Beep Boop Bip
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 418)
Message
BB Code
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: BMP, C, CPP, CSS, EPUB, FLAC, FLV, GIF, JPG, OGG, PDF, PNG, PSD, RAR, TORRENT, TXT, WEBM, ZIP
  • Maximum file size allowed is 10000 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 856 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 135734470139.gif - (24.00KB , 301x322 , lolifox.gif )
418 No. 418 [Edit]
Let's turn this thread into a browser war!
Expand all images
>> No. 419 [Edit]
My browser is good, and yours isn't!
>> No. 420 [Edit]
>>2341
What browser would that be?
>> No. 421 [Edit]
>>2342
The good one, the one you don't like
>> No. 422 [Edit]
File 135735251262.jpg - (125.49KB , 1600x1200 , 1356966951176.jpg )
422
>>2340
browser wars have no meaning anymore.

they are all the same at this point, just with different privacy and RAM usage settings.
unless you are using legacy hardware to run the browser, there will be a negligible difference in loading times outside of the morons who have 50+ tabs/windows open at any given time.
>> No. 423 [Edit]
>>2344
Who the hell are you calling moron, idiot?
>> No. 424 [Edit]
>>2344
How does that makes me or anyone a moron, exactly?
>> No. 425 [Edit]
>>2344
Wait? Really? Like really? Well, we do all still agree IE sucks, right? Do we?
>> No. 426 [Edit]
>>2347
I haven't really used it in, like, 10 years so I don't know anymore. But my general impression is that everyone's been copying/stealing Firefox achievements for a while now.
>> No. 427 [Edit]
>>2347
yes
>> No. 428 [Edit]
File 135736372395.png - (48.45KB , 600x600 , Usage_share_of_web_browsers_(Source_StatCounter)_s.png )
428
Why is Chrome so popular? Does it handles shitbookbetter or what?
>> No. 429 [Edit]
>>2350
Because google?
>> No. 430 [Edit]
>>2350
Because of stupidity and Google shoving that shit in almost everything.
>> No. 431 [Edit]
>>2353
So there's really that much people who download and install whatever they're told to by popping up stuff.
>> No. 432 [Edit]
>>2350
Because many of us were fed up with firefox when it came out and wanted to try the cool new browser, and we probably won't switch again until Google seriously breaks it. I also agree with >>2344 in that all major browsers handle the same, look (almost) the same and are close to the same speed nowadays. At this point I'd wager that the market share of browsers is determined more by brand loyalty and laziness than anything else.
>> No. 433 [Edit]
File 135736487696.jpg - (44.41KB , 484x272 , c8d8763d-f1a4-4533-9f06-1b827d059236_22.jpg )
433
>>2355
>the cool new browser
Say, like this new cool OS?
>> No. 434 [Edit]
>>2356
Yes, there is definitely a comparison to be made between Windows' ~10th iteration and the first Chrome browser. Besides, Firefox really sucked at that time and most of us would have settled for something less polished than Chrome was.
>> No. 435 [Edit]
>>2354
Yes. Never underestimate the stupidity of the average person.

I know that you'll feel like saying "there's no way a person could do that", but I assure you that there is, have, and will be people that do it.

I'm not saying that this is how all of them got it, but a percentage that is neither small nor big.
>> No. 436 [Edit]
>>2356
>Windows' ~10th iteration
but this one's really damned new and cool man! it's like a super tablet, with attached keyboard and mouse just in case. here's a sweet review about it, sponsored by Ford: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=ONfr37BWXHM
>> No. 437 [Edit]
>>2347
I don't use it, but from what I hear, the new versions are adequate.

My parents' house has a really old router, and all the connections Chrome makes to google's servers seems to break the router. It's really annoying. Torrents also broke their router.
>> No. 438 [Edit]
IE's still and will always be proprietary, there's no reason to even consider its performance, as long as there are adequate alternatives.
>> No. 439 [Edit]
>>2350
How come this chart doesn't have lolifox?
>> No. 440 [Edit]
we already have a browser thread on the first page!

