Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Cheat Sheet To All the Browser Betas

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the good-vintage-year-for-browsers dept.

Internet Explorer 188

Harry writes "I can't remember another time when there were so many Web browsers in prerelease form — 2009 should be a really, really good year for final browser versions. I have posted a quick recap of the state of the upcoming versions of Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Safari." It is nice to see a healthy market of competition driving innovation in a market that has been largely stagnant in recent history. What do other folks see on the scorecard?

cancel ×

188 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Whom is the better? (-1, Redundant)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#26007871)

I did not read TFA entirely, but which browser is the better browser?

Re:Whom is the better? (4, Insightful)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008009)

There really aren't any clear winners. Opera has acid compliance in its favor. Firefox is extremely popular, easy to use and has plenty of features.

IE, while it may still lack acid compliance is making progress on the features front and security is supposedly improving. In the long run, the increase in popularity for alternative browsers will hopefully steer them all towards greater standards compliance leading to a big win for end users and content developers.

Re:Whom is the better? (0, Flamebait)

ParanoiaBOTS (903635) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008393)

IE, while it may still lack acid compliance is making progress on the features front and security is supposedly improving.

So give IE another 5 or so years and they should catch up to where firefox is...today?

Re:Whom is the better? (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008715)

IE, ... is making progress on the features front

Does it still require you to buy the extensions (like download-manager) or is there some free extension community?

Re:Whom is the better? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26008907)

There's plenty of free extensions to IE! I can add smiley faces to my email with a simple IE extension, and I can get a nice search bar from 1800search. That little gorilla search buddy makes my day. The only downside [answers.com] is it makes the browser so small it's hard to view websites.

Re:Whom is the better? (1)

naylor83 (836780) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009133)

haha, n1

Re:Whom is the better? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26008721)

Isn't the acid test a test for how well you cope with broken and non-standard code?

Re:Whom is the better? (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009323)

I wish it where. What I find annoying these days is how bad pretty much all browsers are at producing readable webpages. Do a simple change from the defaults settings, like increase the font size, and lots of webpages will become unusable, text will overflow boxes, overlap with other text and all kinds of mess, its ridiculous and yet I have never seen it mentioned in any browser review.

Another thing that I find highly annoying is Firefox image scaling algorithm or better lack there of. What good is a zoom function when it will make all images look like crap? Bilinear filtering isn't all that complicated, yet Firefox doesn't have it and goes the ugliest possible route in making an image larger. I just don't get how such a basic feature is still not in there after over a decade.

Re:Whom is the better? (2, Interesting)

Morlark (814687) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009691)

Misplaced blame, methinks. Blame the website designer, not the browser. If the website is designed in some dumbass way so that all the boxes are absolutely positioned, fixed width/height, because the designer is naively assuming that "surely all the text on my precious creation must be in this fabulous font that I've chosen at this specific size" then funnily enough things will break if the font is not just so, or if the size is not just so, or if the window is not the right size. It's not the browser's fault that the website is shit, it's the website's fault.

It's exactly the same as back in the days of olde, when shitty web designers used shitty IE-specific tags, and encouraged users to blame the browser if things didn't look the way they were supposed to. Only now those same designers have cottoned on to such concepts as "standards compliance" and turned it into a buzzword without trying to understand what it means. So they create all their web pages, run it through a validator and then pretend they're good to go, when in actual fact their web page might contain dozens of braindead design flaws like absolute positioning on every single element, or fixed width/height on boxes that will need to expand if the font size is changed.

I guess I can't disagree with you on the image zoom point, although I zoom images infrequently enough that it doesn't bother me. :P

Re:Whom is the better? (1)

Artifex (18308) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008877)

IE also lacks a supported OSX version. So it's a non-starter for a growing segment of the market.

Re:Whom is the better? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008129)

I did not read TFA entirely, but which browser is the better browser?

The one I use, but I am not telling you which one that is ;)

Re:Whom is the better? (5, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008143)

Depends on your tastes. If you like minimalism, try Chrome. If you like tons of features and don't mind a heavy footprint, get firefox + plugins. If you like apple, try Safari. If you like leather and ball gags, try IE.

Re:Whom is the better? (2, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008549)

"If you like leather and ball gags, try IE."

They added a newsreader?

Won't Work with Hundreds of Favorite Sites. (0, Flamebait)

Erris (531066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008867)

Really. [slashdot.org] Have they even managed Acid Test 2 yet?

Re:Won't Work with Hundreds of Favorite Sites. (4, Informative)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009127)

"Instead of making IE8 standards compliant, M$ is telling high volume sites to change and generating a list of "compatible sites".

