Just remove the browser integration, and pdf files will open in their own window (not in a browser window). I hate the pdf integration into the browser (IE or Firefox, or whatever), so I always turn that feature off in adobe reader. I'm sure that Acrobat pro must have the same preference. It's in one of the 'options' or preferences panes. Once you do that, you shouldn't have a problem opening them in firefox.

-David

MSN Messneger 7.5 comes with MSN toolbar and includes tabbed browsing. tbh It's a pretty poor attempt at implementing tabbed browsing. I'd stick with Firefox.

Curious, what problems are you having with Marriott.com and Firefox? I use it for all my on-line reservations, and haven't seen any significant rendering issues.

I just booked a stay last night, as a matter of fact . . .

Gee, I don't have any problems with security, or spyware, or any of the other myriad boogeymen the slashdot crowd always warn about. IE works just fine for me, and I think the tabbed addition in IE7 is pretty cool.

Besides, firefox is slow, and I just don't like the way it works. And I don't like having to install a pile of extensions just to bring it up to basic functionality. Does it have a "stop sucking" extension?

when sites don't render correctly outside IE, it is a result of poor programming. Firefox follows standards. Microsoft IE does its own thing. Hopefully such sites will disappear.

This statement on its own shows that, unfortunately, you seem to have little idea of what you are talking about. Extensions make Firefox way more useful than MSIE could ever hope to be, not simply "bring it up to basic functionality."

So you're disputing the assertation that as OS's or applications rise in popularity/general use, more viruses and expliots are uncovered?

If you're an virus/exploit author are you going to target IE, opera, or firefox? windows, Mac, or linux.

I'm sure that those stories would be the same regardless of any 'silver bullet' OS/browser. In other words, poor computer hygiene is poor computer hygiene no matter that OS or application.

It isn't hard to install XP SP2, and it isn't hard to turn autoupdate on.

These 'strangers' are likely the same dumbasses that get sucked in by paypal or credit card phishing scams, and complain about them later too...

You're missing the equivalent keystorkes in FF. <Ctrl> 1, <Ctrl> 2, <Ctrl> 3, etc sets the focus to Tab 1, 2 or 3. <Ctrl> T opens a new tab, and sets the focus on it. Completely intuitvie once you get used to them.


P.S:
A full list of all key shortcuts here: http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/keyboard

Nope. I'm saying that the article you cited is alarmist, one sided, agenda pushing crap. I specifically did not say that Firefox bulletproof, or that there aren't plenty of exploits for it. That said, IE's exploits tend to be more severe, and tend to be unpatched longer. IE also has the giant gaping security hole known as ActiveX, which is insecure by design.


There's some truth that the larger the platform the bigger the target. It's not any where near the whole story though. You ask whether a virus writer should choose Mac or Windows for the target. It depends on the goal of the virus. Those who are attempting to gain control of machines to create zombies should target Windows. There's lots more machines, and it's much easier to do. On the other hand, some virus writers are just looking for glory and attention. Some of those guys target Macs, because there's lots more glory in writing the first OSX virus than in writing yet another windows virus.

Yes, that may be, but what are the advantages of tabbed browsing vs multiple IE windows? There's no advantage if it's just different keystrokes. I'm sure I'm missing something.

You can only see one page at a time whether you've tabs or multiple windows. Yes, you can have other tabs loading in the background while you read the current page, but you can do the same with multiple browser windows. Do you save computer resource if you run 1 instance of FF vs multiple instances of IE?

Performance-wise, I find FF average out to be the same as IE. Some sites are better with IE, some with FF. I agree with the point of the lack of standards in IE, (that gives us a big headache at our work). But performance on a page-by-page basis isn't what we're talking about.

I've a big screen at high resolution, so I can have 2 browser windows running side by side, I hop across to each one. Also, I like my computer to be lean and without programs that are not must-have's. Therefore, I just stick with IE - it does what I need. (I suspect this is the kind of attitude Microsoft like customers to have - too lazy to move to something else, but that's a separate discussion altogether...)

ActiveX was reigned in with SP2.

Less severe? How about running firefox on linux and it allowing a url to do shell execution?.

Look, I think firefox is an excellent product. 1.0.7 is loaded on my machine and I use it about 30% of the time. I'm just sick of the smug anti-windows crowd crowing on how much MS sucks at security when the products they run are every bit as bad. The only difference is that no one seems to bother to write expoits for the sub 5% marketshare space.

no, they aren't as bad.

1. With Firefox et al, peer review through open source makes it more secure than proprietary closed code bases.

2. Windows is usually run in the equivalent of root, which isn't as secure

3. Windows is built with an enormous amount of services and code running that nobody seems to understand. Linux is all open and people understand what goes on in it.