Firefox Beta 2! (also poll)

[mandraque]

opera is preatty good to though...i think it makes better use of tabs...maybe not

[artdutra04]

Although I prefer Firefox (primarily for all the custom plugins I use), I have no problems with using Opera. As long as it isn't Internet Exploder, or any other IE-based browser, I'll use it. IE7 is slightly better previous versions, but it's still lightyears behind Firefox or Opera.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

IE7 is slightly better previous versions, but it's still lightyears behind Firefox or Opera.

On the other side of the argument, I don't really see IE using over 100MB of memory like my Firefox does. Firefox really needs to fix the memory leaks. There is no reason a couple browsing tabs should be using up over 100mb of memory.

[Joohoo]

Only one too post For Safari lol. I love safari! when ever I use a PC I still would only use firefox if I had the choice

[X-Istence]

Originally Posted by thegathering

... Firefox was the first software to be built to break the Microsoft monopoly and has that rebellious GNU feel to it, the one that says "I was created by people who are working to benefit users over making a quick buck".

...

Mozilla (Firefox included) is under the MPL (Mozilla Public License) and has nothing to do with GNU. I don't see how GNU has a rebellious feel to it, since they don't compete with Microsoft in any shape or way. GNU has no OS (Linux does not count, trust me), and is no direct threat. The only reason it could be seen as rebellious is because all of the software they create is open source under the GPL license, but even back in the olden days stuff like UNIX was open source so that people could comment on it and add changes. Hence the Berkeley System Distribution.

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Although I prefer Firefox (primarily for all the custom plugins I use), I have no problems with using Opera. As long as it isn't Internet Exploder, or any other IE-based browser, I'll use it. IE7 is slightly better previous versions, but it's still lightyears behind Firefox or Opera.

IE 7 with regards to plugins and whatnot might be light years behind, but at least they have fixed their rendering issues. Since they have fixed their rendering issues the box hack has stopped working for their browser as well, so it will be more standards compliant.

Originally Posted by Joohoo

Only one too post For Safari lol. I love safari! when ever I use a PC I still would only use firefox if I had the choice

I have an iBook and I use Safari as well. The only browser I like to use. I only use Gecko based browsers when I have to check if a design/layout looks good in them.

[FourPenguins]

Originally Posted by X-Istence

IE 7 with regards to plugins and whatnot might be light years behind, but at least they have fixed their rendering issues. Since they have fixed their rendering issues the box hack has stopped working for their browser as well, so it will be more standards compliant.

Have they? I was using the IE7 beta before my Firefox revelation. (Beta 2, I believe.) It rendered woefully slowly. It loaded pages slower than IE6 and Firefox. I fell in love with tabbed browsing. If I hadn't, I would have gone right back to IE6, which in my opinion was a faster and less resource intensive/buggy program. (Of course I know that IE7 was in beta and had some kinks to be worked out.)
I held out against the FF onslaught for a long time. I was the last of my friends to get it. Now that I have it, I don't love it for the plug-ins or ad ons, or 3rd party content. I love it because without all of that it has a remarkably clean UI and a better Google toolbar.

On another note, why in the world would anyone still use a text-based browser? The only reason I can see not to get one of the numerous free browsers currently out there would be the lack of an Internet connection, but if you need a browser, you obviously have Internet access.
I just wish that people would upgrade their old browsers so that Internet standards and technology can move forward, instead of being tied down backwards-compatibility. (Netscape 4+CSS=grr)

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by 11Ed71

I just wish that people would upgrade their old browsers so that Internet standards and technology can move forward, instead of being tied down backwards-compatibility. (Netscape 4+CSS=grr)

Agreed. But then again, you wouldn't believe some of the machines people are still running. Netscape 4 may be the best they can run lol who still uses Netscape anyway...

[Greg Marra]

Originally Posted by 11Ed71

On another note, why in the world would anyone still use a text-based browser? The only reason I can see not to get one of the numerous free browsers currently out there would be the lack of an Internet connection, but if you need a browser, you obviously have Internet access.
I just wish that people would upgrade their old browsers so that Internet standards and technology can move forward, instead of being tied down backwards-compatibility. (Netscape 4+CSS=grr)

All of the decent text-based browsers do a wonderful job displaying standards compliant XHTML/CSS. So since all of your pages are coded standards-compliantly (right? ), these text-based browsers will display them perfectly, albeit without any images, but then again that isn't a problem because you're Section 508 compliant too.

[thegathering]

Originally Posted by X-Istence

Mozilla (Firefox included) is under the MPL (Mozilla Public License) and has nothing to do with GNU. I don't see how GNU has a rebellious feel to it, since they don't compete with Microsoft in any shape or way.

I Know it's not part of GNU. The GNU software directory provides emulations of many of Microsoft's products for Linux, providing an alternative to Windows with the same functionality.

In the same way, Firefox, being both open source and free, was a direct response to the problems of IE developed under the Microsoft monopoly.

Regardless of licenses, they have the same purpose, which is why Firefox still has the same feel and purpose as GNU created software (BSD for Windows and things not Unix).

[FourPenguins]

Originally Posted by Greg Marra

All of the decent text-based browsers do a wonderful job displaying standards compliant XHTML/CSS. So since all of your pages are coded standards-compliantly (right? ), these text-based browsers will display them perfectly, albeit without any images, but then again that isn't a problem because you're Section 508 compliant too.

My issue with standards isn't really with text-based browsers, that was sort of a side-track. If someone's using a text-based browser and it complies with XHTML/CSS2, then that's fine with me. I just don't know why anyone would.
My bigger problem is people who use out-dated software, holding back web developers who want to use fairly mainstream CSS formatting code and feel bad about the 23 and a half remaining Netscape 4 users. I also wish there were some hard-line javascript standards, but something tells me that isn't in the near future.
Does anyone know if FF2 will have CSS3 support? IE6's current version and IE7 support CSS3 and it has some interesting features. Once Firefox is on the CSS3 bandwagon, it will probably make the jump to mainstream more quickly. *hopes*