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!

9 Browsers Compared For Speed and Features

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the you-forgot-konqui-and-galeon dept.

Software 363

notthatwillsmith writes "Counting public betas and release candidates, there are a whopping nine different web browsers out today with enough market share to be considered mainstream. Maximum PC explains the differences between the browsers, future and present, so that you can make a more informed decision about the primary tool you use to browse the web. From the rendering engines used to the features that set the different browsers apart, this is a comprehensive, blow-by-blow battle between Safari 3, Internet Explorer 7, Firefox 3, Opera 9.6, Google Chrome, Firefox 3.1, IE 8, Safari 4, and Opera 10."

cancel ×

363 comments

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

M$ Windoze Sucks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087151)

M$ Windoze just isn't ready for the desktop yet. It may be ready for the malware servers that you M$ addicts use to distribute Pron and personal information across teh intarwebs, but the average computer user is sick of spending months reinstalling M$ Windoze and then hours reinstalling non-free software so that they can get a workable machine to check their mail with just to get it pwned once again in a few weeks, especially not when they can get a workable GNU/Linux machine that already does its job perfectly well and is backed by freedom, stability, and security; as opposed to M$ Windoze which is only supported by M$ and char-throwing execs. The last thing I want is a chair-throwing fucktard providing me my OS which can be pwned in a mere minutes.

Re:M$ Windoze Sucks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087195)

the average computer user is sick of spending months reinstalling M$ Windoze and then hours reinstalling non-free software so that they can get a workable machine to check their mail with just to get it pwned once again in a few weeks, especially not when they can get a workable GNU/Linux machine that already does its job perfectly well

A popular Freetard fairy tale.

Re:M$ Windoze Sucks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087639)

I love you twitter!

Browser wars (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087163)

"What do they have that I don't?", you ask yourself as you see more and more young, attractive professional white women holding hands with and kissing black men. You drive a recent-model Jetta and own your own 1-bedroom condo and you work a decent job writing ASP.NET code to pay for it all. You look all around you and you see your colleagues with blacks who have a GED(if even that), blacks who get around with a bus pass(if even that), blacks who still live with their mammies and their 12 brothers and sisters in some crackhouse on the bad side of the train tracks.

"Why would a conscientious, attractive, successful woman allow herself to be used by shiftless black men?", you ask yourself, as you observe loud, stinky, gorrilla-faced bluegums driving their white girlfriends' cars and "bumping" obnoxious profanities while living rent-free at their white girlfriends' apartments, many even receiving cash allowances from their white girlfriends.

Black men are receiving everything they want for free, and they have done nothing to deserve it all!

To understand this phenomenon, you must first understand the female psyche. The physical apperance of women does not matter, for all are gluttonous pigs on the inside. They expect to be treated like queens, they prefer to be listened to while not being obligated to listen. They prefer large cars, large sunglasses, and large dicks attached to large black men because all of those big and ugly things make her appear to be cuter and prettier by comparison. They also want big things because she's daddy's little princess and she should get whatever she wants.

The best thing that you can do is not to give in to envy or anger, but instead to laugh inside. Also, envision the futures of these women. Soon, they will be financially and esthetically bankrupt after they give birth to hybrid ape-babies before daddy's flown the coop.

In ten years you will be a proud, successful manager with a spring in your step and a Dilbert strip framed in your office. You will see a few of your old lady-friends in passing, but something will be different -- something will be missing: Her skin will be stretched, her figure barreled, her graying hair frazzled and her voice hoarse from her constant yelling at her savage, misbehaving chimplets. She will remember that time a decade ago when she locked eyes with you at the club and considered asking you for a dance but was instead swept off her feet by some "in yo face" nigger.

Tears will fall from her tired eyes as she says goodbye over the din of her screaming chimplets.

Re:Browser wars (-1, Flamebait)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087579)

And you will never get laid. You win... I guess.

9 Browsers compared (5, Funny)

slyn (1111419) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087173)

And their conclusion is...

There is no conclusion?

FTA: "In our testing, the answer is no. However, we did notice a difference among browsers, just not as pronounced as the benchmarks indicate. Safari 4 and, to our surprise, Internet Explorer 8 felt the snappiest, though neither version of Firefox ever felt slow by comparison."

They need to get someone with a backbone to say one is definitely better than the other, so that I can tell them that they are wrong.

Re:9 Browsers compared (5, Funny)

Panspechi (948400) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087353)

Can't we just be all wrong and get along?

Re:9 Browsers compared (5, Funny)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087431)

Can't we just be all wrong and get along?

No. How can we be all wrong and get along now that you made that statement? Sure, we could get along, but that would make you right.

Re:9 Browsers compared (1)

John Courtland (585609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087443)

The Reverse Rodney King Paradox?

