Firefox is excellent. I prefer, however, the full Mozilla Suite (which has the browser, email client, address book, and HTML composer). The browser part of the Mozilla suite has mostly the same code base as Firefox, and the same features, and the same great security, and the same great speed. I use the Mozilla suite exclusively when on Windows, and it's worked wonderfully for me, and puts IE/Outlook Express to shame. When I'm using Linux, I use Epiphany (which uses the same Gecko rendering engine that Mozilla uses) when I'm using the GNOME desktop environment (Epiphany is lighter and faster in startup times than Mozilla, because it uses the native GNOME GUI libraries), and Konqueror when I use the KDE desktop environment (it's light and fast too, and Apple's Safari uses the same KHTML rendering engine that Konqueror uses). All of these are faster, more secure, and offer more features (pop up blocking, tabbed browsing, etc) than IE. The only possible downside to doing the switch is that many web developers out there are lazy about sticking with open HTML and JavaScript standards, and end up using too many MS proprietary extensions. So some websites might not work as expected (although Firefox does a good job of compensating for some of the MS proprietary extensions). However, in my experience, that has very rarely been the case. If you make the complete switch, and you are still on Windows boxes, there is no risk whatsoever, since IE is bundled with Windows, and if you run into a very rare problem, you can have the users use IE if they absolutely have to. So go for it.
I like Firefox, but the Mac version is still a bit clunky. So I'm back to using Safari, which works just fine, but I wish I could get features like Adblock and the Gmail bar. Either way, beats using IE.
Adblock? for safari? i use to pop up blocker and never get anything, or are you referring to ads on sites themselve?
Well, it's an extension for Firefox, not Safari. It's not automatic like the pop up blocker though. You have create filters - for example, ads.domain.com/* or domain.com/ads/* so that the browser won't load images from that domain.
So it is more for the ads on webpages than anything. A filter of sorts. Cool, I guess i just hate pop-ups and never considered the ads that help pay for pages and are technically on the page a bad thing. Thanks for the info, and i knew you meant firefox, and were wishing safari had these feature.
Firefox is indeed good. Now only if I could find a way to get rid of another nuisance by Bill Gates, that damned paperclip that keeps popping up every time you turn on Word for Windows.
Brower is the single most important piece of software for most average computer users. A lot of my computer problems originated from the use of IE. Firefox is speedier and safer, blocking a lot of the stupid stuff in a seamless way. I enjoy it very much so far, after years of the IE annoyance. Only if someone could figure out a business model that works and popularize Linux so I could get rid of Windows all together.
Talk about mission impossible. I'd be happy if I don't wake up one day to a Premium virus on my computer.
Not to mention that Bill Gates' master plan for world conquest was to integrate IE into the OS. The fact is, Microsoft is not particularly good at making software. Microsoft has dominated the market not by creating better products, but convincing users that there were no alternatives. When was the last time MS had a killer app? I'm thinking Word 5, which was, like, 10 years ago but they followed it up with the ultimate bloatware. About the only thing that MS does better than the competition is, imo, Entourage, which I like better than Apple Mail or Eudora (I haven't tried Thunderbird yet).
it's just a crap. it doesn't even have rule, stationary, and out of office function. even the dinosaur lotus notes has it. no competitors can beat the scalability and integrity of microsoft outlook.
You are not even comparing the correct products - you are comparing apples to oranges. Get your facts straight, please. Or if you are trolling, carry on. For those who want to know, Thunderbird is not a direct comparison to MS Outlook. Thunderbird is an email client only. Outlook is a groupware product, with email, calandar, tasks, contacts, etc. Thunderbird is more a direct comparison to Outlook Express, in which case Thunderbird blows Outlook Express out of the water. For a more direct comparison to MS Outlook, there is Ximian Evolution and KDE's Kontact, both of which run on Unix/Linux systems only. Then there is the full Mozilla suite (which is what I prefer on Windows, which has the browser, email client, address book, and a WYSIWYG HTML composer. All of these are vastly superior to Outlook in usability, features, speed, stability, and most of all security, IMHO. But I'll leave that to individual users here in this thread to try these things themselves, and come to their own conclusions. Firefox, Thunderbird, the full Mozilla suite are free downloads and easily accessible. Even Evolution can be easily tried out by getting a Linux live CD, like Knoppix , Mepis, or Gnoppix. I'm confident that if anyone tries these things, most will probably agree with my conclusions.
hahahaha of course i know what i am talking you ms hating linux freak. email function alone is enough to prove thunderbard is a crap compared to outlook. is having rule, stationary, or out of office necessarily integrated with calender, notes, contacts, or even exchange or domino? of course not. thuderbard is only for poor (both financially and mentally) who can't make enough money or admit that ms is far superior to anyone else and don't know how to appreciate the art of ms outlook.
Speaking of which, I assume Hama is wrong about Thunderbird not having rules, as they list customizable filters among its features. I'm okay with my mail app right now though - both Mail.app and Entourage have their benefits and downsides so they're equally good, I think. I am curious about Thunderbird's RSS reader though.
ipod flash, anyone? http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f113ed9e-4a3a-11d9-b065-00000e2511c8.html iPod buzz reaches fever pitch By Scott Morrison in San Francisco Published: December 9 2004 23:43 | Last updated: December 9 2004 23:43 Apple logoThe buzz over Apple Computer's next iPod music player has reached a fevered pitch after one web site posted details and a mock up drawing of the new device, which stores music on flash memory chips rather than mini hard disk drives. The MacMind.com, one of several websites devoted to all things Apple, this week reported that the iPod Flash, as it would supposedly be called, would start at $99 and wouldn't be much bigger than a Milano cookie. As if to prove their report, the website's authors posted a 3D illustration of the device, even though the artist had never laid eyes on the new iPod. While this kind of enthusiasm might appear to some to border on dangerous obsession, it is hardly uncommon in the Apple universe, where fervent Macheads salivate about upcoming products and then invariably swoon as they are made public................................
It'll be interesting since Apple generally doesn't do low-end and or get into price wars, so the $99 tag seems a bit cheap - I can't see them skimping out on parts to get down to the price or underselling their product. In any case, Wired's Cult of Mac blog has posted a few different rendering over the past few days: http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofmac/index.blog?entry_id=551420 http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofmac/index.blog?entry_id=553408 and a bluetooth version based on the widely circulated rendering at MacMind: http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofmac/index.blog?entry_id=553929
I should mention that the flash iPod rumors are fueled by reports that Toshiba will be supplying Apple with flash hard drives next year. But there are also reports of Apple-branded mobile phones by Motorola, which could use flash memory, couldn't it?
I was a bit surprised by this too. It may very well cannibalize the higher end ipod minis. The size is decent, 250 songs. The best part about a flash player is that unlike the ipod, which is basically a harddisk, it doesn't have any moving parts so there's less chance for problems. I wore my ipod jogging on the beach and next thing you know I had some problems with it and had to exchange it. I jogged with a MP3 flash player on all the time too and never had a problem. So I think some people who're reluctant to cough up the money for an ipod may opt for this flash player.
A sub-$500 iMac, anyone? http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20441 Hi Wintel By Wil Harris: Thursday 30 December 2004, 09:41 Click to Visit RUMOURS ARE rippling on the wires that Apple will unveil an iMac costing less than $500 at the Macworld Expo early next month. According to top gossip-mongers Think Secret, the device will be a G4-based machine which will be housed in a small, flat enclosure, not unlike the design of Apple's Xserve. The machine has an expected processor speed of 1.25GHz and will ship with an 80GB HDD and 256MB RAM, it is thought.