Opera, Chrome, Firefox, OR?

[Emu*]

Also, claims HTML5 but doesn't implement the parts I want.

[Ashleylharnett]

I've been using Chrome ever since it was released - before that I was using Firefox (although I've had the occasional fling with Safari). I'm not sure what it is in particular that draws me to Chrome, I think it just works in a way that makes me happy...

[heebakutty]

yes sure google Chrome is the best browser, when i first downloaded it, my internet was

running at a lighting speed, i even checked my speed
and it was normal too, hitherto i used firefox which chocked my browsing capabilities .
But the only one advantage with firefox is that it has more add ons, which makes things

much easier

[sheynfinkel]

I use Firefox because of firemacs/vimperator, about:config, and all the rest of the addons. People that use any other browser apparently don't mind browsing in a simple, childlike fashion.

[M1k3_Nix]

Is anyone else using FF 4.0.1??

Currently experiencing random freezing and crashing of the browser, just wondered if anyone was having the same problem or knew a 'cure'.

-Mike

[Amnesiasoft]

I use Firefox because of firemacs/vimperator, about:config, and all the rest of the addons. People that use any other browser apparently don't mind browsing in a simple, childlike fashion.

Yeah, I know. I hate how Opera treats me like a child by having more options and control than Firefox out of the box.

[TheChewanater]

I use Firefox because of firemacs/vimperator, about:config, and all the rest of the addons. People that use any other browser apparently don't mind browsing in a simple, childlike fashion.

Yeah, I know. I hate how Opera treats me like a child by having more options and control than Firefox out of the box.

Being free and open source, Firefox and Chrome are infinitely more customizable than Opera.

[Dason]

I use Firefox because of firemacs/vimperator, about:config, and all the rest of the addons. People that use any other browser apparently don't mind browsing in a simple, childlike fashion.

Yeah, I know. I hate how Opera treats me like a child by having more options and control than Firefox out of the box.

Being free and open source, Firefox and Chrome are infinitely more customizable than Opera.

Now I'm a big fan of open source software and the open source community. However, I'm not going to pretend like most people that use open source software ever take a peak at the source code. Just because you have the ability to customize a program by modifying the source code and then recompiling does NOT necessarily mean it is more customizable to the average user.

[Kaelri]

Not for nothing, but I think when we're talking people who use Firemacs and Vimperator, we're a few steps beyond the "average user."

[Vash]

IE 64-bit is very nice compared to your inferior 32-bit browsers. What were you retrogrades using last? A 16-bit DOS-based browser that converted the internet into ASCII? (I am programming that now, btw)

I must confess that I use Firefox (especially) or Chrome where 64 bits will not run your inferior websites that can't cut it in the new age.

[Thirty-one]

Now I'm a big fan of open source software and the open source community. However, I'm not going to pretend like most people that use open source software ever take a peak at the source code. Just because you have the ability to customize a program by modifying the source code and then recompiling does NOT necessarily mean it is more customizable to the average user.

That is true. I'm one of the many people who use Firefox but has no inclination, nor the skills to even if I did, tinker with the code for it.

I do however reap the benefits of sharing a browser with a ton of people who do and who share their creations for me to pick and choose from, which I definitely count as a plus for the browser.

[flying sheep]

Now I'm a big fan of open source software and the open source community. However, I'm not going to pretend like most people that use open source software ever take a peak at the source code. Just because you have the ability to customize a program by modifying the source code and then recompiling does NOT necessarily mean it is more customizable to the average user.

what doesn’t change the fact that firefox allows you every kind of manipulation at every level.

opera has only more builtin features, but if you have access to the internet (and i guess you wouldn’t need to customize your browser if you hadn’t), addons.mozilla.org is the single largest source of functionality (which you don’t have to code yourself) for one product ever.

[Amnesiasoft]

Now I'm a big fan of open source software and the open source community. However, I'm not going to pretend like most people that use open source software ever take a peak at the source code. Just because you have the ability to customize a program by modifying the source code and then recompiling does NOT necessarily mean it is more customizable to the average user.

what doesn’t change the fact that firefox allows you every kind of manipulation at every level.

opera has only more builtin features, but if you have access to the internet (and i guess you wouldn’t need to customize your browser if you hadn’t), addons.mozilla.org is the single largest source of functionality (which you don’t have to code yourself) for one product ever.

And the Apple App Store is the largest source of mobile phone software. It doesn't mean it's useful.