You're joking, right? "M$" is making IE8 standards-compatible by default, and it's telling web site operators (especially high-volume ones) to add a tag to make the browser drop down to "compatibility mode" or "quirks mode" that allow the site to be viewed if it was designed for the lower standards of IE7 and IE6. They're also giving you an UI to add sites that you know are *not* standards-compliant so that IE8 can degrade gracefully in those cases and let you use the site, as opposed to just displaying garbage.

The end result is that people don't have to rush to update their sites that were already proven to work with older versions of IE just because of the next release.

This is a mess Microsoft got themselves into, undoubtedly, but your ignorance isn't helping much here. I'm sure that will make the front page though, since you seem to have that little game down [slashdot.org] , all ScuttleMonkey would have to do is remove all the dollar signs and we'll be all set.

Re:Whom is the better? (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008687)

Leather and ball gags can be good.

Re:Whom is the better? (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008783)

If you like minimalism and windows, try Chrome.

There, fixed this for you... Though now it doesn't make sense anymore ...

Re:Whom is the better? (1, Informative)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009091)

If you like leather and ball gags, try IE.

And guess where the ball-gag goes...

Re:Whom is the better? (1)

Windows_NT (1353809) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008241)

IE 3.01 ;)

Re:Whom is the better? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26008299)

Argg, I hate to do this but... "Whom is the better?"? First, a browser is a thing, not a person, so you are correct with your 'which is a better browser?'. Secondly, even you were talking about people it would be 'who is the better?'. Just remember, replace the who/whom with he/him. If you would use he, who is correct. If you would use him, whom is correct.

Re:Whom is the better? (1)

ChameleonDave (1041178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009339)

Argg, I hate to do this but... "Whom is the better?"? First, a browser is a thing, not a person, so you are correct with your 'which is a better browser?'. Secondly, even you were talking about people it would be 'who is the better?'. Just remember, replace the who/whom with he/him. If you would use he, who is correct. If you would use him, whom is correct.

Moreover, "the better" is only correct if there are only two options. He meant "Which is the best?".

Re:Whom is the better? (1)

f1vlad (1253784) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008759)

IE8 would be ultimate winner _if_ they opted to support CSS3 at least to the level that firefox and webkit does. Sadly they opted to do something selfish which in the end will help them loose market share even further. Time will tell of course, but I am convinced that is the case.

But apart from those negative things, IE8 is actually quite good, I was impressed when I tried it. Big step forward.

Re:Whom is the better? (1)

anexkahn (935249) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009075)

My major Beef with IE8 right now is speed....very slow on my P4 3.2 Ghz with 2 GB of Ram. I know it is not yet a final release, but I hope the performance improves. Other than that, I think it is a major improvement over IE6/7. For now I think I will stick with Firefox.

Re:Whom is the better? (0, Redundant)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008809)

How the hell can this be modded redundant if it's the first post??

It was a question.

Opera? (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26007883)

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9122719&intsrc=news_ts_head [computerworld.com]
Opera 10 alpha aces Acid3 browser test
Newest preview boosts browsing performance by 30%, claims Norwegian company

Re:Opera CSS3 let-down (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008037)

As I mentioned in another posting regarding Opera 10 alpha:

No border-radius? *sniff*

Is it specified in some stupid way like Mozilla & Webkit do it?

Still no replies, so I dunno...that's not promising. I wants me some border-radius, multiple background image, and border image support! (among other things) A small subset of the major CSS3 features would go a LONG way.

Re:Opera CSS3 let-down (1)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008829)

It's still an alpha. Personally, I think there would be border-radius support, but who knows.

Re:Opera CSS3 let-down (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009353)

Isn't CSS 3 not officially out yet? I think that's why mozilla and webkit have weird ways to do it.

Re:Opera CSS3 let-down (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009495)

Isn't CSS 3 not officially out yet? I think that's why mozilla and webkit have weird ways to do it.

I believe border-radius has been in the CSS3 spec since the working draft from 2002. Should be time to standardize on 'border-radius' instead of 'moz-border-radius' or at least alias it to -moz-border-radius or something. As it is, one has to use -moz-border-radius and repeat with -webkit-border-radius to get it working in both, plus they each do individual corner specifications differently. Very irritating, but not as irritating as browsers that don't support the functionality at all.

Re:Opera? (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008661)

No, Opera, and every other browser, failed Acid 3*, then the developers made changes to try and pass the test, without any work at all in fixing the underlying problems that caused it to fail. If you want to be impressive, work on passing Acid 4.

*Opera was the least shitty iirc.

Re:Opera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26009271)

it does exactly 'ace' the test, it does pass tho..

