MozillaZine


Why I still use IE6 rather than Firebird 0.7

Discussion of features in Mozilla Firefox
Nitin
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 3483
Joined: February 27th, 2003, 9:38 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Post Posted January 27th, 2004, 8:43 am

c0d3h4x0r wrote:Some reasons why I still use IE6 rather than Firebird 0.7:

- IE has integrated Windows authentication, so I don't have to keep
entering my name/password for internal web site access on my corporate
Windows network.

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=223636

c0d3h4x0r wrote: - I can easily install Macromedia Flash on IE6. With Firebird, you have
to dig up some third-party unofficial installer hack or poke around
in the registry to get Flash installed and working, which sucks.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... 9534#flash
Use the older xpi link

- IE toolbar extensions. You can't install Yahoo toolbar in Firebird, for example.

- The company I work for runs a major web portal, and we only really care about IE users, since they
are the majority. So we design our site to look right in IE, not Firebird. So we can't use
Firebird for this work, because it doesn't matter for our business how the site looks in Firebird.

And your point is?
If you're not using Firefox, you're not surfing the web, you're suffering it.
Join the MZ folding@home team.

shadytrees
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 11743
Joined: November 30th, 2002, 6:41 am

Post Posted January 27th, 2004, 9:25 am

- IE has integrated Windows authentication, so I don't have to keep entering my name/password for internal web site access on my corporate Windows network.

Firebird has a password manager. It also supports 128-bit encrypting, and 256-bit too, I think, but few people use that yet.
- I can easily install Macromedia Flash on IE6. With Firebird, you have to dig up some third-party unofficial installer hack or poke around
in the registry to get Flash installed and working, which sucks.

Why are you blaming us? Blame Macromedia for not supporting third-party browsers. It's not like we can crack open the code for the Flash installer, you know.
- Firebird doesn't appear to support JavaScript and/or the <span> tag correctly in all
cases. For instance, the following pop-up menu code works in IE, but not in Firebird:

You don't seem to support standards. That makes Firebird unhappy. If you're going to use IE-only code, guess what browser you have to use.
- In IE, bookmarks (favorites) are actual individual files, so I can manipulate them easily
outside of IE using the Windows Explorer file manager. Firebird appears to maintain bookmarks
some other way, so I have to use the built-in bookmark organizer UI, which is far less powerful
and far more cumbersome. (Of course, IE's built-in Favorites organizer is an even worse piece
of shit).

Point taken.
- IE toolbar extensions. You can't install Yahoo toolbar in Firebird, for example.

Because Yahoo/Google/etc doesn't support Firebird. Why? Because more people use IE. Fortunately, brilliant extension authors have managed to duplicate certain aspects of those toolbars like:
http://googlebar.mozdev.org/

For fast, easy, search engine searching:
http://www.deftone.com/blogzilla/archiv ... ching.html
- The company I work for runs a major web portal, and we only really care about IE users, since they
are the majority. So we design our site to look right in IE, not Firebird. So we can't use
Firebird for this work, because it doesn't matter for our business how the site looks in Firebird.

Shrug. Sorry.
- After Firebird is installed, there appears to be no way to import IE Favorites into the bookmarks.

http://support.mozillazine.org/index.ph ... _Bookmarks
- Firebird doesn't seem able to understand UNC file:// syntax in links, such as file://server/dir1/dir2/file.txt.
Links like this are common all over internal web sites on our corporate network.

One more slash will do it. Example: file:///server/dir1/dir2/file.txt

Dr_Cogent
 
Posts: 49
Joined: December 8th, 2003, 12:12 pm

Post Posted January 27th, 2004, 10:43 am

I don't think arguing with c0d3h4x0r will do anyone any good anyway. He appears to be a blind fanboy and nothing more.

Chrysalis
 
Posts: 319
Joined: January 27th, 2004, 10:43 am

Post Posted January 27th, 2004, 10:54 am

Hello I just moved over to firebird and think its a great browser, but I think c0d3h4x0r made a valid point about java, although it is the fault of the code I think the browser should still cater for it as sites do exist that use bad code and at the end of the day its not the end user's fault, so as long as these sites exist then really the browser should support the code, bookmarks are also very messy I dont know how the order is specified but it would be nice if they were in alphabetical with folders first and multiple columns making it much tidier, I am hoping this is done in a future release, keep up the good work guys.

laszlo

User avatar
 
Posts: 5203
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 6:13 pm
Location: .de

Post Posted January 27th, 2004, 11:58 am

Dr_Cogent wrote:I don't think arguing with c0d3h4x0r will do anyone any good anyway. He appears to be a blind fanboy and nothing more.

