I rettract what I said about it a while ago, it being "no better than IE2" its actually quite good. The only problem I noticed is that you have to download plugins for it again, meaning I had to reinstall flash player. But on the whole, a very good piece of free software
[addsig]
Re: Firefox .9
Posted by matt on Fri Jun 18th at 11:15am 2004
matt
member
1100 posts
190 snarkmarks
Registered: Jun 26th 2002
Location: Edinburgh
Occupation: Student!
Posted by matt on Fri Jun 18th at 11:15am 2004
matt
member
1100 posts
190 snarkmarks
Registered: Jun 26th 2002
Location: Edinburgh
Occupation: Student!
Re: Firefox .9
Posted by scary_jeff on Fri Jun 18th at 11:25am 2004
Well we wouldn't be talking about it at all if you didn't for no reason claim that using firefox is a pointless waste of time... All you have to do if you don't want to talk about a subject you obviously don't understand is to not make misinformed jabs at the thing...
Posted by scary_jeff on Fri Jun 18th at 11:25am 2004
| ? quote: |
| who gives a s**t about browsers enuff to wage a conflict over them |
Well we wouldn't be talking about it at all if you didn't for no reason claim that using firefox is a pointless waste of time... All you have to do if you don't want to talk about a subject you obviously don't understand is to not make misinformed jabs at the thing...
Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Orpheus on Fri Jun 18th at 12:47pm 2004
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
Posted by Orpheus on Fri Jun 18th at 12:47pm 2004
| ? posted by scary_jeff | ||
Well we wouldn't be talking about it at all if you didn't for no reason claim that using firefox is a pointless waste of time... All you have to do if you don't want to talk about a subject you obviously don't understand is to not make misinformed jabs at the thing... |
jeff you are doing it again.. be quiet for a while will'ya.
no one took jabs at anything.. you said i was wrong, i said you were mistaken, no one said anything about browsers being inferior except... you.
as i said before, i may be mistaken about your point, but i am perfectly clear on mine.. what remains to be seen is, if our two points have anything in common.
both of you, go take a deep breath and leave this subject alone for a while.
and crono, this means you too.. just because i only typed jeff's name doesn't give you room to ignore it.
[addsig]
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
Re: Firefox .9
Posted by scary_jeff on Fri Jun 18th at 1:38pm 2004
Your point is that the browser doesn't increase the connection speed. Nobody disagrees with this, and this is perfectly true. This does not affect what we are saying in any way - you are implying that if what you are saying is true, what we are saying cannot be - the reality is somewhat different.
Now, I have explained this as best I can. Whether or not you manage to understand yet, I'm not coming in this thread again.
Posted by scary_jeff on Fri Jun 18th at 1:38pm 2004
| ? quote: |
| i am perfectly clear on mine.. what remains to be seen is, if our two points have anything in common |
Your point is that the browser doesn't increase the connection speed. Nobody disagrees with this, and this is perfectly true. This does not affect what we are saying in any way - you are implying that if what you are saying is true, what we are saying cannot be - the reality is somewhat different.
Now, I have explained this as best I can. Whether or not you manage to understand yet, I'm not coming in this thread again.
Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Orpheus on Fri Jun 18th at 1:51pm 2004
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
Posted by Orpheus on Fri Jun 18th at 1:51pm 2004
| ? posted by scary_jeff |
| Now, I have explained this as best I can. Whether or not you manage to understand yet, I'm not coming in this thread again. |
jeff, you are not implying that i am not smart enuff to figure out what you meant are you?
i am stupid sometimes, but only when compared to people more informed, but i can grasp basic concepts well enuff.
i understand this, your preferred browser processes the information in such a way as to decrease the time it takes to reach your desktop..the point i am making is, it does not reach you pc faster using this browser..
is it actually faster? i doubt it, but it may seem so simply because it gives you more useful information sooner, but .. and i stress this point strongly.. the final bit of data, will not reach your pc any quicker using firefox..
as i said before, i am crystal clear on my point, what remains to be seen is if yours has anything to do with mine.. i think it does.. lets see if you are capable of agreeing.
[addsig]Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Crono on Fri Jun 18th at 7:54pm 2004
Who said I was 'upset' or 'angry' or anything as such, besides you (obviously)?
