Occasionally I will get an email attachment from someone compressed in a .SIT archive. This StuffIt format is (I think) primarily a Mac format. Utilities to handle .SIT archives are available for Windows and Linux, but are not include by default on either platform.
Since the ZIP format is supported out-of-the-box on the Mac OS X, Windows, and almost all Linux distributions it is a far more friendly format for archives.
Thank you.
Ok, you’ve got a deal, so long as you Windows people stop sending .RAR and .ACE files. Oh, and enough with the WMP10-only video files; Quicktime and DivX work everywhere! 🙂
(not that you do any of these things, Steven… just drives us Mac people crazy)
Chris, I’m a Linux user now myself, so I feel your pain.
Of course, Richard Stallman has been trying to stop Microsoft Word attachments for years.
Other file formats that I feel should go:
– AVI: you never have the right codec. Quicktime and mpeg, sir.
– BMP: PNG is better.
– PFB: I long for the day when everything’s TTF and OTF.
– Fireworks PNG: use your own file extension, darnit! What’s wrong with FWD, ‘FireWorks Document’?
And seriously, what’s with people sending images IN Word docs? Clients do this all the time. I ask them to send a graphic, and instead of sending the TIF or JPEG, they open up Word, dump the file in there, save the Word doc, and then mail me the doc! I mean, seriously, wtf?
One guy I know even replies to emails using word – he copies the text from the mail, pastes it into a new Word doc, then inserts his reply comments, and mails THE WORD DOC BACK TO ME…
I think that’s why I hate MS Office more than any other app – not the bloat, not the speed, not the politics, but the Word Doc stickies and Access shopping lists.
Seriously, why does nobody use Notepad any more?
</rant>
-J
Honestly, its stupid for anyone to send a non-standard format across the web, but it happens. Why must everything be in .doc, for example? Let’s all send .tar.gz files to Windoze users!
But, really, I don’t think any mac user will ever shed a tear for you, after years of getting junky, non-standard formats. It’s like a Hummer driver asking a Prius driver to stop polluting.
I concur. I am a Mac user and I despise the SIT archive format. StuffIt Expander is clunky.
Argh, I hate .sit files. sooo annoying. I echo your sentiments, Steven.
Yes Mac OSX comes with zip out of the box BUT be aware that this is the latest version which means that half of the Windows users out there STILL cant open your files.
99% of Windows Media files will play in VLC on the Mac…. but that could be because I do not download porn (the 1% not working were all porn related files).
Same goes for AVI, the only AVI I can’t play in VLC seems to be Indeo video
Interesting stats Gerry. Wonder how, without downloading porn, you knew the “1% were all porn related files”?
Yeah, SIT sucks. I don’t have a problem with video formats though; MPlayer works just dandy for me.
I’ve been a big stuffit fan forever.
I’ve got a bigger problem with zip, simply because decompression is so slow on older hardware. Expand a stuffit with lots of files and it’s quick even on old hardware… but a zip with tons of files… might as well do the math on paper to expand it. Just as fast.
Actually, your gripe should be applied to Firefox itself. All the extensions that are necessary to bring it up to the basic functionality of Mozilla should be there by default and not dependent upon an individual to make up for the shortcomings of the basic browser. As an experienced user you should not be upset by the occasional .sit file when you can easily download and install a free utility to do so. But you do complain and then complain about other who complain about the shortcomings of Firefox which you claim is aimed at the general public when it is entirely unsuited for use by the general public who use Internet Explorer.
Those who live in glass houses….
What Firefox extensions do you find so important, Richard? I’ve never felt the need to install any, and I’ve been using FireFox since it was Phoenix …
There are a handful of extensions necessary to return FF to the basic functionality that Mozilla has by default which have only recently (with the release of FF 1.0) become functional again…the point, however, is that one should not complain about compression/decompression (free) software not being installed by default when the items necessary for the browser one is prostelizing are either lacking (as they have been for a very long time) or are not installed by default and are not necessaryily obvious even when available. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
If find it interesting that a “super user” complains about things not being installed by default and yet pushes a product which is, for the most part, like getting a car minus the tires, steering wheel and brakes which you have to go out and find and install.
I find the entire approach of the FF project to be the height of absurdity when they claim that the target “client” is a consumer who is unlikely (even if able) to ever search for these extensions. This is not to be critical of the concept of enabling extensions for those willing/able to add features, but it is a concept that is inappropriate for basic features in my opinion. The “typical” user is not a corporate IT guy.
I now have tabbrowser Extensions, SmoothWheel, and a handful of other extensions/user.js files (to get URL auto complete among other things) installed to get FF almost up to the standard of Mozilla. There are also some items which extend the capabilities present in Mozilla such as bookmark backup, securepassword generator, add bookmark here, and advanced highlighter button to name but a few which are also interesting…this is not the stuff that one has available by default.
Cheers
Richard, you seem to have completely misunderstood my original post. You say that I complain “about things not being installed by default”, but I wasn’t complaining about SIT stuff not being installed by default. My problem isn’t that StuffIt isn’t available by default – rather, my problem is that it is assumed to be available by people when they send files.
Steven, further to your point, isn’t your original complaint about SIT files totally independant of Firefox? From what I gathered, you’re not complaining that Firefox is unable to open these files by default, but that it’s such a specific format that neither the Windows operating system nor most Linux installs have any application by default that can open them. If so, I totally agree.
Richard, why would you want your web browser to be a decompression app anyway? Sure, it’s great as a power user that you can go and install an extension that does it I suppose, but I always thought a web browser should focus on what it does best: browsing the web. If I wanted a decompression program (other than what’s installed on my OS by default), I’d go download it.
Daniel,
If I understand your question, you are asking why I want a decompression program installed in the browser. I do not. The available decompression programs work just fine when installed the way they instruct you to do.
My comment has to do with the hypocracy of bitching about someone using an attachment for which there is a free decompression program (which is easily installed) and telling people what a wonderful “feature” it is for a browser to lack basic functionality unless you can find some individual’s extension which may or may not work in the intended way and may or may not be easily found if it exists at all. That is not the way to design a browser intended for the general public as a replacement for Internet Explorer which, the last I saw, was the specific goal of the Mozilla Foundation.
Hmmm. Yes, off the original topic, but I’m extremely happy with Firefox 1.0. And I run it with zero extensions.
Juan,
I am happy for you, but try Mozilla. You will probably find that it runs circles around Firefox (without extensions).
Richard, so far you’ve been pretty vague about what ‘basic’ features FFX lacks. What features you do mention do not, in my book, qualify as basic.
As a web developer, I installed MozEx to be able to use my own text-editor as sourve viewer. I also installed the Webdeveloper Toolbar, because, hey, I’m a web developer.
But that’s it. User X does not need SmoothWheel or secure password generation. Comparing FFX to a car without wheels is a gross overstatement. If I’d make up a car metaphor, I’d say that FFX has no airconditioning or leather seats.
Willem,
I suggest that you use Mozilla for a few weeks instead of FF and then you will see the difference. FF is a dumbed down browser when compared to Mozilla.
The really obvious differences deal with the sidebar (which lacks many of Mozilla’s capabilities) and the total lack of grippies unless you track down the (now functional) extension which only restores partial capability, URL auto complete which requires a user.js addition and a number of things associated with the tabbrowser extension, not all of which are covered. One extension which is useful that add capability not present in Mozilla is bookmarks backup…I have yet to find a simplified backup (other than manually doing so) to preserve essential profile features for those occasions when FF hoses them.
People grouse about the size of the Mozilla download as reason to delete features/capabilities in FF when the major reason for the download difference is that Mozilla is a Suite and FF is not. It is a real disconnect between logic and the facts.
In my opinion, the development of FF has been going in the wrong direction to convince current users of Internet Explorer to change. It may well be a technically better browser in regard to security matters, but it lacks many of the user features to which people have become accustomed.
As far as smoothwheel goes, why is FF’s scrolling so crude to begin with? I know of no good reason. Yes, smoothwheel is a worthwhile improvement.
I believe your leather seat analogy to be the wrong one. FF lacks thing that actually make it work in a manner that is functional rather than being simply “nice to have”.
Regards
What features that people are used to in IE is Firefox lacking? All you have suggested so far at is URL auto complete and smooth scrolling, both of which are aesthetic. You are blowing smoke.
Gassit,
What part of look at Mozilla and IE don’t you understand?
You are simply not informed.
Richard,
I use both IE and FF regularly and I must say that, with *no* extensions, I prefer FF hands down. Every one of my friends/relatives to whom I have introduced FF agrees.
IE has *not one* feature that I miss in FF. Throw tabbed browsing, good popup blocking, RSS bookmarks, address bar search, not to mention the improved security into the mix, and I dont see why anyone would choose IE over FF. (Barring, of course, the few cases when a specific application was designed for IE and requires…such as online banking. This is the developer’s problem, not FF’s).
As for Mozilla, I give it another chance every few months, only to find that it still feels bloated and sluggish.
As for Smooth Scroll … I dont even know what it is, but I’m gonna go download it because it sounds like you really enjoy it 🙂
This is not to mention that your criticism of FF has no weight at all on Steve’s suggestion that everyone avoid SITs. Given the most common PC and Mac configurations, it is simply a fact that most everyone can open ZIPs and not everyone can open SITs without installing new software. Why is anything other than a no-brainer? Who cares about Steve’s browser preferences?
-Paul
RE: Smooth Scroll (SS)
Very nice. I’ve been missing out. I would say however, that IE’s scrolling is a lot more like FF default than FF+SS. Smooth Scroll is a great improvement over both. I dont know anything about scrolling in Mozilla, admittedly.
Can I adjust the speed?
For three-button mice, you can middle-click or middle-drag on a page and FFX (Mozilla too, I assume) produces a smooth scroller that drastically outperforms IE’s jerky one. And the image is nicer. 🙂
As for scroll wheel functionality, IE’s speed is too high to be comfortable, in my opinion. I also turn off smooth scrolling when I use the scrollwheel because for some reason neither can actually make it smooth, and it seems to eat processor power as if it’s raytracing the page.
I’ll try Moz again. Perhaps it’s been improved since I last tried it. It was very slow to load then and I didn’t want to increase memory overhead using that quicklaunch thingy.
I do agree that there are details about FFX that should be looked at. For instance, when you close a tab, it’ll reopen the last one in the row, not the last one you had open. The privacy options seem like they’re still in dev, and I think bookmark Keyword should be auto-filled with the bookmark name: I love how in IE I can type a root’s bookmark name and BAM.
sit is going to keep resource and data fork intact while zip won’t.
zipped files will be garbage on os9.
Zip is really only usable on MacOSX while OS9 users are left behind.
I think tar.gz would be the best for all as it is free and supported well on all platforms and archive programs.
There’s no world in which .sit doesn’t wilt to an obvious, flaccid, ignominious death. That’d be Steven’s point. I have it on good authority he only made the post to flush-out diehard Mac fags, so the authorities can round them up.
Seriously, .sit is nothing to be nostalgic about. Stand up, dust your knees, straighten your jacket, and pretend this silly proprietary circle jerk ever happened, because it didn’t.
StuffIt’s obviously over, and only Mac-smokers won’t face that.
LQ
Wow LQ what a mature way to make your argument