John Barresi Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 I'm curious to know which web browsers most of you use, since Kitelife is optimized for FireFox... This browser is quickly gaining popularity, and I'd love to hear your thoughts. As a dedicated FireFox user since it came out, I find that it doesn't pixelate (break up) images as much, is more stable, loads faster and is more versatile all around. I also like the ability to open multiple web pages in tabs, instead of opening a whole new browser for every site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audioRob Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 I like how it tabulated my vote incorrectly Im using opera because it has much more advanced browsing functions than any other browser, is much more stable and currently the most standards compliant browser next to the unreleased safari. Both opera 9.0 beta and development safarai comply with all standards given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedrick Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 I use IE 'cause it's what's installed on the laptop that my company provides me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Barresi Posted November 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 I like how it tabulated my vote incorrectly sad.gif Rob, what did it put in for you for browser choice? I can fix it. Once I have one to deduct, I'll add 1 into Opera for you. What kind of "advanced browsing functions"? I'm curious, haven't used Opera much in the past... I do remember that sizing and format on pages seemed identical or comparable to FireFox... None of that IE pixelation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audioRob Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 I like how it tabulated my vote incorrectly sad.gif Rob, what did it put in for you for browser choice? I can fix it. Once I have one to deduct, I'll add 1 into Opera for you. What kind of "advanced browsing functions"? I'm curious, haven't used Opera much in the past... I do remember that sizing and format on pages seemed identical or comparable to FireFox... None of that IE pixelation. Many more hotkeys, better mouse gestures than the FF extensions, fastest page loading (confirmed by multiple sources, up to 75% faster), better memory handling. given the nicer hotkeys and extra functions like user mode, sidebar, itnerface customization (very easy to setup anyway you want), nicer transfer window etc... could go on forever. FF is certainly way better than IE, but opera is a much more advanced experience. Can be basic like FF or IE if you wish.. or learn the hotkeys, mouse gestures and 100's of features and you will be in browsing heaven. Oh yeah, no idea which one it gave since I didnt check results before voting. All I know is opera isnt there and neither is more stable, which are the ones I voted for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audioRob Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 I use konqueror as well often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kite-head Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 I am a Mac user (it would seem maybe the only one in the bunch here) so I use Safari, which comes packed stock with new Macs. I love the tab functions (opens new windows in tabs) also seems to have a pretty quick load time, but then i've only used IE and Netscape other than Safari and they don't even compare... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 Ya, I use Safari on my Macs as well, its an excellent browser. In comparision, Firefox is downright clunky on a Mac. But, John left us out of the poll! *hand to forehead* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audioRob Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 Ya, I use Safari on my Macs as well, its an excellent browser. In comparision, Firefox is downright clunky on a Mac.But, John left us out of the poll! *hand to forehead* You're right there under "opera". I cant stand safari, opera on mac and linux windows if im ever so forced... Try it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Barresi Posted November 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 You're right there under "opera".I cant stand safari, opera on mac and linux windows if im ever so forced... Try it! No worries Rob, Im quite comfortable on all operating systems. I tend to use a Mac for most things simply because its far more stable, less hackable and not prone to exploits like Windows systems are notorious for. Look at it this way, easily an hour to two a week is spent maintaining windows systems, from virus checks, to spyware checks. Total time spent on a mac dealing with such things? 