Coffeehouse Thread

22 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

50 million Firefox downloads

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    sbc

    Very impressive. Blazing a Trail to 50,000,000. Of course when IE7 comes out, it will probably reach that number very quickly. But it does already have a large user base, and many of then don't really know there are alternatives (or don't even know what a browser is - they just click the blue E to get MSN/Google/Yahoo).

  • User profile image
    W3bbo


  • User profile image
    Cider

    I've never really understood why Firefox carries on counting their downloads because, yes, we know ther are quite a few downloads.  However, it doesn't really reflect usage and is artificially high because it counts all those people (including myself) who can't get the blasted autoupdate to work.  But even then, its skewed because you can't tell those who use MSIs to distribute to larger environments.

    And anyway, for the Windows-using downloaders, IE will still be on their system...

    Can't they just leave it as "significant numbers" and then go off and do something less boring instead?

  • User profile image
    harumscarum

    I am just suprised Bush knows the word Woot.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    harumscarum wrote:
    I am just suprised Bush knows the word Woot.


    He doesn't Smiley He got it from the earpiece and receiver on his back Wink


  • User profile image
    Cairo

    Cider wrote:
    I've never really understood why Firefox carries on counting their downloads


    So that people don't fall back into the bad habit of thinking the little blue "e" is the internet.

    It's marketing! Maintaining momentum! "We're up to 50,000,000 downloads! Be one of the cool kids! Download it today!"


  • User profile image
    Cairo

    W3bbo wrote:
    harumscarum wrote:I am just suprised Bush knows the word Woot.


    He doesn't He got it from the earpiece and receiver on his back





  • User profile image
    bsilby

    Cairo wrote:
    Cider wrote: I've never really understood why Firefox carries on counting their downloads


    So that people don't fall back into the bad habit of thinking the little blue "e" is the internet.

    It's marketing! Maintaining momentum! "We're up to 50,000,000 downloads! Be one of the cool kids! Download it today!"




    I wish they would hold back on the marketing until the version with the fixed dhtml rendering is released (the fixed bug I mentioned in another thread recently).

    Too many people have the broken version, and its unlikely that they will all update when the new one comes out. It means I'll have to put a note on all my stuff telling people to either use IE, or download yet another version of Firefox. Most people will probably find it easier to use IE rather than download Firefox again.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Beer28 wrote:
    Am i the only one that doesn't care about dhtml?

    I'll play a web game if it's flash, but otherwise, I'll download and play a game on my machine rather than play it in my browser. As for browser based dhtml paint programs and such, I don't use them either.


    Ditto... DHTML is meant to be in the form of standardised and validated HTML (or XHTML) w/ W3C-DOM, usually using ECMAScript and only really for site interaction, not for games and other overkill. That's what Flash and Shockwave are for.

    Beer28 wrote:
    I hope all their sites drop to 0 visitors, and they learn a hard lesson about standards.


    Amen Brother!

  • User profile image
    Cider

    Isn't it a tad daft to be espousing standards and Flash at the same time?

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Cider wrote:
    Isn't it a tad daft to be espousing standards and Flash at the same time?


    You can use Flash in web-pages whilst adhereing to XHTML1.1 though.

    Just watch out how to use it...

    Flash widgets employed via sIFR or other replacement techniques are okay

    Flash "games" are also acceptable, so long as there isn't any "required reading" inside it, so nothing anyone using 'accessible browsers', such as Lynx, would miss out on really.

    But Flash "sites" and "forms" are a big "no-no"... no matter what Macromedia (surely "Macradobe"?) says about improving accessibility and HCI in Flash, it's still unusable, especilly to those using text-mode browsers.

    I wonder if anyone here has tried to navigate a flash site using a screen-reader... or anyone at Macradobe for that matter.

  • User profile image
    bsilby

    W3bbo wrote:
    Beer28 wrote: Am i the only one that doesn't care about dhtml?

    I'll play a web game if it's flash, but otherwise, I'll download and play a game on my machine rather than play it in my browser. As for browser based dhtml paint programs and such, I don't use them either.


    Ditto... DHTML is meant to be in the form of standardised and validated HTML (or XHTML) w/ W3C-DOM, usually using ECMAScript and only really for site interaction, not for games and other overkill. That's what Flash and Shockwave are for.

    Beer28 wrote: I hope all their sites drop to 0 visitors, and they learn a hard lesson about standards.


    Amen Brother!


    I couldn't disagree more. My stuff is coded to standards. It just runs slow on firefox. As I have said many times, the moz team are using my stuff as test case to improve their browser--so they seem to think its worthwhile. And they've made great progress. The latest builds run dhtml really well.

    When I hear people say the "dhtml shouldn't be used for games" I think, "these people have a slow browser". People with fast browsers never make that sort of comment.

    Writing games in dhtml/javascript is a great way to push the browser to its limit. My argument is that if a browser is capable of rendering such stuff, then why not use it. Much better than relying on 3rd party plugins. Surely a browser exists to make a range of content available to a mass audience in as easy a way as possible for the audience.

    dhtml is a great tool for writing games. Why only use flash and shockwave? Surely if a tool is available, and has the capacity then it should be used. Its like saying that people shouldn't use pencils to do artwork, because that's a job for oil based paint. Pencils are just used for writing.

    Besides, Flash and shockwave were not originally used for games, either. That use came about from creative people who like to experiment and see what is possible, rather than saying "its not made for that, so lets play it safe and not bother."

    And regardless of anything else, writing games in dhtml is a challenge, and its a lot of fun Smiley

  • User profile image
    Maurits

    bsilby's DHTML games are very cool.  And they're standard.  It's too bad Firefox doesn't render them at playable speed.

    Firefox is nice but not perfect.  No browser is.

  • User profile image
    bsilby

    Beer28 wrote:
    bsilby wrote:
    And regardless of anything else, writing games in dhtml is a challenge, and its a lot of fun


    You're right, you can do whatever you want with technology.
    I have a question for you.

    Are you going to make games with XAML even though you know nobody on FFox on win and or on mac or linux will be able to access the content?




    No!
     
    Apart from the challenge, the whole reason I started doing games in dhtml is because I wanted the content to be available to *everyone* regardless of OS or browser. At the time (several years ago) Flash wasn't that common. Using the DOM seemed the best way. And it was a challenge. Many people thought that you could only do image swaps in javascript. A friend of mine (who wrote a lot of dhtml games) showed me that a lot more is possible.

    So, the idea is to make games that are platform independent. That's why they are coded to standards. They run on Mac in safari at full speed. They run on Linux firefox pretty nicely, and they run on any machine with Internet Explorer. Early mozilla browsers ran my content very smoothly (as good as IE). Their engine broke, but now they've fixed it.

    See my point? If my stuff is standards compliant, then anyone should be able to view it. Its not my fault that the Firefox rendering engine broke. I'm sure that if it hadn't then I would not read comments that imply that dhtml should not be used for games.

  • User profile image
    Rossj

    Have you tested your games with Safari 2 yet?  I'll try em out tomorrow night if not.

  • User profile image
    phunky_avoc​ado

    Cider wrote:
    I've never really understood why Firefox carries on counting their downloads because, yes, we know ther are quite a few downloads.  However, it doesn't really reflect usage and is artificially high because it counts all those people (including myself) who can't get the blasted autoupdate to work.  But even then, its skewed because you can't tell those who use MSIs to distribute to larger environments.

    And anyway, for the Windows-using downloaders, IE will still be on their system...

    Can't they just leave it as "significant numbers" and then go off and do something less boring instead?


  • User profile image
    Charles

    Maurits wrote:

    Firefox is nice but not perfect.  No browser is.


    Exactly correct. Now, replace "Firefox" and "browser" in the above statement with "software" and you've got a strong axiom.

    C

  • User profile image
    Loadsgood

    phunky_avocado wrote:




    Hey Avocado, upload your picture to a server. I recommend getting a Flickr Account. Or you could open access to your hard drive for all of us Niners Wink



    Ink Enabled,
    Loadsgood.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.