Webmaster forum - Has FireFox lost its way?

Author

Has FireFox lost its way?

SpaceGirl

2007-11-10, 10:16 pm

Had an interesting conversation yesterday with a group of designers from
across the globe - one of the things that came up was FireFox. I
mentioned I'd started using Safari a lot more because FireFox was
becoming so slow... and everyone chipped it and agreed. Pretty much
everyone I've spoken to says that FireFoxs performance is terrible since
a few updates ago and is getting worse with each release, regardless of
platform. It's got to the stage now where I'm hesitating before
suggesting people should use it.

So what happened? Why has FireFox become so crash-prone? Why does it
render multimedia content so slowly? :(

It used to be that this was easily the fastest, cleanest browser to use,
but now I find it horribly slow under OS X, and prone to crashing under
XP. Safari and Opera leave it for dust when it comes to performance
(JavaScript, and embedded content like Flash run so much smoother).

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

Jeff

2007-11-11, 3:15 am

SpaceGirl wrote:
> Had an interesting conversation yesterday with a group of designers from
> across the globe - one of the things that came up was FireFox. I
> mentioned I'd started using Safari a lot more because FireFox was
> becoming so slow... and everyone chipped it and agreed. Pretty much
> everyone I've spoken to says that FireFoxs performance is terrible since
> a few updates ago and is getting worse with each release, regardless of
> platform. It's got to the stage now where I'm hesitating before
> suggesting people should use it.
>
> So what happened? Why has FireFox become so crash-prone? Why does it
> render multimedia content so slowly? :(

<URL:
http://www.lockergnome.com/chrissho...an-predecessor/
/>
>
> It used to be that this was easily the fastest, cleanest browser to use,
> but now I find it horribly slow under OS X, and prone to crashing under
> XP. Safari and Opera leave it for dust when it comes to performance
> (JavaScript, and embedded content like Flash run so much smoother).
>
>
>
>

Mark Goodge

2007-11-11, 6:17 pm

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:21:47 +0000, SpaceGirl put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>Had an interesting conversation yesterday with a group of designers from
>across the globe - one of the things that came up was FireFox. I
>mentioned I'd started using Safari a lot more because FireFox was
>becoming so slow... and everyone chipped it and agreed. Pretty much
>everyone I've spoken to says that FireFoxs performance is terrible since
>a few updates ago and is getting worse with each release, regardless of
>platform. It's got to the stage now where I'm hesitating before
>suggesting people should use it.
>
>So what happened? Why has FireFox become so crash-prone? Why does it
>render multimedia content so slowly? :(
>
>It used to be that this was easily the fastest, cleanest browser to use,
>but now I find it horribly slow under OS X, and prone to crashing under
>XP. Safari and Opera leave it for dust when it comes to performance
>(JavaScript, and embedded content like Flash run so much smoother).

I've rarely had any speed problems with Firefox - it's still a heck of
a lot quicker and more stable than IE, at least on XP. Opera, of
course, beats both of them for speed most of the time (just like it
always has), but I find Opera's UI less intuitive than Firefox's and
it doesn't have the same range of useful plugins.

The only cases I do find where Firefox can be slower than IE are on
sites which are heavily dependent on client-side scripting, Flash, etc
that are authored with IE in mind. Firefox can cope with a lot of
IE-oriented code, but it's not as good at it as IE itself. But that's
the fault of the authors rather than the browser - there's no reason
why a site has to be quicker in IE than Firefox, and if it is then
there's usually something badly written in there.

Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"If I'm asking for help it's only because being with you has opened my eyes"

1001 Webs

2007-11-11, 6:17 pm

On Nov 11, 1:21 am, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls...@subhuman.net> wrote:
> Had an interesting conversation yesterday with a group of designers from
> across the globe - one of the things that came up was FireFox. I
> mentioned I'd started using Safari a lot more because FireFox was
> becoming so slow... and everyone chipped it and agreed. Pretty much
> everyone I've spoken to says that FireFoxs performance is terrible since
> a few updates ago and is getting worse with each release, regardless of
> platform. It's got to the stage now where I'm hesitating before
> suggesting people should use it.
>
> So what happened? Why has FireFox become so crash-prone? Why does it
> render multimedia content so slowly? :(
>
> It used to be that this was easily the fastest, cleanest browser to use,
> but now I find it horribly slow under OS X, and prone to crashing under
> XP. Safari and Opera leave it for dust when it comes to performance
> (JavaScript, and embedded content like Flash run so much smoother).
I've noticed that it runs slower too.
Not so much on Linux, though.

