|User since||March 5, 2007|
|Number of add-ons developed||0 add-ons|
|Average rating of developer's add-ons||Not yet rated|
betterFox Rated 5 out of 5 stars
Works just as it says; haven't checked the 15% speedup claimed but it seems like that is about right. Doesn't seem to cause problems which has been a problem for me with some other add-ons and the later versions of FF.This review is for a previous version of the add-on (220.127.116.11-signed).
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
Seems to induce the feeling of sundown heading into evening. A beautiful picture and good job of turning it into a theme.
A very useful but aging extension Rated 3 out of 5 stars
When I first began using Menu Editor a couple years ago, I thought it was the greatest thing I'd ever added to my system! It made so many things easy and quick because I could arrange the menus I used a lot so I wouldn't have to go click-crazy and wear out my mouse (I actually did prematurely wear out a couple of Logitech prior to finding this software.) However, it is not being supported/updated, and I find that each new release of FF seems to have a few new problems with Menu Editor. I am going to have to quit using it because I want to keep up with the FF versions, and the usefulness of this add-on diminishes with each new FF release. For example, I like to use it to eliminate items from context menus, move commands from one context menu to another, and arrange them in groups. When I try to do this, some items will disappear, some will "come and go" on different web pages, others will be shown out of order, which means they are harder to find and use than if they were in the original default FF menus, such as TOOLS, and so on. Too bad. I would have bought a couple more stars and given this a seven star review if not for these and other problems. If I was a programmer, and had the time, I would write a replacement for this tool; it is SO useful that I am really going to miss it a lot! Too bad the original author doesn't keep it current - I know I would donate a few bucks to the effort, and I think a lot of others would as well.
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
I love Surf Canyon! It makes searching with Google a physical possibility rather than a philosophical exercise in futility. What good is a search which returns millions of hits, with the most prominent being "bought and paid for", rather than the most important? Some of these show up at the top of the lists no matter what you enter in Google. For example: if I search for "useless crap", there will be a prominent link for eBay saying "buy useless crap on eBay" which is obviously not a true "hit", and one which I believe eBay would not like to stand behind. It should not even be in the list. I can get around this with search canyon, as I can get around other problems as well.
Good Job! Keep coming up with programs like this one and you will top the ratings hands down very soon....
(I wrote this review when I was using a previous version but forgot to put it here. The review describes this year's version as well, as it's even better! I'd like to see the options setting put within the program itself, rather than on a web page, but I understand why they chose the web page, as it allows changes and fixes to be done quickly and flexibly, so I'll just get used to it.)
Larry Holmes )
Twelve Thumbs UP! Rated 5 out of 5 stars
I stumbled onto “Duck Duck Go” by accident, so I tried it out. I was pleasantly surprised by how easy, fast and relevant it is! There is an over-supply of search engines, but this one is better than most. I find the results to be more relevant than other more well-known searchers, and I like the layout of the `results page; it seems a bit less cluttered than others. As far as the name goes: I've had my own companies in the past, and I learned that the name of a product is very important. The most important thing is to choose a name which will be remembered because it “stands out” in people’s minds. Otherwise, the name will not help you get your product noticed in an ocean of similar products; you must get people to try your product at least once or they will never see how wonderful it is. Even if the name is "idiotic", as one reviewer here called it, as long as it "sticks" in people's minds, and does not conjure up a negative image, it will do the job. It is better to have a name like "“Duck Duck Go " or "sillysearch" etc. , where the name itself can help, than to choose something which gratifies egos by sounding complex or dignified, and is easily forgotten because it is or sounds like a word people hear too often, or, don’t know the meaning of. IMHO.
Oh, by the way, as I said earlier, this is an outstanding search engine; I have made it the default search engine wherever that option is available on my system. I have found that the results I get on the first page or so are usually all I need, which is good when you search for what seems like a very unique name and get millions of hits! On the other hand, when I use more well-known search engines, I often need to go several deep pages (or more!) to find the unique link I am looking for. I highly recommend this search engine!
There MUST be a way! ! ! ! ! ! Rated 5 out of 5 stars
I have very bad eyesight due to the "death" of the retina in one eye, while the other was saved after six surgeries, etc. This software is absolutely wonderful in that it allows me to set up the colors and text so they do not strain my eyes, give me headaches and just generally cause me great difficulty. I can get by without FF upgrade to ver. 4 etc., but I cannot go without AnyColor. There must be some way to either have the author work on this to bring it up to ver. 4, or to release the source so we can fix it, or whatever. Perhaps if a donation was solicited, to make it worth the programmers time and effort, etc. Isn't there any way to keep this software up to FF version levels? I have looked to find something like this for so long..... PLEASE, help me be able to program and develop other software and hardware products by maintaining anycolor, or releasing the source for others to do so, OK? Thank you, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart.
Larry Holmes, LightSpeed Technologies
burns up too much CPU Rated 1 out of 5 stars
I wrote this review about an earlier version which did not work too well with my "old" single core CPU, and so I gave it a poor review. The new version of this is much better in every way, and it runs well on my systems, which I have upgraded to new dual core uP's and more memory, etc. This is a wonderful product now and I don't know how I will get by without it, or something like it, to fix FF so my eyes don't begin burning, aching, and blurring after only a few minutes of viewing the screen. The new version is worth every effort to keep it up with FF4 and so on. LDH
This add-on is a good idea, and it does work as described. However, when I try it on my XP based Athlon 2GHz 2G Asus MB system, it chews up CPU cycles like crazy. I don't have the greatest computer right now; I suspect if I had a new Core 2 or Quad CPU, more memory and memory speed, it may work better, but for my older machine I can't use it. Between this and Firefox, my computer is at least 5 times slower; browsing the internet, even downloading, becomes so tedious, it isn't worth it. I had to remove this from my system to get the "performance" back up to a usable level.
Good, Accurate Tests Rated 5 out of 5 stars
[PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR WRITING SUCH A LONG REVIEW. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I EXPLAIN WHY I RATED IT FIVE STARS, AND ADDRESS SOME COMPLAINTS ALREADY POSTED IN OTHER REVIEWS HERE. Actually, I have been somewhat brief; a full explanation of all the factors involved, and the background needed to comprehend and apply the test results, would be a good start on a classroom textbook! ] Some reviews here say the speed and bandwidth tests are not, or may not be, accurate, because the numbers yielded by the tests are not what is expected. These speed tests are as accurate as possible; by that I mean, it is not possible to make REAL WORLD speed tests which match exactly from run to run, due to the nature of the Internet and the way data bits are routed from the sender to the receiver. The Internet, while easy to use, is fabulously complex and HUGE, if you view it in its entirety. Yet, we often expect it to behave as though it is the same as the little routers we have in our homes, to serve a couple of family computers! There will always be some variation from test to test, as it is testing for the ACTUAL speed/bandwidth etc., without coloring the results to meet the expectations of the tester. Thus, anything which is not absolutely constant on the Internet will cause variations in the testing from one test to another. Since the Internet may send the data through different paths from one test to another, those paths may be radically different; one path may be much “shorter” or may go through lightly used parts of the Internet, while the next may wind up going through heavy traffic due to momentary high traffic on normally lightly loaded routes (hold your tongue and say THAT ten times as fast as you can!). Unless the Internet is not being used by anyone else when the tests are run, no two runs using identical test software/hardware and data will match exactly, and it is possible for them to differ substantially, as just explained, due to different pathways over the Internet. Also, it IS possible to get a reading higher than the ISP publishes it to be, because there are various compression programs running in the modem, the browser, etc., to "compress" web pages, text, etc., to reduce the load on the web. Thus, when a test is run which has compressible components in it (parts which the modem or any other compression software will automatically compress and thus, decrease the time required to download that portion) , the compressible portion will yield a reading which can be higher than the ISP's maximum speed. This is similar to the gain obtained by compressing a file before uploading or downloading it (for example, using a ZIP compressor such as WINZIP). The original file may be 25 MB, then ZIP compresses it to 12MB, allowing the file to download at less than half the time of the original file. This could make the speed look like it was twice the maximum of the ISP's hardware if the calculations used the original file size at both ends (by retrieving that information from the ZIP file), but only because of the compression. When considering only the size of the file, or number of bits/Bytes, the download WOULD BE twice as fast as the ISP, but the number of "bits" actually sent would not match up with the number of bits in the file because compression works by using various coding schemes to send the file as codes which are reversed when the file is de-compressed, to yield the original text or other data (it is confusing, I know, but if you think about it for a minute, you will see how it works-probably). So, I believe this program yields correct speed and bandwidth numbers, according to my experiments, at least. (I am a communications/telecommunications engineer, by the way, and have worked with compression, modems, encryption, etc., quite extensively...) I like the way these tests are being done as they actually tell you the REAL WORLD results of your system, rather than results which are meant to match up with some artificial specs or standards, which would alter the results to be "communicatively correct". hahahaThis review is for a previous version of the add-on (1.1).