Actually, I was wondering if their servers would not be able to cope with the load, and they finally manage to fix the problem only after the download day is over. That would be funny... but it looks like it's not happening.
Actually, I was wondering if their servers would not be able to cope with the load, and they finally manage to fix the problem only after the download day is over. That would be funny... but it looks like it's not happening.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart WayOriginally Posted by Bjarne Stroustrup (2000-10-14)
Although, apparently to stories on the web, it was overloaded with the mass of traffic.
Yet, I still don't see FF3 on the main download page.
Because it is a sucky and overrated browser? Or because I'm tired of the fanboism? Or because I just like seeing groups spend a lot of effort to market their product and then fail to deliver.
It's not sucky.
It's not overrated.
It's not promise and underdeliver.
And any product has its fanboys/fangirls. No getting around that.
Do tell, why is FF so bad, then?
I am tired of the Opera fanboism... and the Firefox fanboism, and the emacs fanboism, and the vi fanboism... and the list goes on. We need more fangirlsOr because I'm tired of the fanboism?
Arguably, they have failed to deliver on time. Mozilla announced that it would be available on 17 June, but only released it on the following day, at least in several parts of the worldOr because I just like seeing groups spend a lot of effort to market their product and then fail to deliver.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Only in your opinion, which to be honest I don't place a high value on.
For starters: no wand!Do tell, why is FF so bad, then?
/agreedI am tired of the Opera fanboism... and the Firefox fanboism, and the emacs fanboism, and the vi fanboism... and the list goes on. We need more fangirls
If FF could deliver them I'd gladly switch
Ohhh good point. Still hoping for a crushing defeat.Arguably, they have failed to deliver on time. Mozilla announced that it would be available on 17 June, but only released it on the following day, at least in several parts of the world
FF is not bad. The people that make it the 2nd coming of christ, are. As are the people who think of it as the color purple in a field.
Bunch of marketing puppets who have nothing better to do than pledge their dull lives and brains to a software that just renders webpages... Get something better to do!
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
And millions of others, obviously. So logic would dictate it's a good browser and but you find it to be a bad browser, in your opinion.
Huh? Wand?For starters: no wand!
Does that make a browser so bad?
I find that a weak argument. If there's something lacking, surely there's an extension to fix that.
Is it that obvious? Why?
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Due to Firefox's market share and "fanboyism" and hype.
Millions of people use (and like) IE6, does that make it a good browser?
Sorry but the extension excuse is just lame IMO. Core functionality should be part of the core product. The wand is such a handy tool that I simply can not surf as well without it.Huh? Wand?
Does that make a browser so bad?
I find that a weak argument. If there's something lacking, surely there's an extension to fix that.
This would in turn bring up another question - seeing as Firefox is the challenger, doesn't that mean that it must bring quality that Internet Explorer does not?
I would believe that most use IE6 simply has the mainstream base because of casual users who don't know about FF or simply just surf the web a little then and then and don't really put themselves in depth about such matters.
You know, the casual user.
I don't buy it. If 1% likes a tool, does that mean it must be made into the browser?Sorry but the extension excuse is just lame IMO. Core functionality should be part of the core product. The wand is such a handy tool that I simply can not surf as well without it.
And with that, add to the bloat that some (at least one in this thread) has complained about?
I surf very well every day without that, so it seems to me it isn't required and could well be an extension for those who want it.
The power of the browser is extensions - to add functionality YOU want. I suggest you try it.
Just downloaded it.
GUI has changed a little bit.
As for performance we'll have to wait and see(hopefully good).
Alright Opera is also an good browser,agreed.Sorry but the extension excuse is just lame IMO. Core functionality should be part of the core product. The wand is such a handy tool that I simply can not surf as well without it.
But each have their own pros and cons.
(McAfee SiteAdvisor is not written for Opera only for FF & IE).
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted
- Albert Einstein.
No programming language is perfect. There is not even a single best language; there are only languages well suited or perhaps poorly suited for particular purposes.
- Herbert Mayer
And PC is just a machine that does some calculations. And houses are just some buildings where people can sit in. And cars are only some boxes on wheels. And Eurasia is just a piece of land where we can stand.
And then you say I'm the guy who takes things too simplified?
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
You are the one taking the analogy that far. Enjoy yourself in your logic, whatever it is
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