I have replaced FireFox with the Portable version on Windows now and
it seems to run faster:
http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable

Tony23

2007-11-11, 10:15 pm

SpaceGirl wrote:
> Had an interesting conversation yesterday with a group of designers from
> across the globe - one of the things that came up was FireFox. I
> mentioned I'd started using Safari a lot more because FireFox was
> becoming so slow... and everyone chipped it and agreed. Pretty much
> everyone I've spoken to says that FireFoxs performance is terrible since
> a few updates ago and is getting worse with each release, regardless of
> platform. It's got to the stage now where I'm hesitating before
> suggesting people should use it.
>
> So what happened? Why has FireFox become so crash-prone? Why does it
> render multimedia content so slowly? :(
>
> It used to be that this was easily the fastest, cleanest browser to use,
> but now I find it horribly slow under OS X, and prone to crashing under
> XP. Safari and Opera leave it for dust when it comes to performance
> (JavaScript, and embedded content like Flash run so much smoother).
>

I have had opportunity on more than one occasion to report bugs to the
firefox dev team - I have either been ignored, told that it's not a bug,
or told to fix it myself if I think it's so important. One particular
bug that was brought up on the forums by many users was met with
outright hostility from people backing the dev team - and was never
brought to the dev team's attention from what I could tell.

From my perspective, it seems that Firefox has lost touch with the
regular users.

elyob

2007-11-12, 6:17 pm

"SpaceGirl" <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:5pn08sFs1coqU1@mid.individual.net...
> Had an interesting conversation yesterday with a group of designers from
> across the globe - one of the things that came up was FireFox. I mentioned
> I'd started using Safari a lot more because FireFox was becoming so
> slow... and everyone chipped it and agreed. Pretty much everyone I've
> spoken to says that FireFoxs performance is terrible since a few updates
> ago and is getting worse with each release, regardless of platform. It's
> got to the stage now where I'm hesitating before suggesting people should
> use it.
>
> So what happened? Why has FireFox become so crash-prone? Why does it
> render multimedia content so slowly? :(
>
> It used to be that this was easily the fastest, cleanest browser to use,
> but now I find it horribly slow under OS X, and prone to crashing under
> XP. Safari and Opera leave it for dust when it comes to performance
> (JavaScript, and embedded content like Flash run so much smoother).
>
>

I almost enjoy it when firefox memory leak opens up. My whole PC comes to a
standstill and I have three developers shouting at me, because I am
currently hosting the database.[1]

Even Google is now warning r.e plugins. Something about Firebug bringing
gmail to its knees ...

[1] I know, I know, I'm trying to get the main server updated with mysql 5,
but the network guy is bricking it ...

1001 Webs

2007-11-12, 6:17 pm

1001 Webs

2007-11-13, 6:17 am

On Nov 12, 1:16 pm, "elyob" <newsprof...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
> "SpaceGirl" <nothespacegirls...@subhuman.net> wrote in message
>
> news:5pn08sFs1coqU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I almost enjoy it when firefox memory leak opens up. My whole PC comes to a
> standstill and I have three developers shouting at me, because I am
> currently hosting the database.[1]
>
> Even Google is now warning r.e plugins. Something about Firebug bringing
> gmail to its knees ...

I've just received an e-mail this morning stating that:
"Firebug is known to make Gmail slow unless it is configured
correctly."

It links to a page that says:

Firebug can make Gmail slow

For the best Gmail performance, we suggest disabling Firebug for
www.google.com.

Windows or Linux Users

To disable Firebug:

1. Click the green or red icon in the bottom right corner of the
browser window to open Firebug.
2. Click the bug icon in the top left corner of Firebug and select
'Disable Firebug for mail.google.com.'

If you'd like to keep Firebug running, you may improve Gmail
performance by following these steps:

1. Click the green or red icon in the bottom right corner of the
browser window to open Firebug.
2. Click the Console tab.
3. Select Options.
4. Uncheck Show XMLHttpRequests.
5. Click the Net tab.
6. Select Options.
7. Check Disable Network Monitoring.

