# Web Browsers: Which do you use?



## Grimfang (Sep 4, 2008)

Seems like there's a lot of commotion going on in the web browser world right now. Even if you haven't upgraded to the latest version, or haven't downloaded the newest one, which do you have your eyes on?

I tried to be as inclusive with browsers as I could with options.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 4, 2008)

firefox




Grimfang said:


> Netscape Navigator


lol

netscape is long dead and it hasn't been called navigator for _years_


----------



## Grimfang (Sep 4, 2008)

Eevee said:


> firefox
> 
> 
> 
> ...



durf.. I are smart. I just saw it was killed off 'officially' this year. From a quick search, it seemed like there were still enough using it for me to have it listed *shrugs*
Maybe I was being too inclusive with that rock :/


----------



## Aden (Sep 4, 2008)

Only Opera user so far. :/

Should've been a multiple choice poll. I use FF as a backup, mostly for Photobucket because their damn uploader doesn't work that well with Opera.


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Sep 4, 2008)

Chrome because it is fucking awesome.


----------



## jayhusky (Sep 4, 2008)

Since its a single vote not a multiple:

FireFox
Safari
Chrome
Internet Explorer
SeaMonkey (Branch of Mozilla)


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Sep 4, 2008)

Internet Explorer.  Yep.


----------



## makmakmob (Sep 4, 2008)

I usually use Firefox. I occasionally use Konqueror if I want to open a program straight from the browser.


----------



## Adrimor (Sep 4, 2008)

Firefox
IE7
Epiphany
Opera
Konqueror

...in that order. I want to try Google Chrome, but I'm still worried about the security hole I heard about. Has it been fixed yet, perchance?


----------



## Pi (Sep 4, 2008)

elinks 0.11.3

actually firefox+vimperator, really


----------



## net-cat (Sep 4, 2008)

Firefox, generally.

Sometimes Opera or IE. (ies4linux lol)


----------



## Runefox (Sep 4, 2008)

Firefox exclusively, all others for site testing purposes. Chrome looks good, but won't replace Firefox overall due to Firefox's extensibility.

I pity IE users' PCs.


----------



## X (Sep 4, 2008)

main: firefox 3

backup: internet explorer 8 beta.(like 4 times faster than ie 7!)


----------



## CyberFoxx (Sep 4, 2008)

I had to pick Other, I actively switch between three browsers.
Firefox: Used for "main" browsing.
Konqueror: Used for "quick" browsing.
elinks: Used for quickly finding out just WTF is going on with my servers...


----------



## Grimfang (Sep 4, 2008)

About all of your posts here make me wish I had gone with the multiple selection option.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 4, 2008)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> Internet Explorer.  Yep.


you make my life miserable



Pi said:


> elinks 0.8.3


elinks 0.11.3 motherfucker

<3 elinks, I seriously do use it as primary backup


----------



## timfiredog (Sep 4, 2008)

other browsers still exsist? I thought that Firefox had chewed them all up.


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Sep 4, 2008)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> Internet Explorer.  Yep.


You suck. :<



timfiredog said:


> other browsers still exsist? I thought that Firefox had chewed them all up.



That makes sense when IE still has 72% market share.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 4, 2008)

Firefox, Opera, and Konqueror for everyday use, Lynx and Elinks as backups, and everything I can find for testing.


----------



## timfiredog (Sep 4, 2008)

now why is that? Because almost every computer comes with it pre-installed and most average consumers aren't aware that there are other options (not being a smartArse, this is a question)?


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Sep 4, 2008)

timfiredog said:


> now why is that? Because almost every computer comes with it pre-installed and most average consumers aren't aware that there are other options (not being a smartArse, this is a question)?


It doesn't matter. They STILL have majority market share. And, it still means that they have the upper-hand compared to Firefox. Why do so many people use Norton or McAffee? Why do so many people use MSN Messanger? Because it is preinstalled. Otherwise, nobody would use their shitty software.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Sep 4, 2008)

Eevee said:


> you make my life miserable





TheGreatCrusader said:


> You suck. :<



I knew someone would notice.    It's what I'm most familiar with.

Well, my backup is FireFox3.  >.-.>


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 4, 2008)

TheGreatCrusader said:


> Why do so many people use Norton or McAffee? Why do so many people use MSN Messanger? Because it is preinstalled. Otherwise, nobody would use their shitty software.



You have no idea what a wake-up call it is for customers when I tell them that the bloat of their Norton or McAfee crapware was the cause of whatever ailment they brought their PCs to me to fix.  Nine times out of ten, it's long since expired, having not been updated since the PC was bought.

But this is drifting OT.

The only webmasters whose lives aren't made miserable by Internet Explorer either don't care how broken it renders their Web sites or are too clueless to design sites for anything but.


----------



## Pronema (Sep 4, 2008)

It looks like Firefox is crushing the competition in the polls!  Yay!  Firefox for me.


----------



## Hollow-Dragon (Sep 5, 2008)

internet explorer


----------



## Bryantacious (Sep 5, 2008)

anyone use Maxthon before? I run it at school off my flash drive so I can access all my favorites/plugins and I can keep my browsing history secure

haha how about HeatSeek?? xD


----------



## An Theris (Sep 5, 2008)

primarily Opera,
though I also use Firefox for sites that don't work well with Opera, and the firefox-based Flock for news / RSS Feeds

Chrome looks very sweet and is working really fast, but I hardly use it yet...


----------



## Wait Wait (Sep 5, 2008)

i currently use safari because it is hella great

i will be looking into the mac version of chrome, though


----------



## Eevee (Sep 5, 2008)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> I knew someone would notice.    It's what I'm most familiar with.


familiarity is hardly a huge issue here.  IE doesn't really _do_ a whole lot, and what it does do is all standard browser stuff that is going to be more or less the same in whatever else you care to try.



Shark_the_raptor said:


> Well, my backup is FireFox3.  >.-.>


why is it only your backup  



Hollow-Dragon said:


> internet explorer


ok well please stop, it frequently takes web developers literally twice as long to do anything because they have to keep fixing it for IE



Bryantacious said:


> anyone use Maxthon before?


no, it's just a crappy wrapper around IE



Bryantacious said:


> I run it at school off my flash drive so I can access all my favorites/plugins and I can keep my browsing history secure


http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable


----------



## AxlePerri (Sep 5, 2008)

Internet Explorer or Firefox - the one that opens first in the morning


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 5, 2008)

Bryantacious said:


> haha how about HeatSeek?? xD



That's nice, and I like the idea, but HeatSeek is an Internet Explorer wrapper.

Yes, _that_ Internet Explorer.  Ew.


----------



## Draco_2k (Sep 5, 2008)

Firefox. Second version right now, since properly switching to third one is a pain in the neck.

Don't see anything out there to lure me away from it except Google's new effort, for various reasons, but it looks rather gimped compared to FF anyway.


----------



## Rhainor (Sep 5, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Firefox. Second version right now, since properly switching to third one is a pain in the neck.


How so?  Open Firefox, click Help > "Check for udpates..." > "Install".



half-witted fur said:


> backup: internet explorer 8 beta.(like 4 times faster than ie 7!)


...And it uses more system resources than _Windows XP itself!_


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 5, 2008)

Rhainor said:


> How so?  Open Firefox, click Help > "Check for udpates..." > "Install".



Firefox's "Check for updates" feature never checked for major or minor version upgrades, only updates for the current version.  (I just verified that Firefox 2.0 is not an exception on my office's only Windows system.)


----------



## Rhainor (Sep 5, 2008)

ArielMT said:


> Firefox's "Check for updates" feature never checked for major or minor version upgrades, only updates for the current version.  (I just verified that Firefox 2.0 is not an exception on my office's only Windows system.)


I could've sworn my Firefox 2 installation found Fx 3 when I checked for updates after it came out.

Regardless, if you DL the Fx 3 installer, it should automatically install to the same location as an existing Fx installation, and carry over all extensions, settings, 'n such.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 5, 2008)

Rhainor said:


> I could've sworn my Firefox 2 installation found Fx 3 when I checked for updates after it came out.


If you're using Unix or Linux and Firefox was upgraded to 3.0, then it almost certainly was done by your distribution's Firefox package maintainer instead of Mozilla.


Rhainor said:


> Regardless, if you DL the Fx 3 installer, it should automatically install to the same location as an existing Fx installation, and carry over all extensions, settings, 'n such.


IIRC, yes, you're right.

The first thing Firefox 3 will do is check to make sure your Firefox 2 themes and extensions are compatible and disable those that aren't.


----------



## Draco_2k (Sep 5, 2008)

Rhainor said:


> How so?  Open Firefox, click Help > "Check for udpates..." > "Install".


Not quite. Well, you can do it like that, but ideally you have to uninstall previous version (backup all favourites and search history), fiddle with RegEdit, install new version, then tweak it to most desirable settings, then restore your bookmarks.

The Easy mode works too, but it leaves a few holes open in security and performance departments, and apparently disables some features I don't even know about.


----------



## karoug (Sep 5, 2008)

I use FireFox except on sites that don't work right unless I use MSIE; i.e. NetFlix instant video, ASUS' support site, etc.

I like FireFox's text box spell checker in particular.


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Sep 5, 2008)

ArielMT said:


> Firefox's "Check for updates" feature never checked for major or minor version upgrades, only updates for the current version.  (I just verified that Firefox 2.0 is not an exception on my office's only Windows system.)


Still, just install over 2.0 with 3.0.

It isn't hard.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 5, 2008)

ArielMT said:


> Firefox's "Check for updates" feature never checked for major or minor version upgrades, only updates for the current version.  (I just verified that Firefox 2.0 is not an exception on my office's only Windows system.)


Major new releases are not immediately pushed to the updater.  Still, 3.0 should be in the release channel by now; it should definitely be offered.

There's no harm in uninstalling 2 and then installing 3, though.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 5, 2008)

TheGreatCrusader said:


> Still, just install over 2.0 with 3.0.
> 
> It isn't hard.


No, it isn't, and it's awful hard to forget how with a URL like GetFirefox.com.  I'm not complaining, nor did I mean to appear that way.


Eevee said:


> Major new releases are not immediately pushed to the updater.  Still, 3.0 should be in the release channel by now; it should definitely be offered.


I don't know why it isn't, but I've never seen 1.5 or 2.0 offered that way either, on either our office's Windows PC or any of our customers' Windows PCs.


Eevee said:


> There's no harm in uninstalling 2 and then installing 3, though.


That works in addition to what TGC and Rhainor suggested, to which I agreed.  Again, I'm neither complaining nor meaning to come across that way.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 5, 2008)

What the hell is Camino?

Also, I prefer Opera for most things.  Firefox I use only when necessity dictates.  I've wondered what Safari is like (am I imagining things or is it available for Win/Linux?).


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 5, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> What the hell is Camino?


Camino is a Web browser for Mac OS based on the Gecko rendering engine, the same engine Netscape 6+, Firefox, and Seamonkey use.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camino
Homepage: http://caminobrowser.org/


Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Also, I prefer Opera for most things.  Firefox I use only when necessity dictates.  I've wondered what Safari is like (am I imagining things or is it available for Win/Linux?).


Safari is available only for Mac OS and Windows, not Linux.

(I probably should try it out, see if it crashes Wine.)


----------



## kis_kisaryu (Sep 5, 2008)

I'm using firefox. I like the browser X3


----------



## hitokage (Sep 5, 2008)

Firefox 2 will find Firefox 3 as an update on Windows (and other platforms) - this is something new they did this time around. It should have started asking about it by now to update to Firefox 3.0.1 from 2.x unless you have automatically check for updates turned off. If it hasn't yet asked, try having it manually check for updates. Otherwise I don't know - either updating isn't working properly or you already updated and didn't realize it.


----------



## X (Sep 5, 2008)

Rhainor said:


> ...And it uses more system resources than _Windows XP itself!_



wait, seriously? i didn't notice.


----------



## hitokage (Sep 5, 2008)

Here's a link on ZDNet that mentions Firefox 2.x updating to 3.0.1.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 5, 2008)

hitokage said:


> Here's a link on ZDNet that mentions Firefox 2.x updating to 3.0.1.


This is news to me, and welcome news at that.  Thank you.


----------



## Rhainor (Sep 5, 2008)

half-witted fur said:


> wait, seriously? i didn't notice.


Yeah.  An article on ComputerWorld said:


> By the end of the test, IE8 Beta 2 had grabbed 380MB of memory on the 2GB-equipped system running Windows Vista, while IE7 consumed 250GB and Firefox 3.0.1, the most-recent version of the open-source browser, had taken 159MB. When the same tests were run under Windows XP, each browser consumed slightly less memory than it did with Vista; IE8 Beta 2, however, continued to lead the competition by wide margins.
> 
> "When Windows XP starts, the entire OS takes 130 to 150MB," said Barth. "Suddenly you're looking at a memory footprint for IE that's bigger than Microsoft's earlier operating system. IE8 is fatter than XP."


Source:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9113938


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 5, 2008)

I use IE for forums, but Firefox for ircs (for some reason, IE can't load ircs, as there is some problem with Java unable to load the Runtime Enviroment)


----------



## Rhainor (Sep 5, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> I use IE for forums, but Firefox for ircs (for some reason, IE can't load ircs, as there is some problem with Java unable to load the Runtime Enviroment)


You might try reinstalling Java, from www.java.com.  That might fix it.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 5, 2008)

Rhainor said:


> You might try reinstalling Java, from www.java.com.  That might fix it.



I did, but it doesn't seem to help for some odd reason. (Says "Java Plug-in Fatal Error" and underneath "Java Runtime Environment cannot be loaded")


----------



## Rhainor (Sep 5, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> I did, but it doesn't seem to help for some odd reason. (Says "Java Plug-in Fatal Error" and underneath "Java Runtime Environment cannot be loaded")


That is...odd.  Dunno.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 5, 2008)

ArielMT said:


> Safari is available only for Mac OS and Windows, not Linux.
> 
> (I probably should try it out, see if it crashes Wine.)


I believe it starts up and browses, at the very least.  Didn't try much else.



TyVulpine said:


> I use IE for forums, but Firefox for ircs (for some reason, IE can't load ircs, as there is some problem with Java unable to load the Runtime Enviroment)


Why are you using Java for IRC..?


And I swear to god I am just going to rig Ferrox to set fire to you if you use IE goddammit  >:(


----------



## Pi (Sep 5, 2008)

Eevee said:


> Why are you using Java for IRC..?



Because ty is a complete fucking total goddamn moron.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 6, 2008)

Pi said:


> Because ty is a complete fucking total goddamn moron.



That was totally unnecessary, Pi. We were having a nice polite conversation, and you had to make that statement.


----------



## Dyluck (Sep 6, 2008)

Firefucks.

I'll use IE for certain forms which are only designed to run in that browser.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 6, 2008)

Eevee said:


> I believe it starts up and browses, at the very least.  Didn't try much else.
> 
> 
> Why are you using Java for IRC..?
> ...



At least one irc I go to uses Java.
And I just find IE easier to use than Firefox. Really, Eevee, making threats on the internet doesn't exactly inspire fear. *shrugs* If people want to use IE, that's their right, correct? And no, that doesn't make them wrong or make them an idiot. It's all personal opinion.


(...oh please don't tell me that when I flame, I get in trouble but when Pi flames the Mods look the other way <.<)


----------



## Eevee (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> At least one irc I go to uses Java.


??????????????????????????

It doesn't "use" Java.  If it's IRC, you can use an IRC client to connect to it, and an IRC client is guaranteed to work far better than some Java crap.



TyVulpine said:


> And I just find IE easier to use than Firefox.


What is easier for you to do in IE than in Firefox?



TyVulpine said:


> Really, Eevee, making threats on the internet doesn't exactly inspire fear.


Really.



TyVulpine said:


> *shrugs* If people want to use IE, that's their right, correct? And no, that doesn't make them wrong or make them an idiot. It's all personal opinion.


Thanks for waving me off with this wishy-washy lolopinion crap, but people who use IE are very directly and practically a *pain in my ass* and I reserve all right to bitch about them as much as I want.



TyVulpine said:


> (...oh please don't tell me that when I flame, I get in trouble but when Pi flames the Mods look the other way <.<)


Sleeping with the staff makes all the difference!


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

Eevee said:


> ??????????????????????????
> 
> It doesn't "use" Java.  If it's IRC, you can use an IRC client to connect to it, and an IRC client is guaranteed to work far better than some Java crap.
> 
> ...



A pain in your ass, even though you've never met them, nor does their using IE affect you in any way? Hmmmm
And as to why I prefer IE, I just find the picture looks better on IE than FF. And navigating is easier on IE than FF. Don't ask me why, I just find it like that.
The certain irc uses applet, a part of Java for whatever reason and the Java logo appears whenever I go to log in on it.
Pi really should stop sleeping with Dragoneer....(J/k Dragoneer!)


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Sep 7, 2008)

Eevee said:


> ??????????????????????????
> 
> It doesn't "use" Java. If it's IRC, you can use an IRC client to connect to it, and an IRC client is guaranteed to work far better than some Java crap.


 
What's wrong with Java? I'm taking a computer class for it. Is it really as bad as you seem to be implying?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

Adelio Altomar said:


> What's wrong with Java? I'm taking a computer class for it. Is it really as bad as you seem to be implying?



Eevee is one of those people that think anyone that uses something s/he doesn't like is automatically wrong. (Just my opinion)


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Sep 7, 2008)

Microsoft firefox XD Jk

IE7.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> A pain in your ass, even though you've never met them, nor does their using IE affect you in any way? Hmmmm


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm *yes* actually, because I am a Web developer and it takes twice as long to get anything working in IE because half of it is broken in undocumented ways and the other half eschews the spec in favor of some less-functional thing Microsoft made up.



TyVulpine said:


> And as to why I prefer IE, I just find the picture looks better on IE than FF.


You just said you found IE easier to use.  What is "the picture"?



TyVulpine said:


> The certain irc uses applet, a part of Java for whatever reason and the Java logo appears whenever I go to log in on it.


You _do not need to use a Java applet for IRC_.  It may be provided in the name of convenience, but it is never required.



