Favourite browser (January - June 2011)

[3GUSER]

I couldn't find similar poll so I decided to make one:

Which is your favourite web browser? Which is The Browser you use now ?

Note: this is for your current favourite browser and is valid till the middle of the year.

[blacknight]

OPERA definitely. :) :)

[rdsu]

Opera.

[Creer]

-{ Quote: "Opera." }-
+1 :thumb:

[Bob D]

K-Meleon

[m00nbl00d]

I voted other: Chromium

[Boyfriend]

Google Chrome (stable) http://www.wilderssecurity.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif

[Matthijs5nl]

Internet Explorer 9

[Minimax2000]

Opera 11

[bigc73542]

Opera 11 for now. been using Opera since version 1. I also use Safari 5 once in a while.

[Rampastein]

Firefox 3.6.13 with Adblock Plus and Noscript.

[SIR****TMG]

Avant browser

[Daveski17]

My favourite browser is SeaMonkey. I use Chrome a lot though (or Iron when it's not buggy).

[nikanthpromod]

Mozilla Firefox

Because of its addons:thumb:

Also using Opera 11

Its really Fast:thumb:

[funkydude]

Internet Explorer Nine.

[SirPeterPan]

Other: K-Meleon 1.6

[SweX]

Safari 5

[3GUSER]

Chrome from Google (stable release)

224354

Very very fast and light , secure , never saw it crash like IE (if IE tab crashes due to Adobe FP , it crashes all and I got tired of this) . Sites that claim to support only IE and Firefox open way faster with Chrome.

I regularly test BETA and dev builds but with them I have problems accessing an internal web site I have to visit very often . Strangely , when the release goes to stable the problem with the site goes away.

[Woodgiant]

Very very fast and light , secure , never saw it crash like IE /QUOTE]

My favorite browser is IE 8, ist slow, heavy, and and in some occasion it crashes,....but I love my browser;).
But all that's soon history when IE9 is released. ;D
Best Regards

[3GUSER]

-{ Quote: "
But all that's soon history when IE9 is released. ;D
Best Regards" }-

I am waiting for IE9 RC or final (RC coming soon on 28 Jan) , the beta is still not ready to compete with the competition.

[Scoobs72]

Opera for me :thumb:

[Page42]

IE 8.0 soon to be 9.0

[J_L]

There should be multiple choices so I can vote Firefox and Chrome.

[Kernelwars]

IE9:argh:

[Osaban]

Without any doubt Google Chrome, no other installed or used except for IE8 for Windows updates.

[safeguy]

I've tried my very best but I failed to swing away from her.

What "her" you ask? "her" is Firefox. She's my 1st love, my 1st kiss so to say.

Chrome is the new virgin in town but since there are too many guys ogling at her bare skin, I can't help but to stay true to whom I already have.

[Daveski17]

Well, to extend the analogy a tad ... according to the poll results so far it seems that Opera is the most popular Nordic babe, erm, young lady in town. ;D

[3GUSER]

-{ Quote: "I've tried my very best but I failed to swing away from her.

What "her" you ask? "her" is Firefox. She's my 1st love, my 1st kiss so to say.

Chrome is the new virgin in town but since there are too many guys ogling at her bare skin, I can't help but to stay true to whom I already have." }-
;D ;D ;D ROFL

You've got a very strong affair with it . Do you have something from her such as this: http://i56.tinypic.com/25so8dk.jpg / http://i52.tinypic.com/3039s20.jpg

[cm1971]

-{ Quote: "Firefox 3.6.13 with Adblock Plus and Noscript." }-
+1 :thumb:

[Mr.PC]

-Primary Browser: Mozilla Firefox 3.6.13 (...=>4)

-Secondary Browser: Internet Explorer 8 (...=>9)

[icr]

Opera v10:thumb:

[TOMxEU]

Chrome, I just love, that after a clean setup, I login and I get all my favorites, extensions and most settings in a sec.

[safeguy]

-{ Quote: ";D ;D ;D ROFL

You've got a very strong affair with it . Do you have something from her such as this: http://i56.tinypic.com/25so8dk.jpg / http://i52.tinypic.com/3039s20.jpg" }-

No. But you can see now why I love 'her':

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/1870/ifbrowserswerewomenjpg.jpg

[Mr.PC]

THANK you, safeguy!!! :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
No more Browser Wars...;D

[ExtremeGamerBR]

-{ Quote: "THANK you, safeguy!!! :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
No more Browser Wars...;D" }-

Good! :thumb:

[John Bull]

No contest - Firefox leaves every other browser standing at the start line. The accessories and security benefits are beyond belief. IE is a near competitor, but way behind in operational facilities.

Other browsers ? Forget them. A waste of time. I really do not know why users bother with them. Google Chrome for instance - it is a joke.

With Firefox as against other browsers, I have the analogy of a Bugatti competing with Henry Ford`s original model T Ford of 1908.

John

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "No contest - In my opinion, Firefox leaves every other browser standing at the start line. The accessories and security benefits are beyond belief. IE is a near competitor, but way behind in operational facilities.
" }-

Fixed.

[m00nbl00d]

But, the likelihood of the IE "woman" to infect you changes drastically if one sets a different "hosting place".

If the "hosting place" is Windows XP, then most would be/are simply using an Administrator account for the usability of their daily applications, including updating Windows via IE, which requires Administrator rights. Most are "ignorant" (not stupid people, just unaware) about the existence of safer ways, and other ways of using a limited account without being restricted of doing what they want; they also are unaware on how to make their Administrator accounts safer, if they're even aware of the difference between both type of accounts.

The problem with this "woman" is that everyone seems to like her ways. They do not try to find another "woman". They're happy with this one. Obviously, this calls the attention of bad people, who want to get to you, through her.

Even the woman "Firefox", which is also widely used by people is a target to bad people... I wonder how many of these people have knowledge of the little add-ons they can make use of? And, when they white-list something?

But, if you change the "hosting place" to Windows Vista or Windows 7, then it becomes way safer, because the ones providing the "hosting place" have introduced security measures. It is also easier for people who always made use of Administrator accounts to make use of a limited account, and still be able to use those applications requiring Administrator rights. Even those who are unaware of the difference, have a safety net - UAC, which will reduce rights. Not the best solution, but sure is better than not having it.

In this new "hosting place", the dangerous woman "IE" wouldn't be so dangerous, due to other security measures; security measures that the woman "Firefox" makes no use of.

For the "hosting place" Windows XP, I'd pick the woman "Chrome". It provides a better overall protection.

For Windows Vista/7, right out-of-the-box I'd pick IE8, because the low integrity level (sandbox) is properly implemented (via UAC).
Unlike Chrome's sandbox, which is poorly implemented and under certain conditions, this "woman" will try to have as many rights as the "hosting place" account. This is bad behavior. Naughty "woman"! ;D

After a bit tweaking... I prefer this "new" controlled "woman" Chrome. I tamed "her", and "she" won't misbehave anymore. lol

-Edit-

In all fairness, I actually prefer Chrome's "mother" - Chromium "lady". ;D An amazing "lady". I fell in love with "her". ;)

[Sully]

-{ Quote: "I've tried my very best but I failed to swing away from her.

What "her" you ask? "her" is Firefox. She's my 1st love, my 1st kiss so to say.

Chrome is the new virgin in town but since there are too many guys ogling at her bare skin, I can't help but to stay true to whom I already have." }-
I had this mindset for awhile as well, mainly because I was happily making Kmeleon do what I wanted it to do.

I use Chromium almost exclusively now. IMO it is the fastest on my hardware. I like the simplicity of it. I do wish it had more customizable features like Kmeleon had.

Browsers and firewalls are perhaps the two best examples of the vast difference in people tastes. Any of them can be used to get the job done. Some might be better or worse, some hogs and some spartan, but in the end I believe it is the preference of the user that makes the call -- sometimes the "best" just doesn't jive well with you, so you use something "lesser" but that you enjoy.

Sul.

[safeguy]

@moonblood

Good post and I pretty much agree with what you've said:thumb:

However, that's from the views of a security-minded person. The rest of the internet user population couldn't possibly give 2 hoots on what you're talking about:P

Unfortunately, in regards to the 'hosting place', UAC can be 'disabled'....leaving one back to square 1 (XP-mode). There are those users who seem to do that since they've been comfortable to the 'hosting place' where they used to be. If they do not know how to do that, it's just a Google search away when they get annoyed by the prompts.

Even if that's not the case, many of those who are 'unaware' are also the easy targets that simply 'nod' whenever they are promised of being given chocolates and candies. In that case, the "UAC is no security barrier" mantra pretty much holds true.

The way I see it - while the 'hosting place' does play a substantial role when it's left at it's default setting, it isn't quite the major dependable factor.

-{ Quote: "Browsers and firewalls are perhaps the two best examples of the vast difference in people tastes. Any of them can be used to get the job done. Some might be better or worse, some hogs and some spartan, but in the end I believe it is the preference of the user that makes the call -- sometimes the "best" just doesn't jive well with you, so you use something "lesser" but that you enjoy." }-

If only everyone else thought the same way as you do, we wouldn't have had to debate/argue which browser is "better" than the other.:thumb:

[mrpink]

-{ Quote: "No contest - Firefox leaves every other browser standing at the start line. The accessories and security benefits are beyond belief. IE is a near competitor, but way behind in operational facilities.

Other browsers ? Forget them. A waste of time. I really do not know why users bother with them. Google Chrome for instance - it is a joke.

With Firefox as against other browsers, I have the analogy of a Bugatti competing with Henry Ford`s original model T Ford of 1908.

John" }-


Yeah...and then you dropped your pillow...

[fsr]

Chromium 10. Firefox is now history.

[CiX]

Goooogle Chrome:thumb: :thumb:

[Noob]

Chrome 11 ;D :thumb:

[John Bull]

-{ Quote: "Yeah...and then you dropped your pillow..." }-

What a constructive comment, thank you so much for such an intellectual appraisal of the matter. Firefox beats all the other browsers by several laps.

And for the others ? Google Chrome is about as useful as a one wheel bike. Still, each to his own poison. It would be a very boring world if we all thought the same.

JB

[Sully]

-{ Quote: " Firefox beats all the other browsers by several laps." }-
This is an opinion. Your or anyone who enjoy Firefox are certainly convinced of this statement. However, having tested browsers many times over the years, there is just no way to show this is true using emperical evidence. It depends on many factors such as the computer, the settings of the browser, plugins used and even the pages you visit.

It is enough say that Firefox "can" be the fastest, the same as I can say, on my machine, Firefox is the slowest (which it is according to my eye).

;)

Sul.

[LoneWolf]

Opera

[John Bull]

-{ Quote: "This is an opinion. Your or anyone who enjoy Firefox are certainly convinced of this statement. However, having tested browsers many times over the years, there is just no way to show this is true using emperical evidence. It depends on many factors such as the computer, the settings of the browser, plugins used and even the pages you visit.

It is enough say that Firefox "can" be the fastest, the same as I can say, on my machine, Firefox is the slowest (which it is according to my eye).

;)

Sul." }-

Sully, as always your comments are first class. I am sure that all readers like myself admire every one of your posts, they are a credit to the Forum.
"An opinion ?" - of course it is, just like all the other posts, including yours.

