Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Software Internet Explorer The Internet

What's New With IE, Firefox, Opera 542

prostoalex writes "The Web browser market hasn't seen the competition heat up for a while, but things are getting quite exciting, PC World reports. The magazine looks into the latest features that are incorporated into Microsoft's Internet Explorer, Mozilla Foundation's Firefox and Opera Software's Opera. From the article: "We took Internet Explorer 7 Beta 1, Firefox 1.5 Release Candidate 1, and Opera 9 Preview 1 out for a spin. Both the Firefox beta and the Opera beta are available for download, although Opera isn't publicizing this early testing version; the browsers' final editions should be out around the time you read this. On the other hand, the IE 7 beta will not be available for downloading until early next year.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What's New With IE, Firefox, Opera

Comments Filter:
  • by xystren ( 522982 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @02:33AM (#14135702)
    it really doesn't matter to me, just as long as it's w3c compliant.
    • by Kelson ( 129150 ) * on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @02:53AM (#14135784) Homepage Journal
      it really doesn't matter to me, just as long as it's w3c compliant.

      Heh. Hah. HA HAHA HAHAHA!


      Sorry about that.

      "W3C Compliant" is much easier to define for a website than for a web browser. Why? A compliant website uses only features defined in the W3C specs, or only uses other features in ways that will gracefully degrade in compliant browsers (though some purists will object to the latter definition).

      For a browser, does it mean something that implements every part of a W3C standard? Or one that implements part of a standard but makes sure not to contradict it anywhere? Is it OK if it implements nonstandard features like those used in AJAX? And which standards? HTML, CSS and JavaScript/ECMAScript are a good start, but what about SVG? XHTML? XForms?

      The specs are complex enough that there still is no web browser that implements all of even the current versions of HTML/CSS/JavaScript. At best, you can measure relative compliance, in which case Firefox and company, Opera, and Safari are all well ahead of even IE7. But waiting for a "W3C Compliant" browser is going to take a while.
      • by masklinn ( 823351 ) < .at.> on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:38AM (#14135937)

        ECMAScript is an ECMA standard, not a W3C standard.

        DOM and Javascript DOM bindings, on the other hand, are W3C standards.

      • by Crayon Kid ( 700279 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:42AM (#14135944)
        "W3C Compliant" is much easier to define for a website than for a web browser.

        So true. That's true actually for any standard. Furthermore, it's incredible how many small spots are left uncovered by specifics, and result in browsers implementing their own interpretation. Quite often, you've guessed it, they turn out different behavior.

        Take the HTTP header that specifies the name of the file to be downloaded. The spec only says "it must be in ASCII". Fine. I feed it UTF, Explorer treats it as garbage, Mozilla et al. interprets it as UTF. That's one case. I urlencode it, Explorer decodes it and shows the UTF chars, Mozilla et al. presents it with the % codes still in place. Again, bummer.

        Both cases, one of them did something wrong and the other something good. Actually, it's not even a case of absolute "good or bad", it's more about taking the liberty to expand upon the specs. What's not explicitly forbidden is allowed, right?
        • by jrumney ( 197329 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @06:45AM (#14136443)
          The spec only says "it must be in ASCII". Fine. I feed it UTF

          In both cases you did something wrong, and the browsers either did something to try and salvage things, or followed the spec and gave you garbage. If anything, I'd expect non-ASCII text in headers to be encoded as per RFC-2047, but I doubt any browsers implement that.

          What's not explicitly forbidden is allowed, right?

          Non-ASCII text in headers is explicitly forbidden.

        • by CarpetShark ( 865376 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @06:46AM (#14136447)

          You know, ANSI C had holes in its standard too, but most of the weird, compiler-dependent stuff was covered by a #pragma directive, especially for that purpose. The rest of the compiler-specific stuff was generally an extension to the standard, rather than an interpretation of it.

          (X)HTML has plenty of space for browser-specific extensions, without breaking the standard. And that's generally where extensions go, too.

          The funny thing is: companies like MS still don't bother to implement things properly. Take PNG. In IE, PNG transparency took forever (I'm only vaguely recalling that it might have been fixed recently). But it's been in the PNG standard from day 1 -- an open standard, with no reason not to implement it, except laziness and lack of due import.

