Who has the best web browser? IE vs FF vs Chrome

[Napas]

I am using FireFox and Opera .
I think Opera might be the best one

 

[skyblocker2715]

I love to use Mozilla firefox than Google Chrome. I'll stick to firefox as my browser.

 

[fj.whittle79]

IE is useless for the simple reason that it is not, nor even has been, cross platform. Because even when they try to do standards compliance, Microsoft seems to have an odd definition of what is standard behaviour, it has become a thorn in any web developer's side. Hopefully IE9 will fix that.

 

[sedesign]

I am a loyal Firefox user!

I tried Chrome for a while but it appears to have this annoying bug with my back + forward buttons on my G15 mouse, if i click to go back it goes back two pages and the same with going forward

i have never experienced any major problems with Firefox and i love Mozilla's approach to it.

 

[brandon0layton89]

Firefox owns all other web browsers. Basically All I have to say XD

IE is to slow.
Safari is just not very user friendly (I think atleast).
Opera is just ugly.

Only downside to FF: Takes a while to load up at first. (if computer is slow on start up)

 

[Sharky]

IE is useless for the simple reason that it is not, nor even has been, cross platform. Because even when they try to do standards compliance, Microsoft seems to have an odd definition of what is standard behaviour, it has become a thorn in any web developer's side. Hopefully IE9 will fix that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_for_Mac

 

[jamie99]

I would have to go with chrome and I am glad that safari is not one of your choices as it seems to have endless issues with totally random presentation of pages. I have found firefox pretty slow so I am currently going with chrome most of the time however will still load up IE occasionally when chrome seems to be hanging on a site.

 

[fj.whittle79]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_for_Mac

It's interesting that you brought that up. Every version of IE for the Mac did something significantly differently to its Windows counterpart that actually made it more difficult to design a site that even worked consisitently across what was on the face of things the same browser. Cross-platform fail.

 

[Sharky]

It's interesting that you brought that up. Every version of IE for the Mac did something significantly differently to its Windows counterpart that actually made it more difficult to design a site that even worked consisitently across what was on the face of things the same browser. Cross-platform fail.

Cross platform what?

And anyway, my understanding is that the engine the ie:mac devs had made in the later versions was performing better than the windows counterpart.

More to the point, nobody really used the Internet or macs back then so it doesn't matter. Back when compuserve existed, and people used the customised all-in-one browsers.

 

[vv.bbcc19]

I use Chrome the majority of the time. I have Firefox installed and consider it a very good Browser and I also have Opera installed though I very seldom use it. Neither IE nor Safari or options for me at the present time due to Ubuntu OS.

Useless Fact:
There are more chickens than people in the world.
(So I have been told)

So am I .
I use chrome for the most of my time.The browser is on always and it keeps on running.
I love the option " close tabs to the right"
Also I use Firefox for advanced web opreations.It has several addons.
Does Chrome has addons too?Can you post a link please?
Regards,
VVBB

 

[goal.tip1x250]

Google Chrome

 

[MaestroFX1]

How are you brothers and their sisters?

Right now, unless someone is ignorant enough or compelled to do so, no one will use IE.

Ignorant – New computer users, who have just bought a computer, will definitely have “only” Windows and so “only” IE as their gateway to the world of internet.
When they mature, they sure will move on to something else.

Compelled – Corporate guys who have contractual agreements/completions are same as above.
But, despite their knowledge of something better is present they can’t use it.
For example, take the case of stock brokers/hedgers.
They are so royally screwed to use IE.
If they don’t their orders for scrips don’t get placed and they loose money/time.
(I won’t go into technical details further as to why it doesn’t work)

Google Chrome and its sibling Safari are sluggish as of now.
Google Chrome has been televising ads on business channels, but I wonder will it really help their cause? (Remember Corporate/Compelled Condition?).

Google and Apple have already lurked the “matured-ignorants” into their trap (if I may say so) by pure brand power.

So, finally comes the Gecko-based Mozilla FireFox, which is just great!
Probably the best browser as of now, though it gets heavily beaten when it comes to corporate case.

Opera Desktop browser may become defunct any time soon.
But, their Opera Mini/Mobile browser is going great guns and I personally use them on my Android.