Mac Users

To disable Firebug:

1. Click the green or red icon in the bottom right corner of the
browser window to open Firebug.
2. Click the bug icon in the top left corner of Firebug and select
'Disable Firebug for mail.google.com.'

If disabling Firebug for Gmail doesn't improve performance results,
you may have to entirely disable Firebug.

Alfred Molon

2007-11-13, 10:16 pm

When I load some pages rich with scripts (java etc.) for some unknown
reason these pages generate a lot of CPU load in Firefox. Don't know
why. It's a problem when using a notebook computer and being on a
battery.
--

Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe

AGw. (Usenet)

2007-11-14, 3:16 am

On Nov 14, 9:44 am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> When I load some pages rich with scripts (java etc.) for some unknown
> reason these pages generate a lot of CPU load in Firefox. Don't know
> why. It's a problem when using a notebook computer and being on a
> battery.

I've actually disabled Java. I just got fed up with a site starting
up Java without me being able to do anything about it, and my entire
system slowing down, or even freezing up completely. I have no idea
if the fault was with Java or with Firefox, but my system is a lot
happier these days!

Of course most of the sites that use Java don't actually *need* it,
but being aware of that isn't much help before loading a site you've
never visited before...

--
AGw.

Jerry Stuckle

2007-11-14, 3:16 am

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-11-14, 3:16 am

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> AGw. (Usenet) wrote:

Java is "applets," JavaScript is "scripts."
[color=darkred]

This site uses Java. (It's a U.S. time site)
http://nist.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Eastern/d/-5/java
[color=darkred]

Unless of course, it is a Java applet like the time site above.
[color=darkred]
> I don't know of that many sites which use Java. I do, however, know
> of a lot of sites which use Javascript - which is an entirely
> different animule.

...and normally could be written without it. <g>

A pox on the person who chose the letters j.a.v.a. for naming the
popular scripting language...

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Jerry Stuckle

2007-11-14, 3:16 am

In-Reply-To: <vTu_i.21988$if6.33@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <rpydnQBP16_m46fanZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@comcast.com>
Lines: 46
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.140.166.194
X-Trace: sv3-F0FQQjFyPS8M7WdZ8f1eKlz4x4/8YevzanD/RAMxKIL8ypWBERRyS1X4MnREgIIjls9mMDmc4NEO+di!RKq4YHTTHrjJ9m4ZgR9AFY/868FTMVRr1CupynVDFZwjEuaFEKcHr6+udI6NxRfN8Q0wKQtbRJgT!chSEwznqAODQHsucNMEhyk6ggkT2Y1U=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.35
Bytes: 2607
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.www.webmaster:529126

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
> Java is "applets," JavaScript is "scripts."
>

Java is not just applets. And Javascript is not the only scripting
language.

>
> This site uses Java. (It's a U.S. time site)
> http://nist.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Eastern/d/-5/java
>

I didn't say NO sites use java - just most.

>
> Unless of course, it is a Java applet like the time site above.
>
>
> ..and normally could be written without it. <g>
>
> A pox on the person who chose the letters j.a.v.a. for naming the
> popular scripting language...
>

Agreed.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

AGw. (Usenet)

2007-11-14, 3:16 am

On Nov 14, 4:11 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:

> AGw. (Usenet) wrote:
>
>
>
> I don't know of that many sites which use Java. I do, however, know of
> a lot of sites which use Javascript - which is an entirely different
> animule.

Sure. But there's still older sites, personal websites, and (for some
reason) sites in the "developing world", that have yet to learn that
even though Java was "cool" back in 1998 or whenever it was, it
shouldn't be used unless it *needs* to be used. To be honest I've not
always found out what the "problem sites" have been using Java for;
having to fight my computer became a rather more pressing issue!
Certainly some have used it for navigation, despite the sheer
stupidity of it.

Still, as someone else has picked up on the word "scripts", perhaps
Alfred did really mean JavaScript...?

--
AGw.

