# Favorite Internet Browser



## Ookami221 (Jun 22, 2010)

Just choose ur favorite browser

EDIT: Mines Opera.


----------



## Riv (Jun 22, 2010)

I lik safri becase it uss the opn-sorce webkt nd is mad by appl.


----------



## Alstor (Jun 22, 2010)

Right now, I'm in my Firefox mode. I have heard some bad feedback about Chrome.


----------



## TheRandomGuy (Jun 23, 2010)

I've been using Chrome for about a year now, and it hasn't failed me yet.


----------



## Syradact (Jun 23, 2010)

Firefox. Reasons why are in this thread.


----------



## kyle19 (Jun 23, 2010)

Firefox


----------



## Willow (Jun 23, 2010)

I use Firefox for all intents and purposes

IE is obnoxious 

and Safari whenever I would use it, crashed every 10 minutes


----------



## Aden (Jun 23, 2010)

Opera. I like Safari, but I've never heard of this "safri"


----------



## Don (Jun 23, 2010)

It's Firefox for me.


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Jun 23, 2010)

I like chrome.


----------



## Enwon (Jun 23, 2010)

Firefox.
I started out with internet explorer, but heard that Firefox was more secure.  My computer was recovering from a virus, so I switched to Firefox.  For a few months, I switched between IE and Firefox.  I finally permanently switched to Firefox after a few months, and never looked back.


----------



## Riv (Jun 23, 2010)

I remember when macs used to come with Internet Explorer on them. That sucked. Of course, back then, I didn't use the internet, so it was ok.


----------



## gdzeek (Jun 23, 2010)

I Have Firefox, Occasionally I use chrome but its seldom.







does anyone use Netscape anymore?


----------



## Zhael (Jun 23, 2010)

gdzeek said:


> does anyone use Netscape anymore?


 
I did up until Netscape 8.
(keep in mind that was at least five years ago).


Alright, after looking through a couple browsers:

Internet Explorer - Basic, nothing special, good for those just learning how to use the internet.

Safari- Like Internet Explorer, but easier to navigate and more secure.

Firefox- Fast, fun, and user friendly.  I use Firefox, personally.

Maxthon- Very basic until one wants to go advanced with it, and incredibly fast.

Opera - Safe and secure, reasonably fast (almost rivaling Maxthon), and a layout similar to Safari.

Chrome - Crashes more than it should, annoying to use, absolutely nothing special. It's like Internet Explorer for those who want to torture 
themselves.

Netscape - I've checked up on it, still nothing special.  Comparable to Internet Explorer.


W00t pointless shit.


----------



## Riv (Jun 23, 2010)

Zhael said:


> Safari- Like Internet Explorer, but easier to navigate and more secure.
> 
> Firefox- Fast, fun, and user friendly.  I use Firefox, personally.


 
lol, you're aware that Safari is fully w3c compliant, whereas IE8 gets a pitiful 28% on the Acid3 test? (firefox passes, with 72%) Comparing Safari to Internet Explorer is like comparing a new Prius to a rusted-out Hummer with no tires.


----------



## Joeyyy (Jun 23, 2010)

I only use Internet explorer for the grooveshark music.
and firefox for the rest.


----------



## Akro (Jun 23, 2010)

Firefox because my mom cant find out anything im doing when i use it.


----------



## DragonLover17 (Jun 23, 2010)

Akro said:


> Firefox because my mom cant find out anything im doing when i use it.



I like firefox when i vist my aunts but i noticed that sometimes it doesnt work that well i think she has an older version of it.


----------



## Hendikins (Jun 23, 2010)

Riv said:


> lol, you're aware that Safari is fully w3c compliant


 
No browser is fully 100% bug-free standards compliant. Some are simply closer than others. The Acid tests aren't an indicator of absolute standards compliance either - take a look at this documented example of a hack simply to raise Webkit's Acid3 score on Mac.

For the record, the development builds of Gecko score 97 on Acid3.

