Mozilla is losing me

Referencing my earlier post about the huge and problematic scale back in its plans to thoroughly update the Mozilla Firefox 3 user experience (UX) and turn this browser into what was going to be the ultimate Vista application, I'm sad to say that I'm pretty close to just giving up on Firefox for good.

Understand that I've been a long-time Firefox supporter and advocate, and I've been using the browser full-time since it was a little Mozilla side project called Phoenix. (Check out my Wakoopa statistics: Firefox was until recentlyh my most-frequently-used application.)

So what's happened? Putting aside the lackluster Firefox 2.0 upgrade, which was really just Firefox 1.6 with a different name, I was looking forward to the many changes that would come in Firefox 3. And I've always appreciated the things that made Firefox special, and better than IE: It was fast and small, lightweight and powerful. It was easily extensible. It offered features that, at least previous to IE 7, weren't available in Microsoft's browser.

A number of factors have contributed to making those advantages less advantageous or, at least, less true today than they were a few years ago. Specifically:

Firefox is no longer fast or small, and it's certainly not lightweight. If you leave this browser running on your system, it will eat up RAM faster than any application I've ever seen. Leave it on overnight at your own risk. IE 7 does not do this. In fact, IE 7 starts up instantaneously and runs quick nimbly.

Firefox is still very extensible and this remains a key advantage of the platform, assuming you care to take the time and effort to find the extensions you want, choose between overlapping extensions that duplicate some, but not all, of each other's functionality, and can put up with the resource sapping that many of these extensions will bring. My attitude has changed a lot in the past year when it comes to extensions: Because I must reinstall and reinstall systems due to my day job, my goal is to minimize the amount of stuff I have to do every time I bring a system up. Keeping track of these extensions is painful. More to the point, it's not something "normal" people will do. I feel this is a wash, and would argue that keeping Firefox small and light is a more pressing concern.

Firefox still offers a few features (inline search for example) that IE 7 lacks. Again, I don't feel this is a huge concern for regular people: IE 7 is Good Enough, as Jerry Pournelle would say. Heck, its better than Good Enough. IE 7 is great. The funny thing is, if Mozilla had gone through with their original plan to make Firefox 3 the ultimate Vista Web browser, they would have eliminated one of IE 7's biggest pluses (it's just there on the system), because let's face it, IE 7 is NOT a great Vista application: It has a bizarre and non-standard UX that takes time to learn. This is something Mozilla could have taken advantage of.

So what does Firefox 3 bring to the table, and how would this affect my day-to-day existence?

Looking over the list of new features I published yesterday in this blog, not much. Vista with any AV client is already secure and protects me from malicious Web sites. The "native" look and feel stinks, and why the heck would you move a navigational button (Home) off the Navigation toolbar and onto the Bookmarks toolbar? If it's going to be there by default, put it where it belongs. I don't care about download "managers": I just want to click on something occasionally and download it. I don't store bookmarks locally (or in the cloud), preferring instead to maintain a single Web page that includes all the links I use locally: That's just another thing to manage. And while I welcome your reported speed and memory usage improvements, let's face it: They were quite necessary, and I suspect more needs to be done. I don't have performance or memory issues with IE 7.

Yikes.

Mozilla, I'm sorry, but you're losing me. My data is in the cloud, so I don't care about local calendars (Sunbird) or email clients (Thunderbird), and don't think anyone else will in a few years either. Your browser is yet another thing to install and manage, and it offers no real advantages over what's already in Windows. (And is there even a way for corporations to centrally manage Firefox across their desktops?)

Since wiping out my main desktop and installing Vista with SP1, I've been using IE 7 and it works fine. Explain to me why I or anyone else should go to the effort of installing and managing Firefox 3. What's the value proposition exactly? Increasingly, I just don't get it.

