75% of the people who download Firefox don't become active users


http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2007/08/08/75_of_the_people_who_download_firefox_dont_become_active_users.html

That is one link, I can't work out how to shorten it, I couldn't work out chari's link on how to do it a week or so ago.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy life while you can, don't try when you can't 'cos you won't.

Ianw

I posted a few days ago that it seemed like IE was trying to block FF in
some repects, so I deleted FF and went with IE7 all the way...all the way to a dead end, darn near...got slower and slower, wouldn't let me
use Google as homepage, kept getting knocked off my connection. After a
few days of that, I downloaded FF again - it picked up right where it had left off, recognizing all my bookmarks, tabs, etc. I still keep IE
in case I have to use it, but now use FF all the time, and I haven't been knocked off the net one time since...

DavyWavy -

With IE I am offered a choice of where I want to save downloads. With FF it offers no choice, just puts them on the desktop. Is there a way to make FF like IE in this regard? TIA

In the preferences go to the main tab, and select "always ask where to save files". That's where it is in the linux version, windows should be the same. I think, but not sure, that preferences are under the "tools" menu in windows (they are under edit in linux).

In Firefox go to Tools > Options:

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

I was thinking their was another difference. Linux=preferences, windows=options. Probably some logic to why it's different, I just don't see it.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

I can't remember the last time I "needed" to use Internet Explorer to view a website.

The State of Michigan (probably most of the States, if not all) will only recognize IE...if you want to renew your license plate online...and
other things from the State...

DavyWavy -

PC Pitstop, BitDefender and (I believe) Trend Micro all require you to access their free scans via IE and not FF

What's up with that?

DavyWavy -

Nothing at all Davy, I just added 3 more things that require IE rather than FF because you had stated that Michigan only recognises IE

It's because the sites use ActiveX controls for the scan software. That's a special thing though.

Grogan

It's because they need Activ X to work and FireFox doesn't have that....Active X is a big security threat.







Vista Ultimate,AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Windsor,ASUS M2N-E Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce 570 Ultra MCP,CORSAIR XMS2 2GB, SAPPHIRE 100142L Radeon X1300 512MB 128-bit GDDR2 PCI Express x16 Video Card,LITE-ON DVD

Aha! Thanks...

DavyWavy -

One of the Extensions for Firefox is "View this page in IE". Once installed, its available by right-clicking the page. I need to use it on only a very few sites.

Ray

I can do one better. I use IE Tab to view pages in IE under FireFox. That means that one of the tabs that Firefox has open can run the IE engine instead of Gecko (the Firefox engine). I can have the same website opened in FireFox and IE as two tabs within FireFox.

The only logic to why it's different is because the old Unix netscape navigator used Edit -> Preferences and Windows users are used to going to Tools -> Options. I in fact hate that, they should have made it consistent across platforms. I'm forever going to the Edit menu if I'm on Windows. Either one would be fine... if it was the same I'd get used to it.

Grogan

Now that you mention it, I remember that. The old netscape navigator was edit/preferences on Windows I think too. I suppose they moved it and changed the name after IE became "popular" so as not to confuse IE users who were trying it out, that makes a little sense, similar name, same place.... I always liked Navigator better, I don't think I saw IE prior to v2.0 or so. I agree, it should be the same for both.

Internet Explorer version 1, from the original release of Windows 95



(I had Windows 95 running in a Vmware virtual machine there when I made that screenshot)

Grogan

Yep, hasn't changed at all.... We held on to Win 3.1 for a while. After 95 was out for a while, we did one upgrade to 95. It seems it made that 486 dx 33 (something like that, memory not so good from that time..., fastest one of the lot,) with 4 megs of ram slow to a crawl, so it was uninstalled without really doing anything with it. 3.1 stuck around for a while (since it was rock solid anywa ). I seem to recall lots of interesting times with the dialers working/not working, etc. Navigator was used then, and continued on through 95 eventually.