          SVG is similar: a well-defined standard, with LOTS of potential for the web, but yet Microsoft ignore it. Hell, Mozilla has ignored it, too. It's available for Mozilla as an add-on, but why isn't it IN there now? What about Konqueror and Safari?

          Where is support for the phone:// protocol? That's been around for years, too.

          EVERY effort should be made to implement things, according to best practices for that particular standard.

          Maybe what we need is not a better w3c standard, or a better PNG standard, or more marketing of SVG. Maybe what we need is more like a business practices standard, so that all browsers are certified as making continuous, ongoing efforts to keep up with new features, completely and accurately implement standards, and to resolve ambiguities in a community process before proceeding.

          THEN, we need to market. But NOT a browser; we need to market that certification. That certification mark, say, "FUTURE Browser", or something, should be what people look for in a browser, not feature X, or feature Y. As much as the marketing and word-of-mouth process should extoll the virtues of FUTURE browsers, they should also shame any browser that doesn't comply, and old, and worthless.

          That shame DOES work. It worked to take market share from IE, and give it to Firefox. It can work much more, when different browser organisations, and users of many platforms, all speak with one voice, and say that a browser is not a browser, if it doesn't have a FUTURE browser certification.

      • by Blue Mushroom ( 466106 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:44AM (#14135951) Journal
        I would define a W3C compliant browser as a broswer that correctly displays all webpages that pass the W3C validator. If any possible compliant page does not correctly display in the browser, the browser is not 100% compliant. Any broswer that can't correctly display any possible compliant page should only be called partially compliant. Why should it be more complicated than that?

        That probably means that no broswer will ever be 100% compliant, but so what? Just call the browsers what they are so nobody gets misled into thinking they are gauranteed to always see a page correctly if that page passes the validator.

        As far as browsers that implement features outside the standard, I don't understand why the purists would want to count that against the browser's compliancy status. The purpose of a standard is to help maintain interoperability between two independently managed operations. To accomplish this, all a standard has to do is specify a feature set that assures the minimum amount of functionality needed for correct interoperability. Assuming that additional features do not conflict with the specified design parameters of the standard, there is no way that including the extra features would prevent the browser from successfully displaying a validated page. With browser/page interoperability gauranteed, the standard has served its stated purpose, thus additional restrictions would accomplish nothing.

        Anybody see standards as having a different purpose?
        Why would anybody (aside from the developer trying to make a product seem better than it is) want to call a browser compliant if it only correctly displays a subset of all possible validated pages?
        Why would anybody insist on the noncompliant label for a browser that implemented extra features that had no effect on a validated page?
        • by Kelson ( 129150 ) * on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:55AM (#14135987) Homepage Journal
          As far as browsers that implement features outside the standard, I don't understand why the purists would want to count that against the browser's compliancy status.

          You haven't read many arguments over ActiveX, have you?

        • by FireFury03 ( 653718 ) <slashdot@nexusu[ ]rg ['k.o' in gap]> on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @05:41AM (#14136267) Homepage
          As far as browsers that implement features outside the standard, I don't understand why the purists would want to count that against the browser's compliancy status.

          The problem with supporting "extensions" is that people (who don't know any better) will use them. They then become a defacto standard which makes browsers that don't implement it render the page incorrectly and appear "buggy" to the layman.

          We have already seen this problem with IE's non-standard extensions resulting in pages not rendering correctly in FireFox, Opera, etc. You wouldn't believe the number of times people tell me they don't use FireFox because it's buggy since it won't even render a website they regularly use (it doesn't matter to most users that the website was coded by a moron - if it works in IE and doesn't work in FireFox then as far as they are concerned that's a bug in FireFox).

          Happilly, with the increase in use of non-IE browsers and mobile devices it seems that many webmasters are getting a clue. But we don't want to reverse that trend by promoting extensions.
          • It gets worse. Many sites appear broken to Opera because they detect the user agent and send different code to non-IE browsers, even though Opera can display the "IE" code just fine. As a consequence, sites appear "broken" because they ARE broken -- they send alternate buggy HTML that hasn't been updated in ages to non-IE browsers.
    • amaya, a web browser which is ONLY w3c compliant, and made by w3c people will crash on 90% of the sites out there on the web, if not more. it crashes on
    • by Nik13 ( 837926 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:37AM (#14135934) Homepage
      Being standards compliant is one of the most important factors indeed. However, there can be a little more to it than that.