The only problem is that you keep trying to relate the browser speeds not being any faster then the other to this subject ... which is NOT what was being discussed.
And certain comments you're saying still lead me to believe you don't completely get what was being said.
...no one said this, you're making a conclusion.
No one said this either. But, yes, this is true; the browser does not determine your connection speed, or the servers connection speed.
EXACTLY!! This is the only point I had. In certain situations it is much more useful then having other methods.
That's It! that's the only point. No speeding up speeds to your desktop (which isn't where it goes
), no parsing HTML differently, No "your point, my point" bulls**t.
That's the sole point of what, at least I, was trying to say.
[addsig]
Posted by Crono on Fri Jun 18th at 7:54pm 2004
| ? quote: |
|
both of you, go take a deep breath and leave this subject alone for a while. |
Who said I was 'upset' or 'angry' or anything as such, besides you (obviously)?
The only problem is that you keep trying to relate the browser speeds not being any faster then the other to this subject ... which is NOT what was being discussed.
And certain comments you're saying still lead me to believe you don't completely get what was being said.
| ? quote: |
|
i understand this, your preferred browser processes the information in such a way as to decrease the time it takes to reach your desktop..the point i am making is |
...no one said this, you're making a conclusion.
| ? quote: |
|
the final bit of data, will not reach your pc any quicker using firefox |
No one said this either. But, yes, this is true; the browser does not determine your connection speed, or the servers connection speed.
| ? quote: |
|
is it actually faster? i doubt it, but it may seem so simply because it gives you more useful information sooner |
EXACTLY!! This is the only point I had. In certain situations it is much more useful then having other methods.
That's It! that's the only point. No speeding up speeds to your desktop (which isn't where it goes
), no parsing HTML differently, No "your point, my point" bulls**t.
That's the sole point of what, at least I, was trying to say.
[addsig]
Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Campaignjunkie on Fri Jun 18th at 7:57pm 2004
Campaignjunkie
member
1309 posts
291 snarkmarks
Registered: Feb 12th 2002
Location: West Coast, USA
Occupation: Student
Posted by Campaignjunkie on Fri Jun 18th at 7:57pm 2004
Actually, I think they do parse HTML atleast a bit differently. Internet Explorer is infamous for s**tting on web standards (PNG transparency STILL doesn't work properly! what's their problem?!) And don't forget all those annoying IE scripts that let websites open your CD drive, of all things.
[addsig]
[addsig]Campaignjunkie
member
1309 posts
291 snarkmarks
Registered: Feb 12th 2002
Location: West Coast, USA
Occupation: Student
Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Crono on Fri Jun 18th at 8:08pm 2004
Posted by Crono on Fri Jun 18th at 8:08pm 2004
Yes, well of course they do things differently (technically). I have taken no time to look at the Mozilla code so I have no idea how different their parsing is and such (not to mention that would take awhile). For all I know they could be using a more or less efficient data structure.
I was just putting it that way for the sake of the point, so I didn't have to go into other random points as well.
That's just JavaScript. I believe it works in any JS enabled browser; I haven't tried it recently, as there is no point. But it probably works in Mozilla too; the JavaScript just has to be written correctly (to the standards). [addsig]
I was just putting it that way for the sake of the point, so I didn't have to go into other random points as well.
That's just JavaScript. I believe it works in any JS enabled browser; I haven't tried it recently, as there is no point. But it probably works in Mozilla too; the JavaScript just has to be written correctly (to the standards). [addsig]
Re: Firefox .9
Posted by mazemaster on Sat Jun 19th at 3:31am 2004
Posted by mazemaster on Sat Jun 19th at 3:31am 2004
I like firefox because it starts up faster, takes up less memory, less cpu power, is not very vulnerable to viruses etc, has tabbed browsing, and isn't bloated with a million functions I dont need. As for page loading speed, well, I doubt there is any noticable difference.
Contrarily, the big advantage of IE for me is the integration with windows explorer so you can be browsing files and type a website in the address bar, or vice versa. [addsig]
Contrarily, the big advantage of IE for me is the integration with windows explorer so you can be browsing files and type a website in the address bar, or vice versa. [addsig]
© Snarkpit.net 2001 - 2023, about us, donate, contact
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 1.0538 seconds.
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 1.0538 seconds.