Firefox Exec Doesn't Want Browser to be Bundled with Windows

13

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

QUINTIX256

I don't think you have much of an objective basis to presume upon the intelligence or capabilities of an AMD fanboy. As for the so called "automatic updates", I have seen many computers that still have Internet Explorer 6.

You can have your recession. I'm not participating.

Update: O.K. Cache, you got me. I pressed the wrong button and this is no longer placed as a response, like a true idiotic AMD fanboy.

avatar

JDorfler

Complaining about what browser comes with an OS is like complaining about what radio comes with your car.  Don't like the radio, replace it.  What a bunch of crap.

Sager NP5797 (Clevo)

nVidia GeForce 9800 GTX/Intel QX9300/4GB DDR3 1066

Vista/Ubuntu OSes

avatar

topshooter

how can a browser be geeky? its just a browser, not any less geeky than firefox...so stop hating connor

avatar

winmaster

Opera is insanely easy to use. You only run into problems because it doesn't have enough market share for website developers to care about it. I love Opera. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

avatar

Cache

The biggest problem Firefox would have being bundled with MS  Windows is curiously FireFox itself.  It's fine and good to update a browser once it's yours, but can you imagine the confusion of a person who says "Hey, I want to try this FireFox thingy..." and then he's got to update it?  IE has the seemingly perfect approach of just being updated without any user input whatsoever.  It is, quite literally, so easy that two trainees and an AMD fanboy could use it without the slightest effort. 

FireFox, however, frequently updates in very obvious ways.  While this gives us control it also is something that mom and dad don't understand, couldn't comprehend if they tried, and don't want bothering them with their standard web browsing.  Add to the fact that the extensions randomly cease to work following an upgrade and you end up with some angry people pointing fingers.  While I do think that FireFox has provided me the best user experience I've ever had, I cannot overlook the fact that you need to know what you are doing--precisely what you are doing--to continue using it. 

I don't think FireFox should be included with MS Windows because it is not a forgiving program.  It is not something that the average computer user can place faith in because the updates are intrusive; extension support is lacking between different FireFox updates (look at the graveyard of useless entries on Mozilla.com for incompatible add-ons); and it is very easy to clutter up your FF browser with add-ons you never bothered to uninstall.  Until FireFoz can address some of those issues then no, it is unwise to bundle it with a more polished, professional Windows rollout.  

Don't get me wrong, I genuinely LIKE FireFox but it is that kind of girl you need to pay frequent attention and reassurances that she's prettier than the mall chick at Brookstone versus IE bundled with Windows where you can get away with saying "What?  It's 8am and you're still here?"

avatar

BaggerX

FireFox is retardedly easy to update.  It tells you there's an update ready.  Do you want to install it now, or next time you restart FireFox?  If you're busy, you tell it to do it later.  If you're not, you do it now.  That's about as easy as it gets.  Windows Update does basically the same thing.  It tells you there are updates ready, do you want to install them now or later?  I don't really see your point.  As far as add-ons go, I'll take the browser that actually has a good variety of them and be happy about it.  The average or clueless user most likely won't be using many add-ons anyway.  Those are like way harder than updates, right?  I've got about 10 add-ons that I use on my systems, and they update just fine all the time.  I think people blow this issue way out of proportion.  It saves me lots of time since I don't have to go hunt for updates or look for news of updates.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

Everything that is bundled with Windows is updated using Microsoft Update. And I'm almost positive that it will be much quicker to update through Mozilla.

avatar

Cache

I don't see Microsoft trying to run updates on every extension--some of which are unstable to to Windows--simply to benefit the end user.  I also don't think Mozilla would be happy to rest on its laurels if they needed to patch a security breach and MS was going to force them to wait for Magic Tuesday.

avatar

QUINTIX256

Are not other Microsoft apps (could be thought of as "extensions" to windows) like Office and Visual Studio updated by winodws update? (On "Magic Tuesday" none the less). What on earth makes you think any 3rd party browser (say, chrome or opera) would be forced to work on Microsoft's update scheduel?

You can have your recession. I'm not participating.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

MS will patch security holes but it won't supply you with extensions and add-ons. And when Mozilla releases Firefox 3.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.900000 I'm certain that MS will only keep releasing updates for the version that ships with Windows. Perhaps it'll provide new releases that MS deems beneficial. 

But this is stupid. An OS needs to ship with at least one Web Browser. It's stupid to suggest that MS not integrate an Internet Browser when everyone else does with no screams and threats of lawsuits. When was Apple sued last for integrating Safari with MacOS? Were are the cry babies when Linux distros ship with only Mozilla browsers? Linux of course depending on the distro comes with at least two text based and two GUI based browsers but that is besides the point.

You need to have a browser already installed in the OS so you can download the browser of your choice. So who cares if Windows comes with IE? Just use IE to download Firefox and Chrome and your set. God help you if you download Safari. 

avatar

BaggerX

"But this is stupid. An OS needs to ship with at least one Web Browser.
It's stupid to suggest that MS not integrate an Internet Browser when
everyone else does with no screams and threats of lawsuits. When was
Apple sued last for integrating Safari with MacOS? Were are the cry
babies when Linux distros ship with only Mozilla browsers?"

Microsoft brought that on themselves. Convicted monopolists have to play by different rules. All things considered, they got off extremely easy. They got an extended house arrest rather than real jail time or worse. That said, I think Firefox is still soundly trouncing IE, so they have nothing to worry about unless Microsoft gets up to their old dirty tricks again with IE.

 

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

As for myself I prefer Google Chrome and Firefox 3.2 beta. They are both great browsers and both are in beta testing. Alas of the two only Firefox works in Windows 7 64bit. I can't run Chrome in 64bit 7. It'll run but it won't load any websites. Not even www.mac.com

avatar

ghot

Thats the best news I've heard in 10 years at least.....worst thing I could think of is MS gettin their grubby little hands all over Firefox!  Long live browser freedom  :)

 

IT SHOULD BE MOZILLAS OFFICIAL LINE   !!!   PLEASE MAKE IT SO  :)

 

Take efficiency, and edit out all the intelligence and what you have left is a post-XP Microsoft operating system :)

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.