Browser I use? Other.


----------



## Runefox (Jun 23, 2010)

I used to use IE6 back when the browser wars were over and stagnating, but switched to Mozilla Firebird back with version 0.6 (shortly after renaming from Phoenix). It was lightning fast and generally quite usable, even in its early state - A complete 180 from how it is today, that is to say loaded down with fluff that used to be relegated to extensions to keep the browser simple and sleek, versus its current rather bulky state. Nowadays, I use Chrome almost exclusively. It's just a lot faster to start up, and a lot more responsive in terms of UI than pretty much everything else out there (Opera's UI is more responsive in general). Most of the features I'd come to expect to use in Firefox are available for Chrome, so I don't really have any reason not to use it.



Zhael said:


> Internet Explorer - Basic, nothing special, good for those just learning how to use the internet.


Spyware's good for everyone, no?



> Maxthon- Very basic until one wants to go advanced with it, and incredibly fast.


Maxthon used to be a shell for IE, but is now a shell for Webkit - Its performance and rendering should be similar to Safari and Chrome.



> Chrome - Crashes more than it should, annoying to use, absolutely nothing special. It's like Internet Explorer for those who want to torture
> themselves.


Actually, Chrome is most similar to Safari in most respects (speed, stability, UI, layout engine, etc), but goes further with process separation of individual plugins and tabs and with extensions and themes (a sort of meld between Safari and Firefox in a way). Comparing against Internet Explorer, Firefox is actually most similar to it in terms of speed and UI design.



> Netscape - I've checked up on it, still nothing special.  Comparable to Internet Explorer.


Netscape is now a rebranded version of Firefox (and has been for a while). Firefox, interestingly, is a continuation of the engine that was developed for Netscape long ago, open sourced as Mozilla.



Hendikins said:


> No browser is fully 100% bug-free standards compliant. Some are simply closer than others. The Acid tests aren't an indicator of absolute standards compliance either - take a look at this documented example of a hack simply to raise Webkit's Acid3 score on Mac.


This is along the lines of what I was looking for when I locked horns with Rhetorica over the importance of Acid3 testing in browser development, but I wasn't able to come up with anything useful. Even though it's just cosmetic, it opens the floor to question how much else of the Acid3 testing can be designed around while the actual rendering engine might not be accurate for other situations. I recall something similar happening back with Acid2, but again, I can't come up with any sources on that. Long story short, though, Acid tests are good benchmarks, but not the ultimate measure of a browser's standards support. It's mainly used by proponents of any given browser as a measure of e-penis.


----------



## Hendikins (Jun 24, 2010)

Runefox said:


> switched to Mozilla Firebird back with version 0.6 (shortly after renaming from Phoenix). It was lightning fast and generally quite usable, even in its early state - A complete 180 from how it is today, that is to say loaded down with fluff that used to be relegated to extensions to keep the browser simple and sleek, versus its current rather bulky state.



I find it rather ironic that SeaMonkey has a lighter footprint and is faster than Firefox, when the whole point of Firefox was to be faster and have a lighter footprint than SeaMonkey...



> This is along the lines of what I was looking for when I locked horns  with Rhetorica over the importance of Acid3 testing in browser  development, but I wasn't able to come up with anything useful. Even  though it's just cosmetic, it opens the floor to question how much else  of the Acid3 testing can be designed around while the actual rendering  engine might not be accurate for other situations. I recall something  similar happening back with Acid2, but again, I can't come up with any  sources on that. Long story short, though, Acid tests are good  benchmarks, but not the ultimate measure of a browser's standards  support. It's mainly used by proponents of any given browser as a  measure of e-penis.


Acid3 is a good testcase if you actually fix the bugs rather than using kludges to increase your Acid3 score. Clearly that isn't what has always happened. Oh, and have a screenshot from when Chrome first scored 100/100 on Acid3, showing just how meaningless a score of 100 can be...


