EPTBrowser War Round II - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
killanator
United States549 Posts
| ||
|
Clow
Brazil880 Posts
| ||
|
LandenC
Canada55 Posts
Main thing about opera I love and the thing that made my friends switch is mouse gestures. If you try opera you have to give mouse gestures a try. I can browse a bunch of tabs extremely fast with barely having to move my mouse around at all. http://www.opera.com/browser/tutorials/gestures/ Never had to install a single addon or extension with opera, it has great features from the start. Can't remember ever seeing any pop ups either. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
| ||
|
newvsoldschool
428 Posts
I, have an 11-button mouse, so, Semantics, gestures still greatly help me. I don't actually use any of the special mouse buttons for browser use, since gestures already do those for me. Why waste button real estate that's restricted to my browser? I use my buttons for cut/copy/paste, magnify, undo/redo, alt+f4, alt+tab, etc. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On September 19 2010 13:58 newvsoldschool wrote: I have *all* browsers installed on my computer since I work as a web designer (got to look out for browser incompatibilities, browser-specific quirks and such). My browser of choice for typical use is Opera, and it's been so for five years. It does everything I need, in my opinion its e-mail client and organizer is unmatched, and mouse gestures is built in. From what I can remember, it was also the fastest browser in java tests, but I'm not too up date on that. I, have an 11-button mouse, so, Semantics, gestures still greatly help me. I don't actually use any of the special mouse buttons for browser use, since gestures already do those for me. Why waste button real estate that's restricted to my browser? I use my buttons for cut/copy/paste, magnify, undo/redo, alt+f4, alt+tab, etc. I went the opposite rout and decided to map the buttons to opera. To each his own i suppose, although i did like using gestures for quite some time when i used a track ball heavily. I program specific profiles for my mouse so i did map alt tab but it cut down on my need for other things. I still have copy paste in opera, it's just left click + forward or back depending what i want to do. undo redo is just the same but with right click  | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
| ||
|
Nihilnovi
Sweden696 Posts
On September 19 2010 10:39 Rakanishu2 wrote: Lol, wikipedia has been proven to be more accurate than the Encylcopedia. Oh, and chrome brings nothing to the table? What about speed? Chrome is faster and more secure than FF. You might hate it, but chrome is gonna take over, its just too robust and fast. An online article, which anyone can edit at any time, is hardly accurate. I'm not gonna start a debate regarding using wikipedia as a source, since that doesn't belong in this topic. I don't understand your "speed" argument. I see absolutely no difference in loading speeds among the other browsers, sure, when put under severe load in testing conditions then you might actually note a minimal difference between the loading times, but unless you are doing compiler research on the different browser engines you can't tell the difference when browsing the web. The browser companies love to throw numbers around, "google chrome is 60% faster than any other web browser" - Yeah, sure. The other browsers may load the scripts and markups slower - but to you - the end user, the difference can not be seen or felt. We are talking of speeds under 100 milliseconds of difference. Chrome is not going to take over, there is no chance for it to compete with IE due to the reasons I pointed out in my previous post(s). I'm not saying it's a bad browser per se, I'm saying it was not needed on the market, and it's shares aren't increasing either. And if you really want speed, then Opera is the fastest browser, by far. When it comes to security, the browser itself is only one layer. You are hardly safe because you use X browser. Your current windows updates play a huge part, if you are on xp vista or 7 plays a huge part, if you are using some sort of script-blocking plugin plays a huge part. If you are using firefox or chrome makes the absolute smallest of difference and swings either way. There will always be exploits for every browser, and chromes sandbox model is not going to have an advantage forever - it's just the first browser that was made this way. You think that chrome is "safer" than IE? It's the same argument that macs are safer than pc's, in short, they are not. Assume for a minute that you are a cracker. You of course want to get credit card information and other personal information from a users computers. You know these facts: 95% of the worlds computers are PC's. 60% of the these use IE. For which browser and system do you construct your virus/trojan/worm ? The security "quality" in chrome is hardly better than in any other browser. It just has security through obscurity - it's so rarely used on the web that it just doesn't pay to crack it. On the other hand, if a cracker is sitting on a huge chrome exploit and just waiting for people to switch to it then taking advantage of it , all hell breaks lose. In the end, the biggest security threat is YOU. Having common sense on the internet is enough to be safe, regardless of browser. | ||
|
LaSt)ChAnCe
United States2179 Posts
| ||
|
Swagga
Canada49 Posts
The privacy issues aren't really an issue for me because i have nothing to hide. I also think Chrome has potential because it already has a huge market in the browser war and Google is the biggest corporation with the greatest amount of revenue in their pockets, which probably indicates huge potential from Chrome. | ||
|
accela
Greece314 Posts
