What browser do you use?

[rridgely]

I thought this could be an interesting topic to get people arguing.

What web browser do you use 99.99% of the time and why?

 

I personally use firefox most of the time still. I do use IE every once in a while though.

I do not use chrome because I don't like the fact that it doesn't have an option to clear my browser history on exit without an extension. I personally cant stand having a ton of options start popping up everytime I type into the address bar.

[Winapp2.ini]

Mostly firefox, but chrome as well.

[Andavari]

Pale Moon.

[rridgely]

Had to look that one up andavari. What do you like about it over plain Firefox?

[hazelnut]

Opera mostly but also use IE9 on Win 7 sometimes.

[Winapp2.ini]

I used pale moon a while back, I liked it a lot but then it separated its profile from Firefox's, and I didn't care for that so much.

 

Pale Moon does not subscribe to the 6 week update schedule, if I'm not mistaken.

[nodles]

Firefox, but I've many different portable browsers on my USB stick.

[TheWebAtom]

Google Chrome; but I have Opera, Firefox (aurora), Safari and IE9 installed for testing code.

 

On my phone; I use Dolphin HD and occasionally the Android stock browser.

[nodles]

for testing code.

Same here, also for testing different sites etc.

I've installed only Firefox and Waterfox, but I've Firefox, Chromium, Chrome, Iron, Maxthon, Opera, GreenBrowser, Palemoon and SeaMonkey as portable on my USB.

[Alan_B]

Palemoon.

 

I was using Firefox and wished for a portable equivalent and started using Portable Palemoon and comparing with Firefox.

 

Then Firefox started using us as Beta testers,

and formatting and readability of Gmail messages and forums became chaotic and unpredictable day upon day,

whilst Palemoon kept on working perfectly.

 

Mozilla Firefox is now totally absent

All I want or need as a browser is Palemoon, which still gets the same security fixes as Firefox.

[login123]

IE about 99.9 percent.

Blackhawk about .1 percent, cause it seems faster.

I just install it when I want it, then it's gone after a restart.

[Eli]

I`m a Pale Moon user, previously on Firefox .It is more like a lighter firefox version. Details: http://www.palemoon.org/

[Andavari]

What do you like about it over plain Firefox?

Pretty much everything! It's an optimized compile of Firefox and supports your Firefox profile using the migration tool (or you can manually copy your profile over), supports Firefox addons/themes, etc. I switched to it because it's on a more sane release schedule versus Firefox.

[DennisD]

Opera and occasionally Firefox.

 

Opera gets better and better as you learn it's many configuration options. It's great to run straight out of the box, but once you begin to learn how to tweak it's ini files, it's great fun to experiment.

 

Firefox is a close second for me.

[Super Fast]

IE about 99.9 percent.

 

Which Internet Exploder features do you use most?

 

- Active X automatic "drive-bye" malware installations, just from visiting a website

- Being slower than newer browsers

- Random crashes with lots of tabs, unless your on IE9

- Bugs in properly rendering websites

- In-ability to completely uninstall & re-install IE in the event of nasty malware to fix a badly corrupted install

 

Just wonderin! Actually, Internet Exploder really isn't that bad. Except for the problems listed above,

[TheWebAtom]

I'm sick of people bashing on the newer versions of IE. While I don't use it; it's still a damn good browser these days.

 

- Active X automatic "drive-bye" malware installations, just from visiting a website

IE9 doesn't allow unsigned active x code to run

 

- Being slower than newer browsers

If 1/1000th of a millisecond really matters to you, of course...

 

- Bugs in properly rendering websites

That I can't argue with that. That said; I bet you can't name a single website that doesn't work in IE9.

 

- In-ability to completely uninstall & re-install IE in the event of nasty malware to fix a badly corrupted install

That's because technically IE is a Windows component, not a Windows application. If it were allowed to be uninstalled; any application that uses the WebBrowser control or WebClient class would stop working. I do agree that it's a bit stupid that MS never decided to separate the network API's from the browser client; but I'm certain there is some semi-valid design reasoning at work here.

[Winapp2.ini]

IE 10 is still in development but its kind of nice. Doesn't let you linebreak with ENTER though..

[Corona]

I'm sick of people bashing on the newer versions of IE. While I don't use it; it's still a damn good browser these days.

 

 

IE9 doesn't allow unsigned active x code to run

 

 

If 1/1000th of a millisecond really matters to you, of course...

 

 

That I can't argue with that. That said; I bet you can't name a single website that doesn't work in IE9.

 

 

That's because technically IE is a Windows component, not a Windows application. If it were allowed to be uninstalled; any application that uses the WebBrowser control or WebClient class would stop working. I do agree that it's a bit stupid that MS never decided to separate the network API's from the browser client; but I'm certain there is some semi-valid design reasoning at work here.

 

Fanboy alert.

[Andavari]

That's because technically IE is a Windows component, not a Windows application. If it were allowed to be uninstalled; any application that uses the WebBrowser control or WebClient class would stop working.

 

Yup! I remember several years ago just for a curiosity test just before I was about to format and reinstall Windows I downloaded some freeware tool that could partially remove IE by only leaving behind the needed components, although it made Windows look silly and caused it to lose a ton of functionality.

[login123]

... - Active X automatic "drive-bye" malware installations, just from visiting a website ...

 

I think SpywareBlaster helps stop that. http://www.brightfor...areblaster.html

Says here that it works w/ win 7 http://www.sevenforu...ster-4-2-a.html

Very lightweight software.

[hazelnut]

IE9 on Win 7 works really well and is an extremely safe browser to use, in fact it's what I'm typing this on at the moment.

 

In the past IE could be a poor browser but IE9 has blown that all away I think.

 

We could all bring up reasons why this browser is best, and that browser is best, but for me it's all about personal choice. I love Opera's builtin features and feel at home with it as a browser. IE9 gives me the same confidence on Win 7.

 

We all use different browsers because we are different people, with different sets of internet requirements. It would be so boring if there was just one browser.

 

 

P.S. I put SpywareBlaster on my Win7 machine soon as I got it, it's an extra line of defence with few overheads.

[Winapp2.ini]

IE9 is definitely a good browser, I can't say the same for its older counterparts though

 

I force the other computers in my house (read: ones that are not mine) to have at least IE8, lest they run the dreaded IE6

[Super Fast]

Yup! I remember several years ago just for a curiosity test just before I was about to format and reinstall Windows I downloaded some freeware tool that could partially remove IE by only leaving behind the needed components, although it made Windows look silly and caused it to lose a ton of functionality.

 

I agree. It causes problems in Windows. It's just the fact that all other browsers can run fine, without causing problems in Windows if totally removed. HTML dependencies were tied to the web browser. If MS made the OS work independently of the web browser, so users could truly use any browser they wished & completely eradicate IE, they would rapidly (more rapidly than they already have) lose web browser market share.

 

Years back, MS barely escaped having to separate these components in a fierce court battle.

 

In my opinion, a computer would be much safer if MS had NOT tied IE to the OS, & truly allowed only 1 browser to be installed at the time, instead of having to have multiple browsers with multiple bugs/holes on a machine. That said, IE has always been full of holes...

[Super Fast]

I'm sick of people bashing on the newer versions of IE. While I don't use it; it's still a damn good browser these days.

 

 

IE9 doesn't allow unsigned active x code to run

 

 

If 1/1000th of a millisecond really matters to you, of course...

 

 

That I can't argue with that. That said; I bet you can't name a single website that doesn't work in IE9.

 

 

That's because technically IE is a Windows component, not a Windows application. If it were allowed to be uninstalled; any application that uses the WebBrowser control or WebClient class would stop working. I do agree that it's a bit stupid that MS never decided to separate the network API's from the browser client; but I'm certain there is some semi-valid design reasoning at work here.

 

I agree. Partially. IE9 is supposed to allow only whitelisted controls to work. However, it has been proved for quite a while, by McAfee researchers in China, that IE9 could be caused to load older components in a maliciously crafted XML web page, causing older exploits to be usable again. This is akin to whitelisting auto-run for flash drives. It helps... until someone figures out that they can exploit that. Best auto-runs is disabled, same as auto-run malware (active-x controls). Once someone releases an exploit that works, everyone in the world has access to it via internet. I used to think Win 7 64 bit with signed driver controls is safer, but I have since seen fully patched W7 64 Bit systems compromised every bit as badly as their 32 Bit cousins. Thankfully, there are browsers that do not use active-x, so you don't have to worry about a badly crafted website causing malware to auto install just by visiting a website.

