-Waits for the Anti Trust people to get on it-
-Waits-
-Waaaaaits-
Nope, looks like they are too busy going after Google now.
21.8.2009 20:05 #1
at least its not subliminal.
21.8.2009 21:27 #2
Once you go Firefox, you never go back.
21.8.2009 22:22 #3
ie8 safe.. theres a laugh.. exploited before it was even officially released..
21.8.2009 22:34 #4
and this is bad how? ive been to some sites that wont let me see the page at all unless i change a different browser.
22.8.2009 02:58 #5
Originally posted by EricCarr: Once you go Firefox, you never go back.Bullsh*t...I was forced to go back by lack of website compatability. Firefox may be safer...but only because fewer things work with it.
Originally posted by H08:
and this is bad how? ive been to some sites that wont let me see the page at all unless i change a different browser. This is bad because it is blatent false advertising. This is bad because Yahoo is pushing software to people that are better of with what they already have. This is bad because they are also pushing their spyware filled browser bar. Once again Yahoo is abusing their customers to satisfy their advertisers. This is why I stopped using Yahoo's search...because the first 20 pages were always paid adds that had nothing to do with what I had searched for.
22.8.2009 05:55 #6
Originally posted by KillerBug: Bullsh*t...I was forced to go back by lack of website compatability. Firefox may be safer...but only because fewer things work with it.What? When did you last use Firefox? 2002? Only website that doesn't work with FF to my knowledge is Windows Update (because M$ make sure it doesn't).
22.8.2009 07:58 #7
22.8.2009 09:40 #8
the real question is who's Robin?
22.8.2009 12:21 #9
FFS.. IE fanboys ranting.. These monopolies apologists make me sick.. I use Kazehakase for my browser.. and I have no need for M$ update so that not working doesn't matter.. I regularly download M$ updates from them on a linux system in my piratical winduhz installs for n00bs with broken IE and norton "protected" systems.. rarely see a badly broken ff/avg setup..
Anyway retard n00b M$ fanboys... you can change the browser identifier string in firefox and it's family so M$ update works with it... but google is beyond you spoon fed "we let M$ think for us" morons isn't it..
Paula smells $ony/M$ fanboys in this topic too.. see them all over anything $ony spouting their uninformed shite all the time. IP's probably reveal $ony US marketing offices...
Robin eh?.. wasn't he Batmans biatch??
22.8.2009 12:42 #10
Quote:
This is bad because it is blatent false advertising. This is bad because Yahoo is pushing software to people that are better of with what they already have. This is bad because they are also pushing their spyware filled browser bar. Once again Yahoo is abusing their customers to satisfy their advertisers. This is why I stopped using Yahoo's search...because the first 20 pages were always paid adds that had nothing to do with what I had searched for.like i said before ive been to pages that tell me to upgrade to "a better browser" like chrome or firefox. atleast yahoo lets you browse there page with any browser
22.8.2009 12:49 #11
To each their own; I've had firefox run on MS update/download center just fine. Yet on cinemassacre.com it closes periodically; but that is not a glitch of firefox, but from the site itself. Still, really all this bickering doesn't matter in the end, who really cares if someone uses IE, Firefox, Chrome or any other; it all comes down to, what works for you?
As for yahoo posting the ad; did you really expect anything different from a company merged with Microsoft?
22.8.2009 16:23 #12
Originally posted by varnull: FFS.. IE fanboys ranting.. These monopolies apologists make me sick.. I use Kazehakase for my browser.. and I have no need for M$ update so that not working doesn't matter.. I regularly download M$ updates from them on a linux system in my piratical winduhz installs for n00bs with broken IE and norton "protected" systems.. rarely see a badly broken ff/avg setup..
Anyway retard n00b M$ fanboys... you can change the browser identifier string in firefox and it's family so M$ update works with it... but google is beyond you spoon fed "we let M$ think for us" morons isn't it..
Paula smells $ony/M$ fanboys in this topic too.. see them all over anything $ony spouting their uninformed shite all the time. IP's probably reveal $ony US marketing offices...
Robin eh?.. wasn't he Batmans biatch??What is wrong with you?
Every single post you type is filled with cuss words and anger.
This is a forum not a political debate, calm the hell down.
22.8.2009 16:55 #13
i never really warmed up to firefox..i like the simplicity and unrivaled agility of the chrome..and only when there are a few sites that dont work am i forced to open the loathed IE8 browser..
22.8.2009 18:39 #14
Seamonkey all the way. its about as Netscape as it gets.