Failed 0 tests.
Test 26 passed, but took 112ms (less than 30fps)
Test 69 passed, but took 4 attempts (less than perfect).
Total elapsed time: 1.27s

galeon? (1)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 5 years ago | (#26007895)

Yet still galeon is my favorite browser. I have like 200 tabs in it, while in opera I have just about 30 tabs and in firefox just one window with 8 tabs...

Re:galeon? (4, Funny)

exley (221867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008541)

Yet still galeon is my favorite browser. I have like 200 tabs in it, while in opera I have just about 30 tabs...

If you like tabs, you may be interested in another feature a lot of browsers have. Depending on the browser, it goes by various names -- "bookmarks," "favorites," et al. Check it out sometime!

Re:galeon? (5, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009153)

Bookmarks come from the same school of thought that says you should quit applications. They are a work around for the fact that your operating system can't handle resources properly and that your browser doesn't handler persistence properly.

Re:galeon? (1)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009279)

Still, unless galeon has some really smart way of handling tabs (and by a quick screenshot check it doesn't) I don't think having 200 tabs open is going to be easy to manage (by the user). The first poster probably thought about bookmarks or sites he visited but said 'tabs'.

Re:galeon? (1)

dollargonzo (519030) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009349)

A bookmark is just a reference to something you've looked at and might be interested in in the future. Your browsing experience would become far too cluttered if everything was always kept open. As much as the desktop paradigm has limits to its power as an analogy, I think it's applicable in this situation. You don't keep 20 books lying open at the pages you care about-- you put stickies on them and put them away-- to keep clutter manageable. the same goes for browser bookmarks. even if the contents of the page for each bookmark was stored with it (which is essentially what you are suggesting), there is a difference between what you happen to be looking at at a particular moment (which may or may not be important), and a bookmark, which signifies a certain level of importance. in your scheme, everything is equally important. either way, bookmarks are a useful concept, regardless of resources.

Re:galeon? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009291)

So you like Galeon better because you have 200 tabs in it? Put 500 in Opera and you will like that better, I assume.

Acid (3, Funny)

ojintoad (1310811) | more than 5 years ago | (#26007949)

I judge all my browsers on Acid; my scorecard is a a blur of dinosaurs dancing, blue e's laughing, and JZW laughing at me. And I'm eating a lot of delicious delicacies.

Google Chrome browser (4, Funny)

Dareth (47614) | more than 5 years ago | (#26007953)

Reasons not to download it: ...you can't get the Google Toolbar for it.

Surely this should have been in the "Reasons to download it" it section!

Re:Google Chrome browser (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008069)

IMO, if it becomes part of Chrome and you cannot remove it from Chrome, it become a reason NOT to use it.

Re:Google Chrome browser (0)

MicktheMech (697533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008199)

Is anyone expecting Chrome to ever leave beta?

Re:Google Chrome browser (5, Funny)

WingCmdr (100480) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008415)

Is anyone expecting Google to ever leave beta?

uhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26007985)

what about linux? We need pr0n too.

Well.. (-1, Troll)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008023)

Firefox: The only real browser right now. Supports a bunch of anti-crapware plugins (like adblock plus, which gets rid of /. ads) and general power-user scripts for those who want them. Aside from that, its everywhere on every platform that supports any form of graphical manager.

IE: MS has had to work because they prior have sucked and dragged down most every website that does "IE only" websites. It's a good thing that Firefox and standards are taking a front seat.

Opera: They're still around on X86 platforms? I thought they died out and only did DS and Wii browsers and diddled with X86 adware. Havent looked at them since their software didnt fit on a floppy.

Chrome: eh? Its alpha buggyware with none of the plugins we're used to. Im not going to even look at it until it has more what I would consider basic features.

Safari: I dont own a mac. I dont care to own a mac. And I dont even want to pirate OSX for my very compatible Thinkpad-T61 to run it. And pretty much every software ported from OSX to Windows is bad, and I mean BAD.

Konqueror: Too bad I mainly run Gnome and dont usually run KDE, but where's this browser? It traditionally has ran rather well for me, but Im not sure of the recent features.

Re:Well.. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26008071)

You are an idiot and Opera is far superior to them all.

Re:Well.. (-1, Troll)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008113)

And I also posted this [slashdot.org] post so long ago. And I still stand by it.

Re:Well.. (4, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008223)

You do know that Opera has been free for ages, right? Even without ads?

I'm not saying it's the browser for you; I use Firefox. But Opera is a very good contender nonetheless.

Re:Well.. (0, Troll)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008357)

When I said that (under a previous account), it was not free. It was ad-ware or pay-ware.

Even now, I have a problem with possible sources of spyware as evidenced by Opera as a form of ad revenue. I also have questions about firefox, but Iceweasel fixes those concerns.

Re:Well.. (3, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008739)

When I said that (under a previous account), it was not free. It was ad-ware or pay-ware.

Yeah, but you brought up your old post as if the point was still valid.

Opera 5 (1)

TypoNAM (695420) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008273)

I remember back in 2002 when I bought the Linux version of Opera 5 because at the time Mozilla was a bloated resource whore and I needed a fast graphical web browser on a poor old 233MHz Pentium 2 box. I'm not exactly sure how much I paid for it, some where around $20 bucks I believe. I think still got the email receipt when I purchased it in one of my ancient email archives. I'll have to find it and post it sometime.

Re:Well.. (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008427)

And I also posted this [slashdot.org] post so long ago. And I still stand by it.

I don't use Opera myself, but you are aware that it hasn't had ads for quite a long time now. You don't have to buy it any more, so that old post is almost meaningless in today's context.

Re:Well.. (1)

comicbookman333 (1424755) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008153)

I agree I especially like the coloring tabs and morning coffee add-ons. Chrome is a close second but really is too simple.

Re:Well.. (5, Informative)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008329)

I've been using Opera now as my default browser for about a year now. Why? It's the only browser that will run natively on every platform I use, including Mac, Linux, Windows, and FreeBSD. Firefox can't claim that last one, at least not since the 1.x branch. Not in any recent versions. And it's had a bunch of the new "features" that people talk about with chrome, like tabs above the address bar and that dial pad thingy that I never use.

One all the platforms, I've found that it is fast and isn't a memory hog like FF. Opera will also do it all, from block ads to bit torrent, all in one place. Now I can argue that there are better bit torrent clients out there, but in a pinch I have used it to pull down ISO's without any problems.

Opera gets almost no press outside the mobile market. It still has issues with some JS out there, but it's pretty rare these days. And it's a shame, because they probably have the best browser on the market.

Re:Well.. (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008437)

Firefox doesn't compile on BSD anymore? What happened? Isn't it in ports?

Re:Well.. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26008691)

It works just as well on FreeBSD as on Windows, Linux or Mac OS X.
Typing this very comment from Firefox 3 on a FreeBSD machine (no it's not dead yet).

Re:Well.. (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009195)

It's the only browser that will run natively on every platform I use, including Mac, Linux, Windows, and FreeBSD. Firefox can't claim that last one, at least not since the 1.x branch

Really? Does 3.0.4 [freshports.org] not count as 'since the 1.x branch'? If you don't like 3.x, 2.0.0.18 [slashdot.org] is also in ports.

Re:Well.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26009481)

It's the only browser that will run natively on every platform I use, including Mac, Linux, Windows, and FreeBSD. Firefox can't claim that last one, at least not since the 1.x branch.

I dunno what the fuck you are talking about. every version has worked just fine here on my FreeBSD machine. perhaps you just cant admin your system for shit?

Re:Well.. (3, Interesting)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008351)

I like Firefox, but I disagree with the comment that it is "the only real browser right now". I much prefer Opera (which you apparrently didn't know still existed), and Safari (which you refuse to try) isn't that bad either. I WOULD rank Safari under Firefox, but Opera's download manager, speed-dial, and the fact that it seems a lot less bloated definately meets my needs better than Firefox does (Disclaimer: I have, and regularly use, both).

Re:Well.. (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008419)

Is there any other webkit browser for linux aside from konqueror? I don't want the burden of all the kde libraries when i won't use them for anything else...

Re:Well.. (2, Informative)

akincisor (603833) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008527)

Try arora http://code.google.com/p/arora/ [google.com]

It needs the Qt4 libs but has no KDE dependencies.

Re:Well.. (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008883)

Konqueror isn't a Webkit browser, it's a KHTML browser (and Webkit was forked from KHTML).

Re:Well.. (1)

MaxiMouse (743221) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008913)

Midori uses webkit. It's still alpha, but is usable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori_(browser) [wikipedia.org] It uses GTK+ 2, so it shouldn't have any KDE dependencies.

Re:Well.. (1)

cleatsupkeep (1132585) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009237)

Epiphany can use WebKit to render, and runs well in Gnome.

Re:Well.. (4, Insightful)

Zarel (900479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008573)

Here, I'll say something more constructive, rather than just criticizing browsers I've never used.

Firefox: The only real browser right now. Supports a bunch of anti-crapware plugins (like adblock plus, which gets rid of /. ads) and general power-user scripts for those who want them. Aside from that, its everywhere on every platform that supports any form of graphical manager.

