Another Website Admits It Doesn't Like Firefox

It always amazes me the number of websites that don't optimize their sites so they can be viewed in Firefox. Verizon did it to me today. I attempted to go on their forums but was unable to. When I switched to IE-no problem. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Then I wrote an e-mail to them complaining about it, & the response was basically-tough. What is wrong with these people? You're running a tech site for wireless phones & you reject users of the #2 browser in the world? And you admit it?

Here's my response: 1. You should be ashamed, you are out of date.
                                 2. You should make things easy for the customer.
                                 3. Whoever made this decision should be fired.

I am completely serious. I have had this issue with other sites. Firefox has 25% share. Why should it have to fight to be supported by a major company? It also brings up the issue of other browsers. The response was it's for IE. You have to register to use the forums in Firefox, but not required in IE. What about Chrome, or is the fact that it's, Google mean you can use it? And what about Safari? Sorry Verizon, but Mac users can't use IE.

This backwards thinking should be gone. Why do we still have to fight?

iTunes Is Confused About Updates

I launched iTunes today & it asked if I wanted to download 10.4. Well I currently have 9.2 on my computer & have kept putting off downloading the new version because of horror stories I have read. Mainly that it either fails to download completely or it loses all your library.

So I finally say yes & instead of getting 10.4, all it wants to load is Mobile Me & a software update. WTF? I mean try to get your act together Apple. I don't need Mobile Me. Don't know what it is, & since I don't have an iPhone or actually any smartphone that would be useless to me. Why is so hard for companies to just update their software without any problems? Mozilla seems to do it. So does CCleaner.

Apple's problem is of course that iTunes updates involve downloading the entire program again, then deleting the old version. This is overkill & wastes time. Just update the program. Why do I need to re-download the entire program? I thought Apple was about doing things easily.

Grooveshark-Terrible Music Program

I see this godawful program being built up on Lifehacker by readers as better than Spotify. What a joke! I just tried to use it again & guess what? I tried three times to hear a certain song. I had clicked on the song, it downloaded it then refused to play it. no matter how many times I clicked it, it wouldn't play.

My suggestion is just to use YouTube. They have just as many videos & frankly they are easier to find. Once Spotify is public I might try it out, but Grooveshark is the Windows version of all the crap music programs on Linux. Unworkable, useless, aggravating, irritating.

Technology Mistakes Rewards Me With Snacks

You gotta love technology screw ups. Even little ones in devices we don't consider "real tech". Like vending machines. Yes there is actually technology involved. How does it know what candy bar you want? Well I hit the key pad numbers that relate to it, but it could still mess up. But it never does, at least as far as dropping what I wanted.

But it can still do things it shouldn't. So I am planning to buy some lottery tickets this week. Why? Because twice in the last month when I've put a dollar in the vending machine at work I've gotten 2 candy bars! I like that. Considering how much money I have spent on that machine in the last 2 years. A dollar a bar when they are 69 cents at the Dollar Tree.

Of course I've also seen the coffee vending machine start pouring out without first dropping a cup, but since that coffee is nasty & I bring my own it doesn't matter!LOL.

Silicon Valley Columnist Idiotically Gives Firefox Obit

It was absolutely amazing to read Chris O'Brien in the San Jose Mercury News claim that Firefox will soon die. Can there be a more misinformed column than that one? Correct me if I'm wrong, but when Internet Explorer goes from 90% share to 42% in 5 years, shouldn't it be that browser talked about going under?

The point of the article seems to be the rapid increase in market share for Google Chrome, a browser I'm not that crazy about. Plus the fact that Google account for 86% of Mozilla's revenue in 2009. Thus what would happen if Google stopped supporting Mozilla?

The writer seems to be saying (using quotes from an IDC analyst)  Mozilla is "groping for a rationale for it's existence". That is absurd. The point is to improve standards & create better browsers. It was never about killing all other browsers. Without Firefox Microsoft would never have improved IE to the point that it meets standards that previously only Firefox & Opera met.

Firefox won't be going away anytime soon. Neither will Internet Explorer. Having choice is a good thing.

Google+ Fastest To 25 Million

This information comes from Reuters right after another site said the number of new users was slowing down. So who to believe?

This actually means nothing. MySpace grew to 25 million faster than Facebook. Who uses MySpace nowadays? Interestingly while the US is the biggest market 2nd place is India, then the UK & Canada. So while it looks good, it actually means nothing. Google Buzz started strong, then when the controversy over privacy happened, it took a nosedive & never recovered.

Yes, 25 million is a lot, especially since it is still in invitation only phase. But so is Spotify, which doesn't seem to really be taking off. I'm not interested in registering there just to listen to songs. As for Google+, I am not on Facebook having deleted my account, so I am in no hurry to try out Google's version. Who really needs it?

Future Versions Of Firefox Look Like Chrome

Tech Crunch has an article with pictures showing a future version of Firefox. The search bar is gone, the tabs are rounded & there's a special menu that if you click turns into a sidebar with things like cut/copy/paste, plus new tab, tab groups(which didn't work for me because they always seemed to disappear)& other things like twitter & some extensions. I know I don't like that!

Why does Mozilla think they have to copy everything Google does? And if they think that then tell me why I should use the copy(Firefox) instead of the original(Chrome)?

Firefox has been around much longer than Chrome, has a higher market share, has more functionality(tons more add-ons) but they seemingly want to be Chrome. They have gone to a faster release cycle seemingly so they can catch up in version numbers. After all Chrome is on #13 despite being only a few years old, while FF is only on #5 & that's because they changed the system on numbering this year. Firefox 5 is really 4.1 or 4.2. Now they want to destroy the UI for Chromes ugly barebones look. I am not impressed.

I will stick with Firefox for now because I like the browser & all it's add-ons. Most of the ones I use are security ones like Adblock Plus & No Script. The Chrome versions are inferior. And because of the way Chrome is designed(each tab is a separate process), it uses more memory than Firefox.