Re:9 Browsers compared (1)

Slumdog (1460213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087763)

Can't we just be all wrong and get along?

Yes, you are wrong. Neither am I.

Re:9 Browsers compared (1)

DesertBlade (741219) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087553)

Should be modded insightful. It was like reading a movie review that didn't rate the movie.

Re:9 Browsers compared (1)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087751)

My favorite film critics seldom or never rate movies.

Re:9 Browsers compared (5, Informative)

ya really (1257084) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087739)

They also didnt bother to test how fast each browser rendered html either, which is just as important, if not more so than how fast it can render javascript.

Whats with the Chrome tests? (5, Insightful)

dark whole (1220600) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087179)

shouldn't v1 be in the current section, and the latest nightly be in upcoming?

hmm (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087187)

So many engines ...

Re:hmm (5, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087237)

So many engines ...

Or so many pages, so little time, so here is link to the "print" page -- one page with all the text and pictures and no ads. [maximumpc.com]

PS. Mods, if you are tempted to downmod this post as redundant because there is a similar post above mine in your listing, please check times of posting first.

Re:hmm (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087691)

PS. Mods, if you are tempted to downmod this post as redundant because there is a similar post above mine in your listing, please check times of posting first.

How did you know there was a similar post?
I'm terribly confused...

Oh, I see...
You must be running firefox with the "oracle" plugin (affectionately known as the pre-post-preview) enabled?
Or are you simply posting from the future?

Re:hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087749)

For everyone interested in the plugin, this [awads.net] isn't it.

I can't find a plugin with this functionality anywhere online. Maybe it is only compatible with Firefox 4?

Re:hmm (3, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087833)

I think he is afraid that so many people will post it as a reply to the FP (or something further up), by the time mods get to his post they will be tired of the suggestion.

Maximum PC loves (0, Offtopic)

Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087217)

pattern dithered PNG images, for that retro look.

How could they miss Seamonkey? (5, Interesting)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087239)

How could they miss Seamonkey?

I won't use a 'browser' that doesn't have an integrated WYSIWYG html composer. It's in the tradition of Netscape for browsers to also be composers. In the early days of the WWW, the vision was that people would be creators and communicators, not just 'browsers' in the spirit of cows on a feedlot. Blogs have replaced 'personal home pages' (PHP anybody???) but not completely. And the integrated Editor isn't just for creating sites. With Seamonkey, you can cut and paste off web pages to your local system in a fashion far more powerful than anything from Microsoft. Firefox is a gelded browser.

You idea gave us MySpace (4, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087319)

This idea of people making their own sites is what gave us myspace and the like. So sorry, but for the good of humanity and to stop your idea you must be shot. It is for the best.

Also, this function has been taken over by wysiwyg javascript editors in the website itself which is a reason the next bullet will go to the guy who thought this up.

Re:You idea gave us MySpace (2, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#27088063)

Also, this function has been taken over by wysiwyg javascript editors in the website itself which is a reason the next bullet will go to the guy who thought this up.

That would be the "contentEditable" attribute. That's - ha! - Microsoft.

Re:How could they miss Seamonkey? (4, Interesting)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087405)

This post is tl;dr Summary: Seamonkey R0xx!

Indeed, how could they miss Seamonkey? In my experience, Seamonkey is the best browser on every platform.

When I first started building multi-OS compatible webpages, I decided I wanted them to be compatible with everything. That means...

Windows:
-Firefox
-Seamonkey
-Opera
-Safari
-IE6
-IE7/8
-GoogleChrome

Linux:
-Konquerer
-Firefox
-Seamonkey

OSX:
-Safari
-Firefox
-Camino
-Seamonkey

Seamonkey is the only browser with identical rendering across every platform. Firefox and Safari really failed, with small differences on each OS. Seamonkey was also the fastest at rendering, on every platform I tested. I was really surprised by that, as I expected Opera to beat it at rendering pages, and Chrome to beat it with javascript. (Chrome may be faster now - it was beta before)

I tested on 3 systems before deciding Seamonkey was best:

WinXP/Ubuntu
VIA C7 Eden 1.2ghz
512MB RAM

WinXP
Athlon X2 2.8ghz
2GB DDR2-800

PPC iMac (borrowed from a friend)
OSX 10.4.8?
PPC 2.53ghz?
2GB DDR2-667?
(can't recall exactly)

Adding a hack to support IE6/7 would add a rendering anomaly in Safari. Fixing it in Safari would add one for Firefox(OSX only). Fixing that would result in Opera or Konquerer or some other webkit browser breaking.

Finally I said screw it, re-did my CSS, and used tons and tons of div elements. The result looks like the code you get from Dreamweaver, but my pages finally display identically in every browser I test...

Re:How could they miss Seamonkey? (4, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087863)

This post is tl...

Sorry, that's about as far as I got before falling asleep.