Discuss this Article 46

SwampYankee
on Feb 13, 2008
Why Mozilla? Addblock. When IE7 has a free, effective, updateable add blocker I will switch.
bluvg
on Feb 13, 2008
Paul, have you tried out IE7Pro? It's a great add-on to IE that gives you the functionality of a lot of what you would likely add to Firefox--in-line search (with highlighting), spell-check, session recovery, etc. Plus, I've never had it crash IE on me or introduce any performance issues. I like(d) Firefox as well, but particularly with IE7Pro, I see no compelling reason for it anymore. Highly recommended!
keith.howe@gmail.com
on Feb 13, 2008
I use IE7Pro (http://www.ie7pro.com/) Has inline search, Ad Blocker and a more... Works for me. As for the Memory issue, Run Google Reader and GMail for a while and you can see IE7 take over 500mb... I think it is just a fact of life.
jono1
on Feb 13, 2008
You know that horrible feeling you get when you open up the start menu on an XP machine and suddenly realise it doesn't have instant search, two seconds after you start typing the name of the app you're looking for? I get that every time I hit Ctrl-F in IE and see a dialogue box appear instead of a neat little toolbar - for me the lack of inline search is an absolute deal breaker. Also, as SwampYankee mentioned, I don't know how I was ever able to concentrate on an article before I installed AdBlock plus. On the flipside, I find your attitude towards IE's UI changes curious - they introduce an innovative and fresh new interface to Office 2007 (that is completely nonstandard and takes a while to learn) and it's awesome and fantastic, but they do the same thing with IE and it's bizarre? However I do agree with you about the new theme - I fail to see how that horrible blue colour is supposed to fit into Vista at all, and the refresh button looks completely out of place.
djilleffect
on Feb 13, 2008
If IE had anything remotely as good as Firebug, I'd use IE7 in a heartbeat. Firefox 2 is a pig and I completely agree with your comment regarding leaving Firefox running overnight. Geeeez.
pthurrott
on Feb 13, 2008
Ditto on the IE7Pro comments: It does have an ad blocker. (Though I've not tried it; it also offers Firefox-like inline search.) It's a good add-on. (Though I'm trying to avoid too much of that kind of thing.) Jono: Regarding UI changes. Change for change's sake isnt' the goal. The Office UI works because it .. well, works. The IE 7 interface was changed to arbitrarily match an out of date design for what Longhorn-era applications were going to look like. You'll note that none do in the final version, beyond some wizards and Windows Explorer. If you look to Windows Photo Gallery and Windows Calendar, you see the beginnings of what could be a Vista "identity." This is, I feel, what IE 7 should look like. But looking like IE 6/Firefox would have been preferable to what they did with IE 7. There's a lot of work involved to rethinking where, say, the Home button is in relation to Back and Forward (which relates to why Firefox 3's design is so bad too). Anyway. There's a lot more to this issue, of course. I'm just raising some issues here, it's a blog post. We could point to Mozilla's better adherence to Web standards and build some sort of argument around that, I guess. I'm just not sure that stuff matters to Joe User. And as a user, I'm not sure it's that interesting to me either as long as the Web just works in the browser I'm using. --Paul
keith.howe@gmail.com
on Feb 13, 2008
I agree with the Firebug comment. I use IE Developer Toolbar .. but it is not as nice as Firebug...
daveinla
on Feb 13, 2008
Paul, I really don't get why all of a sudden you get so negative with Firefox. Granted V2.0 was a big disappointment. But they seem to have taken things in the right direction with V 3.0. The memory issues are much improved and the look is slightly better than V2.0 but not great admittedly. Beta 2 was already a improvement over V2.0 and you didn't seem to bother, and just now they improve again Beta2 in terms of memory and speed but stick some colorful button on it (not of great taste Ok) you are ready to ditch it... I don't get it. A browser is after all the app you gonna spend a lot of time on and usability and reliability should be the principal decision factors. Now of course it would be a great + if they added a native look and feel to the Vista and OS X versions.
brostbeef
on Feb 13, 2008
I have to agree with Paul on this. I am a developer and power user. I use extensions in Firefox all the time for my web development and they make Firefox an almost necessity. However, at home running Windows Vista where I do not need the functionality, I just want something snappy and secure. IE7 does that for me. I don't miss the extensions in Firefox. In Vista Firefox loads slow (and I only have 3 extensions: weather, noscript, and auto updater) so I find myself going to IE7 time and time again for a quick lookup. I tend to close my windows after I'm done a quick lookup too, so the wait for Firefox to load again is too long. I only use it if I need the functionality it offers (i.e. NoScript). If IE8 bring me the UI that I can love and offer some extensibility (e.g. NoScript), I will probably never install Firefox again on my home computer. It's sad. I'd say I'm like Paul. We don't hate Firefox and we were quite fond of it in its time. However, the cons don't outweigh the pros anymore.