      -Security. That alone is a reason to NOT use IE. Worst piece of unsecure code Microsoft EVER made. See the newest Javacript exploit for it? Affects fully patched browsers.... Just like we had one not long ago using IFrames instead. It seems like there's always a way to get past all the "security" of fully updated/fully locked-down IE no matter what. It's by FAR the main reason why spyware is an issue at all (the users are also partially to blame though). They can keep updating it or copy features like tabs, I truly don't care, I'll never use it! (If it didn't break other stuff, I'd remove it completely)

      -Features. Firefox may have high memory usage, but the extensions... I only wish something like that would exist for other browsers (although I also wish some of those were built-into Firefox/didn't need an extension for it). It's addictive. The Web developer toolbar, AdBlock (with a good list), Bugmenot, FlashBlock, gestures, Forecastfox, Foxytunes, SwitchProxy, LiveHTTPHeaders, GreaseMonkey (and some scripts), JS debugger, Checky, ColorZilla, XForms, EditCSS, Copy Plain Text, LoremIpsum Generator, StumbleUpon, DictionarySearch, Cookie Culler, etc. Not to mention other niceties like XUL apps (like the totally wicked DevEdge MultiBar and several others), usercontent.css, bookmark management/sync utils, the about:config page and other such things. I wish Opera (or another decent browser) would support them too...

      Anyways. I prefer Firefox based on the features/extensions, but really, as long as it's NOT the blue E... Opera, Konqueror, Netscape, Galeon, Safari, etc... They're all good browsers.
      • You mention security as being an important factor for not choosing IE. Then you mention features, and in particular the possibility of extensions, as a important factor for choosing FF. This doesn't add up. If anything, the extension mechanism in FF should prompt you not to use FF (or at least not use its extensions) if you care about secturity.

        You touch upon your problems with high memory usage in FF. Other people around here have complained about this as well, including stories about memory leakage

    • by cheekyboy ( 598084 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @05:46AM (#14136277) Homepage Journal
      Why cant we have real true resizing of webpage,if I show page at 60%, all images etc... should scale accordingly... or
      is that just too hard for a multiplatform? bitmap scaling in software is trivial btw, go google it FF-devs.
      • 60% of what?

        The idea is that the layout changes to suit the viewer. If I view a page on a 200 inch screen at a resolution of 102400x76800 I expect that it's not going to look the same as when I view it on a 6 inch screen at 400x400. The point is not to write the page so that it forces the client to show it in one particular way, it's to design a layout that can stand to be streched and skewed and still be readable.

        There is no right way to view a standards compliant web page, however viewing it in a non-stan
      • Opera's had that for ages, can't remember when it first appeared though...
        • Opera recently added "fit to window width" under the view tab, which intelligently downsizes pages to avoid horizontal scrolling on smaller windows, but keeps everything as-is if there is sufficient width. As a last resort on very, very small screens it degrades to a custom CSS file. It's really quite nifty.

  • Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @02:33AM (#14135703)
    Firefox still has major performance bugs affecting the display of Flash, memory consumption, and others. They don't get fixed because they aren't ego-boosters like other pet projects. Wish there was a commercial interest in charge of fixing bugs over there.
    • Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Comics ( 464489 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @02:38AM (#14135726) Homepage
      Arguably, Microsoft has a commercial interest in Internet Explorer and look at how that has worked out...
      • Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DigitumDei ( 578031 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @04:03AM (#14136012) Homepage Journal
        I'd say that arguably, after netscape died, they had no commercial interest in IE. It was the only browser, they could do what they wanted (or in this case do nothing).

