backtop


Print 67 comment(s) - last by murphyslabrat.. on Nov 20 at 1:22 PM


Son, you need to watch out for bugs when you take Firefox 3.0 for a spin.  (Source: Spread Firefox)
A scandalous report has one Mozilla saying curse words

On Thursday the New York Times ran a story about Mozilla, manufacturer of the open-source Firefox browser, which brought to light interesting claims about internal decisions taking place.

Mozilla Firefox, which as of September had a 14.85% market share and recently hit 400 million downloads, is preparing to launch the final version of the third iteration of its Mozilla Firefox browser.  Firefox 3.0 is currently undergoing testing of its Beta 1 release.

The Times alleges that Mozilla only plans to fix 20% of the bugs currently in Firefox 3.0 before the final release.

The Times received an apparently leaked copy of Mozilla's the notes for Wednesday's internal status meeting on the state of the browser.  The note stated, "We have 700 bugs currently marked as blockers.  That's too many. We're asking [requiring] component owners to set priorities on blockers, as a first pass of what bugs should be Beta 2 blockers. You want it to be about 10% of blockers, or what you can get done in four weeks."

A bug that is serious enough to postpone the release is known in the Mozilla community as a "blocker".

The meeting notes went on, "We'll be doing pretty much the same thing for Beta 3, which means that something like 80% of the [approximately] 700 bugs currently marked as blockers will not be fixed for Firefox 3," the meeting notes continued.  "The hope is that by 'fixing the most important blockers' several times, we'll get to a point where we can cut the rest without feeling bad about the quality of the release. And if we do feel bad, we can add an extra beta or two."

The meeting notes did include an exception for security bugs, which Mozilla considers mandatory and expects developers to automatically fix.  Non-security bugs that effect browsing performance are being triaged, though, by how much they will hinder user's daily browsing experience.

Mike Beltzner, Firefox's interface designer is hoping developers will focus on fixing memory leak, performance and web-compatibility issues, as well as any major regression bugs that snuck into the code of Firefox 2.0.

Mozilla is stress testing the beta software.  It plans on releasing two or three more Beta candidates, before the final release.  Mozilla is struggling to keep up with schedule, as it said it would release the second beta by September and Firefox 3.0 by the end of the year.

The Times article elicited a fiery response from Mozilla developer Asa Dotzler, who posted a blog stating, "[The Times'] claim is simply horses**t.  We've already fixed over 11,000 bugs and features in Firefox 3 and now we're discussing how to handle the remaining 700 issues we wanted to get fixed for Firefox 3."

Dotzler makes no attempt to refute what the Times article did say, though -- that only 20% of the remaining 700 significant bugs will be fixed, and gave no indication of how many of the less significant bugs (non-"blockers") will be fixed.

Firefox typically releases solid products, but despite strong recent gains, it is clearly feeling the pinch as it prepares to release Firefox 3.0, and by all indications, is struggling to accomplish a trimmed back version of its initial goals, after missing deadlines and falling behind on its beta releases.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

so what
By Gul Westfale on 11/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: so what
By Squibby on 11/18/2007 4:23:18 PM , Rating: 3
That's pretty short-sighted. If there are any security updates in Firefox 3.0 that aren't back-ported to 2.0 (and there will be some), you should upgrade. This sounds a lot like all those people who brag about not rebooting their Unix box for a year... you just have to look at the latest security hole that was fixed, and you have a direct route to hack their box.


RE: so what
By Gul Westfale on 11/18/2007 4:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
i'm not a nuclear scientist, i'm just a guy who surfs the web. if it ain't broke, why fix; and thereby risk breaking it?


RE: so what
By Squibby on 11/18/2007 4:59:01 PM , Rating: 3
Well, my point was that it is broke... =P


RE: so what
By Operandi on 11/18/2007 5:29:19 PM , Rating: 3
And FireFox 3.0 isn't?


RE: so what
By Flunk on 11/18/2007 5:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
You just don't know it is broke.


RE: so what
By Gul Westfale on 11/19/2007 12:04:41 AM , Rating: 3
what i was trying to say:

i am happy with what i am using, and upgrading to something new "might" introduce unforeseen problems, so i'm not upgrading. the unix box analogy is wrong; hackers would be pretty fast to exploit a well-known bug in a new browser as well as in an old one. but i have not had any problems with the old one... so why bother with the new one?

eventually i will upgrade, of course; but i'm in no hurry.