_____

 

1/1000 of a millisecond used to be all it was. But in modern testing, the latest iterations of both Chrome & Firefox have left IE9 in the dust. I can lose up to 1.5 seconds or more per tab in IE9, because Firefox 14 will have a website completely loaded. While IE9 is still loading it. Sure, IE9 may be a little closer on smaller web pages, but when you visit the complex pages, Firefox kills IE9 dead. Chrome does as well, but, that is beside the point. In testing, Firefox edged out Chrome. If I generally open 1,000 tabs a week, & lose even 1 second per tab... That is 1,000 seconds gone that I will never get back. 52,000 seconds a year, seeing there are 52 weeks in a year. Divide 52,000 seconds by 60 for 866.67 minutes lost. Divide 866.67 minutes by 60 for 14.4 hours lost. Or, just over half a day. That is only counting at 1 second, not 1.5 & not factoring in if I open even more web pages. Firefox also uses less memory & still runs better when you open more tabs. IE9 will start hanging with that many tabs open. Ummmm, no! So, I will use the fastest available (at the moment).

_____

 

There are many sites that do not work with IE9. Let me rephrase that. There are more websites that do not PROPERLY work with IE9. Take Facebook. IE9 sometimes has problems smoothly scrolling, or gets elements out of whack on page layout with complex facebook pages. I know many friends who have a ton of friends & other things, & IE9 doesn't properly render the page. Using Firefox, it seems to work lots better, & the lagginess/pageload/page layout works much better. That is just one website. I do agree that IE9 is MUCH better & faster than the older versions of IE. With an exception. While IE9 definitely became faster, I noted that even the lowly IE8 does much better on rendering webpages than IE9 for some reason...

 

I have been aware that IE was a "windows" component for years. Used to be, MS argued it was impossible to remove. This myth was shattered by a user who I shall not name, that produced a program that could de-IE a computer with relatively no problems except HTML dependencies on some things. Never mind the fact that it was Win98 at the time. The fact that he could prove it is possible is enough. It is completely possible for MS to include HTML on a computer without tying it to a web browser. But at the time, they did so to increase browser market share. This is just like having Windows Media Player, or Windows Photo Gallery tied to the computer. It isn't necessary to do so, but MS chose to anyway. There is a "semi" valid reason here. MS wanted to protect their market share. If you are not aware, it was not so long ago that MS tried to block any web browser from functioning, save for it being their own. Netscape especially had an uphill battle bringing a free browser to the market. Were it not for pioneers like these, we (probably) would never have the browsers we have today, and tabs would never become standard because "who uses tabs, & it is good enough like it is!" Hardware acceleration may have take much longer, if at all. And we might (horrors!) still be using IE6 revision 9, instead of IE9. Fact is, not only were companies like Netscape successful in breaking the MS web browser dominance & stranglehold, they also forced the giant to innovate. At a much faster pace than they would have without the competition.

_____

 

You can use IE9 if you wish. I do not complain. I, however, use more than 1 tab, & I hate waiting. I also hate wondering when the next website I visit will turn IE into internet exploder instead of explorer. I also hate not having an ad block to stop annoying ads from plastering 2/3 my screen while surfing. Even if IE were as fast as FF (It's not. FF14 is nearly 2x faster in my hardware accelerated testing), IE still has no way to block ads. And these alone can cause it to spend 1, 2, 30 seconds loading an ad (per page) which REALLY ads up.

 

Firefox is much more customizable, & has nifty things such as forecastfox. I used to think that plugin was a bit annoying/tacky, till I played around with it & discovered I could place it on the top left side of my tabs with tabs on top. Thus, it became a weather plugin that looks nice! And out of the way.

_____

 

I do agree on many things. IE9 is way prettier than older versions, & way more stable. But things like the fact that Firefox is 2x faster, IE9 not having an ad blocker, no weather plugin (that I am aware of) for IE9, bugs such as older active x components replacing the newer ones on maliciously crafted websites that bypass IE9 white listing, etc...

 

Maybe it works for you, but it is just too slow/buggy/wonky for me. It works great on a lot of websites, but if I use Firefox a while, then switch to IE9, my jaw drops how slow it feels for it to load the webpage. I have had up to 1,611 tabs without a crash open in Firefox before. And that was an older version. I doubt IE9 could handle even 1,000 tabs, but I plan to test one day, just to be for sure....

[hazelnut]

It's obvious here that you don't like or use IE Superfast. We accept that

 

Now if only you would accept the fact that some of us do

 

Back on topic....