It's not about c0dwhatever. His nick shows that he's just a misguided kid. The point of responding is to show that a few of his "arguments" may sound good to the occasional viewer of this forum, but in reality they aren't.

c0d3h4x0r

User avatar
 
Posts: 16
Joined: January 26th, 2004, 4:35 pm
Location: Bellevue, Washington, USA

Post Posted January 27th, 2004, 2:57 pm

Dunderklumpen wrote:If you do not understand the importance of sticking to standards and are not even willing to listen to reason - you are a troll


Wrong. If you do not understand the importance of sticking to standards and are not a tech-headed geek, then it means you are just an ordinary user who only cares about things working with as little pain as possible, regardless of the technical details or excuses. Until you elitist geek types drop your bad "we're so technically superior" attitude and start catering to what average, non-technical computer users expect, you will never constitute any real competition for any of Microsoft's products.

Dunderklumpen wrote:If you design a website and create a design for one browser only (IE) and are not willing to listen to reason - you are a troll


Wrong again. If you are a business, you will design for whatever browser(s) are used by most potential customers. You might half-heartedly try to standard compliance, but your first priority is making it look and work right for the majority of users. If 90% of your potential customer base is IE, then that is what you are going to design for. That is reality. Again, until you elitist open-source geek types drop your bad "we're so technically superior" attitude and start catering to what businesses expect and need, you will never constitute any real competition for ANY of Microsoft's products. People simply won't use your stuff if it does not meet their needs better than Microsoft's offerings.

Dunderklumpen wrote:If the whole point of the posting is saying that you will stick with IE not matter what - you are a troll


Wrong a third time! The whole point of my posting is to enlighten you poor geek bastards as to what average, non-technical users expect and demand from their web browser, and to give you a look into the thought processes that cause average people to continue to use IE. It doesn't matter whether you think those reasons are sensible or not -- only the user's opinions matter, whether you agree with them or not. That's another one of the huge failings of the open-source development model -- you people write software only for yourselves, and you think that anyone with different opinions must therfore just be "wrong" and not worth a second thought. On the contrary, people like you are in the minority in this world, and if you want your hard work to gain in popularity and dominance, you need to not only respect but cater to the majority of people who are not like you.

That is why Microsoft consistently delivers on what the majority of people want. They research their potential customers, listen to their opinions, and integrate that feedback directly into their products. Microsoft doesn't pass judgment on its users, it just listens to them and works like a well-oiled machine to give them what they want. BillG's geeks in Redmond don't write the software for themselves, and they don't even have to agree with the design of the software they are writing. Marketing research defines customer needs for the software designers, the designers write the specs to meet those needs, and the devs code what was spec'd. The end result is software that directy meets the needs of the majority.

The open-source community desperately needs to drop this ego-driven defensiveness and start listening to and respecting what real computer users want -- without shrugging it off as stupid, wrong, or unintelligent.

Dunderklumpen
 
Posts: 16224
Joined: March 9th, 2003, 8:12 am

Post Posted January 27th, 2004, 3:00 pm

I was not addressing you but since you obviously thought so - you are a troll.
Case closed.

c0d3h4x0r

User avatar
 
Posts: 16
Joined: January 26th, 2004, 4:35 pm
Location: Bellevue, Washington, USA

Post Posted January 27th, 2004, 3:01 pm

Dr_Cogent wrote:I don't think arguing with c0d3h4x0r will do anyone any good anyway. He appears to be a blind fanboy and nothing more.


laszlo wrote:It's not about c0dwhatever. His nick shows that he's just a misguided kid. The point of responding is to show that a few of his "arguments" may sound good to the occasional viewer of this forum, but in reality they aren't.


Yes, that's it. Just call me a troll, a kid, a fanboy. Dismiss all my points without concern, and stick your heads back in the sand of geek eliteness. That's definitely a formula for success. Millions of people will love your software if you ignore their feedback, opinions, and desires and instead just give them what YOU think is the "right" stuff according to YOUR geeky mindset. Obviously you are representative of most people in the world, so this plan will work wondrously.

It's attitudes like yours that hold the open-source movement back from being the wonderful thing that it could be. Idiots.

c0d3h4x0r

User avatar
 
Posts: 16
Joined: January 26th, 2004, 4:35 pm
Location: Bellevue, Washington, USA

Post Posted January 27th, 2004, 3:34 pm

IGAU wrote:This is just a blatent disregard for standards, again, dont blame the browser.


I'm technically savvy enough to understand what you are saying, but the simple fact is that your average user IS going to blame the browser, so the mozilla developers need to start looking at it that way, too. Start empathizing with the user and trying to solve the user's problems, instead of calling the user stupid and making them learn all kinds of technical things.

c0d3h4x0r

User avatar
 
Posts: 16
Joined: January 26th, 2004, 4:35 pm
Location: Bellevue, Washington, USA

Post Posted January 27th, 2004, 3:40 pm

Chrysalis wrote:...I think c0d3h4x0r made a valid point about java, although it is the fault of the code I think the browser should still cater for it as sites do exist that use bad code and at the end of the day its not the end user's fault, so as long as these sites exist then really the browser should support the code


Finally! Now here is someone with the right attitude about how software should work. Users don't care about the technical explanations -- those are just lame excuses from the user's point of view. All the user cares about is their own experience with the software. So if the Mozilla team really wants to overtake IE, they are going to have to start bending over backwards to make the user experience better than IE's.

Feature idea: For web site designers, however, it would be incredibly useful to be able to toggle a setting in the browser's options to turn off all optimistic behavior. In other words, the browser should by default work around buggy HTML/XML/script/etc so as to give users the best possible experience, but a web designer should be able to turn OFF all those workaround with a single switch, so that the browser barfs appropriately on even the slightest standards violation. That way a single browser delivers on the needs of both regular users AND geeks.

IGAU
 
Posts: 831
Joined: November 18th, 2003, 2:25 pm

Post Posted January 27th, 2004, 3:46 pm

I'm technically savvy enough to understand what you are saying, but the simple fact is that your average user IS going to blame the browser, so the mozilla developers need to start looking at it that way, too. Start empathizing with the user and trying to solve the user's problems, instead of calling the user stupid and making them learn all kinds of technical things.

If web designers learnt how to code to standards, nobody would see a problem. That's what they're for! There is NO reason to code "only for IE" regardless of how many people use it! I dont see how writing bad code and writing good code takes any more or less time. IE has enough standards support for most standards-compliant methods to work. The only reason for not supporting standards in your website is lazyness or apathy, or ignorance. Write to the standards, you get the same results everywhere. Dont bother, and you're only getting the results in IE. Why cut off the 10-15% of end users?

idotherock
 
Posts: 117
Joined: January 3rd, 2004, 5:32 am
Location: Hollywood, CA

Post Posted January 27th, 2004, 3:51 pm

Just out of curiosity, exactly what sort of response were you expecting to get towards your original post? I actually think you got the response you were hoping to get.

Anyway, you miss the point that it is possible to design a standards-compliant website that functions properly in both browsers. In this economic climate, it's interesting that you're company feels that they can afford to turn away any potential customers based on something as ridiculous as the fact that they happen to not use a Microsoft product. Sure, it may be a small percentage of users now, but the fact is that it is a growing percentage.

you will never constitute any real competition for any of Microsoft's products.


Hhmm, why do you assume that the projects goal is competition with Microsoft? I've always been under the impression that the goal was to make a standards-compliant, cross-platform (ie., it works on Windows, MacOS, Linux, etc) that is an alternative to IE. Not everyone is looking for an alternative, but some people are.

That is why Microsoft consistently delivers on what the majority of people want.


That's fine, but just because the majority want it doesn't mean everyone has to want it. Not everyone operates on the premise that the wants of the majority = the best.

the browser should by default work around buggy HTML/XML/script/etc


What's the point of making the browser if it works just like IE? You just might as well not bother then.

Rob
Last edited by idotherock on January 27th, 2004, 3:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

IGAU
 
Posts: 831
Joined: November 18th, 2003, 2:25 pm

Post Posted January 27th, 2004, 3:51 pm

So if the Mozilla team really wants to overtake IE, they are going to have to start bending over backwards to make the user experience better than IE's.

To date I have found 1 or 2 important sites that for some reason didn't work properly in Mozilla or Firebird. 1 or 2, in probably 8-9 months, and they were still accessible to me. Nobody gives a rats ass if Joe Bloggs' Geocities template based page with IE4 javascript breaks a bit. If your site is important, you'll want as many people as possible to access it, and therefore you'll have considered using web-standards. If you can afford to turn away those who dont use IE, that's your call, but dont come here complaining about this browser, when you're the one closing the door on it's users.

My day to day experience is MUCH better than when I used to use IE, and my parents agree with me too. They know absolutely nothing about computers in general (apart from basic operation), and they have no complaints about Mozilla Firebird, they think it's great.

IGAU
 
Posts: 831
Joined: November 18th, 2003, 2:25 pm

Post Posted January 27th, 2004, 4:04 pm

It's attitudes like yours that hold the open-source movement back from being the wonderful thing that it could be. Idiots.

Woo Woooo! Here comes the clue train, last stop is you. You're advocating that everyone should follow what Microsoft does, because they have the largest user share. How is that benefitting the open-source movement, which is based on innovation? By not supporting standards and only coding for IE, you're holding back the progression of open-technologies.

laszlo

User avatar
 
Posts: 5203
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 6:13 pm
Location: .de

Post Posted January 27th, 2004, 4:15 pm

c0d3h4x0r wrote:Idiots.

It's interesting how you didn't respond to technical answers at all.

Thanks and Goodbye.

Return to Firefox Features


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests