Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

[Ascaris]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

After the announcement of Windows 10 in the wake of the failure of Windows 8, people were saying that Windows 10 was the "make or break" product for MS; another failure would doom them and hasten the decline of the PC market even more.

Microsoft could have gone back to making a desktop OS designed (get this) for the desktop, rather than entertaining some harebrained idea about making one OS for two very different platforms. Imagine the success Windows 10 would have if it had the UI of Windows 7 with the underhood improvements of 10 (but without the spyware and forced updates)! They could have had that, easily. It would be a clear upgrade for Windows 7 users, and compared to 8, it would look like a completely new, upgrade-worthy OS, even with its older UI. It would have been a smash hit on the desktop!

That's the problem, though. They don't want merely a smash hit on the desktop. They want something that will make up for the 7 year head start iOS and Android have on them in the mobile market... the same thing 8 was meant to bring about, and which led to its utter rejection by the market.

With all of that in mind, Microsoft decided not to give us a great desktop OS, one worthy to succeed Win2k, XP, and 7. Instead, they took another shot at an idea that had already been rejected by their customers. Their desire to crowbar their way into the mobile market is so strong that they threw all of their desktop customers under the bus to try to accomplish it.

Now that 10 has been out for a while, and it has become evident that there are a LOT of us rejecting it, Microsoft is getting worried-- for good reason. They know a lot of people resisted giving up XP, and that was with a popular replacement (7) available. What will people do when 7 comes to its end and there is no popular replacement? All of the features they added in 10 (the carrot) didn't work, so here comes the stick.

Speaking of that... as I am typing this, I noticed that my laptop (Win 7) has some updates ready. As always, I inspect them to make sure they are things that will benefit ME instead of Microsoft... and what do I find? All of the updates I had hidden are now unhidden and marked for installation... again. Gotta love it! "This update resolves issues in Windows." Apparently, not having a "Get Windows 10" adware popup is an issue (among about nine other things that also have nothing to do with making Windows 7 better for me).

If 10 was any good, it would be selling itself. It's free for home users of 7 and 8, after all! If we won't even take it for FREE, what does that say about how good it is?

What a pickle (of their own creation) MS is in-- they can't give us an OS we'd actually WANT to use, because that won't sell any Windows mobile devices, and they can't get us to adopt 10, because it sucks. They're left trying to FUD their own prior products to death. If they can't sell us on it, they'll browbeat us, scare us, threaten us into taking their horrible product. After all, it's a make or break product; MS cannot afford to fail on this one.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out once the free upgrade period ends. If Win 7 users would not take it for free, what are the odds we'll take it for a hundred bucks?

[stj]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

They want something that will make up for the 7 year head start iOS and Android have on them in the mobile market..

there was no headstart, m$ had "Windows-Fone" long before Android and iOS,
it competed with stuff like the palm-trio

you just dont know it, because it was shit and didnt sell.
it did crash with a bluescreen though!
and you could exploit the crash to unlock the simlocks, so the networks like Orange who subsidised that shit didnt want to get stung again!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_SPV

[TELVM]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

After the announcement of Windows 10 in the wake of the failure of Windows 8, people were saying that Windows 10 was the "make or break" product for MS; another failure would doom them and hasten the decline of the PC market even more.

Microsoft could have gone back to making a desktop OS designed (get this) for the desktop, rather than entertaining some harebrained idea about making one OS for two very different platforms. Imagine the success Windows 10 would have if it had the UI of Windows 7 with the underhood improvements of 10 (but without the spyware and forced updates)! They could have had that, easily. It would be a clear upgrade for Windows 7 users, and compared to 8, it would look like a completely new, upgrade-worthy OS, even with its older UI. It would have been a smash hit on the desktop!

That's the problem, though. They don't want merely a smash hit on the desktop. They want something that will make up for the 7 year head start iOS and Android have on them in the mobile market... the same thing 8 was meant to bring about, and which led to its utter rejection by the market.

With all of that in mind, Microsoft decided not to give us a great desktop OS, one worthy to succeed Win2k, XP, and 7. Instead, they took another shot at an idea that had already been rejected by their customers. Their desire to crowbar their way into the mobile market is so strong that they threw all of their desktop customers under the bus to try to accomplish it.

Now that 10 has been out for a while, and it has become evident that there are a LOT of us rejecting it, Microsoft is getting worried-- for good reason. They know a lot of people resisted giving up XP, and that was with a popular replacement (7) available. What will people do when 7 comes to its end and there is no popular replacement? All of the features they added in 10 (the carrot) didn't work, so here comes the stick.

Speaking of that... as I am typing this, I noticed that my laptop (Win 7) has some updates ready. As always, I inspect them to make sure they are things that will benefit ME instead of Microsoft... and what do I find? All of the updates I had hidden are now unhidden and marked for installation... again. Gotta love it! "This update resolves issues in Windows." Apparently, not having a "Get Windows 10" adware popup is an issue (among about nine other things that also have nothing to do with making Windows 7 better for me).

If 10 was any good, it would be selling itself. It's free for home users of 7 and 8, after all! If we won't even take it for FREE, what does that say about how good it is?

What a pickle (of their own creation) MS is in-- they can't give us an OS we'd actually WANT to use, because that won't sell any Windows mobile devices, and they can't get us to adopt 10, because it sucks. They're left trying to FUD their own prior products to death. If they can't sell us on it, they'll browbeat us, scare us, threaten us into taking their horrible product. After all, it's a make or break product; MS cannot afford to fail on this one.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out once the free upgrade period ends. If Win 7 users would not take it for free, what are the odds we'll take it for a hundred bucks?

^ That's an epic post, yes sir!

[diif]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

there was no headstart, m$ had "Windows-Fone" long before Android and iOS,
it competed with stuff like the palm-trio

you just dont know it, because it was shit and didnt sell.
it did crash with a bluescreen though!
and you could exploit the crash to unlock the simlocks, so the networks like Orange who subsidised that shit didnt want to get stung again!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_SPV

The operating system was called Windows Mobile 5.0 Pocket PC.
I had it on my O2 Exec. Way back in 2005.

Whilst it did crash, i don't remember a blue screen.

[Stefan Payne]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

If Linux wasn't that horseshit, I'd use it.

But try doing a network share on Linux, without command line stuff...

With windows -> right click, share and do your share.
With Linux? (I prefer Linux Mint Most of the times) ähm, yo...

And that's the problem with that stuff...

As someone said somewhere else:
One thing the open source community isn't short of is EGO.
And that's their main problem...

Until there is a big company that is interested of doing a desktop 'Linux', and doing this stuff themselves, I doubt that much will change...
I really really like to use Linux mainly on one of my machines but I can't...
There is just so much wrong with it, so inconvenient at times...

That's the reason I stuck with Windows: it's just soo much better for endusers than Linux...
Sadly...

There are other things as well. A media player as good/convenient as MPC-HC/BE, 5 button mouse support everywhere and especially just installing a program...

[RJARRRPCGP]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

Folks at MSFN aren't quick to throw in the towel on XP at all! XP is far from dead there!

[momaka]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

Win 10 is more convenient because all you need to to is install it and if you have a working internet connection, it does everything for you.

Now that just sounds lazy.

[stj]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

If Linux wasn't that horseshit, I'd use it.

But try doing a network share on Linux, without command line stuff...

With windows -> right click, share and do your share.
With Linux? (I prefer Linux Mint Most of the times) ähm, yo...

And that's the problem with that stuff...

As someone said somewhere else:
One thing the open source community isn't short of is EGO.
And that's their main problem...

Until there is a big company that is interested of doing a desktop 'Linux', and doing this stuff themselves, I doubt that much will change...
I really really like to use Linux mainly on one of my machines but I can't...
There is just so much wrong with it, so inconvenient at times...

That's the reason I stuck with Windows: it's just soo much better for endusers than Linux...
Sadly...

There are other things as well. A media player as good/convenient as MPC-HC/BE, 5 button mouse support everywhere and especially just installing a program...

bullshit
i have to work on windows sometimes, and there is nothing "simple" about making specific settings changes to the network for example.

mplayer2 is good for media playback on linux,

and a good package manager beats windows intertangled mess of installers and frameworks every time.
every motherfucker thinks it's fine to release windows software wihout telling people it requires .net something, or visual something or some other runtime dll's that they couldnt include because of copyright bullshit.


as for your mouse, i had a 7 button mouse once - never had a problem configuring it.
if you expect programs to "just work" on such hardware then you should remember that such hardware is not exactly a standard.

[Ascaris]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

you just dont know it, because it was shit and didnt sell.
it did crash with a bluescreen though!

I knew there were prior attempts to enter the mobile market, but since they didn't amount to much, MS is still 7 years behind in the race, since they never really left the starting line, even if they arrived at that line years before Apple or Google... especially when it comes to the app marketplace that MS thinks will form if they can get us (traditional mouse/keyboard PC users) all on 10.

If we all are on 10, then MS can try to tell devs that they can make "apps" that will not only serve all of the Windows 10 PC users out there, but will also work for all of the mobile users that will be coming. One "app" in the Windows store can reach us all! And if that sales pitch works and devs DO make Windows apps, then people might then start buying Windows mobile devices, which will make more app devs interested in the platform, and so on.

For that to work, though, there have to be relatively few of us using versions of Windows that don't run "apps." If half of the PC users use 7 and half use 10 (excluding 8 for simplicity), it makes more sense for devs to make Win32 programs that will run on both 7 and 10 than to make "apps" that run on both 10 desktop and 10 mobile (the latter being a tiny market at present, due in part to the lack of apps compared to Android and iOS).

It's a fool's endeavor, as I see it. I have an Android tablet, and I can't think of any of the apps I use on it that I would want to run on my desktop PC. All of them are designed to be used on a small screen, and without a mouse. They're designed to be used on a device with limited RAM, CPU power, and storage available (as compared to my desktop). Those differences require a lot of compromises; an acceptable "app" for a mobile would be laughably incomplete on a PC.

Think of Firefox on the desktop and mobile. Would I ever attempt, if it were possible, to use desktop FF on a mobile? Not a chance. It's far too big, too complex, and it uses too much memory and CPU power. The menus are designed for use with a mouse arrow and a large screen, and they work well in that way. The clickable icons that I have (and use constantly) in my status bar are probably right at the bottom edge of what would be useful on a touchscreen-- but that's on my full-size monitor! They'd be scaled down to tiny little specks on my tablet, far too small to be useful.

A mouse can move the mouse's hot-spot in 1px increments; it is a little hard to hit one specific pixel, but you can do it. Hitting a 10px target is a lot easier and more realistic. That's about the size of a radio button, and a mouse user can hit those reliably and repeatedly without any frustration. Can a person reliably hit a 10px target on a four or five inch phone with a finger? Or how about a seven or nine inch tablet, even? Not even close.

There's a reason that controls on mobile devices are huge-- fleshy, very large (relative to the size of the element they're trying to tap) fingers are incredibly imprecise, and there's no feedback possible in trying to hit smaller elements as there is with a mouse. You can't tell if your finger is poised to select one element or another before you actually tap; with a mouse, you can see that the arrow is in position before clicking, and often you will have a changing cursor that will let you know that you've hit the element you're looking for.

Firefox for Windows, as it currently exists in its proper non-app form, would be completely unusable on a mobile device.

So would I go the other way, and use Firefox for Android on my PC? What, are you kidding me? That little bitty thing? What a poor use of my 24 inch screen that would be. Its UI takes up way too much screen space; elements that I would have to get a microscope to see on a phone are perfectly legible on my 24 inch (which isn't even big by today's standards). I don't need to have buttons and controls massively huge when I am using a precise mouse instead of a finger.

Firefox mobile doesn't have the features that I expect in a desktop browser-- not by a long shot. It's not even in the ballpark, or even the same county as the ballpark. I have a quad-core i5 with 8GB of RAM (which I can expand any time, and I probably will) and 3+ TB of storage... why would I settle for a stunted little thing like that when I can have a full-featured Win32/AMD64 version designed to be used on a system like the one I'm using?

The platforms are too different to be adequately served by one single app. Even if the desktop didn't have several orders of magnitude more CPU power, RAM, and storage (not to mention storage speed), some things cannot change on mobiles, like small screens for portability and the size of people's fingers. That alone suggests that having one "app" for desktop and mobile will always be hopelessly gimped on one side or the other (probably the desktop side). People won't tolerate the limitations they do on mobiles; it would represent a reduction in functionality from what they have already become accustomed to on their desktops.

If there was any merit in trying to merge the desktop and the mobile into a single ecosystem with a single OS, Apple probably would have done it many years ago, as they've had both the desktop and mobile platforms from the beginning (of the time that there was such a thing as a mobile market that amounted to anything). What they don't have is a desperate need to play catch-up in the mobile market... and if Microsoft didn't, I think they would also have concluded (as Apple apparently has) that "one OS to rule them all" is a really dumb idea.

[diif]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

Firefox is great on my Galaxy Note II.
Plug ins work great with no loss in functionality.

[Ascaris]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

Firefox is great on my Galaxy Note II.
Plug ins work great with no loss in functionality.

But would you accept it (the Android version, as it is) on a desktop PC instead of whatever you would normally use?

[diif]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

But would you accept it (the Android version, as it is) on a desktop PC instead of whatever you would normally use?

I see very little difference in the two versions so yes.
And your argument was that Firefox would be totally unusable on mobile.
That's just not true.

[shovenose]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

I knew there were prior attempts to enter the mobile market, but since they didn't amount to much, MS is still 7 years behind in the race, since they never really left the starting line, even if they arrived at that line years before Apple or Google... especially when it comes to the app marketplace that MS thinks will form if they can get us (traditional mouse/keyboard PC users) all on 10.

If we all are on 10, then MS can try to tell devs that they can make "apps" that will not only serve all of the Windows 10 PC users out there, but will also work for all of the mobile users that will be coming. One "app" in the Windows store can reach us all! And if that sales pitch works and devs DO make Windows apps, then people might then start buying Windows mobile devices, which will make more app devs interested in the platform, and so on.

For that to work, though, there have to be relatively few of us using versions of Windows that don't run "apps." If half of the PC users use 7 and half use 10 (excluding 8 for simplicity), it makes more sense for devs to make Win32 programs that will run on both 7 and 10 than to make "apps" that run on both 10 desktop and 10 mobile (the latter being a tiny market at present, due in part to the lack of apps compared to Android and iOS).

It's a fool's endeavor, as I see it. I have an Android tablet, and I can't think of any of the apps I use on it that I would want to run on my desktop PC. All of them are designed to be used on a small screen, and without a mouse. They're designed to be used on a device with limited RAM, CPU power, and storage available (as compared to my desktop). Those differences require a lot of compromises; an acceptable "app" for a mobile would be laughably incomplete on a PC.

Think of Firefox on the desktop and mobile. Would I ever attempt, if it were possible, to use desktop FF on a mobile? Not a chance. It's far too big, too complex, and it uses too much memory and CPU power. The menus are designed for use with a mouse arrow and a large screen, and they work well in that way. The clickable icons that I have (and use constantly) in my status bar are probably right at the bottom edge of what would be useful on a touchscreen-- but that's on my full-size monitor! They'd be scaled down to tiny little specks on my tablet, far too small to be useful.

A mouse can move the mouse's hot-spot in 1px increments; it is a little hard to hit one specific pixel, but you can do it. Hitting a 10px target is a lot easier and more realistic. That's about the size of a radio button, and a mouse user can hit those reliably and repeatedly without any frustration. Can a person reliably hit a 10px target on a four or five inch phone with a finger? Or how about a seven or nine inch tablet, even? Not even close.

There's a reason that controls on mobile devices are huge-- fleshy, very large (relative to the size of the element they're trying to tap) fingers are incredibly imprecise, and there's no feedback possible in trying to hit smaller elements as there is with a mouse. You can't tell if your finger is poised to select one element or another before you actually tap; with a mouse, you can see that the arrow is in position before clicking, and often you will have a changing cursor that will let you know that you've hit the element you're looking for.

Firefox for Windows, as it currently exists in its proper non-app form, would be completely unusable on a mobile device.

So would I go the other way, and use Firefox for Android on my PC? What, are you kidding me? That little bitty thing? What a poor use of my 24 inch screen that would be. Its UI takes up way too much screen space; elements that I would have to get a microscope to see on a phone are perfectly legible on my 24 inch (which isn't even big by today's standards). I don't need to have buttons and controls massively huge when I am using a precise mouse instead of a finger.

Firefox mobile doesn't have the features that I expect in a desktop browser-- not by a long shot. It's not even in the ballpark, or even the same county as the ballpark. I have a quad-core i5 with 8GB of RAM (which I can expand any time, and I probably will) and 3+ TB of storage... why would I settle for a stunted little thing like that when I can have a full-featured Win32/AMD64 version designed to be used on a system like the one I'm using?

The platforms are too different to be adequately served by one single app. Even if the desktop didn't have several orders of magnitude more CPU power, RAM, and storage (not to mention storage speed), some things cannot change on mobiles, like small screens for portability and the size of people's fingers. That alone suggests that having one "app" for desktop and mobile will always be hopelessly gimped on one side or the other (probably the desktop side). People won't tolerate the limitations they do on mobiles; it would represent a reduction in functionality from what they have already become accustomed to on their desktops.

If there was any merit in trying to merge the desktop and the mobile into a single ecosystem with a single OS, Apple probably would have done it many years ago, as they've had both the desktop and mobile platforms from the beginning (of the time that there was such a thing as a mobile market that amounted to anything). What they don't have is a desperate need to play catch-up in the mobile market... and if Microsoft didn't, I think they would also have concluded (as Apple apparently has) that "one OS to rule them all" is a really dumb idea.

You're totally right... but think of this.

A few year ago, if you wanted your website to work well on phones, you'd have a "mobile version" with a completely different user interface.

Now, most websites are "responsive" - meaning it seamlessly resizes things to the size of your screen. The result is a much more consistent user experience, and you only need to design & develop one site, not two.

So just because you're running the same app/program/website/whatever on mobile and desktop doesn't mean you can't adapt to the platform. Also keep in mind that many "apps" on phones are really just HTML5 web browsers, not actually native apps.

[momaka]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

A few year ago, if you wanted your website to work well on phones, you'd have a "mobile version" with a completely different user interface.

Now, most websites are "responsive" - meaning it seamlessly resizes things to the size of your screen. The result is a much more consistent user experience, and you only need to design & develop one site, not two.

You're right, but I still think websites should have normal and dedicated mobile versions. PCs and phones just don't have the same hardware and never will (well hopefully... the way things are going nowadays, I don't know anymore :\ ), no matter how many cores you cram into a phone/tablet. At the end of the day, it is still limited in terms of computing resources. A "one-solution-fits-all" rarely works well.

[shovenose]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

You're right, but I still think websites should have normal and dedicated mobile versions. PCs and phones just don't have the same hardware and never will (well hopefully... the way things are going nowadays, I don't know anymore :\ ), no matter how many cores you cram into a phone/tablet. At the end of the day, it is still limited in terms of computing resources. A "one-solution-fits-all" rarely works well.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one. If not done right (95%), responsive design means compromises on both mobile and desktop. But, done right (5%), some of today's best user experiences and most beautiful and functional websites and applications are responsive and look and work well both on computers and phones.

[diif]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

You're right, but I still think websites should have normal and dedicated mobile versions. PCs and phones just don't have the same hardware and never will (well hopefully... the way things are going nowadays, I don't know anymore :\ ), no matter how many cores you cram into a phone/tablet. At the end of the day, it is still limited in terms of computing resources. A "one-solution-fits-all" rarely works well.

Some do, but when the user has a large screened phone, some mobile sites look awful so I prefer the desktop version.
If there is any processing required by the website this is done back end, so the device viewing it is mostly irrelevant, it's just the screen size that needs catering too.

[momaka]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one. If not done right (95%), responsive design means compromises on both mobile and desktop. But, done right (5%), some of today's best user experiences and most beautiful and functional websites and applications are responsive and look and work well both on computers and phones.

If that statistic is right, then that further suggests that there should be two different website versions, because it means that the majority of web designers don't understand how to code the websites properly. In that case, might as well stick to older and more proven methods.
... Just saying.

Some do, but when the user has a large screened phone, some mobile sites look awful so I prefer the desktop version.

So just have a button on the mobile version that says Switch to normal view, and that's all. If your phone can't handle it, have a button to switch back again.

Yahoo and Google email, for example, still have options to use a more "basic", HTML-based email rather than Flash, HTML5, or other scripts. Runs fast and works great even on browsers as old as IE6 (not that I would advise anyone use IE6, of course. )

A feature like that would be a good addition IMO. Not everyone cares about flashy web design. Some people just want the website to work, and aesthetics are of no importance. You don't need a billion flashy buttons to pay your *insert utility name here* bill. (I am looking at you, Cox Communications! )

[Ascaris]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

I see very little difference in the two versions so yes.
And your argument was that Firefox would be totally unusable on mobile.
That's just not true.

It was never even close to that. What I said was to port the desktop version to mobile would not work, and that the mobile FF would be woefully inadequate for the PC when people are accustomed to full-featured browsers.

I don't know what to say if you can't see a big difference between FF mobile and FF for Windows. Even a stripped-to-the-bone PC browser would put it to shame, at least in its Android version.

[Ascaris]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

Now, most websites are "responsive" - meaning it seamlessly resizes things to the size of your screen. The result is a much more consistent user experience, and you only need to design & develop one site, not two.

So just because you're running the same app/program/website/whatever on mobile and desktop doesn't mean you can't adapt to the platform.

To a degree, sure. An app can adjust for the size of the screen by scaling itself properly, but it takes more than scaling to bridge the feature gap between a desktop version and a mobile version of a given program. I didn't buy this PC (as components, naturally!) so I could then hamstring it by running apps that are meant to run just fine on a phone that has only the fraction of the CPU power, memory, GPU power, and storage.

All that extra code to go from the relatively bare-bones mobile version to the full desktop version has to come from somewhere. If one app package contains all of that code, but only enables it on devices that are able to make good use of it, then you will end up with an app package that is far larger than it needs to be for the phone user-- who is the one with the most limited internal storage. If the additional modules are downloaded as necessary for higher-powered machines, then it's starting to look again like two separate versions for two different devices.

We already have data interoperability between the platforms. I can edit just about any file (in any format) on Android and open it in Windows without issue. There's no reason the apps on both ends have to be identical to be able to do that, given the prevalence of standard data formats. For proprietary data formats, the mobile and desktop versions of the same PCs can talk to each other, if they're so designed. Firefox Android and Firefox PC can sync bookmarks, passwords, etc., without issue.

Even if I ignore the obvious (that the universal app platform is meant to create a Windows app ecosystem to sell Windows mobile devices and get MS into the market while their PC near-monopoly still matters), it still seems like a "hey, neato" gimmick more than anything useful. I can't think of a single one of my Android apps I would want to run on my PC as is... I do run the PC version of a few of them (like Firefox), but each version belongs on its own platform.

[Ascaris]

Re: Windows 10 benefits - Are there any?

I don't know what to say if you can't see a big difference between FF mobile and FF for Windows. Even a stripped-to-the-bone PC browser would put it to shame, at least in its Android version.

Sure wish I could edit that. If it sounds nasty, it's not supposed to. It's bad enough having two messages from me in a row, but now I am replying to myself!

Desktop FF, for me, is so much better than the Android version, I simply can't imagine accepting the Android version on anything but a mobile device. The mobile version doesn't allow the full customization of the toolbars, and it needs some work. The one hamburger menu that everything adds on to (addons) gets really long and unwieldy, and the UI for the options is severely lacking (even the desktop version is sadly lacking; I wish I didn't have to spend so much time in about:config).

I am also not sure if the userContent.css is parsed on the Android version. It might be, but I am not sure. If not, it's one more thing missing.

I just tried to install my Firefox addons from Windows on my Android FF. Almost none of them worked, including the "must have" ones like Classic Theme Restorer, Tab Mix Plus, Greasemonkey, QuickPasswords, Form History Control, Status-4-Evar, Screen Dimmer, and others. I wouldn't like desktop FF much if I couldn't use all my addons... I've had to fix a lot of the Mozilla development flubs that way.