Looks more like Chrome, presents users with fewer functions.
Mozilla's Firefox 4 has a Chrome tint to it - TechRepublic
___________________
Submit Your Article
Forum Rules
Looks more like Chrome, presents users with fewer functions.
Mozilla's Firefox 4 has a Chrome tint to it - TechRepublic
___________________
"Beltzner admitted that that means taking away user interface controls, and some users are going to scream about it, but it’s necessary to simplify and speed up Firefox."
That's ridiculous. You don't need to remove needed features on IE to speed it up, so why do it on FF???? But this comes as no surprise to me since most new versions of anything have fewer features, and people wonder why so many (such as myself) never "upgrade". Well because when an "upgrade" is usually a down-grade. No doubt Mozilla will try and "extort" those that have FF on their PC's into using the newest version. I hope they tank.
"User customization - “putting users in full control of their browser, data, and Web experience” "
Oh yeah, right......except what they removed. How's that for "full control".The way you get more people to use your product is to give it more features, not remove features. You try and mimic that which is #1. If they had brains they'd give users the option of disabling features to allegedly speed things up.
That really sucks because I'm always looking forward to using a better version of FF, that would be as fast and as stable as IE, and with all of IE's features. Until they do that, they'll never be #1, and they'll never get those such as myself to use FF as the default browser.
Fully agree, like Opera turbo.Originally Posted by Clint1
Oh yeah, right......except what they removed. How's that for "full control".
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started
Conversations creates communities and conversions create profit.
As I understand it, what they are planning on doing is having some features disabled by default, with enabling such being a user option. While not an unreasonable approach, given the push to make the browser the universal UI - an approach that I do not subscribe too - such approach would be to be counter-productive.[I]"User customization - “putting users in full control of their browser, data, and Web experience” "
Oh yeah, right......except what they removed. How's that for "full control".
Having the browser be the see-all do-all UI unavoidably means having it be a major consumer of resources, for which the only materially viable solution is to have more resources. And, even in the absence of browser bloat, the seemingly unending growth in the sizes of on-line resources processed by browsers, as well as those of local client applications, will itself alone continue to require an ever increasing amount of local resources.
Given the forced march toward ever more powerful client platforms, to now believe that a minimalist approach to browser design, with users left to decide which optional features should be activated and how to do so, seems to be more than a little myopic.
If they let us add features it easily then I don't see a problem at all. if they don't i'm going to go ape sh!t!
I quite concur.
However, I am unconvinced that a typical user will be up to the task, as evidenced by much time spent observing end users over the course of many decades.
But most users won't need the features that we want. If they never go past the defaults that's fine. I just want Firefox to stop stalling on me and being crappy.
Are you saying that most users do not need a menu bar?
They don't need one on Chrome and chrome works well. Welcome to the future.
I'm speaking of the universe of users, not those of Chrome, who are not representative of the whole.
Fact: Most living users are not, and will not become, accomplished touch typists, and are not going to memorize and efficiently use keyboard shortcuts.
The whole purpose of a mouse is so that users can keep their eyes on the screen, with as little need for the keyboard as possible.
Reply With Quote
