Firefox Beats Million-Download Deadline

21 Sep, 2004 at 1:01pm ET Article published in Tech

Comments

1. 
   21 Sep 2004 ~ 1:07pm Armo YAY for firefox
2. 
   21 Sep 2004 ~ 1:19pm Leonardo I've become a Firefox evangelist.
   
   IF YOU AREN'T USING MOZILLA FIREFOX...YOU'RE WRONG!
3. 
   21 Sep 2004 ~ 1:21pm primesuspect Tell me about it. I have a feeling that the spyware problem would be reduced by 1/3rd if people just started using Firefox.
   
   Although, I imagine it's only a matter of time before spyware authors start trying to exploit alternative browsers.
4. 
   21 Sep 2004 ~ 1:39pm Camman

   Leonardo wrote:

   
   IF YOU AREN'T USING MOZILLA FIREFOX...YOU'RE WRONG!

   
   
   IE>FireFox, kthxbye
5. 
   21 Sep 2004 ~ 1:40pm Thrax Meh.
6. 
   21 Sep 2004 ~ 1:44pm primesuspect Run, camman, run!
7. 
   21 Sep 2004 ~ 2:03pm Shorty They flew through the 1 million mark and are already well on their way to the 2 million mark
8. 
   21 Sep 2004 ~ 2:04pm Camman

   primesuspect wrote:

   Run, camman, run!

   
   
   
   I couldnt pass up a good browser thread when I saw it now could I
9. 
   21 Sep 2004 ~ 2:14pm Leonardo

   IE>FireFox, kthxbye

   If MS could/would get their security straigt with IE, I'd probably move back to it. Problem is, IE was designed to be all things to all people; just no way you can make such a monster secure. Apart from security, the only feature of Firefox I enjoy over IE is tabbed browsing.
   
   So, is Firefox more secure only because internet vandals aren't targeting it as they are IE? Fair question.
   
   BTW, I still use IE for Windows Updates. Firefox will not work for that.
10. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 2:57pm -Ben Less people on firefox the less amount of spyware we get targeted at us :O
    
    LEAVE FIREFOX!
11. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 3:09pm TheBaron the last picture in that sig is priceless
12. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 3:30pm keto Can I install 1.0 FF straight over top of .9.3 or do I *have to* (whiny kid voice) uninstall it first?
13. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 4:02pm primesuspect I installed on top. Nothing seems to be affected by it.
14. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 4:54pm TheBaron

    primesuspect wrote:

    I installed on top. Nothing seems to be affected by it.

    however, the new version of thunderbird doesn't seem to like being installed on top (on one of the machines I did it on at least, the other didn't mind)
15. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 5:04pm Leonardo What's the difference between Thunderbird and Firefox?
16. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 5:12pm Thrax My basic gripe with Firefox is that it STILL doesn't render code as well as IE, though it's getting much much better. Basically, the problems it has left is limited to CSS, but I visit a lot of CSS-heavy sites that Firefox doesn't like.
17. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 5:19pm TheBaron

    Leonardo wrote:

    What's the difference between Thunderbird and Firefox?

    Thunderbird is the mozilla mail client, only reason I mentioned is that a lot of corps still use netscape based mail (like where I work) and the new version fixed a bunch of security holes. it also just happened to come out on the same day as the new versions of Mozilla and Firefox
18. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 5:20pm Linc

    Thrax wrote:

    My basic gripe with Firefox is that it STILL doesn't render code as well as IE, though it's getting much much better. Basically, the problems it has left is limited to CSS, but I visit a lot of CSS-heavy sites that Firefox doesn't like.

    Are you sure it's not that the sites are coded for IE's misinterpretations of CSS code?
    
    
    I recently saw an article saying that Firefox may have sliced up to a full percent of internet users away from IE in recent months.
19. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 5:58pm a2jfreak Will you name a few of these sites?
    
    I'm thinking along the lines of GeneralKeebler that it possibly isn't CSS giving FireFox problems but rather IE-specific code giving FireFox problems.
    

    Thrax wrote:

    My basic gripe with Firefox is that it STILL doesn't render code as well as IE, though it's getting much much better. Basically, the problems it has left is limited to CSS, but I visit a lot of CSS-heavy sites that Firefox doesn't like.
20. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 6:40pm Dexter

    primesuspect wrote:

    
    Although, I imagine it's only a matter of time before spyware authors start trying to exploit alternative browsers.

    
    
    I recall that Mondi noted back in July that the Omegasearch variants had started to do some hijacks and added Favorites in Firefox, so they are starting to do exactly that. But the Mozilla based browsers should still be safer in terms of getting infected in the first place. Unless one gets infected via an e-mailed or P2P downloaded app, the lack of Active X in Mozilla should make it safer for most users.
    
    Dexter...
21. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 7:38pm mmonnin

    Thrax wrote:

    My basic gripe with Firefox is that it STILL doesn't render code as well as IE, though it's getting much much better. Basically, the problems it has left is limited to CSS, but I visit a lot of CSS-heavy sites that Firefox doesn't like.