----------



## Runefox (Jun 24, 2010)

Hendikins said:


> I find it rather ironic that SeaMonkey has a lighter footprint and is faster than Firefox, when the whole point of Firefox was to be faster and have a lighter footprint than SeaMonkey...


Yeah, as far as that goes, Chrome represents what I saw in Firebird back when I first switched to it - A simple, uncluttered interface, a little expandability, and sheer speed. It doesn't quite have the customization I'd like, but that's an afterthought; I find the interface to be very agreeable and very minimalist, which fits my style.



> Acid3 is a good testcase if you actually fix the bugs rather than using kludges to increase your Acid3 score. Clearly that isn't what has always happened. Oh, and have a screenshot from when Chrome first scored 100/100 on Acid3, showing just how meaningless a score of 100 can be...


Yeah, but even so, it's a very specific testcase. Just because it renders properly in a browser doesn't mean that it will render a page the same way another browser that also renders Acid3 will, and the end result is more of the same for web developers. People put so much faith in the accuracy of the Acid tests, but I have very little. Passing Acid is good, but it isn't the ultimate benchmark. Some people, however, still believe it is.

Also, happy post 4096 to me.


----------



## Atrak (Jun 24, 2010)

The Bowser Browser.


----------



## Dan. (Jun 24, 2010)

I use IE8, and I always regret it....


----------



## Hendikins (Jun 24, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Yeah, but even so, it's a very specific testcase. Just because it renders properly in a browser doesn't mean that it will render a page the same way another browser that also renders Acid3 will, and the end result is more of the same for web developers. People put so much faith in the accuracy of the Acid tests, but I have very little. Passing Acid is good, but it isn't the ultimate benchmark. Some people, however, still believe it is.


 
It is a highly publicised testcase that is meant to be a pain in the arse - and has a nice number attached so the zealots can have a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Overall I'd say it is beneficial to have on the whole (after all, who cared about web standards 10 years ago?), but anyone who thinks it is anything more than a specific testcase doesn't understand what they're on about. Which, unfortunately, is the majority of people who care about Acid scores.

(And now my post count equals my MozillaZine user number - 20)


----------



## Apollo (Jun 24, 2010)

Er, well I currently use Firefox. The only real reason behind that is because, in the long run, it uses less RAM then Chrom(ium/e)


----------



## SaberKenji (Jun 24, 2010)

Firefox to the death.


----------



## Riv (Jun 24, 2010)

Hendikins said:


> It is a highly publicised testcase that is meant to be a pain in the arse - and has a nice number attached so the zealots can have a warm and fuzzy feeling.
> 
> Overall I'd say it is beneficial to have on the whole (after all, who cared about web standards 10 years ago?), but anyone who thinks it is anything more than a specific testcase doesn't understand what they're on about. Which, unfortunately, is the majority of people who care about Acid scores.
> 
> (And now my post count equals my MozillaZine user number - 20)


 
Well, I'm not used to speaking with people who have even heard of web standards, so the Acid3 is usually where my browser-related conversations end. (General exit line: NO CUZ I LIEK FIREFOX CAUZ EXTENSIONZ) But my point still stands, that Safari is highly HTML5 compliant, and renders 3d css, whereas IE8 still doesn't render HTML2 correctly. And Google is just riding Apple's coattails with chrome, allowing them to match much of Safari's performance with minimal effort.


----------



## Ratte (Jun 24, 2010)

I personally use Firefox and Opera.  I use Opera more than FF, but I like FF for the addons.


----------



## Marley (Jun 24, 2010)

Firefox gets the job done just fine for me.


----------



## Plantar (Jun 24, 2010)

FireFox all the way.


----------



## Runefox (Jun 24, 2010)

Riv said:


> But my point still stands, that Safari is highly HTML5 compliant, and renders 3d css, whereas IE8 still doesn't render *HTML2* correctly. And Google is just riding Apple's coattails with chrome, allowing them to match much of Safari's performance with minimal effort.


