IE7 Beta 2 Will Have A9 OpenSearch
Microsoft has announced several new features for Internet Explorer 7, features that will be present in Beta 2. One of the biggest moves involves search, with IE supporting all manner of search engines. The IE team says they are working with Amazon to support OpenSearch in IE7, letting users populate IE with oodles of search engines. It will even parse sites without OpenSearch RSS feeds by parsing the HTML. Microsoft describes it like subscribing to your favorite search engines, just like you would to an RSS feed.
OpenSearch compatible engines already include IceRocket, the New York Times, About.com. Wikipedia, Flickr, Feedster, Creative Commons, NASA, Furl, Google search, IMDB, Findory, ESPN, Wired, ABC News, USA Today, The Washington Post, UPS Package Tracking; over 260 in total. That doesn’t mean all of those will let IE7 use their results, but they’d be stupid not to, and Microsoft is throwing a lot of weight behind the OpenSearch protocol.
Why is OpenSearch good strategically for Microsoft? Backing any sort of standard that does not belong to Google prevents Google from taking control of that standard, and gives Microsoft more ability to compete and innovate opposite Google. It also means that, unlike with Firefox, Microsoft is using a standard that develops itself independent of the browser, and can thus let users add many search engines to IE without Microsoft having to code them all into the browser.
UPDATE: To clarify: Firefox supports adding all manner of search engines, roughly 4000. However, the mechanism for adding them does not exist within the browser, but on the Mycroft website, requiring users to find the engine they need and click on some JavaScript. The method for removing the installed engines is not available to novice users. Microsoft aims to use an open standard, build an interface on top of it, and make it user-friendly within the browser. I prefer this system, and anyone who has enjoys A9 might say the same.
Microsoft has also announced a QuickTabs feature, which displays live thumbnails by the tabs in the browser. This is a good feature present in AOL Explorer, and, so long as it doesn’t affect performance significantly, will only help the browser. If they aren’t already developing it, you will see Firefox copy this feature, no doubt about it.
Microsoft is also Making ActiveX opt-in, disabling all (even trusted) ActiveX plugins by default, and giving the user control over when and how they run. There will also be a web developer toolbar for both IE6 and IE7, just because it makes life easier.
(via Yahoo News)
UPDATE: Ars explains QuickTabs, and apparently they’re more analogous to Expose.
IE 7 has also gotten a bit of a face lift since its initial public beta. It now includes a feature dubbed “Quick Tabbing” which shows thumbnails of all open tabs in a tiled window and allows the user to choose a tab based off the thumbnail. While the idea is intriguing, personally I wouldn’t use it, only because I can switch through the tabs faster than I can browse thumbnails.
“It also means that, unlike with Firefox, Microsoft is using a standard that develops itself independent of the browser, and can thus let users add many search engines to IE without Microsoft having to code them all into the browser.”
http://mycroft.mozdev.org/ is the showcased search technology Mozilla / Firefox / a few other browsers that’s been around since 2000 or so. It has always been an independent project, which Mozilla integrated considerably after it was started, and it allows a user to add numerous search engines. They need not be “coded into the browser”. Google does not particularly have any control over it, nor does Mozilla.
In short, I don’t see what IE is gaining from choosing a service with less search engines than Mycroft. If anything, they should be embracing it as an open standard.
Comment by J. Welderson | September 17, 2005
The Firefox search standard is actually based on Sherlock and is completely open (the search plugins themselves are not even distributed in binary form).
Documentation: http://mycroft.mozdev.org/deepdocs/quickstart.html#standard
Validator: http://www.mindzilla.com/auditform.php
Site with over 3700 search plugins: http://mycroft.mozdev.org/index.html
Comment by Ben Basson | September 17, 2005
Those are ALREADY KNOWN features in Firefox that Mico-soft is just COPYING.
Firefox, about ONE YEAR AGO, always had Tabbed browsing and MANY USER-CHOICE SEARCH ENGINES TO ADD.
THIS IS NOT MICO-SOFT invention, it is one of the TRADITIONAL FIREFOX FEATURE THAT MICO-SOFT COPIED… In Brasil, “mico” is a kind of “monkey” and a slang that means a pathetic or shameful situation…
Comment by Sergio | September 17, 2005
It also means that, unlike with Firefox, Microsoft is using a standard that develops itself independent of the browser, and can thus let users add many search engines to IE without Microsoft having to code them all into the browser.