Re:How could they miss Seamonkey? (2, Interesting)

Malc (1751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087809)

Oh how I fondly remember the Netscape and Mozilla Suites. A crash in the browser would lose that email I was researching for and been editting for the last two hours. Are the Seamonkey people still ignorantly working with a single process, or have they finally figured out that tight integration doesn't require a monolithic app? As for the composer... there would be a common standalone to bundle with Firefox, Thunderbird and Sunbird, but I guess there just isn't enough demand for it. I used Netscape and Mozilla suites for years, and only used the composer a handful of times, mostly in the mid- to late-90s when white personal pages with black text and blue anchors were all the rage. There are far better tools out there for HTML development than anything Netscape/Mozilla ever produced - even Visual Studio is a better starting place!

Re:How could they miss Seamonkey? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087829)

saying you wont use a browser without a wysiwyg editor is like saying your wont use a cell phone without a swimming pool. wtf do you want that integrated into your browser for?

Hey whippersnapper (2, Informative)

reidconti (219106) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087973)

How can you talk about the "early days of the WWW" without realizing that Netscape Communicator (which you obviously reference when mentioning that "people would be creators and communicators")and other in-browser editors were middle-age for the Internet?

Those days, to me, are when browsers really began to get too bloated.

And I'm still a few years from 30. I wonder what the 30 year-old geezers on here think of your comment.

Why don't we have 100% conformity to standards? (5, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087243)

Internet standards are a known entity and have been so for a long time. Can somebody tell me why programmers of open source browsers decide not to code to standards? Why?

Why then should we expect Microsoft to code to standards?

because the standards are a bitch (5, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087395)

Can somebody tell me why programmers of open source browsers decide not to code to standards? Why?

The standards can be a bitch. Not just a bitch, but a major bitch. Standards at their best are forward looking and interesting because they are stated without much thought as to how they would actually be implemented and part of the problem is figuring out how too implement them.

In a perfect world, yes, you could go and code something completely to a standard, but a turn of a phrase could blow a design. Then you have to backtrack, re-implement, and repeat the process. You could go for years without a release and one thing that the world shows is that someone who implements most of the standards and delivers on time is better than the guy who is perfect with them. Indeed, quite often, shipping "enough" of a standard is quite often cause for a midcourse correction in the standard itself.

HTML isn't the only culprit here, but it stands out to end users because it is as prevalent as it is comparatively complex. C++ itself relies very heavily on standards and even with numerous holes to allow for vendor implementations, it took years to get good implementations of C++.

Why then should we expect Microsoft to code to standards?

The basic simplistic explanation is that Microsoft recruits what it feels are the best programmers from the best universities and has in the past been willing to invent some rather complicated products and forward looking designs. One asks Microsoft to comply with standards, because, if anyone could be able to, they would, and that, in some circles, is sort of thing a responsible leader of the computing community should do. They are members of these standards bodies, after all, and as such, -agreed- to them.

But, Microsoft is just as prey to the backtrack problem as anyone else, and having all those brains can sometimes mean that when they do have to backtrack, they have to do it spectacularly. That is, the degree to which you have to backtrack in a design tends to raise the costs of modifying your product significantly, and its likely that even they cannot resolve some issues in a timely fashion.

Of course, in the case of IE, they damn well could, but have chosen not to. For them IE is a problem. If they spend money on IE, they might well lose it all because the EU and other anti-trust bodies might well make them give it away or discontinue it or, something. And, until recently, IE has been "good enough for government work". But, with Firefox really coming on, and Google Chrome showing so much promise, now IE8 looks like Microsoft is to re-engage.

Re:because the standards are a bitch (2, Insightful)

fatp (1171151) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087571)

The problem is that microsoft breaks the standard. This not only makes itself incompatible with those compliant to the standard, but also makes those compliant to the standard incompatible with microsoft products.

Re:because the standards are a bitch (2, Insightful)

msuarezalvarez (667058) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087653)

Standards at their best are forward looking and interesting because they are stated without much thought as to how they would actually be implemented and part of the problem is figuring out how too implement them.

That's absolutely false, of any good standard.

Re:Why don't we have 100% conformity to standards? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087475)

I think its because standards are more like ideals, rather than limitations. You create a standard for technologies that no-one has really done yet, then hope that when browsers do implement the technology, they follow the standard. I think, for example, that the makers of opera created all the acid tests; and it took them a year or two after the standard was created for them to actually implement it.

And then there _is_ Microsoft, which is a standard simply because it is a monopoly. The right question is, why should microsoft follow the standard of some competing company that they either don't care about, or want to loose, when they can easily make up their own standard? And patent it even!

From a financial perspective, they shouldn't; and they don't. Anyway, what do I know.

Re:Why don't we have 100% conformity to standards? (3, Interesting)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087929)

You are joking, right?

