April 8, 2009
I do not wish to start any type of bickering and such by broaching this subject. However, Would not having FireFox as one of the Topics be fruitful?
Be assured, that I am not FireFox groupie' or whatever they call them today. Actually, I begin using FireFox in early January of this year. At the time FireFox appeared not to crash as much as IE7. After initially checking out FireFox, I did not think either of the browsers were very stable.
What has me still using FireFox at this time are four capabilities. (My Companion is running IE8 and we are comparing pros and cons).
1. Organizing Bookmarks is far superior to the same, uh, Favorites, in IE7. I have always been unhappy how MS kept the same "Lousy" Favorites management capability in each new Browser.
2. Bookmark ToolBar put me in a "swoon". Dang! this was a master stroke. I LUV' IT!
3. And of course, NoScript... I reckon MS needs to do some diggin' to match this baby.
4. And last-but-not-least, they have some handy plug-ins or extensions or whatever they call them.
On the negative side, with regard, FireFox I have some "heart-burn" with:
1. Even with the latest update of FireFox (3.0.10) uses a lot of CPU cycles and a Lot of RAM. No, I do not have a glut of plug-ins / extensions.
1a. FF uses near 95% of CPU capability within two hours after reboot. TMy CPU is an Intel 3.2.xx gHz.
1b. I currently have 2 gb of ram, being limited from more by the fact my Motherboard only supports 32 bit. Again, FireFox uses quite a goodly amount of Ram. Let's just say that it uses much more RAM than AVAST AntiVirus & ANVIR Task Manager combined.
2. What I am currently upset the most about FireFox is their Help Files are worthless and when I have sent in requests to Support, I never have received a reply. Never in 4 different tries, each on different subject.
Sorry bout' my Rant'. However, I may be ranting about FireFox and as I listed some real good things going for it.
OH, perhaps it would be nice if we specified Topics Not only for FireFox, but also Internet Explorer 8.
Y'All Take Care, Ya' Hear
Hey Twospirit - This is my spin on your suggestion....'The Boss' may see it differently however:
I do think your suggestion has merit but not as a separate section for individual products, rather all under the one heading..."Browsers". These are the negatives as I see them:
If we start creating separate sections for specific software titles, or even for specific categories of software, we would end up with a very large and clumsy index. We must also try to avoid duplication. e.g. If we created a new section entitled 'Browsers', all the popular browsers are also freeware so any new threads would then fit into two categories....'Freeware' and 'Browsers'. This would have the tendency to create confusion and fragment discussion.
On the other hand 'Freeware' does encompass a wide variety of products and we do have the ability to move threads from one section to another thereby maintaining continuity......over to you Dave!!
On another note: You have presented a very good precis of the pros and cons regarding Firefox. I have never experienced any serious memory/CPU usage problems personally but have read many, many similar complaints. The big plus for Firefox is the vast number of add-ons/extensions which are available....everyone has their favourites which they are extremely reluctant to be without....especially long term users. (like me )
All in all, a very good post,
Jim, I'm not sure creating a separate forum section was the jest of the post (though I've been wrong before). If it is, I would be open to creating a separate section for browsers, but I think we would need much more traffic on the forum to support it. Either way we will support Firefox and answer any questions (as always) the best we can!
Firefox does use a little more memory than some of the other browsers, but I use it on one computer with only 512MB of RAM and don't seem to have any problems (the computer is slow as molasses anyway).
Even if your motherboard/cpu is only 32bit you should be able to with at least 3GB, and possibly 4GB, of RAM. It's cheap at the moment. Have a look at the manufacturers site and see if you can use more.
BTW, thanks for the suggestion and sharing your Firefox experiences with everyone!
Jim, I'm not sure creating a separate forum section was the jest of the post[/quote:3rzv710c]
Oops, sorry.....I thought that to be the case. BTW: "jest" = joke. I think the word you were looking for is 'gist' (= core, essence). Call me Mr. Pedantic!!
Even if your motherboard/cpu is only 32bit you should be able to with at least 3GB, and possibly 4GB, of RAM.[/quote:3rzv710c]
Don't know about the USA but here it is very difficult to install 3gb of RAM. Most mobos come with 4 slots....given there must be an even number of cards and 512mb RAM cards are as scarce as rocking horse manure it is near mission impossible. Everyone here (the suppliers) are moving to minimum 1gb RAM cards with some already looking at a minimum of 2gb. The reasoning is purely economical.....simply, 1 x 1gb RAM is a fair bit cheaper than 2 x 512mb RAM, and son on.....as one of our dearly departed fearless leaders once said, "Life wasn't meant to be easy".
Jim, I actually meant to type gist - so you are correct once again!
Most motherboards will let you run a 2GB/1GB(2 slots) or 1GB/1GB/1GB/1GB(4 slots) combo. Either way, best to look at a site like Crucial.com and enter your info. You'll lose about 3% of the performance of having matching DIMMs, but often the benefit of an extra GB or two is worth it.
Most motherboards will let you run a 2GB/1GB(2 slots) [/quote:3f5ckpxd]
Oh, okay...I wasn't aware of that. I was under the impression the cards for two slots had to be of equal value. That's what I love about these infernal machines, one never stops learning and you, my friend, are a very good teacher....the best!!
thanks for that mate,
Most Users Ever Online: 188
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 10
Administrators: Jim Hillier, Richard Pedersen, David Hartsock, Marc Thomas
Moderators: Judy Novotny, dandl, Jason Shuffield, Jim Canfield, Dick Evans, Sergey Grankin