Recommended Posts

Hey, today i noticed that google loads in nightly the old-fashioned search in nightly. I tried with a new profile too. It doesn't happen in Aurora, nor in Chromium, nor in IE9.

Some screenshots:

err2.PNG

Also in the italian version the logo is loaded incorrectly:

err1.PNG

This things make me realize how bad looking the internet was in the past :)

Google often use cookies to set how the site should appear to you when they are testing stuff (for example if you get the new Google bar or not). In this case, it appears your Nightly has somehow got one to give you the old design, which must be some sort of error on Google's end. Nice to see though!

Google often use cookies to set how the site should appear to you when they are testing stuff (for example if you get the new Google bar or not). In this case, it appears your Nightly has somehow got one to give you the old design, which must be some sort of error on Google's end. Nice to see though!

I thought that too, but after deleting the cache and cookies nothing changed

I got the same problem in nightly but changing the user agent fixes it for me. In about:config add "general.useragent.override" and string value "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.2" or whatever previous version of firefox.

Websites sometimes appear differently on other browsers and they detect that by sniffing the user agent. Try using iPad safari browser user agent and you can emulate googles iPad layout on firefox.

Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; U; CPU OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5

edit:

It appears that today's nightly changed user agent formatting. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588909

old nightly: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0a1) Gecko/20120217 Firefox/13.0a1

today's nightly: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0a1) Gecko/13.0a1 Firefox/13.0a1

This broke the google. So temp workaround is to manually change user agent or wait for google to fix it on their end.

The probably used that part of the useragent to detect if the rendering engine is modern enough for the standard design otherwise it will revert back to the old for compatibility reasons. The changing of the date format broke this backwards compatibility (Better to use dates than version numbers it would be simpler to do when Nightlies are involved which won't have a predictable version number)

Hey, today i noticed that google loads in nightly the old-fashioned search in nightly. I tried with a new profile too. It doesn't happen in Aurora, nor in Chromium, nor in IE9.

Some screenshots:

err2.PNG

Also in the italian version the logo is loaded incorrectly:

err1.PNG

This things make me realize how bad looking the internet was in the past :)

How bad looking it was? What's bad about that? It's called simple and simplistic and it loaded very fast too, I bet, which is how I wish it still was instead of all the bloat/crap Google has on their page and in their browser!! I'm not complaining about the speed of Google loading, but if everyone was still using dial up, I'd bet there be more complaining about it then?

90% of the reason I WILL NOT use anything Google!! It IS NOT the greatest thing since the wheel, or internet!! Google sucks green donkey d**k!!

How bad looking it was? What's bad about that? It's called simple and simplistic and it loaded very fast too, I bet, which is how I wish it still was instead of all the bloat/crap Google has on their page and in their browser!! I'm not complaining about the speed of Google loading, but if everyone was still using dial up, I'd bet there be more complaining about it then?

Nowadays version is minimalistic and loads almost instantly.

Just when you couldn't hate mozilla any more than you currently do.

They go and change this, which adds zero benefit but ****s every standard up.

Oh way to go...

What utter tosh. Why not actually read the bug ticket? UA strings are hardly a strict standard, as it is (and have a loooad of historical complexities around them). Sites should be feature sniffing, not browser sniffing. Do you have much experience with how UA strings work?

As it is, it's not going to stay broken/weird for long. Google is likely thinking the browser version is much older than it is.

"Sites should be feature sniffing, not browser sniffing. Do you have much experience with how UA strings work?"

Guess you've never been a web developer in your entire at all then.

Javascript comes with chome, firefox, etc. yes. A lot of browsers do not have javascript support (lynx, links, etc.), or have it disabled (no$cript).

This is just plain badly written code on Google's behalf, instead of checking for the version of the browser they check for the date it was compiled on, which is pretty damn meaningless (You could have a lower version with a higher build date, etc.) There's a reason Mozilla froze that date to be 2010-01-01 with 4.0, to discourage this, Google is just apparently slow to notice.

Edit: Ahh, I see the JS angle then. Still, your site shouldn't rely on JS to function and this is a server side issue on Google's behalf, not a client side issue.

"Sites should be feature sniffing, not browser sniffing. Do you have much experience with how UA strings work?"

Guess you've never been a web developer in your entire at all then.

Javascript comes with chome, firefox, etc. yes. A lot of browsers do not have javascript support (lynx, links, etc.), or have it disabled (no$cript).

It's not an either/or situation, though - browsers inherently without JS support could still be UA detected. I don't have much sympathy for people who would noscript Google - of course you're going to lose features that way. Just like if I turn off CSS, sites will also look fairly weird - but I'm not going to complain about it. (Turn off the scripts you don't want to run, for sure, but turning off *all* scripts and expecting everything to be okay is over the top)

There's many articles online about browser and feature sniffing, and the benefits of each - but they pretty much always come down on feature sniffing. I know browser sniffing is commonly used, but that doesn't make it good.

Besides, that's not a defence of your original comment at all, which was that somehow it was all Mozilla's fault.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Bluesky COO warns social media regulations could destroy competition from small startups by Paul Hill Fears that increasing government control of social media risks regulatory capture by the biggest social media firms were raised again recently. Bluesky’s chief operating officer said in an interview that social media bans for children and tighter regulations for social media firms risk creating a world where there are only a few social media platforms run by companies with the deepest pockets. Regulations on social media firms have been very lax since they appeared for mainstream users in the 2000’s. This gave Meta, Snapchat, and Google time to build up their user bases and get entrenched, with Meta being the most successful. Now that Meta has succeeded, it has been attempting regulatory capture. By pushing for more regulations of social media, Meta hopes to make it more difficult for rivals to challenge it. For its part, it doesn’t need to worry about the cost of regulation because it has a lot of money to spend, whereas startups do not. Speaking to CNBC, Rose Wang, Bluesky’s chief operating officer, said: “I support the protection and the safety of youth, the question that we have then is at what cost, because essentially what I’m scared of is in the long term, we’re headed to a world where there’s about three to five platforms, and extreme heavy regulation of those platforms, and basically the whole compliance teams of these platforms are 10 times the size of our entire team. So, basically, we’re living in a world where it’s almost impossible for smaller entrants to come in and build healthier spaces. These platforms have led to a place where the bottom line is the thing that drives what they do... so I understand why governments have to step in and regulate, because the platforms have done nothing right.” She said that while she is not against regulation, there needs to be more channels between the small to mid-sized players and regulators to help protect them. She says that big tech players, on the other hand, “who we know are circumventing regulation,” need to be regulated. Essentially, the Bluesky position is one of nuance, rather than absolutes. While Bluesky’s proposal may preserve competition in the social media space, it still doesn’t address the massive privacy implications these age verification measures introduce, such as handing over sensitive identity documents to access age-gated content. Source: CNBC
    • it dosnt support onprem exchange. it dosnt support mapi-calls. the views are all worse/limited. its slower. it cant see public folder calendars. we already have webmail. the list of other missing features is pretty huge but i only see it when customers call to say their email isnt working, and 9/10 times its cause they accidentality changed to outlooknew(new). Hold the line everyone!
    • yeah, this looks beautiful. Damn this winter's going to be great.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      493
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      249
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      71
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      70
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!