Direct From TechProGuild

TRSDOS might be the best OS ever. It can be the most correct variant of
OS around. Have no comment on its programming capabilities though. This
is when secured UNIX-like OS OpenBSD is not yet in. TRSDOS' capability
has limitation to handling network services (couldn't find if TRS has
support to these) e.g. DNS, mail, web, file unlike OpenBSD. I cannot
say more about OpenBSD's security features. I've tested it. Lets go and
inform them of these new OS. Cheers!

A moment of silence, please.....   :-(

It's really sad...... OS/2 at the end was better than Windows 95/98 and
even 2000 ever was. OS/2 Lan Server was leagues ahead of NT server. It
was only when XP and Windows 2000 Server came out that, IMNSHO, MS
*started* to catch up..... While peopel still harp on the marketing
aspects of it, the war was lost in the pre-install battle. Reality is
that almost no one other than techies ever (and I mean *EVER*)
update/replace their OS. Once MS was able to intimidate OEMs into
exclusive contracts, it was over.... Losing access to the Windows
source code was really just shooting a corpse.....

Personally, I still have my Warp 4 CD's as a piece of nostalgia....

Hank Arnold

That's why I prefer Mozilla browser. It's not perfect. Update =
reinstall, just like Firefox. But there are fewer "updates" over a
given period of time.

I tried Firefox. I tried the first three production versions. I didn't
like them because they didn't have the same granularity in
configuration that I was accustomed to having in Mozilla.

I tried Opera 8. I even paid for a license. Imagine that! I found that
there were more problems with Opera than with Mozilla so I went back to
Mozilla. I'm currently using v1.7.8.

So for the moment it's Mozilla for me.

Well it does bump up the d/l count in firefox. but for all the minor
problems in firefox i have been nail in ie far far worse. ever hear of
CWS 180SEARCH??? amany 100,s more!!!!

Hmmm...the first thing I thought of was the manufacturing software Vista by Epicor.

http://www.epicor.com/www/products/manufacturing/vista/

Once you go Mac, you never go back!

John,

Like you, I also purchased the SUSE 9.3 desktop to see if it was ready for prime time yet.  I am a long time Windows (only) user who had looked at RH 7.2, 7.3, 8.0, and 9.0 as well.  I definitley do not believe it can be a general replacement for Windows right now, as you would need to ask users to give up some functionality.  I also noted that SUSE seems to run slower on the same machine as compared to Windows 2000.  Programs  take 5-10 seconds to start consistently.  Not sure what that is since one of Linux's claims is that it runs faster.  The Linux desktop may not be bad in a 100% IT controlled environment where the user cannot do anything but run designated applications.  As desirable as that may be, I'm not sure many companies can or will do that.

For SUSE (Linux) to be a viable desktop, I think MS would need to port Office over to it.  No one should hold their breath waiting for that...

Very well spoken, John.

I always meant to get around to challenging Bob at chess, but I figured I needed to elevate my game to the point where I could at least beat you first! And we know that's only happened in those games in which you give me a move back.

I quickly learned that, if I was going to challenge Bob, it was best to stick to subjective arguments. He could have easily taught logic and debate classes, and he would have taught them well.

I agree that Suse 10.0 is there best to date.  Perhaps it is the
first time a release of their product has coincided with free time on
my part, but it is certainly the first time I have been this pleased
with the ability to get the system working with a limited amount of
hassle.  As an admin for a 99.9% Windows server environment, it
has always been a challenge to make Linux my workstation of
choice.  For the first time ever I am so close I can almost taste
it.

I have been using Linux as a desktop from around 6 years and I remember
those days where video drivers was the big problem. Now days, I think
the wireless territory is the problem. most of the Hardware companies
do not build drivers for Linux and they are expecting the Open comunity
to do it, of course they give money to maintain the developers
enthusiatic. china is forcing most of the manufacturers to build thinks
comparable with Linux, I like that. So, my best advice is to stick to
manufacturers that follow standards, such as IBM, and ohers; in the
software arena, Oracle, Sun, IBM, are some examples of companies that
build software for Linux, and I don't mind spending my money in them.
Standards such as SCSI, Ethernet, USB, etc., are some of the best to
follow. Fo instance, when buying a printer, check that it is Netwrok
comparable (ethernet), and that it has a driver suported by the
manufacturer (magicolor
2430DL is a good example). Some manufacturers are making money from
Linux (servers sales for example) but they fail to support their own
hardware (I don't want to say names), so watch out for those
opportunistics. So the best thing for us to do is to buy from the
manufacturers that uspport open standards and Linux specially.
I have a system running Xandros 3.01, Mandriva 2006, Suse 10, MS Server
2003, MS Windows Professional, and ubuntu once in while from the CD. I
have 3 large Hard drives and I can do about anything I want, except
games because I think it is a waste of my time. But, every distribution
is better on on thing than others, so it is a good idea to play with
all of them and find the one that will work for you. For instance, SUSE
is good for genearal office work, internet, and  easy for managing
your machine with Yast. But, for a developer Redhat, or Java Desktop
from Sun (SUSE based) is better. Xandros is exellent for staying on top
of the upgrades, it does everything automatically. Mandrake is provably
the one that has the most drivers, but SUSE and Red Hat provably have
the newest hardware drives; for example SUSE installs beatiful on IBM
laptops, even the IBM special keys work. Xandros is the best choice for
Linux new comers, it was Corel Linux before, which was the only
distribution that I knew install by itself and make feel weird  5
years ago, because it was impossible for any distribution not to have
problems when installing. So, have fun with all of them and feel
confortable, but be prepared to  learn some real computer
knowledge (IDE, SCSI, USB, and other interfaces).
One observation on SUSE 10, be carefull how you install your hard
drives, if you have two or more, the connector makes a difference and
BIOS play a role also; you have to know concepts like SLAVE/ MASTER
relationship, Cable Select (which does not work as it shoud due to a
problem with the flat cables). However, I just want to add that it took
me two days to install MS server in a computer, most of the drivers
were not in the discs; Linux normally takes me .5 hours and I can be
productive right away. I install linux in my friends computers because
I am tired of wasting my time fixing their Windows computers. So I
think you will be really happy with your system and specially when your
updates will be easy to do, and specially when you don't have to
reformat your hard drive for un upgrade or installation of a new
version. I am listening radio with Real Audio 10, ripping ogg audio
books, writing this message, cheking my email, looking at the local
weather, and my kids and wife are logged into the same computer (using
other keyboard, monitor and mice only) using whatever resources they
want without the need of one computer for every one of them thanks to
the power and openess of Linux; I saved 75% on hardware on this system.
Have a great and productive time with Linux
Alvaro