Still starts to lag if it hasn't been restarted in a while, although it's gotten a lot better about it lately. It does have very many good add-ons, and I've only found around three bugs in its rendering engine, ever (and one of them had to do with nested tables, which shouldn't be used, anyway). However, it's much slower than Safari or Opera about passing the Acid tests.

The problem with add-ons is that the more you have, the slower Firefox gets (and the more cluttered the interface gets - I still haven't figured out how to get rid of all the addons adding their logos to the bottom right).

Remember, add-ons (such as GreaseMonkey, Adblock, Tab Mix Plus) are different from plugins (such as Flash, Java, Silverlight).

IE: MS has had to work because they prior have sucked and dragged down most every website that does "IE only" websites. It's a good thing that Firefox and standards are taking a front seat.

Well, it's arguably "not bad" now. Although I don't use it much, my impression is that it can't get you viruses just by accidentally clicking the wrong link these days. And its standards support is steadily improving, although it still has weird bugs crop up, it doesn't support more modern technologies (SVG, canvas, HTML 5's <video> tag...), and I often have to use weird hacks like hasLayout [satzansatz.de] to get it to render correctly. It's also very slow compared to other modern browsers.

Still, it's on par with last-generation browsers, which means it's come a long way from the mess that was IE6.

Opera: They're still around on X86 platforms? I thought they died out and only did DS and Wii browsers and diddled with X86 adware. Havent looked at them since their software didnt fit on a floppy.

It's a pretty good browser, and still as fast as ever. Its benefits include coming with most of the functionality built-in that Firefox requires plug-ins for, as well as support for GreaseMonkey scripts to add the rest of the functionality. The benefit is that its interface is nowhere near as slow as Firefox with all those plugins.

Notably, it's the only browser here that doesn't have inline find with Ctrl+F (even IE does these days), but inline find can be brought up with the / button.

It's also one of the few browsers resistant to JavaScript alert DoSing [guyrutenberg.com] .

Chrome: eh? Its alpha buggyware with none of the plugins we're used to. Im not going to even look at it until it has more what I would consider basic features.

For "alpha buggyware", it doesn't have very many bugs, and is as stable as any other browser. In addition, its interface is very well done, and arguably much easier to use than any other browser currently available. What would you consider basic features? Nightlies even have GreaseMonkey support.

It's also the only other browser on this list resistant to JavaScript alert DoSing.

Safari: I dont own a mac. I dont care to own a mac. And I dont even want to pirate OSX for my very compatible Thinkpad-T61 to run it. And pretty much every software ported from OSX to Windows is bad, and I mean BAD.

Safari on a Mac is a very good browser. It lacks Ctrl+Tab to switch tabs, GreaseMonkey-like functionality, or ad blocking. Aside from these, it's the fastest browser around, especially in nightlies.

Safari on Windows works fairly well. Aside from the debatably ugly color scheme and font rendering system, it's not a bad browser.

Konqueror: Too bad I mainly run Gnome and dont usually run KDE, but where's this browser? It traditionally has ran rather well for me, but Im not sure of the recent features.

It's switched to using WebKit. Nothing's really new with it.

Summary:

Firefox wins on functionality.
Chrome wins on ease-of-use, and assuming it keeps up-to-date with WebKit, speed as well.
Safari wins on speed.
Opera balances functionality and speed.

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26009301)

Safari on a Mac is a very good browser. It lacks Ctrl+Tab to switch tabs, GreaseMonkey-like functionality, or ad blocking. Aside from these, it's the fastest browser around, especially in nightlies.

http://www.mactips.org/archives/2005/12/01/switch-between-safari-tabs-with-keyboard/

http://safariadblock.sourceforge.net/

No idea about GreaseMonkey though. I've never bothered playing with it in FireFox.

Re:Well.. (2, Insightful)

filterban (916724) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008621)

Safari: I dont own a mac. I dont care to own a mac. And I dont even want to pirate OSX for my very compatible Thinkpad-T61 to run it. And pretty much every software ported from OSX to Windows is bad, and I mean BAD.

iTunes, Quicktime, and Safari are all capable and useful software products for Windows. You may not like them, and they are not perfect, but calling them "BAD" is a bit ridiculous.

Webkit browsers (Safari, Chrome, Konqueror) seem to me to be noticeably faster than FireFox and IE in rendering pages that I frequent. To me, render time and memory footprint are a very important criteria when choosing a browser. Safari and Chrome are great options for most Windows users.

Do yourself a favor and download Safari or Chrome and give them a try, especially since you used to use Konqueror. I think you might be surprised, even if you have to give up Greasemonkey and AdBlock.

Re:Well.. (2, Informative)

rm999 (775449) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008737)

iTunes and Quicktime are horrendous on Windows; they noticeably slow my computer down after installation - even when they aren't running!