Morale of the Story:
King Trident lost his crown due to complacency and ego that he can’t be defeated!

Thanks

 

[bbutcher91116]

How are you brothers and their sisters?

Right now, unless someone is ignorant enough or compelled to do so, no one will use IE.

I'm certainly not ignorant but I *CHOOSE* IE despite its flaws because its Download Manager is the only one that works for me. The ability to Open or Save, and to find the files just can't be matched by Firefox or Chrome which still have a long way to go.

 

[MaestroFX1]

I'm certainly not ignorant but I *CHOOSE* IE despite its flaws because its Download Manager is the only one that works for me. The ability to Open or Save, and to find the files just can't be matched by Firefox or Chrome which still have a long way to go.

@bbutcher91116

Well, no harm in that!

………I *CHOOSE* IE despite its flaws because Its Download Manager is the only one that works for me..........

What are you downloading and from where? Don’t you download massive files?

….The ability to Open or Save, and to find the files just….

By that, I guess you mean Explorer and IE integration.

 

[essellar]

Well, I'm hardly ignorant (I've been at this web game since HTML had no version number and browsers were text-only) and I use Chrome. I have several versions of Firefox, Opera, Safari and IE installed on my machines for compatibility testing, and honestly the only time I fire up Firefox other than for testing (and to try new versions as they are released) is when I want to use the DownThemAll! extension for file downloading -- it has good speed, manages multiple segmented requests, and has remarkably good suspend/resume behaviour. If the DTA developer would write a version for Chrome, I'd probably never voluntarily open FF. And the built-in tools mean I don't have to worry about things like Firebug for developing.

Firefox is a bit of a resource hog, and its JS engine is slow and tends to hang. Its crash behaviour is abominable -- the whole browser goes down, not just the tab that's causing the problem. (Chrome showed the way in this regard, and nobody has an excuse anymore for putting all of their eggs into one basket. There's no sign of Firefox heading in the sandboxed tabs direction yet, even in dev.) The new version of the FF JS engine (in the development channel at the moment) benchmarks well, but it's still slower than Chrome's V8 in real-world testing. And if there's one the the AwesomeBar isn't, it's awesome. (There were more complaints about the AB in Bugzilla than there have been for any other feature ever introduced to FF.) Frankly, Chrome doesn't behave quite the way I'd like either, but they don't pretend to be helpful while getting in the way. And seriously: SVG for box-reflect? I'd like to try some of what the Moz devs have been smoking. In short, FF was a huge improvement over IE, and a moderate improvement over the Netscape-branded Gecko browser, but everybody is doing what used to attract people to it, and most are doing it better these days. I'm hoping for the best for the gold version of FF4, but I'm not holding my breath.

IE9 actually looks good. It would have to be rather spectacular to get me to switch, but I feel a whole lot less dirty when I develop for it. It's almost like just another browser. In fact, leaving IE8 and below out of the mix, it's now Firefox that's the odd duck you need to hack around. At least that will get us enough working implementations of various CSS bits that we can drop the browser prefixes for everything except -moz-. That'll take a few KB off of my stylesheets.

As for the previously asked question about Chrome add-ons: Tools (the wrench icon) -> Tools -> Extensions. There's a "get extensions" link on the dialog.

 

[MaestroFX1]

-----------------
Essellar wrote:

Well, I'm hardly ignorant (I've been at this web game since HTML had no version number and browsers were text-only) and I use Chrome. I have several versions of Firefox, Opera, Safari and IE installed on my machines for compatibility testing, and honestly the only time I fire up Firefox other than for testing (and to try new versions as they are released) is when I want to use the DownThemAll! extension for file downloading -- it has good speed, manages multiple segmented requests, and has remarkably good suspend/resume behaviour. If the DTA developer would write a version for Chrome, I'd probably never voluntarily open FF. And the built-in tools mean I don't have to worry about things like Firebug for developing.

Firefox is a bit of a resource hog, and its JS engine is slow and tends to hang. Its crash behaviour is abominable -- the whole browser goes down, not just the tab that's causing the problem. (Chrome showed the way in this regard, and nobody has an excuse anymore for putting all of their eggs into one basket. There's no sign of Firefox heading in the sandboxed tabs direction yet, even in dev.) The new version of the FF JS engine (in the development channel at the moment) benchmarks well, but it's still slower than Chrome's V8 in real-world testing. And if there's one the the AwesomeBar isn't, it's awesome. (There were more complaints about the AB in Bugzilla than there have been for any other feature ever introduced to FF.) Frankly, Chrome doesn't behave quite the way I'd like either, but they don't pretend to be helpful while getting in the way. And seriously: SVG for box-reflect? I'd like to try some of what the Moz devs have been smoking. In short, FF was a huge improvement over IE, and a moderate improvement over the Netscape-branded Gecko browser, but everybody is doing what used to attract people to it, and most are doing it better these days. I'm hoping for the best for the gold version of FF4, but I'm not holding my breath.

IE9 actually looks good. It would have to be rather spectacular to get me to switch, but I feel a whole lot less dirty when I develop for it. It's almost like just another browser. In fact, leaving IE8 and below out of the mix, it's now Firefox that's the odd duck you need to hack around. At least that will get us enough working implementations of various CSS bits that we can drop the browser prefixes for everything except -moz-. That'll take a few KB off of my stylesheets.

As for the previously asked question about Chrome add-ons: Tools (the wrench icon) -> Tools -> Extensions. There's a "get extensions" link on the dialog.
Last edited by essellar; Yesterday at 05:49 PM. Reason: duplicated material removed
--------------------

And, this is precisely (though there are still many more reasons) why IE is still not dead!

Most of the developers don’t want to move on! Their faith is too strong to be shattered! huh?

At the end of the day, it all boils down to what you believe in!

If developers don’t support it or make it 'atleast' compatible, end-user due to lack of 'atleast' compatible option(s) is compelled to use it.

So, pitty for Compelled – Corporate guys!

It is a vicious circle!

 

[essellar]

It's not that anybody's "faith is too strong to be shattered". Old IE still hangs on in the corporate environment because of custom ActiveX controls in internal applications. IE6 is a special problem, mostly because of inline CSS, but encapsulating the CSS and moving it into easily-modified external stylesheets is not that big a problem with a decent text tool. Getting ActiveX controls to work in non-IE browsers is a different class of problem altogether -- they purposely violate sandboxing for things like file system integration for line-of-business automation. There are some tools set for inclusion in HTML5 that may help, but the only real alternative right now, today, for ActiveX in the browser is Java, and if you're going to have to write applets, you might as well write apps.

Don't forget, ever, that Internet Explorer used to be thousands of miles ahead of anything else out there. IE4, IE5/5.5 and IE6, when new, allowed not only web sites, but web apps[/]. Almost everything we take for granted in modern web development came from Internet Explorer: Ajax, direct access of document elements and CSS weren't on anyone else's map at the time they were introduced in IE. (Netscape owned the web, and if you ever worked with layer addressing or JavaScript Style Sheets, you'll know exactly why Microsoft won the day.) And while we like to complain about the IE box model in CSS, that was something Microsoft got right -- CSS3 finally lets us force other browsers to use a width property that describes the width of the container without having to calculate through a nested hierarchy of border and padding widths for all of the container's descendants. Mozilla, though, took the programmatically easiest solution for the browser devs, and Netscape had the juice on the CSS working group, so we've had to deal with the borken (spelling intentional -- if you're going to talk about geeky things, you need to use geeky vocabulary) version since the spec was adopted.

Now, given that internal corporate applications are the main reason why corporate desktops have browsers at all, compatibility with internal applications is the main concern for IT decisions. Do you honestly believe that anybody is going to spend tens of thousands, or even millions, of dollars to convert away from working, stable, bug-fixed applications if they don't have to? If you do, there's therapy for that. If you hadn't even considered that, well, welcome to Crossfire, a forum for actual argument. Thought, facts and logic are not optional.

 

[cyberneticsoldier]

@ OP: Firefox me, nothing can beat the extensions it has. Sure a lot of browsers have similar things and may even browse faster, but I've yet to find a browser that I like as much as firefox. And to be honest, I don't see that much speed difference between chrome and firefox, at least not to the point where I think firefox is slow compared to chrome. Anyway that's just my opinion, I'm sure everyone has their reasons to prefer 1 browser over the others, be that speed, extensions, or something else.

