| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Firefox 2.0 Beta 2 Release Available | |
|
||
| Time: 10:57 EST/15:57 GMT | News Source: Neowin | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Firefox 2 provides the same clean, streamlined, interface as previous versions, with small improvements to make it easier to use. In addition, it includes improved security features and useful tools to make the Internet experience safer, faster, and better than ever before. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:03:51 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 8/31/2006 3:26:44 PM |
|
As someone noted on Digg:
"Honestly...there's barely any difference between 2.0 and 1.5. These changes are barely worthy of a 1.6 designation, let alone a 2.0. When there's a new release there should be sweeping changes and updates. As of now the only real USEABLE differences are the X's on the tabs and the lack of the "Go" menu. Everything else is pretty much the same." |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/31/2006 3:54:02 PM |
|
#1: Wow, 'someone' from Digg said that? That pretty much settles it then.
|
| #3 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 8/31/2006 4:21:37 PM |
| It does since I've seen no rebuttal. You couldn't think up one either. |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/31/2006 4:58:20 PM |
| #3: Honestly, I haven't really paid attention to FF 2. I'll care when it's released, but as of now I can't make any arguments against. But I have to ask: who cares? Who really cares if it's FF2 or FF 1.6 or FF 1.875^23? Even if I had a rebuttal, I don't know if I'd even care enough to argue it. At the moment, I can't think of anything more irrelevant. |
| #5 By 11888 (64.229.210.61) at 8/31/2006 5:53:38 PM |
| Agreed, arguing about the version number would just be sad. |
| #6 By 37047 (70.29.190.151) at 8/31/2006 6:56:59 PM |
|
Gee, Parkkker, the product is still in Beta, and the only issue you can find to complain about is the version number is not to your liking?
I've been around the industry for a long time (working professionally for over 20 years) and the one thing I have learned when it comes to version numbers is that they are a marketing issue, not a technical one. Managers and marketing people come up with version numbers, not the people who actually create the software. So who gives a flying fig newton what bloody set of characters come after the product name. The could call it "Firefox, the version that's newer than all the other versions that Parkkker doesn't use either" for all it matters to everyone but Parkkker. |
| #7 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 8/31/2006 6:59:55 PM |
|
"Gee, Parkkker, the product is still in Beta, and the only issue you can find to complain about is the version number is not to your liking?"
I was suggesting that clearly the Firefox project has run out of steam and version 2.0 is a huge disappointment because of the lack of new features ... on top of being late. I'm assuming the developers, bored with working on hundreds of security fixes, have bailed for something a little more interesting. Every "new" feature was borrowed from Maxthon. |
| #8 By 4209 (65.172.57.216) at 9/1/2006 9:47:46 AM |
| Well I see some new stuff, more than IE 7.0 but then again FF 1.0 had more than IE 7.0 does. Oh and it works on all sites as well which IE 7.0 still does not. And as for added features, the tabs are diferent but not by much and the anti-phishing filter is added. Still probably does not deserve 2.0 status but still better off than IE Beta is. |
| #9 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 9/1/2006 10:11:59 AM |
|
I can't believe NotParker continues to prowl these forums after being humiliated. NotParker, have you no dignity? Have you no pride? (BTW, the challenge still stands.)
NotParker, go look at the Windows internal version numbers and compare them to the Windows release names, maybe you'll learn something about software versioning versus software marketing. |
| #10 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 9/1/2006 10:28:19 AM |
|
#9 Ha ha ha. You are a hoot. No really. :)
Reflexively standing up for Firefox's tiny little upgrade marks you as an OSS fanatic. |
| #11 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 9/1/2006 10:53:53 AM |
|
#10: I'm not "reflexively" standing up for Firefox. As others have said, arguing about the version number is ridiculous, but your lack of understanding regarding software versioning with respect to software marketing is embarrassing.