Which HTML standard, 4.x or 5.x which css standard, 2.0, 1.0 , which DOM version etc. etc. etc. said in my best Charley Chan voice

These "standards" are a moving target and just when you think you have it right, some fucking pencil neck gets a hair up his ass and decides this one little thing needs to be changed, it is no small miracle that web even works at all.

There are so many kludges in HTML/CSS/XHTML - pick a flavor of the month that it simply boggles the mind. Then there are semantic arguments that this is a "structure" element, not a "display" element and there for it should not be affected by CSS when the whole god damned point of CSS was to be able to change the look and feel of a page without changing the HTML building blocks.

I would like to take most of then WW3 committee out and shoot them because far to many of them have their heads firmly up their ass so far that can;t tell shit from shine-ola.

Those standard's as the exist need to be junked, take what is good about the them, and re-build it into something that approaches logical, rather then what we have no which borders on lunacy.

If you were to take what currently exists and write the specs up with all the shit that has been crowbar'd into them and present it as a set of coherent specifications you would be laughed out of any standards body and told to go and bring something back that worked.

Re:Why don't we have 100% conformity to standards? (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 5 years ago | (#27088093)

Typical reply I get when I complain about a buggy page: "I don't know what the problem is, I tested on both Internet Explorer and Firefox!"

Lynx? (4, Insightful)

Kainaw (676073) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087279)

Am I the only one who noticed this story tagged with "lynx"? Sure. We all know that no browser renders pages faster and with less resource overhead than lynx, but it wasn't one of the browsers being compared.

Re:Lynx? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087425)

pussy. real men use wget.

Re:Lynx? (5, Funny)

hampton (209113) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087817)

Pussy. Real men telnet to port 80.

Re:Lynx? (5, Funny)

kkrajewski (1459331) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087897)

Pussy. Real men use emacs to email a URL to a daemon which emails back the web page, etc...

Re:Lynx? (2, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27088059)

Pussy. Real men hack the google servers and download all the web pages as a bundle for offline use when the net is down.

Re:Lynx? (5, Funny)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#27088071)

Real men write emacs to email a URL to a daemon which emails back the web page, etc...

There, corrected that for you.

Re:Lynx? (1)

pseudonomous (1389971) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087525)

Are you sure? What we *really* need some good solid benchmarks comparing links, links II, lynx, and elinks.

Re:Lynx? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087953)

links, links II, lynx, and elinks.

I use w3m, you insensitive clod!

Re:Lynx? (2, Informative)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087703)

It's not very good with javascript though, so they'd have to cut out all their benchmarks about javascript

Re:Lynx? (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087847)

I disagree completely Lynx performs the best with javascript, by not running it at all.

You may be thinking of links2 which does have some javascript support, but not mine.

Re:Lynx? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087835)

Whoosh.

Re:Lynx? (1)

reidconti (219106) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087997)

Am I the only one who noticed this story tagged with "lynx"? Sure. We all know that no browser renders pages faster and with less resource overhead than lynx, but it wasn't one of the browsers being compared.

Slashdot needs a "+5, Whoosh!" mod.

Origin of Webkit... (5, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087287)

This statement from page 4 of TFA bugs me:

Given that Apple gave birth to the WebKit rendering engine, it would make sense the company knows best how to rev it up.

It may be true that Apple started the Webkit project, but they did so by forking the KHTML codebase. Saying that Apple "gave birth" to WebKit is stretching the truth. It implies that they created it from scratch, when they didn't. Many other people put in a tremendous amount of work to create the foundations upon which WebKit was built.

A nitpick, perhaps. But it bugs me that the contributions of the KHTML team are being forgotten.

Troll? (3, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087369)

He is simply stating the truth. Webkit is a fork of an existing project. Apple did NOT create webkit from scratch. Of course, that is not a bad thing, in fact it is one of the goals of opensource that you can take existing projects and modify them for your own needs BUT it is usually considered nice if you mention this. Apple sure as hell ain't advertising it loudly and sadly a LOT of people on the net seem perfectly happy to ignore it.

It also shows that Apple doesn't exactly return the favor because Safari is not available for Linux. So they used opensource code but do not contribute in the full spirit of opensource.

No law that says they should, but it is important to remember that the only difference between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs is that Bill was succesful in being a monopoly. If the 'success' had been reversed things wouldn't be all that different and perhaps even worse (who do you think is in bed with the media companies more. Bill "MSN" Gates or Steve "Disney" Jobs? Though call)

Re:Troll? (1)

pseudonomous (1389971) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087569)

On the other hand, Konqueoror has adopted the webkit engine, and I believe Epiphany can be compiled to use webkit as a backend, and then there's also Arora, another cross platform browser using the webkit engine. So the webkit engine, at least, is getting used back in the linux world.