 

[MaestroFX1]

Ah! Well, well ….
And, this is precisely (though there are still many more reasons) why IE is still not dead!
Reasons are coming by own its own, isn’t it hilarious?

It's not that anybody's "faith is too strong to be shattered". Old IE still hangs on in the corporate environment because of custom ActiveX controls in internal applications. IE6 is a special problem, mostly because of inline CSS, but encapsulating the CSS and moving it into easily-modified external stylesheets is not that big a problem with a decent text tool.

#
So, there is the compulsion.
And so, after all IE6, the most popular IE version ever, is not so great.huh?

Getting ActiveX controls to work in non-IE browsers is a different class of problem altogether -- they purposely violate sandboxing for things like file system integration for line-of-business automation. There are some tools set for inclusion in HTML5 that may help, but the only real alternative right now, today, for ActiveX in the browser is Java, and if you're going to have to write applets, you might as well write apps.

#
And, that very IE’s ActiveX brought the concept of ‘computer security’ or rather ‘computer vulnerability’ into the real world too.
Without IE’ActiveX, ‘computer security’, ‘computer vulnerability’, ‘exploits’ and what not – would have been in PhD books/thesis only
or would have been an urban myth in some La La land.(I’m taking about mode of propagation only.)
Can’t be more be thankful for providing malwares a gateway to other’s computer.

I completely AGREE that Oracle (erstwhile Sun) Java is ‘definitely’ the better alternative.
(It is perhaps going to be one of those ‘once in a while rare celestial event’!)

Don't forget, ever, that Internet Explorer used to be thousands of miles ahead of anything else out there. IE4, IE5/5.5 and IE6, when new, allowed not only web sites, but web apps[/]. Almost everything we take for granted in modern web development came from Internet Explorer: Ajax, direct access of document elements and CSS weren't on anyone else's map at the time they were introduced in IE. (Netscape owned the web, and if you ever worked with layer addressing or JavaScript Style Sheets, you'll know exactly why Microsoft won the day.)

#
Never going to forget those horrific days, they haunt me like night mares!
Someone way-way back, first built an application with tabs, so should every application (including browsers) be thankful for that for an eternity?
More so, if someone from that fraternity comes and claims everything around tabbed application is due them.
And, the fraternity keeps reminding that everyone should be thankful and that too time and again?
That’s preposterous!

I don’t think such kind of Nepotism/Arrogance/etc would help anyone.
MS won the day because of the OS-cum-IE (plus Office) combo compulsion only.
Also, how they got them? I’m leaving that for a different discussion thread.
And, now you can see it happening in reverse-order.
Windows’ share has been declining and so is that of IE’s.
Do I need to talk about ‘at what rate’? I don’t think so.

And while we like to complain about the IE box model in CSS, that was something Microsoft got right -- CSS3 finally lets us force other browsers to use a width property that describes the width of the container without having to calculate through a nested hierarchy of border and padding widths for all of the container's descendants. Mozilla, though, took the programmatically easiest solution for the browser devs, and Netscape had the juice on the CSS working group, so we've had to deal with the borken (spelling intentional -- if you're going to talk about geeky things, you need to use geeky vocabulary) version since the spec was adopted.

#
C’mon! Stop the time-travel!
Couldn’t defend its past, so let’s be over futuristic - CSS3 is yet to be drafted.
That’s not a sounding reasoning.
Expecting a paradox in future every time - that’s childish.

Let’s talk about ‘present’!
And in the present, even though CSS was on their map very early when no one else had a clue, yet they still suck when it comes to implementing current CSS.


Now, given that internal corporate applications are the main reason why corporate desktops have browsers at all, compatibility with internal applications is the main concern for IT decisions.
#
That’s a too naïve logic to say the least!

Do you honestly believe that anybody is going to spend tens of thousands, or even millions, of dollars to convert away from working, stable, bug-fixed applications if they don't have to?

#
I cannot honestly believe that “somebody” is spending “tens of thousands, or even millions, of dollars” in the first place by using Windows and there by IE.
Big corporate who looked around for “options” are now saving 10 million pounds annually.

Moving on from the mumbo jumbo history class to yet another interesting class….
Therapy! Right?

Oh enchante!


If you do, there's therapy for that.
If you hadn't even considered that, well, welcome to Crossfire, a forum for actual argument. Thought, facts and logic are not optional.

#
I guess a large, really large room would be needed for that therapy session.
Make sure arrangements are made for the following ‘need-special-attention’:
Governments (US included), USDoD, USFAA, Google, IBM, London FTSE, NYSE, CERN and many other alleged clowns may (will) drop-in without prior appointment.
Now, either they don’t have those “internal corporate applications” or they are not suffering from a condition of “needless spending on a spree”.

Well, when it comes to therapy, I admit it I ain’t a master in it like someone else might be.
But, there is a classical symptom to check if something is ‘borken’ and doesn’t it go like this: First the denial then finally the acceptance.
Correct me if I’m incorrect that it is more than just a “logically true factual argument”!

“King Trident lost his crown due to complacency and ego that he can’t be defeated!”
Waiting for IE to go Dodo way!
First the denial then finally the acceptance!

I rest my case.

Peace Out!

 

[essellar]

You don't work in IT, do you? Windows isn't going anywhere, except in governments (by fiat, not by choice -- legislators have no idea what it takes to make it work, and I expect to see "officially sunset" applications running on desktops for years to come). And IBM has never really been a "Windows shop" -- they only briefly used it in-house twice: once before launching OS/2, and once between OS/2 and the arrival of the Eclipse-based Notes client and the Symphony fork of O. Migrating off of Windows, particularly to Linux, sounds like a good idea. Until, that is, you take into account the expense of replacing existing applications. (IBMs internals, by the way, are largely Notes-based and therefore OS-agnostic. Just another benefit of using Notes and Domino internally -- as long as there's a client for your desktop platform, your applications will work. And if there's no client available, Domino will be happy to run them as a web app with minimal extra development.)

And no, I'm not talking about things like MS Office that can easily be replaced with FOSS software (and the idea that even Office can be easily replaced means a very limited understanding of the complexity of a lot of Excel-based front ends). No, we're talking about in-house applications, including many which have a substantial "web" (intranet) component, which follow the same rule as any desktop app -- it takes about ten years to finally get it right. That is, it takes about ten years, on average, to get the feature set and workflow to the point that it helps its users accomplish their tasks rather than frustrating them, and during that time a lot of bugs and unanticipated edge cases and system conditions get handled as well. It's not just a matter of spending a couple of afternoons and recompiling to migrate from Windows to Linux (or from ActiveX to Java) -- it's many months and many people to rewrite, and a lot of testing and debugging to follow -- and you still might not get the kind of integration that's easy on the Windows platform (with IE and ActiveX, I mean -- sticking to internal browser decisions).

I don't need to time travel, by the way -- CSS3 isn't a Recommendation yet, but it is mostly implemented, and the "two working implementations to drop the prefix" rule has already been applied to many of its components. And it really doesn't matter what the boys at Mozilla want anymore since they are no longer the only voice on the committee. The "box-sizing: border-box;" was added to fix a problem that the Moz devs created. The "standard" box model ("box-sizing: content-box;") is a borken construct, but it sure is easy to implement in the browser even if it means that it's twice as hard for the user (the web designer/developer). It's the kind of thing that could only have arisen in the FOSS community -- a commercial endeavor tries to make things easier for the user, even if it means more work for the development team. It's easy to say "I want boxes this big with this much space between them" and later make decisions about padding and border widths with the border-box model; with the content-box model you need to recalculate your content box every time you change your border or padding. That's something the browser should do. (The FOSS response is "write a utility to do the calculations and update the rest of the stylesheet for you". That's the probelm with FOSS devs -- they think everyone else should be a developer too.)

Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not a big fan of IE or MS. But I'm not a big fan of Mozilla either. Firefox is simply not the best browser out there, either for users or for devs. It's not going to replace IE on the corporate desktop (heck, IE8 hasn't replaced IE6 on the corporate desktop yet). And it's going to need a whole lot of improvement before it replaces Chrome on my desktop. I've used FF4, and it's not nearly a big enough improvement -- one hanging page still brings the whole thing down, and text rendering is still less than ideal. But then if your a fanboi, I'm not going to change your mind.