Uhh... HTML2? I think this conversation has ended before it began. And as for Google riding on Apple's coattails, Google contributes to Webkit the same as Apple does, and they're both riding on the coattails of the KHTML team (open source; Konqueror), which is where Webkit comes from. So... Yeah.


----------



## Riv (Jun 24, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Uhh... HTML2? I think this conversation has ended before it began. And as for Google riding on Apple's coattails, Google contributes to Webkit the same as Apple does, and they're both riding on the coattails of the KHTML team (open source; Konqueror), which is where Webkit comes from. So... Yeah.


 
Yes. HTML 2.0. I'm kind of exaggerating, but I wouldn't be surprised if IE8 has problems with rendering that code correctly. But Apple has been with Webkit since the early 2000's, and google just started a few years ago. You can't deny that the Webkit project has been improved by Apple's involvement.


----------



## CyberFoxx (Jun 24, 2010)

elinks, great quick browser. ^_^
All kidding aside, Firefox first with Midori in second for me. Konqueror used to be second, but then KDE4 came out and it went to crap.


Still, elinks is a good browser for reading quick and simple things, like walkthroughs.


----------



## Pliio8 (Jun 24, 2010)

I used IE8, and it was nice, but it didn't have all the customization I wanted.
Then I went to Opera, which I didn't like.
Then I moved to Firefox, which was a bigger resource whore on my computer than IE8 was
And now I've stuck with Chrome.


----------



## Runefox (Jun 24, 2010)

Riv said:


> Yes. HTML 2.0. I'm kind of exaggerating, but I wouldn't be surprised if IE8 has problems with rendering that code correctly. But Apple has been with Webkit since the early 2000's, and google just started a few years ago. You can't deny that the Webkit project has been improved by Apple's involvement.



HTML wasn't very standardized at all until HTML4.0 rolled along (with Microsoft and Netscape more or less dominating the field and creating their own de facto standards for most of the period between HTML2 and HTML4.01). I'd hazard to guess that HTML 2.0 doesn't have very good support in any modern browser because of that, and because of the fact that it was designed over 15 years ago and was in fact declared obsolete as of June 2000. Contrary to what might be seen as a revisionist approach, versions of HTML are typically wildly different from one another, and markup that passes in one given version likely will not pass in another.

IE8's standards compliance is by and large fairly decent from a web developer's perspective. It's not as good as it could be, but in my experience, it renders similarly to Safari, Opera, Chrome and Firefox, which is an incredibly welcome change from the promised support of IE7 and the horribly fractured support of IE6. Its major failures in my eyes are security (though by far excellent compared to IE6) and speed (responsiveness is terribly poor). IE9's test platform preview shows that there is a major focus on continuing to bring IE in line with standards compliance, and it's also bringing hardware acceleration to Windows, as well (which was rolled out on Safari for Mac with Safari 5, not sure about PC; Option is there, but it doesn't seem to really do anything).

As for Webkit, you seem to misunderstand its origins and what it is. When Apple designed Safari, they decided to fork a browser engine called KHTML and modify it (adding contributions back), eventually calling their own fork Webkit; It's erroneous to say that Apple designed or created Webkit in a general sense. Other browsers are free to make use of the code behind Webkit just as they are for KHTML or Gecko (Firefox), and Google and the Chromium developers happen to be contributors to the Webkit codebase in the same way Apple is. Strictly speaking, Apple kicked off the Webkit project, but the code was not and is not entirely developed by them. To say that Chrome is riding on Apple's coattails is doing a disservice to the Google and Chromium developers who contribute to Webkit, and also to the KHTML developers who worked on and work on the codebase that Webkit derives from.

Furthermore, to that same extent, you can't truly deny that Google's influence on Webkit (and the browser world in general) has been anything but beneficial, either, with the newest revision of Webkit on the horizon (and Firefox today) to support things like out of process plugins natively, which was something that was first done in the mainstream by Chrome.