22.8.2009 20:06 #15
I really wish people wouldn't argue which is best all over everything. We're all different and all have different stuff/opinions. Now calm the f*ck down and stop arguing for the sake of it. Your not achieving anything you'll just increase your blood pressure and decrease your life.
23.8.2009 14:15 #16
Firefox users: check this site out, it is a website used by a business I work with...and it is one of the most non-FF sites I have seen. The login page is garbled and overlapping itself, and once logged in, nothing displays at all. It works perfectly in every version of IE I have tried, but it never worked with any firefox:
http://cms.ampm.e-courier.com/
25.8.2009 04:22 #17
Thats the second page I have ever seen that doesn't work with FF so shut up fanboy.
25.8.2009 16:33 #18
@KillerBug
There's something you need to understand about web development. Some people design sites and they don't care if it works in one browser or another. IE is NOT known for parsing HTML, CSS, or JavaScript better than the competition. Go check that web page's CSS and HTML in the W3C validator, it needs work. Furthermore, go run an ACID3 test under IE and then Firefox. If you don't know what the ACID test is, look here. Just because a webpage works correctly in IE DOES NOT MEAN that IE is doing is right. It could mean that IE is doing it right, but in this case I'm highly skeptical. All this says is that someone programmed this site to work properly in IE and that's it. Clearly, cross-browser compatibility wasn't a concern here. There's a reason that people choose Firefox and then install plugins such as IE Tab, because Firefox is pretty much better than IE. The only reason people use IE is because 1. It's the default browser 2. Some (poorly designed) sites only function with IE; however, there are exceptions 3. Some programs use it internally, like Steam, some random Korean MMO, or something else.
-Kyle
28.8.2009 19:17 #19
Originally posted by KSib: @KillerBug
There's something you need to understand about web development. Some people design sites and they don't care if it works in one browser or another. IE is NOT known for parsing HTML, CSS, or JavaScript better than the competition. Go check that web page's CSS and HTML in the W3C validator, it needs work. Furthermore, go run an ACID3 test under IE and then Firefox. If you don't know what the ACID test is, look here. Just because a webpage works correctly in IE DOES NOT MEAN that IE is doing is right. It could mean that IE is doing it right, but in this case I'm highly skeptical. All this says is that someone programmed this site to work properly in IE and that's it. Clearly, cross-browser compatibility wasn't a concern here. There's a reason that people choose Firefox and then install plugins such as IE Tab, because Firefox is pretty much better than IE. The only reason people use IE is because 1. It's the default browser 2. Some (poorly designed) sites only function with IE; however, there are exceptions 3. Some programs use it internally, like Steam, some random Korean MMO, or something else.
-Kyleyeah what you said, i think we all need to go back to HTML 4, hell even i can parse html 4 and im not a browser.
or we can do away with all the fancy ads and logo's and to some brainbread basic HTML white page with black texts oh yeah man thats the 80's stuff.
28.8.2009 21:31 #20
The vast majority of the WWW was writen for Internet Explorer. It may not be an official language like HTML or CSS, but it is the standard. With the exception of sites about linux or apple, almost every website in the world is designed to work with internet explorer. They may then double-check that it works with FF, Opera, etc, but the most important one is Internet Explorer, as IE has the majority of users. I'm not saying it's right...that's just the way it is. A webbrowser that follows all the specs to the letter is problematic, as the WWW is not writen to the letter of the specs. For example, the site I posted generates a repeating error in FF & Opera complaining about the syntax, yet IE4-8 all handle the syntax just fine. Opera & FF refuse to include this old, common syntax, and throw repeating errors because of this.
I use the site I listed quite often (once logged in, you can enter jobs online, and have a courier at your door within an hour, all without talking to anyone). I am sure many others also use this site frequently, and the site is genererated from a server that holds similar sites for other courier companies all over the world. I am sure that the firefox and opera design teams have personaly encountered such websites, yet they ignore them, and everyone that uses them.
29.8.2009 02:29 #21
Ah, I see what you mean. Well I suppose for the devs of FF and Opera they, like everyone else, had to make a decision. Either support the old standards or upgrade to the newer ones. Ideally, we want every site to have clean, up-to-date code, but I know that isn't the reality of the Internet... not by far. I suppose Firefox could do a compatibility mode type of thing, but I don't feel like they're going to cater to those who don't properly maintain their webpages. Oh well, to each his/her own browser. That's why I have IE tab in Firefox though :)
29.8.2009 03:17 #22