Adelio Altomar said:


> What's wrong with Java? I'm taking a computer class for it. Is it really as bad as you seem to be implying?


I was talking about Java _IRC applets_, which almost universally suck.  They're small (or they wouldn't be very good applets) so they're underfeatured, they very rarely save settings, they rarely support DCC, they often lack decent window management (and in extreme cases only support one channel at a time), they cannot notify you on messages, they are usually not very configurable, etc.

Java _the language_ also sucks but that's incidental.  8)  It makes you do far too much work for little benefit (which, now that I think about it, is a problem with all corporate-designed languages), and the resulting apps are often slow and hog memory in my experience.  I rarely see any desktop apps written in Java, and Java applets are almost as rare now.  I don't know why it's taught as a first language; Python is far better suited for that in pretty much every way.



TyVulpine said:


> Eevee is one of those people that think anyone that uses something s/he doesn't like is automatically wrong.


I don't know when I have ever given this impression.  I'm one of those people who puts a lot of thought into what he likes and dislikes and makes suggestions when he thinks they are genuinely useful.  There is plenty of software I use that I wouldn't recommend to most people, and plenty of software I don't use that I _would_ recommend.

I advise people to use real IRC clients disconnected from a browser or an IM client for the stability and the power.  I advise people not use IE both because it eases the burden on Web developers and because every other browser gives an honestly better user experience and has a far better track record as far as improvements go.  I advise people avoid Java and PHP because the languages have fundamental problems that make them unsuited for most uses.  Naturally, all the tools I dislike are still _functional_ in some manner, and will still let people get work done, but I form opinions on software based on what is _better_ at getting work done.  A screwdriver is still a better tool for what it does than the tip of a knife, even if the latter can still technically do what you want.

I just get annoyed when people casually shrug off my thought and experience because I "just think they're automatically wrong".  8)


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

Eevee said:


> I just get annoyed when people casually shrug off my thought and experience because I "just think they're automatically wrong".  8)



Maybe if you were a bit more polite, people would be more willing to listen. Berating and lashing at people for their choices (that doesn't affect you physically) is a turnoff, and just makes people less likely to listen to you.


----------



## Dyluck (Sep 7, 2008)

lol internet


----------



## Wait Wait (Sep 7, 2008)

*ahahahahaahahahah*


----------



## Eevee (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Maybe if you were a bit more polite, people would be more willing to listen. Berating and lashing at people for their choices is a turnoff, and just makes people less likely to listen to you.


I've asked you several times what issues you have with Firefox -- so I can attempt to resolve them  :V



TyVulpine said:


> that doesn't affect you physically


In some cases -- like this one! -- *yes, they do*.  Wasting weeks or months of my time is a physical effect.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

I suppose I _could_ care what you two think (David and Wait), but it ain't worth my time or energy.


----------



## Wait Wait (Sep 7, 2008)

keep on shinin' away, you crazy, crazy diamond


----------



## Hollow-Dragon (Sep 7, 2008)

Eevee said:


> ok well please stop, it frequently takes web developers literally twice as long to do anything because they have to keep fixing it for IE


 
Oh well


----------



## Wait Wait (Sep 7, 2008)

Hollow-Dragon said:


> Oh well



you were looking at the thread for like 10 minutes and this is what i get?

bad show


----------



## Eevee (Sep 7, 2008)

Hollow-Dragon said:


> Oh well


people wonder why I am filled with e-rage

oh well


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

Eevee said:


> people wonder why I am filled with e-rage
> 
> oh well



Methinks someone should take a long vacation.


----------



## Wait Wait (Sep 7, 2008)

oh ty
sometimes i think you're just an elaborate troll


----------



## verix (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Methinks someone should take a long vacation.


you've been registered for a shorter amount of time than Eevee and yet you have more posts than him

_and you are suggesting he is the one that takes a vacation_


----------



## Jarz (Sep 7, 2008)

firefox but i dont really like the last version =S


----------



## Eevee (Sep 7, 2008)

nobody noticed I guess but I _just came back_ from a long vacation  >:V

unfortunately the internet did not change at all in my absence so here we are



edit:


Jarz said:


> firefox but i dont really like the last version =S


what about it?


----------



## mctanuki (Sep 7, 2008)

I use FF3 for everything but Netflix's instant viewing, which requires IE (or else I never would have installed IE in the first place), but if Chrome lives up to the hype, I may be tempted to switch over. So far, it won't even recognize "up" commands from my scrollbar.


----------



## Grimfang (Sep 7, 2008)

Funny thing about the world is so many people have different preferences, even if they don't make sense to you. If everyone was able to break down which browser is the most efficient in speed and handling, then I think everyone would have the same primary browser.

But, in a perfect world, my flame-filled polls would go extinct. I wish they weren't so flamey


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

Wait Wait said:


> oh ty
> sometimes i think you're just an elaborate troll



No, because *I* don't go around bashing other people's opinions and views when they don't agree with mine. I don't go around saying "You're wrong because I say so!" Unlike trolls, I try to see things from other people's viewpoints.



verix said:


> you've been registered for a shorter amount of time than Eevee and yet you have more posts than him
> 
> _and you are suggesting he is the one that takes a vacation_



The Mods are busy enough with the Moderating to be able to post at will. Besides, at least I ain't like Rilvor with over 10,000 posts...


----------



## Eevee (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> No, because *I* don't go around bashing other people's opinions and views when they don't agree with mine. I don't go around saying "You're wrong because I say so!" Unlike trolls, I try to see things from other people's viewpoints.


Yes, that last sentence sure speaks volumes about your humility.



TyVulpine said:


> The Mods are busy enough with the Moderating to be able to post at will. Besides, at least I ain't like Rilvor with over 10,000 posts...


I don't have mod powers.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

Eevee said:


> Yes, that last sentence sure speaks volumes about your humility.
> 
> 
> I don't have mod powers.



I stand corrected, but still, being staff means being too busy to post at will. Plus we do have lives off the computer. (2,816 posts in 18 months averages out to 156.4 posts a month or 5.2 posts a day. Not really a lot when you think about it.)


----------



## Draco_2k (Sep 7, 2008)

I'm impressed. This hasn't even remotely touched religion in any face or form, but I keep seeing the same... *SAME* arguments used over a fucking web browser. Where's the fucking imagination.

Though maybe it's an illusion created by mere presence of Ty here.


----------



## Cmdr-A (Sep 7, 2008)

Firefox. Just like how its set up compared to IE, from what i saw of using newer versions up on school pc's at college....and for some reason can't get the other versions to upgrade anyway from....what version of IE is on my pc? *goes to check*Hah. Version 6.0 xD not even tabbing features or new window with middle click. :X


----------



## Bryantacious (Sep 7, 2008)

Grimfang said:


> Funny thing about the world is so many people have different preferences, even if they don't make sense to you. If everyone was able to break down which browser is the most efficient in speed and handling, then I think everyone would have the same primary browser.
> 
> But, in a perfect world, my flame-filled polls would go extinct. I wish they weren't so flamey



I have a feeling _some _people only come here for this reason o__o


----------



## drewdle (Sep 7, 2008)

I use Safari and Firefox. Primarily Safari, because it loads faster and seems more responsive than Firefox, but some sites I can't get Safari to work on (like my work VPN login, etc). When I was on Windows, it was Firefox all the way. 

I won't touch Chrome. Two reasons: first, we didn't need another alternative. Firefox is awesome, and there are others if that doesn't suit your taste. Second, like most of Google's wares, it's designed around making monies. The basis for Chrome development was to get Google searches to load as quickly as possible to that they could serve up potentially more text-based ads. Yes, all of Google's wares are "free". But everything you do with them is subjected to monitoring to decipher how to advertise to you and your demographic. 

Don't be evil?


----------



## Pi (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> I don't go around saying "You're wrong because I say so!"



uh you do this all the time except you say it as "you're wrong because my opinion is unfalsifiable"


----------



## RainsongGryphon (Sep 7, 2008)

Firefox, hands down.  And IE, grudgingly, but thats just to see how horribly mangled a page worth of css can get without the proper workarounds. >.>

Might try Chrome when its a bit more established (known to be safe, etc.) but for now Firefox does everything I need it to do.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

Pi said:


> uh you do this all the time except you say it as "you're wrong because my opinion is unfalsifiable"



Piss off, and quit trying to flamebait me.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 7, 2008)

drewdle said:


> I won't touch Chrome. Two reasons: first, we didn't need another alternative. Firefox is awesome, and there are others if that doesn't suit your taste.


competition is always good



drewdle said:


> Second, like most of Google's wares, it's designed around making monies.


completely unlike IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera...


----------



## mctanuki (Sep 7, 2008)

drewdle said:


> I use Safari and Firefox. Primarily Safari, because it loads faster and seems more responsive than Firefox, but some sites I can't get Safari to work on (like my work VPN login, etc). When I was on Windows, it was Firefox all the way.
> 
> I won't touch Chrome. Two reasons: first, we didn't need another alternative. Firefox is awesome, and there are others if that doesn't suit your taste. Second, like most of Google's wares, it's designed around making monies. The basis for Chrome development was to get Google searches to load as quickly as possible to that they could serve up potentially more text-based ads. Yes, all of Google's wares are "free". But everything you do with them is subjected to monitoring to decipher how to advertise to you and your demographic.
> 
> Don't be evil?



Believe it or not, some people don't see better-targeted advertising as evil. I often find myself wishing all those ads I see were actually for things I would want to buy.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 7, 2008)

Adelio Altomar said:


> What's wrong with Java? I'm taking a computer class for it. Is it really as bad as you seem to be implying?



In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with Java.  The problem with what was discussed is the kind of application Java was being used for.

Ty uses a Java-based IRC client, which is confined to his Web browser and the Web site the client loads from, and which from his descriptions seems to be using a broken or misconfigured JRE installation, instead of an IRC client native to his operating system.



TyVulpine said:


> Maybe if you were a bit more polite, people would be more willing to listen. Berating and lashing at people for their choices (that doesn't affect you physically) is a turnoff, and just makes people less likely to listen to you.



Eevee was initially about as polite as an active Web developer can get.

And your choice of Web browser _does_ affect him physically.  It impacts him _directly_.  It impacts the Web development staff behind every single website you go to.  You seem to not be understanding the scope of the impact your choice has.

My qualifications for what follows: I design Web sites, both personally and professionally, though I admit I'm no longer as active a Web developer as others here.  I designed and deployed a few Web sites for the various US Navy commands I was assigned to during my service, though they've all since gone through the same sort of redesign phases every military Web site goes through.  Because they were for the use of the general public, I put extra focus and gained extra training on standards compliance, content accessability, and browser compatibility.  I'm presently at worst a bit rusty.

If not for Microsoft Internet Explorer (and IE7 is no exception), the cost of designing and developing a Web site would be _less than half_ of what it is.  The cost of maintaining a Web site and fixing bugs in the Web sites you use would be greatly reduced.  Why?  Because the people responsible for the upkeep of the sites you use wouldn't have to fix everything twice: once for everything out there that follows the standards well enough, and again for Internet Explorer alone, along with prayers that each fix for Internet Explorer won't re-break everything else.

This is our _time_, and time is money.  This is money out of our pockets, if we're doing this solo.  This is money out of our employers' and/or clients' pockets, if we're doing this professionally.  This is time and money all wasted because Microsoft don't want Internet Explorer to abide by widely-adopted open standards.

As a bit of historical trivia demonstrating this, one reason among countless, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5 got completely wrong its implementation of XML namespaces, favoring an unfinished draft over a years-old standard, despite Microsoft themselves pushing the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to adopt the very XML namespace standards IE5.5 borks more than two years before IE5.5 was released.

A more modern example: Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 still got the CSS box model wrong, despite the standard being at least twelve years old now.  Internet Explorer 7 finally fixed that, but only on pages IE7 renders in strict mode, and properly formatted and declared XHTML 1.1 encapsulated in proper XML as recommended by the W3C still isn't enough to force IE7 into strict mode without a grotesque hack.

Your choice of Web browser _does_ affect us.  Your choice to use Microsoft Internet Explorer affects us more than any other Web browser in existence.  That's why Web developers universally single out Microsoft Internet Explorer as a bane, the one thing cursing the entire World Wide Web.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

ArielMT said:


> In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with Java.  The problem with what was discussed is the kind of application Java was being used for.
> 
> Ty uses a Java-based IRC client, which is confined to his Web browser and the Web site the client loads from, and which from his descriptions seems to be using a broken or misconfigured JRE installation, instead of an IRC client native to his operating system.
> 
> ...



Then don't blame ME, blame M$ for creating IE in the first place.


----------



## Adrimor (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Then don't blame ME, blame M$ for creating IE in the first place.



While we're at it, let's blame DUI fatalities on farmers, for growing whatever crops are used to make whiskey.

Or rapes on God, for giving those guys penises and testosterone.

These are all equally valid examples of that reasoning. You choose to use IE, just as drunks choose to drive and rapists choose to do their thing. Granted, the acts I mentioned are much more heinous, but that's why I chose them--to further illustrate the massive logical fallacy of that statement.

Save some face, man--give it up. I know functionally nil about website design, but even I know IE's been crapping up the Internet.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

AdriNoMa said:


> While we're at it, let's blame DUI fatalities on farmers, for growing whatever crops are used to make whiskey.
> 
> Or rapes on God, for giving those guys penises and testosterone.
> 
> ...



Yes I use IE, BUT it is my choice, and people have different likes and dislikes. If I like IE, tough. IE, Safari, Opera, Firefox are all CHOICES of browers that people can use. So it doesn't make any one "right" and the rest "wrong". It's all personal preference. So don't go preaching that I "must" use browser X and "not" browser Y.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Then don't blame ME, blame M$ for creating IE in the first place.


Actually, Spyglass made it.  Aye, I blame Microsoft, but for the usual abuse of their monopolies.  Only one short informational sentence in all that was aimed at you personally.  The rest was aimed broadly at Internet Explorer users who don't understand the burden Internet Explorer places on the Web.


----------



## mctanuki (Sep 7, 2008)

Well, it seems it would be rather simple to just stop adjusting sites for IE, forcing people to switch to a good browser if they want to use your services.


----------



## Grimfang (Sep 7, 2008)

mctanuki said:


> Well, it seems it would be rather simple to just stop adjusting sites for IE, forcing people to switch to a good browser if they want to use your services.



That'd be a horrible way to go about running a site though. Some sites will say which browser they require, but it's usually IE as far as I've seen. I could understand that since more people still use IE, but it appears the day IE officially falls to second place is within sight, unless I missed it and that was last weekend.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

Grimfang said:


> That'd be a horrible way to go about running a site though. Some sites will say which browser they require, but it's usually IE as far as I've seen. I could understand that since more people still use IE, but it appears the day IE officially falls to second place is within sight, unless I missed it and that was last weekend.



Windows (and IE) are on something like 90% of the world's computers, and Firefox on only like 30% of computers, (last I heard) so it'll be a while still.


----------



## Draco_2k (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Windows (and IE) are on something like *90% of the world's computers*, and Firefox on only like *30% of computers*, (last I heard) so it'll be a while still.


Um... Doesn't anything about this worry you?..


----------



## AxlePerri (Sep 7, 2008)

Grimfang said:


> If everyone was able to break down which browser is the most efficient in speed and handling, then I think everyone would have the same primary browser.



You know I don't think so. A lot of people do not care (everybody I know and me ), they will use what is already on computer for them (Internet Explorer) and not bother .

It is lost cause to try get people to change browser out of pity for programmers or 'greater good' of computing. Anti-Microsoft propaganda will only go so far. I fall for it in the beginning but I do not care any more. You need to offer important tangible incentive to individuals, and that is job of programmer/vendor (maybe like mctanuki posted). This is market not nerdtopia .


----------



## Grimfang (Sep 7, 2008)

AxlePerri said:


> You know I don't think so. A lot of people do not care (everybody I know and me ), they will use what is already on computer for them (Internet Explorer) and not bother .
> 
> It is lost cause to try get people to change browser out of pity for programmers or 'greater good' of computing. Anti-Microsoft propaganda will only go so far. I fall for it in the beginning but I do not care any more. You need to offer important tangible incentive to individuals, and that is job of programmer/vendor (maybe like mctanuki posted). This is market not nerdtopia .



lol xD

Good point.

So, it may be better for me to word it: If everyone lived in nerdtopia and was able to break down which browser is the most efficient in speed and handling, then I think everyone would have the same primary browser.

x)


----------



## Pi (Sep 7, 2008)

AxlePerri said:


> You know I don't think so. A lot of people do not care (everybody I know and me ), they will use what is already on computer for them (Internet Explorer) and not bother .



A lot of people are idiots.



> It is lost cause to try get people to change browser out of pity for programmers or 'greater good' of computing. Anti-Microsoft propaganda



Where was there 'propaganda' in any of this? There was a well-reasoned post about why IE sucks to deal with. That's not propaganda.


----------



## AxlePerri (Sep 7, 2008)

Grimfang said:


> lol xD
> 
> Good point.
> 
> ...



Sounds better to me 



			
				Pi said:
			
		

> A lot of people are idiots.



But this 'idiots' are what give programmers salary.



			
				Pi said:
			
		

> Where was there 'propaganda' in any of this? There was a well-reasoned post about why IE sucks to deal with. That's not propaganda.



I am not talk about this thread but in general. A lot of people would not even understand reasons that were posted here, and a lot are not obvious problem and they might not ever notice them. To users it is more likely to come down to anti-Microsoft propaganda and it works to a degree. It is obvious that Firefox popularity comes from this very much. The few people at office that use Firefox could not give me reason why, other than, "Because it's not Microsoft!"


----------



## Ziba the lioness (Sep 7, 2008)

Firefox


----------



## Draco_2k (Sep 7, 2008)

AxlePerri said:


> But this 'idiots' are what give programmers salary.


How do you imagine that working. :?



AxlePerri said:


> The few people at office that use Firefox could not give me reason why, other than, "Because it's not Microsoft!"


"It's not Microsoft" is the first decisive reason to even consider using anything for anyone even remotely familiar with computers.