BUT, Sul my old pal - I never mentioned that Firefox is the FASTEST. I simply said and will repeat it time and again that Firefox is the BEST. I could`nt care less about SPEED so long as it is reasonable and Firefox speed IS reasonable.

As for other browsers - take ya pick. One may as well use Dogpile - http://www.dogpile.com/dogpile/ws/index/?_IceUrl=true, it is just as good.

Having grovelled in the dirt at times in my life, I got a taste for luxury. I would rather stay at the New York Hilton than a 10 bucks a night Doss House in the Bronx.

John

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: ""An opinion ?" - of course it is, just like all the other posts, including yours.
" }-

Not really, people are stating what browser they use, that's a fact. They're not worshipping them in this thread, with the exception of a few people.

[John Bull]

-{ Quote: "Not really, people are stating what browser they use, that's a fact. They're not worshipping them in this thread, with the exception of a few people." }-

Hi Funky, no harm meant. It is an inherent factor in life that when somebody says they use product "X", then unless they back it up with WHY they use it, the information is fairly inconclusive.

John

[SweX]

Safari 5 has One vote (Me)....what's wrong with you people::) :P ;D

PS > Not meant as an offensive comment!

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "No contest - Firefox leaves every other browser standing at the start line. The accessories and security benefits are beyond belief. IE is a near competitor, but way behind in operational facilities.

Other browsers ? Forget them. A waste of time. I really do not know why users bother with them. Google Chrome for instance - it is a joke.
" }-

Interesting thoughts, in the very least. What security benefits does Firefox browser offer? There's been a long time since I last used it... Perhaps, 3 years ago. What sort of security measures did the Mozilla team introduced? Protected Mode (low integrity level) for Windows Vista/7 users? Sandbox features alike Chromium based browsers?

Please, note that I'm asking about Firefox security benefits... not extensions or accessories as you call them.

-{ Quote: "
With Firefox as against other browsers, I have the analogy of a Bugatti competing with Henry Ford`s original model T Ford of 1908.

John" }-

Well, don't forget every automobile is prone to accidents. Mostly, due to the driver. ;)

[Page42]

-{ Quote: "BUT, Sul my old pal - I never mentioned that Firefox is the FASTEST. I simply said and will repeat it time and again that Firefox is the BEST. I could`nt care less about SPEED so long as it is reasonable and Firefox speed IS reasonable." }-
When you used speed as a metaphor, John, expect us to believe you are saying it is the fastest.
-{ Quote: "No contest - Firefox leaves every other browser standing at the start line" }-
-{ Quote: "Firefox beats all the other browsers by several laps." }-
-{ Quote: "a Bugatti competing with Henry Ford`s original model T Ford" }-

[John Bull]

-{ Quote: "When you used speed as a metaphor, John, expect us to believe you are saying it is the fastest." }-

Page, I apologise for my lack of definitive English. Let me say now, that ALL my comments are NOT intended to infer that Firefox is the fastest browser. FF has a very reasonable SPEED, but apart from that, I could not care less. My entire waffle is supposed to indicate "luxury" and my analogies show that theme.

I feel that I have participated enough in this very topical, enjoyable and interesting thread. I have made my points best I can and anything further would be counter-productive. So I am backing out with this last post. Many thanks to the OP for raising a most popular thread and my hopes are that it keeps going.

John

[safeguy]

-{ Quote: "Interesting thoughts, in the very least. What security benefits does Firefox browser offer? There's been a long time since I last used it... Perhaps, 3 years ago. What sort of security measures did the Mozilla team introduced? Protected Mode (low integrity level) for Windows Vista/7 users? Sandbox features alike Chromium based browsers?

Please, note that I'm asking about Firefox security benefits... not extensions or accessories as you call them." }-

I'm sorry to interrupt in this dialogue but I wonder why extensions can't be considered as a factor when we mention security benefits. I've seen a number of such comments by IE/Chrome fans who are heavy on criticizing Firefox while insisting on praising the "built-in" security benefits that those 2 have. Why?

I won't dispute the argument that those features are good in enhancing overall 'security' of a browser (esp. to prevent access to the system) and that Firefox may want to consider including them in future releases...

However, the IE Protected Mode (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb250462%28v=vs.85%29.aspx) and Chrome Sandbox (http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/sandbox) is based upon the use of integrity levels within the OS itself. In this case, this mainly benefits Windows Vista/7 users. How does Windows XP users benefit from those features? What about the other platforms beside Windows such as Mac OSX or GNU/Linux? In other words, how are they really 'built-in' security benefits??

I'm suspecting that some would jump in and claim that Chrome/IE currently also offer "built-in" security/privacy features (e.g. Javascript, cookie control, etc) but let's be objective here - while Firefox may not have those, it provides the API for developers to build add-ons for them...some of which may be seen by some users as having more 'convenience' or 'usability' compared to the ones provided by the other 2 browsers. Heck, even those browsers have now 'ports' of these known Firefox extensions (e.g. NoScript port)

You might disagree and say that it's pointless but that is nothing more than an individual assessment/opinion. Is there a need for the harsh treatment towards the word "extensions" - just because you don't like them doesn't mean others follow your mindset, right?

Some might steer away from the likes of NoScript and say "that's not important for me or it's freaking annoying". That is very understandable. But same goes for Protected Mode and/or 'sandbox' - a person can also say that those aren't important to him/her.

My point is security features/benefits are only perceived as right/just as what the individual decides/wants it to be. Instead of 'attacking' another person's browser preference by questioning its security credibility or trying to prove one browser's superiority over the other, why can't we just let the user decide which route he/she wishes to go with?;)

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "I'm sorry to interrupt in this dialogue but I wonder why extensions can't be considered as a factor when we mention security benefits. I've seen a number of such comments by IE/Chrome fans who are heavy on criticizing Firefox while insisting on praising the "built-in" security benefits that those 2 have. Why?[...]" }-

Chrome's sandbox isn't only the low integrity level.

In the link you pointed:

-{ Quote: "The sandbox is designed for 32-bit processes and has been tested on Windows 2000, Windows XP 32 bits, and Windows Vista 32 and 64 bits." }-

I guess you could read the rest. ;)

The thing is, Firefox by itself provides no security, IMO, either by itself or by making use of what the operating system offers. IE and Chrome do.

Tell me, what if some user using NoScript whitelists a website? Then what? What security benefits does Firefox offer that could prevent exploits?

So, if it's OK to talk about Firefox security extensions, then it makes no sense to say IE, even in Windows XP is insecure, because people have EMET, Sandboxie, etc... So, it doesn't matter the browser, and it's useless to say IE is insecure, because people can make use of such applications to make it secure. Same for Firefox with its extensions, and Sandboxie, etc.

So, John Bull was wrong in his assessment:

-{ Quote: "No contest - Firefox leaves every other browser standing at the start line. The accessories and security benefits are beyond belief. IE is a near competitor, but way behind in operational facilities.

Other browsers ? Forget them. A waste of time. I really do not know why users bother with them. Google Chrome for instance - it is a joke.

With Firefox as against other browsers, I have the analogy of a Bugatti competing with Henry Ford`s original model T Ford of 1908.

John
" }-

My reply had in mind also that part "Google Chrome for instance - it is a joke.

Right, it's a joke. Is it a joke not to make users dependent on extensions to make them secure? (Users want extensions, fine... But, regarding Chrome's security, not needed. It's my opinion.)

Chromium based browsers do offer security to their users, even in Windows XP, as the link you mentioned points out.

So, I ask: Without the likes of NoScript, what is there left to protect Firefox's users?
Also, has you said, not everyone can handle/gets annoyed with something like NoScript, which cripples user experience.

It's the browser that should be hardened with means that can be used by every user. The problem itself are not the extensions; I got no problems with them. I'm glad they exist for Firefox users. But, Mozilla should harden their browser, by making use of what the O.S already offers.

That's what Google did.

I know that I can have my relatives use Chromium (I prefer this flavor ;D), without killing browser experience with javascript disabled, and that they're covered by Chromium's sandbox and low integrity level, which in case of an infection, nothing bad could happen, because it couldn't do nothing much or provoke damage.

I wouldn't feel so confident leaving them with Firefox, without NoScript, which they would freak out with it.

As you said:

-{ Quote: "My point is security features/benefits are only perceived as right/just as what the individual decides/wants it to be. Instead of 'attacking' another person's browser preference by questioning its security credibility or trying to prove one browser's superiority over the other, why can't we just let the user decide which route he/she wishes to go with?" }-

So, John Bull couldn't expect to make the assessment he made without others replying back about what IE and Chrome truly have to offer, and in case of Chrome also in XP.

[safeguy]

-{ Quote: "Chrome's sandbox isn't only the low integrity level.

In the link you pointed:

I guess you could read the rest. ;)" }-

I have. Please note the word "mainly" that I used above.;)

-{ Quote: "The thing is, Firefox by itself provides no security, IMO, either by itself or by making use of what the operating system offers. IE and Chrome do." }-

How do you define security? Based on feature sets? Firefox "by itself" provides security features (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/features/#security) and the fact that it doesn't support ActiveX (http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/activex) helps too.

Just because those doesn't appeal to you or that it lacks a certain XXX feature that the competitor has doesn't equate it to none. That is unfair comparison imo.

One can argue the point that both Chrome and Firefox leverages the help from a 3rd-party in order to enhance the browser's 'security'. Firefox with its extensions and Chrome with the inclusion of IL provided by the OS (which comes from MS).

-{ Quote: "Tell me, what if some user using NoScript whitelists a website? Then what? What security benefits does Firefox offer that could prevent exploits?" }-

I can question the same for IE and ActiveX...what happens if some user allows the ActiveX control? (assume the admin hasn't disabled or put the right restrictions to it)

Since it's going to be a long post, I have posted the answer to the NoScript misconception here (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1812239&postcount=35). Please take time to read it. :)

-{ Quote: "So, if it's OK to talk about Firefox security extensions, then it makes no sense to say IE, even in Windows XP is insecure, because people have EMET, Sandboxie, etc... So, it doesn't matter the browser, and it's useless to say IE is insecure, because people can make use of such applications to make it secure. Same for Firefox with its extensions, and Sandboxie, etc." }-

Right. It makes no sense. The "security" of a browser is subjective. How you achieve the "security" you deem necessary to your environment is up to you. Built-in vs extensions shouldn't be the debate imo.

And why are you confusing the term 'extensions' (that 'extends' a browser) with an installation of an application on the system that encompasses more than just the browser???

-{ Quote: "Right, it's a joke. Is it a joke not to make users dependent on extensions to make them secure? (Users want extensions, fine... But, regarding Chrome's security, not needed. It's my opinion.)

Chromium based browsers do offer security to their users, even in Windows XP, as the link you mentioned points out." }-

That's your opinion but not everyone subscribes to that.

Who says Firefox users are "dependent" on extensions to make them secure? That's an inference you make, not necessarily a fact. I find it ironical here that it is "a joke" to be dependent on extensions but it is alright to be dependent on 'built-in' security...

And what security are you talking about to be precise? Are you referring to exploits and drive-by downloads? Chrome and IE's "built-in" security help to mitigate by a degree but are you going to place full dependence on them?

Chrome offers security, but it doesn't cover every single hole out there. Hardly anything does. Others may not need those and gain no advantage from what Chrome offers. So, what would you say to them?