        It is only recently that the renewed competition, and the addition of more complex web apps, that has brought IE back into the MS managers sights, and thus back as a commercial interest. I think we will see over the next year, just how much commercial interest in IE will speed up it's development.
      • Re:Whatever (Score:4, Insightful)

        by RoLi ( 141856 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @07:13AM (#14136520)
        Microsoft has a commercial interest in Internet Explorer

        Actually, Microsoft has a lot of commercial interest in the Win32-platform (Windows-licenses, MSDN-subscriptions, courses, etc.) which is of course endangered by the Web.

        That is why they wanted to establish their own network (MSN) with their own proprietary protocols and their own proprietary formats. They failed miserably and now MSN is just a normal ISP and uses Unix protocols and formats like anybody else. Microsoft did not "win" the Browser war, the whole Internet Explorer thing was damage control. After Netscape was dead, Microsoft was stuck with something they didn't really want. (An IE that was dominating but was running with open protocols and formats.) The better IE is, the more attractive the web becomes in comparison to Win32. So of course they let it rot, making IE better would have been counterproductive.

        After Firefox started to destroy domination by becoming so big that it can no longer be ignored (over 10% and rising is too much to ignore, even if it's still a minority) therefore Microsoft fell back to damage control mode.

        However, there are several reasons why IE will NEVER regain total domination:

        • IE is de-facto dead (or dying) on the Mac
        • While the IE to Firefox transition is quite easy (bookmarks get copied, etc.) the reverse is actually quite troublesome as Microsoft is quite arrogant and probably won't import FF bookmarks. Also of course FF-extensions don't run on IE, therefore IE7 might be able to slow further losses to FF, but it most likely won't be able to get back many users already lost.
        • Smartphones and other wireless devices are slowly getting more important and most of them don't run IE and never will. Even those few windows mobile users will run some browser that might be called IE but will not have much in common with the PC-version.
        • Embedded devices will become more important in browsing, especially the PS3.
        • Also, Linux adoption on the desktop is progressing. Many governments all around the world are adopting Linux, especially in South America and Europe.
        • IE has already lost domination and IE-only websites are becoming rarer already. Just one or 2 years ago, many people tried out Mozilla or Firefox, but were put off with IE-only websites. Quite a lot of those will try 1.5 and later 2.0 and even though the product is pretty much the same, there are much fewer IE-only sites around and therefore they are much more likely to stay with FF. Also, once a webmaster has established a standard-compliant website, it's unlikely that he reprograms it to be IE-only again, that just doesn't make any sense.

        All these factors combined will prevent IE from regaining significant marketshare and will cause further decline for IE in the long term that might be slowed but not stopped by Microsoft.

    • Re:Whatever (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Cyberllama ( 113628 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @02:43AM (#14135748)
      I hate to say it, but there's a definate kernel of truth in that. I know that I periodically have to close all of my firefox windows and start fresh -- after a day or two they start consuming way more resources than they should be. Once in a while, on a website with a flash banner ad, I'll firefox taking up 35% of my cpu.
      • Re:Whatever (Score:3, Interesting)

        Once in a while, on a website with a flash banner ad, I'll firefox taking up 35% of my cpu.

        One word: Flashblock []

        Here endeth the lesson.
        • Re:Whatever (Score:3, Insightful)

          by radish ( 98371 )
          So your suggested fix for a browser which can't display a certain kind of content reliably is to not try to display that kind of content? Genius. It works in other browsers, it should work in firefox. There's no excuse.
    • Re:Whatever (Score:4, Insightful)

      by guardiangod ( 880192 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:06AM (#14135835)
      I would probably get flame for saying this.

      IE is more stable than FireFox.

      Seriously, I use them both equally and, frankly, IE crashes once per day while FireFox crashes _at least_ twice a day. Compare to IE, where as it takes 300mb of ram for the same contents, FireFox takes _1.00gb virtural memory plus ~300mb of ram_, AND squeeze every last bit of ram out of my windows box.

      I have to close FireFox once per hour or else my comp freezes like a banana in the mid-winter Arctic.

      Yes this is a rant, so please, FF developers, do something about that leak that existed for as long as I could remember.

      *Burn karma burn baby*

      PS. Image/flash processing mostly.
      • Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)

        by McCarrum ( 446375 ) <mark.limburg@gm a i l . c om> on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:14AM (#14135867)
        I just looked at my Task Manager, and 42,538k .. I have (counts) 15 tabs open, a handful of addons loaded like adblock, fasterfox, tabprefs .. using a custom theme .. four of the tabs have rather active flash animations, one of the pages is littered with them.

