Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 10, 2016, 12:58:01 AM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Author Topic: How fast is Microsoft? (Re: Has any one held off on upgrading to Firefox 1.5?)  (Read 6808 times)

brotherS

  • Master of Good Ideas
  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • **
  • Posts: 2,136
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Yes, Microsoft isn't sitting idly by and letting this happen. You can bet they are going to look closely at what has made Firefox popular (other than it being open-source), and emulate those things in IE 7. In fact, IE 7 beta already has tabbed browsing and a download manager (I think).
"already"? :D
I've been using tabbed browsing since about 2 years now, it's unbelievable how SLOW Microsoft is.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2005, 06:07:15 AM by brotherS »

db90h

  • Coding Snacks Author
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 481
  • Software Engineer
    • View Profile
    • Bitsum - Take control of your PC
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
How fast is Microsoft? (Re: Has any one held off on upgrading to Firefox 1.5?)
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2005, 05:57:00 AM »
If history is any judge, Microsoft is last to respond, but do so best. From Windows to the XBox. People don't give Microsoft enough credit.. but, it's hard to be a fan of 'big brother'.

db90h

« Last Edit: December 19, 2005, 06:07:47 AM by brotherS »

brotherS

  • Master of Good Ideas
  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • **
  • Posts: 2,136
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
How fast is Microsoft? (Re: Has any one held off on upgrading to Firefox 1.5?)
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2005, 06:04:56 AM »
If history is any judge, Microsoft is last to respond, but do so best. From Windows to the XBox. People don't give Microsoft enough credit.. but, it's hard to be a fan of 'big brother'.
I can't agree. Microsoft may sometimes do "quite good", but if history shows anything in this case, it's that they were forced to pay bigger and bigger sums to other companies for stealing ideas/violating patents etc.

At the same time, they spend more and more on marketing...
« Last Edit: December 19, 2005, 06:07:37 AM by brotherS »

Hirudin

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 543
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
~$250 for office Standard Edition.

They've got to be out of their minds...

db90h

  • Coding Snacks Author
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 481
  • Software Engineer
    • View Profile
    • Bitsum - Take control of your PC
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Consumers don't care how much Microsoft pays in royalties/fines/licensing fees. We are talking about product quality, not anything else. I won't try to defend Microsoft further, as there is no winning such an argument here.

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Sorry to continue the argument ... but ...

MS only have themsleves to blame for the bad press. They very rarely innovate and are almost always playing catchup. Even the original version of MSDOS that set up the company was a bit of a ripoff of others work.

I find it quite amusing when they talk about intellectual rights - over the last 40 years they have used practically every other companies  rights to their own ends, and even on ocassions then sued the company who had the original idea when they have bastardised their product out of recognition ...

Sorry easy to get into rant mode.

Sad thing is that nowadays there really isn't a truly viable alternative except for Apple (sorry Linux does not support a lot of the apps or hardware I want/need to use) - and Apple continuously shoot themselves in the foot by their ridiculous prices and 'style-guru' posturing.

brotherS

  • Master of Good Ideas
  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • **
  • Posts: 2,136
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
We are talking about product quality, not anything else.
You think people buy Microsoft products because of quality? I doubt that... Especially in a business environment you are often *forced* to have Office installed since many third-party software is based on Office components. Sad, but true.

I'm not saying Microsoft is all evil and that they can't code anything good, my main concern is just that they are using their monopoly a bit too much and are SLOW.

If Microsoft would have a monopoly manufacturing USB sticks, they wouldn't be the tiny, light-weight, often great looking sticks available now, but more looking like this:



mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,431
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
hahahahaahaha

jazper

  • Coding Snacks Author
  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
    • Jazper's Software
    • Donate to Member
I will say this, I (am?) was a huge FireFox fan. I still really am.  However after beta testing IE7(yes, it's look and appearances mimic FF) I can see myself shifting back to IE7.  The one thing, that I really kept an eye out for is Memory!  If anyone on this forum disagree's with me, then  you haven't paid attention to the amount of RAM that FF sucks up.  FireFox is absolutely horrible at memory management.  I'm tired of looking at my processes to see that FF is consuming well in excess of 125mb of ram.  IE7 thus far has NOT had this problem. And because of this, and other more minor features, I will definately switch to IE7.  IE7 has the same features as FF, imo.  I will say, that IE7 security is a concern(because of past history) however, I'm willing to take that chance. I see MS, making advances in security, finally, so I'm coming to terms with it.


j.

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,431
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
im curious to see how the other ie based browsers react to ie7, and whether ms will make life harder for them.

brotherS

  • Master of Good Ideas
  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • **
  • Posts: 2,136
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
[...]I can see myself shifting back to IE7.  The one thing, that I really kept an eye out for is Memory!  If anyone on this forum disagree's with me, then  you haven't paid attention to the amount of RAM that FF sucks up.  FireFox is absolutely horrible at memory management.  I'm tired of looking at my processes to see that FF is consuming well in excess of 125mb of ram.  IE7 thus far has NOT had this problem. And because of this, and other more minor features, I will definately switch to IE7.  IE7 has the same features as FF, imo.
You are right that Firefox sometimes has RAM issues, but keep in mind that it's still only 1.x

Microsoft had SO many guys coding IE in comparison... lets wait for Firefox 2.x to judge it :)

I highly doubt that IE7 will have the same features as FF - or will they really open it up for extensions? THAT is one of the greatest FF benefits. And, btw, that's one reason while I'm using Miranda IM for IRC, ICQ, AIM etc. - it's just much more flexible.


Josh

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Points: -5
  • Posts: 3,397
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I will say this, I (am?) was a huge FireFox fan. I still really am.  However after beta testing IE7(yes, it's look and appearances mimic FF) I can see myself shifting back to IE7.  The one thing, that I really kept an eye out for is Memory!  If anyone on this forum disagree's with me, then  you haven't paid attention to the amount of RAM that FF sucks up.  FireFox is absolutely horrible at memory management.  I'm tired of looking at my processes to see that FF is consuming well in excess of 125mb of ram.  IE7 thus far has NOT had this problem. And because of this, and other more minor features, I will definately switch to IE7.  IE7 has the same features as FF, imo.  I will say, that IE7 security is a concern(because of past history) however, I'm willing to take that chance. I see MS, making advances in security, finally, so I'm coming to terms with it.


j.

I am waiting for the argument that "IE components are preloaded with windows". This is the argument firefox/opera fanboys tend to use against IE. However, I am not certain they realize that the iexplore.exe process consumes far less ram (even with 17 windows open (for ie6) compared to 17 tabs in firefox) than firefox.exe. Yes, microsoft is slow, and I know they are always bashed because of their abusing their monopoly, but if it werent for windows, pc's wouldnt be as widespread and used as much as they are nowadays. We wouldnt have some of the great pieces of software or games that we do if it werent for microsoft being the big business that they are.

To the poster above, "Firefox sometimes has ram issues", do you not use but one or two extensions? I leave firefox open at night, and last night when I went to bed it was consuming 80MB of ram for 17 tabs (reasonable), but when I opened it this morning, it is using 160MB. Tell me, how can a browser double its ram usage while doing nothing? Also, extensions are a moot point with IE. You have been able to customize IE far more and for far longer than you have Firefox. There are so many addon programs for IE (the equivelant of extensions) its not funny. Also, microsoft probably doesnt allow you to DIRECTLY extend the browser like you can firefox for the sheer fact that if one extension came out with an exploit, it would tarnish the name of IE (as the greasemonkey incident did to firefox) and people would think microsoft responsible for not checking each and every extension. Also please, dont use the "its only 1.x" excuse. The mozilla team has known about the memory issues for some time yet everytime I've seen someone visit #firefox on irc.mozilla.org or post about them on the boards the "Devs" and "Mods" claim that they dont experience the issues and say it is a none-issue. 90% of complaints I see in #firefox are users complaining about memory usage yet the firefox dev team fails to address those issues. Firefox users seem to have a denial complex about them where they A. cant admit something is wrong with their browser, B. If they do admit to a flaw, they try and poke at other browsers by saying "Hey look, this browser still has X number of flaws open", and C. the userbase tends to flame anyone who goes against the past two entries.

Now, I am not a microsoft zealot, I use firefox as my default browser and enjoy it (although it is still very unstable), but I dont think its the best possible browser. Opera has that choice for me. The only reason I dont use it is that they dont allow third party integration (no, it doesnt have to be extensions). They dont allow me to use tools I've paid for and grown accustomed to that work in every other browser on the windows platform, instead forcing me to use stuff that the dev's feel like adding, and after they do, leave to stagnate. This is where a 3rd party API would allow for greater expandability of opera.

Anyways, microsoft has done some things right, yes they have a monopoly and often abuse it, but dont forget we wouldnt be where we are now if it werent for them.

jazper

  • Coding Snacks Author
  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
    • Jazper's Software
    • Donate to Member
Slightly off topic, but somewhat related.  You have to admit that this is a good thing for microsoft and mozilla, oh and the end-user :)


IE7 to use same RSS Icon as FF

{ Sorry accidentally hit modify instead of quote - this is the only edit honest ;) Carol}
« Last Edit: December 20, 2005, 08:53:12 AM by Carol Haynes »

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Yes, microsoft is slow, and I know they are always bashed because of their abusing their monopoly, but if it werent for windows, pc's wouldnt be as widespread and used as much as they are nowadays. We wouldnt have some of the great pieces of software or games that we do if it werent for microsoft being the big business that they are.

Sorry but this surely is tosh ...

If MS hadn't produced Windows there would be other Operating Systems out there at least as good, and some would argue better.

First off Unix/Linux developement would have progressed much faster - especially in hardware terms if manufacturers weren't so obsessed with only producing Windows Drivers.

There used to be a really good operating system called Gem - years ahead of Windows but MS crushed it out of existence (just like it did with its predecessor CP/M). Gem was around when Windows 2 was about - anyone remember that piece of useful software - if memory serves me right you had to exit Windows to MSDOS to actually run programs.

Loads of manufacturers (hardware and software) have been pushed to the wall by MS over the years, and a lot of their ideas 'acquired' for Windows boxes, often without credit.

MS dominance hasn't increased choice or innovation it has almost removed it - why else is there the annual review of MS products that all look exactly the same and never add any new functionality ? Think about it does Windows XP actually do much that Windows 95 didn't ? Mostly it consumes massively more resources to acheive pretty much the same ends and the rest of it is fixing problems inherited from previous versions. MS Office is another example of no innovation - every version loks the same, does the same and adds a few esoteric bits that only 0.5% of users are even aware of - but they change the file formst just sufficiently to force people to upgrade to maintian compatability.

Sorry - end of rant ...

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Slightly off topic, but somewhat related.  You have to admit that this is a good thing for microsoft and mozilla, oh and the end-user :)

IE7 to use same RSS Icon as FF

Except that there is already evidence that MS wants to alter RSS standards to their own ends - and then we'll be back to the same problems of browser compatability etc.

Josh

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Points: -5
  • Posts: 3,397
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
MS Office is another example of no innovation - every version loks the same, does the same and adds a few esoteric bits that only 0.5% of users are even aware of - but they change the file formst just sufficiently to force people to upgrade to maintian compatability.

Sorry - end of rant ...
Office forced people to upgrade? From my understanding, every version of office is still able to open up documents created in office 95. So where is the forcing the user to upgrade? If they wanted to force people to upgrade, they would just remove support for older formats, but they dont. They realize not everyone wants to upgrade. Heck, my father is still running office 97 on winxp pro and its running like a champ. Why hasnt he upgraded if MS is forcing users to upgrade?

Also, MS only PROPOSED extensions to the RSS system, they havent done anything about implimenting them yet, only asked for approval

I am sorry, but if you are going to argue this thread, at least have an open mind and dont look to bash one end or the other in every reply.

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Try opening an Office 2003 file in Office 95 ....

You could argue that MS only 'extended' HTML, XHTML etc. for webpages - but an awful lot of webpages can only be viewed properly in Internet Explorer - even though many other browsers are standards compliant.

Josh

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Points: -5
  • Posts: 3,397
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Try opening an Office 2003 file in Office 95 ....

You could argue that MS only 'extended' HTML, XHTML etc. for webpages - but an awful lot of webpages can only be viewed properly in Internet Explorer - even though many other browsers are standards compliant.

Again, you arent forced to upgrade, if you have a client using office 2003, tell them to save the file in the older format, it takes 2 seconds to change the file type drop down listing. I again, fail to see where they are being forced to upgrade.

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
OK no one is forcing you to upgrade - but there is a pressure to do so, especially on businesses who receive documents in latest formats. True you can specify which format to save in but lots of people don't, files appear on the internet (not least on MS's own website) that can't be opened with earlier versions.

Doesn't alter the underlying question though - why is it necessary to produce the annual upgrade when it adds at best extremely limited additional functionality?

Josh

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Points: -5
  • Posts: 3,397
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
OK no one is forcing you to upgrade - but there is a pressure to do so, especially on businesses who receive documents in latest formats. True you can specify which format to save in but lots of people don't, files appear on the internet (not least on MS's own website) that can't be opened with earlier versions.

Doesn't alter the underlying question though - why is it necessary to produce the annual upgrade when it adds at best extremely limited additional functionality?

Because they are giving customers that have requested certain features what they wanted? You forget, the reason most of these features, that 5% of users will use, end up in office is because someone somewhere has requested it. Also, they shouldnt be forced to not update their file formats because people dont feel like upgrading their software. Thats like saying Ford cant add stuff to their cars because some people dont know how to use the features or dont feel like purchasing a new car when they add them.