What Os/browser Do You Use To Vist Macross World?

[Dangaioh]

XP Pro, IE6, FireFox, Opera and a sledge hammer.

[Southcross]

Mozilla Firefox all the way.

404058[/snapback]

I'd second that... too bag they won't let me installl 'fox on my work PC

[promethuem5]

AOL and IE for me! I'm tech savy and a flamming pirate but always forget to do gownload Firefox....

[Sharrdd]

OSX & Firefox

[promethuem5]

Okay, I'm gonna sucker up here...anyone got a link to download the latest FireFox?

[Yohsho]

XP and Firefox.

Firefoxtry this one.

[lebhead]

::edit:: Oh yeah.  Holy crap did I just see Lebhead?!

404281[/snapback]

Shhh!

[akt_m]

win2k + opera.

[JB0]

Okay, I'm gonna sucker up here...anyone got a link to download the latest FireFox?

404344[/snapback]

I have a Seamonkey link...

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

[Uxi]

XP Media Center / Opera (home)

SuSE Linux / Opera (work)

OS X / Opera (laptop)

[kensei]

I just checked out seamonkey....and man does it suck. Firefox is like way easier and more convenient to use. It looks suspiciously like Netscape too, which I hate even more.

[JB0]

I just checked out seamonkey....and man does it suck. Firefox is like way easier and more convenient to use.

Oddly, I've always had the opposite impression.

For simple internet surfing, they're equally convenient. Smack an icon, type in a URL, and go.

For almost anything beyond that, I've always found Mozilla/Seamonkey to be better.

It looks suspiciously like Netscape too, which I hate even more.

405287[/snapback]

There's historical reasons for that.

The Mozilla project was started back in 1998 by Netscape.

Basically as a way to tap the open-source community to develop Netscape 6 rapidly(what with 4 being painfully dated and 5 never getting off the ground because no one could figure out the Nestcape 4 code well enough to improve it).

Hence Mozilla and it's Seamonkey descendant bear a strong resemblance to Netscape, especially with the default "classic" theme.

Firefox was split off from the Mozilla suite back in 2002. The guys responsible for the fork felt that Mozilla was excessively bloated.

And if they'd just broken the browser off so it was seperated from the mail client, web page designer, and IRC client, it wouldn't be that big a deal.

But they decided that several features of Mozilla's browser component were excess bloat too, and either removed them or hid them away so you can't access them without about:config.

Hence, the plugin system was thrust into the spotlight as a signifigant feature, because people suddenly needed plugins to restore functionality that had been stripped out as "bloat." I've always found Firefox's hyping of the plugin system humorous for this reason.

There's some genuine improvements in there, of course. But a lot of their improvements... aren't.

And that's basically the reason Seamonkey exists.

A lot of the people that were using Mozilla hated Firefox with a passion.

And when the Mozilla Foundation decided to kill Mozilla, the community raised hell, organized, and in a rare example of the open-source concept working as advertised, Mozilla continued on after the original developers abandoned it(albeit under a new name).

[yellowlightman]

Mac OS X.

Opera for browsin'.

404064[/snapback]

Why?

404193[/snapback]

Because Mozilla/Firefox are memory hogs and on my aging computer they run like poo.

Opera isn't perfect, but it's just as good as Firefox and Opera has mouse gestures, which I have hard imagining myself browing the internet without nowadays.

[JB0]

Opera isn't perfect, but it's just as good as Firefox and Opera has mouse gestures, which I have hard imagining myself browing the internet without nowadays.

405345[/snapback]

I've never really seen mouse gestures as useful. I'm too keyboard-centric. Alt-left=back, alt-right=forward, etc.

</irrelevance>

[mikeszekely]

Opera isn't perfect, but it's just as good as Firefox and Opera has mouse gestures, which I have hard imagining myself browing the internet without nowadays.

405345[/snapback]

I've never really seen mouse gestures as useful. I'm too keyboard-centric. Alt-left=back, alt-right=forward, etc.

</irrelevance>

405353[/snapback]

Keyboards rule.

[Mechafan]

Work: Win2K and Firefox

Home: WinXP Pro and Firefox, FreeBSD and Firefox, SUSE and Firefox, Fedora Core and Konqueror, Linspire and Firefox.

Some other Linux distros with Konqueror.

[yellowlightman]

I've never really seen mouse gestures as useful. I'm too keyboard-centric. Alt-left=back, alt-right=forward, etc.

</irrelevance>

405353[/snapback]

Diff'rent strokes (hah, see what I did there?).

OS X doesn't have much in the way of keyboard shortcuts, so I just don't use my keyboard much for that stuff.