Extensions or even choice of a browser can't "make them secure". No matter how 'secure' a browser is, be it 'built-in' or with extensions, what can possibly stop PEBKAC? Social engineering is a problem and where does Chrome or Firefox for the matter help in this case?

-{ Quote: "So, I ask: Without the likes of NoScript, what is there left to protect Firefox's users?" }-

Question yourself this: Without IE Protected Mode and without Chrome 'sandbox', either by the user turning it off (some do) or is "bypassed" in an exploit or a vulnerability, what is there to left to protect the users?

-{ Quote: "Also, has you said, not everyone can handle/gets annoyed with something like NoScript, which cripples user experience." }-

I need to ask this: Is that statement based on experience or based on what others have stated? You stated that you have not used Firefox for 3 years.

Talking about crippling user experience, that differs from one to another. Some find NoScript annoying (most do) while others find that it makes the web 'better' by silencing down things like flash, ads, etc. NoScript can be set not to interfere that much....it's up to you how you go about using it to suit your browsing patterns.

-{ Quote: "
It's the browser that should be hardened with means that can be used by every user. The problem itself are not the extensions; I got no problems with them. I'm glad they exist for Firefox users. But, Mozilla should harden their browser, by making use of what the O.S already offers.

That's what Google did." }-

Right. Absolutely agree there. I didn't argue otherwise either. Hence, why not give the Mozilla team some time to do that?

However, I must say that I notice that it's becoming much of a trend/hype whereby when IE introduced Protected Mode and Chrome offers sandbox, people question what Mozilla is doing?

So, what happens in the future if another browser comes along and introduce a new 'security feature'? Chrome and IE will become useless too? Do browser developers need to constantly rush through with the introduction of XXX because another has done so?

-{ Quote: "I know that I can have my relatives use Chromium (I prefer this flavor ;D), without killing browser experience with javascript disabled, and that they're covered by Chromium's sandbox and low integrity level, which in case of an infection, nothing bad could happen, because it couldn't do nothing much or provoke damage.

I wouldn't feel so confident leaving them with Firefox, without NoScript, which they would freak out with it." }-

Disabling java-script is not a necessity per se. You don't need NoScript with Firefox. However, if one has decided to disable Javascript and handle white-lists (on a per-domain basis), the combo of Firefox with NoScript can be more 'usable' if compared to what Chrome offers 'built-in' and more so than IE. That's my opinion, based on my own experience...

And speaking of confidence, I wouldn't be confident leaving them with any browser, be it Chrome/Firefox/IE/Opera/Safari if I hadn't set policies or alternative means of protection on the OS itself in the 1st place.

Summary:

Main point is simple and clear-cut. Let's just leave the browser security issue alone since it's going to be an endless debate. I have no interest at all on attacking one browser over the other since I'm aware of the pros and cons of each. I'm not a blind fanboy by all means. I use Firefox because it serves me well, not because it's 'security' is better than the rest. Whatever I've stated above are only to open up thoughts to be pondered over and not to be mistaken as if I'm anti/against any browser.

@moondblood

If anything, PM me...I don't wish to derail this thread further. Browser preferences involves more than security aspects. I don't know why it has led to this. It's a poll thread whereby the OP asks for "favorite" browser.

[m00nbl00d]

@ safeguy

No need to PM you.

Allow me to re-mention the following.

My comment was towards John Bull's statement/affirmation, who said:

-{ Quote: "No contest - Firefox leaves every other browser standing at the start line. The accessories and security benefits are beyond belief. IE is a near competitor, but way behind in operational facilities.

Other browsers ? Forget them. A waste of time. I really do not know why users bother with them. Google Chrome for instance - it is a joke.

With Firefox as against other browsers, I have the analogy of a Bugatti competing with Henry Ford`s original model T Ford of 1908.

John" }-

My comment was only meant towards him, in a way that, if he considers this, with what information ???, then anyone else, including me, is free to say the same regarding Firefox.

I just pointed out that Google Chrome, or better yet, if I'm allowed, Chromium based browsers aren't a joke, due to the security implementations it has. Chromium/Chrome are far from being a joke.

And, since this is a "Favourite browser" thread, then I can add that I can say Firefox is a joke, because I enjoy Chromium's simplicity... fast loading... etc...

It doesn't make it OK to say Firefox is a joke, though. I just don't like it. Period.

I simply do not understand the claim John Bull made. Is it based on what?

My comment was done in a way, as saying: OK... you dislike it... I dislike Firefox... others like Opera... others IE... others Kmeleon... etc

But, when one says xyz browser is a joke, then for sure something more is needed to be explained... otherwise is just a vain statement/affirmation.

[safeguy]

@moonblood

I know all that...you don't have to repeat lol:P I agree that John Bull put on such a bold statement without stating explicit reasons or acknowledge it as his opinion initially. My comment was meant for you and has nothing to do with what you've stated against John Bull. I just found it weird the choice of words and tone you used

-{ Quote: "not extensions or accessories as you call them." }-

It sounded to me in the beginning as if you were mocking upon the use of extensions. That is why I had to 'interrupt' upon your dialogue. Anyway, just forget all of these...:D

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "[...]
It sounded to me in the beginning as if you were mocking upon the use of extensions. That is why I had to 'interrupt' upon your dialogue. Anyway, just forget all of these...:D" }-

Oh... Not, at all. I actually mentioned in some other post after that one that I'm glad the extensions exist, otherwise what would Firefox users have helping them achieve a better security, right?

That was not the case. When I said "Please, note that I'm asking about Firefox security benefits... not extensions or accessories as you call them.", I already had in mind that Chromium based browsers already provide better security without the need to for extensions. Something, I know for sure, it fits way better to people like my relatives... and not only... unlike Firefox with extensions like NoScript.

With Chromium based browsers all the user has got to do is keep it updated, and in case of Chrome the update is automatic, I believe, without having to worry with extensions updates as well. Chromium based browsers make use of what the operating system has... it's already there; the user has nothing to do or setup.

I find this, as I mentioned, a better approach for folks like my relatives. Obviously, other users... and I'm one of them... enjoy the simplicity, etc... whatever is there more, about Chromium/Chrome.

Basically, with my comments I meant to show why Chromium based browsers aren't a joke.

Anyway... enough said to exhaustion. This matter is dead and buried. ;D Let's move on to next "whatever matter". ;)

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "With Chromium based browsers all the user has got to do is keep it updated, and in case of Chrome the update is automatic, I believe, without having to worry with extensions updates as well. " }-

AFAIK Chrome extensions don't automatically update. I update Chrome extensions manually anyway. I didn't think they updated automatically like Safari & Opera. In fact, I have discovered that I can drag & drop the 'jigsaw piece' icon from 'recently opened' to the toolbar & 'rename' it with no name so just the icon itself is there with my favicons. I do this with Downloads & others. It kind of makes this Chrome extension (https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/jfchnphgogjhineanplmfkofljiagjfb?hl=en) a bit redundant I think.

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "AFAIK Chrome extensions don't automatically update. I update Chrome extensions manually anyway. I didn't think they updated automatically like Safari & Opera. In fact, I have discovered that I can drag & drop the 'jigsaw piece' icon from 'recently opened' to the toolbar & 'rename' it with no name so just the icon itself is there with my favicons. I do this with Downloads & others. It kind of makes this Chrome extension (https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/jfchnphgogjhineanplmfkofljiagjfb?hl=en) a bit redundant I think." }-

I mentioned Chrome, itself. Not extensions. Chrome, AFAIK, updates by itself.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "I mentioned Chrome, itself. Not extensions. Chrome, AFAIK, updates by itself." }-

Oh, OK. You had me worried there, I thought there was some way the extensions updated automatically that I didn't know about. It would be nice if Chrome flagged you when an extension needs updating though. Even SeaMonkey does this! :)

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "Safari 5 has One vote (Me)....what's wrong with you people::) :P ;D

PS > Not meant as an offensive comment!" }-

I keep giving Safari a chance, it has extensions that actually work properly, unfortunately Safari keeps letting me down. I thought it would work much better on my powerful desktop, it does to some degree, but I miss Safari 3. :'(

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "Oh, OK. You had me worried there, I thought there was some way the extensions updated automatically that I didn't know about. It would be nice if Chrome flagged you when an extension needs updating though. Even SeaMonkey does this! :)" }-

Yes, it would be nice. In fact, if it's possible to have extensions, then the web browser should alert the users when new updates are available, IMO.

Maybe in a near future...

[ExtremeGamerBR]

1. Mozilla Firefox 4 Beta 9 [Adblock Plus + NoScript]
2. Google Chrome 8 [WOT + Adblock Plus]
3. Internet Explorer 9 [Waiting for the RC]

[bigc73542]

-{ Quote: "Safari 5 has One vote (Me)....what's wrong with you people::) :P ;D

PS > Not meant as an offensive comment!" }-
I have Safari 5 on my Comp. I use it as my secondary browser. Opera is my Primary

[tobacco]

SRWare Iron - smooth and "blistering fast"! ;)

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "THANK you, safeguy!!! :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
No more Browser Wars...;D" }-

I don't particularly fancy visual metaphors using women, but Chrome isn't exactly skinny or anorexic: on my old laptop it uses almost twice the memory compared to IE8. It is still my browser of choice as in terms of speed it outperforms any other browser I've tested on my computers (4 laptops).

[SweX]

-{ Quote: "I have Safari 5 on my Comp. I use it as my secondary browser. Opera is my Primary" }-

Good to know i'm not the only Wilderer::) that uses Safari 5!

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "Good to know i'm not the only Wilderer::) that uses Safari 5!" }-
Apparently there are more than 100,000 members at Wilders; of these 10,000 are active, and in this poll perhaps around 100 members have cast a vote so far. The results are an indication at best within a very small group of security oriented people.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "SRWare Iron - smooth and "blistering fast"! ;)" }-

I have used Iron since the first #2 series. It would have been my fave if it wasn't a tad buggy. However, I still use it sometimes on my laptop as I can watch Channel 4 (UK) shows without commercial breaks by courtesy of Iron's internal adblocker. Now ... you can't do that in Chrome! 8)

[hayc59]

Internet Explorer Eight

[SweX]

-{ Quote: "The results are an indication at best within a very small group of security oriented people." }-

I guess you got a point there;)

[ExtremeGamerBR]

-{ Quote: "1. Mozilla Firefox 4 Beta 9 [Adblock Plus + NoScript]
2. Google Chrome 8 [WOT + Adblock Plus]
3. Internet Explorer 9 [Waiting for the RC]" }-
EDIT:

1. Google Chrome 8: Adblock Plus
2. Mozilla Firefox 4 BETA 9: NoScript + Adblock Plus
3. Internet Explorer 9 [Waiting for the RC]

[Emy]

Google Chrome 9 Beta is my browser of choice.

[Daveski17]

Well, it seems Firefox is the Wilder's users fave at the moment.

[jadinolf]

SeaMonkey until they pull it from my cold dead hands.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "SeaMonkey until they pull it from my cold dead hands." }-

Yes, I've only been using it since #1.1.12 (around the time Fx 3 was released). I run 2.0.11 on my desktop & on a couple of flashdrives, on a laptop I run #2.1 beta 1. :thumb:

[farmerlee]

I try different browsers out there from time to time but i always seem to come back to firefox. For what i require in a browser, firefox does it all and does it well.

