| This 129 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 129 ( 1 2 3  5 ) > > || |
|Firefox - the most annoying browser in use?|
| 9:47 pm on Dec 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Heh heh, that should attract some readers.
Let's just agree that Firefox has it's plusses. Visiting my folks over the holidays I was forced to use IE and it was unpleasant. Firefox has been my default browser since back when it still had other names.
More and more, though, I find it the most cumbersome and annoying browser I've ever used for the end user. Granted, NS4 and IE* are far more annoying for the developer. Even as an end user, I find that Firefox has really two things that recommend it to me
1. tabbed browsing (but I can get that with Opera or with IE via something like Maxthon or Crazy Browser).
2. The numerous developer extensions - developer toolbar, Venkman debugger, things like that which most end users don't care about. Judging from the broken pages all over the place, neither do a healthy number of developers.
My biggest gripe is the terrible tendency to lock up when reading PDFs. I have long noticed this, but it has become a real sore point since losing my high-speed connnection. Now I wait forever for PDFs and Firefox trips all over itself trying to handle them.
So my gripes not in the least in brief....
- freezes up when loading a pdf (much much longer hesitation than IE - as in an order of magnitude or two). Then, after showing the first page, if you scroll way down to an unloaded section of the PDF, the whole thing freezes up until the PDF gets loaded to that point. If you've already hit the "stop" button once, it thinks it *is* stopped so you can't even use that to stop the loading. Very frustrating on a slow connection. My browser is stopped up like that as I write this (on Wordpad since, of course, Firefox is stuck) and I can't even look at the content in the other tabs because the whole thing is frozen until it downloads the PDF to the point that I scrolled to. I can't even close the browser. On some occasions I've resorted to shutting down the internet connection and reconnecting. I suspect that PDFs are not becoming more common, but since losing the high-speed connection, it seems like every third page is a PDF - or at least 1/3 of the time I spend waiting for things to load is spent waiting for a PDF.
- many problems with copy and paste. It often doesn't work with the CTRL-C/CTRL-V sequences and I have to right click and select from the menu. It's the only program I have that does this and FF does it so often I don't even try to use keyboard sequences for copy and paste. I often find the same thing is true of CTR-T to open another tab. I often have to click it multiple times before the tab opens.
- sometimes a folder of my bookmarks disappear even though it still shows up in the bookmark manager (and no, it's not a scrolling issue). They reappear upon closing and restarting Firefox.
- often, if it's still loading pages in other tabs, it fails when you try to bookmark the current tab.
- password manager doesn't work if site demands password then username instead of username then password (I reported this to Bugzilla already and has been confirmed as a bug).
- password manager doesn't fill in fields until the page has fully loaded, which can be forever on a dial-up. There may be legitimate security reasons, but PM just doesn't seem as good as in IE.
- the search function. Aside from its annoying placement at the bottom of the screen (not obvious when it pops up; terrible ergonomics since it is as far as possible from top menus), there again I find it often won't open if I'm in one tab and content is still loading in other tabs.
- print preview gives you the same number of total pages, even as you change the sizing. So you have four pages and you're looking at page 1 of 4. Then you shrink the text tiny so you only have one page. Now you're still looking at page 1 of 4. But there are no other pages.
So there it is... the most annoying browser ever?
| 11:13 am on Jan 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Though FF mimics Opera, I think it's actually superior, because Opera puts its X up near the main window buttons to close or minimize. Apart from making me travel farther, it also increases the chance that I will accidentally close the entire browser. |
Opera 8.0 has the X on the tabs.
| 7:49 pm on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The minute I changed to FF from IE, my load speed was WAY faster;
I would guess this is a matter of spyware, popups not being blocked and things like that. The speed something loads is essentially a function of bandwidth, not browser. FF does have some nice features that let you block popups or turn off images to speed things up, but basically, a given page takes a given amount of time.
What I find, though, is that FF and TB are not nearly as good at doing two things at once as IE or Eudora. For example, I open three pages in three tabs. I often find that all pages have to get to a certain point before FF will let me bookmark any of them (even pages that are supposedly fully loaded). If I have three IE windows open, no window cares what is going on in another window. With FF I have to sit there and wait for it to sort itself out in tabs 2-6 before I can bookmark the page in tab 1.
Similarly, if someone sends me an email with something attached, TB seems to download a lot more info when running on an IMAP server than Eudora does. Eudora downloads the headers and stops. TB seems to keep going and locks everything up until it gets itself sorted out.
None of these things were apparent to me when I still had my 256Kb ISDN lines, but now that I'm at 24K, I feel like I spend a lot of time waiting for FF and TB to sort themselves out, whereas I didn't have those issues with Eudora or IE on 24Kb lines.
