Mozilla Planning Firefox Metro For Windows 8 On December 10 179
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla is finally getting close to releasing a Metro version of its Firefox browser that will run on Windows RT as well as the tablet-side of Windows 8. The touch flavor of the app will arrive on December 10 along with Firefox 26. That's assuming, of course, that there won't be more delays. Given what we've seen so far, we wouldn't be surprised to see a final Metro version arrive in 2014."
This is NOT for Windows RT (Score:5, Informative)
Summary is incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
The original article is also wrong on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems the article's author was confused by the naming of Windows RT vs the WinRT API. All Metro/Modern/Windows Store apps have to use the WinRT API for the interface, but Windows 8 allows them to still run Win32 code underneath, while Windows RT does not. Thus, this will not work on Windows RT.
mods msdos for you. the blurbe made it seem like they were doing the (even more)insane thing of making a windows rt version.. btw microsoft really, really, REALLY fucked up their naming and branding for this cycle. balmer should be fired just for that.
Can they finish it before RT is canceled ? (Score:2, Interesting)
I can't wait to see if they can finish it before RT is canceled.
Wouldn't be the first time they denied and denied and then summarily canceled a project with no explaination.
Usually it starts with a section leadership change , or a Spring re-org.. then suddenly.. "We've decided to go in another direction.."
As for Metro.. what if like "SIlverlight" they decide to support that as an alternative user interface to the year 2133.. but no further updates will be forth coming.
Say (Score:2)
When is Windows 9 coming out?
The World is Blue (Score:2)
Well, every major version of Windows going back to 1.0 has come out around 3-4 years apart (except XP->Vista, which took 6+ years). So it's likely that Windows 9 would come out in in the beginning of 2016 or 2017
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/28/3693368/windows-blue-update-low-cost [theverge.com] I thought the plan was to keep the Windows 8 Numbering for now, and then push towards yearly updates for Microsoft’s OS. In fact I thought that is what 8.1 was. I thought it was a great idea.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a great idea. Unless they plan to give it away as an update to 8.0 users, (it is not quite 100% clear if they are going to do that), then they will fragment their market. And on the other hand even if they give it away, if they make more "above the hood" changes than a service pack would normally incl
Except there is no "Metro" now, MSFT changed name. (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft has changed UI name, seemingly due to trademark clash. It was even on /.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/08/03/1221242/microsoft-drops-metro-name-for-windows-8-ui [slashdot.org]
Re:Except there is no "Metro" now, MSFT changed na (Score:2)
Since then "Metro" has taken on a slightly derogatory connotation for this user interface. Some who refer to it as Metro do so to be mildly insulting.
You know, Microsoft also tried to call it "Modern UI" for a while, which was very ironic since much of this design of full screen, typing commands in to a box, and memorizing key combinations is a major throwback to the DOS/Windows 1.x days.
What goes around, comes around... (Score:2)
(Now get off my lawn, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
During Windows 95 setup you could choose to use the Program Manager. No hacks or third party software needed. No such luck with Windows 8, it's either metro or the highway.
I remember how many problems the Start menu solved. When helping someone over the phone, Start -> Settings -> Control Pannel was ALWAYS in the same place. (No more finding the Program Manager window, clicking File->Run and then typing CONTROL.EXE !)
And if they wanted large icons, they could create a shortcut to the Start Menu fol
Re: (Score:2)
I actually like and prefer the program group, because you can't cram it all into a single icon.
Re: (Score:2)
if you just open the start menu in explorer in windows95 you have the old program manager.. just make it open everything in new window and that's what you get. and 3.1 program manager definitely is not a screen full of icons - it's a window! because you know the big whoop was the use of windows..
and what people ACTUALLY did was use hacks to get the chigago look and support libs _into_ windows 3.11 - not the other way around. ever heard of anyone using a metro style launcher for win7? fuck no NONONO - ther
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the time and I don't remember the rants. Quite a lot of people were happy to see that UI show up in NT4. One difference from now is that you could still open up a folder to show all your programs the old way if you wanted to.
Re: (Score:2)
I still hate Metro, on the non-touch screen computers, after all these years. :(
I hope they don't force this on Windows 8 users (Score:2)
I hope they don't force this on Windows 8 users. My folks would hate it. Currently they live most of their lives on the desktop, save for card games and starting applications with the Metro menu. But if they were forced to live in the single-application-full-screen "vision" of Metro for Firefox, they'd be *pissed*.