I don't know about SuSe, but many Linux distros autodetect new
hardware.  In Red Hat and Fedora there is a nice little
auto-detector called Kudzu.  Kudzu will automatically run on boot
(if set to) or you can manually run it at the command line.  Not
only will it detect new hardware, but it will setup X automagically!

I feel your pain. I am still so new to linux that when the same thing
happen to me I just reinstalled the OS. Everything worked fine and I
was less fustrated again. I am testing out Ubuntu and soon to be
Kubuntu as well. I have a copy of SuSe, but no test machine to install
it on.

Got the similar problem during my early years of using linux ... when I
still have redhat7 ... slackware and debian ... everything was a pain
to setup.

But now that we have newer versions of fedora, ubuntu, mandriva, etc
... it's never a problem for me anymore. At least during those first
few years I learned a good deal on troubleshooting a penguin box.

I try not to mess with systems too much when they work; but let's face it.  As frustrating as it is (and I am growing increasingly frustrated with my inexperience in solving linux problems) you learn more and become a better system administrator by changing things and seeing what works.

I guess this is just the sort of learning we did back around 95..   the transition from Dos7/Win3.11 to Windows95.  For all the bad press it get's, anyone but an expert would surely have to admit that Microsoft brought computing to the great masses. 

I remember loading device drivers for disks etc, under Unix at that time and still bear the mental scars.  Drive letters and prompts that meant little; dissimilar devices having the same name bar 1 suffix, meant you'd no immediate idea which device you were supposed to be dealing with.  CPM style command structure with inverted source/destination (from MS Dos), different slashes etc, and the best bit was when you created a file that already existed.....   Destroyed without any warning.  What fun??? 

I still couldn't be bothered trying Linux now, with the Unix experience I've suffered in the past.  And this aspect of hardware detection just isn't practical to the masses.  Personally I'm dissapointed that so many experts see these issues as 'minor' and can't see that they'd be absolute disasters to many users.  I'm also disappointed that the Linux purists and developers appear not to have learnt from MS in this aspect...  effectively wasting 10 years.  I guess it's a case of priorities and absolute needs, and that is perhaps part of the Linux problem.....  too dependent on experts,a nd not enough emphasis on actual end users!  I know you'll all say it's more secure, doesn't get hit by virusses, etc but that's no answer at all.  It's a blinkered kop-out. 

The idea that you just reload the OS is just insane.  We've all got data that we need, we back it up BUT there's always something you forget.  I wouldn't bother with a disk image either as I've 240 GB split over three partitions..  2 boots and a data.  I mirror to an ethernet disk, and back up to DLT but I'm still not going to reload until it's REALLY, REALLY needed. 

Most folk want something that works like the telly...   switch it on and watch.  We can do that with MS 95/98/2000/XP but are clearly some way off with Linux.  Please don't tell me you can add this and that, and download xxx...  That's masking the issue.  One product, one source, plug'n'play!  Until that happens Linux won't interest the common user.

I'm looking at Lenovos too. Is it not possible to buy these things with
the 8 cell battery? They come standard with a 4 cell battery and that
is not sufficient. 

At Lenovo's Tablet PC Website,
you can order Tablet PCs online. If you choose the Customize And Buy
option, I noticed at the bottom of the screen in the Power section, you
can select the longer life battery to come with it. It's currently
listed as an upgrade for $143. 

Quote:

"Most of the time, it?s easier to just load IE, get to the page you want, and be gone."

I've installed Firefox several times only to have it unistalled a few hours later. Why? well you would think you are home free after installing it, not so fast, several plugins needs to be installed as well so you could more or less do all you do with IE and then you have to put up with the time it takes to load your pages.

It is a great browser but still needs more work before I switch full time to it.