RE: so what
By Topweasel on 11/19/2007 9:36:29 AM , Rating: 1
Your missing his point. Its not the unkown bugs that are the issue. If something gets fixed in 3.0 and is an issue with 2.0.9, they are not going to be making a 2.1.0 for that fix, its development is over. Because of that hackers now know how to attack the millions of people that have stuck with a Firefox 2 release.


RE: so what
By Zurtex on 11/19/2007 12:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if it's a security bug, the 2.0.x.x series will be supported for some time after Firefox 3 hits final release.


RE: so what
By Arribajuan on 11/19/2007 1:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that you do not see any evident or annoying bug, does not mean that there are no security holes left there.

If it ain't broke why break it?

It will be surely broken and you won't know it.

It just how software works...


RE: so what
By mikefarinha on 11/19/2007 11:46:23 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
if it ain't broke, why fix;


So what is the MPG you get on your Model-T?


RE: so what
By Oregonian2 on 11/19/2007 2:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know about his, but I understand a Model-T gets about 25 MPG.


RE: so what
By murphyslabrat on 11/20/2007 1:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
But they are incredibly reliable


RE: so what
By kelmon on 11/19/2007 2:46:07 AM , Rating: 3
In all honesty I'm a habitual upgrader but I can certainly understand your point and in the context of this article it is certainly a valid position. In this case your current software may indeed have problems but given the information provided you can be damned sure that the new version will have problems as well, perhaps more than the current one. I'm running Mac OS X and the last OS release (10.4) has been around long enough that the major issues that it suffered from at release have been fixed while the new OS (10.5) has loads of issues for me. Yeah, the new OS offers features that are really useful to me but the bugs that exist mean that its going to take a while to mature. In this respect you probably ought to stick to Firefox 2 unless Firefox 3 has features that you want/need since Firefox 2 likely will have fewer bugs than the new version for the simple reason that it's been widely distributed and supported for a reasonable period of time.


RE: so what
By theapparition on 11/19/2007 7:21:18 AM , Rating: 4
Something I don't understand here. I was under the impression that Apple software was perfect, or at least that's what their commercials tell me.

Bugs, in Apple's flagship OS? Say it ain't so.......


RE: so what
By michael2k on 11/19/2007 3:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
Apple also happens to release features, too :)

You can't get bugs unless you introduce new features.


Big Deal
By shreddR on 11/18/2007 3:32:02 PM , Rating: 3
Its a browser.. omg Daily Tech.. quick quick they better rush it...
Am i missing something, or is my firefox 2 about to explode?




RE: Big Deal
By CheesePoofs on 11/18/2007 4:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's news ... they post what's interesting. Pretty much nothing on this site (or most sites for that matter) is a "big deal" in the grand scheme of things, but does that mean it shouldn't exist?

That and read the article, I think you have no idea what it said.


RE: Big Deal
By Zurtex on 11/18/2007 4:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
To be honest this article barely constitutes real news, with a tag like:

"Son, you need to watch out for bugs when you take Firefox 3.0 for a spin"

Well uh-yeah, given Beta 1 hasn't even launched yet because they're more concerned about getting everything feature perfect than releasing too early. This is the most sensationalist dailytech post I've seen not in the blog section.


RE: Big Deal
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/18/2007 4:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody is saying you shouldn't use FF 3.0 because of bugs, or anything like that. In fact, the context of the article is almost the opposite -- that what the Times reported is way out of proportion.


RE: Big Deal
By Kougar on 11/18/2007 7:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

The point of the article was to show just how out-of-context the NYT paper reported some basic facts, and to correct the mistake. If they could blow something this simple so far out of the water then it gives their credibility a pretty nasty image. Not that the NYT's past track record with taking basic facts and completely skewing them to make their articles more interesting wasn't enough to go by, in my opinion.


Trojan-Fox
By Bluestealth on 11/18/2007 2:48:32 PM , Rating: 5
That ad rocks!




RE: Trojan-Fox
By KiDDGuY on 11/19/2007 7:23:30 AM , Rating: 2
DT has a really wicked sense of ad selection I tell you, and not in a bad way either.

That person who puts up these ad pictures deserves a noble peace award just for that :D


RE: Trojan-Fox
By oTAL on 11/19/2007 2:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
What I'd like to see is Megan Fox in an add like that... with a common surname they are both equally hot! ;)


Spin doctor in the House
By Proteusza on 11/18/2007 6:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Firefox typically releases solid products, but despite strong recent gains, it is clearly feeling the pinch as it prepares to release Firefox 3.0, and by all indications, is struggling to accomplish a trimmed back version of its initial goals, after missing deadlines and falling behind on its beta releases.


Wow, thats a whole lot of spin. Please tell me about these missed deadlines?

Anyway, the Firefox developer that you quoted has the matter right - by now, most of the bugs have been fixed. The few remaining ones (for a project of this size) are ranked and fixed by priority. There are a few beta stages left - that means that most likely, the most important of those bugs will still be fixed. This really, really is a non issue that has been blown out of all proportion, for no reason.

In any case, almost all software launches with bugs. The difference in this case, is that A) Firefox is free, and cross platform, and B) Mozilla acknowledges that bugs do exist, and pledges to fix them as and when it can.

Now, if you compare that to Windows Vista, which I paid £80 for, I still have trouble copying files, even after using the compatibility and performance packs. Copying files! hardly rocket science.




RE: Spin doctor in the House
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/18/2007 7:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow, thats a whole lot of spin. Please tell me about these missed deadlines?

From the article:
quote:
Mozilla is struggling to keep up with schedule, as it said it would release the second beta by September and Firefox 3.0 by the end of the year.

There are at least two more betas scheduled, and the September mark for beta 2 is long gone.


RE: Spin doctor in the House
By Zurtex on 11/18/2007 7:19:50 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think anyone who knows anything about Firefox 3 development is even going to claim it's slightly on time.

But I think there was a little sour taste in the mouth of the developers when Firefox 2 got released as not much more than a polished off version of Firefox 1.5 so that it could release on time. I've been keeping track of development and dates seems to be tacking a huge step back to features, performance, security and usability improvements.

It's not just things like:

New bookmark manager, history manager, password manager, download manager
Full Page Zoom functionality (rather than just text)
Better address searching
Full Web Apps 1.0 support
etc..

There's also a lot of backend changes, including fixing of the reflow bug to pass the Acid2 test, a fully implemented C++ garbage cycle collector. And more recently a big concern of reducing memory fragmentation to reduce long term memory usage problems. (Lot of good blog posts about that here: http://pavlovdotnet.wordpress.com/)

So while I'd agree that dates and deadlines have been issues, and I'm not going to disagree that features have been lost over the Firefox 3 development, if not purely for the fact that software like this needs to change its goals to keep relevant. The statement:

"Firefox typically releases solid products, but despite strong recent gains, it is clearly feeling the pinch as it prepares to release Firefox 3.0, and by all indications, is struggling to accomplish a trimmed back version of its initial goals, after missing deadlines and falling behind on its beta releases."

Seems to be a gross misnomer for what is actually going in reality. With a lot of negative phrases thrown in:

"Firefox typically"
"despite strong recent gains"
"feeling the pinch"
"by all indications, is struggling"
"trimmed back version"
"initial goals"
"missing deadlines"
"falling behind"

Yeah sure, an extremely literal translation of the article might hold up, but there's clear spin on that paragraph.


RE: Spin doctor in the House
By kelmon on 11/19/2007 2:51:58 AM , Rating: 2
Bugs are acceptable as long as I never see them when working with a product. I don't really care if the product is free or paid for - bugs are bugs and they are not acceptable to me. If the bugs that exist in the shipping product are the type were you need a pretty elaborate situation to reproduce them then I don't care since I almost certainly won't encounter them. However, if the bugs are the sort that I will see each time I use the product and it gives me a negative experience then I'll use another product, regardless of whether the product I am using is free or not.

Call me picky but I use software to solve problems not encounter new ones.


Bug counts tell the whole story
By Squibby on 11/18/2007 4:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
I always find it sad whenever the media tries to talk about bug counts and assumes that not fixing every bug means that the product will be "buggy". Yes, it will have bugs, but are they of the type that'll make a difference? Or are they nitpicky details or mini feature requests (most bugs fall into these categories)?
The whole point of triaging bugs is to separate the bugs that really matter from the ones that don't. If they want to ever ship the product, they will have to postpone/cut lots of bugs to do it. Every single product goes through this. If you want to investigate this, go look up how many bugs weren't fixed in all previous version of Firefox or some other product with an open bug database. I bet the statistics of bugs fixed during the final part of the release cycle are very similar to this.
Of course, the NYT writer probably doesn't know much about software, so he probably thought that this was a big deal. It isn't. Nothing to see here. Move along.




RE: Bug counts tell the whole story
By rmaharaj on 11/18/2007 5:27:06 PM , Rating: 3
Yep, this is a perfect example of unqualified journalists trying to write an article about something they don't understand.

