What Browser do You Use and Why?

[akima]

I like all the modern browsers: they all work very well. The only browser which I totally hate is Internet Explorer. It lags and crashes and if you look at the html for a lot of popular websites they all have general code that works in most browsers like Safari, Chrome, Firefox and Opera, but the page is littered with these little conditional statements to deal with the Microsoft querks.

Firefox is my favourite!
gfoxAndFoxkeh.png

Fast, customizable and Mozilla profess that the web is what they care about. It's not about their bottom line.

I do like Chrome, but I find Google so creepy.

I love how on Safari on OS X, you can swipe back and forward using your fingers on the track pad. Really clever.

[Heed]

Chrome. I think it's the easiest to use, the neatest, and might be the fastest. I hate IE. It seems slower.

I like Safari too, but it seems to be slower than Chrome.

[akima]

Originally Posted by Heed

Chrome. I think it's the easiest to use, the neatest, and might be the fastest. I hate IE. It seems slower.

I like Safari too, but it seems to be slower than Chrome.

Chrome does feel like the fastest.

The little fox reserves a special place in my heart though

[Heed]

Microsoft should just give up IE and make a deal with Google so that Chrome is their starting browser.

[rosninjet]

I love firefox. But Chrome's additional features are really good too. But I usually use F. I'm not used to the tab being on the upper part.

[etiainen]

My computers are too fast, the difference between all of them(minus IE) is minimal.

[Heed]

Originally Posted by etiainen

My computers are too fast, the difference between all of them(minus IE) is minimal.

that's when it gets most noticeable.

if u had a slow computer, you couldn't tell a difference between browsers.

[etiainen]

Nah, I don't mean it like that, yeah if i pulled up Sunspider Chrome would be the fastest, but what I mean is that all of them are fast enough that most of the time if I'm running a slower connection I notice that way more. Even with a quick connection, it's not like changing to another browser would really make me work any faster.

Also faster Javascript benchmarks doesn't always mean faster in every area of page rendering.

Plus I just love FF

Also, if you have a slow comp you can notice it, especially with different handling of memory in tabs, your slow machine is going to be thrashing

[Sailariel]

My OS is LINUX and Firefox seems to work fine for me.

[etiainen]

Linux
+1million

[Heed]

I wish i could get OSX on my PC.

[etiainen]

Originally Posted by Sailariel

My OS is LINUX and Firefox seems to work fine for me.

May I ask what distro?

(My entire life is surrounded by linux)

Unless I'm outside...

[headshrink]

google products are nice, but I don't trust them.

[CynicalC]

http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/04/i...-percent-micr/



It looks like the web browser that wouldn't die is finally on its last legs. While it's not quite dead yet (especially when you consider the worldwide usage figures), use of Internet Explorer 6 in the United States has now officially dropped below one percent for the first time, which is apparently good enough for Microsoft to do a bit of celebrating. It's now sending out shirts like the one above to select folks, who can now wear their disdain for the out-of-date browser. Those interested can find the latest worldwide numbers at the source links below.

[LoD575]

Chrome is main browser with FF as secondary when using windows.

FF is primary browser when running Ubuntu 11.10.

[tac12345]

Chrome, because it has 1 process per tab.

[CynicalC]

Originally Posted by tac12345

Chrome, because it has 1 process per tab.

That doesn't seem superfluous to you?

[akima]

Originally Posted by CynicalC

That doesn't seem superfluous to you?

It's a very sensible thing to do with lots of advantages and very few disadvantages:

Pros:
* Each tab is essentially an application these days, more than likely with 1 or more threads executing javascript. Why not have the load balancing handled by the operating systems high level process handling functions instead of google having to write their own load balancing code. If 1 tab has a javascript application running that is using a lot of CPU time, then the operating system will automatically lower the priority of that tab-process so that other tabs can continue running and remain responsive to user input. Google not having to write this load-balancing code would have saved them a lot of time. It also keeps the application smaller and more simple so that bug fixing and enhancing the code base is a more simple process.
* If a tab-process crashes only that particular tab is lost: the whole browser isn't brought down.
* With each tab being a separate process and Chrome making use of OS security sandboxing features, their are certain security advantages. 1 tab-process which has been compromised by an attacker can be restricted from accessing data from other tab-processes. So if you have a tab with Ninjette.org in it and some cracker has exploited the browser and injected their own code, your other tabs (which may contain online banking web apps) should not be touchable by the attacker.
* Where available native operating system features can be used to limit how much memory each tab-process is aloud access to. This makes it very easy for the developers to ensure that tabs don't use more memory than they should.
* Abstraction: The idea of having one tab per process is conceptually clean! Nice to think about if your a developer.
* Developers can use existing tools to analyse memory consumption, processor usage and other metrics. Had they opted to not uses tab-processes they would probably have had to make their own tools to do this or at the very least customize existing tools.

Cons:
* There are small memory overheads involved with creating and maintaining a process. Had they adopted the single-process model that Firefox has then they could slightly cut down on memory consumption.
* Operating Systems have very general load balancing algorithms for deciding how much CPU time to give to each process. Had google opted for a single process model (or to use self-managed threads), potentially they could create more optimal load-balancing. I feel that this particular con is far outweighed by the benefits that tab-processes provided and if you look at the real-world result (ie you actually use the Chome browser) you'll see that it has a very responsive user interface and javascript and page rendering occurs -- perceivable -- very quickly.

(FYI: I'm a software engineer by trade)

[Alex]

Originally Posted by akima

I * If a tab-process crashes only that particular tab is lost: the whole browser isn't brought down.

This is the theory, but not how it seems to work in practice. When a tab crashes, it still recommends closing down the whole browser and booting it back up again. It defaults to opening the same tabs back up again, so if they were just static pages and not apps that required some type of perceived state, there's no real loss. But the process per tab architecture hasn't made that browser (the one I prefer, BTW), much more rock-solid than its competitors when it comes to buggy pages and add-ons.

[CynicalC]

I've used firefox for as long as I can remember and the only real stability issues I've ever had with it were directly related to adobe pdf viewer. Ever since I blacklisted acrobat and switched to Foxit reader, I haven't had a single problem with firefox.

Even so, the google reps were very persuasive and convinced me to give chrome a try. Right out of the gate I had stability issues with it, and I gave up within a week. It's replaced IE as my emergency backup browser now. But that's not exactly something (for them) to be proud of.

I do see people complaining about firefox taking up resources. I've never had that problem, but that may be because my desktop has more ram than a dozen typical desktops put together.

[Heed]

i simply like Chrome because of the recently closed feature. Sometimes I'll close the entire tab on accident and i can get right back to it.

im sure other browsers have the same thing though.

[tac12345]

Originally Posted by Alex

This is the theory, but not how it seems to work in practice. When a tab crashes, it still recommends closing down the whole browser and booting it back up again. It defaults to opening the same tabs back up again, so if they were just static pages and not apps that required some type of perceived state, there's no real loss. But the process per tab architecture hasn't made that browser (the one I prefer, BTW), much more rock-solid than its competitors when it comes to buggy pages and add-ons.

with chrome, i can go to process manager, and kill a single process(tab) and the main browser stay open

[kyrider]

I use a browser I created myself to my specific needs.

[CynicalC]

[akima]

^ LMAO at the IE kid!

I remember seeing this ages ago:

Link to original page on YouTube.
Still funny!

[CC Cowboy]

Safari, coz it's a jungle out there!

[USMCEvan]

I use Safari on my iPhone but I prefer IE9 on my home pc.

[Lil_Green_Demon]

Google Chrome because it is much faster than the rest of the internet browsers... At least it seems like it to me.

[headshrink]

Opera anyone?

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by headshrink

Opera anyone?

+1

Only problems I've ever had with Opera is it not being supported by a specific sites application (like when filling out an online job application) or printing to my epson printer.

Other than that it's quick runs tons of tabs without slowing down, allows opening closed pages, has a built in torrent DLer and awesome add ons like file sharing, music and video streaming and dozens of other useful apps.

Opera has turned my desktop into my own personal server giving me access to all my documents, videos, music and anything else I need wherever I am.

[headshrink]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

+1

Only problems I've ever had with Opera is it not being supported by a specific sites application (like when filling out an online job application) or printing to my epson printer.

Other than that it's quick runs tons of tabs without slowing down, allows opening closed pages, has a built in torrent DLer and awesome add ons like file sharing, music and video streaming and dozens of other useful apps.

Opera has turned my desktop into my own personal server giving me access to all my documents, videos, music and anything else I need wherever I am.

it does seem faster sometimes, although I haven't used it to the advanced degree it sounds like you do.

[CynicalC]

Originally Posted by headshrink

Opera anyone?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Alex

This is the theory, but not how it seems to work in practice. When a tab crashes, it still recommends closing down the whole browser and booting it back up again. It defaults to opening the same tabs back up again, so if they were just static pages and not apps that required some type of perceived state, there's no real loss. But the process per tab architecture hasn't made that browser (the one I prefer, BTW), much more rock-solid than its competitors when it comes to buggy pages and add-ons.

So - it happened again this evening. Flash crashed, and here's the error that Google Chrome pops up:

google chrome.png

There is no option to kill a single process, or single tab. The whole program is locked up, and needs to be bounced entirely. But - like I said just above, when it re-opens, it asks to restore the tabs that were open prior, so not much is lost.

[akima]

Originally Posted by Alex

So - it happened again this evening. Flash crashed, and here's the error that Google Chrome pops up:

Attachment 16734

There is no option to kill a single process, or single tab. The whole program is locked up, and needs to be bounced entirely. But - like I said just above, when it re-opens, it asks to restore the tabs that were open prior, so not much is lost.

That makes more sense. You're original post implied that Google Chrome was recommending you restart the whole browser. That is a screenshot of Windows telling you about an unresponsive program. It still sucks that the whole browser is being brought down by the Flash addon.

[Alex]

Well, that didn't take long. Over the past 30 days, Chrome made up 27% of the visits here on this site, taking the number one spot over Firefox with 26%.

[AznJoJo]

Originally Posted by akima

Firefox is my favourite!
Attachment 16036

That's sooo cute! I think i'm going to try firefox just because of this, haha.

[akima]

Originally Posted by AznJoJo

That's sooo cute! I think i'm going to try firefox just because of this, haha.

Of all the reasons to switch browser that's definitely the best... the browser with the cutest mascot!

Mozilla actually, regularly adopt real fire foxes! They set-up a web-cam above the adopted fire foxes, so anyone on the Internet can watch them play and snuggle

[Boom King]

Necro bump.

Version 19 of Firefox has been out for a couple of weeks now and Mozilla put that fatty on a diet . It consumes less RAM now, less than Chrome. It features a built in PDF viewer and better HTML5 support. Generally, it is quick all around but Chrome still owns in this area and offers more features. With the update, I think Firefox is now back to being a top notch browser. Chrome while still my preferred browser has been giving me some compatibility issues with certain sites lately and a weird red shift in flash videos if I have GPU acceleration enabled .

[Alex]

My primary browser is still Chrome. But I just downloaded IE10, and it's surprisingly fast to render pages, with a simple/clean interface. Much faster than 9, which in turn was faster than 8. MS seems to be moving in the right direction.

[antiant]

I use a VPN browser and love the encrypted protection it gives me. Once in a blue moon, I'll use Opera.