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.
I haven't been able to use Firefox since Chrome 8/9 came out. I just can't find any redeeming qualities.
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/
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...
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.
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
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
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. There are users who don't want to use a hosts file. 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...) Indeed, it's Not quite as polished, and it fails to give the same effect always. But that's another story... 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). As Usage increases, more Vulnerabilities, like THIS will come up... Is GC Sandboxing, by itself/alone, as effective as Sandboxie?
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
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.
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. 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.
Vulnerabilities, Security Flaws etc. More reliable in terms of what? Rendering? Try to open THIS page. In terms of opening websites without problems, the order goes (historically) as following: IE >Firefox >GC >Opera.
... 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.
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. 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... 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: Code: 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 Code: when you click a member's name, Chrome does not give you a menu, rather takes you to the member page. Source
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.)
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?
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. 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? Code: 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 Code: when you click a member's name, Chrome does not give you a menu, rather takes you to the member page. Source 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?