AGw. (Usenet)

2007-11-14, 3:16 am

On Nov 14, 4:32 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalid> wrote:

[color=darkred]
>
> This site uses Java. (It's a U.S. time site)
> http://nist.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Eastern/d/-5/java

Rather foolishly it doesn't actually *tell* you it needs Java...
{rolls eyes}

>
> Unless of course, it is a Java applet like the time site above.

Well, sure. But that page has to do something relative complex: it
(presumably) has to push content, rather than just send it once to
your browser. Other sites I've used also need me to have Java
available for some fundamental purpose, and I have no problem with
that. But when they use it for navigation, pointless widgets,
frippery, or unidentifiable and non-obvious purposes, then it's
stupid; combine that with my system goooooiiiiiinnnnnggg slow and it's
downright infuriating!

Another gripe I have with Java being started by Firefox is that when
I've finished with the site that needs it, I can't close Java down! I
don't know which program is to blame for that, but it's annoying,
particularly of course if it's causing me problems with my system.

> A pox on the person who chose the letters j.a.v.a. for naming the
> popular scripting language...

A bit harsh to do that after all this time! Heh.

--
AGw.

Steve Sobol

2007-11-14, 3:16 am

On 2007-11-14, Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:

> A pox on the person who chose the letters j.a.v.a. for naming the
> popular scripting language...

It was someone at Netscape. IIRC they were trying to ride on Sun's coattails
at the time, but JavaScript has little to do with Java.

The OFFICIAL name these days is ECMAScript, named after the European
Computer Manufacturing Association, the industry group that maintains the
standard.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

"SpaceGirl" <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:1195038779.863092.12170@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> If you ask me most smart phones may be loaded with capabilities, but
> aren't really that smart because they fail to engage the user and make
> access to that functionality as simple as pressing a play button.

All I want my phone to do is make a bloody telephone call. Sometimes some I
even have trouble with that :-(

--
Richard.

SpaceGirl

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

On Nov 14, 9:44 am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> When I load some pages rich with scripts (java etc.) for some unknown
> reason these pages generate a lot of CPU load in Firefox. Don't know
> why. It's a problem when using a notebook computer and being on a
> battery.
> --
>
> Alfred Molonhttp://www.molon.de- Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe

JavaScript and Flash both seems to cause issues with FireFox. I
regularly see 100% CPU (on one core anyway) when working with Flash in
FireFox under Windows. While it's not so bad on my Mac, it's still
using a lot of resource. The same sites in Opera or Safari on my Mac
use a fraction of the resource, and on the PC IE7 is much more
responsive.

It's a real same, FireFox used to be the best browser, but it's
getting to the stage where I'm having a crash a day in it, on either
Mac or PC, and the performance is just terrible along side other
supposedly "lesser" browser.

Right now, I prefer Safari on my Mac, and IE7 on the PC, for intensive
web sites.

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

"Chaddy2222" <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> READ THIS!!

Chaddy, you respond to this person why?

Your newsreader has a killfile. Use it.

--
Richard.

Andy Dingley

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

On 14 Nov, 04:06, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk>
wrote:

> I've actually disabled Java. I just got fed up with a site starting
> up Java without me being able to do anything about it,

> Of course most of the sites that use Java don't actually *need* it,

Of the very few sites that use client-side _Java_ (not JavaScript),
I'd suggest that most of them do actually need it. It is however rare
to see such a site.

Andy Dingley

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

On 14 Nov, 04:49, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Java is not just applets.

Maybe not - but client-side Java _is_ just Applets. Of the "Java"
we're discussing here, we're talking about that which might possibly
be switched off in the browser - so that means client-side and
Applets, for we've no control over JSP or Servlets.

There are other forms of client-side Java and frameworks that aren't
usually thought of as "Applets". However they actually are a sub-
species of Applet, and as far as a browser's control over them goes,
they're still Applets.

> And Javascript is not the only scripting language.

If we class JScript as being the same thing as JavaScript for the
purpose of our discussions here, then considered together they're the
only scripting language of significance. There are others, but they're
too poorly supported to be worthy of serious consideration or choice.
VBScript is widely supported (any IE), but still unsupported by the
significant non-IE population, so that's out. There's the excellent
PythonScript et al. too, should you choose to install them locally,
but that doesn't make them practical for web authoring.

>
> Agreed.

JavaScript was named _deliberately_, and much of the syntax was
borrowed from Java for exactly this reason.