----------



## SnowFox (Jun 24, 2010)

Firefox for general internet browsing, because I can't live without noscript, adblock plus and especially firebug.

I've had to resort to using opera pretty much exclusively for this forum because firefox becomes unusable for me because it completely locks up the entire interface while loading tabs and doesn't let me do anything until the tab has finished loading. I'm wondering if this is just me or does anyone else get this too?

It's infuriating.


----------



## Runefox (Jun 24, 2010)

SnowFox said:


> I've had to resort to using opera pretty much exclusively for this forum because firefox becomes unusable for me because it completely locks up the entire interface while loading tabs and doesn't let me do anything until the tab has finished loading. I'm wondering if this is just me or does anyone else get this too?


Yeah, I get that with Firefox, and it's especially bad for sites with a lot of objects to load (especially Javascript). It's one of the major reasons why I switched to Chrome - Along with having an agreeable interface, its design means that this sort of thing doesn't become a problem for it - New tabs open as new processes, leaving the general UI and other tabs and windows responsive and free to do anything else. Hopefully Firefox 4 will address that, but I'm not terribly sure that's on the menu. They did mention something about trying to improve responsiveness a while back, so here's hoping.


----------



## Ames (Jun 24, 2010)

I use firefox and chrome at the same time. :V


----------



## LycanBlade (Jun 24, 2010)

chrome ftw!!!


----------



## Riv (Jun 24, 2010)

Runefox said:


> *Something that was too long so I didn't read it.* (just kidding)


 
Again, the HTML2 thing was an exaggeration, not meant to be taken (completely) serious. More of a weak jab at Microsoft than anything else. I can see you're well educated in this topic, as well as eloquent and outspoken. But it does read as though you have a bias in favor of Chrome. I am aware of Webkit's history, code base, derivative works, and other points of interest. I just think that Apple has put more work into making the KHTML engine into a modern powerhouse than any other group has, barring the KDE project members. Plugins are nice, but they don't compare to inbuilt, native, functionality.


----------



## SnowFox (Jun 24, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Yeah, I get that with Firefox, and it's especially bad for sites with a lot of objects to load (especially Javascript). It's one of the major reasons why I switched to Chrome - Along with having an agreeable interface, its design means that this sort of thing doesn't become a problem for it - New tabs open as new processes, leaving the general UI and other tabs and windows responsive and free to do anything else. Hopefully Firefox 4 will address that, but I'm not terribly sure that's on the menu. They did mention something about trying to improve responsiveness a while back, so here's hoping.


 
Yeah I was hoping they'd maybe have tabs in separate processes in future versions. I haven't tried the forum in firefox since the upgrade, it might be a bit better since it looks like they've tidied up the source code a lot over the old version which seemed to be over 50% css for every page load.

I tried out Iron for a while before settling on opera, but I just didn't really like the layout and the lack of customizable options.


----------



## Runefox (Jun 24, 2010)

Riv said:


> But it does read as though you have a bias in favor of Chrome.


It's my preferred browser right now, but that isn't to say that it can't change. However, because of the recent changes to Safari's general interface and direction, it gives the impression that Apple may be playing catch-up with some of what Google has been doing. I find that overall I have fewer complaints than praise for Chrome, and that isn't something I can say for most other browsers. Even though I seem to be harping on Safari, I try to keep an open mind about it, but at the same time, I feel like a lot of the time, Chrome gets undue harshness. The differences between them are very insubstantial in most areas, one of the only major differences being that Chrome/Chromium (the open source project upon which Chrome is based) is also available for Linux as well as Mac OS X and Windows, which makes it a fair bit more versatile in my eyes. Everyone's preferences will always differ, but the major thing that I try to pick on is undue bias. That having been said, I assume you're a Mac user? I have no idea what the performance of Chrome is like on Mac OS X, but for me, it rarely ever crashes, and I'm using the Dev branch.



> Plugins are nice, but they don't compare to inbuilt, native, functionality.