FYI

Kinda like what you'd expect from an Internet forum concerning digital electronics and computer software.


----------



## AxlePerri (Sep 7, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> How do you imagine that working. :?



I hope this is poor sarcasm. :?



Draco_2k said:


> "It's not Microsoft" is the first decisive reason to even consider using anything for anyone even remotely familiar with computers.



Obviously it is common saying , but only some people will put it into practice so it works for Firefox and (I did not exclude) others but only to a degree. Everybody says it as joke but most will still use Windows, Word, Internet Explorer, even if they have alternatives. It is not tangible incentive in itself so it will only go so far. But it still does work for some people (activists?).


----------



## Draco_2k (Sep 7, 2008)

AxlePerri said:


> I hope this is poor sarcasm. :?


No. Explain.



AxlePerri said:


> Obviously it is common saying , but only some people will put it into practice so it works for Firefox and (I did not exclude) others but only to a degree. Everybody says it as joke but most will still use Windows, Word, Internet Explorer, even if they have alternatives. It is not tangible incentive in itself so it will only go so far. But it still does work for some people (activists?).


Well, of course. Is there anything else you're trying to say?..

oh and, technically, that only works for Windows. There is no real alternative to Windows for most users, but there are loads of (often vital) alternatives to, say, Office or IE, and loads of people use them, especially businesses and specialised home computers (businesses may also employ Linux for workstations if they can afford good tech support, but whatever).

Oh, and, of course there's incentive to use Firefox of OpenOffice - people just don't bother because - tada - most don't even know about it. Those who actually work with computers, however, usually do.


----------



## Bryantacious (Sep 7, 2008)

AxlePerri said:


> I hope this is poor sarcasm. :?
> 
> ditto


----------



## Bryantacious (Sep 7, 2008)

AxlePerri said:


> I hope this is poor sarcasm. :?



i second this notion


----------



## mctanuki (Sep 7, 2008)

I just checked the stats, and it seems IE is used by 35.3% of my site's users. Far too many, in my opinion. Time to make it even less IE-friendly, and maybe put in links to Firefox and Chrome.

Hunh. Looks like our second-highest readership is from China...maybe I should translate everything into Chinese^_~


----------



## Eevee (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Then don't blame ME, blame M$ for creating IE in the first place.


I do, but it is generally more productive to ask people to stop using IE than to ask Microsoft to..  I don't know, what could they even do?



TyVulpine said:


> Yes I use IE, BUT it is my choice, and people have different likes and dislikes. If I like IE, tough. IE, Safari, Opera, Firefox are all CHOICES of browers that people can use.


Yes, except one of those makes *life miserable* for the people who _create_ this Web you're browsing, and we are asking you to go easy on us.  I asked several times what you find easier or whatever in IE than Firefox so I could help with this, and you gave inconsistent and vague answers.



TyVulpine said:


> So it doesn't make any one "right" and the rest "wrong". It's all personal preference. So don't go preaching that I "must" use browser X and "not" browser Y.


Stop with the "personal preference" mantra.  Nobody is trying to impede on your free will here or argue that it's anything _but_ a personal preference.  Nobody said you *had* to use anything or that one was wrong, either, so I don't know why you're putting these in quotes.  *Stop putting words in my mouth*.  Christ, boy, you were just the one claiming moral high ground over trolls.



mctanuki said:


> Well, it seems it would be rather simple to just stop adjusting sites for IE, forcing people to switch to a good browser if they want to use your services.


If sites don't work in IE, people blame the site.
If sites don't work in something else, people blame the browser.

This has certainly crossed my mind, though.  It will be even more tempting once IE8 is out.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

Eevee said:


> Yes, except one of those makes *life miserable* for the people who _create_ this Web you're browsing, and we are asking you to go easy on us.  I asked several times what you find easier or whatever in IE than Firefox so I could help with this, and you gave inconsistent and vague answers.



I find inputting the addys easier on IE than on FF (and doesn't have separate blocks for each possible addy like FF does as you enter the addy)and the picture quality comes up nicer on IE than FF (FF pics IMO look a little too blocky).


----------



## mctanuki (Sep 7, 2008)

Eevee said:


> If sites don't work in IE, people blame the site.
> If sites don't work in something else, people blame the browser.
> 
> This has certainly crossed my mind, though.  It will be even more tempting once IE8 is out.



Good point. Maybe a link on the side to getfirefox.com that says "If this site doesn't display properly, quit being a dumbass and get a real browser here."

...I am rather blunt about things on my websites^^


----------



## Eevee (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> I find inputting the addys easier on IE than on FF (and doesn't have separate blocks for each possible addy like FF does as you enter the addy)


...

What?  You mean URLs?  What is easier about that?  And separate blocks where what oh god 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







TyVulpine said:


> and the picture quality comes up nicer on IE than FF (FF pics IMO look a little too blocky).


Uh, images should render the same in either.  Example?


----------



## verix (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> I find inputting the addys easier on IE than on FF (and doesn't have separate blocks for each possible addy like FF does as you enter the addy)and the picture quality comes up nicer on IE than FF (FF pics IMO look a little too blocky).


what


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

FA on IE: http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t194/TyVulpine/FA_IE.jpg
FA on FF: http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t194/TyVulpine/FA_FF.jpg


----------



## verix (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> FA on IE: http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t194/TyVulpine/FA_IE.jpg
> FA on FF: http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t194/TyVulpine/FA_FF.jpg



it would probably help if they were the same page and same section so we could compare them


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

verix said:


> it would probably help if they were the same page and same section so we could compare them



Yeah, I apologize for the poor quality. Anyway, maybe it's just my screen/computer, but that's how I see it.


----------



## Pi (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> FA on IE: http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t194/TyVulpine/FA_IE.jpg
> FA on FF: http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t194/TyVulpine/FA_FF.jpg



I see no real difference between those two screenshots other than you're running two different browsers?

Also thanks for saving screenshots as .jpg that does WONDERS for image quality


----------



## Grimfang (Sep 7, 2008)

I read an amusing article recently, which was titled something along the lines of "Firefox developers forced to drag IE with the internet".. something like that.

It went on about developers having to create plug-ins and IE friendly apps that Microsoft has lagged on/neglected to update in order to prevent stunting the advancement of the interwebs. Interesting to see open-source developers working to patch up the competition to allow the web to keep growing, haha.


----------



## verix (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Yeah, I apologize for the poor quality. Anyway, maybe it's just my screen/computer, but that's how I see it.



did you even read what I wrote


----------



## Eevee (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> FA on IE: http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t194/TyVulpine/FA_IE.jpg
> FA on FF: http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t194/TyVulpine/FA_FF.jpg


I don't see a problem?  The Fx screenshot barely has any images besides the pawprints (which look fine?), though.  And they both look like they've been saved at 20% JPEG quality.



NORTON PHISHING PROTECTION ON (you do know both IE7 and Fx3 have phishing protection built in, right)


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

Eevee said:


> I don't see a problem?  The Fx screenshot barely has any images besides the pawprints (which look fine?), though.  And they both look like they've been saved at 20% JPEG quality.
> 
> 
> 
> NORTON PHISHING PROTECTION ON (you do know both IE7 and Fx3 have phishing protection built in, right)



Well, I've just never bothered to turn it off.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 7, 2008)

Great.  Can you actually explain the problem you're having now?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

Eevee said:


> Great.  Can you actually explain the problem you're having now?



You know, just forget I said anything. I was wrong, so I'll shut up now. >.>


----------



## Eevee (Sep 7, 2008)

You DIDN'T say anything.  You complained about image rendering and then provided two screenshots of different pages in useless quality with no explanation.  ?_?  How hard is it to take shots of the same page, save them as PNGs, and circle whatever the problem is?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 7, 2008)

Because I don't know crap about computers, okay?


----------



## Runefox (Sep 7, 2008)

Ugh, Norton, _period_. Your eyes mislead you. IE's image rendering engine is no different in capability than Firefox's. These screenshots are of two different parts of the forum, and thus aren't comparable...


----------



## Aden (Sep 7, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> FA on IE: http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t194/TyVulpine/FA_IE.jpg
> FA on FF: http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t194/TyVulpine/FA_FF.jpg



Holy toolbars, batman.


----------



## Azure (Sep 8, 2008)

Firefox get.  But I used to use Netscape Navigator.  Ah, the old days.


----------



## Hollow-Dragon (Sep 8, 2008)

Wait Wait said:


> you were looking at the thread for like 10 minutes and this is what i get?
> 
> bad show


 
Are you a stalker?



Eevee said:


> people wonder why I am filled with e-rage


 
You have my condolences


----------



## AxlePerri (Sep 8, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> No. Explain.



Okey, no I am not going to walk you through clear relationship between developer and end user (who can be employer, hint hint  ). Please connect the dots 



Draco_2k said:


> Well, of course. Is there anything else you're trying to say?..



No, I only reworded to you what I already said because I am sorry but the angle of your sarcasm was impossible to measure :|



Draco_2k said:


> oh and, technically, that only works for Windows. There is no real alternative to Windows for most users, but there are loads of (often vital) alternatives to, say, Office or IE, and loads of people use them, especially businesses and specialised home computers (businesses may also employ Linux for workstations if they can afford good tech support, but whatever).



Um, there is usable alternative to Windows for home user. "Loads of alternatives" says nothing of popularity, there is no such thing as "vital" alternative to (Microsoft) programs for common user unless you mean cost for very poor company. Microsoft Office has large dominant share of market and majority of "businesses" have Microsoft for user machines. "Loads of people" is not a meaningful share .



Draco_2k said:


> Oh, and, of course there's incentive to use Firefox of OpenOffice - people just don't bother because - tada - most don't even know about it. Those who actually work with computers, however, usually do.



You can say that to 80% of my office that have Internet Explorer and Firefox already install but still use Internet Explorer because it was default browser and they say no difference. They are told it is there to use. There is maybe three person that install OpenOffice on their computer, two are Linux people and the other is crazy activist. Being told about it or about security they do not understand is not enough. They need (tangible) incentive or force.

There is certainly people who care very much of browser wars, feature they do not need, security flaw they would not even know about, and future of internet, but they are not majority of common user today. :|


----------



## mctanuki (Sep 8, 2008)

Is there a point to using Open Office? Other than it being free, that is?


----------



## eternal_flare (Sep 8, 2008)

mctanuki said:


> Is there a point to using Open Office? Other than it being free, that is?



mm, isn't OpenOffice smaller in size?


----------



## WarMocK (Sep 8, 2008)

mctanuki said:


> Is there a point to using Open Office? Other than it being free, that is?



Full ODF support, for example. ^^

Oh, and FF, Opera and Elinks here.


----------



## Draco_2k (Sep 8, 2008)

AxlePerri said:


> Okey, no I am not going to walk you through clear relationship between developer and end user (who can be employer, hint hint  ). Please connect the dots


Can't. You seem to suggest that the end users of the website are also somehow the employers, which makes no sense whatsoever.



AxlePerri said:


> No, I only reworded to you what I already said because I am sorry but the angle of your sarcasm was impossible to measure :|


Sigh. Okay, moving on.



AxlePerri said:


> Um, there is usable alternative to Windows for home user. "Loads of alternatives" says nothing of popularity, there is no such thing as "vital" alternative to (Microsoft) programs for common user unless you mean cost for very poor company. Microsoft Office has large dominant share of market and majority of "businesses" have Microsoft for user machines. "Loads of people" is not a meaningful share .


There is no alternative to a Windows XP desktop in overall terms. There are programs that are free, and exceed Office and IE in every way possible. A lot of people use both, even if they measure in 10% to some-30% of the market share respectfully.



AxlePerri said:


> You can say that to 80% of my office that have Internet Explorer and Firefox already install but still use Internet Explorer because it was default browser and they say no difference. They are told it is there to use. There is maybe three person that install OpenOffice on their computer, two are Linux people and the other is crazy activist. Being told about it or about security they do not understand is not enough. They need (tangible) incentive or force.
> 
> There is certainly people who care very much of browser wars, feature they do not need, security flaw they would not even know about, and future of internet, but they are not majority of common user today. :|


I suggest you have this talk yourself because this software line-up is pretty much shitty, dangerous, and overall, costy. It's really quite simple - if you don't oil your wheels first, someone else in competition will.



mctanuki said:


> Is there a point to using Open Office? Other than it being free, that is?


 It's better than Office, faster, smaller, more secure, more intuitive, and has 1,000,000 more features, and supports way more formats (all old and new office formats, PDF import/export, and other unnamable things).

 Oh, and it's free.


----------



## net-cat (Sep 8, 2008)

mctanuki said:


> Is there a point to using Open Office? Other than it being free, that is?



Selling OpenOffice to the Average Joe is actually really easy.

"No, these computers don't come with Office. That costs $150 or $300, depending on if you're a student or not."
"But the computers at [big box retailer] have it for free!"
"No, they have 30/60 day trials for free, which we can also do for you. You still have to pay for it eventually, though."
[insert insinuation that we are making huge markup on software, which is false]
"Well, we could install OpenOffice for you..."
"What's that?"
"It has most of the features of MS Office and it's free. Only time there will be a problem is if you're taking complex documents back and forth between work a lot."

You'd be surprised how many people go for that.

Firefox is actually a much harder sell, since Internet Explorer is included with Windows. (Although "You can go back easily if you don't like it" with AdBlockPlus to sweeten the deal usually does it...)


----------



## Runefox (Sep 8, 2008)

Yeah, OpenOffice.org happens to be one of my favourite suites for doing anything. It's lighter, faster, and best of all, open source (meaning free as in speech and free as in beer). At work, we pre-install it on every system that we sell. Very rarely do we get a request to specifically install MS Office...


----------



## net-cat (Sep 8, 2008)

Oh, man. Can you imagine if Dell started installing it next to the 30/60 day free trials of Office?

(Microsoft would pull the plug on their cheap Windows licensing so fast...)


----------



## Pi (Sep 8, 2008)

net-cat said:


> Oh, man. Can you imagine if Dell started installing it next to the 30/60 day free trials of Office?
> 
> (Microsoft would pull the plug on their cheap Windows licensing so fast...)



That was one of the death-knells of Be. Be, Inc approached Dell, said "hey, let's dual-boot our shit and WIndows" (I'm fairly certain it was Dell, at least). Microsoft said "So much as consider it and you'll be single-booting, and it won't be Windows."


----------



## net-cat (Sep 8, 2008)

I knew about that. That's why I said it would probably happen in this case, too. Although I don't think Microsoft would be so brazen about it now. (Even though a half a billion dollars is chump change for Microsoft, why drop it on an anti-trust lawsuit if you don't have to?)


----------



## AxlePerri (Sep 9, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> There is no alternative to a Windows XP desktop in overall terms.



You have never use Ubuntu, Mac OS, etc.? They will do everything user need except new games. You not watch television? 



Draco_2k said:


> There are programs that are free, and exceed Office and IE in every *[most insignificant]* way possible.



They are same program, same basic feature. They add nothing of substance for common user, it is tiny excess feature that add nothing to productivity or ease of use. People do not even notice difference. I am repeating myself again 

There is also business functionality in Office that other program do not reproduce. You do not and can not 'just switch' software on large scale when it already works as well as you ask and user depend on it. I am not sure you appreciate this. We have thousand of important stored document and database that compatibility would break. We had this problem when we had to get rid of Wordperfect years ago. It was disaster. It is not worth drastic manpower-extensive project when no people or administrator would even notice a positive difference.



Draco_2k said:


> A lot of people use both, even if they measure in 10% to some-30% of the market share respectfully.



Yes but a lot of that is not even share based on substitute. It is complement use, as you said. It is not even worth support where Microsoft is present majority.



Draco_2k said:


> I suggest you have this talk yourself because this software line-up is pretty much shitty, dangerous, and overall, costy. It's really quite simple - if you don't oil your wheels first, someone else in competition will.



What you do not understand is that business do not care for this cost. It is meaningless. We will purchase whatever is convenient to user pool and has support cycle. The cost is relatively trivial 

Regular maintenance systems/updates are already built into Microsoft systems on network, and is much easier to manage/secure known legacy software and safer with no legion of new decentralized custom alternative program to track and support. Wild software with unproven guaranteed support is more dangerous.

New businesses could start using alternative, but for many existing (the important ones), the kind of migration you would suggest is useless on every front and suicide. There is zero benefit, no 'competitive' advantage, and worse even.



Draco_2k said:


> It's better than Office, faster, smaller, more secure, more intuitive, and has 1,000,000 more features, and supports way more formats (all old and new office formats, PDF import/export, and other unnamable things).
> 
> Oh, and it's free.



Okay, now this is exaggerate . Cost is the only real advantage in those, for home user.

It has always been much slower for me than Office. I do not know how you get this idea of speed :|


----------



## Pi (Sep 9, 2008)

AxlePerri said:


> They are same program, same basic feature. They add nothing of substance for common user, it is tiny excess feature that add nothing to productivity or ease of use. People do not even notice difference.



Yeah, but Word 5.1 has all the features that everyone really needs out of a word processor. And even that had too many features.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 9, 2008)

AxlePerri said:


> You have never use Ubuntu, Mac OS, etc.? They will do everything user need except new games.


Christ, I wish people would stop saying this; I play TF2 on Ubuntu all the time.



AxlePerri said:


> They are same program, same basic feature. They add nothing of substance for common user, it is tiny excess feature that add nothing to productivity or ease of use. People do not even notice difference.


Firefox's consistently growing market share is evidence to the contrary.

True, most people only use a small fraction of the power of any given application, but this also provides an incredible opportunity: it means that people are usually being _incredibly inefficient_.  If you can find just one feature that makes their lives significantly easier and convince them that it does, it is trivially easy to sell them on an alternative.  Especially if it's free.



AxlePerri said:


> There is also business functionality in Office that other program do not reproduce. You do not and can not 'just switch' software on large scale when it already works as well as you ask and user depend on it. I am not sure you appreciate this. We have thousand of important stored document and database that compatibility would break. We had this problem when we had to get rid of Wordperfect years ago.


lol

That's exactly why a few governments are switching to OpenOffice.org: it uses open (and understandable) formats that can still be parsed later, even if O itself ceases to exist.  Meanwhile, Microsoft Office churns out useless blobs of binary crap that the free software community still can't perfectly parse.