I remember the changeover from Trumpet Winsock and SLIP, to Windows 95 and PPP for dialup. At first it wasn't that easy to find an ISP that would support it. I called a few ISPs and was told they didn't support Windows 95. My very first ISP was called onramp in Toronto and they gave me a big long instruction booklet on how to install and configure dialup networking in Windows 95. (In those days it didn't come installed in a standard Windows 95 install... you had to add adapters, protocols and clients and configure DNS settings and stuff).

I was already familiar with Netscape from the college network where I was taking courses, but I thought I'd get along with Internet Explorer since it was already provided. That lasted about two days, and I had to learn how to download and install Netscape and Eudora for mail.

Grogan

Trumpet Winsock and SLIP..., yes. It's been a little while since I thought about that business, I guess I purposefully buried all those thoughts for some reason.... When Win95 finally was installed on some newer computers, there was a tech that came around to schools that could not figure out the dialup settings (in his defense, a Mac guy), they wanted dialup going before they got more computers. He gave up. I had netscape installed (I didn't know about IE at the time, staring me in the face I suppose, I know we never used it). It took me quite a while, but I figured out what to put where on my own, trial and error on some of the protocol business, but I mostly knew what had to be there, and I had dialup going (I was somewhat smarter then than I am now I guess). Some game that one of the teachers wanted to play (yes, I said one of the teachers) did not work with the standard (if there was one) connection in 3.1 ((edit: maybe it was 8 vs 16, I don't remember I guess....) getting even more forgetful but whatever bit connection 3.1 had, 16 maybe??, vs. what it needed, 32 maybe, whatever 95 supported natively??, and some other settings). It was figuring out what kind of dialer/settings would get that to work that gave me a lot of what I needed for 95. There was no isp in the area, it was only one school modem to connect to in the next town over, long distance no less.
Suppose this is about enough off topic for this thread.

Grogan, I remember the days of having to configure your dialup software to get online. You had to configure everything! It was fun but a darned hassle. I also remember those darned pif files too.

Jazzgirl

Downloads is a separate tab in my Firefox

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

What version are you running or was that an Add-On.

LilJoe

Doh!

It's an Add-on - Download Manager Tweak.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Thanks-I thought so.

LilJoe

I prefer Download Statusbar. It puts my downloads in a status bar at the bottom of my browser. When they're done downloading, I can work with the file (open it, open the containing folder) or just clear the status bar entry.

I used to use one of the tabbing add-ons for IE (pre-IE7). Then at some point I decided to dive head first into FireFox and I haven't looked back since. Now I find myself constrained every time I need to go back into IE (since all of my favorite plugins aren't there).

Once again, I'm evidently a "black sheep", or the "odd man out" since I tried Firefox and got rid of it after a couple of weeks and now use IE 7 only and have never looked back.

Jeff
simul iustus et peccator

I also use IE7 exclusively. I only use Firefox for testing page rendering differences.

Don't feel so much like a black sheep! I hate Firefox. And it looks like 75% of people who download it have no use for it either.


Firefox to me looks and feels very generic. Kinda like what it is: a cheaply made freebie program. It does load webpages faster, but that .5 second savings isn't of much interest to me.

Visit the Basement

I happen to run them both. I like fire fox you can get differtent tool bar themes. Fire Fox has theme that makes your tool bar look like MSIE if that is you thing.

...and I don't see the need to have another browser when IE is already there, perfectly working, and better.


I do have FF installed on my test machine for testing purposes though.

Visit the Basement

And Full of security holes....Your joking..right?..About IE??? You have to be!!!!!!!!







Vista Ultimate,AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Windsor,ASUS M2N-E Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce 570 Ultra MCP,CORSAIR XMS2 2GB, SAPPHIRE 100142L Radeon X1300 512MB 128-bit GDDR2 PCI Express x16 Video Card,LITE-ON DVD

Yes..And FireFox fixes theirs usually in days as to Microsoft's months...Read up on it and you will see. The joke here is IE.







