Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Firefox

During the Holiday Season I downloaded Firefox to my laptop; and it was perhaps the only gift I didn't have to pay for. A lot of people had mentioned it to me and its advantages over the iExplorer, and it seemed that I was the only one who wasn't using it. So I had to do it. And now that I've done it, I'm gona blog it.

I'm gona stay stay in the dark side for while y'all The iExplorer has been good to me in the past, I do have to say it, and I don't have any complaints about it. Even though the word on the street is that MSoft is the "Evil Empire" and w'all should try to undermine it using open source software, the truth is that the iExplorer and I have had a long and stable relationship throughout the years. But I'm also aware that is hard to tell how good it has been to me because I've had only one choice, the iExplorer, so how can I compare different products and come up with a real and thoroughly answer? That's the main reason why I got the Firefox: to see if I've been living in a mirage, in a complete lie, perhaps in a world that resembles the Matrix and Firefox is the white rabbit [follow the white rabbit Neo. . .] that once installed and running I'll be able to witness a whole new world out there!

Well, I have it now and that Brave New World doesn't refresh as often as the iExplorer does. Complain número uno.

I've been using both browsers randomly for the last couple of weeks: I'll check a blog with one while reading the news with the other, or one day I'll use only one, etc; random shit at its best. And I've noticed that Firefox doesn't refresh pages as often [or as good?] as the iExplorer does. I checked some blogs one day, and when I came back a couple days later I saw that the posts I had read were gone, and some old ones were in place. So I did what a regular non-computer human being would do to see WTF was going on: hit the refresh button and voilá the missing posts were there! The same happened after posting a comment and going back to the page to see that there's zero comments [have to hit refresh again] and so on.

I thought for a moment that I'd done something wrong when installing it, but if to carefully follow all the steps in the installation wizard means that I fucked it up, then all this open source software bullshit is not for me after all: long life to the Evil Empire! But I came to the conclusion that it just doesn't reload that often. . . not big deal really.

I also had a complain número dos, but I've forgotten what it was. Maybe it wasn't a big deal. Oh, I remember, and it wasn't actually a complain, just a comentario. My geek friends told me that Firefox was faster than the iExplorer, and I'm sure they're right, but to my naked eye there's just no difference whatsoever when it comes to speed. Maybe the difference is almost a 100%, being Firefox twice as fast than its rival loading web pages, but a difference between 0.5 and 0.8 seconds is for me the same shit.

So I got it, I used it, and I blog it [veni, vidi, vinci]; and now is time to get under my blanket and my brand new bed sheets 'cause tomorrow is gona be un día muy largo para mí­.

5 Comments:

Blogger la flaquita kindly said...

but the awesome things about firefox:

1. tabs (instead of opening another window you can open another tab!)

2. skins (you can go to their website and download free skins for firefox!)

oh my god i know how terrible it is to have to click the mouse a few extra times per day... so let's estimate it takes .0025 seconds to move the cursor to the refresh button and click, and that you exert 0.5 lbs of force (that's roughly 2.0 N, i think) in doing so (it's an old mouse and some dust and other garbage has gotten between the buttons) so that's like 0.0025 watts of power, and let's estimate that you refresh like thirty times a day so that's like 0.075 watts so wait a second it's not so bad!

et c'est ca lequel j'ai appris dans le parque du physique.

Thu Jan 12, 03:58:00 PM EST  
Blogger la flaquita kindly said...

ok so i forgot a step... let's say that in one click your index finger moves on average 0.25 cm (throughout the entire click) ok so 2.0N times 0.0025m (because work equals force times displacement) is um... somthing; and divide that something by 0.0025s (power is work over time) and you get 2 watts.

so there's your example of how my trip to the physics playground has affected the way i think (which may or may not be a good thing!)

Thu Jan 12, 10:30:00 PM EST  
Blogger Jean-Francois kindly said...

ok
tabs: I like them;
skins: I haven't looked into it, but I'll certainly need one with a HUGE refresh button!

And dear God it is not terrible, but heart breaking and exhausting after eight hours working and two hours in the gym trying to get some killer abs to come back home and have to hit the refresh button like crazy to see if what I'm seeing is really what I should be seeing or is some undated material that I already saw!

And a word about your calculations my favorite physics girl: to move the cursor ALL the way to the refresh button takes longer than .0025s for me (you should've known by now that I'm very slow) and if you add all the times I have to hit the refresh button we're talking about some serious time here (and as time = money we're talking about a hell of a lot of $$$$) not to mention the energy involved considering that I'm exhausted due to the gym (it requires more effort = more energy consumed/wasted). Call it MBA101

As I side note I'd say that if we throw into the ecuación a) my calorie intake a day (around one million) b) my fit Latin Lover Body c) my kick ass Logitech mouse d)the time and energy consumed writing that post and answering your kind words my darling.... I'll stick to the Evil Empire and the iExplorer! Long life to MSoft!

PS. Coal is sooooo cheap and plentiful in the world that 1 watt=less than a penny splitted in two, therefore energy consumption wise=no big deal.

Thu Jan 12, 10:42:00 PM EST  
Blogger la flaquita kindly said...

exactly.

Thu Jan 12, 11:27:00 PM EST  
Blogger Jean-Francois kindly said...

You mean like... exactly 100% or kind of close to almost exactly?

Thu Jan 12, 11:38:00 PM EST  

Post a Comment

<< Home