There are much leaner and quicker alternatives to both, so I refuse to install them on my Windows computers.

Re:Well.. (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008899)

Exactly. I've used a mac (dont want to buy one though) and have used Safari and Itunes on Windows and Mac. The Mac itunes is well done, but Windows one is cobbled together as some sort of crashing software heap.

On Linux (the only host OS installed - ubuntu) I use Amarok as it only categorizes my 100K + songs. When I ran Windows on a prior laptop and installed Itunes, it crashed on a subset of my library.

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26008875)

Havent looked at them since their software didnt fit on a floppy.

Since when Firefox can be squeezed info a floppy? And why whould you do that in our 21th century anyway? --- Hard troller!

Re:Well.. (1)

flappinbooger (574405) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009167)

I tried chrome along with everyone else when it came out and I thought it was "good" but missed one critical thing- plugins. Specifically, I don't want to run a new browser without foxmarks. I have the same set of bookmarks whichever computer I'm on. No going back now.

Foxmarks and ABP are two critical plugins that chrome needs to either duplicate or be compatible with. I imagine google would allow something like ABP since their ads are text based.... hmmmm....

Re:Well.. (1)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009183)

You are quite wrong on Chrome, Opera and Safari. I suggest you give them another try.
Latest beta of Chrome is very stable, and has more features than earlier betas.
Safari on Windows was highly unstable, until version 3.1, then it became on par with any Windows browser in terms of stability.
Opera is still around, has some very unique features, and it is my second favorite browser.

And one more thing, you can install Konqueror on Gnome, give it a try, the latest version has improved compatibility with the most websites out there.

Lynx? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26008049)

I've been using Lynx on my 19.2kbps modem ever since the Intarweb revolution kicked me off AOL.
Why haven't they mentioned the new kick-ass beta of Lynx? I hear it supports Unicode text!
Runs great on DOS 6.22

Arachne is another great DOS web browser...

Speedy Chrome (1)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008061)

I like Chrome for one primary reason and that is I'm looking at a web page within seconds of opening the browser. Both Firefox and IE take anywhere between 20-30 seconds on my computer to load first time out. That means the later two browsers either stay open my entire session just so I can switch to them when needed and I have to put up with the clutter they add to my desktop/task bar or I put up with a sluggish environment.

Chrome doesn't make me make that choice. Since I'm not a big fan of add-ons, I don't miss them.

Re:Speedy Chrome (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008127)

I'm not a big fan of add-ons either, but I find some sort of anti-flashiness blocker absolutely essential. No flash, no animated gifs, no dancing javascriptiness unless I say it should go.

Get that into Chrome and I'm all over it. I keep it around for certain pages that I know don't suck but which need a performance boost.

Re:Speedy Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26009797)

Oh it will come sooner or later.
I hope the add-ons API won't take that long to build up.

But it will be available at one point, that is for sure.
(Adblock referenced already on their initial goals)

I tend to stick to sites i trust in Chrome, those i know won't be filled with crap.
Then use Firefox for NoScripting sites i don't trust that much.

I personally don't care for the flash blocker stuff.
I just generally block any flash abusers and gif abusers forever. I'm just a heartless bastard, but not as heartless as them!
I don't want to hear some silly smiley telling me to go away, WHY DON'T YOU GO AWAY AND LEAVE ME! OH GOD THE NIGHTMARES, THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!

Re:Speedy Chrome (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008175)

The good thing with Chrome is that you can be browsing after booting up windows, whilst all the other crap and startup software is still loading in the background that somehow gets in the way of Firefox starting up.

In addition I don't spend all my day moving bookmarks around and so on. So Chrome is quite a reasonable browser if you don't need all the other options that are available in Firefox. OTOH I'm in Firefox on my home systems :) And they're not Windows :D

Re:Speedy Chrome (2, Insightful)

GiMP (10923) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008271)

"My OS is slow and broken, so thats why I think Chrome is better than Firefox."

Huh? I don't get it. While I can see why this is a good thing, how often are you rebooting your computer for this to really matter? Oh, and it shouldn't matter even then, because your OS shouldn't be so broken that this would even be a consideration!

Re:Speedy Chrome (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008495)

I like Chrome for one primary reason and that is I'm looking at a web page within seconds of opening the browser. Both Firefox and IE take anywhere between 20-30 seconds on my computer to load first time out. That means the later two browsers either stay open my entire session just so I can switch to them when needed and I have to put up with the clutter they add to my desktop/task bar or I put up with a sluggish environment.

Chrome doesn't make me make that choice. Since I'm not a big fan of add-ons, I don't miss them.

