 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in Lost Threads II. |
| User | Post |
| FreeDOS + Posts: 1022/1312 |
I find it amusing they pretty much make fun of themselves by instead recommending KHTML, probably the most advanced rendering engine currently available. "It is recommended that Macintosh users migrate to more recent web browsing technologies such as Apple's Safari." |
| Milly Posts: 101/145 |
Originally posted by AilureSo what happened to Internet Explorer for Macintosh? Not like I'd use it anyway if I had MacOS X, but there's still Office for it ... ... Ah, it's gone  |
| Roy Posts: 22/23 |
i just prefer firefox, and yea... thats it. |
| Pasgeti_; Posts: 542/565 |
Originally posted by darkwitchOriginally posted by ibz10g What is this idiot convention? Anyways i have used firefox since i found it partly because it block pop-ups and partly because i can't bother switching again. |
| Ailure Posts: 2122/2602 |
Originally posted by XkeeperIE is probably the most propetariry brwoser out there. Hell it have a strict TOS saying that you can't install it on other OS's. (it's possible with Wine BTWOriginally posted by ibz10g ). IE is not really free as in beer, as it requires a valid Windows license.
I mean, putting IE and Public in the same sentance is like putting fascism and freedom on the same sentance.  |
| darkwitch Posts: 124/214 |
Originally posted by ibz10g  For real? Because I have it and I find it sucks, IE is way better than that. |
| Milly Posts: 83/145 |
My Firefox 1.5 folder is just over 20MB without any slimming down ( ), but I don't remember 2.0 being much bigger when I tried it at work ... although I'll admit things like the spellchecker (and maybe even the anti-phishing) would have been better as extensions for a "minimal" browser, and it might still be somewhat big ...
Internet Explorer 7's installer is 14MB before extracting, and 41MB after, so it still loses to both |
| Xkeeper Posts: 4571/5653 |
Originally posted by ibz10g What the holy hell are you trying to say? |
| ibz10g Posts: 459/588 |
Firefox owns just about any other free public internet explorer. |
| Xkeeper Posts: 4546/5653 |
Just over three hours. Not bad! |
| Xeo Belmont Posts: 523/1016 |
I should probably make the switch to Firefox 2 (still just using regular MFF). |
| FreeDOS + Posts: 1007/1312 |
Almost every installer is compressed, so it's really not a fair comparison. Besides, since when has binary size ever had a real correlation to features? Windows Vista takes up 10GB or so, and it still pretty much comes with exactly the same crap applications Windows XP did in 1.6GB, or Windows 95 did in 80MB.
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6.9M Nov 11 22:41 /usr/ports/packages/i386/all/opera-9.02.tgzOH NOES, IT'S LARGER THAN THE WINDOWS INSTALLER -rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 12.8M Nov 11 22:45 firefox-2.0p1.tgz Uncompressed: -rw-r--r-- 1 mike mike 16.2M Nov 11 22:45 opera-9.02.tar Seriously, give me a break ~_~ Oh, and almost everytime I try to use Opera (to test pages etc), it crashes and I have to remove opera.core since I'm not going to be able to fix it. |
| Xkeeper Posts: 4537/5653 |
Opera_9.02_Eng_Setup.exe 4,758 KB For a browser that has, by comparison, almost no features at all, to take up that much space over their competitor... Yes, Firefox is far superior. Without a doubt. *Xkeeper sighs. |