So it's not really so much a matter of FF loading slower or faster - I've never seen a difference between browsers in that respect - but rather what you're able to do during the intermediate states when the load is ongoing.
| 4:04 am on Jan 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am very, very new here, but have gone through literal
hell installing FF 1.0 on XP. My computer crashed, couldn't shut it off, and after I manually shut down, when I tried to reboot, my monitor went into a deep sleep. I waited nearly an hour then tried to boot up again. It booted and I jumped for the sheer joy of it.
Got to Firefox, got to websites...until ssl was required.
Even though SSL and all were enabled in the prefs, message after message appeared that SSL is disabled on Firefox. When finally I couldn't even get to my own provider, I went Googling. No SSL folks.
Yep. A GREAT browser unless you need to handle money, or spend it for that matter.
Anyone got a recommendation for this?
Thanks in advance.
| 6:16 am on Jan 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
IceBlue: I've no notion what the problem could be. I've been spending, transferring, etc. money, credit cards, paypal, you name it without any problems such as you report, since FF 0.6, February '04 appx. The only sites I can't reach with FF are BoA (credit cards not banking - don't bank with them) and a couple of sites pertaining to my husband's retirement program/payments/medical coverage.
I also have had no problem installing FF of any version on both WinXP Pro SP1 and WinXP Home SP2. No lock ups, no bogs, no failures of any sort.
Maybe one of the others who've used FF forever will have some help for you.
| 3:44 pm on Jan 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thank you for responding, but a Google search brings up many hits on this bug. No matter what you try do download from Mozilla, you will receive the message that you cannot update because SSL is disabled. No skins. No themes. No extensions. Nothing. This is not 1.0 Beta, but rather 1.0 release version that I can see either on *about* or in my own settings. No one seems to have a workaround and bugzilla will not respond because SSL is disabled.
Okay. I'm losing it a bit here. I guess someone will get around to it, but man, what a let down.
| 4:07 pm on Jan 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Interesting. I don't have any bugs with it, so I haven't been to bugzilla....
| 7:30 pm on Jan 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'll comment on a few issues:
(1) A web page can easily bring your computer to its knees if there's no minimum timeout value. This has nothing to do with slow JS execution, "os cycles" or anything of the sort. Mozilla Firefox just uses a different minimum value from what IE uses. This was discussed ad nauseum in Bugzilla years ago with Mozilla AS.
(2) I love some of the extensions and that's what switched me to Firefox, but I'm annoyed at having to maintain all these extensions for pretty basic functionality. The project philosphy seems to be to keep speed up and memory usage down by leaving things out--but it's not working in my experience. FF uses almost exactly as much memory as AS and there's no visible difference in speed among any of the browsers I have available, even on mediocre hardware.
(3) History seems to be quirky in Firefox. The Go menu mixes history from multiple windows, so I haven't found it to be all that useful. The dropdown on the back button is more my style, but it lists duplicate entries in some cases when ads are cycled on a page or have multiple frames. In some cases, I've left the browser on a page for a while and couldn't go back, because the history had filled with these dupes.
(4) The bookmark system is awful. Netscape 4.x is still king of the hill for me. Filing bookmarks is easier, and it limits the width of the bookmark menu to reasonable levels so that I don't have to manually each bookmark's name down when I add it. AS, FF, and IE all drive me nuts with this issue.
(5) The previously mentioned issue with the password manager not filling in passwords until the page is loaded has always annoyed me, too. It's not a security issue, AFAIK, just old code. Discussion in a bugzilla bug once led me to believe that the problem is that this code predates XBL bindings, and thus couldn't be made to work quite right while a page load was still in progress.
(6) The issue with how FF rendered misnested <b> elements is not a matter of FF failing to comply with standards. The page is nonstandard and FF and IE are make different decisions about how to render the nonstandard code. That doesn't make either of them more standards compliant than the other.
| 9:27 am on Jan 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
IceBlue, have you tried Opera?
| 1:05 pm on Jan 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|(6) The issue with how FF rendered misnested <b> elements is not a matter of FF failing to comply with standards. The page is nonstandard and FF and IE are make different decisions about how to render the nonstandard code. That doesn't make either of them more standards compliant than the other |
I agree this "doesn't make either of them more standards compliant than the other", however it does make IE the more "standards aware" browser. IE detects the error and makes a decision about what to do. However the designers of FF appear to have ignored this sort of problem. FF is unaware of the problem and doesn't make a decision at all, but just blunders on and the page breaks.
| 6:39 am on Jan 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Tried FF on Win98, ME, 2000 and XP.
FF does real well on 98, 2000 and XP, but blows a really big horn on ME.
FF does not do well on ME at all, of course, I don't think anything really does well on ME.
I have discovered that the faster the connection, the better the performance of FF.
So far so good.
Each of our machines are geared up for different tasks. The machines that don't have a lot of other things running in the background are the machines that FF works the very best on.
| 5:59 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
> Try the "Show Failed URL" extension
[wrt eliminating Firefox dialog box when page not found]
Actually you don't even need an extension. There's a property in about:config called browser.xul.error_pages.enabled. Set it to "true" and you get a standard 404 type page "Page load error" instead of the modal dialog box. The "try again" link lets you try to reload the failed URL. Note that you must restart the browser for the change to take effect.
Why "false" is the default I don't know. Personally I totally agree that avoiding dialog boxes is preferable, but whoever wrote the code obviously thought otherwise (maybe they were a Windows fan). If someone can be bothered to feed this back to Mozilla, maybe they'll change the default in later releases.
| 2:34 am on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't like that a new TAB keeps the same session cookie as the old tab.
In fact, even if I open a NEW INSTANCE, it keeps the same cookie and even overwrites the first instance's cookies.
That's very bad - very bad indeed.
That is why I don't SHOW my products in firefox.
It's just like my Mac - it works great if I'm not doing any really web intensive or business intensive work.
There is a reason why Windows and IE control over 90% of the market and it's not just due to monopoly.
there are some things I can do in Windows that I can't do on my Mac, there are lots of things I can do in IE that I can't do in FireFox.
| 10:56 am on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"There is a reason why Windows and IE control over 90% of the market and it's not just due to monopoly.
there are some things I can do in Windows that I can't do on my Mac, there are lots of things I can do in IE that I can't do in FireFox."
Well, there are some things I can do in Linux that I cannot do on Windows... there LOTS of things I can do in Firefox that I cannot do in IE...
See how easily your logic is turned around? ;)
In the end the decision lies with the customer, and with +18 million downloads as of today, it seems clear where that is going to go.
If you don't like something in FF, you know you *can* contribute or raise a point (e.g. your cookie problem) to the developers.
| 1:31 pm on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|In fact, even if I open a NEW INSTANCE, it keeps the same cookie and even overwrites the first instance's cookies. |
That's very bad - very bad indeed.
I've observed the exact same behavior in IE (with different instances, of course, since it doesn't have tabs). Maybe I have a setting different somewhere?
| 2:41 pm on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I've observed the exact same behavior in IE (with different instances, of course, since it doesn't have tabs). Maybe I have a setting different somewhere? |
That's been my experience as well. When I read Txbakers complaint about FF overwriting cookies from other tabs and instances, I thought, "Doesn't IE do the same thing?"
| 5:02 pm on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In IE, if I open a completely new browser from the Programs menu, it doesn't keep the same cookie, it opens a new cookie session.
If I do a Ctrl-N for a new window, it keeps the same cookie.
I tried opening a new browser in FF and it didn't open a new cookie.
| 7:24 pm on Jan 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|with +18 million downloads as of today |
I am 2 of those, and I only use FF for testing. As someone mentioned earlier, just because you have tried something it doesn't mean you will continue to use it. The figure is of downloads, which is not the same as regular users.
| 2:40 am on Jan 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
And the number of actual users is, I suspect, much higher than the downloads. For instance, I'm only one download, but I'm responsible for at least five people using FireFox as their default browser, from the CD's I made and distributed of my download.
| 3:57 am on Jan 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Go you a few better Matthew: I'm now personally responsible for TWENTY people using FF in preference to IE - the latest ones my cousin (*sigh* - the absolute QUEEN of trash on a machine!) and my best friend (who "lost" IE for some reason early last week, ran ALL of the de-trashers I have installed on her box, still couldn't get IE back, called me in a panic; I had her load the FF1.0 .exe which was still on her desktop, and she's thrilled - because it's "clean" meaning no popups, and she finds it easier to use and faster.... this from a complete NON-TECHIE, btw....)
[I probably could have got IE back for her, had it not been nearly midnight, and an 80 mile round trip. By the time I was going to get there to fix it next day, she'd decided she didn't WANT IE back....]
| 4:40 pm on Jan 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Actually you don't even need an extension. There's a property in about:config called browser.xul.error_pages.enabled. Set it to "true" and you get a standard 404 type page "Page load error" instead of the modal dialog box.
Actually, Jezlinux, I was talking about something a bit different. I have it set to give me the try again link, but if the page has other problems, IE and Opera will throw the link that you clicked on into the address bar pretty much no matter what. With FF, there are plenty of circumstances where you don't get the "try again", but more importantly, it's often the result of a malformed URL. With IE or Opera, I can just edit the url directly. So if I have
IE and Opera help me out, but FF just annoying "try again" thing. With the [b]Show Failed URL extension, you get most of the functionality of the other browsers, but for some reason, I still often get the "try again" screen without a valid URL in the address bar. If you hit "Stop" for example, before FF gives up, I don't think you get the URL in the bar.
BTW, I never expected this thread to go on so long. I hope someone from the mozilla group is reading!
| 5:44 pm on Jan 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I hope someone from the mozilla group is reading! |
Agreed. I haven't had any of these problems, or at least, what problems I've had are certainly not worth switching from FireFox to another browser. But I'll grant there are still some rough edges here and there that could stand to be fixed. Unfortunately the FireFox developers haven't been too keen on listening to their users up to now. For instance, they seem satisfied to leave the "Show Failed URL" as an extension, when it would seem to me that such a basic feature should unquestionably be part of the core.
| 11:18 pm on Jan 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|if I open a completely new browser from the Programs menu, it doesn't keep the same cookie, it opens a new cookie session. |
Yes that is presuming you know how to or even understand/care what a cookie or session is (or as I had to explain on the phone just yesterday ~ you can open a new window without losing your original page!)
For most surfers and probably even "techies" who perhaps just don't want to look at IE any more ~ be it, local press, security scares, design, monopoly commissions (whatever reasons) ~ I'm afraid that's not a valid reason.
I still can't use Opera full time, I mean I like it and it's CSS support ;), but even with all it's "one click" keyboard features it's too techie ~ I never did keyboard shortcuts in IE either even though there's a long list of them, I'm led to believe it's a programmers thing! ~ so I guess there's a happy medium for everyone.
FireFox seem to have found it. Happy Medium means it ain't gonna please all of the people all of the time, but most of them most of the time is a good goal! ~ FF is easy for JB surfers, and has the add-ons/extras for those that want more..
| 5:30 am on Jan 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Happy Medium means it ain't gonna please all of the people all of the time, but most of them most of the time is a good goal |
Just like the Mac. I love my iBook and use it whenever I can, but it certainly can't replace my Windows laptop. Contrary to what the ads say, you can't do everything on a Mac that you can on Windows, but for the Happy Medium people, it's great.
Like Firefox. I'll use it, but it won't be my total solution, whereas in IE I can do everything.
| 2:34 am on Jan 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've been using FF since 0.7, now using 1.0.
Many problems with FF can be caused by a corrupt profile.
Other than that, I enjoy using FF and Thunderbird.
I still use IE for testing, and for IE only sites.
| 12:04 pm on Jan 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For IE only sites, I use other sites :) If they don't want my custom...
(mind you, there's always windowsupdate but I think that's it)
| 10:24 am on Jan 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Like Firefox. I'll use it, but it won't be my total solution, whereas in IE I can do everything. |
Really? Yet Firefox is more capable. Do explain.
|I still can't use Opera full time, I mean I like it and it's CSS support, but even with all it's "one click" keyboard features it's too techie |
But you can make it as simple as you like - identical to Firefox if you wish.
| 12:54 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Really? Yet Firefox is more capable. Do explain. |
Read my posts above on the subject.
I can't do everything in Firefox that I can do in IE so Firefox, no matter how wonderful it is, will always be my Number 2 browser.
| 1:08 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I can't do everything in Firefox that I can do in IE so Firefox, |
The reverse is also true (much more so in my opinion, but that's irrelevant just now). The issue is which browser does what you need it to do. If not using the same cookies is the most important thing to you, use IE (though I still haven't been able to duplicate the behavior you mention). If other things are more important, use FireFox.
I won't deny that IE may be the best choice for some developers, but there's a reason FireFox is picking up so many users among the tech community.
| 4:04 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|there's a reason FireFox is picking up so many users among the tech community. |
No doubt there are excellent reasons, many given in this thread. But I suspect for some people FF is just the latest fad. And of course the usual trashing M$.
| 4:26 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|But I suspect for some people FF is just the latest fad. |
How wrong they are.
| 7:12 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Firefox is now my default browser and the mosy annoying thing about it is the adware for <a specific site> when I check my Yahoo mail (and occasionally for other Yahoo pages). It doesn't happen all the time and I haven't played enough with Explorer to make it happen there too. I can't get rid of this thing.
[edited by: tedster at 7:25 pm (utc) on Jan. 25, 2005]
[edit reason] remove specifics [/edit]
| This 129 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 129 ( 1 2 3  5 ) > > |