nldegarmo
on Feb 13, 2008
Got to agree with you Paul. It's all about ease. IE7 + IE7PRO gives you all the benifits of IE7 and all of the bonuses of FF add-ons with only minor effort. No having to deal with overlapping add-ons either. The management overhead of FF is just way too much.
weedmonk
on Feb 13, 2008
Extension and Live Bookmarks have always been the things keeping me from jumping back to IE. If there was a tool to make RSS work like how it does in FF I'd be great.
VALoneWolf
on Feb 13, 2008
Whoa, don't be so quick to down Firefox 3 just yet. With a tweak to the userChrome.css file, you can override the current UI with the UI that's planned to be used in the final. Here's my Library window: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v57/bigmar88/bookmarks.jpg Also, when I browse, I like to browse many sites at once, so I have a lot of tabs open at one time. On IE7 on XP and Vista, whenever I have a certain amount of tabs open, my whole computer starts acting bizarre. IE7 becomes, slow, and I can't do things like right click my desktop, taskbar, and in other applications. That's another reason I stick with Firefox
anonymous
on Feb 13, 2008
Rather than try to paraphrase what Paul says on his recent blog post , I would just say that I agree
chickens
on Feb 13, 2008
Sadly I no longer push Firefox to everyone and their brother. There is just no reason to do so. With IE7 I no longer feel the need to get people to switch for security reasons. At this point the only thing holding me back from switching is a single extension: noscript. I am security paranoid and I've yet to find anything that competes with the ease of this extension. I do know that the functionality is there in IE, but its just not as easy to use. There is a add-on for opera to be able to do this, but its done improperly. If it wasn't for this one little thing I would switch to something else. I may just have to sit down and write something myself so I can finally get away from Firefox. Firefox would have lost me a long time ago if it wasn't for extensions. They do not listen to users, I thought that was supposed to be the great thing about open source projects. I guess they forgot that.
James Woodcock
on Feb 13, 2008
Is IE7 a lot faster with SP1 installed? I have always found it quite slow in loading initially on Vista not to mention the odd crash here and there.
lilserenity
on Feb 13, 2008
To me the proposition is that comparatively Firefox is easier to design W3C HTML/XHTML/CSS spec compliant sites than it is for Internet Explorer which has causes daily headaches for serious web developers straining to acheive high levels of accessibility on their sites. IE7 made things somewhat better and isn't that bad a browser. But IE8's proposals to only enable super standards mode when someone adds a tag rather than vice versa is yet another insult towards agreed standards. It should work the other way around. For the record I do use Windows at work and at home and as an OS, I don't mind it. Opera, WebKit/KHTML and Gecko have done so much to get us to a stage where people can design a site that works as it should but continually I have to use conditional IE code to get Internet Explorer to co-operate. Gecko isn't perfect but it's better than IE. Not only that but IE6 does leak like a sieve still and at least for those for whatever reason who don't have Windows XP SP2 or Vista, Firefox does offer the potential for a secure browsing experience compared to IE6. Unfortunately in my daily work I would say 6% of users are using old operating systems usually due to financial constraints or the fact they feel no need to buy another computer when their current one satisfies them. This is a small but good benefit of Firefox. I don't like some of the proposed UI changes but I'll reserve ny judgement until the final release. Unfortunately for me, my job is made so much more infuriating to get a site working across the board because of Internet Explorer that I find it very hard to ever bring myself to use it as my primary browsing platform. Microsoft have made some important progress on this part, but they still have a little way to go. Let's face it, if there was no Firefox, I don't think we'll have seen IE7 and users who use assistive devices will probably still have a higher degree of difficult to follow table based layout sites because its the only way that IE6 renders consistently and as expected without quirky CSS 'hacks'. And then there's IE6 that leaks like a sieve as well when visit Javascript/AJAX intensive sites that are poorly coded and don't free up allocated memory properly. I have high hopes that the IE8 team will listen and make the IE6/7 mode only enabled via a switch so that the majority of the web browsing world gets a browser from Microsoft that adheres to standards as best as possible. Maybe then the web developer's productivity will go through the roof when they don't spend countless minutes sometimes hours getting IE to behave. But I do it because we have to.
