What is your favorite browser? - VeggieBoards
View Poll Results: What is your favorite Browser?
IE 0 0%
Firefox 0 0%
Chrome 0 0%
Opera 0 0%
Safari 0 0%
Other (Specify) 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 09-14-2008, 02:43 PM
Beginner
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,331
What is your favorite browser? Why?

Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 09-14-2008, 03:14 PM
Beginner
 
IamJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,134
Current, or all-time?



<<thinks about the question some more

The ones I pity are the ones who never stick out their neck for something they believe, never know the taste of moral struggle, and never have the thrill of victory. - Jonathan Kozol
IamJen is offline  
#3 Old 09-14-2008, 03:22 PM
Beginner
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
I'll have to say Firefox. Not tried Chrome yet. Opera is nice, but well, slow, and a bit "special". IE is the incarnation of Evil. Safari only runs on Mac OSes, and I'm not going there. Konqueror is light and nice, but just doesn't quite compete with Firefox. Lynx is nice when you're constrained to the terminal.

I no longer post here after the disagreements and exodus related to the sale of VB back in 2012. (See my profile page.) 
Indian Summer is offline  
#4 Old 09-14-2008, 04:04 PM
Beginner
 
JLRodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,819
Out of all that I've used (being the 5 in your poll), favorite is Firefox.... Chrome has certain features that I've read about (can't remember now what all) that makes me leery of using it on any site I don't visit everyday). IE is, well pre 7 at least, a demon possessed piece of crap. Don't really care one way or another with Opera... Don't like the entire Safari (itunes/etc) look.



Basically my favorite browser is one that doesn't exist, yet I have no time to hack up all the open source stuff into a fully functioning browser that's a hybrid. Each browser has certain features that I like and wish others had. Firefox just happens to work, and is still in development that has features they're planning on adding (that would make it even closer to my desired feature list for a browser).
JLRodgers is offline  
#5 Old 09-14-2008, 05:45 PM
Beginner
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 982
I've used all in the poll and I have to say Firefox is above them all. Adblock Plus makes this browser worth it all by itself, but there are numerous other extensions that make me love FF even more. I also use their Thunderbird email client and it beats most of the programs I've used.



By the looks of it, everyone agree IE is horrible... no further explanation needed. Opera is nice, but it's slow and clunky for me. Chrome is fast, but not any faster than Firefox. I think I'll call it Firefox Lite. Safari is just plain ugly... and also slow. Flock is kind of cool but still suffers from the snails. Technically it is Firefox for social types.
earthwhispers is offline  
#6 Old 09-14-2008, 05:52 PM
Beginner
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJen View Post

Current, or all-time?



<<thinks about the question some more



Current.



Otherwise, I would have put Netscape on the list.

Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
#7 Old 09-14-2008, 05:54 PM
Beginner
 
JPono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 84
Firefox here. Chrome isn't bad and neither is Opera. I've gotten conditioned and spoiled using Firefox add-ons and such, so it's hard to imagine switching to anything else right now.
JPono is offline  
#8 Old 09-14-2008, 11:06 PM
Beginner
 
Nishani's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 7,577
Opera is still my all time favourite.



I prefer it because as far as I'm concerned it's always been much faster than any other browser (there always seems to be some disagreement on browser speed!) and, overall it's much more customisable to my particular taste than FF. The speed dial in Opera works much better than the FF one too. IE isn't even worth talking about IMO. Chrome looks like it will be good and appears to be very fast but I'm not interested in using it on an everyday basis until it's out of beta and fully customisable. I think that in the future, Chrome could become the most used browser. I hope it kicks IE arse.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Summer View Post

Safari only runs on Mac OSes, and I'm not going there.



There's a version of Safari for windows - Safari 3. The speed seems comparable to FF but it's a bit boring to look at.

m8itcanw8.com
Nishani is offline  
#9 Old 09-15-2008, 12:26 AM
Beginner
 
Mrrple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,563
Firefox!



Aside from all of its glorious built in features, some of the add ons are espeically useful like FoxyTunes and WebMail Notifier. Foxytunes lets me control Itunes from the browser, and webmail automatically logs me into both of my email accounts and checks them every so often. It's nice.
Mrrple is offline  
#10 Old 09-15-2008, 12:40 AM
Beginner
 
IamJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beancounter View Post

Current.



