Arguing About Web Browsers - Page 3

On April 22 2011 09:35 the-Undermind wrote:
Once they have been outargued about anything, they always will immediately reply with "it works fine for me". I am glad that something works fine for you. Unfortunately for you, we aren't discussing what works acceptably and what doesn't. The carrier pidgin is a satisfactory method of long distance communication, however compared to email or the telephone is it complete and utter shit. This is similar to the relationship between Firefox and chrome/IE/other bad browsers.

A good product sells itself. Do you know how much Ferrari spent on advertizing last year? $0. Same with the year before, and the year before that. The product sells itself because the product isn't total crap.

On April 23 2011 04:35 des wrote:
op what are your qualifications to judge browsers because you make no real technical points and just flail around about how your browser is better and then post some creepy ass anime picture

On April 23 2011 02:18 kainzero wrote:


This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
It all falls apart with "The carrier pidgin is a satisfactory method of long distance communication."

Depending on the context, it's not.

If I need an answer tomorrow, I can't use the carrier PIGEON. If the speed at which the message arrives and is sent actually matters and creates a significant difference, I can't use the carrier PIGEON. Therefore, it is unsatisfactory in many respects.

The difference in browsers is a matter of comfort, but the primary objective of "Read web content accurately and securely" is fulfilled in a majority of them.

EDIT: Oh wait, you said something even more stupid.



No products ever sell themselves and I highly doubt that Ferrari's tout of "We spend no money on advertising" means "We don't do any marketing at all."

On April 23 2011 07:06 the-Undermind wrote:


Are you stupid, or were you trying your best to make yourself seem stupid? Before I get into why you are an idiot, I will compliment you for identifying a spelling error I made. I could go back now and correct the spelling, however I would much rather leave it the same way so that others who read your comment may be astonished by your clearly superior intellect.
I compared a carrier PIGEON to email/telephone BECAUSE it is an awful method of communication. This is why I later stated that the relationship between a carrier PIGEON and email/telephone was similar to the relationship between firefox and other shitty web browsers. Did you not read my post? Perhaps you decided to ignore key sentences? Do you need new glasses? .

On April 23 2011 07:13 flowSthead wrote:


I don't think you got his point. His point was that there is a scale difference. Comparing a carrier pigeon to email is an insurmountable difference. Comparing Firefox to Chrome is not. I believe the phrase here would be "making mountains out of molehills". The preferences in one browser over another do not drastically alter the way you enjoy your online experience. Now, if you change and change back quickly, you will notice it easily. But if you were stuck on only an "inferior" browser for a few months, then you would get used to it and you wouldn't care. On the other hand, losing email/telephone for carrier pigeon is something that no amount of time will help you get over. You can get used to using a carrier pigeon, but the way you communicate will be drastically altered. That doesn't occur with web browser changes.

On April 23 2011 07:06 the-Undermind wrote:


I could go through specific technical points, however most of it would mean nothing to me, and nothing to anyone else who reads this. As someone who has experience using several browsers, and a semiskilled computer user, I am more than qualified to judge.




Are you stupid, or were you trying your best to make yourself seem stupid? Before I get into why you are an idiot, I will compliment you for identifying a spelling error I made. I could go back now and correct the spelling, however I would much rather leave it the same way so that others who read your comment may be astonished by your clearly superior intellect.
I compared a carrier PIGEON to email/telephone BECAUSE it is an awful method of communication. This is why I later stated that the relationship between a carrier PIGEON and email/telephone was similar to the relationship between firefox and other shitty web browsers. Did you not read my post? Perhaps you decided to ignore key sentences? Do you need new glasses?



Sure Ferrari advertizes. They do this by selling cars other people want. If I am driving down the road in my beat up honda, and I see a nice shiny convertible I ask myself these questions:
-what type of car is that?
-where can i get one?
-how much does it cost?

That is their advertizing.

Lots of products sell themselves. For example, Ferr-fucking-aris (as I previously stated).



I understand that there are unintelligent people out there + Show Spoiler [for example] +, and I try to be respectful. I really try to be tolerant. Its just that sometimes someone will come along who is just too stupid for me to ignore. You sir, are that someone.

If you have any other uninformed criticism please feel free to share. Otherwise, I would appreciate a full length written apology. Not for trying to insult my post, but for wasting all of my precious time, by forcing me to write this reply.

On April 23 2011 09:26 VManOfMana wrote:


If you are unable to make a good technical argument, you are not qualified to judge. You are trying to present yourself as knowing batter based on your own preferences, and for that, sorry, you are full of yourself.

From a technical point of view, we are fortunate to have reached a point where the vendor is not that important as long as you have a modern browser. All modern browsers continuously catch up with each other in supporting web technologies, and the fastest and most complete browser today will be overtaken tomorrow. Of course, there are exceptions, mostly experimental or non-standarized features (advances CSS3, codec support in HTML5 video, etc). Even Microsoft has managed to be part of the modern browser game with IE9.

Historically, it is Mozilla who has struggled with performance, resource consumption, and visual theme. Architecturally, Mozilla has created more of a cross-platform internet foundation, and Firefox is the flagship application using such foundation. This results in a whole layer of code (Gecko, XUL) that allows a lot of flexibility (extensions) but can be very heavy on the system. This has improved especially in Firefox 4, in part due to the pressure of the competition by Chrome.

Your anti-corprate statement is very misguided. Mozilla foundation raises 100+ million in revenue, most of it coming from contracts with Google. They also have a for-profit, taxable subsidiary. At the end they have more idealistic principles than Google, Apple and Opera, but that does not necessarily translates to a better product.

Saying that Firefox sells by itself is incorrect. Firefox is where it is *because* of advertisement. It is mostly done at a grass-root movement, but there is certainly a lot of organization and resources invested into it. Firefox would never be able to break the IE hegemony without such investments, and stunts such as the NY Times two-page spread campaign.

You need to educate yourself a bit more on Chrome. The rendering engine, WebKit, is a very big open source project started by Apple, supported by many companies, and has been able to produce a feature-complete rendering engine, yet very fast, easy on resource consumption, and modular so it can be embedded on many applications. Safari, Chrome and most modern smartphone browsers are WebKit-based, and they provide most of the functionality available in desktops. Additionally, Google and Apple invest a significant amount of resources on their own Javascript engines, resulting in a increased acceleration of the modern browser development cycle. By the way, Mozilla's Gecko has really struggled on the embedding department due to architectural issues, and majorly missed the smartphone boat.

I'll continue pointing out your own ignorance if I feel like it, but for now serve yourself.

On April 23 2011 22:31 Turgid wrote:
You have no objective grounds on which to quantify or even judge performance without technical knowledge. If you make a claim, and someone asks for evidence of that claim, it isn't acceptable to berate them because it should be enough that you have anecdotes(even if you haven't shared them).

Edit: To make this clearer, you're responding to a request for evidence by saying you don't need evidence because you're the one making the claim, and that should be enough for anybody. It's the most narcissistic thing I've ever heard. Get over yourself.