On a 2.5 year old $600 box running Vista, Firefox loads along with my home page (a my yahoo page with a lot of stuff going on) within 2 seconds after a cold boot. You're really short on RAM, running a computer from the 90s, or you need to reinstall Firefox. The browser itself opens with no detectable lag (meaning no more than 150 ms or so) after I run it, and the content fully loads 1-1.5 seconds later.

Firefox will soon make up the difference (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008563)

...by removing all the crap from web pages.

All that flash+advertising isn't free to download.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26008155)

With my crystal ball... I see... more CSS headaches.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

iknowcss (937215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008341)

Oh no :(

Slashdot Disagree Posting (1)

Atraxen (790188) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008237)

I disagree with the summary. These days, having a ton of browsers in beta/prerelease probably means they're all buggy, but they'll be released as betas anyway, and if you'll pardon the pun, we may never see polish on the Chrome! But, perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic - we may not have to suffer through the betas if the rolling blackouts take down our computers.

prerelease (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008249)

I can't remember another time when there were so many Web browsers in prerelease form â" 2009 should be a really, really good year for final browser versions.

There are no final version any more. There is only beta. The software lifecycle ends with beta!

Re:prerelease (1)

Jeoh (1393645) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008307)

I am Beta and Beta, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

what the deuce? (1)

jps25 (1286898) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008295)

Overall, how promising is it? Iâ(TM)d never argue that improving support for Web standards or souping up performance is insignificant, but overall, it looks like this is Opera 10.0 not because itâ(TM)s a huge deal but because the last version was 9.6. In other words, itâ(TM)s only .4 of a great big upgrade. If that.

What the hell is "it's only .4 of a great big upgrade" supposed to mean?
What about Opera 10 using a totally different engine? And since when are we back on measuring software by its version number?
The rest of the article is just as pitiful, if not entirely wrong.
Opera's mail client could always delete old mail, the new thing here is that it can automatically delete after n days.

OWB always missing from the list?? (4, Interesting)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008327)

These article always seem to miss OWB for AmigaOS 4.1.

http://strohmayer.org/owb/ [strohmayer.org]

It gets 100/100 on ACID3, check the screen shots on the site.

Geez!! :-)

Re:OWB always missing from the list?? (2, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008471)

It got 100/100, but still failed the test on a number of small points...
http://amigaowb.googlepages.com/screenshot2.png [googlepages.com]

Re:OWB always missing from the list?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26008841)

It gets 100/100 on ACID3, check the screen shots on the site.

Sure, it SHOWS "100/100", but it doesn't pass. The output is not exact "pixel for pixel" the same as the reference rendering.

Opera can block adverts if you want it to (4, Informative)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008395)

This may be off-topic; if so....sorry.

I've liked Opera each time I tried it although the interface is different it's a damn good browser. The reason it never grabbed me was the lack of any useful (Chuck Norris trivia anyone???....I'm serious, they have one so I guess at least one person on the planet has a use for it) plugins, specially for blocking adverts. In the settings you can disable JavaScript etc but there's no way to block adverts. Well I found one....and it works.

http://my.opera.com/Tamil/blog/index.dml/tag/urlfilter.ini [opera.com]

The above link explains how to create a blank urlfilter.ini file in your Opera profile directory, copy and paste some urls to filter out and restart Opera. Every site I tried before and after, it was like surfing in Firefox with AdBlock.....bliss. I don't think it's perfect, it depends on the site and the type of advert but it's a damn good start. It's also easy to add a new line to the text file if you come across an adserver not on the list.

Having said all that, I'm still blown away by how fast Opera is, even WITH adverts. Being able to block them helps speed that up further. I've been a Firefox user for so long that I don't think I could switch but Opera is a damn good second browser for site testing.

I recently tried Epiphany with Webkit, it may be one to watch for the future but it's a bit early yet.

Yeah, Right (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008423)

2009 should be a really, really good year for final browser versions.

Yeah, lots and lots of versions as they fix lots and lots of bugs due to everyone trying to beat everyone else to market.

on the scorecard? (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008543)

What do other folks see on the scorecard?