[flying sheep]

addons.mozilla.org is the single largest source of functionality (which you don’t have to code yourself) for one product ever.

And the Apple App Store is the largest source of mobile phone software. It doesn't mean it's useful.

right, but in case of firefox extensions, the collection is vast and powerful.

[Steax]

Firefox sync has changed how I browse. Automatic sharing of my bookmarks and history between my 4 internet-capable devices = win.

App tabs have been awesome too, but I think the other browsers have their versions as well.

[Dason]

I personally prefer Xmarks. I use a combination of firefox and chrome and Xmarks works with both so I can have access to my sites on both browsers.

[hotaru]

Firefox sync has changed how I browse. Automatic sharing of my bookmarks and history between my 4 internet-capable devices = win.

really? google chrome has had that since 2009.

App tabs have been awesome too, but I think the other browsers have their versions as well.

ditto on that one.

[Steax]

Ah, sorry, I missed out on the real thing I use sync for: tabs. I don't know if chrome does that too, but last time I tried it didn't. It makes switching devices a breeze. And it works on my iphone as well. I just pick up where I left on whatever device I want to carry with me.

[flying sheep]

also, firefox sync gets the privacy aspect right.

what if the police wants to see your history? to see if you e.g. browsed pages about illegal drugs? mozilla can say “browser history and bookmarks are en/decrypted client-side, we can oly hand you encrypted data, which is worthless for you, so fuck off.”

i like that thought.

[Beardhammer]

I use Pale Moon. Basically Firefox without all the useless crap.

[Amnesiasoft]

I use Pale Moon. Basically Firefox without all the useless crap.

There's a version of Firefox that uses Webkit?

[Krealr]

Firefox sync has changed how I browse. Automatic sharing of my bookmarks and history between my 4 internet-capable devices = win.

really? google chrome has had that since 2009.
.

And Opera has had since 2008.

[Yamipwn]

Opera. Simply because it's so fun to edit a page's source and then open the edited page on a school computer. One time I did that with the school's website homepage, and the district logo was changed to a penis with a stripper pole-dancing on it.

[flying sheep]

Opera. Simply because it's so fun to edit a page's source and then open the edited page on a school computer. One time I did that with the school's website homepage, and the district logo was changed to a penis with a stripper pole-dancing on it.

you mean like platypus or more like firebug?

[CinnamonOne]

Chrome's got a good feel and look, and is quite fast. Way better than Vanilla FF.

However, FF gives you quite good addons. It is a pain to install them into another computer, so I only use it on one.

Overall for the starter, Chrome wins vs FF vanilla. FF is useful but it can be cumbersome. Addons give it an advantage, but that would be a ball to juggle later.

[cerbie]

I haven't switched quite yet, but the Firefox devs sure seem to want people to not use their browser. They have made several exceptionally shitty UI changes in 4, which require addons to deal with, and not every addon works with the fix addons (status bar and stop button are my two peeves).

[flying sheep]

ok, i’ll try this “fanboy” thing which seems to be so popular here

Chrome's got a good feel and look, and is quite fast. Way better than Vanilla FF.

wrong. or rather: the first one is definitely wrong, as chrome looks like the photoshop-6.0-plastic-“downoad”-buttons which google inexplicable uses for addons and software. firefox both integrates and generally looks much better.

the second one was true for quite a time, but isn’t anymore. if there is any difference at all, it’s unclear which browser is “faster”, whatever you mean by that. raw javascript power? site drawing? …

However, FF gives you quite good addons. It is a pain to install them into another computer, so I only use it on one.

Overall for the starter, Chrome wins vs FF vanilla. FF is useful but it can be cumbersome. Addons give it an advantage, but that would be a ball to juggle later.

what features for starters do you miss in vanilla firefox?

I haven't switched quite yet, but the Firefox devs sure seem to want people to not use their browser. They have made several exceptionally shitty UI changes in 4, which require addons to deal with, and not every addon works with the fix addons (status bar and stop button are my two peeves).

yeah, well, haters gonna hate.
if you’d talk about actual problems you have, instead of “i don’t like it, so the devs are stupid and ugly, because they didn’t ask me.”, i’d agree that some choices are stupid.

i.e. the statusbar shim. inside the addon bar lives one container for old <statusbar> overlays. who needs that? it only encourages devs to be lazy and not adapt the new api. or the link target display. it’s now an inferior ripoff from the chrome way, instead of the previous ingenious way to display them in the address bar.