0 hours in two years. Safari is an excellent browser, based heavily on the exact same code base as Firefox. Don't be hatin' on the Mac world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hvkmike Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 I use Safari & IE here. Mostly because they came preloaded on my machines. I do like safari better....or maybe I just like macs better overall. Least for now. Good Winds Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backspin23 Posted November 26, 2005 Report Share Posted November 26, 2005 I was just surfing around the web to day and found PCWorld.com 's list of the best 100 products of 2005 and Mozilla Firefox took spot #1 check it out. PCWorld top 100 way to go Mozilla if you couldn't tell, I use firefox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorsal Posted November 26, 2005 Report Share Posted November 26, 2005 Look at it this way, easily an hour to two a week is spent maintaining windows systems, from virus checks, to spyware checks. Where did you get that from? It sounds to me like some "data" invented by another MAC user to justify their usage, because I certainly don't spend any time performing any of those functions. Now if you're talking about computer CPU time, who cares? At 2.6 GHz, easily 95% of the CPU's time is spent waiting for the next command, anyway. If you're bragging that nobody writes viruses for the MAC, that's not very impressive either. That would be similar to bragging there are no carjacking rings dedicated to stealing Edsels or Hupmobiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hvkmike Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 I agree to some extent with Monkey.I spend more time doing scans & removing ad & spyware from my windows PC in a month....than ever on my mac.(ever being 3 yrs) In case you haven't noticed ,Apple users are far more loyal if not fanatical about their gear....& with good reason. Don't believe me?...Check this out.lol http://www.nytimes.com/video/html/2005/06/...UEST_VIDEO.html I never thought about being compared to an edsel though.haha Later Good Winds Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backspin23 Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 ROFL very funny mike. I'm a pc user, but I do prefer Macs. I only use a pc cause of gaming. Still I haven't spent really any noticable time dealing with viruses or spyware. Lucky me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Barresi Posted November 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 Where did you get that from? It sounds to me like some "data" invented by another MAC user to justify their usage, because I certainly don't spend any time performing any of those functions. Me either... Spyware, defrag, etc are done probably once every 3 weeks here on my computers, and doesn't take more than 30 minutes (except for defrag which I start and walk away from). But then again, computers seem to like me and don't act up much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 OH BOY! 'nother mac vs pc debate! Look at it this way, easily an hour to two a week is spent maintaining windows systems, from virus checks, to spyware checks. Where did you get that from? It sounds to me like some "data" invented by another MAC user to justify their usage, because I certainly don't spend any time performing any of those functions. I run both OS'es, daily. My windows machine needs virus checking software on it, period. There's no getting around it. And, despite being behind a pretty hefty firewall, running spyware detection stuff is a good idea, at least weekly. Its not like these two things devour my every waking moment, but, they do need to be attended to regardless. And god forbid you try and run a Windows machine without a router in front of it though I'll say that the addition of a basic firewall in the OS is one of those "about time" things. On the Mac? No virus checking. No spyware checking, and very very very few popups from web pages. If you're bragging that nobody writes viruses for the MAC, that's not very impressive either. That would be similar to bragging there are no carjacking rings dedicated to stealing Edsels or Hupmobiles. A bit of a falsehood here, while the Mac community is certainly much smaller, Macs are based on FreeBSD Unix, and thus, one of the tougher ones to hack into anyways. Its not that they are too bored, or there's not enough machines to make it fun, its simply its far harder to crack a Unix based security model than it is the Windows one. Its a fundamental difference in security models between the two OS'es. MS has gone to great lengths to change its basically flawed "I'm not connected to anything else" model of the early 90s to a more secure environment, but, it still has a ways to go. Day by day running of both? The Mac is less work, there's no two ways around it, whether you deal with your spyware/virus checks daily, weekly or monthly, the point JD makes is sound, you don't have to do it on a Mac. And part of that -is- due to there being a much smaller base of Macs to mess with, but, its also because its simply harder to crack. Its pointless to focus on which one is easier to use, there's valid things about both sides, there's great software on both sides. I will say one thing though, I spent a lot of money and time trying to get high end digital recording done on a PC and it didn't pan out. With that, keep in mind I've been building and using PCs for 20 years, I know how to make one go, but, digital audio? Nope. Dropouts. Also worth noting, I'm talking about multitrack stuff, 24 tracks and up. What led to my purchase of a monster G4 a couple of years ago was that I can easily deal with a 48 track recording on a 2 year old G4. I also do all my video production on a Mac now as well, for similiar reasons, and better software. Given your championing of the Spirit underdog, I'd figure you'd have been all over the Macs... (just teasing you here). Macs and PCs are both fine, they both get