"Bugs" are how development is tracked in the Mozilla project and countless other software projects, whether open or closed source. A "bug" must be filed, assigned, have a patch attached, reviewed and approved in order to change ANYTHING otherwise it'll be pure carnage in C++.

If there's some new feature that the release drivers want implemented, it's bug will be marked as a blocker. If it's a big feature it may consist of 10, 15, or 20+ individual bugs for specific elements. A "blocker" isn't OMG T3H BOWSER DUN WORK NO MORE, it's just something that was, at one point, considered critical for the final release. As time goes on priorities change and some features may be dropped for the sake of a reasonable timeline. This is especially true for a huge release like Firefox 3 which includes several years worth of backend overhauls and postponed features from previous releases.

Furthermore, the allegation of "leaked" meeting notes is pure fallacy. All status meeting notes and any other official development documents are posted in public because that's how open-source works: it's OPEN.


By wordsworm on 11/19/2007 1:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
All status meeting notes and any other official development documents are posted in public because that's how open-source works: it's OPEN.
That makes my point for me. As opposed to MS which keeps its bugs hidden until some teenager has hacked half the world's computers on a bug MS knew about but failed to mention until it was too late. I'll stick to FF and avoid IE7 except in cases where it's unavoidable.

Although, I must say, IE7 (64bit) is a lot better than I had anticipated. Must be that pesky competition thing.

Anyways, you have to expect, being business driven, to support the profitable advertisers who pay a fortune for ads in their publications.


By Screwballl on 11/19/2007 1:15:46 PM , Rating: 1
I agree...

Firefox is like many other software companies out there, there is no way they can release a bug free product on day 1. This is why firefox is now at 2.0.0.9. They found bugs and they fixed them.
If it was perfect from day 1 then we would still be using 2.0.0.0

Open source software tends to be much less buggy and problematic than closed source (ie: Microsoft and Apple). This is why it is gaining such a strong market share daily. I hope this leads to a Windows 10 where you can install their base OS and upon installation have the options to choose, IE, Firefox, Opera, etc, and same for other programs (OE, Thunderbird, Eudora, etc) but also where Windows Update and other proprietary crap like that is not required to have a huge security gap on your computer just to get their updates.
In linux do you need Firefox or Konquerer to get the system updates? No it is handled by apt-get or Adept or whatever that distro uses and does not require a browser to get them.


we need more Firefox posts
By Quiksel on 11/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: we need more Firefox posts
By Schadenfroh on 11/18/2007 3:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
But, he needs a higher resolution for her.


RE: we need more Firefox posts
RE: we need more Firefox posts
By akugami on 11/19/2007 11:08:15 AM , Rating: 2
That's a cruel way of saying someone has a small "resolution" don't you think?


What Firefox used to be..
By Anosh on 11/18/2007 3:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
Recently someone asked me why I'm using Firefox and I answered because of all the plug-ins that make browsing so much easier and because of the speed.

Then she replied, "But it's not very fast"
And I suddenly noticed that she's right.

Install K-Meleon and you will remember how fast Firefox used to be!
Now if only the plug-ins would appear for K-Meleon.




RE: What Firefox used to be..
By retrospooty on 11/18/2007 3:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
What do you mean - fast loading or fast browsing? It seems fast as ever to me (using 2.0.0.9)


RE: What Firefox used to be..
By Anosh on 11/19/2007 7:44:02 AM , Rating: 2
I meant browsing.

Loading time is very much affected by how many plug-ins you have. (Probably browsing also)


What's a bug?
By Zurtex on 11/18/2007 3:50:21 PM , Rating: 5
This to me seems at best a fairly poorly written article, the reason curse words were used is the complete lack of context given to the "leaked meeting notes" (all meeting notes are open btw). I think Mike Shaver adds some important context in his "What makes Firefox 3?" blog post:

http://shaver.off.net/diary/2007/11/16/what-makes-...

"“Bug” in our world — as with every software shop I’ve ever worked, to be honest — includes desired feature improvements, optimizations, basically everything in the gap between “how the software is” and “how someone would like the software to be”."

"the “blocking” flag doesn’t always strictly mean “we would not ship Firefox 3 if this specific bug isn’t fixed”. It can also mean “we should look at this in more detail before we ship” or “we’d like to focus developers on this set of bugs” or “don’t forget to do something (release note, document workaround, reach out to site authors, etc.) here before we ship”."

I am very appreciative of the Mozilla team for not putting deadlines ahead of features like they did with Firefox 2. Everything in Firefox 3 seems to be coming together really nicely and I've been using the nightly trunk builds for some time now, both so I can help and report bugs and because I just have got too used to some of the features to move back.




Bugfixes for beta?
By ninjit on 11/18/2007 5:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
I may be mistaken, but the jist I got from reading the report, is that the Mozilla meeting was discussing how many known bugs they were going to fix before the next BETA, not before release.

If that's the case, the Times really doesn't have a clue what they are talking about (and I honestly doubt anyone at a regular newspaper understands the ins-n-outs of open source development anyway).

Have as many Beta releases as they deem necessary is a good thing, as it lets users test out current fixes while the devs work on new ones.




RE: Bugfixes for beta?
By stmok on 11/18/2007 9:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
Regular media wouldn't know opensource even if it sat on their faces!

The fact is, when it comes to computers, not many have a clue as to what's going on.

When it comes to opensource, even fewer know what its about, but they throw their 2 cents of "I heard this from" into it anyway!

Opensource is a different approach. Its about being open to all. Good and bad. It shows honesty. If all your skeletons are out of the closet, what is there left to hide?

It takes a clueless moron from a newspaper to blow this out of proportion.

Why? Negative news sells. If its online, controversial news sells more! Ad dollars!

It doesn't matter if its right or wrong or completely misinterpreted. As long as it sells. Its how the media works.


By ultimatebob on 11/19/2007 10:19:31 AM , Rating: 3
The only difference between Mozilla and most software developers is that they're actually admitting that their x.0 release will have a bunch of bugs. Most commercial and non-commercial software vendors do this, and end up using their early-adopting customers as paid beta testers. :(

This is why you should always skip over the first release of ANY new software version, and wait for the first patch.

Oh, and don't be fooled by those companies who try to throw off people by releasing their new software versions with a x.1 version number... It's still buggy.




The girl
By poweruserx83 on 11/18/2007 10:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
The girl in the picture was pretty hot.. I noticed the firefox logo only after like 3 seconds :)




There's a shocker
By Pythias on 11/19/2007 10:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
The NY Times spreading FUD. Who would a thunk it?




The Vista of web browsers
By xstylus on 11/18/07, Rating: 0
Almost
By aGreenAgent on 11/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Almost
By gerf on 11/18/2007 4:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still using Firefox 1.5 for that reason. 2.0 sucks.


RE: Almost
By EODetroit on 11/19/2007 10:16:47 AM , Rating: 2
1.04 here.


RE: Almost
By RandomFool on 11/19/2007 11:59:53 AM , Rating: 2
0.1 beta.


RE: Almost
By Zurtex on 11/18/2007 7:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
Really? There are so many little things that get to me about IE7, it feels very unpolished.

The user interface feels badly thought out as though a designed some day throught "lets see what kind of minimalist look we can have disregarding actual usability" and no one ever bothered to change it. I like how they sneakily introduced middle clicking to open new tabs, they should of had that from the start, but they've not extended it to all aspects of their GUI like Firefox tries too.

It's more the feel of the browser than anything particular they've done with the back end and rendering engine. Though better CSS support would be nice and I really hope they early adopt HTML5.


RE: Almost
By borowki on 11/18/2007 7:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
Center click for opening and closing tab wasn't in the RC version of IE 7, but made it into the final release.


RE: Almost
By Ringold on 11/18/2007 8:49:11 PM , Rating: 3
I've never popped open task manager to discover IE eating my RAM sticks for lunch, and I can leave IE windows open for nearly a week when I'm too lazy to navigate back to something I'm actively using. (Yes, thats lazy, I know)

FF is a good pornobrowser in mobile form, but IE is assured to render every important page correctly, and I've not yet got any spyware in IE7, it's just fine and dandy for me. Not necessarily a ton better than FF2.0, I'll conceed, but I don't install superflous software just for giggles or just to be "cool".


RE: Almost
By Zurtex on 11/18/2007 9:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
~_^

I use Firefox very regularly and have had it opened for 14 days solid without it "eating my ram sticks". It does have some memory fragmentation problems over long term usage, the developers are working heavily on that: http://pavlovdotnet.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/memor...

http://pavlovdotnet.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/leaks...

But I've never had Firefox fully patched and browsed a webpage and a virus get installed on to my computer. (IE6 admittedly not 7)

Experiences vary with browsers, the important thing is serious competition and not companies resting on their laurels.