This is not an issue with Firefox 1.5 where you only have to download a small patch update and is installed when you restart Firefox.
The issue abbout plugins, if you recall when you first install windows, even IE requires that you install flash and other media file plugins. So really that's something one has to do only once. At least with Firefox, they make this as painless as possible.
I have been using Firefox since it was firebird.

Probably not many would agree, but personally, Netscape 8.0 is the best browser I've found yet.
(Microsoft shudders when they see Netscape installed)
You can choose either the FireFox or IE engine on a per site basis...it's great.
You can also customize your security settings for each site.
A little slow, but I can live with it.
Have used Netscape from its infancy and never understood why it died out;
not many people seem to use it anymore.
Might want to check it out.

It's sad that we as a culture are so fixated on instant gratification that we
will use whatever product is fastest to provide us the afore mentioned
gratification. Someone once told me "All good things come to those
that wait", I find it ironic that they never touched a PC (but I guess old
rural farmers are set in their ways).

"...when it was still called Firebird"
I've been using it since it was call Phoenix (well before the Firebird naming
fiasco), so the following comments are based on lengthy personal experience.

"Unfortunately, with Firefox that means that you have to reinstall the
entire browser, not just simply apply a patch to fix the problem."
Although this method is annoying, it does assure that the entire browser is
refreshed. It does not change your configuration (from Documents and
Settings) so it's a minor inconvenience. If you are in a corporate
environment and your not deploying software with a centrally managed solution
you have bigger issues then running an install program and clicking OK a few
times. No... wait, the Microsoft method is so much better ( https://www.techrepublic.com.com/2100-1009_11-5929689.html?tag=nl.e103 )

"Second, Firefox is slow."
Granted it has gotten slower in the last two versions but comparing it to a
browser that pre-loads portions of it's code when your machine boots (even if
you don't use IE in that sitting) isn't a fair comparison. There are
trade offs here.. you want a browser that loads a few seconds slower and has a
better security posture or a really fast loading spyware magnet. I
promise you after browsing the Internet for a few hours with IE the magically acquired
spyware will slow it's loading to a crawl too.

"Third, Firefox is buggy."
Did it occur to you that code on the page or the workings of an add-on (like
Flash) might be to blame for this? There may be some issues with memory
leaks, but after installing Adblock, FlashBlock and NoScript I have very few
problems on the memory front and I don't experience the any of the speed issues
you give as examples. Perhaps you should try closing the last tab you
opened and not the entire browser next time the processor gets hammered.

I use Firefox's Macintosh port almost every day. I've found that, while it takes a while to initially load, once it's up it works better (loads pages properly formatted, supports embedded Java calls, enables proper use of Flash-heavy sites, etc.) than any other Apple-compatible browser I've tried (i.e., Safari and IE 5 for the Mac).

That said, just last night I downloaded Opera. I need to spend some more time with it, as it looks very promising on the Mac. And, I noticed that, since downloading the most recent Firefox update this week, I can no longer post to the TechRepublic Blog (which uses the Jive platform) using Firefox on my Mac. That's not what I call an update.

First, the updates are quicker to install than microsoft's updates. Hands down. No comparison. So that's just stupid.

Second, no it isn't slow. You're doing something wrong. I've never had
my machine slow down from running Firefox, nor have I had it cause
memory leaks or any of the other things you say it did. Personally I
think you are a microsoft shill and it isn't going to work. So that's
stupid too.

Third, no it isn't buggy. I have no idea what you are talking about.
I've never had a problem with the exception of pages written
specifically out of the standards so they will run on IE. I've never
had my machine slow to a crawl because of tabs open, nor have I ever
seen firefox.exe taking up more than 35 MB in the task manager. And it
is always using 00 percent too.

Personally I think you're either a moron or an M$ shill.

Ahhh... poke at someone's sacred cow and notice all of the reaction you get.

First wolf,
computers are meant to be fast. Computers are designed for
instant gratification. They're supposed to make us more efficient. By
your logic, we should all be using PC XTs and be blissfully waiting for the C:\> prompt to appear.

What
good does it do to get faster hardware when poorly written applications
and operating systems drag the system down? For that matter, I should
point out I have a 20 year old Tandy 1000 at home that boots Windows
2.03 faster than my 2.8Ghz Dell boots Windows XP. Where's the progress
in that? Firefox 1.07 is a good application. But it could stand to be a lot better. Maybe that will be Firefox 1.5, once they finally manage to get it finished.

And as for keyguy13, if you
want to find a Microsoft shill on this Web site, you'll have to look
elsewhere. As for the moron on this post, the clearly thought out, well
written, and rational response you gave points out who that would be.

Firefox, for saving "web page, complete". Does a neater job there than Opera.
Opera.....for everything else. Much better download manager ("transfers")and handier with the tabs, opening an new page while keeping the present one on a separate tab.
Netscape? aaaaaaaaaaa, archives pages with .jpg renamed to .jfif and not so convenient to open the file with another app. Install and use 'em all, where they have their advantages. Heck, I even open two or more browsers and copy and paste URLs from one to the other if needing the best of both simultaneously. Nuthin' to it!

There's an old joke about a guy who goes to the doctor and complains:

"Doc, every time I wave my hand it hurts".