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "I try different browsers out there from time to time but i always seem to come back to firefox.
For what i require in a browser, firefox does it all and does it well." }- :thumb:
Tried Opera; went back to Firefox.
Tried Chrome; went back to Firefox.

[mhf]

K-Meleon (why not add it to the list in the poll... ?) 8)

[ProTruckDriver]

IE-8 :thumb:

[dan323]

1. Chrome
2. IE9
3.Safari

Mainly I only use Chrome

[chrisretusn]

There is a choice missng. ;)

Mozilla Firefox 4
Mozilla Firefix (current version)
Mozilla Firefox (older version)

My favorite browser is Firefox.

I am using version 3.6.13 right now when Firefox 4 is finalized I will switch to that. Either way it's still Firefox.

[vasa1]

I'm in a retro mood so I'm going to go for K-Meleon 1.6.0 beta 2. (With Chrome dev (genuine ;)) and Fx latest beta as back-ups.

[zfactor]

unistalled chrome. using ff4beta 10 first then opera 11.01 snapshot

[Oremina]

Firefox since August 2003 when it was still Firebird, version 0.6.1. Currently 3.6.13. Try others on occasion but still come back to Firefox. For me, simply the best.

Chacun à son goût!

[ExtremeGamerBR]

Just complementing my last post.

Before the release of Chrome, only used firefox, then (early 2010) started using only the SRWare Iron, but because it is incompatible with most antivirus (Usually the antivirus does not check or downloads pages with him, something not happens with Chrome) and then decided to stay with IE8 for a while.

Now, it's been about 5 months use Chrome it with Panda Cloud get along very well, he's fast, has automatic translator, light and simple, so now I only use it.

[Noob]

Another one with Chrome! Yay ;D

[mercurie]

opera (11) for me is now undisputed king!

firefox is a resource hog, hangup, slow relic while I still use it on some machines. It is not my first choice any more.

Note: I have not tried Google, so I may be missing something, at least according to some, (but in order to be fair it needed to be disclosed).

I do still use Explorer 8 too.

For those K-Meleon fans, I use to use it but it broke some how so I uniinstalled and did not pick up the latest version. It was old, but while I had it it was very good.

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "Firefox since August 2003 when it was still Firebird" }-I began using FF when it was Phoenix -- rising from the ashes of what once was Netscape (slain by the evil IE).

[xandros]

firefox older v
3.6.13

before i like opera but the problem 2 problems in new v opera 11.01
1- eat ram
2- i feel norton work better with firefox ( i dont know )

[Saint Satin Stain]

I vote other. My favorite and default is SeaMonkey. You gals gotta start including SeaMonkey.

[malexous]

I have been using Mozilla Firefox for over five years but a week or two ago, I switched to SRWare Iron as my primary browser.

[Kerodo]

Was using Chrome, but recently switched back to Firefox 3.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "I vote other. My favorite and default is SeaMonkey. You gals gotta start including SeaMonkey." }-

Have you tried the 2.1 beta 2? Plus, I think SeaMonkey is the best portable browser I have used so far. It is lighter than Chrome or Firefox portables & that can be important when you are running something off a small pendrive.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "I have been using Mozilla Firefox for over five years but a week or two ago, I switched to SRWare Iron as my primary browser." }-

I think Iron 9.0.600.2 is one of the best releases yet. :thumb:

[c2d]

Opera

[RoamMaster]

I'd say my use is about %90 Opera %10 Firefox.

I'm really surprised by how balanced this poll is. Though Firefox wins a clear majority, all four browser get at least %15.

[act8192]

Opera 11 now. Earlier Operas over past several years.
Simplest for me to customize each site permissions and global permissions than FF or IE8.
Sometimes SeaMonkey but haven't learned that one yet.
One site I use is illiterate in Opera. so IE8 is used there.

[Konata Izumi]

Firefox 4 Beta 12 :thumb:

[firzen771]

i like Opera but too many website incompatibilities with it and limited extensions (same for chrome with limited extensions) so i like firefox 4 the best

[Trooper]

Firefox (Current version).

[Carver]

-{ Quote: "i like Opera but too many website incompatibilities with it and limited extensions (same for chrome with limited extensions) so i like firefox 4 the best" }-
I noticed a couple of website incompatibilities too, I am thinking about trying chromeplus.

[dw426]

I'm enjoying Firefox 4 Beta 12 so far. There are a couple of UI issues I'm not fond of, but overall, it feels so much more responsive than Firefox has in a long time.

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "I'm enjoying Firefox 4 Beta 12 so far. There are a couple of UI issues I'm not fond of, but overall, it feels so much more responsive than Firefox has in a long time." }-

What are those, if you don't mind? They may be curable.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "What are those, if you don't mind? They may be curable." }-

I haven't played with the settings much, so I'm sure I'm complaining over nothing, but I'm not fond of having the reload and home buttons tucked away over into the corner. I haven't seen a way to change that yet, after a quick trip through options. A strange complaint for sure, but can the tab sizes be made a bit smaller? I kind of feel like I'm looking at a bunch of those yellow office folders when I look up there ;D

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "I haven't played with the settings much, so I'm sure I'm complaining over nothing, but I'm not fond of having the reload and home buttons tucked away over into the corner. I haven't seen a way to change that yet, after a quick trip through options. A strange complaint for sure, but can the tab sizes be made a bit smaller? I kind of feel like I'm looking at a bunch of those yellow office folders when I look up there ;D" }-

For the first one, if you right-click right near the top in a vacant spot, you should get a "customize" option. Choosing that will give you a screen into which you can drag what you don't want or you can drag what you want from there onto a spot you like on the tool bars.

Similarly, you can grab a hold of any button and drag it to where you want it and release.

The second point about the tab height will require tinkering with userChrome.css. Maybe we should start a thread on tweaking Fx4 since there are just so many visible differences between 3.6 and 4.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "For the first one, if you right-click right near the top in a vacant spot, you should get a "customize" option. Choosing that will give you a screen into which you can drag what you don't want or you can drag what you want from there onto a spot you like on the tool bars.

Similarly, you can grab a hold of any button and drag it to where you want it and release.

The second point about the tab height will require tinkering with userChrome.css. Maybe we should start a thread on tweaking Fx4 since there are just so many visible differences between 3.6 and 4." }-

Thanks for helping me out with the button issues, I guess I'm picky when it comes to toolbar placements and such, lol. The tabs issue wasn't about the height, it was more the length of them. They truly do look like the tops of office folders ;D I'm too picky I think, lol. In time I'll no longer care, it's just new and my eyes are adjusting to the differences.

[vasa1]

This bit of code will let you tweak the tab height:
#TabsToolbar
{height: 24px !important; }
This goes in the userChrome.css file which is a plain text file and maybe a hidden file in a hidden folder with a path like this:
C:\Documents and Settings\UserName\Application Data\Whatever\Mozilla\Firefox\randomstring.default\chrome\userChrome.css.

The underlined part will depend on your OS. I'm not sure about the part in italics since I've set up things to be on the E: drive.

randomstring.default will be your profile folder.

The "chrome" folder may or may not exist. If it doesn't, you need to create it.

The userChrome.css file may or may exist. Or, there maybe a file (if there's a pre-existing folder called "chrome") called userChrome-example.css. In which case, one may make a copy of that file and rename the copy simply userChrome.css.

For the specific purpose of tweaking the tab height the entire contents of the userChrome.css file will be as follows:

@namespace url("http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul");
#TabsToolbar
{height: 24px !important; }


Don't ask me why but the first line is totally necessary for userChrome.css to work.

Each time you edit the userChrome.css file, you will need to save it and restart Fx for the change to take effect.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "This bit of code will let you tweak the tab height:
#TabsToolbar
{height: 24px !important; }
This goes in the userChrome.css file which is a plain text file and maybe a hidden file in a hidden folder with a path like this:
C:\Documents and Settings\UserName\Application Data\Whatever\Mozilla\Firefox\randomstring.default\chrome\userChrome.css.

The underlined part will depend on your OS. I'm not sure about the part in italics since I've set up things to be on the E: drive.

randomstring.default will be your profile folder.

The "chrome" folder may or may not exist. If it doesn't, you need to create it.

The userChrome.css file may or may exist. Or, there maybe a file (if there's a pre-existing folder called "chrome") called userChrome-example.css. In which case, one may make a copy of that file and rename the copy simply userChrome.css.

For the specific purpose of tweaking the tab height the entire contents of the userChrome.css file will be as follows:

@namespace url("http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul");
#TabsToolbar
{height: 24px !important; }


Don't ask me why but the first line is totally necessary for userChrome.css to work.

Each time you edit the userChrome.css file, you will need to save it and restart Fx for the change to take effect." }-

I'll give that a shot, thanks a lot Vasa :)

Edit: I finished the reply before you added your other post. I'll test it all out, thanks!

[Sadeghi85]

Tab Width:

about:config -> browser.tabs.tabMinWidth & browser.tabs.tabMaxWidth

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "Tab Width:

about:config -> browser.tabs.tabMinWidth & browser.tabs.tabMaxWidth" }-

Just checked. It's not in my Minefield. Which version has it?

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "Tab Width:

about:config -> browser.tabs.tabMinWidth & browser.tabs.tabMaxWidth" }-

Okay. Both were removed despite opposition :D
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=574654

[Sadeghi85]

-{ Quote: "Okay. Both were removed despite opposition :D
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=574654" }-

Yeah, right. I have Tab Mix Plus add-on which creates those, I totally forgot about that.

-http://tmp.garyr.net/tab_mix_plus-dev-build.xpi

[JRViejo]

-{ Quote: "For the specific purpose of tweaking the tab height the entire contents of the userChrome.css file will be as follows:

@namespace url("http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul");
#TabsToolbar
{height: 24px !important; }


Don't ask me why but the first line is totally necessary for userChrome.css to work." }-
vasa1, perhaps a review of Namespaces (https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Namespaces) will indicate why it's needed.

FYI. There is no data, there is only XUL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XUL) (a Ghostbusters movie playful reference). Also, see: XUL (XML User Interface Language) (https://developer.mozilla.org/En/XUL).

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "vasa1, perhaps a review of Namespaces (https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Namespaces) will indicate why it's needed.

FYI. There is no data, there is only XUL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XUL) (a Ghostbusters movie playful reference). Also, see: XUL (XML User Interface Language) (https://developer.mozilla.org/En/XUL)." }-

Thanks for the links, JR! At least I can point others to them while mentioning that the line should be there.

I so much prefer tweaking to get the effect I want rather than slapping on an add-on.

[JRViejo]

vasa1, you're welcome! Take care.

[Cvette]

Google Chrome for sure. Using anything else now just feels... weird.

[YanK33]

Chrome and IE9 RC are 2 great choices

[ashishtx]

Chrome Stable version since 2008 :)

[T_Durden]

Have been using Firefox 4rc recently because the current 3.X began to get a bit glitchy for some reason. 4rc helped but is still not as smooth as it used to be. Have never tried any browsers other than FF since I installed it 3 or 4 years ago so I am eager yet hesitant to download one for some reason. Chrome and Opera are looking like the ones to choose from.

