Amaury
Well-known member
Okay, I'll say this.. developers should really stop using the same setup for ages and then suddenly change it
It's the same setup, just a different design. Nothing wrong with that.
Okay, I'll say this.. developers should really stop using the same setup for ages and then suddenly change it
I disagree.It's the same setup, just a different design. Nothing wrong with that.
I disagree.
This.Change where change is warranted is fine. What *benefit* did Firefox's UI bring to clone Chrome's?
Change where change is warranted is fine. What *benefit* did Firefox's UI bring to clone Chrome's?
Change for the sake of change is an utter waste. You throw out something that works perfectly well, build something new that needs to be tested, honed and proven. And for what?
Change should mean either you're going *from* something or going *to* something. That you either move from something broken by fixing its deficits, or you move to something by adding to it. Merely making something different, basically for the sake of it, is no justification.
So, I will say it again: what actual benefit did this UI change bring? Did it fix any bugs? Does it make it faster? Lower memory footprint? Does it add new features?
From what I gather, it is a change for the sake of change, with an element of chasing the market rival in the hopes perhaps of boosting popularity. That's not what Mozilla was founded on, nor what it has come to represent over the last decade.
They may have just felt that it was time for a change...or there may be things in the works that rely on changes to the architecture of the ui and maybe while they were changing it why not give it a facelift. Either way until an official statement and/or real world tests were to be made anything said is speculation including my own opinions.Change for the sake of change is an utter waste. You throw out something that works perfectly well, build something new that needs to be tested, honed and proven. And for what?
So, I will say it again: what actual benefit did this UI change bring? Did it fix any bugs? Does it make it faster? Lower memory footprint? Does it add new features?
From what I gather, it is a change for the sake of change, with an element of chasing the market rival in the hopes perhaps of boosting popularity. That's not what Mozilla was founded on, nor what it has come to represent over the last decade.
It's not some massive issue, but it's not something I personally like. Matter of opinion and personal taste, I agree. But saying it's "just fine" or that there's "nothing wrong with it" is as well.I would understand if this was some groundbreaking change that transformed the core of Firefox.. I agree it probably wasn't necessary to change, but it did and that's just fine.
Speaking of someone who only uses the stable version, it was a surprise to me. Seeing as the average user tends to be even less informed than I am, there's a good chance a lot of people were caught by surprise regardless.This has been in the works for years (Australis) and people had plenty of time to voice their concerns and opinions on it before the change took place in the stable version. It wasn't some unheard of surprise.
On the other hand, a big majority of the people still uses Internet Explorer and plenty even still used Windows XP. Not to mention that saying "people use Chrome so they must like the UI" is a bit of an assumption.And I might argue the new UI is already tested, honed, and proven.. by Chrome's success and popularity. As an avid Chrome user who previously used Firefox since 2.0 I am actually considering going back to FF for the first time in years. And that's exactly what they're shooting for.
Tons of people had/have migrated from Firefox to Chrome, clearly willing to use Chrome's UI.. I'm sure Mozilla took into account that some people would hate the changes.. but many will like them too.
And I did (more or less) just that.What's more is FF has such a great addon API that the old look can be emulated. There's even an official Mozilla support article on how to accomplish this.
Definitely, though I meant more them making UI changes is fine.. not the design itself. I disagree that making changes for the sake of making changes is inherently a poor decision.It's not some massive issue, but it's not something I personally like. Matter of opinion and personal taste, I agree. But saying it's "just fine" or that there's "nothing wrong with it" is as well.
No doubt, though it's not the first time the UI has changed drastically. However I suppose the relatively new auto updater probably left a lot more people feeling caught off-guard this time. I would point a finger at Mozilla for not communicating the changes well, I just think they definitely left the door open for people who carry strong opinions about the project and its updates to peer inside and give feedback.Speaking of someone who only uses the stable version, it was a surprise to me. Seeing as the average user tends to be even less informed than I am, there's a good chance a lot of people were caught by surprise regardless.
Only, I didn't assume they must like the UI or claim that's even the reason people made the switch in the first place.. but they're clearly willing to put up with it every time they want to use the internet, which I reckon makes up a lot of their time on a computer.On the other hand, a big majority of the people still uses Internet Explorer and plenty even still used Windows XP. Not to mention that saying "people use Chrome so they must like the UI" is a bit of an assumption.
Nope.Most browsers out there are based off of of Chrome or Firefox, including Opera now.
Palemoon is Chromium based, and Aviator is Firefox based.
Well, changing things for the sake of changing things ultimately serves no purpose. If they try to improve something (which is probably the case, otherwise why do it?) it has some purpose, it's just left to opinions whether or not it's a good purpose / change I guess.Definitely, though I meant more them making UI changes is fine.. not the design itself. I disagree that making changes for the sake of making changes is inherently a poor decision.
Definitely, and if suddenly the whole userbase would complain about it, I'm sure they'd change it back anyway.No doubt, though it's not the first time the UI has changed drastically. However I suppose the relatively new auto updater probably left a lot more people feeling caught off-guard this time. I would point a finger at Mozilla for not communicating the changes well, I just think they definitely left the door open for people who carry strong opinions about the project and its updates to peer inside and give feedback.
Yes, I agree, but:Only, I didn't assume they must like the UI or claim that's even the reason people made the switch in the first place.. but they're clearly willing to put up with it every time they want to use the internet, which I reckon makes up a lot of their time on a computer.
Google's pretty big on R&D, being a marketing agency at the core. I think if enough people were having any fundamental problems with the UI they would have made some changes over the past.. 5+ years.
Well, I agree the change was made with the goal of improving the interface.. and that whether or not it is actually an improvement is down to the end user's opinion. I was referring to @Arantor's post calling it "change for the sake of change."Well, changing things for the sake of changing things ultimately serves no purpose. If they try to improve something (which is probably the case, otherwise why do it?) it has some purpose, it's just left to opinions whether or not it's a good purpose / change I guess.
Actually, that was exactly my point. While surely many will not like the new look, people are going to put up with it anyways.The other point is that "putting up with something" doesn't tell much either. I complained about the change but still use FireFox (and would have done so even if I wouldn't have been able to use an addon to change it), because I like it the most. Even if I thought the UI was horrible I probably would have stuck with FireFox as I'm the most familiar with it and I like the other browsers less.
I only meant to contribute my thoughts as well, in a respectful manner. I apologize if it seemed like I was calling you out in particular. I always look forward to hearing divergent thoughts and opinions and I don't mean for this to be an argument or anything.Anyway, I just wanted to share my thoughts on the changes and I didn't quite intend this whole discussion to start.
Oops, probably did, I've been dealing with an annoying UEFI frozen clock for the last few days so didn't pay much attention.Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Moon_(web_browser)
Think you mixed those two up. Aviator is Chromium based.
No problem. Actually, I'm still stuck on an older version out of preference. I'm now experiencing strange issues with the flash plugin for Firefox. Sometimes it'll freeze the browser and then I get a plugin notice asking me if I want to terminate the plugin. I'm not sure if it's flash related because my flash is older too.Oops, probably did, I've been dealing with an annoying UEFI frozen clock for the last few days so didn't pay much attention.
Thanks for correcting me.
I'm giving Firefox another try (mainly due to being able to use global media keys with Google Play Music) but am still finding it to have all the hang ups I had with it before... Then again, it also has working bookmarks and I didn't realize how much I missed them from using Chropera.
I've tried a few things, including the official "fix" (http://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?36676-Frozen-Time-Clock-in-UEFI-The-Fix) but it comes back after a while.No problem. Actually, I'm still stuck on an older version out of preference. I'm now experiencing strange issues with the flash plugin for Firefox. Sometimes it'll freeze the browser and then I get a plugin notice asking me if I want to terminate the plugin. I'm not sure if it's flash related because my flash is older too.
Remove CMOS battery for 15 sec. doesn't help?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.