http://tohno-chan.com/mt/res/960.html
>> No. 441 [Edit]
[slightly off-topic] It's kinda depressing, when you switch to another browser, and realize the internet is still the same.
>> No. 442 [Edit]
>>2364
>No browser wars!
>> No. 443 [Edit]
I use Seamonkey on my PC and Firefox on my Android. Bookmark sync between them works. Sometimes I use w3m because I want to feel hacker. Does anyone else use text-based browser?
>> No. 444 [Edit]
>>2367
Sometimes I use elinks.
>> No. 445 [Edit]
>>2365
I know how this is. It's like when you pull up a browser from the 90s or early 00s, and realize the internet is still from the present day.
>> No. 446 [Edit]
i use seamonkey too

it's like firefox with no bloat
>> No. 447 [Edit]
I use Firefox. Version 18 cured that recent Problem with Javascript garbage colection and now it's a lot faster and lighter than it was beforehand. The web developer tools are great.
>> No. 448 [Edit]
>>2414

only now you can't resize the window a full-window flash file is running in.
>> No. 449 [Edit]
This thread's fresh so I'll just-

Anyway, I love firefox, but sometimes I don't even know how it's supposed to function, with the updates and all. One time the background color you got when viewing images was a nice and dark, noisy textured grey kind of thing; anyone remember that? Before and after it's just plain white, and I do miss the period of dark image viewing backgrounds. Sometimes, I've got to view pdf's natively in the browser, other times it'll just ask you to download or whatever. Actually I can just set it to "Preview" in the options menu. Yeah I knew that. Still there's the background color thing- Actually it looks like I can change solid color backgrounds adjusting the hex numbers for the browser.display.background_color parameter, but that seems to affect all undefined backgrounds in the browser, so that's no good. Getting a dedicated addon for this problem alone is kind of not worth it in my books, so I guess I'll just live with it.

So yeah, firefox is the best.
>> No. 450 [Edit]
>>2360

haha I read that as a ford driver, but then I got forded to a new level and now the world feels like some bitter joke
>> No. 451 [Edit]
Any new decent alternatives to firefox lately? Whenever I've been using it for a long time my PC freezes up/blue screens (I don't know why).

I don't like Chrome.
>> No. 452 [Edit]
>>2613
>Whenever I've been using it for a long time my PC freezes up/blue screens (I don't know why).

that's called a memory leak, and when it uses up all your RAM it makes the computer crash or otherwise have a fatal error.

While firefox is notorious in it's own right for introducing a new one for every one fixed, I've generally had more problems with adobe flash being a piece of shit than anything else.
>> No. 453 [Edit]
>>2613
and to answer your question: safari
>> No. 454 [Edit]
>>2613
What >>2614 said, probably. I had some memory leak/CPU usage problems when 23 was released, it was caused by two addons that previously worked well together throwing shit at each other(ABP and Ghostery).

You can always try Seamonkey, Opera or Chromium if you're not happy with Fx.
>> No. 455 [Edit]
Xombrero, occasionally I'll use lynx.
>> No. 456 [Edit]
File 140010019064.png - (25.11KB , 1280x640 , bg.png )
456
Firefox is implementing DRM with Adobe.

>Each person will be able to decide whether to activate the DRM implementation or to leave it off and not watch DRM-controlled content.


https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challenge-of-serving-users/

https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/
>> No. 457 [Edit]
>>2708
Seems sensible to me. I'll probably just tick it off.
>> No. 458 [Edit]
>>2708
And now we know the real reason Brendan was fired. What a fucking joke. Mitchell should be lynched.
>> No. 459 [Edit]
>>2708
I'm far too lazy to read that all and I don't know what it means. So I'm going to assume that it's bad and eventually switch to Pale Moon.
>> No. 460 [Edit]
>>2711
http://www.palemoon.org/migrationtool.shtml

This makes switching pretty easy if you're going to
>> No. 461 [Edit]
>>2712
I wasn't expecting this, which is why I'm late, but thank you very much!
>> No. 1125 [Edit]
pale moon is easily the best browser, the new layout firefox has had really isn't too great in my opinion
>> No. 1126 [Edit]
>>1125
It's firefox. The best thing about the browser is its customization, if you don't like the new layout get an extension to change it. I use this:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classic-compact/
>> No. 1127 [Edit]
>>1126
>The best thing about the browser is its customization
Sure fuckin used to be, mate.
>if you don't like the new layout get an extension to change it.
Swear I tried. But even with a couple of extensions more I couldn't get rid of all the BS.
>> No. 1128 [Edit]
>>1126
I don't see how using some addon would be better in any way. It's not even supported by the newest version (33)
>> No. 1129 [Edit]
>>1128
There's a beta version that works, it makes the UI much better than Australis.
>> No. 1132 [Edit]
>>1129
why use an addon to gain the functionality I can get with another browser with no addon?


Somewhat related, I also don't like the way a theme I made for firefox looks on australis.
>> No. 1133 [Edit]
>>1125
Why do ya'll dislike australis? It's much less buggy than the old Interface I feel.
>> No. 1134 [Edit]
>>1133
I don't like the way it looks, it's as simple as that. It's a bit bulkier also I feel

I don't like change if I can help it
>> No. 1136 [Edit]
Does anyone use any browsers aside from the popular ones(firefox,chrome,&IE)? Forks like palemoon don't count here.

If so what do you think about it?

Post edited on 30th Oct 2014, 9:28pm
>> No. 1137 [Edit]
>>1136
dwb is good
>> No. 1138 [Edit]
File 141474318848.gif - (37.77KB , 550x458 , midori.gif )
1138
>>1136
Midori, the interface of it is also similiar to that of the older firefox verions.
>> No. 1195 [Edit]
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/11/mozilla-introduces-the-first-browser-built-for-developers-firefox-developer-edition/

So what do you guys think about this? Is anyone here going to try it?
>> No. 1587 [Edit]
I had been very stubborn in sticking with firefox over the years. Even with all it's problems I couldn't see myself using anything else as my main browser. I hated how each time it got updated the interface became uglier while more and more of my addons broke. If I didn't update then sites like youtube wouldn't work properly or I'd get out of date browser warnings. I patched addons myself to make them work, and installed others to fix the appearance issues (such as "Classic Theme Restorer")
Then the other day while trying to fix yet another broken addon I went to check the version number of the browser, which somehow triggered an update. When it restarted it was now running as firefox quantum. This destroyed the layout and nuked just about all of my addons. Once I processed what happened I said to hell with it, and installed pale moon after remembering it worked much like an older version of firefox. It was surprisingly easy to set up and was compatible with nearly all my old firefox addons. importing bookmarks from firefox wasn't supported by the installer but that only took a minute to export/import manually. Honestly I find it works far better than firefox ever did. Might have saved me a lot of stress if I jumped ship sooner.
>> No. 1588 [Edit]
>>1587
Nice, anon. I did the same on their previous UI update years ago. Not only does Pale Moon retain the old user interface, but it runs much much better on old hardware that I have. Far as I know the way new FF handles addons is now completely different, so none of them work anymore. Don't quote me on that though. Also, if there's an addon for firefox that you want on Pale Moon but doesn't work, sometimes you can check previous versions and those will work. I do that with the adblock element hider helper.

Post edited on 18th Nov 2017, 6:43pm
>> No. 1650 [Edit]
I'm currently using Iridium but I don't really like the standard chrome interface and I question if it's really better in terms of privacy compared to chrome in the first place. I have to admit I barely know anything about that specific subject and was just paranoid about constantly reading how much date google has on its users.
Anyway, does anyone know a browser with a comfy interface? I'd prefer something that has a bit of an old-school look to it.
>> No. 1652 [Edit]
>>1650
There are always browser themes to make it look a certain way that you like.

I don't know too much about the browser myself, but I did download iridium a couple months back to visit one site, since FF and its forks don't support hardware rendering or something which it needed. Noticed that the last release was from november of 2017, and even now it hasn't updated since then. Of all programs on a computer the web browser is the most important to keep up to date I'd think.
>> No. 1653 [Edit]
>>1650
"New" Firefox is customizable enough through css to at least make it look like you want. Even with zero modification is still leaps and bounds less botnet than Chrome.
>>1652
FF definitely has hardware acceleration.
>> No. 1654 [Edit]
>>1653
Yeah it probably does, but said website was terribly laggy. Bad site design, no fault of the browser. Another thing is chomium/iridium have is allowing you to download large files from mega. Wish that weren't the case, since there is zero need for a second browser otherwise.
>> No. 1668 [Edit]
>>428
Well look how long internet explorer remained #1.
It looks like the most used browser by the lowest common denominator is owned by whoever dominates the tech industry at the moment.
This is most likely because they have enough of a monopoly to effectively promulgate it's supposed popularity amoungst the masses.
>> No. 1671 [Edit]
File 152377361939.png - (5.49KB , 64x64 , Waterfox_Logo.png )
1671
>>428
>>1668
To most people Google is the Internet. And when it tells them to switch to Chrome, they do as they're told. Not to mention the massive fear mongering campaign by the media that tells people they have to use the newest, most updated software or the evil Russian hackers will get them.