Er… what on earth does this have to do with Firefox? There are almost 4,000 search plugins available for Firefox. No one needs to wait for Mozilla to get a search plugin for Firefox. If you think every one needs to be hard-coded in, you’re either stupid or lying.
If they aren’t already developing it, you will see Firefox copy this feature, no doubt about it.
What is the purpose of this irrelevant snipe at Firefox? I could just as easily say, “Firefox has tabbed browsing. IE is already working on copying this feature.”
Comment by Rishi | September 17, 2005
This is a load. Microsoft is pretending that they have something innovative here and they do not. You can add any search that exists to FireFox and how does Microsoft dare claim that they do anything that is open? They even have their own proprietary version of XML.
I used to be a Microsoft fan but these guys are full of it. Do something innovative for a change instead of just trying to hype yourselves as being innovative.
Comment by john n | September 18, 2005
I think this link explains my reaction to the poor fact-checking of this story better than my own words could:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2005/09/search_fud_and.html
Comment by Peter Kasting | September 18, 2005
Microsoft is not pushing the A9 method as better than Firefox, just as a useful addition to their browser. The opinion that using A9 is an improvement over Firefox’s system is my own, and one I stick to. This is not Microsoft PR brainwashing, but my own conclusion.
In my opinion (and I repeat, opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion!), building a system into the browser that allows extending it into pretty much any search engine, even the sitesearch on individual independent sites, is far more convinient than plugins. Nothing to download, nothing to seek out, nothing to install.
Hell, Microsoft didn’t invent OpenSearch, it holds no control over the standard, it isn’t a proprietary system, and Firefox can use it in a second, negating Microsoft’s advantage. How is this not good for everyone?
If there is a system out there that lets Firefox users plug in all sorts of search engines (without plugins) and Firefox doesn’t take advantage of that, isn’t that just a missed opportunity?
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | September 18, 2005
But Nathan, the Firefox IS using a standard that “develops itself” independent of the browser. None of the Firefox mycroft search plugins are “coded into the browser”.
And also, are you thinking search plugins are akin to binary plugins like Acrobat Reader, etc? They aren’t. It’s just using the same word, but it’s a far simpler system and it’s not a binary plugin like traditional “plugins”, there isn’t any downloading of large binary files. We are talking 2 kilobytes of text and tiny icons here.
Either you’re very misinformed or your wording is incredibly misleading.
- pepp
Comment by pepp | September 18, 2005
I’m going to try not to be too harsh.
Lets say I want to install a search engine in Firefox. Now, its not too hard. Click the down arrow in the search box, and click “Add Engines”. Then, click “Find lots of other search engines…”. Then browse through the categories and find the one you want.
Later, if the engine you added is no longer useful, and the list of engines is too long, you might want to remove it. To do so, you…
Well? Where’s the interface? Where’s the option? Where are the preferences? It sure isn’t listed anywhere in the browser. I know you have to go through the deep config, but how many mainstream FF users are doing that?
As long as adding (and especially removing) search engines follows a procedure that feels less like a useful browser feature and more like a hack, it won’t be comparable with what Microsoft is building. Microsoft is taking an open framework and building it into the browser, while you are talking about a Firefox feature that is linked to a website.
Now, which makes more sense: Everyone using an open framework to develop easy ways to subscribe to search, or Microsoft essentially copying a Firefox feature that isn’t user-friendly in the first place?
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | September 18, 2005
Hey Nathan, why don’t you stop sniping and contribute this system to firefox if you think it’s superior? Or won’t that help you get any extra hits to your shitty collection of parasitic websites?
I used to read your insidegoogle blog, but as soon as you (haha) ‘went pro’ and started blogging crap about just about anything, I bailed. It’s really cheap.
Have a nice day
Comment by James Barron | September 18, 2005
There are two different points.
What you say in your article is definitevely false. Firefox already have this kind of technology, there is no need to hard code
“search engines tools” inside browser.
The fact that microsoft implementation or user interface could be batter is another matter.
In the end, you are making disinformation in your article.
Comment by Della | September 18, 2005
The first is better, but the second is closer to reality.
Comment by ant | September 18, 2005
James: How would I “contribute this system to firefox”? I’m not a programmer of any sort. I struggle to figure out the CSS in my own website. Considering OpenSearch is an open system, there is nothing preventing the many fine people who do work on Firefox from using this system.
Even if you argue that the current system is better, the OpenSearch system is there for the using, and not using it is just wasting a resource. For that matter, what really irks me is that Firefox, at the moment, has no interface for managing the search engines installed in the browser. I don’t know if such an interface is planned for the next major update (I haven’t heard anything), but it is sorely needed. Lets try to remember that Firefox is supposed to be made for everyone, not just the tech elite.
Della: You say, “What you say in your article is definitevely false. Firefox already have this kind of technology, there is no need to hard code
“search engines tools” inside browser.” Firefox has a sort of technology for putting search tools in the browser. My point is that Microsoft is building a system for adding search engines to your browser, where Firefox’s implementation, as I explain earlier in the comments, is more akin to a hack than an actual feature, since it requires you to click on some Javascript on a webpage, and has no user-exposed mechanism for removing them.
Yes, my main point is that Microsoft’s method is better. Microsoft’s builds the methodology into the browser, where it belongs, while Firefox’s is far less user-friendly or browser independent.
Ant: The first is reality, its (cue scary music) Microsoft’s reality. The Internet Explorer team at Microsoft doesn’t follow some of the old MS rules about creating useless proprietary systems, precisely because they have to compete with the openness of Firefox. OpenSearch is a great system (just try it out over at a9.com), and Firefox certainly wouldn’t hurt by taking advantage of it.
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | September 18, 2005
I would just like to point out for my regular readers that, just like when I got twenty or so angry comments from Mac fans because I criticized the Mighty Mouse, this is another case of a post of mine getting syndicated to WebProNews drawing the ire of fans of a rival system.
Gentlemen, I understand you love Firefox. Firefox is a great step forward for internet browsers. Firefox is so good, it is forcing Microsoft to act. You have nothing to be ashamed of.
However, no product is above criticism, whether it is Mac, Firefox or Linux. I would ask that those who continue to comment here consider the facts as they are, and debate them honestly, realistically and diplomatically.
I do not delete non-spam comments, but I firmly believe that what follows this comment will be more of the same, and reflect poorly on the people that evangelize these systems. When I enjoy something, I tell others how great it is. I do not show up on websites dedicated to opposite systems and whine in a juvenile fashion, but I cannot say the same for others.
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | September 18, 2005
> In my opinion, building a system
> into the browser that allows
> extending it into pretty much any
> search engine, even the sitesearch
> on individual independent sites, is
> far more convinient than plugins.
> Nothing to download, nothing to
> seek out, nothing to install.
Hellooooooo….How does “building a system into the browser” differ from a plugin?? You’re saying that if Mozilla would install these different search plugins by default, that would be better so you wouldn’t have to follow a couple of *very simple* steps to install them at a later time?
The fact that Microsoft has put so much garbage into their browser (”where it belongs”) has made their browser troublesome and insecure. Microsoft could really learn so much from Mozilla and the way they develop their software, that I just feel sorry for you when I read your conclusions…
J.
Comment by Jack | September 18, 2005
The site linking to mine, Asa Dotzler’s (Asa heads Mozilla’s Quality Assurance), calles me part of a “gullible media”, a “lazy reporter”, and accuses me of not fact checking. While my article may not have made my opinions clear, Asa’s accusing me of regurgitating Microsoft FUD, something I did not do. I read and understood Microsoft’s explanation of its work with the A9 team, took the fact that I have supported and evangelized A9’s efforts for a long time, and said, “Hey, this is good thing! Firefox should do this.”
Some of the commenters at Asa’s site actually explain this far better than I do, but most don’t bother to read my article, my comments, and Microsoft’s article, as well as actually trying out A9’s OpenSearch implementation. These commenters should do their own fact-checking.
Positivity:
Yes, the article is slanted; however I think people are missing what OpenSearch is. It’s a structured XML format for issuing queries and returning results from search engines. It’s similar to RSS in that the site must support it and the browser will need some form of client to parse and render the results. It’s actually a pretty decent idea if it becomes popular with more sites. I’m surprised that no one has implemented a Firefox extension for this, especially given all the buzz around it last spring.
Posted by: Justin S on September 17, 2005 11:17 PM
It is true that this article contains some misinformation about how to add a search site to Firefox. It probably even came from MS, which would make it FUD. None of that changes the key fact: IE7’s infrastructure on adding search boxes simply seems better…
To install a search engine on FF, I need to A) know about the “add a search engine” site. Then I need to B) find the specific site to add [something I’ve not always found easy, or possible– even when I know it’s there], C) click the button…
It sounds like what IE7 will do is present the user with a button, much like FF’s “Live bookmark” button, and that’s it…
Which user experience would you rather have? Especially if the two don’t have to be mutually exclusive…
Posted by: Andrew Cory on September 18, 2005 01:29 AM
The thing about OpenSearch can be found here and here. The reporter did exaggerate and/or spread FUD about Firefox’s search mechanism, and should be ashamed.
Nevertheless, Mozilla.org should really consider moving or copying the search engines to addons.mozilla.org. When an ordinary person clicks the last link and goes to Mycroft, they won’t understand why. If it was hosted on addons.mozilla.org, an ordinary user would at least understand, and would be more likely to download search enginges. It would also make the user feel more “secure”, knowing that it comes from a Mozilla-sanctioned page. I think that mozilla.org staff should cooperate with the mycroft team to at least copy the search plugins to their site.
Posted by: Frank F on September 18, 2005 03:20 AM
ustin: OpenSearch is a ‘real’ standard. It’s the outcome of work by Amazon (A9), and later collaboration between them and Microsoft (OpenSearch 1.1). The IE dev team (who I urge you all to consider as being a separate entity from the Microsoft media machine) spotted potential in the format and worked with A9 to improve it.
It would be beneficial to all, I think, if Mozilla was to add support for OpenSearch (assuming the OpenSearch documentation is of suitable ‘standard’ quality). I suspect it could be a very useful format to the internet as a whole.
Anyway, regardless of FUD and all the rest from Microsoft marketeers and media tools, it’s fabulous to see the IE team offering competition against rival features, at the same time as playing catch up. Browser-based search is standard and it’s an obvious feature for inclusion in any new browser, but to see them produce something that on the face of it seems robust and (for want of a better word) [i]better[/i] than existing implementations is good for all involved.
Posted by: Ben Ward on September 18, 2005 06:27 AM
I agree that my article was unclear. I don’t dispute that. I’m willing to accept constructive criticm. Constructive criticism does not consist of repeating the acronym FUD over and over.
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | September 18, 2005
Jack: I don’t believe Firefox’s system is designed properly for the end user. That is the point of my post and the crux of the arguement. You don’t need to build everything into the browser, but once you do (like Firefox’s search box) then you must build an interface for it.
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | September 18, 2005
Let’s see, I click on Firefox’s top rightmost search field icon and among my installed engines I see the ‘Add Engines…’ option which takes me to the website that you claim is hard to find. Among the links is the “Find lots of other search engines” link that takes me to the MozDev site with HUNDREDS of different engines that I can add. Sorry, your article is too biased and Asa is right. IE is playing catch up (again) and by the time they do release IE7 Firefox will be ahead again and have waaaaaaay more search engine options.
Comment by Gabe | September 18, 2005
Firefox out of the box (so to speak) is very user friendly and simple to use. It’s no different then any other software that is new to a person, you have to learn it. If you want more features and tools you have to learn. If users can figure out how to navigate and use an entirely new Operating System, than I think that they can figure out how to add a Search Engine.
I’m computer literate but not a coder. I started with the basic Fx in February and I didn’t know a damn thing about it. Now I have over 37 Extensions, different toolbars, multiple profiles, 1.0.6 and 1.5 on my computer (with 0 crashes) and I know how to mess with the userChrome file. I learned and I’m Legally Blind.
If you want to just surf and search, Google is there in Fx, if you want to do more, you have to learn and there is plenty of qualified help and resources available. You want a Search Plugin removed, ask and then do it. Why depend on a corporation to do everything for you.
All of the things that MS is copying are Firefox’s old news. IE7 will come out with features that are new to them and be happy with that and let it sit there for years while Fx will continue to improve on those features and come up with new ones. A year from now, IE will still be trying to figure how to play catch up, because Fx will continue to innovate, grow and improve.
Comment by KenSa | September 18, 2005
Nathan,
I can only say one thing; Microsoft’s approach might be better on paper and all (and I agree FireFox’s search engines management could be a little better), but there is only one thing clear in my mind…..
I do not think you (or anyone here) have yet seen this feature implemented in a build of IE7 (am I wrong?). On the other hand, we got this fully working Firefox search box that is FAR from being hard to use… Compare with that great favorite management in IE6…
Keep postings comments like that, you make a lot of FF developpers angry and frustrated… This should help improve FF search features even more before Microsoft comes out with IE7.
Oh and Nathan, saying “If they aren’t already developing it, you will see Firefox copy this feature, no doubt about it.” probably was not such a good idea…. You forgot the part when MS copied everything else.
Comment by Mikhael | September 18, 2005
Nathan,
I agree (and have thought in the past) that the firefox search engine system could use improvement. It sounds like the IE team has developed a good interface for this feature, and I’m glad to hear they’re using an open standard.
That said, I don’t think the poor usability of this feature is, for the majority of users, really an issue. I know that for myself, I selected “Add Engines” and followed the instructions to add a few engines, then haven’t worried about it since (and honestly have used it very little). Not that I don’t search all the time, because I do, but b/c if I want to search a specific site I go there. I think it will be awhile before the average user changes their surfing habits to expect to search differently.
I do think your article was misleading, as it read as if you couldn’t add search engines to Firefox, or it wasn’t “Open”. After reading your comments, I see that’s not what you think, but I couldn’t have gotten that from the article…
I just now saw the update, as I scrolled up to check my facts before posting, so thank you. I think that clarifies things nicely.
Comment by Stephen | September 18, 2005
Okay, I’d like to thank the intelligent and magnanimous more recent posters, and I hope we can all agree to disagree. I apologize that my article was very unclear (and I think I’ve explained what I really meant within these comments) and far too enthusiastic. Without saying too much, I’ve seen a lot of IE7 stuff lately, and I guess all of it got me very excited. It isn’t going to make everyone who posted her go, “Wait, I changed my mind, and now I want to have Bill Gates’ baby!”, but I think everyone will agree when they see the final build of IE7 that, even if it isn’t better than Firefox, Microsoft worked their asses off to make it much better.
Now, if I’m willing to concede, hopefully, I’m not the only one. Firefox’s search box bothers me, because it has no interface to assist the end user. Engines are added from an external web page, which is not terrible, but certainly not ideal, but what is really a problem is that there is no easy way to remove or reorder the engines, no dialog box or menu item at all (although I understand it is in the advanced config, something no average user is going to use).
Microsoft may make a ton of mistakes (and by ton, I mean a ton of tons), but they never leave options like that out of the control of the user. The search box is like the favorites menu, only it can support far less items. People want to be able to control it.
That’s not to say this makes Firefox bad. Hardly; Firefox is great. I certainly don’t use IE (in fact, I love using Opera, because it has a ton of options within the browser). All I’m saying is: Microsoft is getting serious, finally, and this means all the serious browsers on the market are just going to be getting better and better to compete.
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | September 18, 2005
Do QuickTabs look something like this:
http://hmdt-web.net/shiira/screenshot/en#tabExpose ?
Comment by Aulia | September 19, 2005
The problem is that you’re touting features that IE7 doesn’t yet have (remember, beta 2 isn’t out yet) over features that Firefox already does. You’re letting your enthusiasm for a browser that should have been released 2 years ago get in the way of presenting the facts - and you’re falling gullible to Microsoft press releases without actually researching and objectively comparing the two browsers.
How do you know that adding a search engine to IE7 doesn’t mean having to go to an external site or, even worse, a Microsoft web site page in order to do so? The reason people are getting upset is because you’re intentionally sniping at Firefox with incorrect facts and promoting Internet Explorer over it - which isn’t journalism. And as a journalist, I’m afraid you do have a responsibility to be objective, unless you’re employer is News Corp. If it is I apologize.
Comment by Matthew | September 19, 2005
Hi,
While I agree that Firefox can implement some GUI to manage the search plugin(I did remember some review of firefox at cnet mentioned that, saying it would be nice if the order of the search engine list can be changed) , I disagree with implementing GUI for downloading plugin.
The problem is that if GUI in firefox become the only way to download search plugin, that would limit the openess of these plugin, as that means only firefox user can download/see those plugin. Besides, making a GUI would mean it needs time to retrieve all the data, and I, for one, don’t like lagging in a program’s GUI.
Additionally, as plugins are quite simple, using a website can enhance management of these repository by allowing user to submit their own plugin, by anyone on the internet, not just the one using firefox.
Let’s hope that the developers of firefox will implement managment for search engine soon.
Comment by Tom Lam | September 19, 2005
Nathan, what you don’t seem to realize is that you don’t *have* to go to Mozilla’s website to install another search engine. Any old website can add a link to allow installing a search engine; it’s just that Mycroft happens to collect most of them in one handy place.
A search “plugin” is just an XML file and an icon file. Anyone can write one. I was writing my own search plugins within minutes without even looking at the spec.
I’ll agree the interface could be a bit better, especially for deleting plugins, but you’re throwing that out there because you were *wrong* about how plugins in Firefox work. You are wrong about how the entire open source community works, and you seem to think anything with the letters “moz” somewhere in it are all controlled directly by the Mozilla Foundation/Corporation.
Aside from the interface used to add/delete engines, the entire concept is exactly the same. You are entitled to your opinion that Microsoft’s implementation is better, but that’s not at all what you said in your original post, and even your “update” to the post is wrong. There is nothing “special” about MyCroft that any other site can’t do as well.
Comment by Toby Johnson | September 19, 2005
In my opinion, having to go to sites other than the Mycroft one is even less convenient. My point about Mycroft wasn’t that you had to go to Mycroft’s website as opposed to a different website; my point was that you had to go to any website at all, especially one that confuses users, as Frank explains in Asa’s comments:
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | September 19, 2005
Nathan, you say:
To install a search engine on FF, I need to A) know about the “add a search engine” site. Then I need to B) find the specific site to add [something I’ve not always found easy, or possible– even when I know it’s there], C) click the button…
I say:
To install a search engine on FF, a) open the search engine selection menu (click the icon in the search box). b) Click ‘Add Engines…’. c) Browse or search for an engine you want.
No need to know where to search.
Comment by Rich | September 19, 2005
Rich: I never said any such thing. Andrew Cory did. Check above and you’ll see.
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | September 19, 2005
Nathan,
in reply to your last comment, I’ve stated why plugin should be accessed directly from a website instead of gui, both morally, and technically. Also, I don’t see any problem with going to other websites than Mycroft to get plugin. Very often there’re really weird and rarely used search engine that you need, and when a centralized website failed, that’s where decentralization(the author host their own plugin) shows its power by allowing diversities. In that case, the user isn’t any novice user and are advanced user searching for more anyway.
Comment by Tom Lam | September 19, 2005
Difference of opinion. Fair enough.
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | September 19, 2005
You can add your own searches your self. You can right click on a search box (Let’s say foxnews.com) and assign a keyword to it(foxnews) then you just type foxnews whatever into the address bar and it searches foxnews. I never even need to use the search bar.
Comment by Senitel | September 19, 2005
“There will also be a web developer toolbar for both IE6 and IE7, just because it makes life easier.”
Or better: just because that cool Firefox feature/extension is also worth copying
Comment by Magganpice | September 19, 2005
Unlike Firefox? Not true. Please do some research before posting nonsense.
Comment by loconet | September 19, 2005
“It also means that, unlike with Firefox, Microsoft is using a standard that develops itself independent of the browser, and can thus let users add many search engines to IE without Microsoft having to code them all into the browser.”
What kind of stupid nonsense is this?
I myself have tried several search plugins for FF long before MS even realised water is rising around IE; and I’m pretty sure there are _plenty_ of others.
Comment by southy | September 20, 2005
Mr Weinberg wrote:
> “I don’t believe Firefox’s system is
> designed properly for the end user. ”
A lot of people (including IE developers) disagree
http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/?p=115
Comment by Carlos | September 20, 2005
I very much agree with what Scott Berkun said. His criticisms are among the reasons I prefer Opera (now free!) to Firefox.
Also, the quote of mine you reprint is referring to the search box UI. Scott makes no mention and no support of it, and I hold by what I said.
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | September 20, 2005
[…] For every Firefox fan who bashed me over the last few days, I have this to say: Opera rocks! And now, its free! […]
Pingback by » Opera Now Free! InsideMicrosoft - part of the Blog News Channel | September 20, 2005
“Nathan Weinberg Says:
September 18th, 2005 at 4:59 am
Lets say I want to install a search engine in Firefox. Now, its not too hard. Click the down arrow in the search box, and click “Add Engines”. Then, click “Find lots of other search engines…”. Then browse through the categories and find the one you want.
Later, if the engine you added is no longer useful, and the list of engines is too long, you might want to remove it. To do so, you…
Well? Where’s the interface? Where’s the option? Where are the preferences? It sure isn’t listed anywhere in the browser. I know you have to go through the deep config, but how many mainstream FF users are doing that?”
I have to say that I am NOT an advanced user.
However after reading your comments Nathan I thought I’d give Firefox Search Engines a try.
I only installed Firefox 3 days ago and have used it for a total of one hour.
With my limited Firefox and PC knowledge I was still able to add a WiKipedia Search engine and then remove it in about a minute!!
The info regarding removing a search engine (which you suggest is quite difficult) I found easily online and I removed the search engine simply. Even a newb like myself can delete 2 files.
Personally I have been very pleased with my Firefox experience so far. After countless virii and trojans delivered by IE I am hoping Firefox will be a more secure and enjoyable experience.
I thank you Nathan for bringing Firefox to my attention. You have made another happy Firefox user
TuT
Comment by TuT | September 21, 2005
So, how’d you do it?
No, seriously.
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | September 21, 2005
“In my opinion, having to go to sites other than the Mycroft one is even less convenient. My point about Mycroft wasn’t that you had to go to Mycroft’s website as opposed to a different website; my point was that you had to go to any website at all…”
OK, so how exactly do you “subscribe” to one of these OpenSearch providers if you don’t go to their website? You need to either go to their website to enter the search, or you need to go to their website to install a plugin which lets you search directly from the browser.
So, in case there’s something that everyone here is missing, please explain exactly how one gets OpenSearch results from a non-standard provider. It still sounds like the same concept with a different format.
The only difference is that in IE, the results can be loaded in the sidebar. Of course the Mozilla Suite had this feature a long time ago, but the results had to be parsed from the sites’ HTML response. Having it returned in a standard XML format is definitely an improvement, and I’m sure Firefox will incorporate that format at some point.
“So, how’d you do it?
No, seriously.”
In the “searchplugins” folder in the program’s install folder, find the .src and .png (or .gif) files with the name of the provider you want to remove, and delete them.
Comment by toby johnson | September 22, 2005
I don’t consider that simple at all, and certainly not something that the typical end user can figure out. How about right-clicking an engine to remove it, or a “Manage search engines” dialog?
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | September 22, 2005
Microsoft should work on the basic stuff they lack. Is not until now they are partially supporting transparent PNGs, and CSS.
The quality of Explorer is nothing compared to Firefox.
Comment by Chris | September 22, 2005
IE7 is just vapourware in your mind. FF is something you can use NOW.
When MS delivers, you do the comparison. In the meantime, FF wins hands down, not only on search plugins.
Comment by JP Villa | September 23, 2005
websites can expose their opensearches via a <link /> tag, which wasn’t the case with mycroft plugins
Comment by Michael Fagan | September 23, 2005
Firefox already lets users create their own plugins and easily install a range of extra plugins. I wrote one myself for single-word English-Maori language translation, and it took about an hour (leveraging an existing web form and online dictionary).
Since then (about a year ago) I’ve been hoping for a similar feature in IE. Maybe it will be there with IE7. My point is that it’s there today in FireFox. I’d be really happy for IE users to have the same facility, but it’s there today with FF … and you missed it, you swallowed the press booklet instead.
Open wide … Nathan, I’m surprised that a reporter would not bother to check his facts. Especially when writing an article about searching the web! Wouldn’t Alanis agree, that’s quite ironic?
Here’s hoping you remember this when you next write an article based on company PR.
Comment by chris | September 23, 2005
Wow. Either this writer doesn’t know anything, or they just blatantly ignore .. what are those called? Oh yeah, FACTS!
An astoundingly smelly pile of rubbish we have here. They will let anyone post on the internet these days, too bad there isn’t a stoopid police. Maybe, we can call them the mico-police.
Comment by Michael | September 24, 2005
QuickTabs are nice. But have a look at http://www.euris-4c.com an you will find a fully developed solution for visual tabbed browsing.
Comment by lucy | October 12, 2005
[…] […]
Pingback by c 14 g | October 23, 2005
[…] » IE7 Beta 2 Will Have A9 OpenSearch InsideMicrosoft - part of the Blog News Channel […]
Pingback by c 14 g | October 23, 2005
[…] It seems the right thing to do as it will be incorporated in IE7 (beta 2)… Nathan Weinberg states “The IE team says they are working with […]
Comment by Next Generation Shopping | January 6, 2006