[cerbie]

I haven't switched quite yet, but the Firefox devs sure seem to want people to not use their browser. They have made several exceptionally shitty UI changes in 4, which require addons to deal with, and not every addon works with the fix addons (status bar and stop button are my two peeves).

yeah, well, haters gonna hate.
if you’d talk about actual problems you have, instead of “i don’t like it, so the devs are stupid and ugly, because they didn’t ask me.”, i’d agree that some choices are stupid.

Why ask me? Why not ask everyone who was quite happy with them?

i.e. the statusbar shim. inside the addon bar lives one container for old <statusbar> overlays. who needs that? it only encourages devs to be lazy and not adapt the new api.

No, it does not. There is no API. There is a GUI. The API is for developers, and if the users have to deal with problems due to API changes, that itself shows serious development issues. Here's what they should have done: leave the status bar, and use the new display if the status bar is turned off. The add-on bar does not contain what the status bar did, making it inferior, and a waste of space. There is no good reason that an addon should be required for this. What made the status bar so good is that it encapsulated so much functionality into a small vertical space. Less used toolbar buttons (for addons), current page loading status, summarized download status, and hovered link target, all with enough room for all of them 90% of the time.

or the link target display. it’s now an inferior ripoff from the chrome way, instead of the previous ingenious way to display them in the address bar.

No, the previous way displayed in the status bar, and it displayed far more of the link's URL, which is one reason I dislike how they did it in 4. Why they couldn't have shown as much of the URL will fit on the bottom of the window, I consider a mystery.

It's not a problem that they want to add a bit more vertical space, but that doing so be removing good uses of space is stupid. It is very much a case of the developers only thinking about users who switched to Chrome already, because Chrome is the new cool thing, damn what ain't broken. It is also a common FOSS problem. The greatest fault is not that they changed the default UI, but that they could have had the best of the old UI and the new UI, and allowed users to mix and match.

[flying sheep]

yeah, well, haters gonna hate.
if you’d talk about actual problems you have, instead of “i don’t like it, so the devs are stupid and ugly, because they didn’t ask me.”, i’d agree that some choices are stupid.

Why ask me? Why not ask everyone who was quite happy with them?

i.e. the statusbar shim. inside the addon bar lives one container for old <statusbar> overlays. who needs that? it only encourages devs to be lazy and not adapt the new api.

No, it does not. There is no API. There is a GUI. The API is for developers, and if the users have to deal with problems due to API changes, that itself shows serious development issues. Here's what they should have done: leave the status bar, and use the new display if the status bar is turned off. The add-on bar does not contain what the status bar did, making it inferior, and a waste of space. There is no good reason that an addon should be required for this. What made the status bar so good is that it encapsulated so much functionality into a small vertical space. Less used toolbar buttons (for addons), current page loading status, summarized download status, and hovered link target, all with enough room for all of them 90% of the time.

1.: i talked about the api. what addon devs did was overlaying the statusbar with freeform widgets. now they add toolbarbuttons to the addon bar. more consistent gui, api swich, but for the user, it’s still “tiny clickable thingies down there”

ok, it sucks that the download status is still not shown on the download toolbarbutton, but the statusbar had to die.

why? because it was a mistake to let addon devs overlay it in the first place, and is a relic from times where it was a standard gui element. (it isn’t anymore, welcome to the 2010s)

apart from aforementioned download progress, all information you mentioned (and didn’t mention) moved to places where it’s more logical for it to be. loading progress is in the tab.then the whiners runed it and wanted their useless loading status text back (which is now in a chrome-ripoff-popup-thingie, and annnoys me), and they inexplicably moved the link target there, too. (while the only logical place for it is in the address bar, where it was it the beta)

the addonbar is useless if you don’t want to have many toolbarbuttons available, so i don’t use it. and apart from the download status, every bit of information is retained, so, what was your problem again?

or the link target display. it’s now an inferior ripoff from the chrome way, instead of the previous ingenious way to display them in the address bar.

No, the previous way displayed in the status bar, and it displayed far more of the link's URL, which is one reason I dislike how they did it in 4. Why they couldn't have shown as much of the URL will fit on the bottom of the window, I consider a mystery.

for me, too. as said, i hate the silly chrome-popup, now that the betas have showed me the better way.