Re:Troll? (1)

lbbros (900904) | more than 5 years ago | (#27088069)

On the other hand, Konqueoror has adopted the webkit engine,

Blatantly false. KHTML is still under development and it is still the default engine in Konqueror (though there's an alpha-version WebKit part).

Re:Troll? (1)

indiechild (541156) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087591)

Huh, I'm not sure what you're getting at?

Someone could make another Webkit browser that runs under Linux, why does it have to be Safari? Safari is not Webkit, and Apple never promised to make Safari open source and available on multiple platforms.

Re:Origin of Webkit... (1)

tangent3 (449222) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087449)

KDE gave birth to the KHTML, no one ever heard of KHTML outside of the small town called KDE where he was borne.

Apple adopted KHTML, renamed him to Webkit and made him a world wide poster child.

Better?

Re:Origin of Webkit... (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087645)

There's a joke in there involving Steve Jobs, abortion and scat. Several, in fact. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to imagine the psychologically scarring porn troll I am simply too lazy to write.

Re:Origin of Webkit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087895)

Slashdot men need to get laid more often. I've lost count of how many times I've read the word "porn" on this site in the last few hours.

Re:Origin of Webkit... (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27088051)

Saying that Apple "gave birth" to WebKit is stretching the truth. It implies that they created it from scratch,

Well, no, actually, saying "gave birth" does, in fact, imply that they got some of the original generic seed from another source.

IE7 Rules! (1, Funny)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087355)

Well, according to the website, I should be using IE7, since it is the fastest browser. I can see myself using it, instead of this pokey firefox 3.0x. In fact, I suspect I'll type this poast much faster under IE7.

Um, anyone know where the Linux version of IE7 is?

Re:IE7 Rules! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087409)

IE7? Dude, no way! It's still practically in beta! You should stick with good old, proven IE6 [slashdot.org] !

Re:IE7 Rules! (2, Informative)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087505)

Um, anyone know where the Linux version of IE7 is?

It is here: http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page [tatanka.com.br]

Re:IE7 Rules! (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087933)

AFAIK, ies4linux only covers 6.0 - unless something's changed.

I use it on occasion, particularly when I need to load those evul ActiveX controls, like at work:

http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2008/20081205_ie6_yoda_ii_ponte.jpg

Re:IE7 Rules! (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087923)

Oh, no! I got given a flamebait score. Bummer. I was kinda hoping for troll material.

Better luck next time!

Firefox logo (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087377)

Their opening graphic uses the old style Firefox logo - odd that it was the first thing I noticed... Odd that they'd test 3.1 and use the icon from 1.0.

Different OS (4, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087385)

It is a shame they did not do Firefox on Linux, Firefox on windows XP and Firefox on windows Vista, all on the same hardware. It would have been interesting to see how the underlying OS affects the performance of the browser. Then further compare IE on Vista vs Firefox on Ubuntu.

With netbooks final end user experience is driven by the application on top of an OS and the interface that is used access and control that application.

Re:Different OS (1)

iris-n (1276146) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087573)

To be completely fair, the should have done it to every major browser in every major OS. So its 9*3 = 27 analyses. Then if you wan to cross-compare them, its 27c2 = 351 analyses. So no, thanks, I'm not that idle.

Single page version (0, Redundant)

wilsoniya (902930) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087413)

Single page version [maximumpc.com]

"For those who hate ads"

Fed up with Firefox (4, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087421)

I'm absolutely fed up with Firefox, and no longer care about it's performance. I started out LOVING it back in the 0.9 beta days and still love the web developer extension and tabbed browsing (though that's become standard) but lately it's just been one issue after the other:

* Tired of opt-out upgrades. I don't like software that automatically updates itself or that blocks you from using the full functionality of old versions by, for example removing the ability to search for and add compatible plugins. Don't believe me? Try running firefox 1 and installing updates off the web. Good luck.

* Awesomebar is awful not awesome. I don't care if other people like it. I just want to be able to turn it off. As it stands the only way to get back an address bar that doesn't look like a circus and flash every bookmark up at any passer by is to install TWO extensions: oldbar to get rid of the look and hideunvisited to stop showing off every bookmark in your collection to anyone watching you use the browser.

* Firefox 3 includes "security" functionality (that thankfully can be turned off, ONCE YOU WORK OUT WHAT'S HAPPENING). Symptoms were that if I downloaded a file with firefox and tried to open it with IE, the images would be missing and none of the scripting would even come close to working. At first I thought it was an IE problem, but no. It turns out that each and every file being downloaded with firefox is being flagged as being in the Internet Zone by means of hidden file streams on the NTFS file system. This behaviour is turned off if browser.download.manager.scanWhenDone is set to false, but it's set to true by default. Thanks for the headache, FF devs. I guess I could just not upgrade....except...err...for the point above.

* Somehow infected with pop-up window Spyware (Advertisemen) that only affects firefox cut and copy functionality and only when running as firefox.exe. (Renaming it was enough to work around the spyware. Of course the real solution was to get rid of the spyware itself, but this was one nasty bug to find). At first the FF devs were in denial and were less than friendly about the whole thing but have since included information on this spyware in the info files.

* The extensions are wonderful aren't they? But have you ever looked into coding an extension for FF? It's horrid horrid stuff....and then you'd be constantly having to change it to keep it up to date with the latest version since they constantly break backward compatibility. As you might have guessed by the tone of what I'm saying, as time has gone on I have wanted to bother with this less and less.

Only problem is I hate Chrome even more and there aren't many options, especially if you want something cross platform.

Go on, tag as flamebait or troll. If you really think I'm just saying these things to stir up trouble, you've got wax between your ears.

Re:Fed up with Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087453)

Why don't you try FF on non-Windows?

Re:Fed up with Firefox (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087563)

Most likely he does not want to use a Non-Windows solution. He wants a better web browser for Windows, without having to switch out his operating system.

Most people want the OS that ships with their computer, which is usually a version of Windows, and then an open source solution that works the way they want it to work on Windows sans the malware infections, etc.

Re:Fed up with Firefox (3, Informative)

cryptoluddite (658517) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087497)

* Tired of opt-out upgrades.

about:config
app.update.enabled = false

* Awesomebar is awful not awesome

browser.urlbar.maxRichResults = 0

* Firefox 3 includes "security" functionality

Well "generally" people prefer not to lose their credit card numbers and such.

* Somehow infected with pop-up window Spyware

... which is why you "probably" shouldn't have disabled the security features, or been using firefox 1.

have you ever looked into coding an extension for FF? It's horrid horrid stuff

And it's better than any other browser.

So basically you have no real complaints about firefox... which is why your post is troll.

Re:Fed up with Firefox (4, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087647)

* Tired of opt-out upgrades.
about:config
app.update.enabled = false

Re-read what I wrote. Do you understand the term "opt-out"? I know how to opt out. I try to always do so. This doesn't change the default for installs. Should I forget to set it, I get a nice reminder when my browser is updated for me without me wanting it to happen.

* Awesomebar is awful not awesome
browser.urlbar.maxRichResults = 0

That DOESN'T do the trick. It certainly doesn't revert the functionality. Have a look at oldbar and hideunvisited. Have a look at the numerous discussions about why they exist.

Firefox 3 includes "security" functionality
Well "generally" people prefer not to lose their credit card numbers and such.

Apparently you don't like people opening up their own downloaded documents either. At least not in IE. Why is it that Firefox sets this obscure stream to mark something as downloaded, but then itself does not honour the flag it sets. By default the downloaded file opens perfectly in Firefox but not in IE (In IE pictures won't display etc) and there is no explanation as to why. I'm talking about saved HTML here! How exactly does such awful design protect my credit card info?

* Somehow infected with pop-up window Spyware ... which is why you "probably" shouldn't have disabled the security features, or been using firefox 1.

Ah yes because all security holes are plugged before they make it into the wild. By the way I was using the latest version of firefox at the time (2.0.something). I didn't say I was running Firefox 1 at that stage. Nor would having security flag I mentioned enabled have protected me. Don't let truth or reality get in the way of a perfectly good troll though.

ave you ever looked into coding an extension for FF? It's horrid horrid stuff
And it's better than any other browser.

No actually, it's not. It's more flexible, but it's not "better" by any means. XUL is a piece of trash.

So basically you have no real complaints about firefox... which is why your post is troll.

Actually basically you've just demonstrated how dismissive and utterly out of touch FF devs are. YOU are the troll because your "solutions" are inaccurate, incomplete and do NOT provide anything useful. YOU sir, are the troll.

Re:Fed up with Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27088047)

Actually basically you've just demonstrated how dismissive and utterly out of touch FF devs are.

You're on /. and you can't/won't figure out <quote>, have spyware, and complain about problems you already have easy solutions for... don't expect much sympathy, because you're not going to get any.

Re:Fed up with Firefox (2)

ZzzzSleep (606571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087539)

Have you tried Opera? It's also cross platform. From http://www.opera.com/browser/download/?custom=yes [opera.com] It supports:
Windows
Mac OS X
Linux x86 64
Linux PowerPC
Linux i386
FreeBSD i386
FreeBSD AMD64
Solaris Sparc
Solaris Intel
QNX
OS/2
BeOS

Re:Fed up with Firefox (0, Troll)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087557)

The beauty of open source programs is that if you don't like one of them, you are free to fork their source code into a new project under a different name.

So what stops you from making Syousefox?