On September 20 2010 00:21 Nihilnovi wrote: The browser companies love to throw numbers around, "google chrome is 60% faster than any other web browser" - Yeah, sure. The other browsers may load the scripts and markups slower - but to you - the end user, the difference can not be seen or felt. We are talking of speeds under 100 milliseconds of difference. Also there is no need for different compilers cause who cares if "hello world", compiled with gcc, is executed 1ms faster than compiled with msvc. Of course that is absurd. The more complex the code is the bigger the performance margin gets generated by different compilers On September 20 2010 00:21 Nihilnovi wrote: Chrome is not going to take over, there is no chance for it to compete with IE due to the reasons I pointed out in my previous post(s). I'm not saying it's a bad browser per se, I'm saying it was not needed on the market, and it's shares aren't increasing either. your "reasons" that keep systems with old/stock software are just bad infrastructure by corps/govs and lazy IT staff. The good thing is that as we move on both will have to be fixed cause new technologies and standards are incorporated faster and faster both in browsers and by web developers (im talking about the serious developers, not the lazy guys who wouldnt mind to still develop static pages on geocities On September 20 2010 00:21 Nihilnovi wrote: When it comes to security, the browser itself is only one layer. You are hardly safe because you use X browser. Your current windows updates play a huge part, if you are on xp vista or 7 plays a huge part, if you are using some sort of script-blocking plugin plays a huge part. If you are using firefox or chrome makes the absolute smallest of difference and swings either way. There will always be exploits for every browser, and chromes sandbox model is not going to have an advantage forever - it's just the first browser that was made this way. Browsers might be another layer but a layer big enough to be very complex. Also big amount of people have almost constantly a browser open from the time OS boots up until shutdown so the truth is that browser's security is really important. Yes there will be bugs for all programs, the thing is that chrome's code is open (at least most of it), webkit is open and a huge amount of people from many companies, projects or individuals collaborate and contribute so the whole code review is in a much higher level. On September 20 2010 00:21 Nihilnovi wrote: You think that chrome is "safer" than IE? It's the same argument that macs are safer than pc's, in short, they are not. fix "macos is safer than windows" and yes that is in general correct. On September 20 2010 00:21 Nihilnovi wrote: Assume for a minute that you are a cracker. You of course want to get credit card information and other personal information from a users computers. You know these facts: 95% of the worlds computers are PC's. 60% of the these use IE. For which browser and system do you construct your virus/trojan/worm ? But of course for the browser and system that is easier to bypass and that's almost always Windows systems and IE | ||
|
Nihilnovi
Sweden696 Posts
On September 20 2010 05:13 accela wrote: Also there is no need for different compilers cause who cares if "hello world", compiled with gcc, is executed 1ms faster than compiled with msvc. Of course that is absurd. The more complex the code is the bigger the performance margin gets generated by different compilers This is in no way related to what I pointed out in my post or what has been said in this thread. Of course as a developer you strive for even the smallest increases in performance - if you read my post again carefully maybe you'll understand my point. On September 20 2010 05:13 accela wrote: your "reasons" that keep systems with old/stock software are just bad infrastructure by corps/govs and lazy IT staff. The good thing is that as we move on both will have to be fixed cause new technologies and standards are incorporated faster and faster both in browsers and by web developers (im talking about the serious developers, not the lazy guys who wouldnt mind to still develop static pages on geocities I highly doubt this will happen anytime soon. It has nothing to do with "lazy staff", it has to do with the people controlling the money not wanting to spend millions on changing something that is working perfectly fine. From a business standpoint, it makes no sense. Standards are hardly being set fast either, the last HTML version to be set as standard was HTML 4 back in 1999, since then, nothing has changed. A experimental working draft was made in 2008 (HTML 5). It will take several years before this is set a standard. A Candidate Recommendation is set for 2012 and a release for 2022 as a academic date. In a quote from W3C why it takes so long: For a spec to become a REC today, it requires two 100% complete and fully interoperable implementations, which is proven by each successfully passing literally thousands of test cases (20,000 tests for the whole spec would probably be a conservative estimate). When you consider how long it takes to write that many test cases and how long it takes to implement each feature, you’ll begin to understand why the time frame seems so long. On September 20 2010 05:13 accela wrote: Browsers might be another layer but a layer big enough to be very complex. Also big amount of people have almost constantly a browser open from the time OS boots up until shutdown so the truth is that browser's security is really important. Yes there will be bugs for all programs, the thing is that chrome's code is open (at least most of it), webkit is open and a huge amount of people from many companies, projects or individuals collaborate and contribute so the whole code review is in a much higher level. That really is highly irrelevant. There is no such thing as a safe browser, and there never will be. At the same time you talk about webkit when safari is the easiest browser to exploit, iirc for 3 years running now it's been the first to fall in p2o. Not even going to mention it's the same case for mac os and iPhone. Major newsflash: apple products are not any safer than ms products. *GASP* Only real amazing thing apple has is their marketing. Even my moms dumbass boyfriend that knows nothing about computers is an apple fanboy. On September 20 2010 05:13 accela wrote: But of course for the browser and system that is easier to bypass and that's almost always Windows systems and IE Easier for who, the top 1% of hackers and crackers worldwide? I can't see how this has any effect on the average internet user. Afaik all the gurus at hfnet have no trouble in getting into any pc/mac system. Every public OS is possible to "bypass" - but in the end you have more people getting infected that use Windows,because(oh snap!) there are 20 times more windows users than all other OS's combined! I can bet all my money and shoes that if it was the other way around, say mac users were in 95% majority, you would be saying that safari and mac os is easier to bypass. Just like everyone else. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