        This isn't as simple as saying "ZOMGWTFBBQ Fixor it Mozilla!" ...
        • Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)

          by guardiangod ( 880192 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:34AM (#14135930)

          Disclaimer- I love FireFox, that's why I am using it as my main browser with IE as compatibility checker.

          Try going through 500 +150kb jpg/gif files and ~10 +1mb flashes _per hour_.

          Seriously, it's so freaking fun it's amazing.

          Yes I know my case is probably one of the "extreme user" type, but frankly, I am not the only one complaining about this, if the Mozilla bug forum is any indication.

      • Re:Whatever (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:16AM (#14135873)
        I almost never have to restart Firefox, except on rare occasions when some third-party plugin (Acrobat, WMP) hoses things up. Something else on your machine must be borken.

      • Re:Whatever (Score:5, Funny)

        by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 ) <`john.oyler' `at' `'> on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:23AM (#14135894) Journal
        I would probably get flame for saying this.

        MS DOS is more stable than DR DOS.

        Seriously, I use them both equally and, frankly, MS DOS crashes once per day while DR DOS crashes _at least_ twice a day. Compare to MS DOS, where Windows 3.11 loads perfectly on it, DR DOS takes forever to load it _and still reqiuires config.sys gymnastics_, AND squeeze every last bit of ram out of my machine.

        I have to restart DR DOS once per hour or else my comp freezes like a banana in the mid-winter Arctic.

        Yes this is a rant, so please, Digital Research, do something about your horrible WFW incompatibilities that existed for as long as I could remember.

        *Burn karma burn baby*

        PS. Use a non-shit OS, retard.
      • Re:Whatever (Score:5, Informative)

        by Dr.Syshalt ( 702491 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:59AM (#14135997)
        By default FF decides itself how much RAM it uses. You can limit the RAM cache either in user.js - add the following string

        user_pref("browser.cache.memory.capacity", 10240);

        ...or just install FasterFox extension - it will allow you to modify RAM amount it uses for cache. I run FF 1.5RC here for several hours (yes, on Windows XP - I didn't even check it memory footprint on Linux since it simply doesn't bother me) - it uses 44MB of RAM which, I guess, is ok for me.
      • Re:Whatever (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ArwynH ( 883499 )

        You know, I hate it when post like the parent and grand-parent get modded insightful, because well, they are not. Since when has it been the browser's fault when 3rd party plugins fail to work?

        Not only is Flash a 3rd party plugin, so it has nothing to do with the Firefox team, but it is also Proprietary and close source, which means even if the Firefox developer wanted to fix it, they couldn't.

        Quite frankly your arguments sound alot like those people who blame windows for running slowly and having adverts

    • Memory problems under 4.0, sure. But major problems under either other operating system?

      Sounds like maybe you need a good clean-up. Thats where I usually start when programs start acting erratically.
    • I love Firefox, but it's obviously pretty poorly written in parts (yes, I could do a lot better given some resources). The way it slows down and becomes unresponsive with a large number of tabs indicates severe internal locking conflict. I believe they use spinlocks too, hence the cpu piggishness. Once it gets bogged down it's truly hosed. Now, the thing is, why on earth would different tabs have major locking conflicts? Shared data structures, cache, etc. I'm sorry but this was just not well thought out. I
    • Wrong Methods (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 )
      ``They don't get fixed because they aren't ego-boosters like other pet projects.''

      I don't think that's the reason. I think the FF devs would love to fix these issues, but haven't been able to. Furthermore, I think that this is because they built the beast the wrong way.

      In the early days of the Mozilla project, they were building one big Communicator with lots of features and workarounds for broken sites and dog knows what else, all built upon a cross-platform framework with lots of abstractions and all. It
  • I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FF8Jake ( 929704 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @02:36AM (#14135723)
    how many ultimately cool creative proprietary new filters they can pack into IE7 instead of getting standards support right. I can see it now, along with the usual "glow" and "shadow" filters, we will also have "rainbow animation" effects!
    • Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Informative)

      Drop shadows are terribly overused nowadays, but they can be enormously helpful sometimes to emphasize elements or set them apart from busy backgrounds, e.g. captions over a photo. text-shadow is already a property in CSS2 [], and they're considering adding a "glow" or "outline" to the next recommendation.