Re:Fed up with Firefox (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087681)

The beauty of open source programs is that if you don't like one of them, you are free to fork their source code into a new project under a different name.

Just how many open source projects have you forked and modified to your satisfaction?

So what stops you from making Syousefox?

Same as what stops me from climbing mount Everest, getting a medical degree, finding a cure for cancer, becoming a world class musician, or becoming an olympic athlete. Nothing, if I have passion, the required skills or the aptitude to learn them, have the right surrounding circumstances, and I am prepared to dedicate my life to it.

It's not easy to fork such a complex piece of software. Realistically without a team of devs behind you, the best you can do is create an extension. People who insist it's open therefore there's no reason you can't fork are living in denial. The barriers are high. What's worse is you mislead people without the technical knowledge and understanding into thinking it's easy. Then they become disillusioned with open source.

Open source means that if there is enough interest, code isn't going to be lost to the world thanks to legal restrictions on its use, or a company destroying it. It doesn't mean you as an individual can just fork and do anything you want at your whim with little effort involved. I don't just have to care that firefox is starting to suck. I have to care enough to give up a large portion of my life to changing it, I have to get others on board who agree with me helping through the life of the project, and I have to convince users to switch from Firefox to my own variant.

Re:Fed up with Firefox (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087905)

Get down off your high and mighty FOSS horse. Where do people get of spouting this BS? I guess you also have enough time and interest in building your own cars, your own houses, and grow all your own food too. Or are you just independently wealthy and so can spend inordinate amounts of time doing pointless things like this? These software projects often have hundreds of man years behind them, so to suggest an individual forks it is plain retarded.

Re:Fed up with Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087659)

stop showing off every bookmark in your collection to anyone watching you use the browser.

Sounds like somebody got busted with the pr0n.

It's ok buddy, I hear they are implementing an Incognito setting in the next release.

Re:Fed up with Firefox (4, Informative)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087693)

Sounds like somebody got busted with the pr0n.

It's ok buddy, I hear they are implementing an Incognito setting in the next release.

Nothing to do with porn. I don't surf porn anywhere that I can be busted for it. Basically there's nothing I haven't seen that's worth my job.

Everything to do with professionalism at work. When I'm demonstrating something at work, I do NOT need links to remote control aircraft sites, local newspapers, slashdot, chess sites or the like coming up. I do not need my colleagues to know which bank I am with. (We are permitted to use work computers for personal use within reason). I just don't understand why I should have to show everyone who walks by bookmarks I might not have visited in 4 years! It hasn't caused problems yet, but I don't understand why upgrading my browser should subject me to this!!!

Re:Fed up with Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087985)

I'm sure being super picky about meaningless details has led to you being the life of every party you've ever attended.

Hey, I have an idea - use another browser and leave us alone with the rants.

Re:Fed up with Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087743)

The beauty of open source is that you just started a /. jihad for slandering The Great Prophet Mozilla.

You thought I was going to say something like "you can rewrite the browser if you like", huh? LOL!

Re:Fed up with Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087899)

And thus a stupid user is off Firefox and the Internet.

Truly, does nobody use the Stop button? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087499)

From TFA, on Google Chrome:

All the navigation tabs -- Back, Forward, Refresh, and Home -- sit to the left of the Address bar.

All the navigation tabs-- except STOP! No other browser puts Stop and Reload on opposite sides of the screen like Chrome does [imageshack.us] . Unfortunately, Ben (Goodger?) always WontFixes bug reports on the issue. At this rate, the only hope is for someone to create a Stop-button extension, once that becomes possible.

In the meantime, is it true that nobody uses Stop nowadays, and thus don't care?

Re:Truly, does nobody use the Stop button? (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087735)

You have internet slow enough to give you time to hit the stop button? You must be new here.

Re:Truly, does nobody use the Stop button? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087951)

Sometimes it's the site server that's slow, not the connection. And I download images large enough to give me time to hit the Stop button :P ... Which, incidentally, doesn't work right in Firefox (Bug 58880 [mozilla.org] ). Try viewing an image directly and Stopping it when it's half-loaded; it disappears and is replaced by an error message, instead of staying on the screen half-loaded. Every other browser does this right, including Classic Netscape, and it's Firefox's code ancestor.

Seems a bit unfair (1)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087719)

Take this post with a grain of salt, I'm fairly heavily skewed toward opera (and against safari, but that's irrelevant). Opera has many of the features that are being highlighted in other browsers, such as FF's Awesomebar thing, and the Accelerators of IE8. I don't think this was very well done, they ought to have had all the browsers shown to them by someone who was very familiar with them, and given a better features list. Also, they should be decisive, as many others have said.

Mobile Browsers (3, Insightful)

LuYu (519260) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087727)

With all this talk about people giving up their computers for mobile devices, it would be nice to see a mobile device browser rundown. From what I have seen, most mobile browsers are atrocious.

