Make IE7 more Firefox-ish

I’ve gone on in a previous post about the usefulness of Firefox over IE7. If you have a choice, I reiterate my recommendation of Firefox.

That’s not to say IE7 is a terrible browser; far from it. It does what it’s supposed to do and does it well. Further, there are many environments where Firefox won’t be an option. If that’s the case, here’s something I think you’ll like:

It’s called IE7Pro, and it’s a free add-on Internet Explorer 7. IE7Pro adds many features that make IE7 more Firefox-like. It includes advanced tabbed browsing management, a download manager, spell check for web form entries, quick searching, and more.

Here’s where to get it: http://www.ie7pro.com/

The best feature? In my estimation, it’s the ability to restore a browser crash to the tabs you had open at the time of the crash. This feature alone is reason to switch to Firefox, but if you have Ie7Pro, it levels the playing field somewhat.

Also available is the ability to automatically refresh a tab at a specified interval. If you visit a site that you need to refresh frequently, you might try selecting the tab, right-clicking the IE7Pro icon in the status bar, choosing Refresh Current Tab, and then selecting a refresh interval.

And, like with Firefox, IE7Pro includes a tool that allows you to capture an entire web page to a .jpeg, .gif, or.png file.

In short, give IE7Pro a try, If you’re using IE7 as your primary (or only) browser, you’ll be glad you did.

Save time when browsing with Firefox

Firefox is the best browser available. Period.

Don't take my word for it...feel free to check out any of these reviews from CNET, PCWorld, or InfoWorld.

I've used it on two platforms now (Windows and OSX), and it beats IE and Safari hands-down in terms of features, convenience, and speed.

One of the best things about Firefox is that it's Open Source-based. This means that developers are able to provide free browser extensions, themes, plugins, add-ons, etc. No, you won't use all of them, but some are a godsend.

A couple of examples:

• FireFTP – an FREE, integrated FTP client within Firefox with a great interface. No need for a seperate FTP application.
• IE Tab – a great little status bar icon that can immediately render the current browser page using the IE engine WITHIN Firefox. Great for when you stumble on a page that requires use of IE7 to render properly (I can't think of any, but that's what it's for).
• Screen grab – this is a great one when you're doing research...it allows you to either copy or save a webpage as an image, including an option to save the entire page or just the section currently visible on the screen.

To grab some of these add-ons, use Firefox's Tools | Add-Ons menu. Then just look for the Get Add-ons button and you're on your way.

5 reasons why Windows Vista is a dud

Someone sent me an interesting op/ed piece by techrepublic's Jason Hiner about the fall of Windows Vista. I'm going to cut out all the boring parts and give you the digest version here, include my reaction, and then ask for your comments/experience by clicking on the 'comments link below.

I want to add from the outset here that it gives me no joy to post this - I make, and have made, my living over the past 10 years largely because of the Windows operating system. I just happen to share Hiner's conclusion, though, that Windows Vista has been largely a failure.

And if you really want to click over to the the full techrepublic article click here.

5. Apple successfully demonized Vista

Apple’s clever I’m a Mac ads have successfully driven home the perception that Windows Vista is buggy, boring, and difficult to use.

Not really. Apple just makes good ads, period, and the I'm a Mac ads have more than jumped the shark in my opinion. I don't really think that corporate CIO's are swayed much by Justin Long. In fairness, Justin did make his screen debut in Galaxy Quest as plucky nerd Brandon (the one who was being nagged my his folks about taking out the trash before saving the crew of the NSEA Protector), so I could be wrong on that one.

4. Windows XP is too entrenched

In 2001, when Windows XP was released, there were about 600 million computers in use worldwide. Over 80% of them were running Windows but it was split between two code bases: Windows 95/98 (65%) and Windows NT/2000 (26%), according to IDC.

In 2008, there are now over 1.1 billion PCs in use worldwide and over 70% of them are running Windows XP... which makes (XP) the most widely installed operating system of all time. That’s a lot of inertia to overcome.