You'll learn to appreciate mouse gestures a bit more once you're using Opera on the DS.

[Skullsixx]

I'm riding with Firefox.

[JB0]

I've never really seen mouse gestures as useful. I'm too keyboard-centric. Alt-left=back, alt-right=forward, etc.

</irrelevance>

405353[/snapback]

Diff'rent strokes (hah, see what I did there?).

OS X doesn't have much in the way of keyboard shortcuts, so I just don't use my keyboard much for that stuff.

I've been told it actually DOES, they're just SEKRIT.

'Sides, browser shortcuts are implemented at the browser, not the OS.

You'll learn to appreciate mouse gestures a bit more once you're using Opera on the DS. 

405463[/snapback]

I'm very much a fixed-purpose kinda guy. DS = game machine.

Edited June 5, 2006 by JB0

[Oihan]

LOL so many FireFox users...that's awesome. I'm a FireFox user myself, I don't think I'll ever be going back to IE either. Apparently IE7 has copied a lot of the features (if not all) found on FireFox. Everything from the tabbed browsing to the search bar at the top right. (Forgive my ignorance if tabbed browsing and the search bar at the top right have been in use long before FireFox.) It looks as if M$ knows they've F'd up and that they've lost a huge share in the web browsing department. F'ing Micro$oft...the only products I like from them is Windows XP and their Age of Empires games.

FireFox for the win!

[Radd]

I use Firefox, but to be quite honest I like it about the same as Opera. There's a couple things I like about Opera more, a couple I like about Firefox more. Either way, I've found both browsers to be quite suitable for my needs.

I also use Windows XP for my regular internet use. I also have a Mac, but it's connected to my television and acts as an entertainment centre for the most part. I sometimes web browse from that computer, but only when I have company over and I'm showing things to people.

Things like, Dr. Tran!

[JB0]

Apparently IE7 has copied a lot of the features (if not all) found on FireFox.  Everything from the tabbed browsing to the search bar at the top right.  (Forgive my ignorance if tabbed browsing and the search bar at the top right have been in use long before FireFox.)  It looks as if M$ knows they've F'd up and that they've lost a huge share in the web browsing department. 

Yeah. MSIE has been pretty much static since they took over, and MS fell behind feature-wise. Losing a huge share is VERY relative.

If you're curious, tabbed browsing originated in 1994, on some browser no one cares about.

It was thrust out of complete obscurity by Opera, then added to Mozilla through the Multizilla extension, then the basic tabbed browsing features were integrated into Mozilla, and then Firefox carried it when they forked off.

The dedicated search bar was a Firefox idea. No one else did it because it's a stupid waste of space.

Everyone else integrated searches into the URL bar before Firefox ever came into existence. Mozilla added it to the sidebar, along with the dropdown search engine selector, again before Firefox existed.

MS doesn't really care if it's a retarded feature, or duplication of an existing feature. They're just filling out a bullet list so any time someone points to a Firefox feature they can say "Yeah, we've got that."

I don't really care. MSIE is still the dominant browser, and that's not likely to change. If they fix their security holes and start adopting standards so they can compete for the tenth of the market Firefox has, it actually benefits everyone, because the majority of the world will be using a secure browser that properly supports modern standards.

They may not be as dominant as they once were, but they ARE dominant, and that won't change. People use what's in front of them.

Firefox's advertising machine, which includes print ads, internet ads, viral marketing campaigns, and a massive public relations force, has made it the undisputed king of non-MSIE browsers, but it still holds only a tenth of the market.

MSIE has roughly 85% of the market, and is holding steady there. It has NO print ads, NO internet ads, NO viral marketing, NO PR force. ALL it has to do is exist and over 4/5s of the market will use it, just because it came with their computer.

Edited June 5, 2006 by JB0

[azrael]

They may not be as dominant as they once were, but they ARE dominant, and that won't change. People use what's in front of them.

...

MSIE has roughly 85% of the market, and is holding steady there. It has NO print ads, NO internet ads, NO viral marketing, NO PR force. ALL it has to do is exist and over 4/5s of the market will use it, just because it came with their computer.

405620[/snapback]

One of the more greater problems is that there are many internal applications that run only on IE. This is part of the reason why we can't just get rid of IE. Many companies have produced internal web applications that use IE over any other browser. And they've used them for several years already. Just try and get those companies to get rid of IE-only applications. This is of of many major causes for why Mozilla has yet to really penetrated the corporate world. Even if they allow a Mozilla product, there are chances that there is still some internal web application that can only function on IE.

Anyways...