I think the newer version of IE is much better than Firefox, though. For one thing, Firefox has huge memory leaks. Leaving it open for just a day, it starts using up more memory than World of Warcraft and around twice that of SC2 easily. Lately, Firefox also messes up cookies for certain sites. I can't check my Yahoo mail or change my Google advanced preferences without deleting the cookies for those sites every single time I open up Firefox. That means I need to delete those cookies whenever I restart my computer or restart Firefox. The private browsing for IE is also better since I can have both a private window and a non-private one open at the same time. | ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
On September 19 2010 07:59 Nihilnovi wrote: Browser usage from Net Applications: ![[image loading]](http://www.idg.se/polopoly_fs/1.337169!imageManager/443985192.jpg) IE: 60,4% FF: 22.9% Chrome: 7.5% Safari: 5.2% Opera: 2.4% I work as a CIO, and I really don't like google chrome. Why? Well, as a developer and project manager, having to worry about yet another poorly made webkit browser isn't exactly thrilling(yes I'm looking at you too, Safari). For every browser that goes above the 5% mark in usage on the internet, you of course have to make sure that the page you are making works in it or you could be losing potential clients. It goes without saying that developing for IE(various versions) + FF + Safari is less time consuming than the same + chrome, which adds absolutely nothing new that the other browser didn't already have built-in or available as plugins. Yes, webkit-based browsers are by far the most HTML5 compatible, but that is a a markup that is not widely used and only on nifty pages that have no financial value(read: cool pages that demonstrate cool stuff and nothing more). And they also behave differently on mac OS, which doesn't make it better either. The reality is that IE6 is still by far the most used browser because a lot of companies and governments use it. And as awesome as IE9 looks, it will take up untill IE 11 or so before the majority of IE users alone are on 9+, unless some massive global event causes companies and governments to suddenly replace their whole net infrastructure, which is about as likely as 8 days in a week. From a business standpoint, the less browsers, the better. Having 2-3 popular browsers is manageable, but when these browsers like google chrome start popping up it starts to eat into your budget as a web developer. In personal preference, I use Firefox. Of course I "use" all other browsers at work, because I have to, but to me FF is the most compatible browser with the most customization options and reliability. p.s: never quote wikipedia as a source.. Im in my fourth year of web designing. And IE 6 gives me just about twice as much workload as any other browser in existance. Chrome and Firefox are pretty much mutaly exchangeable. If the differences are there it isn't that hard to make up for those differences. Compare that with trying to design for Firefox 3 vs IE 6 . Its like making an mp3 player compatible with deaf people. I use Chrome for reasons that it was faster than firefox when it came out, and I sticked to it because I never saw a reason to switch. If there was any browser I could put on a stake, burn it to a crisp and throw it down a cliff next to the segway guy, its IE. | ||
|
MutaDoom
Canada1163 Posts
On September 30 2010 06:38 Chaosvuistje wrote: Can we throw Steve Jobs and Jack Thompson off the cliff too? I don't wanna just randomly hate on Apple, but I'm getting really tired of the iCult thing. In my opinion, he's one of history's greatest monsters. Jack Thompson speaks for himself. On a side note, I use FF, Opera and Chrome, in that order. | ||
|
deepstyle
35 Posts
Firefox because of the app's (youtube mp3 download) Opera for its sexiness | ||
|
Weasel-
Canada1556 Posts
Also I use mainly Chrome and sometimes Firefox (some of my school's stuff only works properly in Firefox but not Chrome. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11552 Posts
On September 20 2010 00:21 Nihilnovi wrote: You think that chrome is "safer" than IE? It's the same argument that macs are safer than pc's, in short, they are not. Assume for a minute that you are a cracker. You of course want to get credit card information and other personal information from a users computers. You know these facts: 95% of the worlds computers are PC's. 60% of the these use IE. For which browser and system do you construct your virus/trojan/worm ? Just addressing, this security argument... http://news.softpedia.com/news/Google-Chrome-Proves-Un-Hackable-in-Pwn2Own-Competition-138672.shtml | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
Also IE's security vastly ranges depending on the security settings on the OS and which OS is used. I doubt chrome is seriously good enough to avoid pwn2own contest for too long as it is gaining trackson people will start looking at it harder. Also the range of os's doesn't really include mac security. | ||
|
Rakanishu2
United States475 Posts
On September 30 2010 07:40 FragKrag wrote: Just addressing, this security argument... http://news.softpedia.com/news/Google-Chrome-Proves-Un-Hackable-in-Pwn2Own-Competition-138672.shtml Beat me to it. Uh oh someone actually brought evidence into the argument, who's betting we don't hear from the other party again? | ||
| ||