      Firefox doesn't support text-shadow (or, totally apropos nothing, display: inline-block for that matter), but Safari does, and tastefully applied, it's great to have around. Why IE doesn't pair its proprieta
  • Opera (Score:3, Interesting)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @02:37AM (#14135725) Homepage Journal
    Just a couple of months ago I remember a story here, on /., about Opera giving away free serial numbers for their browser to anyone who wanted one (or more.) I must admit, I got myself one of those numbers and tried the browser and hated it. So I am stuck with FF for now because there is no way in hell I will use IE ever again in my life (haven't used it except in corporate environment for IE based intranet apps that someone wrote for over 3 years now.)

    But I am getting disappointed with FF - it crashes badly, processes get stuck, memory is an issue. There are problems. I hope these problems will be fixed quickly because this is getting annoying, and even though I told DarkSin here [] that I am not about to port LeetKey to Opera because I am not using it at the moment, I may just have to do that if I decide to switch to that browser if I feel that FF is just not what I want to see as a browser.
    • Re:Opera (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cryptoz ( 878581 )
      Why did you hate it? I've been an Opera user for coming up on three years now, and I admit I disliked it at first. I'll even go so far as to say that it's one of those applications that just flat out doesn't feel right at first...but seriously, I can't go back to anything else. Not FF, not IE, not Konqueror, nothing, just because Opera is so wonderful. Are you sure that you didn't allow yourself time to get the feel of it? Did you customize it at all? I also admit that by default Opera's interface is awful,
      • I hated it because it felt awkward and unnatural. Obviously if problems in FF really get to me I will have to deal with this awfull feeling I have when I look at Opera when it opens. But I am still hoping FF will get fixed in the real release of FF1.5
    • Re:Opera (Score:5, Funny)

      by John_Booty ( 149925 ) <.johnbooty. .at.> on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @02:44AM (#14135750) Homepage
      I told DarkSin here that I am not about to port LeetKey to Opera because I am not using it at the moment, I may just have to do that if I decide to switch to that browser if I feel that FF is just not what I want to see as a browser.

      Okay. Fair enough. Let's see what "LeetKey" is...

      LeetKey is similar to Russ Key... this extension allows typing and transliterating English into 1337 and other encoding schemes such as ROT13, Base64, HEX, URL etc. For some encodings this extension will translate the text back into English

      Wow. What a blow it will be to Firefox if you drop active development of that. Christ.
  • by BattleRat ( 536161 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @02:38AM (#14135729)
    that the most compelling argument to NOT use Firefox in favor of IE died when the "IE Tab" extension came out. Everything you need is now within your reach with Firefox. You have no excuse now...
  • by sysrpl ( 740738 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @02:39AM (#14135730)
    Both Opera and Firefox are rolling native SVG support into their browser. If you are unfamiliar with SVG, this site. []
  • by AcidArrow ( 912947 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @02:41AM (#14135740)
    To sum it up: IE7 gets tabs and better security (supposedly) (wow, we already knew that for quite a while) FF gets autoupdates that work (well, we all know that already) and Opera gets a variety of new features (but they were unable to test them for the article)
  • what about galeon? (Score:4, Informative)

    by larry bagina ( 561269 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @02:44AM (#14135753) Journal
    Galeon [] recently released v 2.0. Considering that most /. users claim to hate windows and love linux, it saddens me that such a feature rich browser gets completely ignored.
    • Its a fine browser, but like FF is based on mozilla, lacks extensions, or even the nifty features of opera. All in all, opera and FF are hands down the two best across all platforms, and if FF didn't have extensions, Opera would win. Opera > FF w/o extensions, FF w/ extensions >> Opera.
  • by yootje ( 770109 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @02:57AM (#14135798) Homepage
    They are only browsers! A piece of software where you can check out websites with! They are not that important, you see. Dude.
    • Merely because a product is used for a simple task does not make it any less important than anything else. The reason people care so much about the security features in their cars is, shockingly, because it's important. While moving from one place to another is simple, it's very important. Actually, by the nature of things, the more often a task is performed, the more important it is. Without very advanced browsers, one of the most common tasks of today's world for anyone - using websites - would become dan
    • They are only browsers! A piece of software where you can check out websites with! They are not that important, you see. Dude.