RE: Almost
By Spuke on 11/19/2007 12:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
I'm using FF 2.0 with no problems. I don't use IE7 at all except to run MS Update (no choice there). When MS separates IE7 from the OS (like FF) AND opens it up to the community (for extensions and such) then I'll consider using it. Until then, it will NOT be used for surfing.


RE: Almost
By rerecros on 11/19/2007 12:42:17 AM , Rating: 2
Vista doesnt use IE for Windows Update


RE: Almost
By Christopher1 on 11/19/2007 4:45:34 AM , Rating: 1
They have opened it up to the community for extensions and such. IE7 has quite a few (though not as many as Firefox) 'extensions' that you can download and install.

Nothing like AdBlock or Noscript yet, but that is because IE7 uses a lot of scripts to get the browser itself to work, just like Firefox 3.0 does, and it doesn't pay to have a thing that can block javascripts and other non-malicious scripts.

I'll be honest here: In IE7 on Vista, I have gotten exactly NO viruses on my machine, even surfing porn sites. In Firefox 3.0, I have gotten 5 in the past week.


RE: Almost
By Zurtex on 11/19/2007 12:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
Erm, how exactly did you manage that?

Given you can't even run an install from a remote server on Firefox 3, did you click download on "virus.exe" and then find it on your desktop and run it?

Also Firefox 3 Beta 1 isn't even released and they make no assurances about finding serious bugs in the Beta versions, so why are you using Firefox 3 as a regular browser and not seriously reporting bugs?


RE: Almost
By Drexial on 11/19/2007 1:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
man your browsing habits are poor then, in the last 13 years of PC use. i have gotten two viruses ever and neither of them were from browsing. One was from a person that decided to get offended at a stupid remark and sent me a mail bomb with a virus in it. the other was cause i lost a CD and wanted to play a game, so i DLed a noCD. neither was from web browsing. what crappy porn sites do you people end up at?

i constantly leave FF open with as many as 10-20 tabs open with no issues with memory. when i first tried out IE7 it was using twice as much memory with the same tabs open.


RE: Almost
By lumbergeek on 11/19/2007 1:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
The only problem I have with IE7 is that it will occasionally just die when I have several tabs open. I haven't been able to find anything about it in the KB and it leaves no trace files behind to send to MS, so all I get from MS is "we don't believe you". The problem occurs on ALL of my PCs now and then, whether they be XP Pro or XP MCE. Firefox does not exhibit this problem, but it doesn't give me the beloved zoom feature that IE7 does. End of the day, I end up using both depending on what I'm browsing.

Does anyone know about any potential fixes for my IE woes?

Thanks!
LG


RE: Almost
By Drexial on 11/19/2007 1:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
do have to admit, not a fan of IE7, but the Zoom is a SWEET feature.... *dives into list of FF plugins* there has to be one.


RE: Almost
By Drexial on 11/19/2007 2:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
found one called mouse Zoom, works awesome... hurray


RE: Almost
By lumbergeek on 11/19/2007 3:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
Woot! Thanks!


RE: Almost
By Oregonian2 on 11/19/2007 2:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really? There are so many little things that get to me about IE7, it feels very unpolished.


I agree, IE7 drives me crazy. I uninstalled it on this machine (it reverts to a version 6 IE, which is better behaved). Some of it's features are nice, but it's an idiot savant (IE7).

P.S. - I recall the bug list for Vista was something HUGE when it was released.


RE: Almost
By leexgx on 11/18/2007 9:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
Long time user of opera

but there is one small problem in opera that i going to post on the forums now or report it as an bug,

how do i click on home if there is no home button ?

as norm clicking on the URL bar give you the start bar the new ver of opera does not turn the start bar on by default (right click on the bar at the top and Turn the start bar back on (tick it)

apart from that problem its very stable has an Fully working remember tab support, firefox way is cheap add on does not work as intended {seems only good for crash recovery but even then it has to load the page from the web, Opera loads the page from the hard disk so you see what it looked like before you press refresh}

all the web sites stay inside one window in opera, any new pop ups if thay happen goto an Tab not an new window, Bug in firefox last page thing it uses if there was an Tab that was open and you close that last you lose all pages you had open

also No activeX objects and No add ons apart from whats in Opera so more safe then IE and firefox


RE: Almost
By Rogie on 11/19/2007 2:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don't miss the home button because I always use ctrl-space.


RE: Almost
By overzealot on 11/20/2007 12:04:54 AM , Rating: 2
Tools>Appearance>Buttons>Browser
Drag home onto the left of your address bar.
Problem solved.


“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles
Firefox Hits 400 Million Downloads
September 10, 2007, 3:29 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki