Firefox Addon: Fast Dial vs Speed Dial - Which is quicker?(15 posts)
This isn't really specific to the question asked about fast dial, but the mention of Firefox got my interest here. Don't mean to be hijacking this thread for a rant against Firefox, but as I said, since the title included "Firefox" it got my interest. If the hall monitors here think this is too off-topic, I will take the scolding and you can delete this post.
Firefox was at one time justifiably noted as more secure than IE. But as Firefox gained in market share, more and more malware writers focused on Firefox exploits, 'till now it has a lot more holes than it was publicized as having at one time. Nevertheless, Firefox still benefits from the rep it had a few years ago. A lot of users still maintain that it's the best browser because it's so secure (NOT anymore) and bash IE7. While IE7 still has a lot of holes, it has improved it's security and Firefox's security has declined. Some people insist that Firefox has the security level it once had, when indeed it doesn't. Firefox may be more secure than IE7, but IE7 is gaining on it rapidly. But some Firefox proponents are pretty testy about all this (I anticipate some comments on this . . . no flames, please), blindly insisting that Firefox is invulnerable. I have some friends that use Firefox and they are arrogant and close-minded about it.
And another thing that Firefox users are vulnerable to (is this turning into a rant on Firefox??) . Since they mistakenly think that Firefox will take care of security concerns, they let their guard down and are susceptible to malware attacks. The same can't be said of IE users . . . since IE has a rep for poor security, IE users will try to compensate by having tighter security.
There's sort of a Catch-22 with the security patches Microsoft is always coming out with. Yes, there are a lot of exploits on Windows, but then it has the biggest market share, so what do you expect?? If Linux had a bigger market share (and Firefox is actually getting more market share) then I bet the malware writers would focus on Linux more, and there would be more Linux exploits.
I'm way off topic here, so I apologize . . . but couldn't resist when I saw the word "Firefox". If there is a more appropriate thread, maybe the Mods could move this there.
Okay, I respect your opinion, but you honestly should have made a new thread. I will point out that your statement
"...since IE has a rep for poor security, IE users will try to compensate by having tighter security." is somewhat skewed. The following is a generalization, but does pertain to a large number of computer users. I too, do not want to start a flame war, just wanted to point out something (even though it is off-topic... in my own post).
I believe you forgot the fact that non-techy users will almost always use IE, because it came on their computer and it is what they are used to. They will not use a different browser, whether it be Firefox, Opera, or one of the lesser known browsers, unless they put a lot of trust in a friend that happens to be a techy, and even then if anything odd happens they may go back to IE. I am not saying that all non-techies will do this, but it is a common behavior. With that being said, a very large user base of IE are non-techies who do not know about the security issues, because they do not read PC magazines or articles so will not take precautions, thus resulting in IE having all the security issues as an actual problem. Firefox users have to actually download the program, or have a techy friend do it, so there is someone with at least a basic computer knowledge around the computer to make sure it stays clean. These are all generalities of course and not meant to pertain to all users of both web browsers.
With all of that being said, thank you OzSpitt for your input, from the little I used Fast Dial ( I use Speed Dial regularly ) I noticed that Speed Dial seemed more polished as well. I will most likely continue to use Speed Dial, even though I rarely use the extra features, unless it turns out Fast Dial is much quicker. I did notice recently that Fast Dial is a recommended add-on, has more downloads, and more weekly downloads, but again, agreeing with OzSpitt Speed Dial seems more polished. I would appreciate any more input on this.
My experience is that Fast Dial is more stable than Speed Dial. I had Speed Dial and when updated the thing went bonkers, none of the placements would stay put. Each time I opened Speed Dial, the icons shifted. I couldn't easily make a icon. Fast Dial works each and every time.
Hey there, I came upon this thread searching for some of the same answers you seek. I was wondering basically what people like more: Speed Dial or Fast Dial. I've been using Fast dial for the last 6 months or so and like it quite well. I installed Speed Dial today out of curiosity because it has a much better rating than Fast Dial on the mozilla addons site (5 stars vs. 3 stars.) From what I've seen today I think I'm going to goto Speed Dial. I am basing this decision mostly on one particular concern of mine and that is portability. I use several different computers and use Xmarks (formerly FoxMarks) quite effectively to sync my bookmarks between computers. I love my visual bookmarks too though and Fast Dial has to be set up individually on each computer (which is a major pain in the budkis.) I noticed when playing with Speed Dial today though that it has an export and import feature so that'll make it easy to move setups from computer to computer. So I think I'm gonna go with Speed Dial for that reason alone.
As far as other comparisons....Fast Dial is easier to set up nice images on. There's a nice website with user generated logos reachable with a single click when you're inputing the thumbnail preferences. Speed Dial doesn't have this and in fact I'm using Fast Dials logos but I have to play around with cropping and scaling and such to make them look nice. Of course these cropping and scaling feature aren't even available in Fast Dial so its a trade off. This brings me around to answering your question concerning memory. Fast Dial *has* to be using less memory because it has so many fewer features! Speed Dial had much more in the way of options and such and even accepts Java code into the thumbnails (when enabled.) Now I haven't done any testing or anything but common sense leads me to say Speed Dial uses more memory because of all the extra features.
I've never had any problems with Fast Dial but I've found many folks saying its unstable. I use Linux though so stability is inherent....I however like to blame Microsoft for just about every problem you can run into on a computer....but I'm a hater. :) Let me know what you guys think of Speed Dial versus Fast Dial!
Wow. This topic is old...
I ended up going with Speed Dial. I switched to Fast Dial after finding out that it was stored as bookmarks (integrating with Xmarks easily) and the customization, but switched back to Speed Dial after all the problems with Fast Dial.
Speed Dial does have import and export settings (I just checked, never knew they were there before), but I like the simplicity of it far better than Fast Dial.
As the topic indicates, this was/is a discussion about Firefox addons.
I believe these and other extensions were written for Firefox after similar ones were wildly successful with the Opera browser.
This topic has been closed to new replies. Please create a new topic instead.