Firefox Convert

[bernie]

Firefox Convert

Twey

I finally looked at your signature Why not to use IE etc.

I installed FF, What a difference!:D like everything is so much cleaner and quicker.

After many frustrating IE7 crashes wrt downloads and the fresh download manager I use, I decided to take the plunge.

Thanks

Bernie

[bernie]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Just checked out my websites using FF.

What a mess, If I assume correctly FF is standards based?

Even if I clean up to display correctly in FF, it will probably be better in IE too?

Oh well that will keep me busy a day or two.

One thing I notice however is that certain external pages appear to be slower to load.

Any reason why I cannot select Arial as my default font, not even offered as an option..? I hate Times New Roman

Bernie

[Twey]

Just checked out my websites using FF.

What a mess, If I assume correctly FF is standards based?Moreso than IE, yes.
Even if I clean up to display correctly in FF, it will probably be better in IE too?Not necessarily. The preferred way to go about building pages, however, is to build them to standards, then compensate for bugs in specific browsers (usually IE, in this day and age) afterwards.
Any reason why I cannot select Arial as my default font, not even offered as an option..? I hate Times New RomanTry the generic sans-serif font?

[mwinter]

One thing I notice however is that certain external pages appear to be slower to load.

Perhaps a function of caching. I tend to find that IE renders slower than Firefox.



Any reason why I cannot select Arial as my default font, not even offered as an option..? I hate Times New Roman

From the "Tools" menu, select "Options...", and then the "Content" tab. In the "Fonts & Colours" section, hit the "Advanced..." button. In the new dialogue box, change the "Proportional" list box from "Serif" to "Sans-serif".

The "Default font" list box depends upon the "Proportional" selection. If you select "Arial", that would set your preferred serif font to "Arial" - perhaps not the best idea. Then again, maybe you don't want to ever see serif fonts; the checkbox in the "Advanced..." fonts dialogue would be useful then.

Mike

[bernie]

Thanks to all

Will do as suggested

May be pressing your buttons for help over the next few days. I never realised how bad my coding was. Captive to IE and FP editor I suppose!

All that wasted time!

Having been in the computing game since 1983 and evolved "captively" with Micro$oft I remember the good old days of Borland Software, the 1st to introduce a Desktop in the good olde days of XT's and AT's, (giving away my age, well it's 49, probably a fossil with you youngsters out there??). By the way my 1st PC was a Commador64. ( A What???) then came the Commador128 then an XT, next a Pentium1 now 10 various machines from P4 to AMD Semprons.

WHAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT WINDOWS (just kidding)
Automatic Updates (switched off on all machines to notify only, do manual downloads) Amazing that recent security updates for XP and Win2000 are also available for Vista. Makes you wonder about their claim to fame of Vista being more secure:confused: (need a smiley rolling around laughing and grasping his stomach here)

I wish I had the energy and time to learn about Linux but sometimes priorities change, maybe my son may pick up the torch.

Man I really like the FF built-in spelling checker, I tend to type dyslexic.

Rambling now! Got to go.

Bernie

[boxxertrumps]

Linux isn't much harder to learn then windows.
the first thing you'll have to get used to is being able to edit only your files/ the ones you own.
The second thing is package management, there are TONS of dependencies.
A program called yum installs the dependencies for you, though.
It has dependencies...
But it comes with Fedora Core, so that's probably the best distro to start with.
Another thing about packages is that you cant use ones compiled for Micro$oft or Mac. Fedora uses RPM files (Red Hat Package), debian/Ubuntu varients use .deb files
other than ownage and packages, everything else is easy to get the hang of.

[Persian342]

I liked FF alot, I also used it a lot when I started out with HTML, but for regular surfing I use Opera its quicker and some of the widgets are pretty cool. It also comes with a download manager from the start. You can display more bookmarks too or whatever they are called. Its quite a cool browser. Most of the features are generally the same though.

[Twey]

Yeah, Fx3 looks to be faster than Opera or Konqueror. I didn't find any useful widgets :-\ There were all sorts of interesting ones, like the little football keep-me-up game, but nothing I could see any practical use for. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place. It's closed-source, too, though.

[mburt]

So Fx3 is out?

[Persian342]

You were right not very many of the widgets are practical most are just games or clocks.

[Twey]

So Fx3 is out?No. It's currently at alpha 4, which you can download here (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/3.0a4/releasenotes/).

Animated PNG support, yay!

[mburt]

Animated PNG support, yay!
Say, what?!
Didn't even know it was possible...

[Twey]

Nope, the APNG specification has been around for a long time, but I think this is the first serious implementation in a web browser. It's an important event for web developers because animation is the last advantage GIF has over PNG, so wide-spread acceptance of APNG will render GIF completely obsolete.

[ItsMeOnly]

actually, APNG is, since 9 days, officially dead. MNG, which was present in FF since 1.4 has the same features, though.

[Twey]

Really? Link?

[sunny]

Hey i got a serious problem with my FF 2.0.0.3.
My FF Seems to crash some times that's o.k[I am habitual of that by now:D]
But the recent problem is that I lose my history whenever it crashes(I haven't checked 'Always clear private date while closing FF').And only my history goes away,all my cache,text entered in forms,download history stays intact. Can any1 tell me the reason for this.
And also Tell me something about FX3.
Have the developers guaranteed that it won't crash:D
And, i would like to know how is Fx3's download manager.Because till date all the FF download managers have failed to resume downloading.Once a download is paused.It will just show 'Download complete' on resuming.(I normally use Getright,but in some cases like downloading from Rapidshare or such sites,i have to download using FF only as Download managers are not supported:( )

[Twey]

And also Tell me something about FX3.
Have the developers guaranteed that it won't crash :DYes, it makes toast and shows emotion too :p
And, i would like to know how is Fx3's download manager.Because till date all the FF download managers have failed to resume downloading.Once a download is paused.It will just show 'Download complete' on resuming.(I normally use Getright,but in some cases like downloading from Rapidshare or such sites,i have to download using FF only as Download managers are not supported:( )Which explains why. You only use Fx to resume downloads on sites that don't support resuming downloads :) Sites like RapidShare use a system whereby a user can only initiate one download per a certain timeframe. When you pause then resume a download, you create two consecutive connections, which RapidShare won't allow. This is the same reason programs like GetRight don't work: most of them attempt to speed up downloads by creating more than one connection to the server, each downloading a different piece of the file.

As for the crashes, you're a few Fx versions behind. Try updating and seeing if that helps.

[ItsMeOnly]

Really? Link?
OOps, turns out while there will be constant pitched war on APNG vs. MNG, PIG, mPNG it will be developed- though it's officially pwnd (http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=3.0.6.32.20070420132821.012dd8e8%40mail.comcast.net) by libpng developers :-) (same old, same old)

[Twey]

Hmm, by the looks of things Mozilla and the PNG folks are having a small popularity battle over this. Either Mozilla succeeds in pushing APNG despite the standard (in which case it adopts an attitude for which most people sneer at Microsoft), or one party concedes the point. I think, unfortunately, that Mozilla will attempt the former. Whether they can manage it or not is yet to be seen.
Personally, I quite like APNG. It's lightweight (to implement), simple, and fairly powerful, even if it does abuse a few rules of semantics. For now, I think the benefits outweigh the costs. Maybe in the future the Mozilla developers (or someone else) will find a more lightweight method of working with MNGs, which are indeed superior, but until then APNG seems a perfectly acceptable stepping stone to me.

[killerchutney]

ff3 may has APNG support, but this is NOT a big breakthrough in web development - Internet Explorer can't even display normal pngs correctly. Visit my site http://www.killerchutney.co.uk in internet explorer (even 7) and then visit it in FF to see how its supposed to look.

The main KC logo is supposed to blend in with the rest of the header, as it does in FF.

[Twey]

Let me guess: the PNG colours are approximately right, but different shades so they don't match up with the background? If so, it's a classic example of PNG gamma correction, and it's not a bug on the part of IE. See here (http://hsivonen.iki.fi/png-gamma/) for a more thorough explanation of why PNG gamma correction can be a problem. The simplest practical solution is simply to disable saving gamma information with the image. This can be done in the GIMP (http://www.gimp.org/) by simply unticking "save gamma information" when you go to save the image.