The entire _problem_ with depending on proprietary products is exactly that WordPerfect issue: if the company goes away or leaves you behind or you otherwise want to switch, your data is _fucked_.  With ODF documents I can use O or StarOffice or KOffice or whatever and they will all know how to read and write them perfectly.  Even if one of them gets something wrong, it will very obviously be a bug, as the correct behavior will be defined by the specification.  The correct behavior for Office documents is "whatever Office does", which is completely arbitrary.

(Granted, the Office format is now an "open format", but it's a convoluted mess at best and still a reflection of "whatever Office does" rather than the other way around.)

But I'm sure Microsoft and its products will be relevant forever, right?  Just like, say, Netscape.

If your files can only be understood by one program, you are _doing it fucking wrong_.


Businesses and consumers simply don't care about this because it doesn't affect them _right now_.  (Then, when it bites them in the ass later and costs them however much money and time, they just switch to something else proprietary because there's _no way_ this could happen again, right...)

It's hard to sell people on the advantages of open software et al since it sounds totally lofty and philosophical at first, but it just takes one case of being screwed by lock-in to see a tangible difference.

All of this is coming straight out of my ass, of course, but open software is becoming gradually mainstream even within businessland and that seems the most likely explanation to me.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 9, 2008)

> It has always been much slower for me than Office. I do not know how you get this idea of speed :neutral:


That's odd, because I'm having different experiences. MS Office has always taken much longer to load and perform many of its operations than OpenOffice has, especially comparing Office 2007 to OpenOffice 2.4. Really, now that Microsoft has totally redesigned Office, I'm surprised more people haven't been switching to the more familiar feel of OpenOffice...


----------



## Enigmaticat (Sep 9, 2008)

>< But I use firefox, internet explorer, safari, and opera!


----------



## Draco_2k (Sep 9, 2008)

AxlePerri said:


> You have never use Ubuntu, Mac OS, etc.? They will do everything user need except new games. You not watch television?


Actually I did. If operating systems were musical instruments, Mac would be a guitar with one string, and Linux would be a disassembled master piano.



AxlePerri said:


> They are same program, same basic feature. They add nothing of substance for common user, it is tiny excess feature that add nothing to productivity or ease of use. People do not even notice difference. I am repeating myself again


Most people don't notice the difference between VHS and HDTV formats, too. But most do notice their IE no longer installing adware, crashing every 10 minutes or eating 500% of system memory on launch.



AxlePerri said:


> There is also business functionality in Office that other program do not reproduce. You do not and can not 'just switch' software on large scale when it already works as well as you ask and user depend on it. I am not sure you appreciate this. We have thousand of important stored document and database that compatibility would break. We had this problem when we had to get rid of Wordperfect years ago. It was disaster. It is not worth drastic manpower-extensive project when no people or administrator would even notice a positive difference.


The problem, of course, is that it doesn't work as well as it should, and switching over to OpenOffice OR Firefox takes a maximum of 10 minutes of adjustment time. In return, you get more functionality, more intuitive, better performance, and, you know, other things that actually make a good program.



AxlePerri said:


> Yes but a lot of that is not even share based on substitute. It is complement use, as you said. It is not even worth support where Microsoft is present majority.


...Not worth support?



AxlePerri said:


> What you do not understand is that business do not care for this cost. It is meaningless. We will purchase whatever is convenient to user pool and has support cycle. The cost is relatively trivial


Congratulations. You work for a shitty business.



AxlePerri said:


> Regular maintenance systems/updates are already built into Microsoft systems on network, and is much easier to manage/secure known legacy software and safer with no legion of new decentralized custom alternative program to track and support. Wild software with unproven guaranteed support is more dangerous.


You do understand that Office's shittiness is what warrants having such support there in the first place?..



AxlePerri said:


> New businesses could start using alternative, but for many existing (the important ones), the kind of migration you would suggest is useless on every front and suicide. There is zero benefit, no 'competitive' advantage, and worse even.


That's incorrect from every angle. Every business that knows what they're doing will seek out the best software and hardware for it's personnel, instead of keeping X for the sake of keeping X. Security, stability, performance, functionality and price is what defines such software in the first place.



AxlePerri said:


> Okay, now this is exaggerate . Cost is the only real advantage in those, for home user.


Are you kidding? Not spending money whenever possible is the first priority of every outfit out there to make money in the first place. And no, that wasn't an exaggeration.



AxlePerri said:


> It has always been much slower for me than Office. I do not know how you get this idea of speed :|


What the heck. That's weird.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 9, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Really, now that Microsoft has totally redesigned Office, I'm surprised more people haven't been switching to the more familiar feel of OpenOffice...


you see all those buttons at the top of an O window?






























nobody uses them



the "familiar feel" of O sucks

granted office 2008 sucks too


----------



## net-cat (Sep 9, 2008)

I miss OpenOffice Math.

Word's built in equation editor is exceedingly deficient in comparison.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 9, 2008)

real men use LaTeX

or possibly MathML


----------



## net-cat (Sep 9, 2008)

If I had to write a 50 page engineering manual in LaTeX, I'd kill myself. :|


----------



## bane233 (Sep 9, 2008)

wow a lot of furry's like Firefox. (I'm one of them!)


----------



## AxlePerri (Sep 9, 2008)

Eevee said:


> Firefox's consistently growing market share is evidence to the contrary.



As far as I am concern, Firefox's market share is more evidence of well-played PR campaign than any important feature difference. Well not exactly, but there is no evidence of any productivity increase associated with this program for us in particular. As I said we do have it install and updated but its role is almost cosmetic.



Eevee said:


> True, most people only use a small fraction of the power of any given application, but this also provides an incredible opportunity: it means that people are usually being _incredibly inefficient_.  If you can find just one feature that makes their lives significantly easier and convince them that it does, it is trivially easy to sell them on an alternative.  Especially if it's free.



This is true for some application, of course we consider this. But it can also mean that common task do not require feature which is irrelevant to task, feature which is promoted in bias without proper use case investigation. Unfortunately this is more often case than not.

This is all conjecture of *possible* ("incredible", haha no  ) inefficiency, but my point is relevance and marginal cost (of organization/planning/training/etc.). Not to mention not reinventing the wheel unless useful!!!



Eevee said:


> lol
> 
> That's exactly why a few governments are switching to OpenOffice.org: it uses open (and understandable) formats that can still be parsed later, even if O itself ceases to exist.  Meanwhile, Microsoft Office churns out useless blobs of binary crap that the free software community still can't perfectly parse.
> 
> ...



Corel did not have 90%+ market share when we used it. Yes there is possibility that Microsoft is wiped off market in long term. But this is completely unreasonable risk concern in medium term.

Yes there is problem of open data format in long term. But as you noted, there is already better prospect even for Microsoft software, and it is likely to improve by the time "Microsoft goes under" (as if). Yes we have open source influence to thank for that, but it is no reason in itself to implement open source software.

Obviously business (and me) may consider alternative if market share drops considerably and communications begin to be done in majority in other formats. But catastrophic scenario some envision like ten Corels at once is prophetic bible talk, and not even same situation for us. Microsoft has long-standing support that no other organization has or can offered. Data format is only one side of the dice, which happen to be the only side Corel was relevant to us for, contrary to Microsoft which is most of the rest as well.

Whether we upgrade our applications and formats today or some time in medium-term future (IF it becomes necessary) will make no difference. In fact we are likely to suffer in communication if we move soon (not even considering the effort of migration). We can wait. Microsoft is yet strong. In this case it is much wiser to wait and see what actually happen rather than act on what is still crazy speculation. Because there is huge margin for error that Corel never gave us. The decision is on fact, some probability, and compromise between short term and long term.



Draco_2k said:


> Actually I did. If operating systems were musical instruments, Mac would be a guitar with one string, and Linux would be a disassembled master piano.



I am not even advocate to these systems, yet I am sorry but this is simple ignorance.



Draco_2k said:


> Most people don't notice the difference between VHS and HDTV formats, too. But most do notice their IE no longer installing adware, crashing every 10 minutes or eating 500% of system memory on launch.



Exaggeration is the enemy of fact.



Draco_2k said:


> The problem, of course, is that it doesn't work as well as it should, and switching over to OpenOffice OR Firefox takes a maximum of 10 minutes of adjustment time. In return, you get more functionality, more intuitive, better performance, and, you know, other things that actually make a good program.



Okay. This is not informed argument. You show zero understanding whatsoever of migration problem on business scale. I am not talking about your grandmother's computer .



Draco_2k said:


> You do understand that Office's shittiness is what warrants having such support there in the first place?..



If you walk into any large business and suggest to mass-deploy any business software without great support, they will have security guard shoot you on sight 



Draco_2k said:


> That's incorrect from every angle. Every business that knows what they're doing will seek out the best software and hardware for it's personnel, instead of keeping X for the sake of keeping X. Security, stability, performance, functionality and price is what defines such software in the first place.



