It's starting to suck for some reason. I've NEVER, EVER had these issues before.
Almost every webpage I load could take 30 seconds (not that bad, I suppose) to... (get this)... *drumroll* 3 minutes!
Why is it taking so long? I'm aware IE has some issues with certain sites but still, this NEVER happened before.
I don't have anything bad in my PC according to Avast/AdAware/MalwareBytes... so yeah.
Is IE just faulty, or something?
EDIT: If I do intend to use Firefox, is there any plugins to make it look like IE6? I really, really like this simple interface.
ID:278139
 Jul 8 2009, 10:57 am
|
|
Holy crap, nothing on the web looks good with IE6 (good lord, it doesn't even have PNG transparency) and it's begging for malware and worms.
Make the switch to something else. If you don't like Firefox's interface, you can remove a lot of the interface elements, and a number of minimalistic themes are available. Safari is available for Windows, and it has a pretty slick interface. Google Chrome, also available for Windows, has a simple and minimalistic interface (even moreso than IE6). Cheers, Ryan P.S. It's people still on IE that are holding the web back. The less we have to rely on Microsoft to sluggishly pick and choose which new web technologies to support, the better. | |
Firefox has one of the worst interfaces I've ever seen. If Microsoft is so lazy, I doubt Mozilla is much more "motivated" and "hyper" if they can't even make a IE6-looking skin...
| |
I'll admit that Firefox's default interface isn't so great -- but Mozilla's efforts are not centered around building things like extra browser skins.
Rather, they work on the latest browser technologies, and allow maximum customization with skins, interface changes, and add-ons. Download Firefox 3.5 and check out the huge array of skins available -- I bet you'll find one that suits you well enough. If that still doesn't satisfy, check out Google Chrome, which has a very simple and usable interface. | |
Google Chrome is... well I dunno. If it's actually good, why does no one use it?
And the most important aspect of a browser is it's looks. Performance is second-hand when it looks like yesterday's trash, IMO. Isn't 3.5 for FF the one with the massive memory issue? | |
You seem to be being generally thick-headed on other browsers here, but I'll comment only on the main points.
Vic Rattlehead wrote: If Microsoft is so lazy, I doubt Mozilla is much more "motivated" and "hyper" if they can't even make a IE6-looking skin... Why would they even want to? It isn't in Mozilla's interest to make Firefox look like or resemble IE - on the contrary, you could say it's more in their interest NOT to associate themselves with IE and its faults. And the most important aspect of a browser is it's looks. 'orly?' Irregardless of the above being incredibly wrong (for any program whatsoever), why are you wanting to switch from IE6 in the first place, then? It looks just fine in your opinion! And that's what's important. ;P Moreover, as stated, you are not limited to using only Firefox's default skin; there are many, many custom skins available, and there must be some that resemble IE or were designed for users moving from IE as well. Lastly, although I wouldn't, you may want to look into upgrading your IE and using that. Something's probably wrong with your system (or IE configuration, or whatever) to make IE6 suddenly problematic, but the newer versions might work fine. | |
I accept your opinion regarding me and browsers (this IS true, I am dense outside IE).
However, I have seen Firefox (2.x I think) on my friends PC almost daily, and the interface turned me off. IE6 looks nice, but it's starting to operate poorly. I'm merely asking if there's any browsers with an interface as good as IE6, but more... I dunno, functional? >.> | |
Depending on what exactly you want in a 'good interface'. You weren't specific about what turned you off in Firefox' interface, but if you simply don't like how it looks as is implied, then again, there are many skins, or themes, available which look very differently. The same is probably true for many browsers.
| |
People don't use Google Chrome because, for one, people like me don't like the minimalistic interface (I guess you like that, though). That, and its still very new.
Would you consider 86 MB to be massive memory usage? For me, that's nothing, though I know people with ancient computers beg to differ. Either way, FF is definitely the way to go (compared to IE); it actually displays things correctly! | |
I wish it'd actually take 80MB for me, ;) with 3.0+ I've experienced it taking anywhere from 200 to 500MB*, if not more. Of course, the memory usage depends on factors such as how many tabs you have open, but the more prolonged your current session is, the more memory it will consume, due to memory leaks. It also likes to eat up CPU after being open for a while.
So I always end up restarting it occasionally to free up the resources. Of course, 3.5 should be better in this regard, but not dramatically. Right now I'm using 3.5 which takes ~200MB* for 7 tabs. *: Memory usage reported by Windows Task Manager in XP, so they're not necessarily very exact. | |
It also depends heavily on what extensions you have installed. I can use Firefox with over 20 tabs open and not break 120MB of RAM usage from the process.
| |
Its not their job to make a decent looking skin,
most of the customizations done on firefox are created by the community, maybe 10 percent of the extensions availible are actually made by mozilla, but just about only under Mozilla labs. Firefox is good because of its customization, Google chrome is nice, even with the limited themeing options it has now. it also has webkit under its belt, so it can actually do okay, and runs pretty well under a about 300 mhz computer using xp, aside from the obvious plugin issues, such as flash running like crap no matter what the browser. I use firefox on my fast one though, with my own customizations http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/5055/85115474.jpg granted I cant see the my bookmarks button, but I never use it anyway, most of the ones I do use are viewable, I have a nice big screen, so it really doesn't matter how minimal I make anything | |
In all honesty you should've dropped IE 6 two years ago. Actually, you should've dropped it five years ago in favor of a real browser, but oh well. IE 6's flaws are numerous, but here's the short list:
- Broken box model causes major rendering flaws which have to be covered up with hacky CSS and HTML - Lack of support for transparency in PNGs requires kludgy workaround scripts - Broken float model causes issues like the infamous "peekaboo" bug, which actually still infects IE 7 in some forms - Lack of support for much basic CSS, much of which is improved drastically in IE 7 - Completely insecure IE is actually insecure on a lot of levels, and there are fundamental problems in the browser that are not improved on with IE 7. The problem: ActiveX, Microsoft's idiotic me-too answer to Java, turns out to be riddled with holes. However IE 7 is still way more secure than its predecessor. Bear in mind that when you're browsing in IE 6, you're using a browser whose security holes have been well known for two generations of the program now. With IE 7 having been available for so long now though, and many people moving to IE 8, a lot of websites are no longer catering to the flaws in IE 6 and are basically leaving the last of its users to fend for themselves. In terms of safety, compatibility, and usability, IE 6 is not a browser worth holding onto. I'm not sure I understand the complaint that Firefox's interface is bad compared to IE's, since the default interface is pretty darn similar as far as I've ever seen, but you can customize the crap out if it and there are all kinds of themes available, even if the author of Qute happens to be a little dim when it comes to preserving the integrety of his theme. I've actually been working up a blog post about 3.5 and comparing it to 3.0. I think either version would suit your needs just fine, but if not you can always roll the dice with Chrome or Opera. Lummox JR | |
Kaioken wrote:
*: Memory usage reported by Windows Task Manager in XP, so they're not necessarily very exact. In fact, that would make them very inexact. The short version is that Firefox reserves more memory than it actually uses, and XP displays the reserved amount while other systems such as Vista don't. A quote from http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/03/11/firefox-3-memory-usage/, under the "Measuring Memory Use" header: If you’re running Windows Vista and take a look at Commit Size in task manager, you should get some pretty accurate memory numbers. If you’re looking at Memory Usage under Windows XP, your numbers aren’t going to be so great. The reason: Microsoft changed the meaning of “private bytes” between XP and Vista (for the better). On XP the number is the amount of virtual memory you’re application has reserved for use. For performance reasons you often want to reserve more memory than you actually use. The application can tell the operating system that it isn’t going to use parts of the reserved space and to not back the virtual space with physical space. On Vista, Private Bytes is the commit size, which only counts the memory the application has actually said it is actively using. Since virtual memory size has to be greater than or equal to your commit size, XP memory numbers will always appear bigger than Vista ones, even though the application is using the same amount of memory. | |
Yeah, I know, which is the reason I added that footnote in the first place. The point clearly wasn't the exact amounts of memory that Firefox tends to take, just that it's a lot of memory and more than what a browser should take (or reserve, for that matter).
| |
because its still somewhat new.
it was released last September, Internet explorer has been around for ages, Firefox has had Netscape as its "parent" of sorts and safari was originally created to replace IE on mac. Firefox has had a while to get an increased market share, and most people don't even know what a browser is. | |
I just don't get what's so terrible about the Firefox interface. You shouldn't be afraid of it because it's not exactly the same as what you're used to. Stubbornness is a terrible quality.
| |
Jeff8500 wrote:
People don't use Google Chrome because, for one, people like me don't like the minimalistic interface (I guess you like that, though). That, and its still very new.Chrome seems to be interesting, does it have anything similar to Firefox's link-to-image (not sure if that's the exact name) script? | |
you could try updating internet explorer, then using maxthon.
otherwise I would just recommend using firefox and finding a different theme at mozilla addons, the IE6 theme is not actually available for 3.5, though you could force it with nightly tester tools.
I made a screen shot with some notes if you use the theme I was using.
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/1330/ffie6.jpg
I was too lazy to find a different page, but whatever.
The image has some notes on use,
like the lack of a plus button for tabs, ctrl-t is the shortcut
also, if you view something like the addons page, the address will be harder to view, because it displays the word mozilla next to the address, under the default theme this is a security feature I think, so that people know the page they are viewing is an official one.
I made some small other changes, like blacking out parts of the screen that really have no point in the screenie, such as the weather in my town, and personas, which is basically a extension for using themes that are not fully themes, as they are just images and text changes, like changing the background into a photo or something.
anyway, to get that setup, you would have to install the nightly testers tool extension, and the firefoXP theme.
with current firefox version, which is downloaded straight from the FF homepage,
The theme and extension are available from addons.mozilla.org
Just search for them
getting the actual IE6 look will probably take some tweaking, goto view/toolbar/customize for the icon changing, or right click the menubar.