As someone who writes Java and JavaScript simultaneously for much of
the day, I'm happy they did this. After all, if you can't tell them
apart, you're hardly likely to be writing much of significance.

Andy Dingley

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

On 14 Nov, 06:14, Steve Sobol <sjso...@JustThe.net> wrote:

> The OFFICIAL name these days is ECMAScript

That's the name of the standard, and I don't know if there's even a
reference implementation around for it.

The "ECMAScript-like languages" that we encounter in browsers may be
either JavaScript or JScript, both of which are both broadly
_compatible_with_ ECMAScript, but neither of them actually _are_
ECMAScript.

Then there's Groovy, which really is "Java scripts" and bears little
relation to anything.

Jerry Stuckle

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 14, 3:59 am, 1001 Webs <1001w...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
>
> Huh?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Travis,

Trolls like him always consider them to be above everyone else. He
really needs to be in a mental institution, for his own safety.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Alfred Molon

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

In article <1195017653.845482.155110@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, AGw.
(Usenet) says...

> Still, as someone else has picked up on the word "scripts", perhaps
> Alfred did really mean JavaScript...?

Sorry I do not know exactly what is causing this high CPU load. This
happens for instance with pages of www.spiegel.de or www.ftd.de. When I
close the tabs with those pages in Firefox, the CPU load drops from 100%
to close to 0%.
--

Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe

Jonathan N. Little

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

rf wrote:
> "Chaddy2222" <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> Chaddy, you respond to this person why?
>
> Your newsreader has a killfile. Use it.
>
I agree with Richard here. This individual has no interest learning or
discussing anything about web development, leave him be. Even those pet
leavings on the sidewalk stop stinking with time....

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

SpaceGirl

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

On Nov 14, 9:22 pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <1195017653.845482.155...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, AGw.
> (Usenet) says...
>
>
> Sorry I do not know exactly what is causing this high CPU load. This
> happens for instance with pages ofwww.spiegel.deorwww.ftd.de. When I
> close the tabs with those pages in Firefox, the CPU load drops from 100%
> to close to 0%.

Ouch. The first of those sites is fine, except there seems to be a
large hole at the top of the page. I have Java disabled, but
JavaScript is turned on.

The second site caused FireFox (on an XP machine) to lock up
instantly. Great.

dE|_

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

"1001 Webs" <1001webs@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message
<snip frustration relief>
>There's a 0% chance that he is what he claims to be.
>

Listen; you've already told us you are doing all this because your
psychiatrist told you it's good for you, so that is abusing Usenet for your
own benefit.

What are you trying to achieve anyway? Are you expecting everybody to put
hands in the air, fingers to keys and say 'we hate Jerry and Chaddy, they
are crooks'?

It won't happen because we know it is not our place to sit as jury and do
such. Show this thread to your quack and see what he says now.

---dE|_---

dE|_

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
>
>
> If you _really_ don't understand just how offensive your recents have
> been, and how ridiculous it makes _you_ look, then I seriously suggest
> that a public forum with an audit trail, like Usenet, is not a good
> place for you to display your personality.
>
> I don't believe this is merely a language issue, net naivety or
> similar. You're either a truly obnoxious person who doesn't care, or
> you have some psychological disorder that mkaes it dificult for you to
> know this. Either way, your continual postings offend the majority of
> people and do not reflect well upon you. You may wish to consider
> whether it's in your interests to post to such places.

It's called a 'Sociopath'

Steve Sobol

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

On 2007-11-14, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:

> JavaScript and Flash both seems to cause issues with FireFox. I
> regularly see 100% CPU (on one core anyway) when working with Flash in
> FireFox under Windows.

I only see the problem with JavaScript...

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

Alfred Molon wrote:

> Sorry I do not know exactly what is causing this high CPU load. This
> happens for instance with pages of www.spiegel.de or www.ftd.de. When I
> close the tabs with those pages in Firefox, the CPU load drops from 100%
> to close to 0%.

Both pages work fine for me, in Firefox/Win2K. Even on fast cable, they
are slow to load, but I see no 100% CPU activity. Neither crashes the
browser. They are large pages, IMO not suited for a start page.

http://www.spiegel.de 418934 bytes (with 268522 of images

http://www.ftd.de 521380 bytes (with 233760 of images)

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

dE|_

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

"dE|_" briefly stated
>
> It's called a 'Sociopath'

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_yo..._is_a_sociopath

Most relevant points in the list;

# Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
# Shallow Emotions
# Need for Stimulation
# Callousness/Lack of Empathy
# Poor Behavioural Controls/Impulsive Nature
# Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
# Authoritarian
# seeks out situations where their tyrannical behaviour will be tolerated,
condoned, or admired
# Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
# Narcissism, grandiosity (self-importance not based on achievements)

dE|_

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

"1001 Webs" gave socipathical nature... See
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_yo..._is_a_sociopath

> Is that what you call proof of your alleged blindness?
> Hardly so.
> Are you implying perhaps that Pulse Data Australia is related to your
> activities in any way?

Point 9: Callousness/Lack of Empathy

> Could you please tell everybody which University you're attending to?
> That's a straighforward and unbeatable easy to reply question, so
> don't try to avoid it.

Point 18: Authoritarian

> Not really, pls explain.

Point 2: Manipulative and Conning

> This one I didn't understand either ...

As above.

---dE|_---

Dylan Parry

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

SpaceGirl wrote:

> [...]
> I'm not sure the network operators would like it.

3 (Hutchison) allow Skype calls on their networks.

--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.

paul watt

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

"1001 Webs" <1001webs@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message
news:1195047346.011599.270100@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 14, 2:14 pm, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> Well, the way I see it, Chaddy's attack on my honesty just makes him
> look petty and vindictive, specially when he's feigning blindness.
>
> All I'm asking him for now is to please tell everybody which
> University he's attending to.
> That's a a simple, straightforward and unbeatable easy to reply
> question, and I don't understand why he's trying to avoid it.
>
> Thanks, I still don't understand why he says "we" ...
>
>

why on earth should he tell you what uni he's at. None of your bloody
buisness mate.

Chad, just killfile this muppet, hes not worth your time

--
Paul Watt

http://www.paulwattdesigns.com

paul watt

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

"KarlCore" <karl@karlcore.com> wrote in message
news:1195054038.027312.72680@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 13, 2:31 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
>
>
> Cripes.
> You think Jerry's bad?
> I just searched for myself on that thing, LOL.
> (The good news is, there's apparently more than one Karl Groves in MD
> cuz 90% of that stuff isn't mine)
>

only 90% mate?

--
Paul Watt

http://www.paulwattdesigns.com

dE|_

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

"1001 Webs" proved
> I had a look at that site, frankly, I left before it even had time to
> load. I'm only on a dial-up conection and did not want to waste time
> waiting for some stupid looking Flash driven web movie to load!!.
> If you really want to help anyone with a disability, then you should
> just stick with plain old HTML, after all that is what it was created
> for, to make documents accessable to anyone who required them.

http://wiki.answers.com:80/Q/How_do..._is_a_sociopath

Point 3; Grandiose Sense of Self

SpaceGirl

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

Phil Payne wrote:

> Can you assign a different
> ringtone to each contact?

Not yet.

> Can you store as many numbers as you want
> for each contact?

Yes. As well as a photo, as many email addresses as you like, and a
large notes field, an address field that can be tapped to bring up that
persons location inside GoogleMaps.

> Can you receive faxes?

No. But for some odd reason it does support TIFF, so I guess you could
use a fax proxy service.

> Adn as for simple - http://www.usercentric.com/news.asp?ID=391

Unsure how valid that is, given most people will have used text input on
a phone at some point. There is a learning curve, so to be valid they
would needed to have selected people who had never used ANY keyboard
before on any mobile device.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

SpaceGirl

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

WindsorFox wrote:

> We *want* Flash, Java and a choice.

Why do you want it? Choice isn't always a good thing. People will often
choose things that are bad for them. Your choice in this matter is to
buy a different phone. Nobody is forcing you to buy one after all. I
think in the case of the iPhone, "choice" would be a Bad Thing; the
danger is it would quickly dilute the ease of use. Offering choices of
tools to do the same thing in a product can easily lead to confusion and
over complication.

>
> Break it again. I'm not asking them to support modders, but don't go
> out of your way to purposly screw them over either.

I wouldn't disagree if this were any other device, but this is something
new and should be treated as such. Different rules apply, and I think
anything that complicates the device should not be allowed. It's Apples
hardware, you as a use choose to buy it with the specification that is
on the box. If you don't want that specification, you can get a
different phone, and if you don't like that phones UI or ease of use ask
yourself... why?

>
> Which is why Apple was shocked when *we* had the very nerve to start
> modding it. If you can't do a seem edit, what's the point?? :oD

I'm not sure they were shocked. I suspect they didn't like it because it
effectively makes the phones seem like a techie device again. All this
talk of modding and hacking and software could easily put of the market
that this device works best in - those with less technical know-how who
want a device that can take them online, almost without thinking.

I'd very much like to see more functionality on the iPhone, but not at
the cost of ease of use. I don't think it should be opened up for
modding, and I don't believe Apple should support modding.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

dE|_

2007-11-14, 6:21 pm

"1001 Webs" <1001webs@XXXXXXXXXX> says
>
> But you're MAD !!!
> Those are Chad's words:
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/a...7ab6a70609297dd

I had a look there and it says nothing about 'sticking with plain old HTML'.
I am quoting your words, you are looking to lay into others to relieve
yourself.

>
> That was one of the points I was trying to prove, that he's not the
> kind, polite person that he tries to portray himself.
> And now you call him a "sociopath" with a "Grandiose Sense of
> Self" ?!?
> Fine diagnostic you've made there ...

Has your quack diagnosed you as a sociopath yet? Seeing as he advised you to
take it out on Jerry and therefore the whole of Usenet 'if it feels right'
then he sure ain't a good one.

Point 21; Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations
where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired.

---dE|_---

WindsorFox

2007-11-14, 10:16 pm

SpaceGirl wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>
>
> Why do you want it? Choice isn't always a good thing. People will often
> choose things that are bad for them. Your choice in this matter is to
> buy a different phone. Nobody is forcing you to buy one after all. I
> think in the case of the iPhone, "choice" would be a Bad Thing; the
> danger is it would quickly dilute the ease of use. Offering choices of
> tools to do the same thing in a product can easily lead to confusion and
> over complication.
>
>
> I wouldn't disagree if this were any other device, but this is something
> new and should be treated as such. Different rules apply, and I think
> anything that complicates the device should not be allowed. It's Apples
> hardware, you as a use choose to buy it with the specification that is
> on the box. If you don't want that specification, you can get a
> different phone, and if you don't like that phones UI or ease of use ask
> yourself... why?
>

Did you say you're from Pakistan?? No, I've modded and tweaked
every phone I've ever had and by law Apple can not disallow it. By
purposely breaking mods they are burning themselves in the XXX.
Something that Apple has always done very well. Just look at the
market shares.

--
"I get the impression that Jamie is a papusa or two short of a
combination plate." - Kent Wills

"A lot of Southeast Oregon appears to be low resolution
even when you are physically driving through it! - Uncle Bob

(PeteCresswell)

2007-11-14, 10:16 pm

Per SpaceGirl:
>Right now, I prefer Safari on my Mac, and IE7 on the PC, for intensive
>web sites.

Am I the only one that's bugged by Java's sort-of-proprietary
method of keeping bookmarks?

With IE, they're files on my C: drive and I can
copy/paste/clone/edit/back them up.

With FireFox, they're all in this little HTML file where nobody
can really get to them except FireFox.

--
PeteCresswell

Wyngs

2007-11-15, 3:16 am

rf wrote:

>
> "Chaddy2222" <spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> Chaddy, you respond to this person why?
>
> Your newsreader has a killfile. Use it.
>
>
Yeah, I never have the time to read all the messages in any of my
favorite newsgroups. Now that I have a working killfile, I intend using
it when called for.(SP) I don't have time for garbage, so why display
it?

SpaceGirl

2007-11-15, 3:16 am

WindsorFox wrote:

> Did you say you're from Pakistan?? No, I've modded and tweaked every
> phone I've ever had and by law Apple can not disallow it. By purposely
> breaking mods they are burning themselves in the XXX. Something that
> Apple has always done very well. Just look at the market shares.
>

Their market share has nothing to do with it.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

SpaceGirl

2007-11-15, 6:18 pm

On Nov 15, 1:59 am, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:

> With FireFox, they're all in this little HTML file where nobody
> can really get to them except FireFox.

At least all the bookmarks are in one place... I know where to go copy
them (if I want) and it's very easy to add them to your backup cycle.
I've no idea where IE stores its bookmarks.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-11-15, 6:18 pm

SpaceGirl wrote:

> "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>
> At least all the bookmarks are in one place... I know where to go
> copy them (if I want) and it's very easy to add them to your backup
> cycle. I've no idea where IE stores its bookmarks.

For IE, they should be in various (multiple?) locations, such as:
C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Favorites\Media
each one as a separate little file. On my Win2K box, each user seems to
have a copy of the basic original set of bookmarks - so which ones
should I back up? ;-) (I've never added any new ones to IE.)

The single Firefox bookmarks.html file is a lot easier to deal with, I
believe. I also can't think of any reason to want to /edit/ it outside
of Firefox.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Els

2007-11-15, 6:18 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> The single Firefox bookmarks.html file is a lot easier to deal with, I
> believe. I also can't think of any reason to want to /edit/ it outside
> of Firefox.

And even if you'd want to, it's just a matter of opening it in a text
editor and taking out the links you don't want. I mean, this is a
webmaster group - we know html, right? :-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

Tony

2007-11-15, 6:18 pm

AGw. (Usenet) wrote:
> On Nov 14, 9:44 am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've actually disabled Java. I just got fed up with a site starting
> up Java without me being able to do anything about it, and my entire
> system slowing down, or even freezing up completely. I have no idea
> if the fault was with Java or with Firefox, but my system is a lot
> happier these days!

In reading over comments on the mozilla forums and knowledgebase, I
noticed quite a bit of "Firefox has such-and-such a conflict with
Application X". I commented on the number of such conflicts, saying
something like "It seems that Firefox doesn't play well with a lot of
these programs".

The response was, predictably, "I'd say that they don't play well with
Firefox"

The attitude seems quite arrogant - it seems to me that if Programs A,
B, C, D and E all work with each other nicely, and program F doesn't
work well with all the rest, the fault is more likely to lie in program
F. As someone who develops with the END-USER in mind, this is pretty
much always the approach I take - even if I KNOW the problem is that the
other programs don't adhere to standards properly.

But "we're right, so everyone else has to fix their stuff" seems to be
the attitude I get from the Mozilla folk. It's an attitude that is going
to cost them in the long run, I think.

Tony

2007-11-15, 6:18 pm

Steve Sobol wrote:
> On 2007-11-14, Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> It was someone at Netscape. IIRC they were trying to ride on Sun's coattails
> at the time, but JavaScript has little to do with Java.
>
> The OFFICIAL name these days is ECMAScript, named after the European
> Computer Manufacturing Association, the industry group that maintains the
> standard.
>

Actually, it's JScript for IE, ECMAScript for the others

SpaceGirl

2007-11-16, 10:16 pm

WindsorFox wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
> Yeah, they've been saying that since the day of release....
>

Which was last Friday :)

Now all primary markets have the iPhone, Apple will focus on new
features. Lots of new stuff was "leaked" in iTunes 7.5 - features
currently disabled in the code, but visible if you scan through the
compiled programs (2nd hand! I didn't do this, was posted on one of the
Mac sites);

Voice memo taking
Enabling disk usage
Syncing of notes

Hopefully Flash will follow too.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

WindsorFox

2007-11-17, 6:18 pm

SpaceGirl wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>
> Which was last Friday :)

Maybe in Pakistan, but I've had my iPhone since August.

--
"I get the impression that Jamie is a papusa or two short of a
combination plate." - Kent Wills

"A lot of Southeast Oregon appears to be low resolution
even when you are physically driving through it! - Uncle Bob

Doug Baiter

2007-11-23, 3:28 am

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 14:47:55 -0800, "Red E. Kilowatt"
<redkilowattREMOVE@aww-faq.org> wrote:

>Hot Pink Flamingo <sunpistorange@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message:
>1194189967.059949.250870@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
>
>
>We call it "tough love." Don't be a baby about it.

Others might call it 'being an XXXXXXX'. And they're just as entitled
to that opinion as you are to yours...