We already have the most productive software for our proper personnel, and is updated and reviewed regularly and ensure smooth progression. What you are suggesting is software which give zero advantage currently or even in some time, and worse.



Draco_2k said:


> Are you kidding? Not spending money whenever possible is the first priority of every outfit out there to make money in the first place.



That is what I said, but for home user. If you mean business then you have never worked in successful large business. These $ costs are widely expected, accepted, and tiny compared to profits. There are other kinds of cost which are more important and less liquid and even end in greater $ cost, the sort of costs which your migration would invoke.


----------



## Draco_2k (Sep 9, 2008)

AxlePerri said:


> As far as I am concern, Firefox's market share is more evidence of well-played PR campaign than any important feature difference.


It's both.



AxlePerri said:


> Well not exactly, but there is no evidence of any productivity increase associated with this program for us in particular. As I said we do have it install and updated but its role is almost cosmetic.


If you have someone who measures productivity associated with browser use, you're being ripped off.



AxlePerri said:


> I am not even advocate to these systems, yet I am sorry but this is simple ignorance.


Well... This made exceedingly little sense.



AxlePerri said:


> Exaggeration is the enemy of fact.


What.



AxlePerri said:


> Okay. This is not informed argument. You show zero understanding whatsoever of migration problem on business scale. I am not talking about your grandmother's computer .


I have personally dealt with IE to Firefox migration for a medium-scaled business. It's mostly automated.



AxlePerri said:


> If you walk into any large business and suggest to mass-deploy any business software without great support, they will have security guard shoot you on sight


Funny. I guess a lot of businesses had to shoot someone before deciding to switch over then. So... It's the first time you've heard about OpenOffice or Firefox?..



AxlePerri said:


> We already have the most productive software for our proper personnel, and is updated and reviewed regularly and ensure smooth progression. What you are suggesting is software which give zero advantage currently or even in some time, and worse.


Obviously not. Unless you have IE and Office there just for looks - which would be kinda weird since Office costs a pretty mean sum to mass-deploy and maintain.



AxlePerri said:


> That is what I said, but for home user. If you mean business then you have never worked in successful large business. These $ costs are widely expected, accepted, and tiny compared to profits. There are other kinds of cost which are more important and less liquid and even end in greater $ cost, the sort of costs which your pointless migration would invoke.


Of course I didn't. Large business, however, does not equal a properly-run business. If your infra-structure is faulty, competition will take you up on it sooner or later, all other factors being equal.


----------



## AxlePerri (Sep 9, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> If you have someone who measures productivity associated with browser use, you're being ripped off.



So you would never survey your users to see if their most commonly used applications work to their needs? Of course we do not make entire survey just for browser, but it is included. We typically do not practice blind, biased, or arbitrary software replacement strategies without proven relevance (note that Firefox was considered small complementary application and not any important addition for the moment).



Draco_2k said:


> I have personally dealt with IE to Firefox migration for a medium-scaled business. It's mostly automated.



So did we . But that is not business software with big database, and it requires little; it is same small application. People would not even notice or care which one they are running from what we have gathered. It's mostly not the same thing at all 



Draco_2k said:


> Funny. I guess a lot of businesses had to shoot someone before deciding to switch over then. So... It's the first time you've heard about OpenOffice or Firefox?..



http://bizdev.openoffice.org/consultants.html

There is support for OpenOffice and companies will have it. Firefox is different level.



Draco_2k said:


> Of course I didn't. Large business, however, does not equal a properly-run business. If your infra-structure is faulty, competition will take you up on it sooner or later, all other factors being equal.



Properly-run business is not business that focus on the least significant and least productive aspects of workforce methodology. What you would have us to is concentrate all our efforts on things that you should outright dismiss at this time.

The infrastructure is very clean. The things you would recommend are unfortunately of no consequence to it. Or we would have adapted. For Office, 90% of our competition would agree at the moment


----------



## Draco_2k (Sep 10, 2008)

AxlePerri said:


> So you would never survey your users to see if their most commonly used applications work to their needs?


If they only ever used or understand one application, no. That'd be dumb.



AxlePerri said:


> So did we . But that is not business software with big database, and it requires little; it is same small application. People would not even notice or care which one they are running from what we have gathered. It's mostly not the same thing at all





AxlePerri said:


> http://bizdev.openoffice.org/consultants.html





AxlePerri said:


> There is support for OpenOffice and companies will have it. Firefox is different level.http://bizdev.openoffice.org/consultants.html


http://bizdev.openoffice.org/consultants.html
What are we talking about again.



AxlePerri said:


> Properly-run business is not business that focus on the least significant and least productive aspects of workforce methodology. What you would have us to is concentrate all our efforts on things that you should outright dismiss at this time.
> 
> The infrastructure is very clean. The things you would recommend are unfortunately of no consequence to it. Or we would have adapted. For Office, 90% of our competition would agree at the moment


You've got a shitty business if switching browsers takes all your workforce. Besides, it's not a move that's done somewhere down the line - it's what you're supposed to start with if you have a chance.


----------



## Wait Wait (Sep 10, 2008)

> Mac would be a guitar with one string


----------



## Neybulot (Sep 10, 2008)

I use Firefox, Chrome, and Opera mainly now. I only use IE when I need to update Windows or some website requires it. I've got Safari on here, but I don't think I'll be using it that much since Chrome is based on WebKit and runs much better than Safari.


----------



## Draco_2k (Sep 10, 2008)

Neybulot said:


> I only use IE when I need to *update Windows* or some website requires it.


AAAAAAAAAAH


----------



## BlackRat (Sep 10, 2008)

I use my own browser, IE freezes my computer for some unknown reason, and I'm not a fan of Firefox. Haven't even considered the others honoustly.


----------



## KypDurron23 (Sep 10, 2008)

Heheheh...lol, you guys make me feel bad for using IE.
What's the fastest way to replace it with FireFox, and then should I keep IE for just in case, or ditch it entirely?


----------



## mctanuki (Sep 10, 2008)

Quickest way? getfirefox.com

Download, install, transfer your settings and such from IE, then go exploring for extensions so you can make it better than IE ever was for you.

Also, you can't uninstall IE. You can choose not to install it in the first place, but it cannot be gotten rid of without some serious skillz. Keep it just in case (some sites are made by dumbasses who only code for IE), but don't use it unless you have to.


----------



## KypDurron23 (Sep 10, 2008)

Damn, that was fast.
Thanks, it seemed slower than IE at first, then BAM!
I like the layout much better, it's easier to read.


----------



## Neybulot (Sep 10, 2008)

KypDurron23 said:


> Damn, that was fast.
> Thanks, it seemed slower than IE at first, then BAM!
> I like the layout much better, it's easier to read.



If you've got broadband, you can tweak the settings and make it go even faster.


----------



## Adrimor (Sep 10, 2008)

KypDurron23 said:


> Heheheh...lol, you guys make me feel bad for using IE.
> What's the fastest way to replace it with FireFox, and then should I keep IE for just in case, or ditch it entirely?



Also, add the IEtab addon. You won't need to use IE at all most of the time. Microsoft might be able to see through it, though I doubt it--my friend's cracked WinXP Professional installation still gets updated to this day, so...

'course, it was from Pitt, apparently, but still...


----------



## Mr.LEET (Sep 10, 2008)

Opera.


----------



## Shouden (Sep 10, 2008)

Safari rocks. Explorer is crappy, and highly insecure. If you have personal information on your computer, Avoid using explorer like the plague.


----------



## AxlePerri (Sep 10, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> If they only ever used or understand one application, no. That'd be dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Draco_2k, obviously we are not on same page (I think you skipped over lines there) and we have gone in circles. Eevee had us on a better track (one with some direction) 

You suggested Firefox and OpenOffice to me. As I have said, Firefox we already have deployed (yes, easily), but, alongside I.E. required for dependencies and well-maintained for this reason, this browser will be  largely redundant to us and, with proof, to our users, until some tangible change in need, habit, offer, or compatibility occurs, which is simply not happening. OpenOffice we reject and is much larger migration project and not one to benefit our infrastructure in near-/medium-term (more likely to jolt it unnecessarily) or, unless Office loses a significant share later, at all. As for migration strategy itself, I am applying it to continuously evolving business with strong, adaptive existing infrastructure planned and re-evaluated rigorously with the help of *requirements* *gathering* and *analysis*. What you have suggested for it so far is in impulse, reduced scope, and gross generalization of domain. I would hope that was also in misunderstanding.

Truthfully, I am very tired of business matters and I have written too much here. If you do not mind, I am going to get back to my furry


----------



## Chase (Sep 11, 2008)

Fire Fox all the way.


----------



## Ironclaw (Sep 11, 2008)

Personally Firefox is the only thing I can use on my system. Even though I use XP My IE, and nearly every other Internet browser feels cursed. I simply boot it up am BAM! Bluescreen. I tried removing/reinstalling, talking to ms but nothing works. So I simply ditched it and use FF.


----------



## Midi Bear (Sep 12, 2008)

Firefox, because it's pure awesome. The name also combines two things I find awesome. Fire and foxes (foxen?). It's superior to everything else I've used.


----------