"Well, don't wave your hand then"

The bottom line is that we're not left without options here.  IE
is not the only browser out there, and neither is FireFox, and neither
is Opera or Netscape or whatever.  If one solution irks you less
than any other, and they will all you irk you in some way, then use
that one that is least painful.  I suppose I could go a step
further and say that the nice thing about FireFox is that we have some
say, either through our comments or through proactive coding, in
shaping the final product. 

That's the objective course of action.  My subjective perspective
is that I've never had an issue with speed and FireFox, although my
experience with it only dates back to 0.9.  That doesn't mean
someone else won't have problems, only that our working methodologies
and scenarios differ and that FireFox will be quicker than IE for me,
and slower for you.  On any given midafternoon after I've been
accumulating webpages all day, I'll have 3 or 4 or 5 instances of
FireFox open with a half-dozen tabs open in each.  I'll have 3
email clients running (OL, OLExpress, T-Bird) along with office apps
and a couple of gizmos like GoToMeeting, etc.  This is on a plain
jane DELL P4 with a quarter gig of RAM running XP.  It works
fine.  It really does.  It is painful when I have to use IE
because of ActiveEx components and I have to sit and watch it take
forever to do anything.  And it gets real stale, real fast, when I
have to open another instance of IE if I want to have both pages up at
the same time.  If I used IE the way that I use FF, then I would
have at least a dozen instances open at any given time.  Now THAT
would slow the system down.  Maybe IE7 will be a wonder.  I
will try it and give it an honest evaluation.  But for the moment,
in my working experience, FF has not exhibited any of the speed
problems you talk about, and very few of the other problems with
bugs.   For the moment, I'm going to continue giving all of
my users the option to use either when I build or rebuild a box for
them.  Most of them seem to prefer FF for generic surfing without
my influencing them.  TMMV and so does yours and mine.

Otter

Keyguy13,

John a Microsoft shill? OS/2 I could see, if given the chance, but not Windows.

The guy's got TechRepublic running Linux on more test systems than I can count. He still runs NetWare!

He's just looking for the easiest, most efficient way to get things done. Seeing as how he and I have both encountered significant Firefox issues this week, I'd have to say I understand his perspective.

Firefox is bloated. It's huge. Takes a long time to load, too. But I don't usually complain because Firefox has provided me with simplified access to a lot of Web-based features (online chess, Flash-heavy fantasy sports sites, complicated Web sites, etc.) I'd otherwise have more difficulty accessing on my Mac. But when the most recent Firefox update precludes me from using Firefox on my Mac to post to my TechRepublic blog (and send messages using Yahoo Mail), I will complain. That's not an update. That's a pain in the posterior. Especially as these elements worked properly before the update.

50 million people use Macs. I suspect a lot of those folks use Yahoo Mail, too. How hard would that interaction have been to test? This is probably why I still use IE almost exclusively on all my Windows systems: it just works.

OK, here is my two cents worth.
I have switched, almost exclusively, to using Firefox.  I love the
tabbed browsing, as well as the many plugins/extensions available to
enhance the browsing experience.  It is a little slower to load,
but as one of the other posts pointed out if IE didn't already have
much of its code loaded into memory with Windows it would probably take
just as long or longer.  But once it is loaded, Firefox is much
faster than IE (on my machine).
I also like the added security of Firefox.  Yes, you can lock down
IE to make it more secure than the default settings, but since
switching to Firefox my spyware removal programs haven't had anything
to remove because Firefox simply doesn't let them in.
I have had no problems like what you describe as "buggy
behavior".  I suspect that the problem lies in the web pages
you're viewing.  They probably have proprietary code designed to
run only in IE instead of sticking to the web standards.  As
standards compliant browsers become more and more popular, we will see
less and less of these MS only sites.
One of my machines is an AMD K6 166Mhz with 64MB ram (a real dinosaur), running Mandrake Linux, and Firefox runs just fine.

Most any version of Firefox I've ever had--on Linux or Windows--has run
perfectly fine and wasn't slow in the least.  If your computer is
slow (or perhaps it's just you who's slow), that's your problem,
jackass.  Don't blame a perfectly-good piece of software for your
personal problems.

I WILL NEVER CHANGE THE IE ON ANY SUPER FF. BECAUSE FF IS APPLICATION WITH A LOT OF BUGS AND SILLY ALGHORITHM OF EATING THE HTML AND OBJECT CODES FROM PIPES TO BROWSER SCREEN.

it is my opinion, you can have another.

Bye, bye

My position is very strong to be opposit team of FF. They had a lot of issues that their alghorithm support all CSS1, CSS2. I don't believe to it, because all programs for web has bug only regards FF poor executing of the requirements of W3 standarts about CSS. I never will forget their lie about that they have fully tested compatibility with CSS. It was not, it is not now and it will never will.  All that i can do for them to point about their errors and write letters to their support team. But i afraid they will forgot about dream time.