[manOFpeace]

I'm an IE8 browser user. It seems that is as far as I can go being a XP Home SP3 user. But I'm in no hurry to change as all is well for me. :)

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: " Chrome and Opera are looking like the ones to choose from." }-

Personally I'm looking forward to giving Fx 4 a bit of a spin. I did try a couple of the betas. Don't overlook SRWare Iron. (http://www.srware.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2270&sid=9be65b619781a40ba21e03e99fbda817)

[John Bull]

Firefox no matter what version.

[J_L]

Once again, must re-vote to Firefox 4, now that it's released and patched.

[The Hammer]

IE9 is what I like.

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "Once again, must re-vote to Firefox 4, now that it's released and patched." }-
Same here.

[Hungry Man]

In terms of security there's no question that Chrome and IE9 are at the top. To get even close to that level of security takes 3rd party software and you'll likely never achieve it on the same level.

[The_ChamP]

-{ Quote: "Once again, must re-vote to Firefox 4, now that it's released and patched." }-

same for me

[Hungry Man]

I haven't been able to use Firefox since Chrome 8/9 came out. I just can't find any redeeming qualities.

[The_ChamP]

-{ Quote: "I haven't been able to use Firefox since Chrome 8/9 came out. I just can't find any redeeming qualities." }-

Customization , addons , no privacy issues ...

[Hungry Man]

Outside of customization Chrome has all of that. Chrome's extension "market" is huge, not as big as firefox but pretty damn big. Privacy issues in Chrome are a myth.

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-communication/

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "I haven't been able to use Firefox since Chrome 8/9 came out.
I just can't find any redeeming qualities." }-
Better Ablock Plus, NoScript etc.

Above all, NO Webpage Rendering Problems:

Unfortunately, there are STILL Webpages
whose Content canNot be properly viewed
unless the user has IE and Firefox.

This will gradually change (as Chrome becomes more popular...)
BUT
until then...IE and Firefox...

[Hungry Man]

I've never had that... but I was just talking to someone earlier about how when they design websites it's FF 4.0 that's giving them problems.

AB+ isn't really an issue if you use a host file. It's a simple work around.

Blocking javascript globally and whitelisting on certain sites is essentially noscript in terms of security. It's not quite as polished... but it gives the same effect.

idk in terms of speed Chrome's always beaten FF in benchmarks (closest is Opera) and in terms of security it really isn't much of a competition.

[clayieee]

Opera 11, i love browsing using with this, i hate that pig mozilla and that google chrome that makes multiple processes inorder to be light

[Hungry Man]

I suspect Opera will be moving to multiple processes eventually. It's a huge security boon.

http://blog.chromium.org/2008/09/multi-process-architecture.html

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "I've never had that... but I was just talking to someone earlier about
how when they design websites it's FF 4.0 that's giving them problems." }-
Are you implying that there are Webpages that FF canNot properly show while GC does?
Historically, the opposite has taken place:
Webpages that IE and FF show properly while GC fails to do so.

-{ Quote: "AB+ isn't really an issue if you use a host file. It's a simple work around." }-
There are users who don't want to use a hosts file (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1698110&postcount=42).
ABP of GC is still in Beta, and it canNot be as effective as the one of Firefox (which includes additional filters
especially the non-english ones...)

-{ Quote: "Blocking javascript globally and whitelisting
on certain sites is essentially noscript in terms of security.
It's not quite as polished... but it gives the same effect." }-
Indeed, it's Not quite as polished, and it fails to give the same effect always. But that's another story...
-{ Quote: "in terms of speed Chrome's always beaten FF in benchmarks (closest is Opera)" }-
Frankly, a few milliseconds Speed-Gain is Not that important.
It is Not the Formula 1; it's just Browsers...
I'm on ADSL+2/24Mbps, and I have seen No big difference (in terms of Speed)
among the 4 of them (= IE, FF, GC, and Opera).
-{ Quote: "in terms of security it really isn't much of a competition." }-
As Usage increases, more Vulnerabilities, like THIS (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=298885) will come up...
Is GC Sandboxing, by itself/alone, as effective as Sandboxie?

[Hungry Man]

Chrome has far more secure implementations than firefox. A single break in 3 years is not cause to say it's anywhere even CLOSE to the same level as firefox.

edit: It's far more secure than sandboxie. Can sandboxie separate each firefox tab into its own sandbox? Javascript renderer? Extensions?

And the difference is not a few seconds. Most pages are not too large but they have javascript that needs to be compiled and run. I don't know how familiar you are with javascript but this is SLOWWWWWW if not done properly. So on pages where there's little ot no javascript it's a MS difference but on pages with heavy javascript it's quite a bit larger.

How does it not give the same effect? Javascript is block. Mitigated.

I don't see the reason why anyone wouldn't use the host file. I've noticed 0 change in speed. Adblock plus development builds work very well but not as well as firefox.

"Note that a hosts file that is much over 100 KB can actually slow up browsing unless the service "DNS Client" is set to manual start. "
http://vlaurie.com/computers2/Articles/hosts.htm

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r8781192-Does-Hosts-file-slow-down-

Have a look at this convo.

I can't have a look at how large mine is as I'm not on my PC.

And yes, That's exactly what I'm implying.

And yeah, that response was in reverse order :)

[Mr.PC]

Do you expect GC (a relatively New Browser: just 3 yrs-old) to have the same breaks
with IE, FF, Opera etc. which are much Older Browsers? That's Not fair at all.

I don't know your Internet Speed,
but neither me nor the people I know (friends, relatives, work-mates, customers etc.)
have seen a such a Significant Speed-Difference among IE9, FF4, GC 11, Opera 11 etc.

I will PM you a site that GC canNot properly show while FF and IE do.

[Hungry Man]

-{ Quote: "Do you expect GC (a relatively New Browser: just 3 yrs-old) to have the same breaks
with IE, FF, Opera etc. which are much Older Browsers? That's Not fair at all." }-
What do you mean? I realize that Chrome is at a significant disadvantage. It has to play a lot of catch-up in terms of bugs.

-{ Quote: "I will PM you a site that GC canNot properly show while FF and IE do." }-
I'm sure it won't be hard to find... Like I said I was just talking to a website developer today and he was saying what a pain it is with FF4 and that he's actually found that, lately, Chrome is more reliable. I'm just going by what he says.

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "What do you mean?" }-
Vulnerabilities, Security Flaws etc.
-{ Quote: "Like I said I was just talking to a website developer today,
and he was saying what a pain it is with FF4 and that he's actually found that, lately, Chrome is more reliable.
I'm just going by what he says." }-More reliable in terms of what? Rendering?

Try to open THIS (https://www.icicipruamc.com/tracker/main.asp) page.
In terms of opening websites without problems,
the order goes (historically) as following: IE >Firefox >GC >Opera.

[Hungry Man]

... That page loaded seemingly fine, which is odd since it's clearly outdated and not made for IE6+

Also lol @ vulnerabilities. The ONE thing Chrome has an advantage of is being able to build the browser from scratch with newer security methods in mind. It's gotta take everything else slowly (extension API) but when it comes to security it's ahead of the game. It, unlike firefox, does not have to convert the entire program to deal with newer security threats because it has the luxury of having been created after other browsers tried out methods.

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "I've never had that... but I was just talking to someone earlier about how when they design websites it's FF 4.0 that's giving them problems.

AB+ isn't really an issue if you use a host file. It's a simple work around.

..." }-

Two amazing statements.

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "That page loaded seemingly fine, which is odd since it's clearly outdated and not made for IE6+" }-
It is Not simply about loading; it is about enjoying full functionality.
There are sites Banking/Corporate Platforms etc. that only IE allows full functionality.
-{ Quote: "Also lol @ vulnerabilities." }-Chrome is new (just 3 years-old),
whereas, IE and FF are several years old.
It is totally unfair to compare their No. of Vulnerabilities.
When Chrome reaches the Age and Percentage Usage of IE and FF, then,
we are going to see IF things will be the same...;)
-{ Quote: "The ONE thing Chrome has an advantage of is being able to build the browser
from scratch with newer security methods in mind.
It's gotta take everything else slowly (extension API) but when it comes to security it's ahead of the game.
It, unlike firefox, does not have to convert the entire program to deal with newer security threats
because it has the luxury of having been created after other browsers tried out methods." }-
Trust me, the Average user doesn't care for these issues at all.
Whenever an Extension of Chrome (e.g. a friend had a problem with WOT, ABP etc.)
is Not as effective as the one of Firefox and
whenever websites are Not properly shown (the way IE/FF do),
Average users will go back to IE/FF.

I have different browsers installed on different PCs: IE, FF, GC, and Opera.

However, most users (especially the Average ones = Majority)
select the Browser(s) which give them the least Trouble: namely IE and FF.
(For the Time being. Who knows what tomorrow brings...)
Take for example the Wilders site when running Chrome:
when using the Search function on Wilders,
Chrome takes me to the Search area at the bottom of the page
whilst Firefox opens up a dialog box at the top near the Search link.
Of course, someone might know how to make Chrome do exactly the same thing as Firefox
and I'm all ears for that, but just pointing out what I see at the moment.
Source (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1874177&postcount=24)
when you click a member's name, Chrome does not give you a menu, rather takes you to the member page.
Source (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1874243&postcount=29)

[Hungry Man]

I'm not trying to say that GC will display pages better than FF lol I'm saying that in some cases GC will and in some FF will, lately FF4 has not been doing well in terms of web display. I don't have a source for this I'm going by my professional web designer friend. All he said is that lately FF4 has been doing a lot worse on getting pages right.

Chrome is at around 15+% Market share. Well above Opera and Safari. Have a look around and you WILL find multiple Opera vulnerabilities, same goes for Safari. Market share is no excuse, Chrome is targeted plenty. The fact is that it's security scheme holds up because security has been #1 priority from the start. Three years is plenty of time. Microsoft clearly agrees since they've completely adopted Chrome's method of security.

And when I talk to "average" people (I fix a lot of PC's as a side job) about browsers all they want is security and ease of use. Almost every old person I help doesn't even know how to update their program, which means Chrome is perfect for them because it updates for them.

Right out of the box your attack surface shrinks a huge amount of with Chrome because of Flash.

Different users care about different things. I don't really see that as an argument one way or the other.

PURELY in terms of security there is no reason to use firefox.
Whether one browser renders websites properly or not (If a website ONLY works for IE, it doesn't really matter about FF/Chrome) there is no denying that Chrome's entire security scheme is miles ahead of the other browsers (Save IE9.)

[J_L]

-{ Quote: "edit: It's far more secure than sandboxie. Can sandboxie separate each firefox tab into its own sandbox? Javascript renderer? Extensions?" }-
You must be kidding me. There's no need to use multiple sandboxes on those, except for stability.
Chrome sandbox only affect the browser and its components. Sandboxie includes that, your downloads, and beyond.
Do you seriously think Chrome sandbox is stronger than Sandboxie with Restrictions?

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "lately FF4 has been doing a lot worse on getting pages right." }-Any example?
-{ Quote: "Chrome is at around 15+% Market share. Well above Opera and Safari.
Have a look around and you WILL find multiple Opera vulnerabilities, same goes for Safari.
Market share is no excuse, Chrome is targeted plenty." }-
Compare Chrome with IE and FF; not with Opera and Safari.
Higher Market Share/Usage =Higher Threat Exposure=Higher Vulnerabilities.
Chrome has Not been targeted as much as IE and FF have been.
-{ Quote: "And when I talk to "average" people (I fix a lot of PC's as a side job)
about browsers all they want is security and ease of use.
Almost every old person I help doesn't even know how to update their program,
which means Chrome is perfect for them because it updates for them." }-
Quite the opposite.
Having to install a New version of Chrome almost every 3-4 weeks is Not the best
for the Average (=inexperienced) user.
Above all, Average Users want their Browser to show Web-pages properly.
That's why they use IE and FF.
-{ Quote: "Different users care about different things.
I don't really see that as an argument one way or the other." }-
I was referring to the Majority of Users; Average ones (inexperienced).
Without great differences, they exhibit the same Needs.
-{ Quote: "PURELY in terms of security there is no reason to use firefox." }-
Security is great as long as it is Not sacrificed for Functionality.
-Average users want Ease of Use/User Friendliness, too.
-Average users want their pages to be correctly displayed, too.

Any idea why Chrome FAILS to properly show what IE/FF do in respect to the Wilders site?
when using the Search function on Wilders,
Chrome takes me to the Search area at the bottom of the page
whilst Firefox opens up a dialog box at the top near the Search link.
Of course, someone might know how to make Chrome do exactly
the same thing as Firefox and I'm all ears for that, but just pointing out what I see at the moment.
Source (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1874177&postcount=24)
when you click a member's name, Chrome does not give you a menu,
rather takes you to the member page.
Source (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1874243&postcount=29)
Take a look at the previous two (2) examples showing Chrome's Failure to properly show what IE/FF do.

What are you going to answer when the Average users ask you:
"Why doesn't my Chrome show Wilders the way IE/FF do?"

Is it the Wilders site to blame on it?

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "You must be kidding me.
There's no need to use multiple sandboxes on those, except for stability.
Chrome sandbox only affect the browser and its components.
Sandboxie includes that, your downloads, and beyond.
Do you seriously think Chrome sandbox is stronger than Sandboxie with Restrictions?" }-
+1 :thumb:

[Hungry Man]

-{ Quote: "You must be kidding me. There's no need to use multiple sandboxes on those, except for stability.
Chrome sandbox only affect the browser and its components. Sandboxie includes that, your downloads, and beyond.
Do you seriously think Chrome sandbox is stronger than Sandboxie with Restrictions?" }-
Of course there is. You must be kidding me! =p

Reason to separate tab processes:
1) If one tab crashes the others don't. So stabilitiy.
2) If one tab has secure information on it (online banking) it is separate from EVERY other tab. If another tab is malicious you don't have to worry about it having access. In firefox/ sandboxie this is NOT the case, tabs have full access to each other.

Reason to separate javascript renderer:
1) Obviously stability.
2) Rogue javascript is a huge security issue. Keeping it locked down means separating it from every other tab that it could effect. Acting like this isn't a HUGE security boon is to deny the greater part of attacks on users.

Yes. Chrome's sandbox IS stronger because it isn't stuck in one large sandbox AND you can easily pair the two together, it's not one or the other.

edit: Not to mention that Sandboxie has been breached multiple times and Chrome has been breached once.

-{ Quote: "Any example?

Compare Chrome with IE and FF; not with Opera and Safari.
Higher Market Share/Usage =Higher Threat Exposure=Higher Vulnerabilities.
Chrome has Not been targeted as much as IE and FF have been.

Quite the opposite. Chrome lacks an Auto-Updater.
Having to install a New version of Chrome almost every 3-4 weeks is Not the best
for the Average (=inexperienced) user.
Above all, Average Users want their Browser to show Web-pages properly.
That's why they use IE and FF.

I was referring to the Majority of Users; Average ones (inexperienced).
Without great differences, they exhibit the same Needs.

Security is great as long as it is Not sacrificed for Functionality.
-Average users want Ease of Use/User Friendliness, too.
-Average users want their pages to be correctly displayed, too.

Any idea why Chrome FAILS to properly show what IE/FF do in respect to the Wilders site?
when using the Search function on Wilders,
Chrome takes me to the Search area at the bottom of the page
whilst Firefox opens up a dialog box at the top near the Search link.
Of course, someone might know how to make Chrome do exactly
the same thing as Firefox and I'm all ears for that, but just pointing out what I see at the moment.
Source (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1874177&postcount=24)
when you click a member's name, Chrome does not give you a menu,
rather takes you to the member page.
Source (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1874243&postcount=29)
Take a look at the previous two (2) examples showing Chrome's Failure to properly show what IE/FF do.

What are you going to answer when the Average users ask you:
"Why doesn't my Chrome show Wilders the way IE/FF do?"

Is it the Wilders site to blame on it?" }-
"Chrome lacks an Auto-Updater." Is this a joke? Chrome autoupdates all plugins, extensions, and the browser itself.


"Security is great as long as it is Not sacrificed for Functionality.
-Average users want Ease of Use/User Friendliness, too.
-Average users want their pages to be correctly displayed, too."
Chrome's inability to show webpages the same way other browsers do is not a symptom of it's security features, it's because webkit is so much newer. I have no clue why you keep pressing this when I've already agreed that firefox and IE are going to get you positive results in terms of webpage rendering, I'm simply saying that FF4 is falling behind. No I have no source or examples, I talked to the guy yesterday and he was talking about websites that he himself was creating.

""Why doesn't my Chrome show Wilders the way IE/FF do?"

Is it the Wilders site to blame on it?"

There can be multiple reasons why. If a site isn't following web standards, yeah, it's the sites fault. If webkit isn't following web standards, yes, it's webkit's fault.

So in terms of redeeming qualities we have: Will show some webpages better than Chrome.

Except that by that argument we should all be using IE9.

The arguments thus far against chrome have been:
1) You can't tell that Chrome is faster. The fact is if Chrome is faster by 1 second even it's still faster, even if it's .3 seconds (this is a legitimate difference in pages with very little javascript)

2) It won't always display pages the way firefox/IE9 will.

In terms of purely security you'd have to be hugely misinformed to believe that firefox (even with sandboxie!) is as strong as Chrome.

[J_L]

-{ Quote: "Of course there is. You must be kidding me! =p

Reason to separate tab processes:
1) If one tab crashes the others don't. So stabilitiy.
2) If one tab has secure information on it (online banking) it is separate from EVERY other tab. If another tab is malicious you don't have to worry about it having access. In firefox/ sandboxie this is NOT the case, tabs have full access to each other.

Reason to separate javascript renderer:
1) Obviously stability.
2) Rogue javascript is a huge security issue. Keeping it locked down means separating it from every other tab that it could effect. Acting like this isn't a HUGE security boon is to deny the greater part of attacks on users.

Yes. Chrome's sandbox IS stronger because it isn't stuck in one large sandbox AND you can easily pair the two together, it's not one or the other.

edit: Not to mention that Sandboxie has been breached multiple times and Chrome has been breached once." }-
I've already said stability. Internet Access or Start/Run Restrictions does a far better job of protecting your personal info.

The whole thing is locked down anyways.

Being stuck in one large sandbox isn't such a strong disadvantage. You can pair almost any software with Sandboxie.

Not to mention Sandboxie existed longer.

[funkydude]

I think even Donald duck could figure out what you all voted as your favourite browsers.

[Hungry Man]

-{ Quote: "Being stuck in one large sandbox isn't such a strong disadvantage. You can pair almost any software with Sandboxie." }-
It's not a huge disadvantage, but to say that sandboxie somehow makes firefox close to Chrome's security.... is just silly. Especially when they can be paired together.

And sandboxie's been around since 06. Chrome's been around since 08. I would bet more people use Chrome than use sandboxie.

The fact is that sandboxie + firefox is not as strong as chrome alone and Chrome can use sandboxie as well.

[J_L]

Sandboxie was first released in 26 June 2004.

The fact is, Chrome's sandbox is not stronger than Sandboxie.

Also you've conveniently ignored Sandboxie's whitelisting restrictions twice now.

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "...
The fact is that sandboxie + firefox is not as strong as chrome alone and Chrome can use sandboxie as well." }-

Please keep (probable) fact and opinion separate.

The fact is that sandboxie + firefox is not as strong as chrome alone >>> opinion

Chrome can use sandboxie as well >>> fact (easily verifiable)

[Hungry Man]

It's really not much of an opinion... it's simple logic, but ok.

-{ Quote: "The fact is, Chrome's sandbox is not stronger than Sandboxie." }-
1) Says you.
2) You can use Chrome with sandboxie, so I can't even see how sandboxie is relevant to this conversation.

-{ Quote: "Also you've conveniently ignored Sandboxie's whitelisting restrictions twice now." }-
What about it?

Again, because sandboxie can be run in both it really isn't relevant to whether one browser is more secure than the other. The FACT is that Chrome has an additional layer of protection with its sandbox that firefox does not have. The FACT is that anything sandboxie does for firefox it can do for chrome.

Historically chrome has also been quicker than firefox in adopting new technologies like DEP/ASLR/SEHOP into the browser.

[J_L]

-{ Quote: "1) Says you.
2) You can use Chrome with sandboxie, so I can't even see how sandboxie is relevant to this conversation.


What about it?

Again, because sandboxie can be run in both it really isn't relevant to whether one browser is more secure than the other. The FACT is that Chrome has an additional layer of protection with its sandbox that firefox does not have. The FACT is that anything sandboxie does for firefox it can do for chrome." }-
1) Right back at you.
2) It was relevant as soon as you've claimed Chrome's sandbox is "far more secure" than Sandboxie.

It clearly gives Sandboxie superior security over Chrome.

First fact may be true. Second is blatantly false. Does Chrome's sandbox extend to your downloads? Does it have whitelisting restrictions?

[Hungry Man]

Chrome scans all downloads (or at least the beta does) the same way that IE9 does. It's another security method and it's unproven how well it protects the user.

The second is not blatantly false... what does sandboxie provide to firefox users that it does not provide to chrome users?

Sandboxie will NOT stop malicious javascript from looking at your other tabs. That's just a fact. Chrome's sandboxing will. Chrome's sandboxing is inherently more secure than sandboxie's sandboxing because it uses multiple sandboxes instead of just two (extensions/ everything else)

[funkydude]

Put it this way, most people on this forum that use Firefox seem to always need to suggest 3rd party addons such as No-Script and 3rd party software such as Sandboxie to secure the browser.

IE9 and Chrome secure their browser without the need of 3rd party intervention.

[Hungry Man]

That's a very good point. IE9/Chrome are OUT OF THE BOX more secure, I can't imagine anyone will be arguing against that.

I'd still say that even with 3rd party apps they're more secure.

http://blog.chromium.org/2011/04/protecting-users-from-malicious.html

That's some info on Chrome scanning downloads.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "OUT OF THE BOX" }-

"Out of the box" that is indeed the term I was looking for but could not remember.

[Hungry Man]

Always happy to help =p

[J_L]

-{ Quote: "Chrome scans all downloads (or at least the beta does) the same way that IE9 does. It's another security method and it's unproven how well it protects the user.

The second is not blatantly false... what does sandboxie provide to firefox users that it does not provide to chrome users?

Sandboxie will NOT stop malicious javascript from looking at your other tabs. That's just a fact. Chrome's sandboxing will. Chrome's sandboxing is inherently more secure than sandboxie's sandboxing because it uses multiple sandboxes instead of just two (extensions/ everything else)" }-
It doesn't sandbox them though.