the job done and uninformed shots at the other side are a bit of a waste of time. I like both systems, for differing reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audioRob Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 Mac... windows.. mac.. windows.. mac.. windows... My linux machine hasnt had a crash in nearly 2 years. Never spyware, never viri and a UI that makes apples look like burnt cheese cake. Let the platform wars begin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 X Windows should have been put out of its misery years ago.. Linux is ok, just too much tweaking for my tastes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audioRob Posted November 27, 2005 Report Share Posted November 27, 2005 X Windows should have been put out of its misery years ago.. Linux is ok, just too much tweaking for my tastes. Tweaking? what distro are you using? gentoo? lol! Mandriva and Suse generally work directly out of the box with about every consumer device. In fact, better device support than mac if it mattered (which it doesnt much). Wife got her first computer 1.5 years ago.. www.wendywears.com is the result. She runs linux by her own choice and has a 'day job' for 50+ hours a week along with her own business which is the rest of the spare time (and me). Not the kind of person who has time for tweaking or messing around. Which is why she doesnt use windows or mac... X windows is never seen these days since kde and gnome generally mask the 'beauty' of X. btw, most systems are using X11 now anyways (which isnt x windows). I found this article interesting, perhaps you can see where im coming from: http://www.bitrot.de/macswitch.html I own a g5 btw, so my bias doesnt lie in the "justify what you paid for" (or what you downloaded open source and compiled yourself) area. The reason why I dislike macs so much is indeed because I own a g5 lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 Distro doesnt matter, trust me... I've been using Linux for work stuff for 10 years, its a fine server environment. As a desktop? It has a long way to go, but, its certainly functional. However, your average new user can not go out and buy/download a distro and get it going without some amount of computer knowledge and desire to muck with things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audioRob Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 Distro doesnt matter, trust me... I've been using Linux for work stuff for 10 years, its a fine server environment. As a desktop? It has a long way to go, but, its certainly functional. However, your average new user can not go out and buy/download a distro and get it going without some amount of computer knowledge and desire to muck with things. Strongly disagree, i know multiple people who did just that very thing. Store->bought->used with near 0 computer knowledge. My wife's mother used suse for her first computer with no problems (and no help!), as did my grandfather, grandmother, my brother's friends entire family, my mother... all people with close to nill computer knowledge. The manuals are well written and laid out, clear and concise and cover nearly every 'problem' with simple UI-centric fixes of necassary. None of the listed converts ever asked for help with the exception of my grandfather who wanted to learn to use apache to host a webpage. Now perhaps if someone is extremely used to windows or os X then changing would be a hassle. For someone with truly little to no knowledge most of the "n00b" distro's like ubuntu, mandrake and suse are very, very user friendly. I guess we all get tainted by bad experiences with various operating systems, but linux, OS X and windows all are very friendly to true beginners. Those of us with experience tend to be much more pigheaded and expect more from the OS than we probably should. Only thing that I hear people whine about with linux is device support, of which there has yet to be a device I havent been able to install... all the troubled ones were high-end devices written specifically for windows (high end audio devices, plotters, tablets, industrial video etc..). Every consumer device i've installed on a modern linux distro has been plug-and-play as it should be. I've been using linux since near it's inception as well, and my first computing experience (at 3) was unix. Audio dsp and game server programming on linux and unix are my main hobbies that I take part in when im not kiting So Im most surely tainted lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 Thats ok, I'm quite willing to strongly disagree on this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 How about linux on a laptop? A long way to go there for sure. Wireless connectivity is not easy. Especially if you want to use wpa instead of wep for security. I'm an experienced computer user and programmer since Apple ][ days, however this summer was the first time I've tried linux on a laptop. I tried several distros. None supoorted sound, screen resolution or wireless out of the box. Much tweaking got sound and screen to work. Never got WPA to work. Never got it to sleep or hibernate correctly and consistently. I would love to use linux, but it's not ready. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_(on-light)110px.png.f871ac6915a5dfb149c2fb26bbaf0493.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.