Sincerely, LukCAD

You don?t have to be a programmer or hacker to exploit IE.Not to be a shit, I use both at times dependent on task and customer code.We use test labs, systems with no patches (virtually none) manually secured by turning down services and manual disable of IE elements.We have noticed Win .x platforms with SP4 after implementation to boot about ? the time as before, certain patches break certain things.For networks that need to be ?updated? learn to write scripts and that solves the whole problem with having to install the entire browser.Or manually lock down IE and reg patch - again with scripts to the entire floor.Both have their advantages dependant on the needs for the task at hand, but while Firefox can close down and work funky at times, after closer inspection we have noticed at least ? patches to the floor create havoc with many 3 party apps ? meaning not MS software, When IE crashes the entire system is rebooted, when Firefox crashes the browser closes and the drive rattles.If you have to manually ?lay hands? on each computer, it is by far the admins dream browser, not having to fight silent installs wasting valuable time (and that?s what we are talking about ? Time and Money) on the same problem day in and day out wondering how many systems do you re-image today?Bit of a pickle it is, highly suggest learning to write scripts. ? do not need programmers knowledge to be at rest with a smile. We already have enough to do with all the work on those old beloved Compaq?s around.

Yeah, it's a bit slow to load the first time, but I've never noticed it
to be slow after that.  I did have some problems with it maxing
out the CPU, usually while I was downloading a lot things, but I found
that by turning off the "Show Download Manager" option, that's pretty
much gone away (oddly enough, sometimes the blasted Download Manager
still rears it's ugly head, and things slow to a crawl, but just
closing it fixes that).

But aside from security (a WAY bigger issue than these other
annoyances, imho), my absolute favorite reason to run Firefox is the
AdBlock extension.  Now I don't have to look at those annoying
banner ads (like the one at the top of THIS page, which I just nuked -
no idea what they were selling, but they'll never sell one to me like
that!)

When you consider that Internet Explorer, is much sleeker and not top laden with rules and regulations, "Heck

you can't even decide the manner in which you would prefer to view your menus", Internet Explorer is much

easier to manipulate and far easier to control in just about every facet, why in the world would you want to

change all that just to go to a program that by  definition "Must" have it's own way, is not easily placated and a

general Pain in the Royal Canadian. Why.?
I'll stick to my IE Explorer \ Outlook Express and consider it an  improvement as I don't have to do battle with all

the other so called Browsers out there and their trunk full of idiosyncrasies.
It always amazes me that people are willing to just about kill themselves to learn a new program such as Firefox

or whatever but won't take two seconds to learn and get to know and understand what is under their very noses.

 
In my opinion, nothing has come along yet to beat the IE Explorer and from what I'm reading now it doesn't look

like there are going to be any major changes anytime soon. Thisisn't bashing, these are facts
I would suggest developing a thorough and I mean thorough knowledge of what is right under our own noses

and maybe, just maybe some of the problems will disappear.
I hope.  :)
Regards
Aaron 

I read some of the critcicisms of Firefox posted here and I wonder if
people are talking about the same browser I am using, or what benchmark
is being used.

Firefox slow ? Buggy?  I have a 3 mb bookmark file, three tool
bars, extra's like G mail notify and about 5 to 10 tabs open most of
the day. I regularly run my other apps as well as a web server and
Database server on the same machine , and I run Firefox on 4 machines
just at home, and have experienced 1 crash over the 3 or so years I
have been using Firefox. Is firefox being compared to other Browsers or
to notepad?

I don't think IE is evil , and I do think that IE 5 deserved to win the
browser wars, and everyone benefited from a defacto standard. But
Tabbed browsing, Bookmark organisation ( MS Favourites is a complete
POS for organising book marks) and the fact that I don't have to switch
gears for something as basic as web browsing when I move from a windows
machine to a Linux machine would be advantages enough. I might even be
prepared to weigh some disadvatages against those advantages, but I
have not experienced them, and I have not experienced these problems
through the few hundred computers where I have installed Firefox for
Clients, (ususally to take care of some problem caused by IE's affinity
for Malware). I have not had anyone complain about performance or
stability, and the very small number of people who moved back to MS IE
full time did it because they were comfortable in that interface, or
because one of their prime activities online was using a site that used
IE only features such as Active X,, and not because they had
experienced problems with Firefox in terms of stability or Performance.

The reason for me to switch from IE to Mozilla or Firefox is not about performance or ease of use. It's because many computers in our company are haunted by BHO worms, which could take a few hours to remove. The lack of tabbed browsing, pop-up killer, and a handful of extensions are other reasons I find IE lagging.
I've experienced a few Firefox glitches too, but the fix as simple as killing the app from task manager, and I've only done that <10 times in the past year. If you have a problem with IE, you probably need to reboot or perhaps spend hours to search for a cure - obviously you can't uninstall IE and do a clean install.
Patches is a good idea. But when installing a new computer requires 30 patches and 5 reboots (xp sp2 comes with IE6.0, which needs to be upgrade to 6.01 followed by a nunmber of patches for 6.01), I appreciate Firefox's full build simplicity.

As a web developer I use all available browsers I can get installed on
my system. So I have seen my fair share of irks and breakdowns of each.
Firefox remains my main browser, for several reasons. From a developer
point of view it is the best W3C compliant rendering browser I have. As
a web surfer I like it because of the many extensions available.
So when someone gets fed up with my favorite browser I am getting interested. Not to flame him for being a moron, but to see why he is displeased.

Some time ago there was discussion after Symantec cam up with a report stating Firefox had more security holes then Internet Explorer. Many thought this was not completely true, including me. Any bad news about Firefox is worth reading and commenting as we should learn from that to make Firefox better or just to spread the gospel.

Now the points brought forward in this post are IMHO valid observations.

