I'm giving Firefox another chance on my system just out of daftness but I see there is still one VERY irritating bug remaining in this (and yes, probably others but I havent yet come across them) and that is, when clicking the BACK button on the browser, on many sites, it appears that the browser will return to the previous page as expected, but it will go to the top of that page, regardless of whether you were at the top previously. This means constant scrolling to get back to where you were. Does anyone know of a fix?

Errrrrrrrr on my PC IE does the same.

I'm giving Firefox another chance on my system just out of daftness but I see there is still one VERY irritating bug remaining in this (and yes, probably others but I havent yet come across them) and that is, when clicking the BACK button on the browser, on many sites, it appears that the browser will return to the previous page as expected, but it will go to the top of that page, regardless of whether you were at the top previously. This means constant scrolling to get back to where you were. Does anyone know of a fix?

mine doesnt do that.

:confused:

EDIT: Some sites work... others dont :thumbdwn:

This means constant scrolling to get back to where you were. Does anyone know of a fix?

Mine does the same - can't say it really bother me until you pointed out. Now it's really annoying

Chris

I've seen it do that, but generally it then bounces back to where you were. There are some sites that don't work too well with Firefox, but its generally where they have designed something specific for IE or Netscape (bad form IMHO). One of these is the National Lottery site, where you can browse the site, but you can't buy a ticket using Firefox, you have to use IE

I've seen it do that, but generally it then bounces back to where you were. There are some sites that don't work too well with Firefox, but its generally where they have designed something specific for IE or Netscape (bad form IMHO). One of these is the National Lottery site, where you can browse the site, but you can't buy a ticket using Firefox, you have to use IE

I am just so used to IE that Firefox feels alien and ackward to use. I suppose I will get used to it. Thing is if too many people strat using it, the spyware and virus writers will cop on and start targetting it as well.

i think it is to do with the whole page not loading before you proceed. i think you have to wait for it to load then it will return to where you were.

I think this helps

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=49946&highlight=

i think it is to do with the whole page not loading before you proceed. i think you have to wait for it to load then it will return to where you were.

I think this helps

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=49946&highlight=

Firefox does seem to be slow (both on my office PIII-600Mhz with ethernet and with my home PC (Celeron 2.2Ghz with 512K broad band) at opening pages compared with IE.. Often have to wait a perceptible lengh of time for graphics etc to load, where as the same page in IE appears fully formed instantaneously (as far as the human eye is concerned).

That thread is about caching and re-checking the server for updates. What pbirkett is talking about is positioning within the page. My opinion, FWIW, is that this is more likely an "extra" that's implemented in IE, rather than a "bug" in firefox.

Firefox does seem to be slow (both on my office PIII-600Mhz with ethernet and with my home PC (Celeron 2.2Ghz with 512K broad band) at opening pages compared with IE.. Often have to wait a perceptible lengh of time for graphics etc to load, where as the same page in IE appears fully formed instantaneously (as far as the human eye is concerned).

:agree: Well partly - I think Firefox is no slower than IE, but certainly not particularly faster either, despite the hype about smaller footprint, etc. I'm using it for tabbed browsing, and that's it.

Thing is if too many people strat using it, the spyware and virus writers will cop on and start targetting it as well.

Why do you assume that the firefox developers will be as slow as releasing patches as Microsoft?

(Also, FF isn't integrated into windows like IE so the chances for exploits are surely lower?)

Edit: Also, because IE is badly written (judging by the number of patches, fixes and service packs), does that mean all browsers are?

Why do you assume that the firefox developers will be as slow as releasing patches as Microsoft?

(Also' date=' FF isn't integrated into windows like IE so the chances for exploits are surely lower?)

Edit: Also, because IE is badly written (judging by the number of patches, fixes and service packs), does that mean all browsers are?[/quote']

Criminals always stay ahead of the security efforts, they find ways around. I would not say IE is badly written, it does it job perfectly. Is it MS fault that criminals want to damge peoples PC and steal from them etc? No. Also I would say that the problem is not bad programming but simply the complexity of modern programming making it impossible to have everything water tight (not that perfectly secure will ever exist). Therefore I would sy the most likely reason that people running Unix, MacOs and browsers like Firefox and Netscape have less problems is that as 99% of computer users use Windows and IE, it is as yet not worth looking at hacking these other systems.

type about:config in the address bar, search for nglayout.initialpaint.delay and change that value to 0. Thats the ms it waits before loading graphics. It will speed it up.

The only reason IE is faster (for the time being) is because your internet cache is 1/2 your hard disk. It will go painful soon and much slower

Peope will and do hack unix and mac os. They even hack symbian OS for phones! Windows is badly written as they create bugs that shouldnt be apparent, the worst one being denial of service, or malicious execution, which has just been addressed by AMD. Unix has had it software side for ages now. At the end of the day, its money. If microsoft fix it before realeasing it, they lose money. If they release it and fix it later, money comes in faster.

I would not say IE is badly written, it does it job perfectly.

It is badly written - look at how many patches, fixes, updates and service packs have been released directly as a result of 'exploits' from sloppy code.

Granted, for most purposes, it works just fine and most people will happily use it without ever having a problem. Others will stumble across the wrong page, and suddenly find themselves besieged with popups and links to hardcore porn thanks to adware/malware/spyware being installed through the exploits (and they are very difficult to remove once they get their claws in).

Is it MS fault that criminals want to damge peoples PC and steal from them etc? No.

Of course not. Although mostly criminals depend on social engineering - using phishing and the stupidity of users - rather than the "hacking" you might see in the movies.

Also I would say that the problem is not bad programming but simply the complexity of modern programming making it impossible to have everything water tight (not that perfectly secure will ever exist).

If it's not bad programming, why are there security holes for people to exploit? Firefox and the other browsers aren't perfect either - it's just that the potential impact is generally lower than what can happen if you use IE on a windows system.

Therefore I would sy the most likely reason that people running Unix, MacOs and browsers like Firefox and Netscape have less problems is that as 99% of computer users use Windows and IE, it is as yet not worth looking at hacking these other systems.

Where do you get this 99% figure?

There's also the possibility that those in the *nix and Mac world get better/faster support when problems do arise - a lot of software is open source so many people can look at what's happening and suggest a fix, instead of depending on MS to analyse the problem and sort out a fix.

At the end of the day I use FF more than IE - mainly for the extensions (esp. for web development) but also for security. And the tabbed browsing. And the cute fox logo I have to use IE at work, and regularly help colleagues who suddenly find shortcuts to "nasty hot porn" on their desktops, or get popups trying to sell them ringtones...

It is badly written - look at how many patches, fixes, updates and service packs have been released directly as a result of 'exploits' from sloppy code.

Granted, for most purposes, it works just fine and most people will happily use it without ever having a problem. Others will stumble across the wrong page, and suddenly find themselves besieged with popups and links to hardcore porn thanks to adware/malware/spyware being installed through the exploits (and they are very difficult to remove once they get their claws in).

How is a popup the result of "sloppy code", Stimps? Methinks the browser is doing what it is told by the website. Maybe Firefox is better because it has extensions to allow you to block popups, but I don't see how not blocking them is "sloppy".

Of course not. Although mostly criminals depend on social engineering - using phishing and the stupidity of users - rather than the "hacking" you might see in the movies.

And Firefox prevents that how, exactly?

If it's not bad programming, why are there security holes for people to exploit? Firefox and the other browsers aren't perfect either - it's just that the potential impact is generally lower than what can happen if you use IE on a windows system.

I think it's the integration with Windows that makes it more vulnerable, although Firefox would still have access to the same system calls via Java that IE does. It just has a more paranoid approach.

Where do you get this 99% figure?

It's certainly in the 90s, I would suggest.

There's also the possibility that those in the *nix and Mac world get better/faster support when problems do arise - a lot of software is open source so many people can look at what's happening and suggest a fix, instead of depending on MS to analyse the problem and sort out a fix.

I'm not totally sold on this open source idea - just means a lot of well-meaning (or not) university students etc. get to hack around with the code.

At the end of the day I use FF more than IE - mainly for the extensions (esp. for web development) but also for security. And the tabbed browsing. And the cute fox logo I have to use IE at work, and regularly help colleagues who suddenly find shortcuts to "nasty hot porn" on their desktops, or get popups trying to sell them ringtones...

Tabbed browsing - check

Cute fox logo - check

Web development - what?

The rest - hmmmm

I have to use IE at work, and regularly help colleagues who suddenly find shortcuts to "nasty hot porn" on their desktops, or get popups trying to sell them ringtones...

But is this the browser's fault, or the user's? I've used IE for ages, and never had this sort of problem. Other people I know do. Their story is usually along the lines of "well, I was sent this link in an e-mail"...in which case, if the user is accepting to install stuff, then it could happen as likely in Firefox.

And if it isn't as likely to happen, is that not just down to reduced functionality in Firefox?

Rob.

How is a popup the result of "sloppy code", Stimps? Methinks the browser is doing what it is told by the website. Maybe Firefox is better because it has extensions to allow you to block popups, but I don't see how not blocking them is "sloppy".

Sorry - bad terminology on my part. I meant popups generated by spyware (which had originally installed thru IE. I've had them at work, and we can't get to anything overtly dodgy)

And Firefox prevents that how, exactly?

Did I say it did? I said most crims would go for the human angle rather than trying to "hack into" a PC and steal credit card numbers.

I think it's the integration with Windows that makes it more vulnerable, although Firefox would still have access to the same system calls via Java that IE does. It just has a more paranoid approach.

Although it was the MS version of Java that allowed spyware to be installed by only visiting a page, not the sun version?

It's certainly in the 90s, I would suggest.

High 80s to low 90s, IIRC

I'm not totally sold on this open source idea - just means a lot of well-meaning (or not) university students etc. get to hack around with the code.

It has advantages and disadvantages. You're also assuming the same student types aren't doing the coding for MS Most open source stuff has some kind of official team who check changes and release them, I believe?

Web development - what?

An extension that added a "web develoment" option to the right-click menu. You can turn use it to do loads of nifty stuff when you're playing with pages, especially sorting out the stylesheets. Of little use if you're just browsing though. (although ctrl-shift-d to remove stylesheets is sometimes helpful)

Although it was the MS version of Java that allowed spyware to be installed by only visiting a page, not the sun version?

Surely you can disable this in the security tab, though?

An extension that added a "web develoment" option to the right-click menu. You can turn use it to do loads of nifty stuff when you're playing with pages, especially sorting out the stylesheets. Of little use if you're just browsing though. (although ctrl-shift-d to remove stylesheets is sometimes helpful)

Ooh - tell me more - always struggling with stylesheets - pesky things! What extension is this?

But is this the browser's fault' date=' or the user's? I've used IE for ages, and never had this sort of problem. Other people I know do. Their story is usually along the lines of "well, I was sent this link in an e-mail"...in which case, if the user is accepting to install stuff, then it could happen as likely in Firefox.

And if it isn't as likely to happen, is that not just down to reduced functionality in Firefox? [/quote']As you may know, us folk here in the NHS enjoy cutting-edge hardware and software. It turned out that most of the PCs were vulnerable to a flaw in the MS java machine (clicky). People would google for information and follow a link to a page exploiting this hole, and end up with shortcuts on desktop/start menu to hardcore porn, as well as popups generated by the adware. Deleting the files would do nothing as processes in memory would rebuild them...

All this from just visiting the "wrong" webpage :eek: You can imagine that the techies sorted out a better updating system soon after they had to go fix loads of similar problems...

All this from just visiting the "wrong" webpage :eek:

I wonder how many problems are actually real security flaws though, rather than people just making out "it just happened, I wasn't looking for pr0n/warez, honest, and I most certainly didn't click any buttons which said 'Yes' on them"...

Rob.

Surely you can disable this in the security tab' date=' though?

Ooh - tell me more - always struggling with stylesheets - pesky things! What extension is this?[/quote']You or I could easily turn off Java or update it, but not everyone is able to (installing stuff is locked down for most people here at work and half of them struggle with a mouse)...

Web Developer extension: http://www.chrispederick.com/work/firefox/webdeveloper/

I wonder how many problems are actually real security flaws though' date=' rather than people just making out "it just happened, I wasn't looking for pr0n/warez, honest, and I most certainly didn't click any buttons which said 'Yes' on them"...

Rob.[/quote']Well, they would have to log a call with the helpdesk....

From that bulletin:

Java applets are disabled within the Restricted Sites Zone

- so you could change your security settings to prevent it, I believe.

Edit: ignore me - I see you type faster than I do

Web Developer extension: http://www.chrispederick.com/work/firefox/webdeveloper/

Thank you, kind sir. Now (don't laugh) is there such a thing as a free/share ware GUI css editor? Methinks there ought to be, but I've never found one, so I rely on a text editor (and I'm not the greatest at css, so it's painful)