GrofLuigi

What's the deal with browsers recently?

38 posts in this topic

Fine, I'll provide some comments then ;)

First, it's outdated. Firefox is up to 3.5 and the results are very different. A lot of the items in the list are wrong, and "benches" are off too. With his CPU speed, SunSpider should be about 2800, and ACID 3 is 93/100 (not that it even matters -- nobody uses that stuff being tested regardless). It now has a privacy mode too. It seems like we can mostly ignore that column altogether. And also, that only refers to the barebones/stock Firefox install, lots of the "features" can be added (in ways often superior to what ever other browser has to offer, via extensions, to those who want them)

Lots of the points on that list are rather inane e.g. "Save Web Pages, Web Images locally" -- might as well be a "has a X button thingy at the top right of the window to close it"...

Lots of it is just plain wrong or sounds deceptive too e.g. IE8 "Software Updates" says no. It sure it gets updates via Windows Update. It just seems like a cheap way of making it look worse than it is i.e. it's not exactly unbiased! Many list items seem to have been added just for that as well, like "Local off-line Help with index" -- yeah, web browsers are so complicated that I need the help, and I need it those times when I don't even have an internet connection...

There's a couple things that might be interesting if you take a fair amount of time reading the whole thing though. If you look at all the "no" entries on the list:

-QtWeb is the only one that doesn't support Java (not that I actually care mind you -- anything non-IE doesn't support ActiveX either unsurprisingly)

-Most seem to support RSS feeds (not that I check mine in a web browser...)

-QtWeb is the only one that only supports english

...and not much else.

Just my 2 cents.

@ CoffeeFiend: I might just set up a packet sniffer (in the distant future, when I have a lot of free time and energy ;) ) cause I'm very interested in what those browsers communicate to "home".

Just install Wireshark. It takes like less than 2 minutes. Easy to use too (I could have an entire trace of what it does at startup in less than 30 seconds1). You'll quickly see Firefox doesn't do anything "bad" like you seem to think it does (well, then again you consider "checking for updates" bad somehow).

BTW it was feeds updates - I forgot those.

Which don't actually do anything unless you set some up yourself.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll just throw this one on the table, without comments ;):

http://www.qtweb.net/qtweb.php

http://www.qtweb.net/compare.php

http://www.qtweb.net/download.php

:hello:

jaclaz

Seems very interesting. Before I download it, I picked one of their tests as bullsh*t detector (but still not forgetting it comes from the webkit crew):

The SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark

Their results can be seen in your second link. My results (with what I have):

Firefox 3.5: 1513.6ms +/- 2.5%

Safari 4.02: 848.4ms +/- 0.3%

Opera 9.64: 5127.8ms +/- 2.2%

IE 6.0: 27227.8ms +/- 0.9%

Acceptable for me (I don't care about actual results, I wouldn't switch browsers based on this or any other tests, just picked it up out of curiosity).

And since it's open source, it's promising regarding this thread's topic.

(While I was testing, CoffeeFiend wrote a reply, which I agree with mostly (about QtWeb)).

GL

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'll quickly see Firefox doesn't do anything "bad" like you seem to think it does (well, then again you consider "checking for updates" bad somehow).

Well I do if they are so well hidden.

BTW it was feeds updates - I forgot those.

Which don't actually do anything unless you set some up yourself.

They contacted some servers (don't remember now which ones) without my knowledge/approval (and I didn't set anything up).

GL

Edited by GrofLuigi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fine, I'll provide some comments then ;)

Then, please comment on these too :whistle::

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-...ts/default.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-...comparison.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-...ythbusting.aspx

I'll make an exception to my current no-comment stance to say that the "get-the-facts", though a nice marketing motto :yes: , is the single most misleading name for a web subdirectory I have seen in my life. :w00t:

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of it is definitely true e.g. faster, safer, more privacy. The rest seems to be mostly about new features like accelerators, inprivate browsing and web slices. Nothing really bad here. It's not much of a comparison though...

For the most part is OK. Some points are arguable (like better security? not really IMO), some are outdated e.g. "Privacy" and stuff like that. However, they do have certain features (web slices and such) that others don't (not natively anyhow), as for web stantards, IE6 was truly horrible, but IE8 is getting better (not up to par, but "good enough" for now as most people still won't use anything that crappy old IE6 won't handle). Compatibility? Well, if you include sites with ActiveX stuff, then that makes them right... Manageability? Sure, no other browser integrates with group policy and the like. Not unbiased obviously, and a couple points I don't agree with, but not totally wrong either.

1. They're referring more to how you work, rather than benchmarks it seems. Either ways, I don't care much about those "benchmarks", my pages load plenty fast regardless, and most of my wait is caused by network latency, not javascript performance and the like

2. They're looking at it from a "we had private browsing and the phishing filter first". They have a point, although there's more to security than just that (number of vulnerabilities, time to patch vulnerabilities, how critical and so on). It comes down to opinion IMO. Either ways, I haven't caught malware from any site in years, and I'm not worried about phishing sites and the like.

The only real points I have issues with in all the links you provided are points 3 and 4 in your last link.

3. Might actually be true for most end users. But it certainly doesn't match Firefox for power users and developers. Then again, I don't spend much time looking at IE addons...

4. This one has no basis in reality. I'll grant you that. I can't think of any way to back a statement like this, or any reasonable reason to think so.

To be honest, the aren't many reasons why I'm using Firefox over IE now. There's several little things like form data being saved when you hit back after the page you were posting to didn't work (sucks losing the entire post you typed!). But for the most part, it's extensions. The day IE has extensions as good or better than Firefox is the day I'll likely switch (or not bother installing it anymore). I just can't imagine browsing without them.

I've seen much worse comparisons being made before...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! I just saw this.

Fortunately, it will be fixed.

(I haven't experienced it.)

That was the idea of this thread - to report these things and possible fixes.

GL

* Edit: ProcMon confirmed it read the temp folder, IE's temporary internet files and fonts folder. I'm this close to erasing it.

* Edit2: I'm not paranoid, I just won't surrender to stupidity. :)

Edited by GrofLuigi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as for web stantards, IE6 was truly horrible, but IE8 is getting better (not up to par, but "good enough" for now as most people still won't use anything that crappy old IE6 won't handle).
You forget IE6 was released way, way back in 2001 (3 years before Firefox 1.0, fwiw). It was the most standards-compliant browser of it's day, with the only other real clients available en masse being Opera and Netscape (which was crap by this point). I'm not saying IE6 was perfect (like keeping the broken 5.x CSS2 layout, etc), but it was the most standards-compliant browser available in it's day, in late 2001. At that time no shipping browser really supported CSS2 in any real, meaningful way (other than IE, Opera had decent CSS2 support, but even then not as much as IE6), and DOM2 wasn't ratified until 4 months before the IE6 beta if my memory serves, meaning IE6 didn't have support for it either (and to be fair, it took a few years for the others to get support for it as well, Opera 6 or 7 in 2003, again if I remember; a little fuzzy on the versions).

It's the 6 years Microsoft sat on IE6 without changing much of anything, and the fact that IE7 wasn't really a big leap in compliance with standards at the time either, that makes IE6 (and to a point, IE7) so "bad". Ultimately, I think people complaining about IE6 "sucking" and not being standards-compliant aren't complaining that it *was* horrible, they're complaining that it's still a pain to continue to support along with better browsers. I, for one, would love it if Microsoft would drop support for "old" browsers at 5 years (when the OS it shipped on leaves mainstream support, for example) rather than 10, because the way the web moves a 10 year old browser really *is* crap to have to support. Or, even better, treat it as a service pack - 24 months after the next one releases, drop mainstream (unpaid, non-premier) support for the old browser and "force" people to upgrade.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as for web stantards, IE6 was truly horrible, but IE8 is getting better (not up to par, but "good enough" for now as most people still won't use anything that crappy old IE6 won't handle).
You forget IE6 was released way, way back in 2001 (3 years before Firefox 1.0, fwiw). It was the most standards-compliant browser of it's day, with the only other real clients available en masse being Opera and Netscape (which was crap by this point). I'm not saying IE6 was perfect (like keeping the broken 5.x CSS2 layout, etc), but it was the most standards-compliant browser available in it's day, in late 2001. At that time no shipping browser really supported CSS2 in any real, meaningful way (other than IE, Opera had decent CSS2 support, but even then not as much as IE6), and DOM2 wasn't ratified until 4 months before the IE6 beta if my memory serves, meaning IE6 didn't have support for it either (and to be fair, it took a few years for the others to get support for it as well, Opera 6 or 7 in 2003, again if I remember; a little fuzzy on the versions).

It's the 6 years Microsoft sat on IE6 without changing much of anything, and the fact that IE7 wasn't really a big leap in compliance with standards at the time either, that makes IE6 (and to a point, IE7) so "bad". Ultimately, I think people complaining about IE6 "sucking" and not being standards-compliant aren't complaining that it *was* horrible, they're complaining that it's still a pain to continue to support along with better browsers. I, for one, would love it if Microsoft would drop support for "old" browsers at 5 years (when the OS it shipped on leaves mainstream support, for example) rather than 10, because the way the web moves a 10 year old browser really *is* crap to have to support. Or, even better, treat it as a service pack - 24 months after the next one releases, drop mainstream (unpaid, non-premier) support for the old browser and "force" people to upgrade.

I agree. I remember when only IE 6 supported XSLT. Then IE7 didn't support it which is why I never upgraded at home.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just loaded the site in Opera 9 without a problem. The main site loaded and asked my to select a slot machine. I click on a coupe, at random and the following page loaded with a grey box in the middle. After a few seconds the grey box turned into the slot machine, which worked flawlessly.

First, make sure you have not disabled Java or Javascript...go Tools->Preferences->Advanced->Content and make sure both are checked. If that doesn't resolve it, try reinstalling the latest version of Java. The site should work with Opera from the start, so something's amiss here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with great joy I am writing that another Qt based browser has spawned

it is as Light as Qtweb, but this one is made to mimic classic Opera UI

its name is Otter Browser, check it out, its in early alpha and is much better than QtWeb already

Edited by vinifera
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use COMODO Dragon, and happily, but it is DEFINITELY NOT light weight. LOL

Cheers and Regards

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but it is DEFINITELY NOT light weight. LOL

exactly

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.