dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
12506
jupitermoon
join:2011-09-27

2 recommendations

jupitermoon to Davesnothere

Member

to Davesnothere

Re: [FireFox] FireFox 29

said by Davesnothere :
They are driving people away, and in fact are almost offering them a ride out of town.
I wholeheartedly agree with this.

I've preached the virtues of Firefox over the years to many clients. You wouldn't believe the number of complaints I've gotten since the introduction of Australis. Sure, I could visit these clients, install Classic Theme Restorer and a few other add-ons, and make Firefox 29 look pretty much like their previous version. But the problem is they can't. Almost every new Firefox upgrade seems to break something that they are using and they are getting tired of having to pay me to come out and fix something. Many of them have quietly reverted to Internet Explorer on their own. I know that at least a few of them probably think I recommend Firefox because it results in more service calls. Now, when I suggest Firefox, I install the ESR version. But Australis is looming there too. I've mentioned Pale Moon to a couple of clients, but they're leery of something they've never heard of.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

4 edits

Davesnothere

Premium Member

said by jupitermoon:

said by Davesnothere :
They are driving people away, and in fact are almost offering them a ride out of town.

 
I wholeheartedly agree with this....

 
I was HOPING that someone would comment upon that line.

And I too had proudly and actively promoted FireFox over some years, but we are now at a fork in the road, as it were.

As I posted up-thread somewhere, I have been considering :

(1) Staying with FF 14 - I could do that, as it works pretty much how I want it to, but am being 'guilted' by increasing numbers of other posters here, thus my investigating the other choices, below.

(2) Moving to FF 29.0.1 - Tried that 2 days ago - EPIC FAIL MOZILLA - rolled back my 2nd PC on which I had tried it.

(3) Moving to FF 28.x and turning off updating to avoid the Australis UI.

(4) Moving to FF 24.x esr and turning off updating to avoid Australis.

(5) Moving to Pale Moon, which promises no Australis, and promises to keep integrating all Moz security updates, as well as states compatibility with most FF add-ons (of which I only have a few, and that's how I want to keep things).

(5) Moving to Sea Monkey, which ironically ALSO seems to be a current parallel-developed product of Mozilla, and which has some friendly (to me) looking screenshots, but I need to do a bit more research about the other factors, such as add-on compatibility, and whether I even NEED the ones which I use now with FF 14.

BTW, is there a portable version of Pale Moon, or Sea Monkey ?

(I have not yet checked the Sourceforge forum for the FF ones.)

Bottom line is that I do not want to use more add-ons in order to have the UI and functionality which I already have now, with only a few add-ons.
Davesnothere

1 edit

Davesnothere

Premium Member

 
PORTABLE BROWSER Downloads :

FIREFOX

»sourceforge.net/projects ··· e%20Ed./

SEA MONKEY

»sourceforge.net/projects ··· ortable/

PALE MOON ?

CCat
We're all quite mad here
MVM
join:2005-12-06
Wonderland

CCat

MVM

Pale Moon Portable

»www.palemoon.org/palemoo ··· le.shtml

anonomeX
@71.207.157.x

1 recommendation

anonomeX to Davesnothere

Anon

to Davesnothere
One, perhaps, useful note about the Mozilla applications from portableapps.com and the Portable Apps Launcher (PAL) support for the -no-remote flag: by setting the AllowMultipleInstances option to 'true' you can run as many instances (at the same time) for the application as you have memory to hold them. For example, for Firefox you just copy the FirefoxPortable.ini file from the \Other\Source folder to the install folder (where the FirefoxPortable.exe program is located) and change the 'false' to 'true'. The one caveat: when you do this, the portable launcher terminates after starting Firefox; so it isn't around to do any clean-up once Firefox is closed. This isn't typically a problem when you're running the programs on your own machine(s), but it's not something you'd want to do when you're not running them on your own machine(s) since it can potentially leave personal data behind. Mostly, it's great for testing (and for doing simple copy and paste of bookmarks from one instance to another).

nwrickert
Mod
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL

nwrickert to Davesnothere

Mod

to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

I was HOPING that someone would comment upon that line.