Yes... I would also argue that for users of Windows 95/98 (and he forgot to mention Me), the move to Windows XP represented a huge leap forward in terms of reliability - XP just didn't crash like its predecessors did. For Windows NT/2000 users, it represented a leap forward in terms of compatibility and deployment.

3. Vista is too slow

With Windows Vista, software bloat appears to have finally caught up with Microsoft.

This software bloat has had the effect of slowing down Windows Vista, especially when it’s running on anything but the latest and fastest hardware. Even then, the latest version of Windows XP soundly outperforms the latest version of Microsoft Vista. No one wants to use a new computer that is slower than their old one.

Yes, yes, triple yes. Let me state this as clearly as I can: Vista is dog slow. Your new computer - the one with two processors, 2GB of RAM, a SATA hard drive, and a 128 mb RAM graphics card - shouldn't be your slowest comptuer. Yet with Windows Vista installed, somehow it is.

This is what I want feedback most about. I've used 6 machines with Windows Vista, and in all 6 cases, have been shocked at how poor performance was for the most routine of tasks. Share your anecdotal evidence with me by clicking on the link below this entry.

Microsoft needs to make an OS with less code, not more.

2. There wasn’t supposed to be a Vista

It’s easy to forget that when Microsoft launched Windows XP it was actually trying to change its OS business model to move away from shrink-wrapped software and convert customers to software subscribers.

The master plan was to get users and businesses to pay a yearly subscription fee for the Windows experience — XP would essentially be the on-going product name but would include all software upgrades and updates, as long as you paid for your subscription. That’s why product activation was coupled with Windows XP.

The idea of doing incremental releases and upgrades of its software — rather than a major shrink-wrapped release every 3-5 years — was a good concept. Microsoft just couldn’t figure out how to make the business model work, but instead of figuring out how to get it right, it took the easy route and went back to an old model that was simply not very well suited to the economic and technical realities of today’s IT world.

I don't think this is right, and I wish Mr. Hiner would have cited a source here.

First, is he saying that Microsoft never planned a next version of Windows after XP? I doubt that.

Second, I worked at Microsoft for two years, and never heard a word about moving to a subscription model. I'm not saying that what Mr Hiner reports isn't fact, I'm just saying that I was pretty close to the actuall sales of software to partners and the public, and never heard it mentioned.

Even if accurate, I don't see how this would have much of an effect on Vista sales either way.

1. It broke too much stuff

One of the big reasons that Windows XP caught on was because it had the hardware, software, and driver compatibility of the Windows 9x line plus the stability and industrial strength of the Windows NT line. The compatibility issue was huge. Having a single, highly-compatible Windows platform simplified the computing experience for users, IT departments, and software and hardware vendors.

Microsoft either forgot or disregarded that fact when it released Windows Vista, because, despite a long beta period, a lot of existing software and hardware were not compatible with Vista when it was released in January 2007. Since many important programs and peripherals were unusable in Vista, that made it impossible for a lot of IT departments to adopt it.

Many of the incompatibilities were the result of tighter security... (Vista) was definitely the most secure OS that Microsoft had ever released but the price was user-hostile features such as UAC, a far more complicated set of security prompts that accompanied many basic tasks, and a host of software incompatibility issues. In order words, Vista broke a lot of the things that users were used to doing in XP.

Agree with this sentiment as well; it's a corollary of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" maxim, something along the lines of, "if it makes things worse, it's not an upgrade, is it?"

Exhibit A: my laptop computer that I use for writing, listening to music, and Internet.

Something crashes or locks up almost daily. The only way to improve the System Stability Chart is to turn off the machine for days at a time - then is doesn't crash.

The deal is simply this: too much stuff doesn't work with Windows Vista, or at least it didn't long enough into its release to make IT departments stay away in droves. I haven't taught a single Vista class where I'm not asked about how to disable User Account Control, which is a well-intentioned, yet unmitigated disaster, especially for home users, who don't' want to be asked to either 'Continue' or 'Cancel' every time they do anything to their machine.

And some additional food for thought: Apple's OSX also has a version of User Account Control. Ever heard about it? Of course not, because it's implemented so much more unobtrusively than User Account Control.