I've switched to Waterfox recently from Firefox ESR as it looks to be gaining ground after Moz-colon-slash-slash-a's insistence on screwing up. It's based off ESR56 and supposed to keep XUL intact alongside e10 so some old extensions will still work (can't live without Classic Theme Restorer and DownThemAll). Webextensions is restrictive garbage like the monoculture that spawned it.
>> No. 1674 [Edit]
>>1671
>can't live without Classic Theme Restorer
Just in case you don't know, you can modify a -lot- of the interface through CSS, way more than CTR ever could, with a couple exceptions. I was bothered by it too, but after testing Waterfox I just couldn't handle how outdated (and slow, YMMV) it felt so I sucked it up and only afterwards I found out about the editing. Just to be sure I reinstalled Waterfox and set it up like I had FF before Quantum, and my current edited Quantum felt and browsed way better. Sure, it's a lot more work as well, but it pays up.
>> No. 1706 [Edit]
File 153441401899.jpg - (72.50KB , 466x960 , 4BXp9zC.jpg )
1706
If I ever use IE, this is going to be the reason 77.56% of the time.
>> No. 1991 [Edit]
File 158154625068.jpg - (331.41KB , 1280x720 , firefox.jpg )
1991
It's not much of a war at this point when your only browser choices are essentially Firefox or rebranded Chromium. Even Microsoft threw in the towel with Trident.

And while the performance improvements in Firefox since the "quantum" update are supposedly nice, they manage to make the UI worse every update.
>> No. 1993 [Edit]
>>1991
Making UIs worse with every update seems to be a staple of modern day programing across the board.
>> No. 1994 [Edit]
>>1993
I'm convinced that it's because the UI/UX team needs to justify their salary somehow. While I can at least avoid updating desktop applications, I'm growing increasingly tired of having to maintain a hodgepodge of css to revert the fuckery websites continue to introduce.
>> No. 1995 [Edit]
>>1994
Yeah UI dev teams, consultants and marketing devisions and the like. All convincing the guys in charge these things need to keep being updated to stay relevant. Because no one would use chrome or youtube or windows if they didn't keep fixing updating UI right?
>> No. 2177 [Edit]
File 161059777052.jpg - (100.06KB , 850x478 , sample_f29cc43692db360ee792fc0fc542d840.jpg )
2177
I remember around 12 years ago my internet went down for a few days. I could connect to an unsecured network, but the signal was weak and would stop working frequently. For my entire life before that I just used ie. I don't think I even knew about firefox. Google kept advertising their own, superior browser, which was a concept that I actually had a hard time understanding, because the idea that there could be "another" browser never occurred to me. I tried it out, and somehow, by some kind of magic, it could connect to the internet during the times when ie couldn't.

I've stopped using chrome, and ungoogled chromium. I've talked about this before, but the lack of dates on bookmarks is a serious problem for me. If I had been using another browser all these years, god damn would it be easier to look through those. History older than three months also gets auto-deleted, which is asinine. I didn't even know about that until recently. I can't believe that in 10+ years, nobody with enough money or knowledge was bothered enough to do something about those two, simple things. The UI now takes up too much vertical screen real estate too.

I tried vivaldi, which had a few features that impressed me, and others I didn't care about. Bookmarks not only have dates, but screenshots too. The dubious privacy policies and massive cpu usage put me off though. Pale Moon has a cool aesthetic, but the way it renders certain things looked off and bothered me. Now I'm using basilisk, which I like the familiar(chrome) look of. I'm not sure if it's just in my head or not, but the way it renders things seems better. Firefox now also has an oversized address and tab bar too, plus its own bullshit policies, so it's not an option.

Opera's gx looks pretty funny.

Post edited on 13th Jan 2021, 8:38pm
>> No. 2178 [Edit]
File 161060139968.jpg - (196.05KB , 1200x1200 , 23f0e6e28578c3fbd372d52a901ba1cf.jpg )
2178
I just use Edge. It's not perfect, my biggest gripe is how it used to have a really nice reading list function in it's bookmarks that displayed a thumbnail of the bookmarked page. It was great for manga since it helped me identify it by look instead of just by title. They got rid of it eventually and I'm still disgruntled about it today. I keep using it because of habit and I don't trust Firefox since they turned into dirty commies recently and I don't trust Google because they're also dirty slanty-eyed commie chinks. I'm technologically illiterate too so it makes it easy to settle.
>>1706
I feel bad for IE-chan and Bing-chan too. I want to be their dedicated user and make them happy. It's a shame that webcomic looks like it's done if it's not a long hiatus but I would rather see it end early than go on too long and lose it's focus or turn into shit. It's a webcomic drawn by an artist who apparently loves memes so I don't trust it to maintain quality.
>> No. 2179 [Edit]
File 161060401756.png - (13.95KB , 546x202 , holyshit.png )
2179
>>2178
There's no reason to trust edge over chrome. Vivaldi has that feature edge used to and they're both chromium based, so I would recommend it to you.
>> No. 2180 [Edit]
I recently switched to Iridium after Mozilla's worrying articles on freedom.
https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/fellow-research-decentralized-web-hate/
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/

It's ungoogled-chromium under the hood and I could install all the extensions I wanted. The only downside is you've to manually update them.
>> No. 2181 [Edit]
>>2177
Switched back to palemoon since basilisk kept lagging in various ways and would actually freeze when I opened the library for some reason. The rendering thing was probably entirely in my head and there's a theme that I like even better than what I had there.
>> No. 2182 [Edit]
>>2181
>rendering
All of them are gecko-based browsers so rendering should be the same, no? (Newer Firefox gutted the old gecko renderer in favor of the one written in rust, but I don't think any of the xul-using browsers use that).
>> No. 2199 [Edit]
I'm curious: how many of you browse with javascript disabled by default? I already use ublock and all that, but because the number of websites I regularly visit is pretty small I'm tempted to just invert the settings so things are blocked by default and I only enable JS on the few websites that I trust.
>> No. 2200 [Edit]
>>2199
Far too much of the stuff I need sporadically requires js for me to disable it automatically. I used to have it disabled, and once had to wait 6 hours to make a financial transaction because some security authorization component on a website needed it and that not working tripped a wire or something.
>> No. 2201 [Edit]
Firefox ESR has been pretty bad for a long time now, but I'd still rather use it than Chromium. One thing that concerns me about switching to one of the forks is whether they get timely security updates.
>>1654
For downloading large files, there's megadl, which is part of Megatools.
>>2199
I do. Disabling JS breaks many websites, which is a pain. >>/ot/33997 and >>/ot/37266 have been pretty useful, even though some functionality is still missing or partially broken with them. The public Invidious instances in particular tend to be somewhat flaky, which is why I hesitate to link people to them.
>>2200
Couldn't you disable it for general web browsing and only enable it for financial stuff? You could set up separate browser profiles for this.
>> No. 2202 [Edit]
>>2201
I use pale moon and switching pale moon profiles is a pain and requires restarting the browser or screwing around in ways that break its interaction with other apps.

Post edited on 7th Feb 2021, 9:45pm
>> No. 2203 [Edit]
>>2201
Cool I didn't know about teddit. There's also "old.reddit.com" which they still seem to keep alive: it preserves the older layout and works mostly fine with JS disabled. Although they've been caught doing shady stuff before [1] so I should probably switch to that.

>Couldn't you disable it for general web browsing and only enable it for financial stuff
Not him but I think he was saying that he didn't even know that the site required JS to avoid tripping the fraud detector or whatever, so he didn't think to enable it. I've noticed this a lot – sites just break in random ways, and if I hadn't used them before disabling JS then I wouldn't even have realized that some dropdown or feature was supposed to exist. It'd be nice if all sites at least supported the noscript tag to let you know that some features are missing.

[1] https://smitop.com/post/reddit-whiteops/
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

View catalog

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  


[Home] [Manage]



[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]