It's not a problem that they want to add a bit more vertical space, but that doing so be removing good uses of space is stupid. It is very much a case of the developers only thinking about users who switched to Chrome already, because Chrome is the new cool thing, damn what ain't broken. It is also a common FOSS problem. The greatest fault is not that they changed the default UI, but that they could have had the best of the old UI and the new UI, and allowed users to mix and match.

you have, that’s the entire point of addons: bring back what you are accustomed to (status4evar), try experimental features(the moz-labs addons), twerk existing stuff or give a better interface for some parts of about:config (some parts of tab mix plus), or get features that aren’t included for political reasons (a major browser shipping adblock per default would change the way website owners think about adblocking.)

[EvanED]

Is there a setting or addon to put the page title back in the window title bar where it belongs?

I use Opera at home (I use Chome at work) but finally updated to FF4 to see what all the hubub was about. And I hate that behavior that make the title bar skinnier and removes the page title. That's a killer feature... in the sense that I won't use your browser if you do that and I can't put it back. (At work is a different story as I run Linux and a tiling window manager, so (1) I don't get title bars in the first place and (2) I have a different way of displaying what was in them.)

[flying sheep]

Is there a setting or addon to put the page title back in the window title bar where it belongs?

I use Opera at home (I use Chome at work) but finally updated to FF4 to see what all the hubub was about. And I hate that behavior that make the title bar skinnier and removes the page title. That's a killer feature... in the sense that I won't use your browser if you do that and I can't put it back. (At work is a different story as I run Linux and a tiling window manager, so (1) I don't get title bars in the first place and (2) I have a different way of displaying what was in them.)

right click on toolbar → check “menubar”
if you want to keep the firefox button like on linux, you’ll need the addon “firefox 4 ui fixer”

[kanoneziel]

Using Firefox Nightly/Aurora on various computers, due to the addon support, middle click, and inertia from being more used to Firefox. Firefox 4+ seems to remedy the issues I had w/ Firefox which caused me to switch to Chromium for awhile.

[cerbie]

the addonbar is useless if you don’t want to have many toolbarbuttons available, so i don’t use it. and apart from the download status, every bit of information is retained, so, what was your problem again?

The add-on bar wastes tons of space, where the status bar did not. With the add-on bar, nothing but small add-on icons are in there. The small icons need very little width, so the rest of that width is best used for something else. Putting said icons in the main toolbar clutters it up, and doesn't give the address bar enough room. I don't care what they do to the API. A GUI cahnge can necessitate an API change, but an API change does not necessitate a GUI change.

you have, that’s the entire point of addons: bring back what you are accustomed to (status4evar), try experimental features(the moz-labs addons), twerk existing stuff or give a better interface for some parts of about:config (some parts of tab mix plus), or get features that aren’t included for political reasons (a major browser shipping adblock per default would change the way website owners think about adblocking.)

I stand by my statement: getting basic functionality that we've have for ages, that was done well to begin with, should not require add-ons. Other reasons for add-ons are good, but to bring back good features that we've had since Win 3.1 browsers? Uh, no, that's a problem with the software development. Sane software developers make new defaults, and re-implement the old features, so that they can be re-enabled with the stock program. As users valid complaints are dealt with, future iterations of the new replacement feature then come to replace everything good about the old one, or separate features are gradually added to the same end, and then the old one is finally removed. Complete removal for a replacement feature set that was obviously not tested very well, is simply not a good thing.

[georgeswift]

I'm a Chrome Fan when it comes to my Personal Browsing

and I am a Firefox Fan when it comes to work.

There are a lot of very useful plugins in Firefox, but Chrome for me looks better and sleeker when I use it.

[flying sheep]

Sane software developers make new defaults, and re-implement the old features, so that they can be re-enabled with the stock program.

and that’s what they did. for people who miss the statusbar widget, it’s one google query like “firefox 4 status bar”. i didn’t test it, so tell me: what’s the result index of status-4-evar for this query?

[Odd_nonposter]

Hey guys:



Sorry for the necro

[TheChewanater]

http://artoftrolling.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/chatroulette-trolling-untitled37.jpg

Funny, but why is Chrome on there twice?
I'm just trolling. Move along.

[EvanED]

Ooo, ooo, I know! Konquerer? Oh, or maybe the Windows version of Safariany Apple software.

[Amnesiasoft]

http://artoftrolling.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/chatroulette-trolling-untitled37.jpg

Funny, but why is Chrome on there twice?
I'm just trolling. Move along.

I thought that was Firefox?

[Dason]

Has anybody else been annoyed by the firefox rapid release stuff? What exactly is the point of changing the major version number every 8 weeks?