Goodbye Firefox

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
It's really easy to turn off, but it's one more thing that users have to turn off.

I really do think Mozilla is being terribly managed at this point. I can't recall the last time it made an announcement I actually thought to be a positive development.
 

sedrosken

Allergic to Sunlight
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
1,067
Location
The Sticks
I'm just waiting for Vivaldi to come out in earnest. I wish they'd go with more Firefox-like addons in lieu of Chrome-like extensions, but seeing as FF is moving that way too it isn't surprising. At least Vivaldi is capable of using extensions meant for Chrome instead of requiring the extensions to be recompiled with their specific browser in mind.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
That's a particularly special pipe dream given how historically poor Opera's track record of ignoring conventions for shortcuts and UI elements was.
 

Tea

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,720
Location
27a No Fixed Address, Oz.
Website
www.redhill.net.au
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL2DH-nKBeA

Opera invented most of the UI elements you take for granted today. Well, you did until Chrome buggered things up and Firefox started screwing pooches. Further, the Opera UI was whatever you wanted it to be. It was not just massively customisable, it was trivially easy to customise. It was, in short, designed for users, not according to some power-crazed bureaucrat's brain fart.
 

Santilli

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 27, 2002
Messages
5,077
Trying Opera again. Their business is located on Highway 92, as you turn to go south onto 101.
 

sedrosken

Allergic to Sunlight
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
1,067
Location
The Sticks
Santilli, these days Opera is nothing more than a slightly reskinned Chrome clone. Uses the same engine and everything. Vivaldi uses the same rendering engine and extension capability, but the UI is much closer to Presto Opera levels of customization.

If you guys see anyone using Opera 11.50 on here, it's probably me on the Pentium II.


Oddly, I have started having the RAM issues that Merc has been having -- 64-bit Firefox, with 5 tabs open (couple fanfic sites [which I read for the laughs], a facebook tab, couple webcomic tabs), is taking up 2GB of RAM all on its own! None of these sites have flash active, and closing and relaunching FF fixes it for a good long while, but I am being forced to conclude that FF has a memory leak the size of the Grand Canyon again. Active addons include ABP, ABP popup addon, Classic Theme Restorer, Flashblock, Tab Mix Plus, Tab Wheel Scroll, and Youtube Flash Player. It's not a huge issue as otherwise I never find myself using more than ~6GB of my RAM and scarcely ever touch swap unless I'm hibernating, and I have my RAM so I can use it, but this needs to be fixed posthaste.
 
Last edited:

Santilli

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 27, 2002
Messages
5,077
Got it. Still, it's quick, I hate Chrome, and it seems a bit faster then FF.Getting to like the start page, vs. using bookmarks. We'll see.

I've only got 8 gigs of ram, but, even with that little bit, FF seems to run fine.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,268
Location
USA
Got it. Still, it's quick, I hate Chrome, and it seems a bit faster then FF.Getting to like the start page, vs. using bookmarks. We'll see.

I've only got 8 gigs of ram, but, even with that little bit, FF seems to run fine.
Why is more than 8GB of RAM needed for a browser? That's rather ridiculous for ordinary use.
 

Tea

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,720
Location
27a No Fixed Address, Oz.
Website
www.redhill.net.au
Why is more than 8GB of RAM needed for a browser? That's rather ridiculous for ordinary use.
There are five reasons:
  • Moronic Javscript
  • Inefficient browser coding
  • Flash
  • Moronic Javscript
  • Moronic Javscript

Web pages should be written in HTML. Javascript is evil. No, not ever single time, only 98.38% of the time. And even then it needs to be reduced in size and complexity by a factor of 10.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
Opera invented most of the UI elements you take for granted today.
Opera invented a terrible multi-document window interface that wasn't functionally any better than having 20 open browser windows and it invented a lot of keyboard shortcuts that didn't exist or follow the standards set by Mosaic or Netscape. I wouldn't exactly call those things favors to end users.
 

Tea

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,720
Location
27a No Fixed Address, Oz.
Website
www.redhill.net.au
^ You are dreaming.

(1) Opera is better at large document counts than any other browser. The MDI is superb and THE reason Opera is so badly missed and it was copied exactly by Seamonkey and Firefox, with a broken subset of it copied be Chrome and IE. All current browsers retain at last the broken subset portion; none has added anything of note. And it is trivially simple to modify to suit your own preferences.

(2) The keyboard is soft. Have any shortcuts you want.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
Opera's god-awful multi-page interface was MDI Windows, not unlike Windows 3.1's Program Manager. I have no idea when it joined modern UI styles and finally added proper tab support, but I can recall using tabs in Mozilla Phoenix in... whatever year Phoenix was released. 2002? I'm fairly certain I saw tabs in other niche browsers long before Opera finally got them in IIRC version 7 or 8.
As for customizable shortcuts: Why should anyone have to be bothered? There were standards established for that crap years before Opera existed.
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
Messing with keybindings in every program to make them compliant is a huge PITA. Everytime you reinstall or setup a new computer it's just one more thing to have to mess with.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,315
Location
Monterey, CA
Messing with keybindings in every program to make them compliant is a huge PITA. Everytime you reinstall or setup a new computer it's just one more thing to have to mess with.
This is why I run defaults on just about anything. There may be more efficient setups, but I'm trying to do work from a new install every month or so and can't be bothered to fool with it.
 

sedrosken

Allergic to Sunlight
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
1,067
Location
The Sticks
Good answer, Sedrosken. (Tea's correction notwithstanding.) But why aren't you running 12.17?
Because it's on the Pentium II with Windows 98SE and 11.50 seems to be the latest version KernelEx can run reliably.

Not even in the same postcode. Looong way to go yet.
That being as it is, Tea, wouldn't you agree that for a stock build of the browser running no addons that it's a darn sight better than Chrome or FF at it?
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
So you guys have your full resume, career history and details on LI? I haven't learned the trick of getting hired through LI.
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
So you guys have your full resume, career history and details on LI? I haven't learned the trick of getting hired through LI.
Mine is just companies I have worked for and job titles. It was enough to get noticed 4 years ago when I started at my current position.
 

Tea

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,720
Location
27a No Fixed Address, Oz.
Website
www.redhill.net.au
You have got your history muddled, Merc. Opera was doing tabs, pretty much as we see them today, long before anyone else. Pheonix was the next mainstream browser to adopt it. (Pheonix was renamed Firefox a bit later.) Opera did not in fact invent the browser tab, they merely popularised it - and Opera 12.x is still vastly better at it than any other browser, even Seamonkey. For example, only Opera gives you the choice of opening tabs in foreground or background on the fly.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
If Opera supported tabs prior to 2002, it at least wasn't part of the default operating view. I know Opera 6 still had those god-awful resizable child windows.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,863
Location
Michigan
So you guys have your full resume, career history and details on LI? I haven't learned the trick of getting hired through LI.
FWIW, I get lots of unsolicited correspondence from people trying to interest me in other jobs.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,870
Location
Brisbane, Oz
Opera's god-awful multi-page interface was MDI Windows, not unlike Windows 3.1's Program Manager. I have no idea when it joined modern UI styles and finally added proper tab support, but I can recall using tabs in Mozilla Phoenix in... whatever year Phoenix was released. 2002? I'm fairly certain I saw tabs in other niche browsers long before Opera finally got them in IIRC version 7 or 8.
As for customizable shortcuts: Why should anyone have to be bothered? There were standards established for that crap years before Opera existed.
Firstly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with an MDI interface - it's just that Microsoft, in it's never ending quest to look new and cool, decided to abandon it (you haven't forgotten Metro have you?). So instead of being able to group our windows by application, we now have to hunt for them on the completely stupid truncated task bar. This has improved with flyover expansion in fairly recent times, but it certainly wasn't the case when Opera was - uniquely - offering a choice between SDI and MDI interfaces.

Opera was oriented towards multi-page views when their competitors were still focused on a single page view of the Internet. Witness this screenshot of Opera 5 (circa 2000), with *tabs* in evidence at the bottom of the app window:



This page from 2002 compares the appearance of different browsers. You will notice that only Opera has tabs.

In Opera 7 they changed their tab presentation to conform with other products of that era, making the tabs the most prominent part of the display.

Later, they introduced 'tab stacking'. I have yet to see anyone produce an implementation of this concept that was even on the same page as the flawless implementation from Opera. Which is further evidence of software industry stagnation, but I digress ...

This little post is just about popularizing tabs as a concept. There were many others.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
Firstly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with an MDI interface - it's just that Microsoft, in it's never ending quest to look new and cool, decided to abandon it (you haven't forgotten Metro have you?).
Child windows just pawned the task of window management into the browser and the limited real estate of the parent, instead of making multiple windows that could managed like any other running applications. There's a reason almost nothing uses MDI any more. MDI as implemented by Opera, or by Microsoft when it was done in Program Manager, was a poor design.

Speaking to the Modern UI, it actually does have a place. It's fantastic on anything that isn't a traditional desktop or notebook. ModernUI applications really are much more usable on 10' interfaces or tablet-size screens than anything else that's available. Microsoft has a whole class of tools that can be used from a couch or with fingers. They're not feature-rich, but if you're computing in that sort of compromised scenario, that's probably not what you need anyway. It's more refined in Windows 10, but as it happens. Unlike MDI, there's a solid reason for that interface to exist.

time said:
Opera was oriented towards multi-page views when their competitors were still focused on a single page view of the Internet. Witness this screenshot of Opera 5 (circa 2000), with *tabs* in evidence at the bottom of the app window:

OK. Was that the default multipage view? Or was it the MDI interface that I remember from that era. I don't remember the Opera of that time having tabs. I never saw anyone using it that way. I was supporting Opera users at that point and it's something I would remember.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,870
Location
Brisbane, Oz
Child windows just pawned the task of window management into the browser and the limited real estate of the parent
Don't know what you were trying to say here - this is a nonsensical statement.

instead of making multiple windows that could managed like any other running applications.
That's the whole point of MDI - to avoid overloading the host windows manager with random client windows. As I said, Microsoft has now emulated this with flyover expansion of Taskbar tabs - bringing back the essence of MDI. I wonder if you view the desktop UI through the exclusive prism of a web browser, rather than content creation or complex business applications?

As for the "Modern UI", I developed something that looked almost exactly the same to allow bank executives to run an EIS system with their mouse-driven Macs. It was the best I could do 25 years ago.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
Don't know what you were trying to say here - this is a nonsensical statement.
MDI interfaces break well-understood rules for how GUIs should operate by allowing for arbitrary placement of child windows and/or their content without allowing for an anchoring point for returning to that content. Nearly all of them also need a change in habit for task switching behavior as well. It's makes for a bad user experience that someone can essentially lose track of a subwindow because their application's internal window handling isn't sufficiently robust and if it does still depend on the parent window's OS-based window management and surface area. If you're going to create lots of windows full of content, at least let the OS handle them so they're easily relocated or provide useful analogues to the OS controls. To relate that to early 2000s Opera, I specifically remember having to pick through a dozen minimized child windows over and over and over. I spent more time screwing around with window management than I did actually browsing.


That's the whole point of MDI - to avoid overloading the host windows manager with random client windows. As I said, Microsoft has now emulated this with flyover expansion of Taskbar tabs - bringing back the essence of MDI.
... a feature of Windows that I choose to immediately disable. Are there times that child windows are helpful? Occasionally. Content creation apps can't seem to function without them, but I wonder how much of that is just continuing design choices of 20 year old software into the contemporary era.

As for the "Modern UI", I developed something that looked almost exactly the same to allow bank executives to run an EIS system with their mouse-driven Macs. It was the best I could do 25 years ago.
As I said, a sparse tool with relatively few options sometimes has a place.
 

Buck

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
4,514
Location
Blurry.
Website
www.hlmcompany.com
There are five reasons:
  • Moronic Javscript
  • Inefficient browser coding
  • Flash
  • Moronic Javscript
  • Moronic Javscript

Web pages should be written in HTML. Javascript is evil. No, not ever single time, only 98.38% of the time. And even then it needs to be reduced in size and complexity by a factor of 10.
Once in a while, javascript is the better way to implement specific functionality. It would be nice if we could just program for CSS3 and HTML5. But when IE8 is your lowest common denominator, you need to be creative. I do look for PHP solutions first, but sometimes PHP isn't practical. So, my web pages end up being a combination of HTML, PHP, MySQL, CSS and Javascript.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,193
Location
USA
There are five reasons:
  • Moronic Javscript
  • Inefficient browser coding
  • Flash
  • Moronic Javscript
  • Moronic Javscript

Web pages should be written in HTML. Javascript is evil. No, not ever single time, only 98.38% of the time. And even then it needs to be reduced in size and complexity by a factor of 10.
Once in a while, javascript is the better way to implement specific functionality. It would be nice if we could just program for CSS3 and HTML5. But when IE8 is your lowest common denominator, you need to be creative. I do look for PHP solutions first, but sometimes PHP isn't practical. So, my web pages end up being a combination of HTML, PHP, MySQL, CSS and Javascript.

Javascript isn't evil, it's just less understood. There is an importance and reason for client-side processing vs server-side and without any other widely-accepted functional language on the client-side, how else shall this work be accomplished? Should we muddy the waters of HTML with this task; CSS3? No, I'd rather those components focus on what they do best. I concede that great amounts of pain and resources have been put into making Javascript perform better over the years on a client-side but we should also make note that it is pretty powerful as a language. We have things like node.js, angularjs, json, and a whole world of things that have come from Javascript that to simply call it evil is short-sighted.
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
Javascript isn't evil, it's just less understood. There is an importance and reason for client-side processing vs server-side and without any other widely-accepted functional language on the client-side, how else shall this work be accomplished? Should we muddy the waters of HTML with this task; CSS3? No, I'd rather those components focus on what they do best. I concede that great amounts of pain and resources have been put into making Javascript perform better over the years on a client-side but we should also make note that it is pretty powerful as a language. We have things like node.js, angularjs, json, and a whole world of things that have come from Javascript that to simply call it evil is short-sighted.
Completely agree. I see this refrain all over the place. Do you really want to go back to the web of the late 90s or is this just rose-colored glasses?
 

Buck

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
4,514
Location
Blurry.
Website
www.hlmcompany.com
We have things like node.js, angularjs, json, and a whole world of things that have come from Javascript that to simply call it evil is short-sighted.
Using something as simple as jsapi from Google for graphs, or a basic javascript image loader is most helpful. Also, Google Analytics and the jquery library are great. Sometimes, Javascript is misunderstood by web programmers, and a site is bloated with, or poorly coded with Javascript. But that happens with all programming languages. Tea is just repeating what Tannin spews out during one of his daily soapbox rants. I think when Tannin hears the word Javascript, he thinks of the Netscape Navigator days when tables, frames and javascript combined to slow down his 14.4 kb/s modem to a near stand-still.
 

Tea

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,720
Location
27a No Fixed Address, Oz.
Website
www.redhill.net.au
Javascript isn't evil ..... a whole world of things that have come from Javascript that to simply call it evil is short-sighted.
You are correct, of course. Javascript isn't inherently evil anymore than Escherichia coli, Herpes simplex, thermonuclear fusion devices, or Vibrio cholerae are inherently evil things. It's just misunderstood, put in places where it shouldn't be, and used far more than it should be.
 
Top