• Updates.
  Updates can be somewhat cumbersome, but I think it is still a smoother
  process then Internet Explorer's updating system. Still version 1.5
  should improve this. It hasn't yet bothered me much.
• Slow.
  Slow in initial loading. Yes, it is. But IE is an unseparable part of
  the OS and is already loaded when the Windows loads. So, comparison is
  a bit unfair.
  Slow in use. I have not reaaly had any problems with that. I have
  ususally about ten applications running at the same time: Outlook,
  SharpReader, Firefox, a couple of instances of Visual Studio, Firefox,
  Internet Explorer and more. I have not found that Firefox brings my
  system to a grinding halt it ususally is one of the others.
• Buggy.
  I agree that most of the problems I have had in Firefox were related to
  Extensions and/or Themes. Although every now and then Firefox does
  crash, but not more often then IE.

What I liked most about the post was that we have someone who uses
Firefox everyday make some critical remarks about the product. His main
point that Open Source is not per se the magical Silver Bullet, but
just another piece of software and so is bound to have bugs. And since
it is not written by yourself there are always things that you might
wish it could do, like getting a cup of coffee.
I have to do that myself, now. Well, all right.

'Firefox' is your main browser.  Maybe because it is much safer at
this point in time.  I have to disagree however, with the CPU
usage and your update issue.  I have a 3200+ AMD CPU and with
'Firefox' and 'Thunderbird' running my average CPU usage is 3%. 
The memory usage does seems high, but I figure that software complexity
will keep escalating and CPU manufacturers will continue to advance CPU
capabilities to accomodate the demand.  Updating 'Firefox' has
been streamlined.  I run the 1.0.7 version and by double-clicking
the Icon next to the 'Mozilla' logo in the upper right hand corner;
'Firefox' automatically looks for and installs updates.  A list is
provided when any addons can not be updated. 
As for the need for speed, both 'Firefox' and 'IE Explorer' have their
speedy and pokey personalities.   Also, when addressing 'IE
Explorer' only sites,  installing an addon that allows the user to
view a site via 'IE Explorer' solves the problem and you don't have to
exit 'Firefox'.

I use 'Firefox' for the following reasons:
    1.    More secure than IE Explorer. 
    2.    'Firefox' can be customized
extensively with a large selection of Exetensions, Themes and Plugins.
    3.    I can tweak and control
'Firefox' depending on the site visited and the potential for malware
intrusion.
    4.    I have more trust that the
'Mozilla Organization' will address security and other issues faster
and more honestly.

I first tried out Firefox around version 0.6 and innitially I was
amazed by how fast it was compared to IE.  But then, after a few
version upgrades and the addition of god only knows how many themes and
extensions (all of which are from different, and unnofficial
sources...and they demand periodically to be upgraded too...), Firefox
started slowing to a crawl, hanging, maxing out the cpu and
crashing.  I'm not an IT pro...just a home user running an old
second-hand IBM with an 800Mhz P3 and 128Mb of RAM...I'm also not what
most people would consider a "geek" either.  So it took a while
and a lot of stumbling around trying to find the right search terms on
Google before i found out what was wrong and in the meantime i took to
using the Mozilla Suite instead - but after a while that started doing
similar, especially if I tried using the Azureus P2P software at the
same time.  Turns out it's all the themes and extensions (which
sort of seems to make sense at least to me - lots of addons from
different sources, none of whom seem to co-opperate with each other
seems to me to be a brilliant recipe for a creating a total mess of
conflicting code.)  Small wonder Firefox and Mozilla slow down and
freeze up really...

(By the way, I still use Firefox, Mozilla and IE....and Netscape and
Opera as well, but Mozilla is the browser that seems to get most use
from me.)

I won't use IE at all, except as an absolute last resort. I mostly use Opera for everything, then Firefox if necessary, then anything else I have available (Konqueror or Netscape on Linux) before I'll ever fire up IE.

Unfortunately, TechRepublic just broke the "Next page" or "Forward" function for Opera in the discussions, so it now just goes to a Dice.com ad. I hope they fix this soon.

I think the next 20 years will see less, not more, innovation in
software.  We're at the point where there's so much code in even
the most pedestrian applications, it takes a while to add new
functionality and features.  Look at the huge temporal gap between
Windows XP and Windows Vista.

That's what's in store for us, I suspect.  There will be
innovations on the edges--iPod is a good example, DVR another. 
But the Operating System is going to be a much slower upgrade path from
here on out.  Which I think also means that Windows' dominance is
here to stay for a good long while.  With upgrade cycles this
long, it's going to be quite a while before anybody dislodges Microsoft
from the top of the heap.

Scams, absolutely scams.

If a retailer or manufacturer truly wishes to promote a product, they'd simply reduce the price (as in, have a sale, not cut-the-UPC-from-the-box-then-remove-the-special-rebate-code-then-address-the-form and send two copies, originals only, to Sri Lanka).

I'm actually going to agree with Erik on this one.  Every now and then he's right.  :-)

It's so misleading to advertise a sale price in big bold print, and
then put a little asterisk with tiny print that details the multiple
rebate forms you have to submit to actually get that price.  The
biggest scam is the taxes--the store may claim the "final price" is $20
after the $40 rebate, but in fact you had to pay sales taxe on the full
$60 purchase price.  You don't get the taxes refunded, yet the
store is allowed to claim the lower sales price in their ads.

