Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Androgeos Exeunt on February 16, 2010, 12:09:25 pm
-
"Are you using Internet Explorer?"
"Are you going somewhere other than the Firefox, Chrome or other browser website?"
"Internet Explorer is rubbish. Are you still going to continue using it?"
If the answer to all 3 is yes, FAIL.
Hey, thanks for insulting my sister (j/k). :p
-
"Are you using Internet Explorer?"
"Are you going somewhere other than the Firefox, Chrome or other browser website?"
"Internet Explorer is rubbish. Are you still going to continue using it?"
If the answer to all 3 is yes, FAIL.
/me points out that he's using IE right now, and that he most certainly does not "FAIL."
-
The more I use Firefox the more I am convinced it is no better than IE.
-
The more I use Firefox the more I am convinced it is no better than IE.
Then why do you use it? There are n alternatives: Opera, Chrome, Safari, SlimBrowser...
-
IE is NOT crap if you have the common sense to use the internet properly and have valid antivirus/spyware.
-
IE is NOT crap if you have the common sense to use the internet properly and have valid antivirus/spyware.
For one, IE is a lot slower on loading then Firefox is. It has this stupid tendency to crash on me often also.
-
For one, IE is a lot slower on loading then Firefox is. It has this stupid tendency to crash on me often also.
Congradulations, you screwed up your IE install and are now blaming it for that. :P
-
If you compare speeds, IE is slower. Firefox has a host of tools to make browsing better, or more convenient for the user(for example,there is a tool that check if you have an email). But if all you care about is speed than chrome is the way to go. Though as far as I know, Firefox has better spam blocker etc, but I'm not certain on that.
-
You mean this thing? It has the same toolbar options as FireFox, almost.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
no, not that exactly, but either way Firefox has a lot more options to offer than IE just look https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/
-
If you compare speeds, IE is slower.
Emperical testing loading this very page in both using my IE and Firefox installs says the difference is imperceptible to humans if it exists; plus Firefox is extremely slow to initally load, and IE is not.
-
"Are you using Internet Explorer?"
"Are you going somewhere other than the Firefox, Chrome or other browser website?"
"Internet Explorer is rubbish. Are you still going to continue using it?"
If the answer to all 3 is yes, FAIL.
I wish people would remind themselves that two versions of IE exist above 6.0. Or you know, I could just complain about massive memory leaks in Firefox in earlier versions.
That said (http://www.opera.com/browser/next/)...
-
I thought browser wars were a phenomenon of the past. :nervous:
I dislike IE simply because of Microsoft's programming style that leads to brainfarts like this (http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2009/06/13/they-outdid-themselves) and of course the plethora of vulnerabilities caused by same mentality, non-standard compliancy (they've gotten better about this but they still aren't on the level of some other browsers) and several details that just don't cut it for me.
Additionally, I prefer Firefox because I like the plugin selection and it so far seems to work for me the best out of the main spectrum of browsers available.
Of course, there's the argument that IE vulnerabilities exist simply because those who look for them focuse on the most popular web browser around, but there are still gaping holes wide enough to drive a Fenris through in Microsoft's programming compared to those in other browsers (you can only fit an Ares through them. Maybe a Satis if you try really hard and find the dumbest people on the Internet, in which case you don't need vulnerabilities...)
-
If you compare speeds, IE is slower.
Emperical testing loading this very page in both using my IE and Firefox installs says the difference is imperceptible to humans if it exists; plus Firefox is extremely slow to initally load, and IE is not.
Even then, Firefox has more ways for people to customize to how they use it
-
I dislike IE simply because of Microsoft's programming style that leads to brainfarts like this (http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2009/06/13/they-outdid-themselves) and of course the plethora of vulnerabilities caused by same mentality, non-standard compliancy (they've gotten better about this but they still aren't on the level of some other browsers) and several details that just don't cut it for me.
If you look at the details in the very website you've posted, you'll see the problem was with a toolbar from a search engine, not with IE itself. The last versions of IE (7.0 and 8.0) are actually decent.
-
I dislike IE simply because of Microsoft's programming style that leads to brainfarts like this (http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2009/06/13/they-outdid-themselves) and of course the plethora of vulnerabilities caused by same mentality, non-standard compliancy (they've gotten better about this but they still aren't on the level of some other browsers) and several details that just don't cut it for me.
If you look at the details in the very website you've posted, you'll see the problem was with a toolbar from a search engine, not with IE itself. The last versions of IE (7.0 and 8.0) are actually decent.
I dislike IE simply because of Microsoft's programming style that leads to brainfarts like this (http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2009/06/13/they-outdid-themselves)
because of Microsoft's programming style
It might be a toolbar, but I can't simply see a toolbar for any other browser could possibly cause similar problem.
On the other hand they mention a few game patches that accomplish the same astonishing feat of deleting vital system files, but that again falls into Microsoft's programming style, and my dislike of IE is just an extension of that.
The main reason I use WinXP in the first place is because I so far haven't gotten a few key things to work correctly in Linux (reliable multi-channel soft-mixed sound, proper gamma calibration of the displays, several games that use DirectMafia API). On the other hand I do use Linux for things I simply can't do in Windows (like rendering stuff in Blender using insanely large textures that just kill Win32 Blender because of in-built memory limits per process).
-
So wait, if I write an addon for Firefox that ****s with your computer, you'll have issues with the browser, not the addon?
And if I write a program (that needs admin/root permission to run) that does the same thing, you'll have issues with the OS?
-
Yes. A browser that has an insecure Plugin API is bad. Really, really bad.
-
Emperical testing loading this very page in both using my IE and Firefox installs says the difference is imperceptible to humans if it exists; plus Firefox is extremely slow to initally load, and IE is not.
Congradulations, you screwed up your Firefox install and are now blaming it for that. :p
Seriously though I've run IE8 on brand new Vista and XP systems and I've found it to have much slower load times than Firefox. So if the install is screwed up it's MS who screwed it up.
-
Yes. A browser that has an insecure Plugin API is bad. Really, really bad.
Erm... so according to you, every browser that supports flash is bad? Really, really bad?
-
If the plugin API has holes that allow an improperly (or maliciously) coded plugin access to the OS, yes, it is bad.
Flash is horrible beyond belief. It is a single point of failure, as Adobe's code is running on almost all machines hat have flash installed, which means that finding exploits that work on a wide range of machines is rather easy. Same goes for Silverlight, really. I have high hopes for HTML5, though.
-
I'll agree with the sentiment that flash is bad, and should only be used in certain circumstances. I'll also throw out there that Java is fubar.
-
wow off topic.
-
"Look at the idiots" isn't really a topic that suits itself well to extended discussion.
-
The more I use Firefox the more I am convinced it is no better than IE.
IE is probably stabler if you don't add stuff to it. My copy of Firefox crashed a few seconds ago while browsing HLP.
And you wonder why I haven't made the switch to Chrome yet.
Holy Hell, we're really off-topic. :nervous:
-
The more I use Firefox the more I am convinced it is no better than IE.
IE is probably stabler if you don't add stuff to it. My copy of Firefox crashed a few seconds ago while browsing HLP.
And you wonder why I haven't made the switch to Chrome yet.
I've never had a problem with crashes, or at least none that IE wouldn't have had as well. Either way, I'd have to go Firefox. More personal options, and is shown to be faster usually.
-
If the plugin API has holes that allow an improperly (or maliciously) coded plugin access to the OS, yes, it is bad.
Flash is horrible beyond belief. It is a single point of failure, as Adobe's code is running on almost all machines hat have flash installed, which means that finding exploits that work on a wide range of machines is rather easy. Same goes for Silverlight, really. I have high hopes for HTML5, though.
But you see, that's the point. Flash Player IS a plugin and it is supported on EVERY major browser. Therefore according to what you said earlier, every browser that supports it must be bad. Is there really any difference between Firefox and IE when it comes to "plugin security"? I'd wager not. The only difference (in the case described earlier) is that the folks at Ask.com screwed up creating a toolbar for IE and didn't for Firefox.
-
You seem to assume that I disagree with that statement. That would be wrong.
-
Erm... Ok...
So what do you use, Links (http://www.jikos.cz/~mikulas/links//screenshots/png.html)?
-
No, Chrome. It's the least horrible choice.
-
Lmao, sorry Androgeos, I accidentally hit "split post" and not "split topic after post". Check the other thread two threads, my bad :D
-
Topic split, I want to laugh at old people, not have a nerd-debate about browsers :p
-
Bah! You're all suckers. I use Chrome, and am thus immune to your pathetic spyware, malware, hacking, etc!
...
HELP MY MOUSE IS MOVING BY ITSELF
-
I use (Chromium) Chrome, and have not had an issue that hasn't been addressed in a timely way. Now it supports an ad blocker, and a gmail checker, and themes.
-
Now... Chromium doesn't spy on you, correct?
-
I use (Chromium) Chrome, and have not had an issue that hasn't been addressed in a timely way. Now it supports an ad blocker, and a gmail checker, and themes.
Everything that Chrome gets, Firefox already has, and more. That's the reason I haven't switched to it yet.
-
http://adblockplus.org/en/
that is all.
-
I use (Chromium) Chrome, and have not had an issue that hasn't been addressed in a timely way. Now it supports an ad blocker, and a gmail checker, and themes.
Everything that Chrome gets, Firefox already has, and more. That's the reason I haven't switched to it yet.
I do find it to be considerably faster. This might just be perception though.
-
I know chrome is faster. But as of now, it's the only reason to get it. Other than that, it doesn't have the functionality I have with Firefox.
-
Lmao, sorry Androgeos, I accidentally hit "split post" and not "split topic after post". Check the other thread two threads, my bad :D
Well, you know. There's always the option of merging two topics. Done that now.
Anyways, on the subject of browsers. My personal feelings about browsers I've used/am using.
Firefox:
- pros: highly pleasant usability, awesome logo, a lot of (optional) add-ons from which one can either choose his favourites or not choose a thing, has displayed every page properly so far.
- cons: hogs memory, feels very heavy (especially on my EeePC), increasing popularity makes it more popular among crackers who wish to find security holes and use them against the users (though I don't think I've been a subject of an attack yet)
Opera:
- pros: feels light, is decently fast (especially this 10.50 beta), is still not very popular so even if security holes are found, no one probably attacks against them.
- cons: doesn't display some pages properly (it was probably Cnet or something, where the download links just won't work. Annoying when I'm trying to download a new version of Wise Registry Cleaner or something), the adblocker user interface sucks bollocks (I feel it a lot easier to just add the urls myself to ...\Application data\Opera\urlfilter.ini).
Chrome:
- pros: feels light, each tab is supposed to be its own process (if one dies, you can still do stuff with the others), very unpopular so likelyhood of exploited vulnerabilities is minimal.
- cons: doesn't apparently know how to remove all the cookies when the browser is shut down.
IE:
- pros: comes with Windows, boots up fast.
- cons: heavy, prone to crashing, no reasonable way to affect functionality (like with add-ons 'n stuff), highly popular so you never know when someone might be uploading their jynkky to your computer.
Then I know some browsers that I haven't really used, but that someone might find interesting: Konqueror (on Linux, comes preinstalled with at least Kubuntu), Safari, SlimBrowser, some Chinese browser (I forget the name, but it seemed to be somehow based on IE so I discontinued using it).
-
I've never had IE crash where another browser didn't. The real problem comes down to people who code their sites poorly.
-
Chrome is more common then Opera I believe. (Pro on your list)
The difference between a "heavy" and "light" browser feels kinda - arbitrary.
-
One thing I see neglected in your various comparisons - Screen real estate. Between the task bar, window menus, title bars, navigation bars, and whatever you call that strip at the bottom of the screen, by the time I have firefox up and running, I'm down almost an inch and a half of screen height. Chrome takes up closer to half-an-inch. At least for me, that's a more important selling point than a quarter-second either way on the speed issues.
-
The difference between a "heavy" and "light" browser feels kinda - arbitrary.
For me, "light" == starts up in a peaceful manner and responds to user input with haste.
"heavy" == causes excessive HDD crunching when starting up and takes a noticeable while to respond to user input.
One thing I see neglected in your various comparisons - Screen real estate. Between the task bar, window menus, title bars, navigation bars, and whatever you call that strip at the bottom of the screen, by the time I have firefox up and running, I'm down almost an inch and a half of screen height. Chrome takes up closer to half-an-inch. At least for me, that's a more important selling point than a quarter-second either way on the speed issues.
That too, but then again, most browsers should present the option of hiding various bars, even the menu bar. But yes, an oversight on my part. I also fancy all the pixel rows I can get, especially on netbooks with their 1024x600 panels.
-
Konqueror is a great file/ftp manager.
-
I despise IE, Firefox, and Konqueror merely for the fact that I have to work with them on a daily basis.
Chrome for my laptop, Safari for my phone.
-
I use Firefox at home PC and at work, and IE on my laptop.
Personally I prefer Firefox.
-
firefox all the way
-
I just can't take Konqueror seriously, or any of the KDE apps.
its great for ftp though.
-
(http://autocompleteme.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/129115224867328449.jpg)
-
(http://i310.photobucket.com/albums/kk419/So0pahBoy/internet.jpg)
-
(http://hijqrg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p17yCn2XUilo6oTp1TaZcpXtpU7dwI9wArr3-gKX3NxnVxs9SQ1LftG1SPmEeeb7q21c9PPc1YCrrDQmcLsCm2EHxYOCU5kH-/ChromeGoogle.png)
(http://hijqrg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pl24kgxA3SXaKI8oWKAIzaRbPb0GRa24cmQxqLu9IGf1ZpGch5dUWMsCgriwfJLthjiiya_H-msrRfLw_lNhkq8E7nRZFwMVv/ChromeGoogle2.png)
-
People! PEOPLE!!
Crop your images so that only relevant information is available (See: so I don't have to click on them). [/lazy]