    
    Same here.
    
    Matt: Considering it doesnt render SM correctly...I dont think its IE.
22. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 8:34pm Sputnik i'm suprised noone mentioned that it render text much faster than IE.... pictures it doesn't seem as fast on.
23. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 8:37pm Linc Marc, are you referring to the front page, forum, or both? I'm not noticing any problems myself anymore.
    
    Also, I may get a herring across the face for this from Shorty, but it's still possible that the CSS for either is based on a Microsoft-centric world. IE != the standards. To my knowledge, Mozilla is following the standards better than MS.
    
    (This is most-especially true when dealing with table widths, which I suspect accounts for the majority of 'errors' we're talking about)
24. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 9:00pm mmonnin At least it did with the old forum style. The small box with an arrow pointing to the right in the Last post column on the forum index. They were never aligned correctly with Firefox.
25. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 9:20pm Leonardo I had similiar problems. Don't know if it was related - probably not, but yesterday I reinstalled my video card drivers and S-M renders better now with Firefox.
26. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 11:06pm Straight_Man Mozilla and Firefox both have had bugs that relate to a couple things-- one is "float left" and was also video display dependent to a degree (some user had problems, not others, and fixing float left's to a position about 1-2 or 3-4 pixels to right of zero (variable by screen display res and display devices, 3-4 seems safe for almost ALL with that problem (and although I do as of just after I statrted to use 1.7.3 instead of 1.7.2 have a left margin post input box in quick post mode bar cursor, all the rest works better and Mozzie now word wraps right in the post input boxes which it did NOT before) left fixed for all, and Mozilla 1.7.3 and up now do this (It was mentioned as a nightly build fix and as a Mozilla 1.7.3 thing as a positioning thing problem fix, and in MozillaZine support forums for Mozilla) so FireFox might also. I would expect Mozilla 1.7.4 to be better in this respect also, when it comes out (AFAIK, as of a couple days ago it was in very early dev beta form as snapshot in dev area, have not tried it but devs were talkiing about another .01 version under thier belt unless folks found major bugs as of two-three days ago when I last checked the MozillaZine support forums and newsgroup archives). Note, a left margin zero pad in a table can do this also (some displays, no matter what you do, will not render such right, a pixel or two gets right shifted somehow, that can be CSS, speced in other things also (including table defs in HTML and XHTML code, though Float Left 0 bothers most all Mozilla derived browsers) some as well as an IE\FrontPage extension thing. S-M does look better in Mozilla 1.7.3 than it looked in 1.7.2 or 1.7 or 1.6+ or earlier. I have both 1.6 here and right now 1.7.3 and 1.7.3 renders S-M better than 1.7 or earlier on both XP and Linux Mandrake 10 Official (DLE edition). why, you might ask, do I have 1.6 at all??? JSP sites, it can use more Java JRE subversions than the 1.7 tree in my experience (and I have spent about 15 hours trying to figure out why and howto just for 1.7.3 much less the rest of the earlier 1.7 tree branch (and 1.7 DOES have an official dev tree branch unto itself)). Render fine details can be display details a lot, but I have not changed video display settings or devices at all, and this happens in XP and Linux with TWO DIFFERENT nvidia cards and Nvidia driver packs. Only change I made was a VERSION of Mozzie change on Linux.
27. 
    21 Sep 2004 ~ 11:26pm Linc

    mmonnin wrote:

    At least it did with the old forum style. The small box with an arrow pointing to the right in the Last post column on the forum index. They were never aligned correctly with Firefox.

    My guess is that vB fixed its code in the latest release.
    
    
    Straight Man, I thank you for your customary incomprehensible contribution to this thread.
28. 
    26 Sep 2004 ~ 12:17am Camman Straightman = Ageek???? or just an indentical post style.... ?
29. 
    26 Sep 2004 ~ 12:45am Linc

    Camman wrote:

    Straightman = Ageek???? or just an indentical post style.... ?

    Yes, it is.
30. 
    26 Sep 2004 ~ 12:55am Thrax Wasn't he bannededededed?
31. 
    26 Sep 2004 ~ 3:33am Shorty

    General Keebler wrote:

    Marc, are you referring to the front page, forum, or both? I'm not noticing any problems myself anymore.
    
    Also, I may get a herring across the face for this from Shorty, but it's still possible that the CSS for either is based on a Microsoft-centric world. IE != the standards. To my knowledge, Mozilla is following the standards better than MS.
    
    (This is most-especially true when dealing with table widths, which I suspect accounts for the majority of 'errors' we're talking about)

    No Herring.. you are absolutely right.
    
    I (unfortunately) had to let FireFox "degrade gracefully" on some parts because of Internet Explorers horrible way of breaking the CSS & HTML standards laid out by the W3C.
    
    Im now working very hard to use some new tricks I've learned that will work in both compliant browsers (FireFox, Mozilla & Opera) and in browsers that do what the hell they want and never mind that good "standards" (IE).
    
    For the interest of anyone, I wrote the SM code and tested it in FireFox FIRST.. before making adjustments to cope with IE's evil renderer.