Well, now that you mention it -- I don't agree.

To me the changes to ff29 are relatively minor, and I still prefer it to other browsers.

Perhaps this is due to how I had been using ff. I turned off the menu bar a year or three ago. I initially just did that as a test, to see the effect and to see if I could get it back. And I mostly liked the result, particularly the additional vertical space that it gave me. It did take me a while to get used to the new way off accessing bookmarks. And there were a few times when I click the "close" button by mistake, instead of the bookmark button. But, once I had got used to it, that was a better way to browse.

So, for me, the main changes with ff29 were moving the menu button from the left to the right -- I'm slowly getting used to that. And the forced tabs-on-top, which I still don't like but I can live with.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

1 edit

Davesnothere to CCat

Premium Member

to CCat
 
Thanks.

I was on the PM site a week or 2 ago, and likely overlooked that page/link.

VERY thorough explanation from them about how/where to install and run it, and what to expect to happen !

They say that it even can be run from a networked hard drive, and that appeals to me, rather than checking which USB flash drives on which I have space.

I wonder whether the FF and SM portables can also be run in that manner, or for that matter, any of the above portables can be run from a folder on a local hard drive ?
Davesnothere

4 edits

Davesnothere to anonomeX

Premium Member

to anonomeX
said by anonomeX :

One, perhaps, useful note about the Mozilla applications from portableapps.com and the Portable Apps Launcher (PAL) support for the -no-remote flag: by setting the AllowMultipleInstances option to 'true' you can run as many instances (at the same time) for the application as you have memory to hold them....

 
Thanks for that.

It might be more than I need to know just now though, as my current round of tests is primarily for 'First Impression of the main UI', as in existence and location of the various elements and controls, and how much flexibility there is to rearrange the layout to similar to what I have (or in some cases, had in the past) without using further add-ons nor skins - and if I am VERY lucky, WITHOUT some of the add-ons which I currently have.

Part of that stage will be to see what things can be compacted into less vertical space, but without making them vanish altogether, as I am already pretty much satisfied with how little vertical height is taken by controls, vs content, on my 1280x1024 (5x4) screen.

IOW, I am for example not keen on hiding the Menu bar behind a button, but I would entertain a way to turn off just the Title bar.

My original Nav bar elements are currently merged into my Menu bar, with the Nav bar itself is turned off, and I would prefer to maintain that trick.

I have my Tabs bar below the other bars, right above my content, and it MUST stay there - deal-breaker.

Also I already run without a persistent Status bar, and wish that to continue.

And whether these versions each like (or even NEED) my current add-ons to achieve the above objectives - that will be an important factor.

If it passes the above stage of evaluation, then I will next examine the UI for Managing Bookmarks (not the sidebar yet), for its function and friendliness.

Having portable installs of all of these apps side-by-side will be easier than my process used for testing FF 29.0.1 the other night, and in fairness, I will retest FF 29.0.1 as a portable (aka Clean) install too.
Davesnothere

Davesnothere to nwrickert

Premium Member

to nwrickert
said by nwrickert:

....To me the changes to ff29 are relatively minor, and I still prefer it to other browsers.

Perhaps this is due to how I had been using ff. - I turned off the Menu bar a year or three ago....

....So, for me, the main changes with ff29 were moving the Menu button from the left to the right -- I'm slowly getting used to that.

And the forced tabs-on-top, which I still don't like but I can live with.

 
Yes, as you had CHOSEN to turn off your menu bar in the past, you would not miss it as I would, and also that might make you somewhat receptive to Google Chrome, where I am not.

And isn't the right top where Google has the Menu button ?
( Copy Catting in progess, Nudge Nudge, )

'Tabs on Top' also is a deal-breaker for me though, as I just posted.

But I am cautiously optimistic (for my XP and newer beasts), that one of the other 4 choices (which I have mentioned but not yet tried) will be the ticket.
Davesnothere

Davesnothere to nwrickert

Premium Member

to nwrickert
openSuSE 13.1; KDE 4.11.5; firefox 29.0.1

Your situation involves Linux.

Am I right to recall that one or another Linux UI allows (or forces) the traditional menu bar of each app to merge with the title bar, thus saving vertical space ?

And is that not also something which some Apple OS has done, or still does ?

plencnerb
Premium Member
join:2000-09-25
53403-1242

plencnerb to Davesnothere

Premium Member

to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

'Tabs on Top' also is a deal-breaker for me though, as I just posted.

I guess I'm a bit confused by why "Tabs on Top" would be a deal-breaker for you. Here is why I say that.

When I first saw "Tab Browsing", it was either in an early version of Firefox, or in Internet Explorer shortly after they were introduced. As long as I can remember, the default view was the Tabs on top of the address bar, and below the menu bar, just like it is now.

Please correct me if I am mistaken on the placement.

Which, brings me to my question. If its been the default ever since they were introduced, what is the problem? I am guessing there have been extensions or ad-ons that allow you to change the placement of the tabs if you don't like the default (or maybe the program itself allows that modification....personally, I've never looked as their placement has never bothered me). So, is it because those extensions, ad-ons, or internal program modifications don't work anymore?

Again, just wondering is all.

Thanks,

--Brian

nwrickert
Mod
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL

nwrickert to Davesnothere

Mod

to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

And isn't the right top where Google has the Menu button ?

Yes.

Prior to that, and with menu bar off, the menu button was at the top left -- just where Opera had it.

So I guess you could say that they switched from copycat of Opera to copycat of Chrome.

Most browsers are have been copycats of firefox and mozilla. I'm not all that troubled by a bit of copycat.
nwrickert

nwrickert to Davesnothere

Mod

to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:

Am I right to recall that one or another Linux UI allows (or forces) the traditional menu bar of each app to merge with the title bar, thus saving vertical space ?

I don't think I have come across that. KDE (which I use) does not do that. Gnome does take away some of the header line stuff, but I think it just leaves it there but almost empty. Perhaps some other GUI such as enlightenment does that. I tried enlightenment once, and decided to remain unenlightened.
said by Davesnothere:

And is that not also something which some Apple OS has done, or still does ?

I only get to use Apple while waiting for an oil change on my car to be completed. And that's enough to know that I don't much like Apple.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

3 edits

Davesnothere to plencnerb

Premium Member

to plencnerb
said by plencnerb:

said by Davesnothere:

'Tabs on Top' also is a deal-breaker for me though, as I just posted.

I guess I'm a bit confused by why "Tabs on Top" would be a deal-breaker for you. Here is why I say that.

When I first saw "Tab Browsing", it was either in an early version of Firefox, or in Internet Explorer shortly after they were introduced....

 
IIRC, I first used TABs in Netscape version 6.x on Windows 98, around the time that either IE5 or IE6 was the newest MS browser, also IIRC.

I cannot say for certain that TABs were on the bottom (of the other controls etc) back then, but I have grown to like them next to my content, prob'ly from either early FireFox (or Netscape), and/or IE7 forward.

I just checked IE8 and it has them on bottom, above the content, and I see no handle to grab for moving that bar, even when 'unlocking' the toolbars.

I also recall that IE7 moved the Menu bar down, under the Nav bar, and a registry tweak for IE7 and IE8 moves it back up.

Anyway, I like the tabs where I have them, and I see no beneficial reason to change, so my browser choices will be driven by what I like, and that to which I have grown accustomed.

As I repeatedly preach, "Change for the Sake of Change is NOT Necessarily Progress".

nwrickert
Mod
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL

nwrickert to plencnerb

Mod

to plencnerb
said by plencnerb:

When I first saw "Tab Browsing", it was either in an early version of Firefox, or in Internet Explorer shortly after they were introduced. As long as I can remember, the default view was the Tabs on top of the address bar, and below the menu bar, just like it is now.

I first saw Tabs on mozilla, which is from before firefox existed. And they were always below the address bar (i.e. tabs on bottom), but above the content.

As I recall, IE did not get them until some time later.

plencnerb
Premium Member
join:2000-09-25
53403-1242

plencnerb

Premium Member

Well, looks like my memory is incorrect then. I did a few searches myself and found some screen images from IE8, and indeed the tabs were below the address bar, but above the content window.

I guess though that it comes down to personal preference, and how people react to change. No one way is correct, but I guess I'm someone where the location of the tabs (above or below address bar) is really not that big of a deal. To me, its a small GUI change. Yet, I do agree with Davesnothere See Profile preach of
quote:
As I repeatedly preach, "Change for the Sake of Change is NOT Necessarily Progress".

I see no need to change something just to do it. Now, if you want to add functionally to allow the end user a few options, that's all well and good. Just make the "default" in the release that gives the end users the choice the old way, and allow them to change it to the new way if they so desire. To apply this to the placement of the Tabs, if Mozilla wanted to move the tabs from the bottom to the top, that's all well and good. Just give the end user the ability to decide which works best for them, and keep the default as it was (in this case, the bottom). Then, if the users want to move them to the top, they are free to do so.

--Brian

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

3 edits

Davesnothere to nwrickert

Premium Member

to nwrickert
said by nwrickert:

said by plencnerb:

When I first saw "Tab Browsing", it was either in an early version of Firefox, or in Internet Explorer shortly after they were introduced. As long as I can remember, the default view was the Tabs on top of the address bar, and below the menu bar, just like it is now.

I first saw Tabs on mozilla, which is from before firefox existed. And they were always below the address bar (i.e. tabs on bottom), but above the content.

As I recall, IE did not get them until some time later.

 
MS introduced TABs in IE7, which by then could be said to have copied Netscape and/or the early Mozilla offerings.

IIRC, it went like this :

When AOL bought out Netscape, they were going to use the Netscape browser (then 6.x with TABs) as the basis of their then still proprietary app package, but they still had a couple of years left in their contract with MS to use IE for that purpose.

AOL developed NS some more as an independent product (which I continued to use), but then changed their mind about its fate, and stopped, turning over whatever code they had written by that point to the Mozilla organization, who had been parallel developing their OWN flavour/fork of the browser, under some of the earlier names which preceded FireFox, such as Mozilla Suite, Phoenix, and FireBird.

However, when IE7 was released, folks were more accustomed to the Netscape/Mozilla UI with TABs, and did not embrace IE7 much.

I for one was among the many who originally chose FireFox when it came out, because even WITH the TABs, it felt more like IE6 than newer IE7 did at the time, and also because FireFox was a natural progression from Netscape, whose profiles could be imported and continued.

anonomeX
@71.207.157.x

anonomeX to plencnerb

Anon

to plencnerb
said by plencnerb:

To me, its a small GUI change. Yet, I do agree with Davesnothere See Profile preach of

quote:
As I repeatedly preach, "Change for the Sake of Change is NOT Necessarily Progress".
I see no need to change something just to do it.

That's ironic actually. Since I can perceive no substantial difference between the two other than personal preference, this is exactly how I see someone's desire to change the position of the tabs from "on top" to "on bottom". Both are right, and neither is wrong... it's just change for the sake of change to me. (To be honest, though, I do see a small advantage in having the tabs on top since they can use space that would typically be unused.)

Well, maybe it's one of those "do as I say not as I do" things, which is closely related to "that's the way it's always been done". But, you know... to each his own. For me, life is to short to agonize over "top" vs. "bottom" and such. (Of course, thanks to this "desire for change", Aris is one busy guy.)

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

4 edits

Davesnothere

Premium Member

 
Really, it's all about CHOICE.

But I would rather have the choice WITHIN the app which I already use, than to have to choose another app or a further add-on, in order to maintain that choice.

If software companies feel that they MUST (for whatever reason) change their apps' defaults from time to time, I can tolerate THAT, under the one condition that they leave a clear menu-driven method for any of us who wish to put things back to exactly how they were previously.

And if I change my mind later and get adventurous - try new settings, I can do that too.

It's not an unreasonable request nor expectation on the part of their user bases, paid or free.

It's really that simple.

It's not rocket surgery.

And any software company devs and executives who do not seem to 'get' that concept are either stubborn, stupid, or both, IMNSHO.