Do Not Want That Shit (Score:2)
Too many apps are coming out now that parrot the "Metro" look and it's damn ugly. I just fired up Foxit Reader the other day and it had updated itself automatically with the new "Metro" look to match Win8 and I was like "Damn, what is this - Windows 3.1?!?" Because it looks like shit!
It's all flat and everything is square with an outline. Just like Windows 3.1
It's a giant leap backwards
Re: (Score:2)
Win8.1 will be released soon, before this will release I think.
Re: (Score:2)
yea and its 0.1% less suck, whats your point
Re: (Score:2)
Think RDP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is adding a mocking "Start" button that takes you to metro and sending your local searches over the internet less suck?
AFAIK Windows 8 does not send your local searches over the Internet. Did this change in 8.1?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/03/microsoft-bing-ads-windows-8-1-smart-search/ [engadget.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious reason is that over time vendor support for all previous versions of Windows will cease, leaving Windows 8.1 and above as your only option.
Re: (Score:2)
With less and less people buying hardware which is bundled with win8
I'm curious about the makeup of these people you mention who aren't buying PCs bundled with Windows anymore. Are people switching to MacBook and iMac computers in droves? Or are more people building desktop PCs from parts than before and choosing to install Linux? Or are they choosing to buy a computing device that doesn't support windowed applications at all, such as an iPad or Android tablet?
Re: (Score:3)
If only it took less than a minute to install Start8 or ClassicShell or something.
Yes, with Win8 they've crippled the shell to make it almost as featureless as stock OS X (this is the bit where people who like Macs jump for the (-1, Disagree) mod option), but - just like OS X and unlike iOS/RT/assorted crippleware - you can install a third party launcher.
Re: (Score:3)
"Face it, Windows 7 was looking stale in a world of osx, Android and iOS."
There are several valid reasons to change an interface. "It was looking stale" is not one of them.
Users reject this logic violently. I see it every day. Someone needs to make a GNU OS with a solid Windows 7 theme and market it towards people that hate their new Win8 computers, you would grab a decent chunk of market share with almost no effort at all.
No one will do that though. They are all busy trying to mimic the system that custom
Xubuntu (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
KDE with the right theme and a little bit of customisation would be far closer to win7.
I wouldnt use an ubuntu base on anything but you're welcome to try if you think it can be made to work.
Re: (Score:2)
And there is very little difference in outwards appearance between Windows 7 and OS X. OS X is a very traditional UI.
Re: (Score:2)
The outward differences between the UIs, are the borders, menu on window versus on top, and the dock vs taskbar on bottom. And OS X has looked like that for a long time, and many Unix distributions have looked similar for longer than that.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of differences beyond what you mention. Behaviour of the menus is different, as is their layout, not just their gross positioning. The dock abstraction has changed greatly just over different versions of OSX, and at no point was it even a rough equivalent of the windows taskbar. (Also, btw, neither the OSX dock nor the Windows task bar is fixed at the bottom of the screen. Big mistake.)
OSX has looked somewhat similar over releases, but there have still been great changes in behavior. And OS
Re: (Score:3)
"Windows 7 was looking stale in a world of osx, Android and iOS. Sure it has a very productive interface"
I'll take productive thank you, changing something to avoid 'being stale' at the cost of productivity is outright lame.
The real reason for metro is Microsoft's cut% of the metro marketplace.
Re: what?! (Score:2)
Looks stale? Sorry Picasso, but real people don't base their usage on look. It is based on functionality.
And your opinion of the OSX interface is just that. IMNSHO the OSX interface wastes too much space and is spare and overly situational in how their application features are exposed.
And as someone who has been fighting with OSX for the last few years, I can state, unequivocally, "It just works" IS BULLSHIT! First to last.
Re: (Score:3)
Windows 8 has a command line.
Re: (Score:2)
Though I don't blame windows 8 for being generally featureless piece of crap missing a command line and any useful IT utilities out of the box. Thats a windows problem in general.
They call it PowerShell [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is getting old, but why exactly do you need the Start menu? Ever since Windows 7 came out, I've pinned my daily-use applications to the taskbar and that works 99% of the time. The remaining 1% of the time (when I need to find an app by name), I hit the Win key and start typing, and you can still do that in Windows 8. I agree they should have had boot-to-desktop right when Win8 was released, but anyway that's coming in 8.1 now.
Re: (Score:3)
Ever since Windows 7 came out, I've pinned my daily-use applications to the taskbar and that works 99% of the time.
If you only use three or four apps, sure...
