| 12:36 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
the thing is though that the kind of people who will use firefox will know how to change their home page and change the search box settings anyway.
firefox will never be mainstream
| 1:21 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I disagree about it never becoming mainstream. I have been using it for a year, and when 1.0 came out, I recommended it to two of my friends, and found out they were already using it.
I suppose it depends on your definition of mainstream. Does that mean 10% of internet users or 50%. I think (or hope) 10% is possible. And for me that would make it mainstream.
As a css website designer, it makes my life easier anyway.
| 1:24 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
when linux kernel has 40% of the desktop market share and firefox comes bundled with it.
or Think 2006?
When longhorn is released and google pays affiliates $5 for firefox downloaded and installed on a users pc.
Still think firefox will never be mainstream.
btw a lot of my friends i got hooked on to firefox dont know how to change their home page.
STROKE OF GENIOUS.
| 1:54 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>firefox will never be mainstream
Agree. Netscape didn't make it either. Without ground breaking features Firefox is Ok but it doesn't really impress me. It might be used by the anti MS group but not in big numbers any time soon. IMHO
| 2:01 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
to be mainstream it would have to well known (even if not used)
i think it would need to be bundled with an operating system that is commonly used.
a linux distro is not going to have 40% of the desktop any time soon, for all kinds of reasons, not least of which are support issues.
| 2:07 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I downloaded Firefox 1.0 a few days ago, the features look good, i especially like the tabbed browsing. The only problem i have encountered so far is that it quite slow on Windows XP.
[edited by: NuffRespect at 2:10 pm (utc) on Nov. 11, 2004]
| 2:08 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This is a surprising move by team mozilla. But at the same time, the number of key exNetscapers working at Google is rumored to be in the dozens.
| 2:09 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
No one's about to go download a browser when they already have one that works perfectly fine.
Firefox doesn't do anything more than IE for the average user. What incentive do they have to waste their time downloading it?
I don't think this move is anything more than the "we have to start with a search engine as our homepage" and them picking the tech favorite, Google.
| 2:16 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Gosh it is ridiculous, google of course have great strategy etc, but firefox should be the alternative browser, if its good enough it will make it on its own. I guess one day when the hackers find bugs in firefox when it becomes mainstream and everyone will start blaming them and blaming them and flaming them and blaming them, only then will ppl realise to leave it as the alternative. Sure get up to 10-20%. But leave it at that.
Id prefer my software vendors having actual offices and i can call them and complain to them. Not some kid in nowhere land. I believe in open source, but theirs not need for all this IE bashing, i believe firefox has BENEFITED, thats right BENEFITED from the browser MS made years ago.
Let firefox be a great alternative, dont ruin it because yous are all to greedy.
| 2:18 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> What incentive do they have to waste their time downloading it?
| 2:25 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Unless they ink a deal with OEM's like Dell or atleast with ISP's like Comcast i dont think this will even hit a 25% peneteration!
| 2:33 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There is a article about it on the BBC called Firefox browser takes on Microsoft. I think it has this important quote:
"Rivals to IE got a boost in late June when two US computer security organisations warned people to avoid the Microsoft program to avoid falling victim to a serious vulnerability."
If administrators start installing it in large companies as a "safe" alternative to IE, then the trickle could slowly begin.
| 2:35 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
if it ever does get mainstream, do ppl even bother to think of the consequences. When the s___ hits the fan, who we gonna blame? Volunteers? With what money? through their Donations?.I think its awful to rely so heavily on an organization. Its like relying on charities instead of the government. So we blame microsoft for hackers, i remember when they created XP their wasnt this spyware rubbish around, so why do they get the blame for it? They supposed to anticipate that people are evil?. I think through competition everyone benefits but think about this, in the end i do realise the benefit of having IE integrated with the OS however cos its linked within the OS it does open alot of vulnerabilities but its like try to blame the police for crimes happening rather then the robbers, i think ppl should start blaming the ppl that cause problems.
| 2:42 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Major PC makers installing it as the default would be a big boost.
I don't see corporate IT departments rushing to install it for security reasons. Unless Firefox cracks 25 or 30% of the market, we'll never know what its vulnerabilities are. I'd say most corporate IT chiefs will stick with "the devil you know" vs. the alternative.
| 2:53 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<<Agree. Netscape didn't make it either. Without ground breaking features Firefox is Ok but it doesn't really impress me. It might be used by the anti MS group but not in big numbers any time soon. IMHO
Tabbed browsing not groundbreaking? I can't surf w/out it and can't imagine how i ever did. ;)
Not to mention the built-in pop-up blocker and other cool features IE doesn't have.
The only thing I think IE is still better at is load time - both for the app. and pages once it's up and running...
| 2:54 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I wish the best for FireFox. I personally like the way it handles downloads, passwords, tabs, and css.
I reccomend it to my friends and customers.
It just doesn't seem to crash, or be suseptable to browser hijacking, as much as IE does. Granted, all this could change in time. But for now it is like a breath of fresh air.
Then again I may also have a grudge against Microsoft for its past mis deeds.
| 2:55 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
thats all good and everything, why dont we compare firefox to the new browser when it comes out, not something that is old, sure if i want to compare my pc now to 6 months ago which will perform better and have more features.
| 2:59 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I hope G and the FF community have an agreement about compensation of some sort. IE should be G's biggest worry because with IE Microsoft can push its own new seach engine into the market however mediocre it may be. Without any SE technology achievments in the past couple of years, the question is not who has the best search engine (they all use link pop in one way or the other) but who has the best marketing.
| 2:59 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
just because some of you are saying firefox doesn't have any advantages. here's a short list of why i use firefox:
- security: check out secunia.com. they rate IE as extremly critial
- customization: all these free extentions and little helpers assist you all the time (search toolbars, webdeveloper tools, download managers) (little problem: since there are so many, it takes a while to find the one you need ;-)
- skins: there is something for everybody: fancy moving icons, or simple straight design
- updates: microsoft hasn't really released a new version of IE for over 2 years now. Firefox (like all Open Source Projects) keeps going and going.
| 3:07 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"I do believe IE users have been quite vocal in their demands".
"Microsoft’s English reiterated that features such as tabbed browsing were not important to IE users."
[edited by: penfold25 at 3:34 pm (utc) on Nov. 11, 2004]
| 3:12 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Average users don't care enough about security to educate themselves and seek out solutions to potential problems proactively. The mass internet worms were a result of patches that were up to a year old not being applied to systems in a timely manner.
What makes you think they'll actively seek out a new browser?
As far as privacy goes, without getting political, users don't have clue #1 about privacy.
I agree with Roger that it may gain steam if OEMs install it - but they'd need to uninstall IE first.
| 3:30 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If Dell and the other big-box'ers bundled FireFox on the machines they sell, they wouldn't need to uninstall IE. Just remove the shortcuts and label the FireFox shortcuts something like "Go Online with FireFox" or even just "The Internet."
I know many non-tech people who have switched to FireFox (or Mozilla) and wouldn't consider going back to IE. They get hooked on the features. So even if Dell began installing FireFox and leaving IE shortcuts, I believe FireFox would still rapidly pick up users (particularly FireFox was preconfigured with a few non-default options and extensions).
I agree that privacy and security will never be big reasons for most people to switch to FireFox. On the downside, I just mentioned that I know some non-tech users who switched to FireFox for its features . . . well, I also know the IT guy for a medium-sized corporation, who had tried FireFox, liked the features, but went back to IE because that's what everyone else on his network used. He had no clue about the security issues involved - and he's the one entrusted with the entire security of the company.
| 3:32 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
More anti-IE security warnings could help FireFox too.
FireFox still has some improvements to make also. A university department that I've worked with tried to switch to FireFox for security reason, but had to switch back becasue there were some websites that just would not work properly.
That was three months ago.
Anyone know if FireFox has improved ist support of DOM?
| 3:55 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm a little curious about a few of the comments regarding "not trusting firefox because it's not commercial".
Fact is, there are a great many products you use every single day that are non-commercial. Bind, wu-ftpd, Perl, and the Gnu compliers all come to mind. Most Web servers you meet are all running Apache, a non-commercial application, running on Linux, FreeBSD or other volunteer run operating systems.
I trust Firefox as a principle browser the same way that I trust Apache as a principle web server. To counter the "private is better" argument, I know that the browser will never go away simply because the parent company is not making money or is purchased, as has happened with other commercial packages I've used.
Understand that with many programs such as these, work is not done by "random folks in volunteerland", but paid employees of companies like Google, Yahoo!, IBM, and other large organizations and universities that see the value of such applications. There are also any number of folks that are truely volunteering their time and effort, but that's their choice.
I'm not a big fan of Mozilla's integration with Google because it put open source engineers under NDAs (as non-employees) and because it effectively "branded" an open source product. It would be like Yahoo! making their servers the default MTA of sendmail. But, again, Google also worked very closely and spent a lot of money with the Mozilla team, so they do deserve some reward.
| 4:09 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I almost always agree with the baked one but...
"Average users don't care enough about security to educate themselves and seek out solutions to potential problems proactively. The mass internet worms were a result of patches that were up to a year old not being applied to systems in a timely manner."
I think the above is an argument for switching. Every time one of my relative's computers poops the bed from spyware exhaustion, and I switch them to Firefox (which is a lot easier fix than goofing around with IE), I just created a firefox user for life. Take a look around and notice what a large percentage of the population of people who know what they are doing are using as a browser. That's going to filter down to the average user eventually.
Please don't welcom me to webmasterworld, btw, this is just a new username, I feel like I've been here since the late 50's.
| 4:18 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Average users don't care enough about security to educate themselves |
But they care enough about the junk on their PCs to ask for help. (anti-scumware, anti-virus, firewall... and now, firefox)
| 4:32 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|firefox will never be mainstream |
|It might be used by the anti MS group but not in big numbers any time soon. |
|No one's about to go download a browser when they already have one that works perfectly fine. |
And few paid attention to Google when they first came out. If you improve on something people will use it verses the un-improved model.
A certain 14 year old I'm close to uses FF partly because it has a "cool" name.
BTW, I downloaded 1.0 yesterday. When I type in a site to visit it doesn't work. The hour glass briefly appears next to my pointer then disappears. Is that only happening to me?
| 4:33 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>manufacturers selling computers with firefox pre-installed...
won't happen, not if they are shipping with oem windows
| 4:36 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>Tabbed browsing not groundbreaking? I can't surf w/out it and can't imagine how i ever did.
er, opera have been doing this or better for years
| This 83 message thread spans 3 pages: 83 (  2 3 ) > > |