How many times do I have to repeat restrictions for it to sink into you?

I'll give you that much, except for the more secure part.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "It doesn't sandbox them though.

How many times do I have to repeat restrictions for it to sink into you?
" }-

Why would you want to sandbox downloads? IE9 and Chrome filter out the malware and sketchy downloads so you should only be left with genuine files. Are you seriously telling me the reason you sandbox your browser isn't incase it is exploited, but infact, is because you're unsure of what you're downloading? You might aswell run your browser in a Virtual Machine if that's the case.

[Hungry Man]

Did I say it sandboxes them? No.

And why would restrictions not apply to Chrome?

And when I say more secure than sandboxie I mean sandboxie's sandboxing feature vs Chrome's sandboxing feature.

[J_L]

@funkydude: You can scan with more accuracy like using VirusTotal and ThreatExpert. You can also run the download inside and see for yourself. Then restore or delete.

@Hungry Man: If you include Sandboxie's Restriction feature, which you keep forgetting, that isn't true.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "@funkydude: You can scan with more accuracy like using VirusTotal and ThreatExpert." }-

You can also do that without sandboxie.

-{ Quote: "
You can also run the download inside and see for yourself. Then restore or delete." }-

Which brings me back to my original point of being unsure of what you're running. In this case, you're using sandboxie as an alternative to a VM, which has veered far away from anything to do with browsers whatsoever. You could do this without sandboxing your browser.

[Hungry Man]

-{ Quote: "If you include Sandboxie's Restriction feature, which you keep forgetting, that isn't true." }- I'm not forgetting anything. I've already responded to this... in terms of downloads Chrome does not sandbox, it scans them instead. There's no use trying to compare these two completely different methods right now.

As for sandboxing the browser itself I think it's fairly clear: Sandboxie provides a single sandbox and Chrome provides multiples. Though this conversation has turned from "Firefox vs Chrome" to "Sandboxie vs Chrome", which I've already said is a useless conversation since they're stackable.

[Noob]

Interesting arguing ::)
Took my time to read it all ;D

[The_ChamP]

Excluding the security part which u experts are already debating
il just say this
the most important thng that chrome need to do is offer customization like firefox and addons as pwerful as in ff and il switch to chrome

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: ""Chrome lacks an Auto-Updater." Is this a joke?
Chrome autoupdates all plugins, extensions, and the browser itself." }-
I was referring to what that case:
See THIS (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1874260&postcount=30) and THIS (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1874272&postcount=33)
-{ Quote: "Chrome's inability to show webpages the same way other browsers do is
not a symptom of it's security features, it's because webkit is so much newer.
I have no clue why you keep pressing this when I've already agreed that
firefox and IE are going to get you positive results in terms of webpage rendering" }-
-{ Quote: "There can be multiple reasons why.
If a site isn't following web standards, yeah, it's the sites fault.
If webkit isn't following web standards, yes, it's webkit's fault." }-
I know about the Technical aspect, BUT Average Users will Not care for it.
Bottom Line:
Whether it's a Site Fault or webkit Fault, Average Users will Not Give a Damn!
Do you know what they are going to do?
They will turn their back on Chrome and go back to IE and/or FF.
Why?
Because Functionality/Ease-of-Use is Equally important
-Not to say More important-
than Security
for the Average/Inexperienced User who will start asking
'Why Google Chrome does Not show correctly this site, that site etc.?'
'Why Google Chrome opens this XYZ that way and Not the way IE/FF do?'

-Do you know how many times I was forced to remove Chrome
from Average/Inexperienced Users and get them back to IE and FF?

When it comes to Security-Functionality Trade-Balance,
then IE and FF are the Best for the Average/Inexperienced User.
Hands Down! Case Closed!
-{ Quote: "I'm simply saying that FF4 is falling behind.
No, I have no source or examples" }-
No need to comment on that...
-{ Quote: "So in terms of redeeming qualities we have:
Will show some webpages better than Chrome.
Except that by that argument we should all be using IE9." }-
-IF IE9 had a Favorites Manager that maintains the non-Alphabetical Listing Order after Exporting & Importing Favorites.
-IF IE9 TPL was equally effective with ABP.
-IF IE9 offered more Customization (Add-ons, Themes etc.)
-{ Quote: "You can't tell that Chrome is faster.
The fact is if Chrome is faster by 1 second even it's still faster, even if it's .3 seconds
(this is a legitimate difference in pages with very little javascript)" }-
Now, who's is Joking? Come on now.
Do you think that the Majority of Users (i.e. the Average Joe) will care about milliseconds?
What they (i.e. the Average Joe) will care is to have their Webpages opened without a problem.
For the time being, Google Chrome (despite its Security aspects) canNot guarantee it!
So, I prefer installing IE and FF with add-ons, Sandboxie etc.
instead of having Friends, Relatives, Workmates, Customers etc.
complaining about Chrome failing to A, properly shown B etc.
-{ Quote: "In terms of purely security,
you'd have to be hugely misinformed to believe that firefox
(even with sandboxie!) is as strong as Chrome." }-
Tell it to the people using FF (with NoScript, ABP, and other Security add-ons) together with Sandboxie.
They enjoy High Security, but they also enjoy High Functionality!

Besides, no one is so Naive to stay with Google Chrome sandbox as their Sole layer of Security.
If it had been the case, then, users would have dropped Real-Time protection (Scanners, Firewalls, DNS services etc.)

[Hungry Man]

-{ Quote: "When it comes to Security-Functionality Trade-Balance," }-
The average user (like myself) will probably not run into a website that Chrome won't display properly. And if we're talking about balancing security and web display it goes to IE9 and definitely not firefox. Firefox doesn't provide any security functionality that IE9 doesn't while it still manages to not provide any websites rendering better than IE9.

-{ Quote: "-IF IE9 had a Favorites Manager that maintains the non-Alphabetical Listing Order after Exporting & Importing Favorites.
-IF IE9 TPL was equally effective with ABP.
-IF IE9 offered more Customization (Add-ons, Themes etc.)" }-
These are just random features. Chrome has pretty tabs lol so what?

-{ Quote: "Now, who's is Joking? Come on now.
Do you think that the Majority of Users (i.e. the Average Joe) will care about milliseconds?
What they (i.e. the Average Joe) will care is to have their Webpages opened without a problem.
For the time being, Google Chrome (despite its Security aspects) canNot guarantee it!
So, I prefer installing IE and FF with add-ons, Sandboxie etc.
instead of having Friends, Relatives, Workmates, Customers etc.
complaining about Chrome failing to A, properly shown B etc. " }-
The conversation started out about me not finding redeeming qualities in FF lol it's turned into you defending FF for the average user.

I have never had a problem with site display issues (M$'s site occasionally is weird but I've realized it's like that in IE9 too.) I KNOW that there are sites that will but I'm saying that Chrome does a pretty good job. It's up to the user what tradeoffs they expect.

-{ Quote: "Tell it to the people using FF (with NoScript, ABP, and other Security add-ons) together with Sandboxie.
They enjoy High Security, but they also enjoy High Functionality!
" }- You need multiple addons to get firefox even close to as secure as Chrome. That's my point. Speaking of "the average person" do you really expect them to know what 10 different programs are? Do you really think they want to install all of these things and configure them to work with firefox just to get close to Chrome's security?

I see why some people use firefox, it has a customizable UI, but I've never seen any appealing aspect after Chrome. Why? Because I've never come across a page that hasn't open fine in Chrome. Because even if it's a 30ms speedup in some cases I'll always opt into that 30ms speed up. Because it IS more secure out of the box than any other browser.


edit: Oh and Chrome gets a perfect score on Acid3 and Firefox gets a 97.

[yongsua]

My vote to Google Chrome.Fast and Secure.Clean and Plain.Besides,I probably able to open up to hundreds of tabs without issue.

[Mr.PC]

To get this resolved (eventually...) and avoid further misconception, I use all Four (4) Browsers:
IE9, FF4, GC11, and Opera 11.

It makes a Huge Difference between the Average Joe (=Inexperienced user),
who primarily focuses on proper Web-Page Rendering,
and the Wilders members who primarily focus on Security.

Let's Not confuse the Little or No Security concern of the Average Joe (=Inexperienced user)
with the Security Expertise (not to say Obsession or Paranoia).

To stay out of Trouble (= Complains about improper Web-Page Rendering),
I've used the IE9 (and/or FF and Security Add-ons) with Sandboxie Free etc.
on many PCs. I've ZERO (0) Complains in terms of Security and Functionality.

With Chrome, I have had Problems leading to Complaints.
I PM you ScreenShots of a site that Chrome canNot properly show.
Wilders has problems with Chrome, too.
HERE (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1874177&postcount=24) and HERE (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1874243&postcount=29)
Do Not overlook these issues and solely focus on Security.
Functionality is important, too.

With Security add-ons, Sandboxie etc. I can make IE9 and FF secure enough.

When a Friend, Relative, Neighbor, Workmate, Customer complains about
Chrome's inability to Render Content properly, what do I have to do?
How to convince them to continue using Chrome?

The same happened with Opera when users couldn't enjoy Facebook Flash games etc.

Sorry, but as long as Chrome and Opera do Not open Webpages the way IE/FF do,
I will Not install them on other PC(s) except my Testing Rings!

[Hungry Man]

There definitely is a big difference between the two.

I've seen those screenshots. I've just never run into it myself. So it's obviously not an issue for me.

And if I were really interested in balancing proper rendering with security I would use IE9, which renders just as well if not better than firefox while providing more security options. They also benchmark just about the same.

If you think FF is secure enough, that's fine. This all started with me saying that I can't find any redeeming qualities of FF. That's still the case because nothing has been relevant to me personally. Were I having legitimate issues with Chrome not rendering pages correctly I'd just hop onto IE9 and use that.

If I'm suggesting a web browser to someone I ask them what's important to them first. I usually end up putting firefox on most people's computers simply because they're more familiar with it.

Many people have opted into using Chrome and I've updated many people to IE9.

[The_ChamP]

IE9 may me be the most secure but its also crap
no customization , no addon , no theme
and i dnt knw if its just me but working with many tabs in ie is a pain...in ff and chrome even if there are many tabs i can switch them properly..ie hangs or doesnt switch sumtimes...not to mention no proper adblocker for ie

as for security is till dont understand whats the difference between chrome and ff
if u accidentally download malware from a site will chrome scan that and tell its malicious ? and most users use a download manager so it wont evem get downloaded by chrome or ff and go directly to the download location
and if that download location is sandboxed by sandboxie it cant do anythng...chrome's sandbox wont do a damn thng

[Hungry Man]

Most users definitely do not use a download manager. And you can stack sandboxie and Chrome no problem...

The difference between Chrome and Firefox in terms of security is simple. Firefox keeps plugins and tabs separate but all plugins have access to other plugins and all tabs have access to other tabs (and the js renderer) so if one tab goes rogue it can effect all tabs. If one plugin goes rogue it can effect all plugins.

[CJsDad]

Firefox 4 here.

Very entertaining thread for a poll, quite comical.

[Mr.PC]

Want me to accept that IE9 and Chrome are even more Secure than FF+Security Add-ons?
Fine. No problem, as I use all four (4) Browsers.

Now, let's go to the Functionality aspect:

Example 1
User X has 110 Favorites and, she wants to have them organized the way she wants:
Non-Alphabetically Listed! (Unlike the way IE9 restores them every-time they Export & Import Favorites!)
User X likes surfing a lot, she likes to Export/Import her Favorites, and use them on many PCs:
Work, Home, Friends/Relatives etc.
Remember User X wants her Favorites to be exactly the Way she wants them to be!
What do you do when she complains about IE9 inability to maintain Export & Import
Favorites the way (Non-Alphabetically Listed) she wants?
Go for Chrome? Go for Opera?
What if she starts Complaining about Webpage-Rendering Problems?
Go for Firefox and Never listen any more Complains! ;) 8)

Example 2
User Y is running XP on an old PC which she wants to keep it that way (=No Hardware Update).
Can I try another browser except for IE8?
A friend told her to try Opera (which is well-known in Europe).
Everything goes fine till the day her grandson tries to play Flash Games with Opera. Failure!
Apart from the problems with her Yahoo! e-mail pages...!
She requests for for another Browser.
Go for Chrome? What if she starts Complaining about Webpage-Rendering Problems?
Go for Firefox and Never listen any any more Complains! ;) 8)

Moral:
Firefox is the User-Friendliest Browser!
Ideal for Not hearing Complains! ;) 8) ;D
-{ Quote: "I usually end up putting firefox on most people's computers,
simply because they're more familiar with it." }-
I ended up putting FF on most people's computers, because I don't want to
hear them Complaining about Browser-related problems.
They have Never complained about Browser-related problems Again,
and I've found a peace of mind! 8) ;D ;D ;D

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "
Moral:
Firefox is the User-Friendliest Browser!
Ideal for Not hearing Complains! ;) 8) ;D

I ended up putting FF on most people's computers, because I don't want to
hear them Complaining about Browser-related problems.
They have Never complained about Browser-related problems Again,
and I've found a peace of mind! 8) ;D ;D ;D" }-

So you're saying Firefox is a flawless browser that no one ever complains about (http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions?filter=unsolved)?

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "Most users definitely do not use a download manager. ..." }-

Where does that come from?

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "So you're saying Firefox is a flawless browser that no one ever complains about (http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions?filter=unsolved)?" }-

And the same holds true for IE9 :D. Perfection exemplified :D

This thread is getting funnier by the moment.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "And the same holds true for IE9 :D. Perfection exemplified :D

This thread is getting funnier by the moment." }-

But I never made any claim that IE9 was perfect, anywhere. I didn't claim that making people use IE9 removed any complaints about browsing. Did I Mr. Vasa1? Feel free to have a chuckle over that. ;)

[Hungry Man]

-{ Quote: "Where does that come from?" }-
Common sense? I would bet money that most users use chrome without a download manager. I'd bet most users don't have more than 2 or 3 extensions at all.

I'd bet the average user doesn't know what the hell a download manager is.

edit:

-{ Quote: "I ended up putting FF on most people's computers, because I don't want to
hear them Complaining about Browser-related problems.
They have Never complained about Browser-related problems Again,
and I've found a peace of mind!" }-
Never ever would I recommend Opera. No reason to. I've never had a complaint from anyone about Chrome, IE9, or Firefox (except that people hate 4.0.) I get the odd confusion complain where they don't know what to do for each of them. If anything I hear about Firefox more but that's completely irrelevant to the right browser for me.

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "So, you're saying Firefox is a flawless browser that no one ever complains about (http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions?filter=unsolved)?" }-
No, I'm saying that when I installed Chrome and Opera,
I heard a lot of Complains coming mostly from Web-page rendering problems.
By far, more Complains compared with the ones coming from IE/FF users!

Now, if you believe that IE9 is a Flawless browser (http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/ieitprocurrentver/threads), I don't.
No Browser is Flawless!
Flawless in one thing and User-Friendliness is a different one...;)

-{ Quote: "Never ever would I recommend Opera. No reason to." }-
-What IF a User insists on Trying Opera, because she heard about it?
-What IF a User insists on having Opera installed, although I do Not recommend Opera, too?

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "No Browser is Flawless!" }-

Looks like we can agree on something! ;)

[Hungry Man]

-{ Quote: "-What IF a User insists on Trying Opera, because she heard about it?
-What IF a User insists on having Opera installed, although I do Not recommend Opera, too?" }-
than... good for them?

[J_L]

-{ Quote: "I see why some people use firefox, it has a customizable UI, but I've never seen any appealing aspect after Chrome." }-
That's not it, there's about:config, more comprehensive addons, and various profile tweaks such as userChrome.css.

Anyhow, each to his/her own.

[yongsua]

I think we should only vote for our favorite browser and just post the reason why do we like it.That's all.No need to say any negative stuff of other browser that you don't like it.

[Hungry Man]

about:config is a joke. It's basically a sandbox for articles to say "Speed up firefox!" even though all of google's information (it has quite a lot) has been poured into optimizing its settings.

99% of the stuff there users wouldn't even know what to do with.

[Hungry Man]

-{ Quote: "I think we should only vote for our favorite browser and just post the reason why do we like it.That's all.No need to say any negative stuff of other browser that you don't like it." }-
I agree but people shouldn't have misconceptions on what their product can and can't do.

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "But I never made any claim that IE9 was perfect, anywhere. I didn't claim that making people use IE9 removed any complaints about browsing. Did I Mr. Vasa1? ... ;)" }-

The closest you came to that was to imply that IE9 is complete in that it doesn't require add-ons. You'll appreciate that I won't hunt down the relevant post(s).

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "about:config is a joke. It's basically a sandbox for articles to say "Speed up firefox!" even though all of google's information (it has quite a lot) has been poured into optimizing its settings.
..." }-

Does this make any sense at all?

[J_L]

-{ Quote: "about:config is a joke. It's basically a sandbox for articles to say "Speed up firefox!" even though all of google's information (it has quite a lot) has been poured into optimizing its settings." }-
Clearly a comment from a Firefox hater.
Chrome's settings are the joke. You can only configure the bare necessities. About:config is far more than just for speed, it allows you to tweak virtually everything in the browser.

[Hungry Man]

I used firefox for years. I'd happily use it again.

I've already said that firefox wins in terms of customizability but most of the useful customizations lie in the UI.

[mrgigabyte]

firefox number 1 it my book

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "...
About:config ... allows you to tweak virtually everything in the browser." }-

This is one of my minor grouses.

Apart from prefs.js (which has the about:config tweaks) and user.js (if any), some settings are in localstore.rdf (the changes we make using the Customize palette). Other settings are in permissions.sqlite.

So in order to keep track of things, in addition to the bookmarks, passwords, and history, there are at least a couple of other files that store tweaks.

Incidentally, if you look at about:config, prefs.js, localstore.rdf and some of the .sqlite files, you'll notice that they don't "clean up". By that I mean that if you install an extension and even immediately uninstall it, some information is still retained though it clearly isn't needed anymore.

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "This is one of my minor grouses.
..." }-

One more instance of a tweak being stored elsewhere:
I routinely delete a submenu in Bookmarks (Latest Headlines) that causes news feeds to be updated. This action/setting is stored in places.sqlite (which some may say is logical because it stores bookmarks and history).

[virtualinsanity]

Read the last few pages of this thread...getting a bit full on! Food for thought though, as always at Wilders. :thumb:



Personally I love Opera. :)

I don't like the Yahoo! mail issue, but I can live with it.

My bookmarks all live online at delicious, so that's not relevant for me.

I know Chrome & IE are safer out of the box. I would like Opera to be natively sandboxed, but it's nothing I can't do myself. Sure they'll go the same route sooner or later anyway.

I know FF has innumerable extensions. Cosmetic ones I couldn't care less about. Security ones I do appreciate.

I despise facebook so flash games there don't matter to me.

For me these things are largely not an issue as I expect the rest of my setup to take care of any security deficiencies my browser may have whether that be by safe hex, sandboxing, soft virtualisation system wide, rights restrictions etc'. Maybe I'll regret stating that and something will bite me on the ass tomorrow, but I'm sure I'll get over it. ;D

I do have FF4 all tooled up on my system, along with IE9. Have tried Chrome, Safari, Maxthon & others over the years.

Put simply - I just like Opera more than everything else I've tried regardless of the respective strengths or weaknesses. Just my opinion.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "Read the last few pages of this thread...getting a bit full on! Food for thought though, as always at Wilders. :thumb:

Personally I love Opera. :)" }-

I have been giving Opera 11.11 a bit of a spin occasionally of late. It's been a long time since I used Opera regularly. It has some good extensions & an adblocker that really works now. NotScripts runs pretty good on it too. I think that this is the best version of Opera yet. Its portable has finally replaced SeaMonkey on my smallest thumbdrive.


-{ Quote: "I don't like the Yahoo! mail issue, but I can live with it." }-

The Yahoo! Mail beta is a bit buggy sometimes so it's nice to be able to open a browser in mail 'Classic', as I do when I use Opera.

[virtualinsanity]

What can I say? I just love Scandinavians! :-*

Now, if only in real life...::)

[Daveski17]

You should check out the original Swedish version of Wallander on BBC iPlayer if you can. It's far better than Branagh's & I actually prefer reading subtitles!

[virtualinsanity]

Cheers Daveski - I shall have a look next time I'm back in Blighty. :thumb:

Must admit it's not quite what I had in mind though! ;)

Here endeth my off topic ramblings.

[Hungry Man]

Opera's a respectable browser. I just wish it didn't have so many issues.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "Cheers Daveski - I shall have a look next time I'm back in Blighty. :thumb:

Must admit it's not quite what I had in mind though! ;)

Here endeth my off topic ramblings." }-

OK:thumb: (I know what you had in mind ... ;) )

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "Opera's a respectable browser. I just wish it didn't have so many issues." }-

It has hugely improved though since I used it regularly back in the #9 series days. Admittedly there are still a few page rendering problems (sometimes resolved by simply reloading the page) & then there is the great toolbar disappearing icon fandango of course. I always think of it as some beautiful innovative exotic sports car that just isn't totally reliable. It's great to drive, often way ahead of the competition, but sometimes some of the instruments don't work & occasionally it just breaks down altogether.

[SweX]

-{ Quote: "I just love Scandinavians! :-*" }-
Ohh thank you :-* :shifty:

[BenMar522]

Google Chrome (stable)! but also enjoy using opera too.

-BenMar

[moontan]

at the moment i'm using IE9.

it was a very tough decision choosing between the top 4 browsers.
my top 2 picks were Chrome and IE9 because of their sandboxing, speed and a better output when saving webpages as PDF.

[Corno]

-{ Quote: "It has hugely improved though since I used it regularly back in the #9 series days. Admittedly there are still a few page rendering problems (sometimes resolved by simply reloading the page) & then there is the great toolbar disappearing icon fandango of course. I always think of it as some beautiful innovative exotic sports car that just isn't totally reliable. It's great to drive, often way ahead of the competition, but sometimes some of the instruments don't work & occasionally it just breaks down altogether." }-


Most issues have nothing to do with the browser, but with the fact that some website-makers don't comply with the official rules internationally agreed on. It is just a matter of market-share

[jadinolf]

Just switched from SeaMonkey to Firefox over the weekend.

Lots of work switching over 5 computers but I think it was a good choice.