Vista Ultimate,AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Windsor,ASUS M2N-E Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce 570 Ultra MCP,CORSAIR XMS2 2GB, SAPPHIRE 100142L Radeon X1300 512MB 128-bit GDDR2 PCI Express x16 Video Card,LITE-ON DVD

I'm afraid I'm with Adam on this one I've never liked Firefox I'm not going to get into the security argument just what I prefer to use.Sure I can download extensions/addons etc to make FF like I want it.No thanks I spend my time doing stuff I'm interested in and fooling with a browser isn't one of them.IE works for me right out of the box.I've never had a malware problem using it so I can't come up with a compelling reason to use FF.

I'll agree with you on that only....user preference......






Vista Ultimate,AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Windsor,ASUS M2N-E Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce 570 Ultra MCP,CORSAIR XMS2 2GB, SAPPHIRE 100142L Radeon X1300 512MB 128-bit GDDR2 PCI Express x16 Video Card,LITE-ON DVD

Visit the Basement

And no doubt you think Windows Explorer is a good file manager as well?

Yeah that too.

Edit: ok, i've never tried another one. Post that link you did the other day.


I'll check it out. But I don't really use explorer to browse files. Other than what's in my Music folder and a few docs in my documents.

Visit the Basement

http://zabkat.com/index.htm

Scroll down to "Learn about the free* "lite" version"

I've got files coming and going all the time, so I need a GOOD file manager. WE just doesn't cut it for me.

Explore the dual panes and tabs features.

Paul have you tried Vista? This looks almost like Vista Explorer. The dual pane is kinda cool, but it doesn't take that long for me to open two windows.


I'm sorry, like FireFox, I just don't get it. What's wrong with WE? What does it not do?

Visit the Basement

Dual Pane. Tabs. Bookmarks. Just for starters.

I do an awful lot of file handling and sound file editing. I run this wit 16 panes open and am forever switching, as opposed to constantly running up and down the WE tree looking for folders.

F5 & F6 copy/move between the top pane on each side. Very quick and simple file handling.

Horses for courses, I guess. I've used this for so long I feel frustrated if I have to use a machine without it.

Agreed (not with that particular program), but with a GOOD file manager.

I cannot understand how anyone working on computers (or even using one) can get by with that lame excuse for who knows what - Windows Explorer.

Its the difference between possibly being able to do something, & doing it effectively & efficiently.

How many times do people post here & they don't or can't "see something" because it is so conveniently hidden by MS for our benefit.

Yes, I would argue with IBM... because I have the ability to think for myself instead of just parroting. That is probably not even what "IBM" said, for the blog idiot was just taking it conveniently out of context. Add up the number of flaws found, yes. IE7 more secure than firefox? Don't make me laugh.

I work on Windows computers with IE7 and I know for myself that it hasn't changed much. A few more nags and in fact I think IE7 is even more unstable... it seems to crash on a lot of systems even in Vista. I just converted a Vista user to firefox today who was thrilled to be able to go to his financial sites without apologetic, dumbed down crash handler messages causing him to lose his trading sessions. I'm sure there would be excuses here of how it's everyone else's fault but the browser's.

Most people I know detest IE7 and they are sorry they got Vista for various reasons. I say "No" to the question of "can't you just put XP on here??" more times than I can count. (they don't realize everything that entails, from having to purchase a copy to the time it will take to install drivers for everything on a new system). I like Vista, but Microsoft has yet again failed where it counts. It's not me that has to like it.

Many XP users are sorry they blindly let Microsoft install that "update" (Internet Explorer 7) as well. I'm talking real users here, not Windows enthusiasts. I can picture the uninstall dialogs in my sleep I've done it so many times. A couple of weeks ago on one system I had here to set up, I thought I was doing a good thing by getting all the updates, including IE7. When I brought it back, I had to remove IE7 because the customer had a shit fit when he saw it. Despite the fact that I assured him I got the latest software for his HP peripherals but he said his banking sites weren't happy with it. (Apparently he went through Hell with tech support removing it on his previous install)

There are a lot of things I like better about IE7 over previous versions (e.g. proper PNG handling, tabbed browsing, better rendering, better support for web standards) but it's still a fragile piece of software that has its hooks deep in the system. It's not easy to fix when it gets broken. You practically have to redo Windows.