Otherwise, I would have put Netscape on the list.



Sorry. I swear I didn't see a poll the first time around.



Firefox gets my vote too, although Opera, on a Mac at least, is wicked fast. FF is easy to use um, intuitively, whereas I find IE a bit cumbersome.



I also like this browser, iCab, but I've not downloaded it to my current computer, as I'm pretty space impaired, and it tends to have more problems with non-standard web pages.

The ones I pity are the ones who never stick out their neck for something they believe, never know the taste of moral struggle, and never have the thrill of victory. - Jonathan Kozol
IamJen is offline  
#11 Old 09-15-2008, 12:54 AM
Beginner
 
JLRodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,819
Oh, I should add I probably prefer firefox because of the NoScript extension -- which means to those who don't know, javascript is basically disabled on every site I visit unless I tell it otherwise (and it's a per-site thing)
JLRodgers is offline  
#12 Old 09-15-2008, 01:19 AM
Beginner
 
isowish's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,858
I use FF mainly and love it, and love the fact you can get all the extensions (Firebug is OH SO SWEET) so that's what I voted.



But right now I'm using Chrome, and if they get to the stage where they have a good selection of extensions like FF does, I could see this becoming my favourite
isowish is offline  
#13 Old 09-15-2008, 04:13 AM
Beginner
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixelle View Post

There's a version of Safari for windows - Safari 3. The speed seems comparable to FF but it's a bit boring to look at.

Ah, I did not know that.

I no longer post here after the disagreements and exodus related to the sale of VB back in 2012. (See my profile page.) 
Indian Summer is offline  
#14 Old 09-15-2008, 04:16 AM
Beginner
 
MrFlibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Summer View Post

Lynx is nice when you're constrained to the terminal.



Surely links is much nicer? (table+frames support)



If you want to be really backwards there's always telnet
MrFlibble is offline  
#15 Old 09-15-2008, 05:36 AM
Beginner
 
HummusKelpilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,070
I really know what browsers do, or anything much about them. But I went to my dads house two weeks ago and he has firefox, and it was awesome. I'm pretty sure I don't have one on my laptop because it's new & I haven't bought any special things for it.



So I think firefox is pretty cool.
HummusKelpilot is offline  
#16 Old 09-15-2008, 08:08 AM
Beginner
 
isowish's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by HummusKelpilot View Post

I really know what browsers do, or anything much about them. But I went to my dads house two weeks ago and he has firefox, and it was awesome. I'm pretty sure I don't have one on my laptop because it's new & I haven't bought any special things for it.



So I think firefox is pretty cool.



By your post, I'm pretty sure you do have a browser! Are you using Internet Explorer? It'll say in the title bar of the window you're viewing this website in what your browser is, most likely.
isowish is offline  
#17 Old 09-15-2008, 08:14 AM
Beginner
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by isowish View Post

By your post, I'm pretty sure you do have a browser! Are you using Internet Explorer? It'll say in the title bar of the window you're viewing this website in what your browser is, most likely.



And even better, Hummus.... you can switch to Firefox, too! It's a free download and easy to set up. I figured you might be interested, seeing as you mentioned it was awesome and you liked it at your dad's.
earthwhispers is offline  
#18 Old 09-15-2008, 08:17 AM
Beginner
 
IamJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFlibble View Post

Surely links is much nicer? (table+frames support)



If you want to be really backwards there's always telnet

*cough*dork*cough*




The ones I pity are the ones who never stick out their neck for something they believe, never know the taste of moral struggle, and never have the thrill of victory. - Jonathan Kozol
IamJen is offline  
#19 Old 09-15-2008, 11:12 PM
Beginner
 
cerberus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 54
:: prepares for rotten fruit to be thrown at him :: I'm going to go with IE if we're talking for windows. For Solaris, Mozilla. There really isn't that big of a difference between IE and FireFox as far as actual web browsing goes. Any advantage that FireFox has is really due to the add in plugins. I've never had FireFox render a page that IE couldn't, but I have had IE render pages that FireFox couldn't.
cerberus is offline  
#20 Old 09-16-2008, 04:41 AM
Beginner
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by cerberus View Post

I'm going to go with IE if we're talking for windows. For Solaris, Mozilla. There really isn't that big of a difference between IE and FireFox as far as actual web browsing goes.



Yea, it figures. That sounds like something a three-headed dog would say...



Just kidding



Personally, I've never had an issue with FF loading a page, and I find some of the extensions very useful.

Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
#21 Old 09-16-2008, 05:59 AM
Beginner
 
Dirty Martini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 8,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by cerberus View Post

I've never had FireFox render a page that IE couldn't, but I have had IE render pages that FireFox couldn't.



Same here. I use IE when I'm having problems with another browser.



However, I've been using Chrome pretty consistently for the past week or two (can't remember) and it meets all my basic requirements. There are some pages that Chrome just can't handle yet, so I switch over to IE in those cases (and I use IE for work stuff).



Chrome's SO MUCH FASTER than firefox, though, that I rarely use firefox anymore at all.
Dirty Martini is offline  
#22 Old 09-16-2008, 06:10 AM
Beginner
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
There are supposedly some not insignificant differences in how IE and Firefox render HTML, so some companies just can't be arsed to write code / HTML that works on both.

I no longer post here after the disagreements and exodus related to the sale of VB back in 2012. (See my profile page.) 
Indian Summer is offline  
#23 Old 09-16-2008, 06:22 AM
Beginner
 
MrFlibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 67
I use firefox for the plugins (specifically script and cookie blocking) and auto clearing of history. I'm not so fussed about people who have physical access to my computer seeing the sites I visit but if I ever do get a trojan don't want it uploading my entire browsing history and session cookies anywhere for marketing or criminal purposes.



Chrome looks good and is certainly fast, but until it has mature plugins I'm sticking with firefox. I have some issues with google as a company and the amount of personal data they're collecting (particularly through analytics).



I've no problems with IE or microsoft in general (despite earning a living from *nix), but don't want to risk having javascript enabled on random websites on the same machine i use for online purchases and internet banking. Firefox's plugin makes selective blocking really easy. I've picked up bad things using fully patched copies of IE before on 'reputable' websites that have been hijacked.



Never really been fused with Opera, but used it on my linux based internet tablet for a while without any problems.



Lynx is functional, links is better, but i very very rarely find myself with a terminal only. When I do I can just use my smartphone anyway. Really its only function is for downloading files to remote boxes that you don't know the fulll url for to use with wget.
MrFlibble is offline  
#24 Old 09-16-2008, 06:44 AM
Beginner
 
Jeremy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Summer View Post

There are supposedly some not insignificant differences in how IE and Firefox render HTML, so some companies just can't be arsed to write code / HTML that works on both.



It's because Firefox is designed to render proper code, abiding by W3C standards... IE on the other hand will render total noob garbage excuse for code. THAT is the difference.
Jeremy is offline  
#25 Old 09-16-2008, 06:53 AM
Beginner
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFlibble View Post

I've no problems with IE or microsoft in general (despite earning a living from *nix), but don't want to risk having javascript enabled on random websites on the same machine i use for online purchases and internet banking. Firefox's plugin makes selective blocking really easy. I've picked up bad things using fully patched copies of IE before on 'reputable' websites that have been hijacked.

Just curious .... What is it that javascript can do that is so bad?

Quote:
Lynx is functional, links is better, but i very very rarely find myself with a terminal only. When I do I can just use my smartphone anyway. Really its only function is for downloading files to remote boxes that you don't know the fulll url for to use with wget.

I've used Lynx sometimes to access sites that are for some reason blocked by my employer, or to try accessing sites that are temporarily inaccessible for one reason or another. I think once to read some news that a judge had ruled to be illegal in the UK, and was therefore blocked ... or something like that. (I have an account at a university that I can access through ssh, and then I can go anywhere from there. Not sure we have links there.)

I no longer post here after the disagreements and exodus related to the sale of VB back in 2012. (See my profile page.) 
Indian Summer is offline  
#26 Old 09-16-2008, 06:56 AM
Beginner
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post

It's because Firefox is designed to render proper code, abiding by W3C standards... IE on the other hand will render total noob garbage excuse for code. THAT is the difference.

I friend of mine (who is stuck with the M$ tyranny) claims that there are certain things IE do more correctly, but don't ask me what, can't remember. Something about percentage sizes of div tags, I think.