Work: WinXP/Firefox or Opera, Mac OS X/Safari or Firefox

home: WinXP/Firefox or Opera

As soon as Apple drops in the Merom-core in their laptop selection, I'll have Safari/Firefox/Opera.

[kensei]

Oh yeah, I forgot to say what OS I use.

I use both WinXP Pro at home and at uni. I used Macs for 6 years, when I finally discovered PCs I never went back.

Always prefer Firefox, and sometimes I use IE6 cause the Mcarosmedia stuff I need to download and get assessed on won't work in firefox.

[Metal_Massacre_79]

Anyone here looking at the Intel Macs? Sounds like it could be a good move for me, running AutoCAD and all.

[mikeszekely]

Oh yeah, I forgot to say what OS I use.

I use both WinXP Pro at home and at uni. I used Macs for 6 years, when I finally discovered PCs I never went back.

Always prefer Firefox, and sometimes I use IE6 cause the Mcarosmedia stuff I  need to download and get assessed on won't work in firefox.

405746[/snapback]

Seriously? I think that you're probably the opposite of me! I've been using PCs since my old 486 DX2 Packard Bell with Windows 95, and I've been using Windows XP pretty much since it came out, on a total of four different machines.

And it's not that I dislike Windows now, just that I'm kinda bored with using it everyday, so I decided to branch out. I've messed around with a few Linux distros (Knoppix, SUSE, and Mepis mostly), and while they seem interesting, the computer I've dedicated to being a Linus box is a tad underpowered, and combined with my lack of familiarity with KDE, I haven't done much with it. On the other hand, I installed a patched version of Mac OS X Tiger on a spare hard drive and put it in my main system. It doesn't run perfectly, because the hardware isn't real Apple hardware, but I've still found myself to be very impressed. It looks more modern than Windows XP, perhaps even Vista. In fact, a lot of the newer features to be incorporated in Vista are already in Tiger. I think it's also very user-friendly, as well.

Overall, I think I'm finding that there are some things that Mac OS does better (mostly the little day-to-day things), and some things Windows does better (gaming, and I still like Windows Explorer). And it's not so much that I want to switch to being a Mac-user as it is that, in the future, I intend to keep at least one Mac and one Windows PC up and running.

Anyone here looking at the Intel Macs? Sounds like it could be a good move for me, running AutoCAD and all.

Me! I've decided to get rid of my Windows laptop and get a MacBook.

And FYI, my friend was checking out how Mac OS ran on my PC. He has a Mac Mini with the Power PC chip and a gig of RAM. Mac OS sees my computer has having a Core Duo (although it's actually a P4 with hyper-threading) and 1.5GB of RAM, and he was floored by how much faster my system was running. So we poked around a bit, and it seems that the Intel Macs perform much better than the Power PC Macs... so long as the apps are supported. Rossetta, the software that emulates Power PC for PPC-only apps, is apparently a bit sluggish.

Oh, and have you guys noticed that the Power Mac G5 is the only Mac line without Intel chips yet? Rumor has it that the G6 won't come out until next year... because they're going to be quad-core...

[kensei]

Oh yeah, I forgot to say what OS I use.

I use both WinXP Pro at home and at uni. I used Macs for 6 years, when I finally discovered PCs I never went back.

Always prefer Firefox, and sometimes I use IE6 cause the Mcarosmedia stuff I  need to download and get assessed on won't work in firefox.

405746[/snapback]

Seriously? I think that you're probably the opposite of me! I've been using PCs since my old 486 DX2 Packard Bell with Windows 95, and I've been using Windows XP pretty much since it came out, on a total of four different machines.

And it's not that I dislike Windows now, just that I'm kinda bored with using it everyday, so I decided to branch out. I've messed around with a few Linux distros (Knoppix, SUSE, and Mepis mostly), and while they seem interesting, the computer I've dedicated to being a Linus box is a tad underpowered, and combined with my lack of familiarity with KDE, I haven't done much with it. On the other hand, I installed a patched version of Mac OS X Tiger on a spare hard drive and put it in my main system. It doesn't run perfectly, because the hardware isn't real Apple hardware, but I've still found myself to be very impressed. It looks more modern than Windows XP, perhaps even Vista. In fact, a lot of the newer features to be incorporated in Vista are already in Tiger. I think it's also very user-friendly, as well.

Overall, I think I'm finding that there are some things that Mac OS does better (mostly the little day-to-day things), and some things Windows does better (gaming, and I still like Windows Explorer). And it's not so much that I want to switch to being a Mac-user as it is that, in the future, I intend to keep at least one Mac and one Windows PC up and running.

405793[/snapback]

Yup seriously, but to each his own. I'm not saying that WinXp is without it's problems, but it works better for what I do. I've had my PC for about....5 years now, P4 1.9 GHz and I still use it, it works like a dream. I'm not doing the graphics thing with my Pharmacy degree and I use Freemind and Microsoft Office extensively, so there is no need for a Mac. Also I like the games that it has to offer too. I'll be upgrading soon, But I'm in no real rush as it still does the job for me.

There's a time for Mac's and time for PCs.

Linux? Not for me mate. Too complicated, I'm not all that computer savvy.

Edited June 7, 2006 by kensei

[JB0]

And FYI, my friend was checking out how Mac OS ran on my PC.  He has a Mac Mini with the Power PC chip and a gig of RAM.  Mac OS sees my computer has having a Core Duo (although it's actually a P4 with hyper-threading) and 1.5GB of RAM, and he was floored by how much faster my system was running.  So we poked around a bit, and it seems that the Intel Macs perform much better than the Power PC Macs... so long as the apps are supported.  Rossetta, the software that emulates Power PC for PPC-only apps, is apparently a bit sluggish.

Yah. That was why they moved to x86.

PowerPC has been pretty crappy lately. IBM's failed to deliver higher speed parts and failed to lower the power consumption on their slower parts. So their desktop machines aren't where they were planning to be because the faster parts aren't out, and the laptops are even worse because the cooler parts aren't showing up.

Whereas Intel's Core is faster AND cooler, so they can hae a laptop that stomps their current desktops.

Oh, and have you guys noticed that the Power Mac G5 is the only Mac line without Intel chips yet?  Rumor has it that the G6 won't come out until next year... because they're going to be quad-core...

The PowerMacIntels are probably waiting for the next revision of the Core. There's supposed to be some major jumps in that one, and it's not very far off.

...

Or they could just be waiting for more of the high-end apps to be x86-native.

Linux? Not for me mate. Too complicated, I'm not all that computer savvy.

That's been a major gripe I've had with the way Linux is handled, and I AM computer-savvy.

There's been way too little effort expended on user-friendliness for it to be the Windows killer it's supporters keep claiming it is/should be/will become.

[kensei]

Linux? Not for me mate. Too complicated, I'm not all that computer savvy.

That's been a major gripe I've had with the way Linux is handled, and I AM computer-savvy.

There's been way too little effort expended on user-friendliness for it to be the Windows killer it's supporters keep claiming it is/should be/will become.

406007[/snapback]

Awesome! I feel much better now.

[kensei]

Now that I've had time, I 've been looking more into the Seamonkey Browser, currently in my second day of testing. It's pretty good once you get used to it.

I never knew that Mozilla had such a good range of software. I've downloaded Thunderbird and Sunbird, and it's amazing, very simple to use. I can't wait for them to finish and release Lightning, top integrate both Sunbird and Thunderbird together.

Edited July 4, 2006 by kensei

[JB0]

Now that I've had time, I 've been looking more into the Seamonkey Browser, currently in my second day of testing. It's pretty good once you get used to it.

Of course. Remember, this is the root that everything else is based on.

Even MSIE borrowed a lot of look and feel from Netscape Navigator, and Mozilla Suite was the next generation of Netscape. Seamonkey is just Mozilla Suite after the Mozilla Foundation terminated their namesake and forbade anyone continue it under the old name.

I never knew that Mozilla had such a good range of software. I've downloaded Thunderbird and sound bird, and it's amazing, very simple to use. I can't wait for them to finish and release Lightning, top integrate both Sunbird and Thunderbird together.

413554[/snapback]

Remember, Seamonkey is an unofficial project(though Mozilla Foundation HAS provided an infrastructure for it's development, and it WAS a Mozilla product as the Mozilla Suite, it's not considered one anymore).

But yeah.

Mozilla Foundation seems to believe they should focus on one or 2 products to the exclusion of all else. As soon as they shifted their focus from Mozilla to Firefox and Thunderbird, Mozilla almost totally disappeared from the Mozilla website well before it was killed.

And while they have other products, mentioning them would take time away from pimping Firefox and Thunderbird.

[mikeszekely]

I probably should have posted this a week ago, but I did finally get a MacBook. I'm really impressed. The design is pure Apple; simple, white, functional, elegant. I bought it stock, so I'll need to upgrade the RAM soon (actually, I'd like a bigger hard drive, too), but even with just 512mb, it's fairly snappy. 3-D rendering is a bit of a problem for it, with it's integrated GPU, but it handles multimedia very well. I put Star Trek Enterprise avi files on it, then connected the MacBook to my 52" television and home theater, then played them using the Front Row software. The interface is simply gorgeous, and the playback fills the entire screen at about TV quality.