Bit's of my brain as I try to deal with cross browser Javascript incompatibilities. I think it will go something like this...

aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - BOOOOM

fago82 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26008561)

comprehensive may do, may( not over to y3t another OpenBSD, as the

for the ignorant anti-microsoft bloviating: (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008767)

onhashchange

http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2008/03/ie8-html5-and-a/ [pathf.com]

msie8 is the first to implement this event. don't know what that is? ajax is the most important technological development in browsers in recent history (invented with microsoft's xmlhttprequest object, btw). however, ajax breaks history and bookmarking (can't go forward/ back, can't bookmark deep into an ajax session)

a way around this has been to hijack the hash part of anchor links, since they stay on the same page, but create a history. initially, this hack didn't work for msie, because msie didn't consider hash changes to be part of the browser's history, invoking valid msie hatred (msie7 fixed that oversight). but now, from the back of the class, msie jumps to the front of the class with onhashchange, becoming the programmer's best friend

currently, there is no way to tell when a browser's anchor hash link changes other than with extremly ugly, resource wasting kludges like putting a "heartbeat" on the web page (every 200 milliseconds, see if the url's hash link has changed... vomit). however, here's a recent history emulator without the odious heartbeat kludge (but no bookmarking functionality):

http://www.zachleat.com/web/2008/08/21/onhashchange-without-setinterval/ [zachleat.com]

but now, msie, with onhashchange, makes ajax programming for history/ bookmarking elegant... for the very first time. there's plenty of reasons to hate microsoft folks, but hate them for actual real technical reasons

want one? ok: there's msie8's bullshit compatibility button. since msie8 tries so hard to be compliant for once, it is faced with backwards compatibility issues for rendering sites that only really work on msie now

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/08/27/introducing-compatibility-view.aspx [msdn.com]

ugggh

so the lesson is: by all means, hate microsoft and msie. but make sure your hate is grounded in reality, not ignorant bias which i see in a lot of comments here

Here it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26008773)

If you never use Flash (Youtube/most videos), use Chrome. For whatever reason, Flash sucks in Chrome. Hard. Chrome is super fast, though, and is not a memory pig.

If you want the ability to customize website behaviour, use Firefox. Someone, somewhere has created a Greasemonkey script or an extension to create the behaviour you want.

If you want sane defaults and the stuff Firefox will have in two years, choose Opera. It's fast, and it has stuff you have to jump through hoops to get in Firefox. Don't believe me? Tell me when Mozilla offers this:
http://www.opera.com/link/

Firefox will offer this, just in two years. Trust me, it's how it has gone down in the past.

If you're on Windows, you've got IE by default. I would never recommend using it unless you have to. It's a virus vector like no other, it's a bloated pig, and the only upside is the tight integration with the OS. If you aren't programming, it's really not worth looking at.

PS: If you are at all worried about viruses, there is one solution that will keep you free of viruses while you browse.

Grab Virtualbox and a Linux ISO. Both Puppy linux and DSL are good options. Boot a virtual machine off the ISO, and surf inside the virtual machine. There you go: no viruses, ever while you surf. The nice thing about Virtualbox is that you can suspend the virtual machine, so you don't have to wait for it to reboot.

My 2 cents.
Slade

dear firefox: (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26008843)

fucking support disable-output-escaping already

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98168 [mozilla.org]

your reason for not supporting it is arrogance:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/XSL_Transformations_in_Mozilla_FAQ_(external) [mozilla.org]

Can I do disable-output-escaping?

This is actually pretty close to the question above. And in short, no. Disabling output escaping requires us to add a parsing step to our output generation, which we don't. In most cases, there are pretty easy workarounds. The only use cases we have seen are bad XML or bad XSLT. And RSS feeds. The latter is pretty much the only issue to us, and we're sorry that we can't support it. But mixing parsing with XSLT is brittle and we rather not support d-o-e than either crash or be even slower.

really? a desperately needed piece of functionality is bad xml?

you had pretty much the same holier-than-thou attitude behind your resistance to supporting innerHTML, and you reversed yourself, for good reason: its what programmers need and want. programmers are your friends. keep us as your friends

we shouldn't have to spend time coding special scenarios to support your browser, for the most stubborn and shortsighted of reasons

leave that kind of hatred for msie, ok? thanks

Stop modding comments with browser summaries up (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009123)

And just read the artcile, which is OK, and certainly better than most of the user-submitted comments with their own insightful (ahem) judgements.

Ah yes, I know this is /. and no I'm not new here...

Mind you, nothing in the article that most people here will not already know... /end grumpy rant

Would've Been Much More Interesting. . . (1)

igibo (726664) | more than 5 years ago | (#26009155)

. . .if the story was actually about what I read it as the first time:

A Cheat Sheet To All the Browser BEATS

You know you're all a bunch of fly-skimmers. Admit it!

Mmmm. . .DROP!

the cheat sheet is missing way too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26009299)

If the article is to mention reasons in favor and against using each given browser, it should also review fringe browsers. Midori (an XFCE browser) is in beta stage and if you're going to compare Safari and Chrome (both webkit browsers), Midori ought to be thrown into the equation.

It would also be neat to compare extensions wealth (especially its relevance to the latest versions), seeing as top available extensions are almost as relevant as the browser itself.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>