Browser compatibility, what do you use?

[tony]

To ensure best support for future releases with browser-enabled configuration support, we would like to know what are you using for a web browser.

1.) Internet Explorer 6
2.) Internet Explorer 7 (Beta 2 for XP, or Vista BETA)
3.) Firefox 1.x
4.) Other

We would also like to know what browser, and version you are using if you specify 'Other', and the screen resolution you prefer.

[nickwhite]

Firefox 1.5+ - 1024x768 or higher (currently running 1600x1200)

[rbolduc]

Opera 8.54 1024x768

[nelson05]

I hate to admit it, but I'm still using IE6 (patched of course) under XP.

I have Firefox 1.5 installed and have experimented with Opera and other alternative browsers, but always seem to make my way back to IE. I'm sure that I'll end up using IE7 in the future on XP and then Vista. I also use IE from my Windows Mobile 5 PocketPC Phone (Cingular 8125/T-Mobile MDA- it includes 802.11g and I've successfully associated to a WEP protected StarV3 AP) and and a lightweight interface that could offer some type of aiming and other status information could be very coo.l

For me, even with 2GB of RAM, Firefox is a bit of a memory hog and there are enough little glitches rendering web sites, printing PDFs, etc. that IE still wins out despite its many missing features. I have also had better luck with stability and speed on IE (probably because it is so deeply integrated into the shell). Finally, Google Toolbar 4, fills in many of the missing features and I really like the ability it provides to have centralized bookmarks and its deep gmail integration.

I run at 1280x1024 though I think 1024x768 is probably a reasonable resolution to target.

[go.fast]

My preference is firefox, but I'll use whatever is at hand.

Heorge

[tog]

Firefox, usually on a 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 display, but I usually have the window size at about 1/3 to 1/2 of my screen. If the computer I'm at doesn't have Firefox I'll take the 30 seconds to install it and then recommend to the computer's owner to use IE as little as possible. :)

1024x768 is probably a good standard to design for.

[Stratolinks]

Firefox 1.5 with dual 1280x1024 panels for my primary machine.

But please design for 1024x768 since most laptops are in that neighbourhood, and I much prefer a small lightweight laptop when I am out and about. Not some behemoth that is 24 lbs and has a 17in screen. Ideally if it wasn't for the price...

http://www.oqo.com


Never had one, but it sure looks handy, especially if it can run something other than XP.

[Ick]

Only Firefox.

[dastring]

macintosh safari & firefox

[Skaught]

I use IE6. It is what my clients mostly use and that way I am familiar at all times with it.

Same goes for Outlook Express.

[HoeDing]

Firefox 1.5.0.3

[greg]

We use mostly IE 6 & 7 with some Firefox

[David L. Vrablic]

Firefox (Keeps itself current)

Laptop size please.

[Steve]

Firefox! 1024*768

[tony]

Thanks everybody. Keep them coming.

[cephlon]

I use Opera 8.54 for daily browsing and IE6 for sites that I know don't work with Opera.. like the Star-os Store ;)
Resolution 1027 x 768

[amp]

Firefox 1.5.0.4

1280x1024 1600x1200 i find that on most monitors i never maximize. i size to what looks right for the web page and that’s usually a bit smaller then 1280x1024. Then we use those laptop widescreen sizes.

I think some of the firefox memory issue is on the user side. User memory management. :P I know i would never open 20 windows with 7 tabs each with ie. Mainly cause ie has no tabs.

4) we all want full lynx support! ;)

[dan_99503]

I use Firefox and I noticed it does not work with the online store. You have to use IE to get it to work correctly.

i.e. When I select a radio to include in the system it doesn't prompt me for a pigtail type.

You also have to enable pop-ups to get it to work at all on IE.

Pop-ups and IE are both pretty evil these days.

- Dan

[tony]

The on-line store was developed with Firefox and IE6/7 in mind, and does work quite well with them. (Firefox v1.xx+ anyhow). The site utilizes AJAX, and therefor requires javascript and cookies to be enabled.

The PayPal cart is a popup, and as such, may be blocked by some types of popup blockers.

[palmczak]

Firefox 1.5+ at least 1024x768

Although IE is never to far away as so much stuff does not display well in firefox.

[pachitoone]

Firefox 1.5.x, upgrading constantly.

[therealboss]

From a Linuz box Firefox and from Windoze Opera & Firefox.

[gunther_01]

IE 6, if this is going to be used at a customers home. It would be nice to be able to use their computer at times.

It's also what I normally use. 1024x768 for most peoples use I would think. Although my laptop is set higher

[vjencic]

Firefox 1.5+ or Opera 9, 1024x768

[rafamous]

IE 6. Some things work better with firefox but it's a slow load. So mainly IE6.

[DrLove73]

Opera 9.1, and IE6 for non-opening sites.

If you set Opera in Tools\Preferences\Advanced\History\Check documents=always, you can solve some issues with non-refreshing of interactive pages.

Resolution is 1024*768, but lap-top is 800*600, so best to optimize it for that (on-site hardware) resolution.

[HoeDing]

I am now on Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20060911 Minefield/3.0a1
Vista RC1, 1280x800 resolution

Things seem to be working properly.

[kbldawg]

IE6 and Firefox

My scroll button does not work with Firefox or I would probably use it more. DOH!!!!!!

[peace2300]

Firefox 2 Beta 2 here

[soulmata]

Firefox 1.5.0.6 and Opera 9 only

[dduck313]

How about making it accessible using IE in pocket pc? Almost all of pocket pc now have wifi installed, there's many GPS and networking stuff for ppc edition. So, isn't it nice to control/monitor through a pda? So in the future, later, we needn't a laptop computer. Small stuff better for network installer/administrator, right?

[go.fast]

How about making it accessible using IE in pocket pc? Almost all of pocket pc now have wifi installed, there's many GPS and networking stuff for ppc edition.


Can you ssh on a pocket pc?

Just curious.

George

[tkerns]

I played with this about a year ago using a compaq pda. I could ssh into an AP but could never get the keyboard or pointer to work, so I was never able to get off the mail page of StarOS. I believe I was running WinCE 3.0 at the time. If someone managed to get it working I would like to know how.

Tim Kerns
CV-Access, Inc.

[oscarBravo]

Can you ssh on a pocket pc? http://www.pocketputty.net/

Problem is, the curses interface doesn't fit on the screen of an iPaq, and it's not possible to scroll sideways. :(

[dduck313]

With web based console that support IE PPC Edition, scrolling is no longer problem and we can popup on screen keyboard right? :D

[neptun]

Firefox 2.0.0.8 @ 1280x960, Windows/Linux.

[tony]

While we are still evaluating interface options, the web is still our primary choice at this time. Please keep the browser types and resolutions coming.

[tog]

Just please don't write a Windows or Java app and make it the mandatory and primary way to manage the units. :)

Karlnet had a windows app, Western Multiplex had a Java app.. yuck. I preferred Trango's web-based GUI interface which was little more than a pretty version of their telnet CLI. Both worked great. Alvarion also had a telnet interface which worked fine, though it was a semi-annoying telnet "menu" interface.

Firefox in 1920x1200 or 1280x1024 under Windows or Firefox or Safari in 1680x1050 (the smaller Macbook Pro) btw.

[pwmaclean]

Yep, it's called pocket putty.

Web browser - IE 7.

Can you ssh on a pocket pc?

Just curious.

George

[tony]

Using a windows based java or native app is still on the board of possibilities (similar to apConfig used in initial v3 releases), however we are still leaning toward a web interface more than anything as it is by far the most cross-platform method.

[soulmata]

It would be very disheartening to see a very functional configuration mechanism like an SSH or telnet client be replaced by a Windows-only management program. I hope you keep SSH onboard as a config option or perhaps telnet, even if you do decide to go the route of web interfaces.

Horrid management apps is one of the primary reasons I have stayed away from other CPE software because of how much of a nightmare it becomes.

[ripv]

While we are still evaluating interface options, the web is still our primary choice at this time. Please keep the browser types and resolutions coming.

mixture of IE7 and Firefox 2.0.0.8 for me - I mostly use firefox for Java based stuff, since the switch from MS to SUN firefox just seems to be slightly smoother at doing Java. Otherwise I generaly use IE7.

res on pc - 1680x1050
res on laptop - 1280x800

[DrLove73]

Using a windows based java or native app is still on the board of possibilities.

M$? I networking? NO THANKS. I am just preparing to switch to Linux desktop, and maybe leave I virtual Windows for electronic payments in banking system, etc...

Web browser: Firefox auto-updated with some 10-20 add-ons.

[tony]

We would never choose an interface configuration method that is not accepted by a vast majority of our users.

Seeing that Windows is the most widely used desktop today, this would be the sensible platform to provide a configuration tool for, if we went that route. (and also seeing that *nix and OSX desktops can run native .NET Windows apps via Wine is a plus).

[soulmata]

I'm not sure what platforms you have been testing on, but .NET under UNIX/Linux is excrutiatingly slow. It requires Mono, which works to create an entire .NET abstraction layer on top of UNIX. It is buggy, quirky, and above all unreliable.

Windows might be easier from a "client" point of view, but from a management point of view having universally-accepted protocols at your disposal (SSH, Telnet, even HTTP) is vastly superior to any binary client.

[tony]

We would not do a native mono-based .NET application until they include a more complete .NET 2.0 implementation (and performance enhancements). .NET (windows version) under Wine is apparently pretty functional, and well performing.

It is not wise to judge the usefulness of a management utility based on past experience from other vendors.

There are many things you can do with a management client that you cannot do with SSH, telnet, or even HTTP which is why it is on our decision board. We wish to move away from the GUI SSH interface, which is quite large in size, especially for embedded platforms, and time consuming to extend to encompass new features. (though a SSH CLI variant will most likely remain)

HTTP is looking like the best all round, and accepted (by most) method to use. With the use of Ajax, and other technologies we can still provide a system that includes live statistics, and other features valued in the SSH versions.

[rebel2234]

IE7 and Firefox 2.0.0.8 1280x1024

[neptun]

Would'nt a normal "home router" web interface enough? These work great under Windows/Linux/Mac, and with all the different browsers.

[tony]

Not really, as a more advanced (dynamic) web interface is needed to replace some of the features SSH offered. We do not wish to reduce the management functionality, but rather enhance and extend it.

We are still aiming at cross-browser and OS compatibility.

[neptun]

That sounds great, Tony! What are you're options other then .net and Java?
Will you include easy and advanced setup?

Not really, as a more advanced (dynamic) interface is needed to replace some of the features SSH offered. We do not wish to reduce the management functionality, but rather enhance and extend it.

We are still aiming at cross-browser and OS compatibility.

[tony]

With a web interface, there will be no need for .net or Java (outside of browser Javascript which is mandatory for Ajax).

Other aspects are still undecided as we are in the research phase right now.

[DrLove73]

Please consider also unified config file, if for some reason CLI interface becomes necessary. I also think that that would give us faster configuration of new units + easy view of past configurations (wifi cards, routing tables, policy routing, acl tables).

If install some safety's like permanent backup copy (like configured default settings that unit can with ping watchdog fall back to, automatic reconfigurations could be done simultaneously on large number of clients.

Just my 2 (euro)cents.

[RebCom]

SeaMonkey, Opera and Firefox

[sparki]

Safari and Firefox

[pops]

Ie 6 & 7

[dastring]

Mac OS X Safari or Firefox

[DrLove73]

I just installed Mozilla Firefox 3.0 RC1.

FANTASTIC speed improvement, I like it already. Maybe I am subjective, but it sure looks faster. And URL line history is much more informative, ... WoW

[soulmata]

Our entire office uses Firefox 2.x at the moment

[ozziffied]

When I design a site, I usually do 800X 600 centerd elstic... This seems to make everyone happy and make sure ever browser supports it. When I look at the site in Safari 2 or 3 it looks good. Firefox looks good. Opera looks good, seems to me you all are doing a fine job!