OT personal choice of browser?

[dorayme]

Mon, 22 Aug 2011 23:58:17 +0300, /dorayme/:

Also, the given thread refers to:

http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=873

Where, btw, it says: "In a nutshell
If you find yourself on a country-specific Google homepage, such
as http://www.google.co.uk, you can always easily get back to
Google.com by clicking the link below the search box."

Now, similar to a remark I made about another page, on my Safari
and probably on my other browsers, there is no object that is the
referent of "the link below". It is a bit like the King of
France. I do like the clean look of my google.com.au which has
only a search box, and two buttons, "Google Search" and "I'm
Feeling Lucky". I am prepared to sell anyone here a screenshot of
it as a special - FOR 2 DAYS ONLY. Hurry, the offer will not last!

But, as I said before, you did give a link in your post which
directly gets one to google.com/, remember:

http://www.google.com/ncr

A nice secret.

I have little practical interest in getting to google.com rather
than google.com.au but in case I do need to get to google.com in
the future, I thank you.

I have been noticing in all this that browser URL address boxes
are becoming too clever by half, bits of the address are in bold,
other bits in ghostly forms, what you type is not what you get
even when what you type should end up being what you get. Things
are going to be simpler and more intuitive when I become ruler of
the world. The url box will rule with me.

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

Where, btw, it says: "In a nutshell
If you find yourself on a country-specific Google homepage, such
as http://www.google.co.uk, you can always easily get back to
Google.com by clicking the link below the search box."

Now, similar to a remark I made about another page, on my Safari
and probably on my other browsers, there is no object that is the
referent of "the link below".

For me (in the uk) it is a matter of JavaScript. If I load
www.google.com.au with scripting off, no link, clean page. With
scripting on, a row of links appears at the bottom of the viewport that
includes google.com.

http://www.google.com/ncr

That's what the google.com link is actually linked to on google.com.au.

<snip>

 

[dorayme]

<[email protected]
k>,

....

For me (in the uk) it is a matter of JavaScript.

Oops, yes, I had turned it off testing, you are right. Sorry
Stanimir. Amazing how dangerous it is these days to leave the
house without one's javascript and css!

 

[j]

I keep challenging those statements to be backed up with some evidence
but the URLs never seem to materialize.

That's difficult to produce as it is in the middle of a secure
transaction. The one thing I have seen is instead of a submit button, a
javascript button that fires the submit, might have been Georgia Power.

There is a lot of weirdness in many payment forms. My take is that such
forms should be basic and direct.


I suspect that problem sites are

as you say "Too clever by half" are so poorly coded that authors coded
to old IE quirks and if you used a never version of IE you would have
the same problems as Firefox.

Times change. There was a lot of coding to IE, or just coding out of
ignorance.

As far as FF goes, I get a fair number plugin-container failures.
It's unbelievable what I see in the error console. Mass media sites
have an enormous amount going on below the surface and what fails, I
haven't a clue.

Not that I have noticed. Firefox 3.x had a bad memory leak, but I have
not noticed it with the new versions. Now it may differ with which & how
many extensions that you have installed.

Now IE's memory footprint may be a bit misleading since it is an OS
component and libraries that it is using may not be tallied in the
memory total in Task Manager.

Absolutely. But it can run when FF and Opera and Safari can't. I know
because I have gone through this on an XP box with not much memory. That
would be a version or so back on everything.

I have never been a fan of IE, and that goes back to the beginning.
IMHO, the only time it was the best browser was when it's competition
was NS6 and immature versions of third party browsers.

Jeff

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

As far as FF goes, I get a fair number plugin-container failures.
It's unbelievable what I see in the error console. Mass media sites
have an enormous amount going on below the surface and what fails, I
haven't a clue.

The console it pointing out coding errors on the web authors part for
the most part and not shortcomings of Firefox.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

On 8/28/2011 3:02 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Absolutely. But it can run when FF and Opera and Safari can't. I know
because I have gone through this on an XP box with not much memory. That
would be a version or so back on everything.

What did you have 64 or 128MB! I've had FF on old library computers with
a meager 256MB XP installs and ran Firefox without trouble. And anyway
the memory leak occurred when you left Firefox running for long periods.
The workaround before the patch was to close and restart it periodically.

I have never been a fan of IE, and that goes back to the beginning.
IMHO, the only time it was the best browser was when it's competition
was NS6 and immature versions of third party browsers.

Maybe NS4, NS67& without the AOL crap was Mozilla 1 & 2 which was far
superior than IE6, especially with CSS and DOM.

 

[Dan]

Where, btw, it says: "In a nutshell
If you find yourself on a country-specific Google homepage, such
ashttp://www.google.co.uk, you can always easily get back to
Google.com by clicking the link below the search box."

If they were consistent about it, they'd put the US-specific version
at google.us, and redirect google.com there while in the US. Then any
un-redirected use of google.com (while in countries without a specific
version, or with redirections disabled by special link or preference)
would use a generic international search with no country-specific
localization.