daveinla
on Feb 13, 2008
^ Totally right. For the sake of web standards compliance and people who develop, people should lean towards Gecko/Webkit browsers. Unless as said IE8 finally uses its standards mode that complies with them.
peterkirn
on Feb 13, 2008
I'm surprised no one is mentioning Opera. Paul, I felt exactly the way you did -- performance, functionality, and the forward progress of Mozilla just weren't impressing me. I'm NOT one of those Opera die-hards -- I had long been loyal to Mozilla/Firefox. Opera does require you give it some time, but I've found it to be exceptionally fast and usable. Mouse gestures -- and lots and lots and lots of keyboard shortcuts -- mean you can navigate a lot faster. Pages load really fast. And there's Speed Dial and browser bookmark sync. Yeah, there are also a lot of other things you don't need / want, but the browser remains small, lightweight, and speedy. I keep IE around for some things, but the Opera compatibility situation (Google apps, 37signals, etc.) is finally better -- I also live a lot of time in the cloud. If you browse a lot, Opera is worth a look for some investment of time just because it can help you browse faster. But yes, Opera is not open source or extensible quite like FF -- and this should really be a wake-up call to Mozilla that people are this unhappy.
bluvg
on Feb 13, 2008
VALoneWolf, sounds like you're hitting the default GDI limit. Have you tried making this registry change? http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=269 It makes a huge difference! In addition to several other apps, I have more tabs open in IE than will fit on the tab drop-down on a 1600 vertical resolution screen. You would definitely hit the limit before that if you leave it at the default setting.
VALoneWolf
on Feb 13, 2008
Wow, bluvg, thanks for the info! Works like a charm now! I set my key at 8192KB, whats yours?
bluvg
on Feb 13, 2008
8192 also. :) I haven't noticed any detrimental effect to setting it to 8192, so who knows why the default limit is so low! It does seem that Vista hits this limit more quickly than XP, though I've definitely encountered it in XP as well. (I should have said "desktop heap" rather than GDI, but anyhow... many thanks to Ed for that tip!)
romperstomper
on Feb 13, 2008
For those using Opera, or thinking of using Opera, don't forget that it has a great search facility built-in. For some reason it's not promoted anywhere and took me a while to find it. Simply press '.' and start typing - instant clearly highlighted results. (That's the full-stop or period key btw.) Superior to the FF one in my opinion.
daveinla
on Feb 13, 2008
Surprisingly enough, the OSX version got a native OSX look !! : http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080212-first-look-firefox-3-beta-...
pthurrott
on Feb 13, 2008
Thanks everyone for the comments. Just a few responses... daveinla: I apologize for the suddenness of this. It's not really sudden for me, in the sense that I've been thinking about this for a while--certainly through the whole FF 3 Beta 1/2 period--but only just now discussed it publicly. Certainly, IE 7 isn't perfect, and it may ultimately have even more issues than FF. But I'm trying to really rethink this. There is much I like about FF, and I don't mean to suggest that I'm sudden anti-FF or whatever. I'm just trying to think out loud about what the value proposition really is here. I think that MS blew it with the IE 7 UI. I think Firefox is blowing it with FF 3 as well. I am curious to see IE 8, obviously. Hopefully that will happen in early March, at MIX. BTW: The latest Google toolbar beta also appears to have an inline search feature, though it's not as attractive as the one in IE7Pro. Some people may prefer the Google stuff for whatever reason. I'm looking at it, but again, not a huge fan of add-ons. Regarding Opera: This comes up virtually every time I discuss a Web browser issue. I have to be honest, though: I just don't get Opera. I don't know what it is, but I've installed it a bunch of times and every time I'm just not impressed. I know some others disagree. VALoneWolf: Now, that's what I'm talking about. :) Nice! How did you make this happen exactly? Thanks all, --Paul
DRWAM
on Feb 13, 2008
IE7 was so slow on my old Inspiron 8200 laptop that I reinstalled XP Home to totally get rid of it. However, I prefer IE 6 as everything 'just works' [pardon the pun]. FF often has intermittent problems with flash on ALL of my XP PC's. BTW, I found my b'day present, and was planning to swap the disc with a white blank disc, so that I could install Vista before my b'day, but I couldn't get the dang box open quick enough before my wife woke up. Dang, I was THAT close!
Balmung
on Feb 13, 2008
The reason why the icons currently look like crap is because they only recently got SOME of the XP icons for the beta 3 release. http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2008/02/a-deep-look-to-firefox-3-beta-3/ they say that they will add in the rest of the icons in the final release.
Lindy
on Feb 13, 2008
Wow what am I missing here??? Its a beta right? I mean its not a product that says its RTM but is still a beta....aka Vista. Its actually using the BETA name. Judging it now is simply foolish. Comparing it to FF 2, its has fixed memory problems and is probably the fastest browser on my Vista/XP/OS X machines. Does it have some bugs....sure does but its a BETA!!! The OS X version has the new interface already. It was a add-on (proto) during most of the daily builds, now its the default interface. I would say most of you IE 7 lovers.....to think back to IE 7 Beta's????? It was pretty dam buggy. MS did not block it from windows update for no reason at all. There was plenty of stuff that would not work with it. IE7 got a more than a few updates to fix problems after it went gold. Are we blinded by the Microsoft light....sliverlight maybe:)
pthurrott
on Feb 13, 2008
Lindy: What you're missing, I guess, is that they said FF 3 would be a beautiful, native Vista application but then later changed their minds because doing that would cause FF to lose its Mozilla-ness. So the half-step they're implementing instead is to just make FF look horrible, at least on Windows XP and Vista. The original plan was a great one. The new one is terrible.
Lindy
on Feb 13, 2008
I agree with you, but is that look finished yet? They could change it 5 times between now and RTM. Looking non-Vista/XP is cosmetic to me. How well does it work, or will work when its RTM, compared to IE7. Its funny really. I remember reading comments made by Bill gates about IE6 probably being the last stand alone browser, and that it would just be part of the OS. Many lawsuits later, and FF cutting into the their market share they change their tune. Sadly they can just NEVER go with standards. Hopefully IE8 will get closer. Everyone should support FF, if for no other reason then to FORCE MS to accept the browser standards. Loosing market share seems like its the only thing they will get MS onboard.
mainzer
on Feb 13, 2008
Paul, I decided to use IE7 after resisting it for so long. I had it as my only browser for a month. I've been a big Firefox user up until now. I have to say, though, that I'm back in Firefox after wrestling with IE7 for so long. Even with IE7 Pro, I've found that it just doesn't work quite as nicely as FF. IE7 takes too long to request new websites. That, and I miss my live bookmarks and the fact that I can automatically resume my tabs if I close out without having to tell IE7 to open them up next time or using IE7Pro's prompt to restore the session. These days, I only load two extensions- IEtabs and all in one gestures. My firefox runs fine, and I have IE7 running as a tab for all of the times I need to get into sharepoint, RWW, and OWA sites.
techboy2000
on Feb 13, 2008
I like the following Firefox features: Inline search is an outstanding feature I will not live without Viewing RSS feeds quickly from the Bookmarks Toolbar Folder without having to open pages The "Open in all tabs" function in bookmark folders You can right click a bookmark and get a menu to display with the option of "Open in new tab" FireFox does not use ActiveX (essentially a freaking scary executable). FireFox add-ins are based on XUL which runs in a scripting language and have the same permissions as javascript (safer). IE7 is a quality browser but I am more efficient with Firefox even with its performance issues.
Cfischer83
on Feb 13, 2008
Ok, I use both browsers everyday... I mainly use FF when I do my web development (which I do 40 hours a week) which is awesome with the Developer and FireBug plug ins, but if IE had those I'd probably never use FF except to check if my sites work in each browser (which is the only reason I have Safari and Opera installed). Neither one has everything I want... as a matter of fact, both crash on me every once in a while, although FF more often, but whenever I switch from IE to FF I can't stay with FF long before I come back to IE. Also, there is no anti-alias text in FF... why all the features but no anti-alias?
jmoo2
on Feb 13, 2008
IE7 is lot more responsive than FFv2.5 on my Vista laptop. I've just installed FF3 Beta 3 and have found it's a lot quicker than v2.5, perhaps as fast as IE7. I also tested IE7Pro. Whilst it is a great add-on for IE7 it is missing a few (essential) things for me which I can do I FF. So whilst I'm tempted to use IE7 I'm gonna stick with FF (for now). I just wish FF had a "cloud" based system to manage your extensions and other settings so you didn't have to remember and reinstall them each Windows install! Oh...FF3 Beta 3 UI is TERRIBLE! James
lsproc
on Feb 13, 2008
I agree. As a web developer, I have to test my code on every browser, and I find it surprising that stuff renders right on IE, Safari and Opera but not Firefox - it drives me up the wall.
xtreem0
on Feb 13, 2008
same problem here. I fined that they both go through there ups and downs though. Right now i think IE 7 in 64bit loads pages so fast its almost nuts! The only problem is Adobe is soo lazy that they just cant seem to make a 64bit flash driver... i mean common guys its been over a year...
lilserenity
on Feb 13, 2008
lsproc, Are you sure that IE gets it right more that Firefox? I find that hard to believe if you are coding against the W3C HTML/XHTML/CSS specification and intended behaviour. If I had a penny for every time IE did something that every other browser doesn't I'd be rich.
sttevo
on Feb 14, 2008
I was bitterly disappointed with Beta 2, but now slightly more impressed with Beta 3. Still quite a lot of work to do I hope so I'm reserving judgement until the final release. Otherwise I'll stick with Firefox 2.0 - at least all of my add-in work. Sorry Paul I have to disagree with you about IE7 it's just a dog's breakfast - even with the IE7Pro add-in.
lsproc
on Feb 14, 2008
liserenity: yeah, it rendered right in Opera and Safari too.
lilserenity
on Feb 14, 2008
lsproc, Consider yourself incredibly lucky then! Are you validating your code against W3C's HTML 4.01 or XHTML specs, and using CSS for layout or are you using invisible tables to lay out, and formalised your site to adhere to at least WCAG 1.0 A? If the answers to that are Yes, No and Yes respectively, you are incredibly lucky! Except for the 10% or so who use Firefox/Gecko based browsers. As I say, IE will render fine if you use tables to lay your site out but that's an inaccessible apporach for my field of web development. I'm not doubting your claim, but everyone I have met until now has agreed that Gecko (Firefox) is not perfect but it's much better than IE 6's rendering, and in some instances 7's. Anyway, main thing is - happy web development and let's hope on the Windows front the final UI for Firefox 3 is improved and the Home button is moved back where it belongs :)
Kirk M
on Feb 14, 2008
@Cfischer83, Just so you know, Firefox 3 now uses anti-aliasing. It's built in. In my experience using the trunk builds I find that overall, web pages are looking better in the nightly builds than in Firefox 2 or IE 7.0. That's my opinion of course. We all see things differently now don't we. : -)
Kirk M
on Feb 14, 2008
Oh BTW. Did anyone happen to notice the memory use of IE 7.0 with IE7Pro installed? One tab with the Google search page displayed is running at 82 meg + and goes up from there. The nightly builds of Firefox 3 run around 32 meg. In fact with "Minefield's" cache set to default (50 meg) and running upwards of 18 hours straight with 7 to 10 tabs open at a time my memory usage has yet to climb above 75 megs even when I'm viewing sites with a "reasonable" amount of embedded flash (admittedly there's still a very few sites with way too much flash that cause the nightly builds to have conniption fits but their working on it). And the XPCOM recycler so far appears to do a decent job at reclaiming unused memory, Bringing memory consumption back down to around default cache level or even below. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to test the builds on a Vista platform as yet.
mjwedeking
on Feb 14, 2008
Doesn't IE require the installation of an entire operating system called Windows? If Firefox crashes I don't think the task bar disappears. When you install an update to FF you don't have to restart your entire computer.
Cfischer83
on Feb 14, 2008
Kirk M: Thanks! I'm glad to hear that FF 3 has added AA. @mjwedeking What?? When IE crashes, it doesn't do anything to your task bar or anything else in Windows... if your computer is doing that then there is something horribly wrong!
benjwah
on Feb 14, 2008
Erm... I'm sure Mozilla aren't lying about the work they've done on memory usage, but I just installed the Firefox beta and opened the same amount of tabs I usually have and memory shot up to just a little higher than it usually does. Anyone else have this experience? And the Home button is in a stupid stupid place. I have to agree with Paul, they seem to be taking out all the things we love and replacing them with the things we ran to Mozilla for in the first place! At this rate, they'll take out the in-line search for some unknown reason. I've only been using it for 1 half hour so I guess it's too soon to judge but...
bielawski
on Feb 14, 2008
Paul: the screenshot that VALoneWolf posted uses files that are sitting in bugzilla waiting to be checked in. The changes are included in my style "Firefox trunk Vista fixes" http://userstyles.org/styles/5093
bloodsugarwilksm
on Feb 17, 2008
Hey Paul, just so you know I've been following the Firefox 3 development very closely and I have a lot of sources online that say the Vista theme is very much alive and on the way for Beta 4 or RC1. Also, the Places mockup you love will be included in the Vista theme at some point before release. Just wanted to make sure you knew so you don't write off Firefox - keep the faith!! -Matt

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use