Firefox 3

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:11 am

So yes, Firefox DID gay up another perfectly useful feature.

DancemasterGlenn · Post by **DancemasterGlenn** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:16 am

If by "gay up", you mean make it so that the search bar wasn't just doing the exact same thing as the url bar, then yes. For those of us who enjoy the search bar, it makes sense for the url bar to have a separate behavior.

It's all opinion at this point, no one's right, everyone's an idiot, GO OPERA? I have no idea. I like firefox 3, I don't really care who does or does not like it. Why are we all still arguing about this?

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:26 am

DancemasterGlenn wrote:If by "gay up", you mean make it so that the search bar wasn't just doing the exact same thing as the url bar, then yes. For those of us who enjoy the search bar, it makes sense for the url bar to have a separate behavior.

A separate behavior that's both different from the original base product and the industry standard?

It's all opinion at this point, no one's right, everyone's an idiot, GO OPERA? I have no idea. I like firefox 3, I don't really care who does or does not like it. Why are we all still arguing about this?

I think it's because you all refuse to see the light and quit using crippleware.

*thumps his bible*

DancemasterGlenn · Post by **DancemasterGlenn** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:37 am

Gil_Hamilton wrote:A separate behavior that's both different from the original base product and the industry standard?

Yes. Take note: by trying something new, a change can occur that, if found to be liked by a sufficient number of people, can set a new standard. Not surprisingly, some people do like it this way.

I think it's because you all refuse to see the light and quit using crippleware. :P
*thumps his bible*

Haha, I give up. I can't reason with a man who spends his days thumping his old bible :P

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:11 am

DancemasterGlenn wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:A separate behavior that's both different from the original base product and the industry standard?
Yes. Take note: by trying something new, a change can occur that, if found to be liked by a sufficient number of people, can set a new standard. Not surprisingly, some people do like it this way.

Firefox is somewhat infamous for making changes for change's sake, though.
Look at the backlash over the "awesomebar" for a recent example.

There've been several similar instances where they responded to negative user feedback by basically saying "Tough shit. This is how it is. We don't care that you hate it. Deal with it."

I still see it as crippling a perfectly good existing feature to justify the bloat of a new one.

creaothceann · Post by **creaothceann** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:47 am

Gil_Hamilton wrote:Firefox is somewhat infamous for making changes for change's sake, though.

I thought that was M$'s job.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:53 am

creaothceann wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:Firefox is somewhat infamous for making changes for change's sake, though.
I thought that was M$'s job.

MS does it at the core level.
MoFo does it at the UI level.

Rashidi · Post by **Rashidi** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:44 pm

creaothceann wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:Firefox is somewhat infamous for making changes for change's sake, though.
I thought that was M$'s job.

i believe Nach' sig also points to somethin like that.

FitzRoy · Post by **FitzRoy** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:48 pm

creaothceann wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:Firefox is somewhat infamous for making changes for change's sake, though.
I thought that was M$'s job.

You mean like the animated dog that takes five seconds to hop up to you before you can do a search in XP? Wut? I thought that was the most useful thing ever!

Johan_H · Post by **Johan_H** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:30 pm

FitzRoy wrote:
creaothceann wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:Firefox is somewhat infamous for making changes for change's sake, though.
I thought that was M$'s job.
You mean like the animated dog that takes five seconds to hop up to you before you can do a search in XP? Wut? I thought that was the most useful thing ever!

Is it known who's idea it was to include that patronizing fucking thing in XP and have it enabled by default?
I seriously believe M$ wants its users to be idiots.

megamanzer0 · Post by **megamanzer0** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:31 pm

well seeing as idiots take the crap that's fed to them that would be a safe assumption.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:33 am

Johan_H wrote:
FitzRoy wrote:
creaothceann wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:Firefox is somewhat infamous for making changes for change's sake, though.
I thought that was M$'s job.
You mean like the animated dog that takes five seconds to hop up to you before you can do a search in XP? Wut? I thought that was the most useful thing ever!
Is it known who's idea it was to include that patronizing fucking thing in XP and have it enabled by default?
I seriously believe M$ wants its users to be idiots.

To be fair, these ARE the same people that open attachments called "naked pictures of Angelina Jolie.jpg.vbs" JUST in case.

It's not that they WANT their users to be idiots so much as they have empirical evidence that they ARE idiots.

Rashidi · Post by **Rashidi** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:44 am

".vbs"

i expressly disdain that MS make it default to hide the ".ext" (this especialy true on public internet/computer who lock its settings)