      What percentage of your time using a computer is spent using a browser? For most of us, it's a pretty significant percentage. That's what makes it important.
  • by nant ( 534932 ) <idan16.bezeqint@net> on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:00AM (#14135806) Homepage Journal
    It mentions a new widgets feature. Most chances are that the author is confusing the AJAX SDK opera released not too long ago ( []) to be a new Desktop feature.

    Aside of the above, it is a pretty good article. Kudos to my fav. browser maker ;)
    /me eagerly awaits Preview 2/Beta 1/votevah!
  • by Bitsy Boffin ( 110334 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:24AM (#14135897) Homepage
    For a long time I was a big advocate of gecko based browsers. Then firefox started to suck a bit, ok, it started to suck memory and CPU a LOT, not all the time, but enough to be incredibly annoying.

    A few months ago I started using Opera again (I've used it since Windows 3.1 days, but not seriously since then) full time, it took some configuring, I changed some keyboard shortcuts (CTRL-T to open a new tab for a start), added a web developer type toolbar, rearranged some stuff, and got a nice skin for it. But man, it's just so much faster and more responsive than Firefox.

    There are only three things I miss.. the abundance of plugins (some I miss particularly - live headers , url navigator and the flash click to play thingee), Venkman, and a designMode/contentEditable API (rich text (html) editing in the browser). Opera 9 implements designMode now, so that just leaves 2 before Gecko browsers earn the "browser of 2nd to last resort" badge from me.

    People really should give Opera a fair try, it really is better than Gecko IMHO. And now it's free (beer), there's not much of a reason not to give it a shot.
    • by patro ( 104336 )
      some I miss particularly - ... the flash click to play thingee

      Try this [].
  • by wardk ( 3037 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @03:32AM (#14135920) Journal
    On the other hand, the IE 7 beta will not be available for downloading until early next year.""

    good to see microsoft is upgrading the internet soon, we get to read about firefox and opera in a mainstream rag

  • by DroopyStonx ( 683090 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @04:05AM (#14136020)
    Guess we'll find out soon enough!

  • by bjornte ( 536493 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @04:13AM (#14136039)
    Starting in Q3 2006, Firefox is likely to break on the following sites:
    Czech R:
    This is because Firefox does not support soft hyphenation, a six year old bug [] that breaks the HTML 4.0 specification.

    German, Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Hungarian, Bulgarian and several other European languanges differ from English in the way that nouns are joined into one word. This often makes for very long words.

    Example: "Noun joining example" in Norwegian is "Substantivsammensettingseksempel". True, this is a very long word, but the effect happens all the time.

    We are preparing a new version of several big-brand European online stores using the same technological foundation. For these stores, many of whom are market leaders in their respective countries, we wish to use a layout where 3 products are shown side by side, with teaser text to the right of a teaser image. This demands that text columns are no more than 80 pixels wide, and this, again, demands soft hyphenation. IE, Safari and Opera supports this, but alas, Firefox does not.

    A pity really. Firefox is our default development browser because of an otherwise acceptable standards implementation.
  • by PhilHibbs ( 4537 ) <> on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @08:10AM (#14136626) Homepage Journal
    Don't overload the Reload and Stop buttons! I read about MS doing that in IE7, and it's one of the most stupid ideas I've heard. Then I tried Opera, and saw that they've done it too! The tabs being ABOVE the toolbar (ugly ugly ugly) is the main reason I don't use Opera, but the combined Stop/Reload button is another reason.
  • FF vs Fx (Score:4, Interesting)

    by trollable ( 928694 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2005 @08:52AM (#14136775) Homepage
    There is at least one thing wrong with Firefox. According to the releases notes [], "The preferred abbreviation is 'Fx' or 'fx'.". But almost every one uses 'FF'. They should listen the users ;)

"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde