<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Firefox</title>
	<atom:link href="http://asecondhandconjecture.com/index.php/2006/10/31/firefox/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://asecondhandconjecture.com/index.php/2006/10/31/firefox/</link>
	<description>Questions through the veil of ignorance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:08:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: McQ</title>
		<link>http://asecondhandconjecture.com/index.php/2006/10/31/firefox/comment-page-1/#comment-4877</link>
		<dc:creator>McQ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:54:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=226#comment-4877</guid>
		<description>Hey Lance ... more long-winded comments please ... and I don&#039;t care which browser you use.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Lance &#8230; more long-winded comments please &#8230; and I don&#8217;t care which browser you use.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lance</title>
		<link>http://asecondhandconjecture.com/index.php/2006/10/31/firefox/comment-page-1/#comment-4854</link>
		<dc:creator>Lance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:23:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=226#comment-4854</guid>
		<description>Chris,

True, but it seems to me that the extensions for the most common elements are inefficient from a speed and memory standpoint. More importantly, for the new user (who I am really focusing on in this) there is no need to go and search through the extensions to find them. Out of the box it has a tremendous advantage.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris,</p>
<p>True, but it seems to me that the extensions for the most common elements are inefficient from a speed and memory standpoint. More importantly, for the new user (who I am really focusing on in this) there is no need to go and search through the extensions to find them. Out of the box it has a tremendous advantage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChrisB</title>
		<link>http://asecondhandconjecture.com/index.php/2006/10/31/firefox/comment-page-1/#comment-4851</link>
		<dc:creator>ChrisB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:16:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=226#comment-4851</guid>
		<description>I actually had plugins that provided most of the new features of FF2.0, so it&#039;s not a huge change for me. Not quite sure how I feel about them adding the features. I always liked FF because it was just a lean barebones browser that allowed you to customize it with extensions to make it how you want it. 

I think now they need to keep focusing on the memory problems and improving speed and performance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually had plugins that provided most of the new features of FF2.0, so it&#8217;s not a huge change for me. Not quite sure how I feel about them adding the features. I always liked FF because it was just a lean barebones browser that allowed you to customize it with extensions to make it how you want it. </p>
<p>I think now they need to keep focusing on the memory problems and improving speed and performance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lance</title>
		<link>http://asecondhandconjecture.com/index.php/2006/10/31/firefox/comment-page-1/#comment-4848</link>
		<dc:creator>Lance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:10:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=226#comment-4848</guid>
		<description>You mentioned in an e-mail Flock. I am checking it out now. Not as much is built in as I would want at first glance, but it does have a nice list of extensions. It is a smart approach to use the Firefox engine. That makes building extensions easy as you just need to modify them a bit, in fact I see they claim most should work without modification, though they give no guarantees.

Their built in blogging tool looks nice as does the way it handles photos with a function similar to net snippets. I am going to give it a test run and maybe do a comparison later on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You mentioned in an e-mail Flock. I am checking it out now. Not as much is built in as I would want at first glance, but it does have a nice list of extensions. It is a smart approach to use the Firefox engine. That makes building extensions easy as you just need to modify them a bit, in fact I see they claim most should work without modification, though they give no guarantees.</p>
<p>Their built in blogging tool looks nice as does the way it handles photos with a function similar to net snippets. I am going to give it a test run and maybe do a comparison later on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MichaelW</title>
		<link>http://asecondhandconjecture.com/index.php/2006/10/31/firefox/comment-page-1/#comment-4842</link>
		<dc:creator>MichaelW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:48:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=226#comment-4842</guid>
		<description>FF 2.0 is definitely a cut above the rest.  I just downloaded the Performancing tool and will be using it later.

Very cool.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FF 2.0 is definitely a cut above the rest.  I just downloaded the Performancing tool and will be using it later.</p>
<p>Very cool.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

