I was referring for http browsing

Assumed as much but thought I would try since I need to open IE five times for five different Mopar sites. But I like the tabs option with firefox. Already using it like mad with regards to my other "non work" (shhhhh) websites. So far, me likes!

@n0v4k4n3: Thanks for leading me to learn about AOL's cheerleading vs. ownership. I don't read tons of IT biz news and had indeed been hype-misled to think that AOL had a financial stake in Mozilla's success.

Re your more general praise of the FF UI, AFAIK Opera was there first or right along with, esp. re popups & tabs. They even cut a deal with Google to score some change whenever their Google toolbar box sends in a search. That said, my devotion to open source ideology will probably make me try FF if the next Opera update does not fix the draggy-start problem.

Hey all. We're on it, not to worry. I can't give an exact ETA for an updated build of the forums

Actually, I regret the criticism implied by the title of this thread. I truly believe that the severity of the issue that I've been seeing at home is due to the crappiness of my current PC. I'm expecting my new e6600 PC to be delivered today.

My current machine, a 900 MHz L2 cacheless Celeron, will be on the junkheap the instant FEDEX shows up. I'm certain that's the last of these on the planet, so although some people may still have issues, I doubt anyone's having the 2-3 CTD's per minute that I've been having. On my 3.2 GHz Xeon at work, I probably have one CTD every other day or so.

As my wifes t-shirt says:

The floggings will continue until morale improves!

Tabs are not unique to FF anymore, IE7 has them as well.

Tabs are not unique to FF anymore, IE7 has them as well.

Along with all the other great "features" of IE7 *rolls eyes*. Notice that tabs have been around in many other browsers but not IE until now. Microsoft is playing catchup in the feature game of internet browsing, because their browser application is built mostly for intranet (different than internet) and local browsing. If you're an advocate for IE as an http browser, i hope you have Ad-Aware run every night, because you're going to go through a spyware nightmare.

Not to mention the background logging of your sites that takes place even with cookies disabled .

Tabs are not implemented as well... for example, some of the FF 2.0 features include:
Being able to auto-open new sites in a tab.
Being able to restore the state of the browser including all tabs and their sites in the case of a crash (whether or not it was due to a FF crash. If windows explorer crashes and closes ur FF, the program is still smart enough to take you back where you were).

If you haven't noticed, http internet is Microsoft's mortal enemy (since it is the realm in which google thrives). Their (edited from they're omg i hate me) support for such things are, and always will be, lacking in advancement.

In fact, i believe the insurance that Vista would support FF is a not-so-surpressed admittance of this

I use BitDefender and IE, and I have not have problems with spyware since BitDefender went on.

And while it would be nice to have the tabs open after a crash, it is not all that big of a deal to me to reopen them from the Favorites list.

I have tried FF, didn't really care for it, and I am fine with IE. It does what I need it to do.

I use BitDefender and IE, and I have not have problems with spyware since BitDefender went on.

Let's rephrase that:

I use BitDefender because I don't like using award winning software like Ad-Aware that is totally free. I use IE because it's there and I don't feel like installing stuff, or looking at that clowny looking fox. I have not noticed any problems with spyware... yet, but it's quite possible that there is lots of it there because I have no clue what to look for. Besides, IE installed really cool things like weatherbug and like 50 useful toolbars for me automatically without me even requesting such things. I do not question the validity of anything that a Microsoft product automatically installs. Besides, with all these cool looking toolbars taking up my screen, who needs to look at the actual content i was surfing for in the first place?

Sadly I am not exaggerating in the least. I say this from first hand experience. But don't get me wrong, I would be several thousand dollars poorer if it were not for IE. It has given many a friend of mine incentive to pay me to fix their computer.

it's quite possible that there is lots of it there because I have no clue what to look for

Unless you want to admit to a scary combo of skills and experience, this is sloppy rhetoric.

I'm all with you about the backyard mechanic aspirations for PC use, but we basically lost that battle quite a few generations of code written by code ago. C# code built using a modern dev suite like Visual Studio is a *far* cry from BASIC written on a TRS-80.

The thing we must unfortnately accept is that the modern "digital lifestyle" means we must choose among organizations competing for our trust. Because Open Source folks claim to have overall well-being as a top goal, I'm more inclined to trust them than for-profit folks. But because I've studied the role of expertise in human history, I have to doubt my own inclination b/c the profit motive can generate brief surges in excellence before the marketing forces restore the mediocre status quo.

Who's to say whether Ad-Aware (which I use) is truly more more reliable than BitDefender? An "expert" whose credentials you should immediately investigate and might well end up doubting.

I have AdAware and Spybot as well.

I don't have weatherbug (whatever that is) or a lot of toolbars installed.

I do have a clue what to look for.

And you do not need to be so insulting.

And you do not need to be so insulting.

I apologize Moosetek (c'mon, show me your shocked faces!)

When I say something like that, it's because what you said is what I hear from about 1000 or so people a year, and my paraphrase is basically the truth of the situation. That was meant as a more *general* comment than an attack on you.

C# code built using a modern dev suite like Visual Studio is a *far* cry from BASIC written on a TRS-80.

phoock C#. I hate that overly verbose and pain to debug language, and I hate Visual Studio, though the point is still valid. Python ftw! However, it is good to note that most modern 3G languages translate their code into a less modern language. For example, Python and Perl translate to C.

I apologize Moosetek (c'mon, show me your shocked faces!) When I say something like that, it's because what you said is what I hear from about 1000 or so people a year, and my paraphrase is basically the truth of the situation. That was meant as a more *general* comment than an attack on you.

OK.

I am not a novice computer user. I was the sole tech for nearly 10 years at a small computer store that specialized in desktop video editing computers.

I simply have my own preferences, that's all.

Not sure if this got mentioned, didn't actually see it in any post I read here.
People should not design to the browser. The W3C sets the standards, if the browsers do not match then tough. That's why we get new browsers, there are new standards.

Reply #31 and forward.

I do not agree at all here. It is MicroSoft who has an obligation to have their browser conform with the W3C standards instead of some obscure MSnetwork dito.