What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The Best Way To Get A Woman To Pick YOU Up view!
doubleyourdating.com - Here’s how to get any woman to start a conversation with you. Can you say "Bye bye rejection..."???
266 Comments
- stevencon, on 10/12/2007, -25/+129yeah Opera is very under rated, not only as a browser today but also for their innovations
- aikimann, on 10/10/2007, -4/+65Sweet. Now I can throw away my magnifying glass.
- macgyber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+63Hopefully it will smooth pictures, pages look horrible when you zoom and they're all pixelated.
- phantom_mullet, on 10/12/2007, -15/+73Hmmmm...am I the only one who has never used this feature on any browser?
- eean, on 10/10/2007, -2/+42So that users with 1600x1200 will be able to zoom in and see the tiny little graphics you have designed for 800x600 users in mind.
- omarciddo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+29It didn't catch on because when Firefox began its rise you still had to pay to get Opera without ads.
- useful, on 10/10/2007, -6/+331024x768 for me with an emphasis on looking good at 1600x1200, 800x600 isn't a market anymore. low res means you have no disposable income and you're basically a bandwidth drain
- rocke86, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27Yes, I've been waiting for this. When my Tablet PC is in 768x1024 mode it cuts off and messes up formatting one some pages. This would also be useful for multiple windows.
- selrahc, on 10/10/2007, -6/+30Umm... since Opera had most of the features first, and Firefox has more marketshare. Wouldn't that mean that Firefox is beating Opera at their own game?
- bpapa, on 10/10/2007, -8/+31Is this a good feature? I've never found myself wanting to zoom into a page.
- tensvb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Finally! Opera implemented it in 1996 ( ELEVEN years ago).
- StupidLiberal, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24Both of you are right on, Opera is an amazing browser. It just seems to run faster
- diggless, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16people with 800x600 displays arent going to know how to zoom out, assuming they will do this means you might as well just ignore those users.
- NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18yay full page zoom... guess I wont need image zoom extension anymore...? XD
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14It had that for a while. Then people started screaming "ZOMG WHY IS FIREFOX EATING MY RAM" and it was turned off by default. You can turn it back on in your about.config if you like.
- freestufftimes, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19Yeah, I don't get why opera hasn't grown more. Firefox gets all of the hype, but its problems get old really fast. I've been using opera since v 6 I think.
- adude, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15It's useful because often when I'm showing people things (and everything is small because of my 1920 resolution), it's nice to zoom in so they all don't have to get really close to my computer, which is why I love the feature in Mac OS X.
- jeff303, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Umm photos getting more rare? Have you seen the internet lately?
- Goblinkiller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Firefox IS good - and so is Opera. They both have a different approaches to webbrowsing and some people like Firefox better than Opera as well as the other way around.
I like Firefox and how I can customize it the way I want with the plugins available. I could live with Opera too - but the differences aren't that big compared to how big the differnces are to IE.
This is no game - no browsers wins - only IE loses... - HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14I hope Firefox 3 uses high quality scaled filtering/resampling...IE 7's zoom looks awful and garbles text and images alike.
- synotic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16Someone mentioned it below, but you can already zoom the entire screen in Mac OS X, so it wouldn't need to be implemented there on a per application basis. I have a fairly large screen (1920x1200, but probably nothing compared to the people here), and smaller websites don't bother me— I use the additional space to show additional programs or websites, rather than maximizing the page to the full size of the screen. Vertical space tends to be more valuable when it comes to websites with text since the average comfortable line length is only about 2 alphabets long.
Gmorgan: About Safari's "leakiness," Firefox and Safari both utilize (as in "make practical and effective use of", not simply "use") memory in much the same way, although Safari to a greater degree, a carryover from how Mac OS X works. If you want, you can look up "Firefox memory leaks" and find just as many articles talking about the problem as articles debunking the myth. The key here is this: unused memory is wasted memory. Firefox caches the last 8 pages viewed so that when you go back and forth, pages load more quickly, rather than refetching them, or storing the cache on disk immediately. Safari does this more aggressively, caching everything where possible (like parts of a page you just saw on a large document). A cursory look at your RAM statistics show that both programs "eat up" quite a lot of memory. The hallmark, then, of a quality program is not how much memory it takes advantage of, but rather how much it --shares-- its memory. If Safari takes up 300 MB of your memory, and then you open a few applications, it ramps down its usage, freeing up its ram, and using less in the future. As soon as more memory is available, it does the reverse and uses more RAM. Firefox, again, does much the same.
There's another issue: Does a browser free all of its memory (related to browsing) when a window or tab is closed? In the past, Firefox has had problems here. I'm sure it's a lot better these days, but of course all programs of any complexity leak memory (Safari included). Still, the situation's getting better.
If we want to use this long-dead myth of memory hogs, we could claim that Internet Explorer is the best browser: rather than using any sizeable cache, it opts to refetch or store things on disk. The has the "benefit" of using less RAM, but the result is a slower application and wasted RAM. Where a program refuses to free its RAM when it's done, or refuses to share its RAM when more applications need it, then that's a problem.
Your comparison of Safari's security to IE6's is hyperbole and unfounded. All programs have security issues. Safari's are simply more publicized. Firefox has its issues (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html#Firefox). Nobody ever disputed this. The fact is that Firefox and Safari --together-- are far superior when it comes to security than Internet Explorer. That said, all three vendors, Apple, Mozilla, and Microsoft have a good track record of taking care of fixing security issues these days. It's IE's architecture that's the problem.
What I am tired of is this constant Firefox vs. Safari fight. The funny thing is that it only exists at the user level. There isn't any animosity between the developers. What some people don't understand is that browsers like Firefox, Safari, and Opera, collectively, are furthering the push to better standards adoption. Safari's foundations, WebCore and WebKit are being used in Nokia phones and the iPhone. Opera mini is used in other mobile devices. This is a good thing. The fact is, Firefox, Safari, and Opera are all -excellent- browsers. Safari's had a bit of a bad rep because of the popularity of Firefox, but it's largely unfounded. If you're going to make a decision between the two, it should be on features and speed. Memory usage and security simply don't play a factor. That's the benefit of having --good options--. The WebKit community is absolutely phenomenal and is constantly doing their best to be good web citizens while pushing the envelope (the introduction of the canvas element, which was quickly ratified and later adopted by Firefox).
In the interest of full disclosure: I use Safari on a regular basis. I used OmniWeb for a long time before that, because I'm a big fan of its visual tabs, its speed, its ad blocking and its powerful features. I started using Safari again for a bit and kept with it, largely for its simplicity, but also because it's what I --felt like using--. They're both that good. I didn't have to worry about low-level problems like leaks or rendering. At work, I develop for MSIE, Firefox and Safari. Firebug is top notch, and I keep Firefox open for JavaScript debugging. Why don't I use Firefox? Personal preference. Safari is faster on the computers I use, launches more quickly, and display web pages more nicely. Are these all matters of opinion? Sure. But that doesn't matter. I have the --luxury-- of choosing between several great browsers. Firefox is one of them.
Here's a fun fact: Dave Hyatt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Hyatt), the co-developer of Firefox is a lead developer of Safari, which should further put to rest the idea of any competition or ill will between the two.
It will be a sad day when either of the big three standards-based browsers die away (Firefox, Safari, Opera). No matter the Firefox to Safari usage ratio, as a whole, this trio of browsers are in the far minority, and it's a collective effort. We need all the help we can get. - wordsofwisedumb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11OS X has an accessibility option that lets the whole os zoom in. If you have a mighty mouse, hold ctrl and scroll up. It is also likely that Leopard will improve on the feature.
- brickbat, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16The IE version is badly implemented. If you zoom an embedded flash game, the picture zooms but the hotspots don't....useless.
- fremeer, on 10/10/2007, -9/+19actually its stolen from opera, alot of stuff that opera innovated found its way to firefox and got a bunch of fans.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Or people will make more use of SVG. With scalable browsers becoming the norm it makes sense to make what should be a vector image into a vector image (meaning 99% of stuff).
- hmunkey, on 10/10/2007, -9/+18Um... how?
- theholycow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Works fine in Opera.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14Because clearly you are clinically insane and need that decision taken out of your hands ;). Safari is as bad as IE6 was in terms of security, you can remote execute just about anything through that leaky piece of crap.
I'll tell you how bad it is. Some Apple fans state that it might not be the greatest browser ever, now that requires an Apple product to really suck to get that level of criticism from Apple fans. - adaud, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8F8
- theholycow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Well reasoned, sir. Dugg.
I guess it depends on what the game is. TFA is about a new feature, and that's to what I was referring. Really the game is about marketshare, not technology...isn't it? - gakkgakk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10How about zooming out?
I've been getting accustomed to zooming out webpages to avoid endless scrolling. Now "everyone" can do the same thing.
(ofcourse I'm a Opera user, how else could I have been zooming for years?) - Fhwqhgads, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Thats right. Just like how I think that the disease known as dialup needs to be purged from this earth. Ancient technology needs to disappear.
- Fhwqhgads, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12what do you want, sympathy?
- gakkgakk, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13By inventing new, easy to use features, while still keeping the browser small, clean, and incredibly fast.
I'm using both, both prefer Opera by far, it is prettier, faster and more professional. (And you have lternatives or built in functions for 90% of the firefox extensions. They often work better too) - omarciddo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10I use Opera all the time in Windows. I would use it in Linux but it tends to crash a bit on me. I use Opera because it has features like mouse gestures and speed dial that greatly streamline the way I browse. I'm not big on addons so I don't use Firefox as much as I used to, not to mention the fact that Firefox tends to hog memory, at least in Windows. I think Opera hasn't caught on as much because it's not open source, and because when Firefox rose you still had to pay for Opera.
- Seph7, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Personally I prefer to support the use of Firefox over Opera just because of the fact that Firefox is open source software.
- MenthiX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9No.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13What about the extensions? I know Opera comes with some default functionality that Firefox does not have, but then I can install all the extensions that help Firefox go way further than Opera.
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9No. There are only two *popular* browsers out there. However, Opera still tends to innovate far more than either of the popular ones, and generally have new soon-to-be-indispensible features long before they become mainstream (eg tabs, popup blocking, content blocking).
- ziffel, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13What I'd really like to see from Firefox 3 is the lightning fast "Back" command that Opera has. When I go back to a previous page in Opera, it loads instantaneously, whereas usually in Firefox it forces a full reload of the page.
- Phil13, on 10/10/2007, -9/+15Why? I and many others either hate, dislike or just don't want to use firefox.
Why should I have firefox forced on me when I like Safari just fine? - Avalontor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6ever read a book?
- SergeiGolos, on 10/10/2007, -24/+30nah.. safari needs to die as a project. Apple should ship the os with firefox as part of it.
- omarciddo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Dugg down, because I had no clue wtf you were saying.
- sirmasterboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You will find page zooming very useful when you use 2600x1600 as your desktop.
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6FF + [etc] = Opera x2 times the memory footprint and x0.5 the speed.
Maybe you should try a more recent version than 5.0... - sphetr2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8holy ***** dude
- praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+6Jesus Christ, do you have a stick of RAM dedicated to Firefox, or what?
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The thing is, you should optimally never design for a resolution -- you should design for a physical size. This means using relative (or physical) length units, rather than pixels, and the moment you throw pixels out the door, the resolution becomes irrelevant as well.
Regardless of the resolution, you still don't want to break the basic typographical rules. This means staying within the 10/14--12/16pt text size bracket (w/ extra whitespace to make up for the low DPI of text-on-monitor compared to printed text) and still stay within the 50-60 cpl bracket. Design for *any* particular resolution, and you *will* break at least one of these rules.
On top of this comes the fact that there is no useful correlation between resolution and browser window size -- so the whole idea of a fixed-width or -height design is basically a still-born concept. - Kazbaeden, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11Opera's fit to width feature would solve that problem.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 266 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is