Let's face it, it's very attractive to retailers because they show higheer profits and that is the name of the game.  They put it on the consumer to get their money and as you pointed out 40% of the time you don't.  I'm still waiting for my rebate from a unnamed PC manufacturer and it's been 3 months.  And last when you cut that UPC you give up your right to return the product for a refund because you have destroyed the packaging and the most you can claim is a swap again keeping profits up.

Most people are too lazy to fill out the rebates.  They buy the product with the best of intentions but never get around to it.  On the other hand, if you do your research, and turn in the rebates, and bug them until you get your check, it can turn out OK.  That's how I purchased a $1600 laptop for only $800.  Oh, and it was an open stock item.  If you purchase open stock items, then the "sticker price" is just a place to start.  Best Buy and Circuit City in particular will negotiate with you on their open stock items.

So the short of it is, yes, they are a scam, but only because of basic human nature.  If you send those rebates in, and make sure you get them back, then you can get a good deal.

I've only had 1 rebate rejected, since then I always send the mail
certified, costs about $2.50 but worth the time and effort to get the
money.  You have to read the instructions very carefully, if it
says circle the sales price and you don't, that means the form isn't
filled in right and it gets rejected.  Some are very sneaky, the
rebate form will have check boxes but the instructions say to circle
the item you have.  Most will reject PO boxes even though they use
a PO box to collect the forms.
I use a PO box for all mail and for a long time I could put the street
address of the post office  and my box number as a suite number
and it would get delivered, but that all stopped after 9/11, guess the
terrorists were doing this too.

Intuit even did a direct deposit of my $100 for Quickbooks.

If you feel you've been ripped off let the manufacturer know, file a
complaint with the postal service, complain to the store, tell them you
bought the product on the belief the rebate would be
honored.   Call the local TV station that has a victim's
advocate / troubleshooter program, let the store and manufacturer know
you're doing that.  Call your credit card company and see if they
can withhold payment to the store.  The sellers are counting on
your laziness not to pursue this, the odds are in their favor you'll
bitch and moan and do nothing else.
Jay

The retailers defend rebates as a way for them to "track" the success of their promotions.  But you're right the real reason is they can advertise a lower price and not have to pay all of it back.

I've had rebates I've sent in and never gotten the money - when I call they say there is nothing they can do since I've already sent in the original UPC and they won't take anything else as proof.  Nice, huh?

I generally avoid rebates, too. The only time I will make an exception
is when I have had a positive rebate experience with that company in
the past. For example, DirecTV is really good about their rebates (2
week turnaround), so I will buy their products that require rebates.

I have had some good luck in the past with rebates of smaller dollar amounts, but I'm currently waiting for rebates on a computer I bought.  Okay I bought it in the summer, and I'm still waiting!  The last "delay" was that they said they didn't have my correct zip code.  Well, no...you won't have the correct zip code when YOU only type in 4 numbers!!  Hummm, and my copies had 5 numbers on the zip.  Go figure.  Of course, from the time I got that problem corrected they say its another 6-8 week wait.  And all this started when it took me almost 2 hours (yes, TWO) to fill out all the forms, scan it all so I would have copies, and mail them off..in separate envelopes of course!!  Never again is what I'm saying!!!!!  It is just a big rip-off. 

I've had ten rejected rebate requests -- all from the biggest scammer of all:  Symantec.  Each time, I made copies of all submittals, and STAPLED all required submittals together.  When I received the "reject notice" via email or website posting, I've successfully challenged all ten.  It may not be completely Symantec's fault -- just sloppy handling by their rebate contractor, Parago.  However, Symantec should realize they are losing customers by allowing the scam to continue --- or maybe they just figure they have all their customers "locked in."

I have made it a rule, a long time ago, that I "NEVER" go for rebates. Rebates are the bottom feeder's way of trying to get your money and then lead you one hell of a dance if you try to get any of it back. I go in, buy the product, paid for in full, and leave. I've even had sales clerks try and stear me unto this rebate thing, then I point out that I'm living in Canada and they are in Florida, Texas, San Fernando, or whatever, then I ask her what she thinks my chances are that I'll get a fair shake if anything goes wrong with the product. All she does is raise her shoulders and smile.

That's what the rebate program is worth, and so I made it a rule for myself, If I can afford it, fine, if I need to rebate the darned thing, they can keep it.

God even Symantec has tried this nonesense and been represented poorly. If they know it, then they deserve what they get in lost sales, but if they don't know it, "WAKE UP SYMANTEC" you're being done in by you're own reps.

We won't around forever.

Thank you for your attention

Aaron :) 

There is no question in my mind  that most rebates are scams. Look at the numbers. About 80% of people purchasing rebated items don't ever complete the rebate forms or mail them in during the reqired time period. Of the 20% that do complete everything and meet all the absurd requirements  30% to 40% will have their rebates refused as incomplete, out of date or not for the advertised product. And this does not include the additional few percent who's forms will be listed as not received at all. Thus for all the advertising benefits to the retailer or manufacturers, the actual cost is about 12%, not the 40-50 or 60% of prices being advertised. The worst offenders in my opinion are those in the direct sales channel. Dell Computers makes you buy something at full price, fill out a bunch of forms, send them in and wait 6-12 weeks to get a rebate. Try telling their financing arm (DFS) that you will begin making payments as soon as you receive their rebate and see what happens to your credit rating...Shame on you Michael Dell!  Shame on all the retailers who participate in this ongoing scam, and shame on us as consumers for not insisting that the retailer sell us the item for the price advertised before the asterisks and wait for the rebates from the manufacturers themselves.