Grogan

Visit the Basement

I know, I could make more money by saying "Yes" to such silliness, but I don't because it isn't really what's best for people. They just need to get their shit together and get used to the OS they purchased with their computer. I would have to charge a lot for that work because it's time consuming to go to an older OS on a new system. Add on the cost of a copy of XP and it's just not the right thing to do. The only real tragedy is when there are older (poorly written) applications and games that can't run in Vista, but these are relatively few.

That geezer actually does use firefox for some things and he likes it, it's just that I don't make it the default browser on people's systems so alot of the time they end up in IE. The biggest problem with IE7 is that some of the rubbish user interfaces for things like "HP Director" for one example, use Internet Explorer APIs and need to be upgraded for IE7. This is what gave him grief. That's what bloody pisses me off about it. A web browser should just be an application, not a shell environment. Shame on those vendors for using such a fragile interface (in the sense that the next MIcrosoft update could make it go poof). Lazy bastards... and this isn't Microsoft's fault either. They always encourage developers to use stable interfaces. For example, a well written directx game from 10 years ago will still run. The trouble is that programmers don't follow the recommendations.

Grogan

It's not about the money for me, it's about making the customer happy. I too would rather not have the money than going through the work of ordering a new OS and installing it when the damn computer came fine right out of the box.

No worries, I give them every avenue to explore, including telling them that going to XP would be a mistake and not giving Vista a try would be a mistake.


Some people, at least the ones I've worked with, don't want to hear anything about it. They just want their XP back, no matter now much I can tell them that Vista is better or how much I can get Vista to look comparable to XP.

Visit the Basement

It's more that I strongly talk them out of it rather than absolutely refuse. They don't want to pay half the cost of their new computer, when I put it that way. I have no mercy for that. I'm not spending 6 or 7 hours on that unless I can bill for that time + the cost of buying XP. These are people who can't do anything themselves. I'd have to install every driver (including printers and cameras and crap) and all their software. Then what? Am I supposed to be the help desk when their tech support won't talk to them?

Grogan

Visit the Basement

Firefox is the only thing I use. I've never had a problem on any site I've gone to.

"Firefox to me looks and feels very generic"
It certainly is capable of looking that way, as DJC mentioned

Hey 1one1, what distro are you running there?

That's PClinuxOS 2007. The Launch button was updated with KDE 3.5.7, it's the kickoff/Suse? one now I believe, right click on it to select the old style, regular KDE one. Background is from kde-look.org. I just got a Sabayon 3.4E DVD and installed it, haven't had time to do anything much yet. The only things I can say is that the live DVD detected everything on my system, including the graphics with the proprietary Nvidia driver already set up, and sound, and setting up Compiz-Fusion. It installed, and everything I've looked at is working, not a crash/freeze yet (of course...). Had to set up grub to boot PCLOS though because it didn't detect that.

Yeah, I'd say that you're pretty much stuck with the way Internet Explorer looks. Firefox is at least skinnable. I generally use the Noia theme wherever I use Firefox (which is everywhere). Though I might switch to the Black Japan theme for this desktop theme because it would match better.

http://www.mikeserv.org/gallery/Mikes-Gallery/freebsd_xfce4.png.html

Been using FreeBSD for a few weeks now.

Grogan

Heard some good things about BSD, although I haven't tried it. I would, but limited bandwidth/30 days, so I only try a different one every few months or so. That's why I thought I'd get ahold of a DVD distro when I had the opportunity, since it's basically got almost everything including the proverbial kitchen sink without having to download a whole lot of extras (although a lot of the extra stuff included is games), and a couple different versions of each. Installing packages is different, although I expected it (tried Gentoo before), I have only so far installed one "app" through Portato, no problems, and it only took a few seconds. PCLOS is easier probably, hard to beat Synaptic and the Control center, but this seems to work just fine. Installer was easy, and there were no settings to change of any kind after install (aside from the mentioned Grub). Can't say much else about it without spending time.

I've used XFCE before, I prefer it to Gnome by far, but KDE is what I usually use.

Here's the "normal" way I have Firefox, if I change it from default (some variations of Crystal). Sabayon feels like it should be darker, as it was when I started with it, so a change there might happen eventually. Also note the default Sabayon icon theme in the back window.

It ain't right to put XFCE and Gnome in the same sentence

It uses the same graphical toolkit as gnome (gtk+2) and can link against the gnome libraries if present at compile time, and they've even made it look a lot like gnome by default (not for me) in recent versions, but XFCE4 is far better software than Gnome. Gnome is bloated (for no good reason... it doesn't even look nice!), dumbed down and generally nauseates me. It's fugly too. I can't stand the file manager and gnome utilities, and I can't stand the menus.

I like KDE, and it would be my second choice, but I'm far more productive in XFCE4 once I get my panel set up with launchers for everything. Each of those launchers can have a tear off menu that you can fill with apps too. I autohide my large panel, use "wrap workspaces at screen edge" which lets me move to the next desktop just by moving my mouse past the edges and XFCE has a very good implementation of "focus follows mouse". I find KDE a bit more cumbersome. I need to have it though, because of some of the apps.

Gentoo is cool, I liked it when I tried it, but I have my own system for Linux that I built from sources. The Gentoo Portage ("emerge") system is very much like the Ports system in FreeBSD.

Stuff like PCLinuxOS I recommend to others because it's easy and they aren't afraid to provide multimedia capabilities right out of the box, which is important to people.

Grogan

Speaking of desktop switcher, and I know you probably know about it, in case others don't, but one of them in Compiz-fusion is almost functional and not just "neat looking" (without looking it's possibly or not called expo??). You have the hot corner, and just mouse to it, then it zooms out with the four desktops side by side. While it's zoomed out, you can drag any of your open windows between the desktops and place them where you want (haven't tried that much either). Right click on a window to select. This is in addition to the open app window switcher in regular Beryl that you can set to another corner. Works smooth/fast. All that can be seen on Youtube.

They are working on a compiled package installer for Sabayon that handles reverse dependencies, 3.4e is the first release with a pre-alpha of that. Haven't looked at it at all, but the choice of installing things the gentoo way, or the debian like way (perhaps), would make it rather well rounded/different. It also has a text based installer option, and the choice of Fluxbox..., I didn't see Xfce there as a choice for some reason.... Anyway, that should make it go on something slower with less ram at least, whatever. Some more of the reasons I checked it out. I'd say it wouldn't hurt to keep an eye on it at least.

Yes, those compiz-fusion type desktops are neat. I've never actually had that, but I've played with them on Live CDs. I especially like the rotating cube desktops. I tend to shy away from stuff like that though because I don't want my session crashing or freezing up. I was going to add Beryl to my system, but decided against it. For the same reason I'd never run a screensaver. 3D is for video games.

You've got me tempted again though... that desktop switcher you describe sounds cool.

Grogan

Beryl has never crashed/frozen at all on my old system (ever since it was first available with PCLOS), or on the new one (PCLOS install). Fusion hasn't yet had any problems, but it does feel like it could use some more polishing, considering it basically hasn't been around that long, understandable. Beryl was the same way, sort of seemed "smoother" the longer they worked on it. I don't "need" my system, important stuff gets emailed to myself, so with live discs/backup computer, etc., I don't care how much I screw it up. Flashy stuff isn't necessary, but if someone looks at it, nine out of ten times there will be some sort of a "what's that?" reaction. I could get by without that stuff, but sometimes a person just needs to see a window burst into flames and smoke when you close it.

...and for those that haven't seen the switcher I'm talking about, one more big picture (but smaller file size)....

We got a couple a Linux geeks here!

Visit the Basement

Looks nice, I like the reflective sheen it has.

It probably wouldn't crash or freeze on me either, but I might have some serious stuff on the go and losing my x session would kill all my terminal sessions. 3D stuff can kill you, because it's doing direct hardware access through drivers running in privileged mode.

I might set it up to play with while goofing off, but I wouldn't want to be doing any serious work in such an environment. I don't launch games either while I'm working on anything.

This is a practice I would follow in any OS environment, by the way.

Grogan