Re: (Score:2)
> I hit the Win key and start typing
If you know the names of your seldom-used programs, sure... (Also, really, so searching by typing is the new big thing instead of menus? Like the UNIX command line in the 90's...)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, I never considered it like that - The people who most hate Windows 8 actually end up the least impacted by it.
Hell, I already run most of my "2nd tier" programs (anything not right on my desktop) by hitting win-R and typing the program name. It takes noticeably less time than click-move-click-scanthelist-move-click, poss
Re: (Score:3)
But the point is, why is it so very, very important for Microsoft and Mozilla and the like to remove functionality? Why can't we have both a start menu *and* search?
Re: (Score:2)
But the point is, why is it so very, very important for Microsoft and Mozilla and the like to remove functionality? Why can't we have both a start menu *and* search?
...MS wants to send you to the start screen(instead of menu) beause that's the first step of training you to fetch your programs from the metro app store and not with whatever you want from wherever you want.
anyhow, windows rt version can't be distributed in a fashion that would enable you to tweak it and install the tweaked version without paying MS 100 bucks(legally and in the long run anyways even if there's some sideload hack now).
Re: (Score:2)
And because you like win-r plus typing you feel that it's appropriate to forbid the use of the start menu? I can understand if microsoft never got around to implementing a feature, in which case missing it would seem normal. However taking the active step of removing a feature that most customers used, then hiring a bunch of fans to run around telling all these customers how they were holding the menu wrong, is just bad for relations.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm? No, I loathe Windows 8 and in no way meant my post as a defense of the abomination called "Metro".
I more meant my post as pointing out the absurdity - Microsoft managed to effectively kill the CLI world with their nice shiny GUI. Now, they have reverted Windows to a state where, by dumbing-down the GUI to a Fischer-Price level of functionality, those of us still proficient in using a command
Re: (Score:2)
Yes one can search by typing, but it's so clumsy much of the time. Instead very often I want to browse; you can't browse the apps and shortcuts in win8 by typing. The "all apps" is annoying to use as well and a distinct drawback from start menu.
Sure, I can understand if some users dislike the old start menu but I am baffled why they have suddenly come out of the wood work to tell everyone who doesn't hate it that they're wrong. Why can't people have a choice? Was start menu so completely awful that it n
Re: (Score:2)
And typical users dont, many only use 2 apps on a regular basis, and are happy to have a menu to hunt through for other stuff once in a blue moon.
Power users just hit win and start typing. Power users dont care about win8, they still just hit win and start typing. But the more typical users get very frustrated with win8.
Re: (Score:2)
If you only use three or four apps, sure...
Why? It's the same thing I do with the OSX dock, there's no 'three or four app' limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah but a fucking shell with an obvious files system and configuration would be great. Its also insecure as fuck... on my moms tablet you have to log the fuck out to power down with NO user credentials... thats like disabled by default in Xf86 since like 1990. No it doesn't replace physical security. But IMO its a big no no. Also wtf it takes 10 mins to find the shut down prompt cause its on the last menu you'd look for it?
Nah windows 8 is a dictatorial piece of crap. And not even designed well with many so
Re: (Score:2)
But IMO its a big no no. Also wtf it takes 10 mins to find the shut down prompt cause its on the last menu you'd look for it?
Here's how it works in my Surface Pro -
Step 1: Find power button (optional if you've ever actually turned the computer off before)
Step 2: Press power button
Doorway amnesia (Score:4, Interesting)
The remaining 1% of the time (when I need to find an app by name), I hit the Win key and start typing
The problem here is that while you're typing, the context of the currently open applications' windows disappears. It's like the effect of amnesia while going through a doorway [scientificamerican.com]. It'd be fine if the Start Screen were semi-transparent, but because it's opaque and full-screen, it forces a subconscious context switch. And that's why I still install Classic Shell, so that the search-by-name box doesn't distract me by covering everything.
On the Path (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Win-p-u starts ultra edit.
Win-d starts my custom app
Win+d- I enter starts Ida pro
I have plenty of programs that start with 3 keys or less, and I like it that way. Fast access goes in start menu, infrequent usage that needs to be findable goes on desktop.
I am not typing an application name and getting 15 documents and emails in the list, because that is not helpful
I am a keyboard jockey, I can get things done quickly. And I do not need a touch interface between me and my goals.
The entire metro UI is
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you just rediscovered the command line.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you browse that way? You can't. Instead you have to head to either All Apps with its clumsy interface (even MORE mouse movement than the old menu), or else use the file browser. Many applications will also install utilities and documentation in the start menu so you won't automatically know what everything is called so that you can't just use Win+R to find them.