How did your Windows internal version numbering research go? What did you learn? (You did research it as aggressively as you do OSS bugs, right?) The challenge still stands. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/1/2006 11:05:57 AM |
|
#11: Parkkker has had his ass handed to him at least two dozen times, but he keeps coming back for more with no changes whatsoever to his bizarre take on reality. I probably wouldn't post here without Parkkker to keep me entertained, but I sometimes feel guilty about it like I was teasing Rain Man or something.
|
| #13 By 23278 (72.248.117.210) at 9/1/2006 11:10:33 AM |
|
mctwin2kman,
Thanks for posting again. Did you find that link that says FireFox 2.0 works on every internet site yet? Thanks for finding that and I'm sure everyone here at activewin will be grateful as soon as you post it. |
| #14 By 32132 (142.32.208.233) at 9/1/2006 12:43:38 PM |
|
#11 "I'm not "reflexively" standing up for Firefox."
Really? Making excuses for their 2.0 version # is clearly standing up for them. I for one am very happy their project has lost steam and the "feature list" for 2.0 is pathetically small and stolen from Maxthon. They are bankrupt of new ideas. But hey ... you aren't happy. You and coffee girl are depressed together. What else is new. And I am very happy IE7 is such a success. I look forward to IE8. |
| #15 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/1/2006 1:23:46 PM |
| IE8, matching the features of Firefox 2. Or, for Parkker, IE8 - matching Maxthon 1.6. |
| #16 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 9/1/2006 1:31:01 PM |
|
#14: I'm happy. Whether Firefox, or IE, succeeds or fails isn't going to affect my happiness. Unlike you, I don't worship false gods, so this isn't a concern for me.
Still awaiting your answers to today's tough question. What are the results of your Windows internal version numbering research? Also, the challenge still stands. I do hope that IE7 is a success. It's only a shame that it took competition to get MS to do it. |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/1/2006 1:55:17 PM |
|
#14: Wow, an application that's late with missing features. That's bad. Imagine how bad it would be if it was an operating system instead of an application. That would be terrible, wouldn't it Parkkker? btw, you better pray that FF keeps growing or you'll never see your IE8.
#16: You're wasting your breath. Parkkker doesn't respond to anything that forces him to back up his words. Instead, it's much more fun to trap him with logic until he either has no reply at all, or replies with nonsense just to try and get the last word. |
| #18 By 32132 (142.32.208.233) at 9/1/2006 4:15:58 PM |
|
#15 Maxthon + IE 6 has had better features that Firefox for a long time. Let alone IE7.
#16 Still making excuses for Firefox? #17 coffee girl ... so bitter about the PIII 500. I still remember your "one serious security hole in the 2.6 kernel in 3 years" faux pas. Missed it by 100. This post was edited by NotParker on Friday, September 01, 2006 at 16:17. |
| #19 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 9/1/2006 9:18:56 PM |
|
Would it not be nice if MS and the FF?Moz team would build one browser together?
FirePlorer, or some such name - so MS could move the home and refresh buttons back over to where they belong and both camps could just shut up with the back and forth. On a practical note - both FF and IE need to dump the default "long" length of the address bar - no one needs that. We either click, copy and past long addresses, or we enter short URL's.... makes no sense to have the long address bar when that space could be given over to other things... like moving the home button back to where it needs to be. |
| #20 By 17996 (66.235.19.95) at 9/2/2006 3:11:28 AM |
|
#19 - Remember that the address bar isn't just used for typing or pasting addresses. It's used to see the address of the page you're on (and, for example, verify that it really is your bank's site that you're about to log into and not some phishing site). If the address bar were short by default, it would be easier to fool people by using addresses such as http://www.bankofamerica.com.securelogin.html.phishingdomain.com, since only a portion would be visible.
Of course there's other solutions as well, such as scrolling the box such that the "real" portion of the domain is visible by default, or coloring the real part in a different color. |
| #21 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 9/2/2006 1:55:09 PM |
| #20 Great point. May be as one hovers over it and in conjunction with the phishing filter, one could see it. Perhaps then they could shorten the address bar. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:03:51 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
