Firefox .9

This was released yesterday in case anyone didn't see it. Nothing major
has been added, it's mostly bug fixes. It won't keep your bookmarks
when you uninstall an older version, so be careful.

http://texturizer.net/firefox/download.html

It's 3% faster! :biggrin:

I'll wait for 1.0

Alien_Sniper said:
It's 3% faster! :biggrin:

than?

got an xpcom.dll error when I installed it (I uninstalled the previous version first)

but the second time it worked.

? posted by Alien_Sniper

It's 3% faster! :biggrin:
than?

Than version .8, I presume. Its about a million % faster than IE anyways.

mazemaster said:
Than version .8, I presume. Its about a million % faster than IE anyways.

touch?

Heh heh...

A little story. Yesterday I got really pissed off when IE started giving me popups even though I hadn't started it up. For example, I was playing Natural Selection and I would be playing and just minding my own business, when, all of a sudden getting popups that made the game minimize! At that point I just shredded the entire Internet Explorer program folder out of pure disgust. It was only a few hours later that I realized how much I need a web browser. Hence a search on the internet for a replacement. (Using MSN Explorer, which I dont think counts as a real web browser, and no one should have to have the displeasure of using)

Enter Firefox, a program I had never heard of. So far, my time on the web has increased in quality by about 10X. Thankyou, Mozilla Firefox.

It looks like ass and doesn't seem to do anything spinkee. IE still reigns, I'm afraid.

Leperous said:
IE still reigns, I'm afraid.

lep, i get real uncomfortable when you agree with me on something.. i am so used to you being a pri.. thwacks ensue

uh i mean, you are so nice it hurts :heee:

Biological Component said:
Enter Firefox, a program I had never heard of. So far, my time on the web has increased in quality by about 10X. Thankyou, Mozilla Firefox.

That last line sounds so much like one of those annoying "Lose 200 pounds in 10 days" ads, it's scary :eek:

I agree.

If you don't like how it looks, get the IE skin... honestly what a lame excuse :smile:

Yesterday I got really pissed off when IE started giving me popups even though I hadn't started it up.

It starts up with windows, taking that it's the main interface for file browsing.

Crono said:

Yesterday I got really pissed off when IE started giving me popups even though I hadn't started it up.

It starts up with windows, taking that it's the main interface for file browsing.

so, if i read this correctly, even those dead set against IE still use it? and don't know it? thats forkin funny as hell

I'm 'dead set' agains using IE for internet browsing, as most people who don't like IE are. But you don't have a choice with certain things. Like Window's Update.

i feel for you "dead set" people.. but support your decisions..

question: is there any reason why someone could not have multiple browsers installed? i mean, if i took a chance on this firefox, its not gonna crash the IE browser i like is it?

Nope there are no problems running two - the only issue you may want to
think of is Firefox might try to set itself as the default browser on
your computer, but you will be given the option to stop this, and you
can change it at any time.

I have both IE and Firefox and they work in perfect harmony.

I have IE (obviously, it's built in), Mozilla, Firefox, and Netscape. and they're fine.

All you have to remember is that Mozilla, firefox, and Netscape share the same profile. so you have to make a new one for each.

Also, mozilla/firefox, imports your IE favorites ... Personally I like the full versions of Mozilla and not so much the betas (firefox).

Firefox takes way longer to load images than IE does for me. With IE I don't even notice it load it goes fast enough, Firefox takes a while no matter what the server.

IE does not start up with my Windows any longer, seeing as I deleted it.

...And as far as speed, there is no noticeable difference between Firefox and IE for me...

BC, trust me. it's there. You're running windows, there is a version of IE there, it just isn't made for browsing online.

Gorb, try out regular Mozilla, I remember when I first started using it, it seemed slow at times, but after about a month or so, it was incredibly fast (not entirly sure why since it couldn't still be in cache or memory). And now IE(browser version) takes a forever to load, seriously, it took like 2 minutes to load a site that mozilla loads in like 3 seconds.

Firefox takes way longer to load images than IE does for me.

That's how gecko works. It loads the html first, displaying the page as it loads, then fills in the images. IE loads images in preference to the page itself, and doesn't display what has so far been loaded. It is generally accepted that the gecko method is overall faster.

you guys, you crack me up, you are so smart you kill me with your thinking..

if the whole page is blah-blah megs large total, and your connection speed is fairly constant, then the page will load at the same speeds no matter which order it is loaded.. be it images first or last

i use exclusively IE, and i have noticed that only traffic will dictate how my page loads (except here at the pit where a host upgrade every other day shuts the site down :rolleyes: ) i can visit the same site day after day, and the load times always vary.

anyways, there its gonna take some kind of convincing to get me to believe that the order in which a page is loaded, will speed it up.. more likely its an illusion, to convince you its faster

BC, trust me. it's there. You're running windows, there is a version of IE there, it just isn't made for browsing online.

Actually, IE was giving me popups even while offline. This means I've got spyware crap on my machine somewhere. (spyware that doesnt seem to recognize Firefox) If, as you say, I still have IE running somehow, as if it is inexplicably interweaved with Windows, then, why do I now get - 0 - Internet Explorer popups in a day? Simple. The IE executable doesnt exist on my computer. I have removed it. And even if there is somehow, somewhere, a 'version' of IE 'constantly running', it isn't doing a d***ed thing, nor is it using more than 0% of my computer resources.

[edit]If you mean to say that the Windows explorer itself is a version of IE, or vice versa, then I see what you mean, but that has no relevence to web browsing, and no more bearing on anything that users do online than, say, Windows Update, and I have yet to see a popup coming from the Windows Update program.[/edit]

I'm using a nifty extension for firefox. It enables an option in a right clicking menu on each page called "open in IE", so when you see a page is very IE-oriented and doesn't work with WC3 standards/Firefox, you can open it in IE.

Very handy :smile:

And Orph, it's perfectly possible to have multiple browers installed ... why would a browser be different from an e-mail program or chat client ?

We have 4 accounts on this computer here, and so many different programs. Mum & Dad running standard IE, me running Firefox (under Windows & under Redhat Linux), my brother running the IE/Firefox combo, and my sister uses some IE-light-edition for safety (she's still a little young for cowboy-surfin' around). We share the same variation of e-mail clients. :smile:

It's a whole world of possibilities, you just have to decide what's default for who. And that's about it. All those browsers feature profiles, for example everyone's Firefox looks different. :biggrin:

Orph, the 'gecko' (I had no idea that's what it was called) method is much faster.

Simply because you can see if it's the page you want before images are done loading. But I know you look at nothing but Porn so the images are the only thing you care about :razz:

However, it can be faster, sort of, because what if it's a really long document with images here and there? It will allow you to read from the top, while it loads images that are later in the document.

In any case, this is a small thing normal computer users wouldn't respect :razz:

BC, that's because those pages were kept in your cache and being triggered by another program, such as a chat program. Mozilla allows you to block ALL popups that are outside sourced (they don't reside with the pages you're currently viewing) so of course you don't get a popup. And yes, explorer is integrated into windows, it's not just aesthetically.

Crono said:
Orph, the 'gecko' (I had no idea that's what it was called) method is much faster.

Simply because you can see if it's the page you want before images are done loading.

crono, i know the basics of HTML, and you can save an image in such a way as to load exactly the same way.. the method has been around for ages, and works with IE as well.. but ultimately, the entire page takes just as long to fully load, whether you load the pic first, or last, make no difference.

and my porn, has no text, so your comparison is moot :heee:

if the whole page is blah-blah megs large total, and your connection speed is fairly constant, then the page will load at the same speeds no matter which order it is loaded.. be it images first or last

Sorry, but that's just wrong. When your page is downloaded, it has to be processed so that the html can be turned into the visual layout that it represents. Processing takes time. Processing in different ways takes different amounts of time. There are a lot of websites that with IE would sit with just the background colour for ages, until finally it had downloaded all the images and the page could be displayed. With FireFox, you don't get this, ever.

If it makes no difference, why would people even mention it? It's not like we would get money for you using FireFox, and so will say anything for you to get it... Are all the developers and reviewers of FireFox just deluded when they say Mozilla is faster? Can you really see yourself knowing better on a technical issue like this than the people who actually write the html processing engine?

scary_jeff said:
Sorry, but that's just wrong.

hmm, so.. its not the first time.. but.. tis gonna be one of those issues to where you won't alter my belief jeff..

it takes a certain amount of time to download a thing, be it a file, or a web page.. a browser will NOT speed up the stream

now, a browser may cache a portion for the next visit, some may cache more than another, but on the 1^st visit, all browsers are gonna load the same, given the same internet connection speeds are assured for each..

Jeff is saying that IE reads the HTML then parses it in a different order to Mozilla/Firefox.

Yes, both browsers will probably be operating at the same speed -
no-one is debating that, they are saying with Firefox the HTML is read
and then parsed differently to IE's method - a more efficient method,
in the eyes of many users and developers..

Its not a feeling or anything Orph, Jeff is technically right - this isnt browser wars or anything of the sort, it's fact

Gwil said:
Its not a feeling or anything Orph, Jeff is technically right - this isnt browser wars or anything of the sort, it's fact

i don't doubt you 2 know more than i do, what i doubt is your ability to convince me you do.. that may sound crazy, but not to me.

and who gives a s**t about browsers enuff to wage a conflict over them.. my wife prefers netscape.. i hate it, but she uses it none the less :biggrin:

Orph, I just think you don't understand what they're saying.

Basically, with Mozilla, Netscape, Firefox, you don't have to wait for images to finish loading for you to begin reading the page.

That's all.
There are a lot of sites that load all the content of the site at the beginning so it's cached for later. When viewing it in IE, this site would appear to be idle and IE 'frozen'. Please, let me know if this doesn't make sense :smile:

As somewhat of a 'developer', you have to realize the less dependability or Cohesion (or was it coupling ? dammit no wonder I got a B in Software Engineering ) you have, the better.

Also, more users use IE so it is a more pleasurable target for attacks.

To be honest, it'd be best to have a combination of methods. Such as if total image size is not to large in comparison to bandwidth the images should be loaded first so everything seems to appear on the page (such as if the page had a massive amount of text it would have a smoother appearance loading), but if the page had a large or ridiculous total image size compared to bandwidth load it text/html first.

If we all had pipelined or duel processors we could do both at once and call it that :biggrin:

[NOTE]
This is not a 'flame', 'war', or anything like that, just clarification.
[/NOTE]

Crono said:
Orph, I just think you don't understand what they're saying.

[NOTE]
This is not a 'flame', 'war', or anything like that, just clarification.
[/NOTE]

first off, i think understanding works both ways.. what makes you all believe, i don't know what i am talking about, but just doesn't pertain to this particular point?

secondly, if you must apologize for something in advance.. its a waste IMO.. it tells me you are not prepared to go the distance.. jeff and i fight like brother and sister, but we always kiss and make up.. he is not so bad as a sister, once you get to know him :heee:

I dread to think what you mean about you and Jeff and your "special relationship" Orph... :razz:

YES!!! Maybe this will finally solve my problems with links not
opening in new tabs in Linux. Also, maybe my radial context
plugin will work a little better.

Orph, this

i know the basics of HTML, and you can save an image in such a way as to load exactly the same way.. the method has been around for ages, and works with IE as well.. but ultimately, the entire page takes just as long to fully load, whether you load the pic first, or last, make no difference.

and this

it takes a certain amount of time to download a thing, be it a file, or a web page.. a browser will NOT speed up the stream

Lead me to believe that you don't know what we were pointing out. No one said Mozilla downloads things faster, and if you were reading it that way, then you misunderstood this specific point. That's all.

So, I'm not entirely sure what you're going on about :smile:

Also, I never apologized.

And stop thinking that I think you and Jeff (in particular) are constantly being serious; I'm not oblivious to sarcasm or friendly teasing. I have enough knowledge of both of your guys' 'personalities', at least in this setting, such that I can see whether you're kidding or not.

crono, lets just say, i know what i was thinking, you know what you were thinking, and jeff knew what he was thinking.. its just hard to explain stuff to people as focused as you two are :/

i know what i said was absolutely correct, whether it was relevant to this discussion, is IMO completely unimportant.

i can create a webpage, that loads in any order i wish, be it pictures first, middle or last, depending on the format i save them in.. if its more important to you to believe that because the words are legible before the picture is clear, that that signifies the page loaded quicker.. so be it.

but i am betting that bottomline, the time from click of mouse, to finish is relatively the same timeframe, no matter which browser is used.

i am not angry, but i am seriously disappointed that nether of you can see it as such.. IMO it would be the same as saying my 2.6 machine loads websites faster than my 450 does :sad:

scary_jeff said:
Sorry, but that's just wrong. When your page is downloaded, it has to be processed so that the html can be turned into the visual layout that it represents. Processing takes time. Processing in different ways takes different amounts of time. There are a lot of websites that with IE would sit with just the background colour for ages, until finally it had downloaded all the images and the page could be displayed. With FireFox, you don't get this, ever.

ok, this is the clincher.. all this tells me is, firefox can take an unoptimized webpage and speed it up a bit.. all i am saying is, a webpage that is constructed properly will load the exact same.. unless you are able to distinguish between 10th of seconds, i doubt you could truly say which page was faster on which browser.

and jeff, i always disbelieve any sentence, that has the word "ever" in it.. its unprofessional, and to final to be used when describing a concept. doesn't matter if you are 100% correct, it appears you are not anyways.

if you find that insulting, i am sorry, but i have had to deal with people all my life who were convinced of their own little kingdoms, and their control over it.. i hate people who use words that have no flexibility in them.

anyways, if i was mistaken on which point you guys were attempting to make.. its not as if i don't EVER do it now is it :razz:

Firefox loads up things contained inside tables, unlike IE which has to wait for the </table> code, which is really the only speed advantage I've seen.

Dude ... Orph; you absolutely, completely, and totally missed the point. :smile:

How do I know?:

all this tells me is, firefox can take an unoptimized webpage and speed it up a bit

Amongst other comments, like.

i can create a webpage, that loads in any order i wish, be it pictures first, middle or last, depending on the format i save them in

That's actually not true ...

Let me see if I can clairify.

The only point was, IE loads images first then content. Mozilla loads content then images.

In a situation where there are many images, of any size, the page will appear to load faster in Mozilla ...

No one talked about HTML being read or displayed faster. No one said JavaScript was executed differently. The only thing that was said was that the images are loaded in a different order ... we're not talking about total page load time here or the time between each image being loaded.

The idea is that, given big enough image sizes (or a combination of several images) the content/text of the page is loaded so you can begin reading it while the images continue to load instead of waiting for every image to load before you're even shown the page.

It's not an "I think" or "in my opinion" situation, this is the algorithm they used, and they're ALWAYS ran this way, unless you have disable image viewing or something.
What I was saying is that it would be best if a browser used both methods choosing whichever one is better based on total image size and connection speed.

I hope that clarifies it. :smile:

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

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...

scary_jeff said:

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...

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.

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.

scary_jeff said:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :razz: ), 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. :smile:

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. :smile:

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).

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.