It's great that you love the power user way of doing things. But does that justify removing a tool that most customers were using? Why a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get this: sometimes, people have different workflows to other people!
I hit the Win key and start typing
Yeah, great...and if you don't know the name of the thing you're looking for?
Why install something you don't know the name of? That's like ordering a pizza and refusing to select the toppings, then complaining you got anchovies.
Re: (Score:2)
No you won't. If you really were going to, you'd do it now. Not wait for some magical date to make your ultimatum go into place.
People like you have been making this empty threat since DOS every time there's a major change.
Re:what?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't miss the forest hidden behind all those trees - The start button simply serves as a convenient proxy for a hard-to-articulate sense of generalized annoyance.
Yes, Win8's interface has some serious shortcomings, particularly for power users. Yes, it still works more-or-less okay as a GUI, and if forced to use it for a few weeks, most of us would just get used to it. But the entire Metro interface slaps us with Microsoft's sheer arrogance in randomly deciding to make change for its own sake rather than because people asked for it.
As another example that makes the point in a less "wow so much I don't know where to start" way, the "ribbons" in MS office. I liked menus and toolbars, and aesthetically dislike ribbons. But I will admit that they don't take any longer (or shorter!) to use once you get used to them - Once you get used to them. But why the hell should anyone need to get used to them? Okay, they do offer a few enhancements (in-place font and chart previews as obvious examples) over toolbars...Not out of any inherent quality of ribbons themselves, however, but simple because MS added new features that they didn't backport to toolbars. Change for change's sake.
Full screen is the problem (Score:3)
The metro screen is the start menu so many people seem to think disappeared.
The problem is that it covers the whole screen, including the task you were working on when you wanted to start an additional application for the task. Rapid switching in and out of a full screen application lead to forgetting what you were doing, as I pointed out before [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it covers the whole screen, including the task you were working on when you wanted to start an additional application for the task. Rapid switching in and out of a full screen application lead to forgetting what you were doing
So you're doing a task which requires another application, you switch to that application and you've suddenly forgotten what you're doing? Once I dug through that link maze I found what you're referring to and the first paragraph explains it quite clearly:
You're sitting at your desk in your office at home. Digging for something under a stack of papers, you find a dirty coffee mug that’s been there so long it’s eligible for carbon dating. Better wash it. You pick up the mug, walk out the door of
Re: (Score:2)
So you're doing a task which requires another application, you switch to that application and you've suddenly forgotten what you're doing?
Even if it's easy for you to remember what you were working on when it has disappeared completely from the screen in favor of a flashy launcher, it would be even easier if it did not disappear.
this would be happening all the time on phones and tablets with people starting applications and then wondering what they started them for.
Phone applications run in the full screen because a phone's display isn't physically big enough to show much information in a window. Besides, phones aren't typically used for the sort of focused activity [theplatform.io] that would require the use of two applications for one task. Applications for iPad and tablets running stock Andro
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it's easy for you to remember what you were working on when it has disappeared completely from the screen in favor of a flashy launcher, it would be even easier if it did not disappear.
Even if? You mean you actually have this problem where you open an application and simply because it opened fullscreen you forget the reason you opened it? Really?
Phone applications run in the full screen because a phone's display isn't physically big enough to show much information in a window.
So all of a sudden your problem disappears simply because the phone's display isn't physically big enough? Or is that statement irrelevant?
Besides, phones aren't typically used for the sort of focused activity [theplatform.io] that would require the use of two applications for one task.
Of course they are! In fact on a phone or tablet it's even more common to be moving between fullscreen applications because of the lack of screen real-estate (which you yourself already pointed out). The most c
Re: (Score:2)
Even if? You mean you actually have this problem where you open an application and simply because it opened fullscreen you forget the reason you opened it? Really?
Does it really slow you down exactly zero to completely lose your context? Have you measured this? If it slows you down even 50 ms, then keeping the windowed launcher is worth it.
In fact on a phone or tablet it's even more common to be moving between fullscreen applications because of the lack of screen real-estate (which you yourself already pointed out).
It's also common to use phones or tablets to perform less involved tasks that require the use of fewer applications and fewer documents at once. I have often heard clauses of the sort "when I get to a desk" when asking my boss about a particular piece of spec or coding that I've finished, as a sort of hint that the task of evaluati
Re: (Score:2)
Does it really slow you down exactly zero to completely lose your context?
Zero what? And I don't know, you're the one telling me there is a problem so this is the thing you should know.
Have you measured this?
Of course not, I don't have this problem, I asked you if you had it because what you described and what you linked to are completely different.
It's also common to use phones or tablets to perform less involved tasks that require the use of fewer applications and fewer documents at once. I have often heard clauses of the sort "when I get to a desk" when asking my boss about a particular piece of spec or coding that I've finished, as a sort of hint that the task of evaluating my work is too involved to perform efficiently on a phone or tablet.
So? A phone or tablet isn't a desktop replacement, it's that simple. That isn't to say the workflows are any less complex.
If full-screen applications are superior, then why do we even have Windows?
If they were always superior we probably wouldn't have windows, but again I think you're having trouble comprehending what you're replyi
Re: (Score:2)
Does it really slow you down exactly zero to completely lose your context?
Zero what?
Zero milliseconds per operation.
do you have this problem in the context of a single task and on a computer whereby you open an application and simply because you opened it fullscreen you forgot why you opened it?
Occasionally I do, and it happens more often when a roommate is playing radio or television in the background.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it really slow you down exactly zero to completely lose your context?
Zero what?
Zero milliseconds per operation.
It isn't losing context, my brain maintains that context, I don't blank out and forget what I was doing everytime the screen changes. I don't need the previous operation to be visible to not forget what I was doing and I can't imagine many people do and - as I already said - this would happen all the time on phones and tablets because the workflows almost always move through multiple fullscreen pages or applications.
Occasionally I do, and it happens more often when a roommate is playing radio or television in the background.
Then perhaps you are the sort of person who would see some benefit in one of the many start
A cognitive burden (Score:2)
You mean you actually have this problem
Yes, and I'm not the only one who thinks it's "a cognitive burden" [laptopmag.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Alt+Tab does not imply full-screen (Score:3)
So everyone that uses alt-tab forgets what they are doing?
Use of application switching shortcuts, such as Alt+Tab, does not imply full-screen operation. On PCs that I use, I often overlap windows somewhat and use Alt+Tab to raise and focus a particular window.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because clearly punishing innocent consumers is the right way to go about ethical corporate behaviors
Re: (Score:2)
Well, frankly one of my BIG issues with Windows 8 was the lack of popular software availability for the Metro GUI. It's actually one of the main reasons why I don't have it installed.
Re: (Score:2)
My mom thinks its a piece of shit too. And she rarely steps foot in my basement.
Re:what?! (Score:5, Insightful)
You lost us as soon as you said XP is better than 7.
It isn't.
The trouble with Windows 8 is it's Vista - enough small things are annoying that it adds up to a great big annoyance. If they'd just finish it off (clue: listen to customers), it could be great.
Re: (Score:2)
If Microsoft does the following few things by the time Windows 9 is released (same applies to Windows 8 if they do it as service packs/8.x versions), it'll be an instant buy:
- Allow a pure desktop experience. This means no stupid metro network connections dialog and a less animated, more responsive start menu alternative
- Allow for everything (ok, stuff like disk management can stay Desktop/CLI-only) to be done from metro, not just a small subset of the desktop's options
- Properly expose the filesystem in
XP better than Windows 7 (Score:2)
You lost us as soon as you said XP is better than 7.
It isn't
Actually there are a few ways that XP is better than 7, Hardware requirements being a major one (It was sold on netbooks for years after it had been replaced...and never ran with 7). It is part of the reason why http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 [hitslink.com] for Windows XP is still around 40%.
Re: (Score:2)
The reduced requirements are really the only way XP is better than 7, unless you want to talk about backwards compatibility. I've had programs fail even on XP Mode, let alone on Win7. But Win7's requirements are remarkably low; many people report that it runs acceptably on systems with only 512MB RAM. Who has less than that these days? Nobody who should be running Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
If Windows 7 was the best OS ever why are you seeing such angry responses at Microsoft and fearing to change?
Hey now, let's not get involved in excessive hyperbole. I think Windows 7 is merely the best Windows ever. As for asking why people are angry and fear change, there's a Nobel prize in it etc etc
Re: (Score:2)
I do not remember Windows 98SE users or Windows 3.1 users so angry and viewing a 12 year old OS as equivalents to their guns. Unlike previous releases users prefer XP.
Okay, now look. Let's just imagine putting Windows 3.11, Windows 98SE, Windows XP, and Windows 7 together in front of a person who had never touched a computer before. Let's preload them with the same applications, or at least the closest thing you can get, and see which they prefer, on a decent machine which is capable of running the operating system and applications. Do you really seriously believe that a significant percentage of people would choose Windows XP over Windows 7? The bright shiny colors migh
Re:what?! (Score:4, Informative)
For many, if not most people it is. While seven fixed most of vista's epic failures to tolerable levels, it still contains quite a few.
Now you can in fact nullify most of the failures that are retained, largely using same software that helps nullify much of win8's fails, namely classicshell. But it's still worse, and personally I'd still be happily running XP if not for lack of proper 64-bit support (specifically lack of hardware drivers for 64-bit version of XP) and lack of DX11 ('m a gamer).
Other than those two features, XP is clearly better in my experience. I don't even mind EOL. I had a workstation in personal use that ran vanilla unpatched XP until well past XP SP2 age because windows update borked itself so hard on the system, it couldn't be updated. I just kept the infection vectors secure and it was fine. I.e. solid firewall, solid anti-virus software, up to date 3rd party software that could be used as infection vectors, no suspicious flash drives and so on.
Not a single virus. Hilariously, when I got myself an XP2 slipstreamed disk I forgot to unplug internet connection before installing. That machine got owned before I could install firewall software. I had to format and reinstall. But vanilla version with up to date firewall etc? No problems whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's still worse, and personally I'd still be happily running XP if not for lack of proper 64-bit support (specifically lack of hardware drivers for 64-bit version of XP)
XP64 is a compatibility nightmare even if you DO have full drivers. That's not better.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I would probably give IE a chance, but I'll pass until they provide the source code under a free and open source license.
Re: (Score:2)
I would probably give IE a chance, but I'll pass until they provide the source code under a free and open source license.
Why?
For porting it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox is ported, therefore you don't need source for it, either. And ie runs on wine, so mission accomplished?
IE does not run on Wine (Score:2)
And ie runs on wine
Since when? I see "garbage" ratings for IE 9 in Wine AppDB. Besides, how should a user of OS X or Linux obtain a copy of Internet Explorer? As I see it, the only lawful way is to rip it out of a genuine copy of Windows.
Is running IE in a VM worth it? (Score:2)
Tyranny of the majority (Score:3)
This makes me an edge case
And makes your needs entirely unimportant and irrelevant.
I'm sort of disappointed at the pro-tyranny-of-the-majority vibe that I've seen lately on Slashdot. When IE had 90% market share, was the need for other web browsers in the first place "entirely unimportant and irrelevant"?
Re: (Score:2)
True, FF is the abbreviation for Fergus Falls
Re: (Score:2)
What about Final Fight?
Re: (Score:2)
Or friendly fire. Or the number 255.
Re: (Score:3)
Perfect for Windows 8 then?
I have a convertible Windows 8 laptop, and Firefox needs some work, like the rest of the OS. See, for instance, this bug [mozilla.org].
Also, the frigging laptop keeps locking the screen upside down and I have to keep unconverting it and reconverting carefully. Totally awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
So Microsoft will get a 30% cut from what used to be Netscape. How much farther will Mozilla grovel?
How much to you pay for Firefox now? $0. 30% of that is hardly likely to have much of an impact now is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps if they call it Mirefox...
I am sorry Internet Explorer is not very Good (Score:2)
but they really should focus on making a browser for the desktop that doesn't run like utter shat. :
I know reality doesn't sink in easily in nerd's minds but the firefox team doesn't give a flying fuck about tech savy users and ranting about it won't have any effect at all. The only viable routes at this point are
1 - use a different browser (and no Chrome is not the answer)
2 - take the firefox source code and fork it. Forget about chasing the latest useless shiny and start fixing serious bugs and revamp the UI so that it caters to the tech savy user first (and by restriction to the lambda user as well). In other terms revamp Firefox so that it gives back the browser experience to the user.
For christ's sake, people forked Gnome, is there nobody at all that can fork Firefox and fix it ?
This. Fork Fx at 3.6, patch in the security patches, and ship it.
I can feel your pain. I Do find this technique of replying to yourself quite exciting, While attaching the product, without providing any substance. Here is http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-27-firefox-21-opera-next,3534-12.html [tomshardware.com] a comprehensive comparison' Fastest Browser is Firefox.
Looking at what has happened since the new releases. I am personally enjoying the fact that features get delivered to me sooner like Isolated Plug-ins; WebM playback; Hardware Acceleration; Do Not Track...The List reall
Re: (Score:2)
And then find out you can't use a single website because Firefox 3.6 doesn't support HTML5 and its Javascript engine is too slow to do anything useful.