For instance, Safari on the iPhone, which is a descendent of Konqueror, has no option to constrain text to the screen (just as Konq-e did not). There is no Firefox derivative for the mobile world. NetFront is ugly and slow and missing lots of character sets, but at least constrains text. PocketIE is so stupidly slow, memory inefficient, and painful to use it is hard to discuss without liberal use of expletives. Android's webkit browser is designed not to link to local URLs (ie: file:///).

That is only one criticism each, but a more appropriate figure would be much higher for each. The bugs in these browsers are sort of unbelievable. Even worse, unlike downloading from the net, these browsers all have a price. When one buys a mobile device, these browsers are included and part of the purchase price goes to these browsers. Why are the for-pay browsers worse than the free ones?

About the only mobile browser I would even say nice things about is Opera. Opera is missing some features I want, but considering the competition -- or lack thereof -- I cannot complain too much.

It is hard to believe that when everybody seems to believe that we are on the eve of the mobile computing revolution that there can be only one decent mobile browser to choose from. Further, it seems absurd that with all of this browser code floating around on the net, one cannot download and install any given mobile browser but must, instead, be stuck with a device vendor chosen browser for good or ill.

I stopped reading... (4, Interesting)

Xenex (97062) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087729)

...at:

It didn't take long for Mozilla's Firefox to emerge from Netscape Navigator's ashes

Netscape's source was released in 1997. Firefox 1.0 was released at the end of 2004. During those 7 years, Internet Explorer 6 strangled innovation on the web. We're still far from free of its legacy.

If the writers of the article have such a poor sense of perspective on browser history, I'm not trusting their views on browsers now.

Re:I stopped reading... (0, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087781)

no sunshine, your wrong.The mozilla browser continued on through out that time. and it was 1998 they open sourced it, 2002 was the first firefox release. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox [wikipedia.org]

I'm right. I'll make a revision for you: (2, Informative)

Xenex (97062) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087851)

Netscape's source was released in 1997. Mozilla 1.0 was released in the middle of 200s. During those 5 years, Internet Explorer 6 strangled innovation on the web. We're still far from free of its legacy.

Also, I understand the history of the Mozilla project. I've been pedantic about their history here before [slashdot.org] .

Oops. 2002, even. (2, Informative)

Xenex (97062) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087869)

Mozilla 1.0 was released in the middle of 2002.

Major error re: chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087733)

They list Chrome 1.0 as an upcoming release, but it has already been released and is no longer in better. Chrome 2.0 is already in development and easily accessible to anyone who uses the chrome dev-channel switcher utility.

In other news... vi and emacs compared (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 5 years ago | (#27087797)

no winner declared.

dillo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087813)

The dillo [dillo.org] browser is getting pretty decent these days.
But then again I mostly use lynx on OpenBSD [openbsd.org] of course....

Firefox sucks. All that money they're making from
their embedded search engines should
be going to the user of the browser not to themselves.

There may be a better browser but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087843)

I won't stop using firefox until there's one with at least comparable features to my firefox + addons. I have a very specific setup, weather, noscript, adblock, proxy button, etc. that might not be the fastest browser but it's so useful I can't live without it.

Nine isn't whopping (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27087849)

Nine is no where near whopping.

Dupes! (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 5 years ago | (#27088015)

Two Internet Explorer. Two FireFox. Two Safari. Two Opera. But zero Konqueror.

"What version of HTML did you write that page in dude?"
"It's version six AND seven man!"
"Whoa! Anybrowser!"

Sheesh (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27088033)

Safari 3, Internet Explorer 7, Firefox 3, Opera 9.6, Google Chrome, Firefox 3.1, IE 8, Safari 4, and Opera 10."

Man, it's almost as bad as the gaming industry. Nothing but sequels.

Firefox 3.1 - Install new fonts - How?? (1)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | more than 5 years ago | (#27088067)

Firefox 3.1's support for the CSS @font-face rule. With this ability, web developers have the option of specifying web fonts that must be downloaded for their website to appear as they intended.

If you are not logged in to your machine as Administrator/root, then how will this work. Well - it can not ever work, which is good!! I don't want some application to change my system.

Same with Firefox's AutoUpdate "feature" - it assumes that you're logged in as Administrator/root. How else could Firefox update its program directory? Please correct me if I am wrong.

If there's anybody out there still surfing the web as Administrator/root, then ... well - I give up. Then it's your own fault if your system gets messed up.

Microsoft even recommends the Principle of Least Privilege for User Accounts [microsoft.com] in Windows XP. I wonder how many people know about this and actually use their computer according to these guidelines.

On Linux/Unix this is the first thing you learn - you only login as root when you need to do administrative work (and only then). Web surfing definitely does not fall into that category.

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>