I no longer post here after the disagreements and exodus related to the sale of VB back in 2012. (See my profile page.) 
Indian Summer is offline  
#27 Old 09-16-2008, 07:22 AM
Beginner
 
MrFlibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 67
That's what ssh tunnelling was invented for



Prior to socks/dynamic tunneling support in ssh I wrote a bit of perl to proxy http connections on a shell server, forwarded a local port on my machine to it then set my browser to point to the local port as it's http proxy. Worked great. These days it's far easier (can't remember exactly when dynamic was added to ssh server, but it was added to putty in 2003 so i guess it was probably new in v2). Assuming you're connecting from windows using putty, add a dynamic tunnel before connecting from port 8080, connect then set 8080 as your socks server in your browser. Job done.



I've reverse engineered lots of lovely javascript exploits/trojan downloaders in the wild over the years, including those that detect the browser type to both output code relevant to them (including firefox) and give harmless/no output to people using wget/links/lynx to view the source without spoofing the user agent string. Mpack was very big last year and since there's been lots of variations based on the same theme. They use javascript redirection, often via a lot of servers, each time using crude javascript obscurification such as:



<script language=JavaScript>function vipcrypt(x){var l=x.length,b=1024,i,j,r,p=0

,s=0,w=0,t=Array(63,12,35,18,24,19,36,39,40,6,0,0, 0,0,0,0,37,16,20,46,51,13,5,2,

47,53,58,26,42,54,1,22,15,23,21,41,61,7,59,3,28,55 ,49,0,0,0,0,29,0,60,62,34,56,2

5,10,33,31,30,27,52,45,38,14,0,17,8,48,43,9,11,4,5 7,44,32,50);for(j=Math.ceil(l/

b);j>0;j--){r='';for(i=Math.min(l,b);i>0;i--,l--){w|=(t[x.charCodeAt(p++)-48])<<

s;if(s){r+=String.fromCharCode(170^w&255);w>>=8;s-=2}else{s=6}}document.write(r)

}}vipcrypt("")</script>



that redirects to a url that isn't easily identifiable unless you modify the javascript (i.e. change document.write to alert) and run it or write your own parser. It makes 0-day exploit distribution extremely easy, as each (automatically) hijacked site redirects via many other servers, eventually back to one or more central servers (which can be machines in a botnet) which host the code/control who gets what. The operators that way only have to do one upload to change the mix of exploits that are severed by thousands of sites and makes it a lot harder to trace.
MrFlibble is offline  
#28 Old 09-16-2008, 07:33 AM
Beginner
 
MrFlibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJen View Post

*cough*dork*cough*



MrFlibble is offline  
#29 Old 09-16-2008, 09:47 AM
Beginner
 
JLRodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by cerberus View Post

I've never had FireFox render a page that IE couldn't, but I have had IE render pages that FireFox couldn't.



That's actually the proof IE is worse ---- IE doesn't understand how to parse some/many webpages properly, so it does it wrong. The site being "broken" in the other browsers is actually the way it should look as it's not designed properly.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Summer View Post

Something about percentage sizes of div tags, I think.

I sure hope not that.... IE thinks 99% is 101% depending on whether the browser window is an even or odd pixel width (it acts like that anyway) Well, IE6, people liking IE7 or potentially IE8 I wouldn't mind as much as IE7 makes IE6 look like an alpha version of a program in ways.
JLRodgers is offline  
#30 Old 09-16-2008, 10:09 AM
Beginner
 
MrFlibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post

It's because Firefox is designed to render proper code, abiding by W3C standards... IE on the other hand will render total noob garbage excuse for code. THAT is the difference.



Not that I choose to use IE myself (nor am a mimesweeper certified solitaire expert), I'd counteract that argument:



Who says W3C standards matter? Surely compliance with the main vendor and almost all webdevelopers who produce code for it is more important, whether they are microsoft or not? Knowing that you're W3C compliant when your internet banking won't let you log in is of little consolation and as a developer won't score you many users



I remember coding a webmail system in 99/00 using the mail/mime RFCs as the basis (there were no mail libraries for the language at the time). When I got it working it worked great exchanging emails with every client i tried in linux/unix. I then tried it with outlook on windows, only to find that some mime encoded attachments didn't work. Did i leave it broken just because it was RFC compliant? No, of course not; i realised that would be pretty stupid when a significant number of my target users wouldn't be able to exchange email properly.
MrFlibble is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off