I worked for a call center that had Dell for a client, doing their customer support. In the time I worked there, Dell had gone through many confrontations with customers over strict policies with rebates. The issue escalated to the point where Dell requested that we try to press policy, but rather than lose customers over misunderstandings, send a request to the rebate center to reprocess the rebate. It was our understanding that Dell made provisions with the rebate center to accept and reprocess rebates that were accompanied by the request sent by customer service reps. The only rebates refused at that point would be ones that were neglected and in some cases outdated by up to a year or more; Also ones that were offered under limited circumstances like offers for a particular configuration, but the customer added or changed items in the purchase, would be refused.

While it is true that rebates are nothing more that a "come on" to make the purchase. Flyers and advertising are nothing more to retailers than a tool to draw customers to the point of purchase. Packaging is nothing more that art to entice the sale, so if they splash the "come on" at you and you purchase, then the art worked. Any rebate I have ever seen has always had rules to follow to redeem it. That's what makes it different from an up front sale. I have also noticed that the price stores put on THEIR shelves is the price you pay at the register/check-out. That is the market or retail price, and other types of sales and discounts would be applied to that price.

Perhaps the best lesson learned in any of this is simply;

• Read the fine print before the purchase, then decide whether it is a good deal.
• When rebates are offered, terms are written either in fine print on the document, or if on the web, links are attached for the details of the offer, read it.
• Pay attention to footnotes and asterisks, they are the "ifs" of the offer.

About the only thing that works is Staples online rebates. They give
you the rebate info on a duplicate receipt, you go to the website, fill
in the information and they pretty much process it within the time
period they say is needed to fulfill it. I have yet to be burned on one
of these type of rebates.

Where it gets sticky is when the rebate is a third party manufacturer
rebate that the manufacturer will not allow Staples to process through
their website. STAY AWAY FROM THESE. They pretty much conform to the
40% failure rate mentioned, and it is not worth your time fighting for
the $10 rebates as you will waste way more than $10 of your time and
life trying to get them to be honored. I shop with that in mind and
read the rebate crud. If it is one of these types, I just do not buy
it. Hit Pricegrabber or Nextag and usually you can find it cheaper
anyway. Vote with your dollars and DO NOT SUPPORT these fraudulent
come-ons.

Mail-in rebates exist because people let them exist.

Somewhere along the line, the idea of satisfying the customer has disappeared. The customer has to jump through hoops to be served. Try reaching a real live person for assistance. Good luck! Welcome to "Press this or Press that hell" So the manufacturer saves a few bucks on real live people. Isn't the customer's time worth anything? Someone is definitely getting "shortchanged" here.

Back to mail-in rebates. I agree with all the deficiencies already listed and would like to add that many people put the full purchase price (plus taxes) on their credit cards on which they already run balances. The merchants that have their own cards (often at APR in the 30% per annum range) make out quite handsomely on the "rebated" amounts on which the interest clock ticks away.

Personally, when I am offerred a mail-in rebate deal, I just walk away from it AND tell them why. I neither have the time nor the patience for this kind of foolishness.

"You can make a difference"

Insert comment text here

 "Rebates" are used as incentives to purchase their products - not to offer the buyer any "cut in price". They want to sell and collect their monies. . .and then "cut bait" to move to the next fish). They have absolutely no desire to  assist in fulfilling any "rebate" promise. You are totally on your own after they get your money. A big sell pitch for buying a Dell computer (and signing up for Verizon's DSL when buying the computer) was a rebate of $100. I bit the bait - months later, no rebate. I checked "on line" as I was told to - it told me "none" under "Rebate". I went ballistic and was just as determined to get the $100 as they were to not giving it to me. I didn't let up - documenting everything - I thought that Dell certyainly must have some integrity somewhere! Guess they decided I was too much trouble, and they sent me their check for $100. My opinion is that if this was a true "rebate" and not "reBAIT", I would not have had to fight for my money. To the retailers who do this, I say SHAME ON YOU for making this a part of your selling strategy. Rebate should be spelled . . . REBAIT!  As I see it (and have experienced it), that's what it is used for - BAIT.

Barbra Richman

Customer service has went to hell in a handbasket.  Most people in customer service act like you are being a pain in the butt when all you need is informaton.  I worked in Customer Service for 28 years and I was very concerned why customers were irate.  I always told my customers to document everything.  Most everyone has a large calander in their home.  I use to tell my customers document on your calender jeverytime you had to call, the person you spoke with, and the reason you were calling.  If the representative told you they would do a follow up with you on such and such a date, circle it on the calender with the letters FU and the company name.  File a complaint with the BBB against the company if necessary.  I did not receive a rebate of 300.00 for a computer I purchased and the company went bankrupt.  I like most of these postings will not buy anything that has a rebate unless it is given up front with my purchase.  Let these manufacturers know how you feel, call them and file a complaint directly with them and maybe that could change the guidelines on their so called "rebates".