+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹ Posted May 4, 2005 Subscriber¹ Share Posted May 4, 2005 They could have added a button to turn those optimzations off..but apparently they don't know how to code that in. Aparently, you don't know anythign about how compiling code works Polls are lied to, trust me, they are. Just ask men and women how many people they've slept with, men will usually say more than they have, women will usually say less than they have. Due to men wanting to sound "cool", and women not wanting to sound "slutty". I'm not denying people lie to polls, I know they do, but what's the point in lying about your webbrowser? Are you sure FF identifies itself as Firefox? O.o uhh.. yes. Where in the world do you live? Nobody calls vacuum cleaners "Hoovers"..O.o People call band-aids band-aids, and tissue paper, kleenex, but that is only because the brand has been there for a LONG LONG time. Firefox..wasn't first, and doesn't convey any "real" meaning to your average Joe or Jane. Good ol' Britain :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drshdw Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 You crack me up toadeater. That's because OSX has a .000000000000000000001 marketshare. But I agree, they shouldn't be allowed to do it either. All protocols on the internet should be open-sourced. You can have a built-in browser, but that browser should use established standards, not corrupt them for evil purposes like IE does. So...when Apple uses its own DRM on its own AAC files, that shouldn't be right either. They should of vouched for an open standard, but...they didn't now did they? They have their own DRM standard in order to control the market, every company is like that, they'd rather use their own standard rather than conform to others. Creative has EAX, why didnt they use something opensource, why make up their own standard? Why did companies introduce IDE rather than SCSI for the desktop market? To take the market with its own standard, rather than use an existing one. Its all for their own good, not for everyone elses. SCSI in its own is a better interface than IDE, yet..rarely do you see it in desktop computers. Yet if years ago companies had pushed for SCSI instead of IDE, the SCSI interface would have become cheaper and easier to implement. But..these companies wanted to start their own, something they could control. LOL. Nice try, but I'm not a Mac fan. I'm not a Linux fan either. I don't see why M$ can't be criticized when it does bad things. MS does do bad things, but every company does, yet when MS does something wrong, its leap and bounds above everyone else, yet they could of all done the same thing wrong. I don't see the DOJ suing Apple for reverse engineering Konfabulator and integrating it within its OS. Yet in the EU, they can't even stand MS including a media player, yet Apple has Quicktime, what gives? O.o Isn't that bias? By default, it is optimized for compatibility, the same way IE is. You can get *further* optimized versions for your specific hardware. Might not make a difference on a P4, but if you have a Pentium 1, or a 64 bit processor, it makes a difference. I don't get it, if it doesn't make a difference on a p4, doesn't that mean it was optimized for a p4 to begin with? Your statement is really contridicting.. Explain "compiled on Gecko." Gecko isn't a programming language, it is the layout engine used in Firefox. It's like the IE layout engine, so it is what websites have to conform to. Unlike IE, however, it uses open standards, rather than corrupt proprietary ones M$ uses to try to control the internet and commerce.Are you sure you're not a troll? Earlier it was mentioned that one should count custom browsers compiled with Gecko to be counted towards FF market share..makes no sense. You should read the whole thread before crapping. Read it and weep:http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp IE 64%, FF/Mozilla 28%. That might be optimistic considering the site, but even if you give IE another 15%, it's still down to about 80%, rather than the 90+ that M$ claims. Maybe M$ measures their statistics by the browsers used for Windows Update. Go look at other statistics if you want, but you'll find that IE is sinking fast in all of them. Did you even read what was said on the site? :no: Why so high Firefox figures?W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers. The average user does not know the difference between Firefox and IE. If you ask a whole company's users whether they use Firefox or not, most of them will probably say, is that some kind of new animal? Who in the WORLD would coorelate Firefox with the Internet if they didn't know about it before? Nobody. Statistics Are Often MisleadingYou cannot - as a web developer - rely only on statistics. Statistics can often be misleading. Global averages may not always be relevant to your web site. Different sites attract different audiences. Some web sites attract professional developers using professional hardware, other sites attract hobbyists using older low spec computers. So there really is no way to accurately measure market shares...... And also, these statistics are only from ONE website, leading to massive amounts of skewing, now if you took a pool of ALL the websites in the world, you'd have a much better idea of who uses what and where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drshdw Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Aparently, you don't know anythign about how compiling code worksI'm not denying people lie to polls, I know they do, but what's the point in lying about your webbrowser? uhh.. yes. Good ol' Britain :) 585873833[/snapback] Yup I know nothing of compiling. Sorry I'm not as geeky as you. People lie about everything, it's human nature. My FF gets indentified as... Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 Firefox/1.0.3Browser Name: Netscape Browser Version: 1.0.3 Browser identified as: Netscape 5.0 (Windows; en-US) Code Name: Mozilla User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 Firefox/1.0.3 Browser ID string Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 Firefox/1.0.3. Now..my FF 1.0.3 just got indentified as..Mozilla 5.0, Netscape 1.0.3, Mozilla/5.0, Mozilla/5.0. So..1/4 of the time its Netscape 1.0.3, and the rest it's identified as Mozilla 5.0. Only after all that other jibberish is it mentioning Firefox, what gives? Useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹ Posted May 5, 2005 Subscriber¹ Share Posted May 5, 2005 My FF gets indentified as...Now..my FF 1.0.3 just got indentified as..Mozilla 5.0, Netscape 1.0.3, Mozilla/5.0, Mozilla/5.0. So..1/4 of the time its Netscape 1.0.3, and the rest it's identified as Mozilla 5.0. Only after all that other jibberish is it mentioning Firefox, what gives? Useless. 585873889[/snapback] See the "firefox/1.0.3" bit at the end of the User-Agent string? That is firefox identifying as firefox "Mozilla/5.0" is mozilla 5 compatible "Windows" means you're running on windows (duh :\) I don't know what the "U" stats for... "Windows NT 5.2" means Windows Server 2003 or XP x64 "en-US" means that your locale is American English "Gecko/20050414" means that you're using the gecko rendering engine, compiled on the 14th April 2005 "Firefox/1.0.3" means that you're using the browser Firefox, version 1.0.3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toadeater Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 You crack me up toadeater.So...when Apple uses its own DRM on its own AAC files, that shouldn't be right either. They should of vouched for an open standard, but...they didn't now did they? They have their own DRM standard in order to control the market, every company is like that, they'd rather use their own standard rather than conform to others. Creative has EAX, why didnt they use something opensource, why make up their own standard? In both cases they made these standards to support their own hardware, not to subvert other standards. Apple's DRM does nothing to subvert mp3 players that don't use DRM at all. These standards do not infringe on other hardware or open standards. As for EAX, it had no opensource alternative. Now that some are starting to emerge, EAX will hopefully soon be dumped. Micro$oft on the other hand has poisoned the HTML standard, JAVA, and also attempted to impose ActiveX via Windows and IE. This was part of Micro$oft's predatorial strategy to take control of internet commerce and multimedia. EVERYONE who wanted to do anything on the internet would have to pay a fee to M$ if they had succeeded. Luckily they're such a bunch of incompetent goose-stepping sycophants that they can't get anything done right. Why did companies introduce IDE rather than SCSI for the desktop market? To take the market with its own standard, rather than use an existing one. Its all for their own good, not for everyone elses. SCSI in its own is a better interface than IDE, yet..rarely do you see it in desktop computers. Yet if years ago companies had pushed for SCSI instead of IDE, the SCSI interface would have become cheaper and easier to implement. But..these companies wanted to start their own, something they could control. Does your hardware standard interfere with how you do business with the internet? No. You can access the internet from a dozen different things. But if ActiveX was standard, ANYONE developing ANYTHING for the internet would have to conform to M$'s Windows-centric evil. MS does do bad things, but every company does, yet when MS does something wrong, its leap and bounds above everyone else, yet they could of all done the same thing wrong. Ofcourse they do, but open-source can't do anything wrong because no one can use it for their own evil ends. It has to conform to what everyone agrees to, and it has to be transparent, otherwise it's not open-source. I don't see the DOJ suing Apple for reverse engineering Konfabulator and integrating it within its OS. Yet in the EU, they can't even stand MS including a media player, yet Apple has Quicktime, what gives? O.o Isn't that bias? You don't seem to get it. Apple does this stuff for their own platform, not to influence OTHER platforms and standards. Konfabulator is absolutely meaningless to anyone but Apple users, Windows and Linux users have their own similar products. I don't get it, if it doesn't make a difference on a p4, doesn't that mean it was optimized for a p4 to begin with? Your statement is really contridicting.. Firefox is aimed at x86 processors as a base standard AFAIK, so I suppose you can think that it is "optimized" for the P4. Read the analysis on this page, optimizations had less impact for the P4 than other processors: http://www.moox.ws/tech/mozilla/ Earlier it was mentioned that one should count custom browsers compiled with Gecko to be counted towards FF market share..makes no sense. You should read the whole thread before crapping.Did you even read what was said on the site? :no: What site? Gecko is the Firefox layout engine, I don't care if it's in the Firefox package or not, the important thing is what standards it uses. Btw, did you ever notice the name of this forum section? Did you ever wonder why they named it Mozilla (Gecko) and not Firefox?! The average user does not know the difference between Firefox and IE. You being a perfect example of one of these users. If you ask a whole company's users whether they use Firefox or not, most of them will probably say, is that some kind of new animal? Who in the WORLD would coorelate Firefox with the Internet if they didn't know about it before? Nobody.So there really is no way to accurately measure market shares...... Huh? You just said they wouldn't know if they were using it or not. But the person who deployed it would know. Like if he deployed 20000 copies of Firefox in place of IE at a company or school that he only downloaded ONCE off Mozilla's site. And also, these statistics are only from ONE website, leading to massive amounts of skewing, now if you took a pool of ALL the websites in the world, you'd have a much better idea of who uses what and where. Feel free to look them up from other sites, I have already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹ Posted May 6, 2005 Subscriber¹ Share Posted May 6, 2005 Ignore this post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drshdw Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 In both cases they made these standards to support their own hardware, not to subvert other standards. Apple's DRM does nothing to subvert mp3 players that don't use DRM at all. These standards do not infringe on other hardware or open standards. As for EAX, it had no opensource alternative. Now that some are starting to emerge, EAX will hopefully soon be dumped. Micro$oft on the other hand has poisoned the HTML standard, JAVA, and also attempted to impose ActiveX via Windows and IE. This was part of Micro$oft's predatorial strategy to take control of internet commerce and multimedia. EVERYONE who wanted to do anything on the internet would have to pay a fee to M$ if they had succeeded. Luckily they're such a bunch of incompetent goose-stepping sycophants that they can't get anything done right. Then why have DRM at all? Useless. It just gets in the way. :whistle: EAX, they could of made their solution opensource could they not? But they didn't.. :sleep: How does MS poison anything? It's not like they put a gun to your head and made you buy their software...why not buy Apples years and years ago, why choose MS? Wouldn't any company want to gain market domination you stupid *ss. If you owned a company, wouldn't you want your own products and standards to be the industry's standard rather than some other company's? You really would suck at doing business, you'd let other companies walk all over you. Does your hardware standard interfere with how you do business with the internet? No. You can access the internet from a dozen different things. But if ActiveX was standard, ANYONE developing ANYTHING for the internet would have to conform to M$'s Windows-centric evil. Your paragraphs start out unbias, but in the end they always end something something MS. Geez, if you like saying MS this MS that, why not go marry MS. :whistle: Anyhow, yes it interferes. SCSI is faster, if we all had SCSI, everything wouldn't be so damn slow. Ofcourse they do, but open-source can't do anything wrong because no one can use it for their own evil ends. It has to conform to what everyone agrees to, and it has to be transparent, otherwise it's not open-source. Where did you get the idea that open source = what everyone agrees to? Open source is just a bunch of people coding for the same end product for free. That doesn't mean it has to conform to any other peoples "idea" of what the product should end like, it just has to conform to what the coders want. You don't seem to get it. Apple does this stuff for their own platform, not to influence OTHER platforms and standards. Konfabulator is absolutely meaningless to anyone but Apple users, Windows and Linux users have their own similar products. But that is monopolizing the business of widgets, now Apple has decreased Konfabulator's revenue by including something similar in their OS. Windows has what? Samurize? It ALSO has Konfabulator as well. What does Linux have? o.O Firefox is aimed at x86 processors as a base standard AFAIK, so I suppose you can think that it is "optimized" for the P4. Read the analysis on this page, optimizations had less impact for the P4 than other processors: You really should learn some math. If p3s recieve 100% boost, athlons recieve 100% boost, why wouldn't a p4 recieve 100% boost, unless...it was optimized for that cpu previous. :rolleyes: What site? Gecko is the Firefox layout engine, I don't care if it's in the Firefox package or not, the important thing is what standards it uses.Btw, did you ever notice the name of this forum section? Did you ever wonder why they named it Mozilla (Gecko) and not Firefox?! The site you mentioned. You being a perfect example of one of these users. Yes, I am, but does that mean your God? :rolleyes: Huh? You just said they wouldn't know if they were using it or not. But the person who deployed it would know. Like if he deployed 20000 copies of Firefox in place of IE at a company or school that he only downloaded ONCE off Mozilla's site. Wtf are you talking about? I didn't say anything about deployment. And would good is 1 out of 20000 people knowing what they use, nothing really.. Feel free to look them up from other sites, I have already. You look, I don't know where to look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toadeater Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 Aznx, stay in school, don't smoke crack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_demilord Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Go Firefox the best browser in the world!! :woot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolCatBad Posted May 14, 2005 Share Posted May 14, 2005 Just reached 55,000,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOGglee Posted May 14, 2005 Share Posted May 14, 2005 great! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts