opposed to containing it in some window.
-
Typical reply to Microsoftist evangelists.
What me?
I was being sarcastic.
I don't like IE.
Firefox is much better but I don't think it's as good as many say and I'm tired of the zealotism.
Not you. I was referring to how anti Microsoft people attack pro Microsoft people on the Web. ;)
Most old people don't know what a browser is. They just click on Start, then on Internet, so they can book flights and buy lots of stupid shit on eBay.
Another reason to avoid IE. If we are going to progress in the future with computers, we need choices.
Most elders don't care about technical terms. They just stay with the default software, which is no good. Compare that to having no password on your root account in MySQL.