Browser Cold War

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/109127-the-browser-cold-war

 

Good read, thanks.

 

There's most certainly a "cold war" going on since both IE and Chrome are made by companies that make money off of search results.

Pretending that they have identical feature sets is silly.

Actually this is a pretty awful article.

 

People just can't avoid making controversial analogies.

 

Very interesting.

Take Google, for example. It is now spending millions of dollars to market Chrome as the fastest option, when we know that it’s virtually identical to Firefox and IE. Even worse, and reminiscent of the tactics that resulted in an antitrust ruling against Internet Explorer and Microsoft in 2001, Google abuses its search and video monopoly to advertise its browser.

Ya don't say ...

Then there’s the recent independent (but Google-funded) study that shows Chrome to be the most secure browser on the web — but hilariously, and probably because Google dictated the test protocol, the study simply ignores a bunch of Firefox and IE security features to paint Chrome as some kind of indomitable Hulk-like hero. In reality, all three browsers are very secure.

I think that out of the box, Chrome, because of its sandboxing, probably has a slight edge. But in reality, for the average user, there isn't really much between them. Firefox has a lot of very good security extensions. I didn't fall for the recent Google FUD/study but I reckon millions would do.

Mozilla, which is being squeezed out by rabid bloodthirstiness and larger marketing budgets, has started to get its hands dirty as well.

C'mon Mozilla guys, you're better than that. You don't need to get 'all Google'! You still have your integrity (I hope).

 

I believe that the reference was to the overall speed & performance of the different browsers. IMO there is hardly any difference in performance between Fx, Chrome & especially the 64 bit IE 9.

 

That's the way I read it too, that they were referring to speed. To argue that that too is incorrect, well, I don't have enough years left to bother going around in circles with that topic again. A graph isn't going to make one bit of difference if my own experience disagrees with said graph.

 

Anyway, everyone knows SRWare Iron is the fastest browser in the West LOL!

*Runs quickly away to avoid the hail of bullets*

 

I agree with you here. Google is no less guilty of anti-trust crap than MS is. As far as security, if Chrome didn't have that sandbox, there would be a lot less to argue in favor of Chrome over other offerings.

 

I'm naturally cynical about large hegemonic corporations, I suppose, at the end of the day, it's all just 'business'.

Yes, I think the same. The other thing that I have never fully understood about Chrome is that (for me anyway) its Portable Apps version performs so poorly. Iron's own portable is sufficiently better enough to use sometimes, but neither are as good as SeaMonkey which is an entire suite! I would have thought Chrome (WebKit) would have been faster by virtue of being lighter. When I say 'faster' here, I'm not talking nanoseconds either, I'm talking 'could brew a pot of Lapsang tea after pressing the home button & waiting' kind of speed.

 

Could anyone else say the same about Firefox? That if it weren't for its good extensions, there would be "lot less to argue in favor of Firefox over other offerings"?

 

Indeed you could, point well taken, M00n. I'd dare say if it weren't for extensions, Firefox may have never taken off...and other people wouldn't be upset that other browsers either didn't have them or didn't have enough of them. Users have been spoiled

 

Funnily enough, the first time I ever used Firefox I had no idea that it had any extensions, a mate of mine recommended it to me in a boozer. All I knew was that it worked well on my laptop & IE didn't.

I got well spoilt when I discovered the extensions ...

 

Than they should back it up with benchmarks.

The problem with that being that benchmarks don't always take certain factors into account, like caching or prefetching/ rendering.

With Firefox 8 they made a definitive comparison (Mozilla) with Chrome saying that they were "Near Chrome speeds" in 3DWebGL and had caught up in 2DWebGL. And HTML5 isn't really worth mentioning I suppose but Chrome excels there as well.

And pretending that all three browsers consist of the same feature sets is disingenuous and a bit insulting to the developers imo. It's also proving a real lack of insight since basic things like garbage control are handled radically differently in Tracemonkey and V8.

And that's just Chrome. He could have mentioned Firefox's vast extension store or incredible UI customizability and given it a bit more weight.

 

I think the most interesting part of this article is the last part. What happens if Firefox goes away and we're left with a 90s style IE v Chrome browser war, each competing to gain market share by introducing new "Standards" - I can see Chrome doing this with NaCli and DART already. I mean... Dart... replacing both JAva and JAvascript. They're trying to replace 90% of the web right there.

 

I often wonder if the average user cares that much about a few nanoseconds here & there.

I honestly can't see any noticeable difference in speed between Firefox & Chrome on my machines. I have a load of extensions on Fx but only a few on Chrome. I suspect most users have had the same experience.

You're hermeneutically reading too much into this article. I think it was aimed at people like me who have little knowledge of software. Unless I've missed where it was actually quoted that they had the same feature sets. It's 11 pm where I am & I've been drinking.

I think it may have been superfluous to the article's overall point.

 

Yes, but that's a nightmare type scenario. If that happens & Firefox ceased to exist (& presumably SeaMonkey) I may have to save up for a Macbook & go all Safari.

 

I think we're already heading in the direction of the 90s again. Just look at who supports what to see all that coming again. MS backs one thing, Chrome and Mozilla back another. Hell, I think Google is trying to reinvent the web with everything they keep trying to do. I personally don't think browser vendors need to introduce "standards" anyway.

 

Microsoft wishes.

 

Yeah, I thought Bing was still losing money?

 

Microsoft makes money from software, Google makes money from ads/tracking/profiling.

 

Standards are incredibly important. If we didn't have them the web would not be a friendly place for users who want to use a different browser - pages work for one but no another or much slower on others etc.

I think Google is trying to reinvent the web as well. Javascript and Java are old old languages and a bit outdated in a lot of ways. There are definitely advantages to DART and NaCli, significant ones. The problem is that they may not be worth anything if it means fragmenting support.

 

Microsoft would not invest money in Bing if they did not plan to make money off of it.

 

....and selling tablets from mid 2012

 

They are though I read that as the browser makers should not be the ones settings those standards and I would tend to agree. There should be another entity setting standards for them all to follow.

You couldn't be more correct but they don't seem to be pulling it off and I doubt they ever will. Between Live Search and Bing they have been trying for a long time.