I don't know about that. When Firefox was Phoenix and Firebird, its native functionality was limited, and only through (I believe then-experimental or unsupported) extensions were its abilities expanded. As time drew on, more and more of the functionality that was commonly found through extensions was tacked on as major native features, and we have today a rather bloated mess of a browser where once it was what was light, sleek and efficient, driving the dead-in-the-water browser market back into a war. It certainly doesn't have to end up the same as what's happened to Firefox, but in the end, more complexity generally equals more bulk.


----------



## Hyena (Jun 24, 2010)

I mainly use Opera but I do keep Firefox and IE 8 around as well. I've really enjoyed opera. I've only got a 3 button mouse to the mouse gestures in opera have been really awesome to use. I've run into a lot of flash incompability though, will eventually cease using opera and go to firefox... if I can get firefox to work properly. 

With firefox often times if I leave a flash video paused for a long duration (hours) it will bluescreen the computer randomly after a few hours. kinda irritating. But I'm just going to reinstall firefox as well as flash and see if that fixes it. will still keep opera around because I think for non-web related things opera is really awesome. I like how it handles .swf flash files and stuff like that as opposed to firefox.

 Internet explorer is great because it doesn't distract me. It's really simple and utilitarian and I usually do all my work related tasks on IE since there aren't any bookmarks and things that are related to play like FA and stuff. It also seems to work well enough, the new one has some cool features. 

Can't stand chrome or safari though. Chrome crashed too many times on me to really want to use it much anymore.


----------



## Rockerkitsune (Jun 24, 2010)

Firefox,because it has stuff like Ad Blocker.


----------



## gdzeek (Jun 24, 2010)

found my handy chart, My browser is sexier than yours... it has a shark fin and personal snowplow!


----------



## LollipopInMyHair (Jun 25, 2010)

Whatever happens to be on my computer (IE8 ), I'm not picky when it comes to browsing the web. I've had thoughts about switching to Chrome, but haven't got around to it.


----------



## Citrakayah (Jun 25, 2010)

Used to use Firefox, but I updated, and anytime I would open it, it would freeze my computer. So I'm going to say Chrome is my fave.


----------



## Ookami221 (Jun 25, 2010)

what have i done!?!... frogot maxthon ._. but... no one likes it... HA HA


----------



## Hendikins (Jun 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> support things like out of process plugins  natively, which was something that was first done in the mainstream by  Chrome.


 
Point of order. This was available as a side effect of nspluginwrapper long before Chrome did it, and has been a standard feature on Linux distributions (on x86_64 at least) for quite some time. You can argue about whether Linux itself can be considered mainstream,  but it is certainly a mainstream feature for that particular platform. Not strictly native (it isn't part of the Mozilla codebase), but it it is shipped as a single unit.

I call it a side effect because you can't run code built for a different architecture without the wrapper, the ability to kill the plugin separately to the browser is simply a bonus. I'm not aware of earlier Win32 implementations off hand, however. nspluginwrapper doesn't provide any UI for it either.



Riv said:


> Yes. HTML 2.0. I'm kind of exaggerating, but I wouldn't be surprised if IE8 has problems with rendering that code correctly.


 
Your credibility is approaching zero. Quit while you're ahead.



Runefox said:


> Yeah, I get that with Firefox, and it's especially bad for sites with a lot of objects to load (especially Javascript). It's one of the major reasons why I switched to Chrome - Along with having an agreeable interface, its design means that this sort of thing doesn't become a problem for it - New tabs open as new processes, leaving the general UI and other tabs and windows responsive and free to do anything else.


 
It also doesn't help that Gecko is rendering the UI itself, which is basically XML, Javascript and images. Having a separate thread for that would do wonders.



Riv said:


> I can see you're well educated in this topic, as well  as eloquent and outspoken. But it does read as though you have a bias  in favor of Chrome.


 
We all have our inherent biases, but I don't see that user saying anything that is too far off the mark. I'm not a KHTML/Webkit user but I still agree with them for the most part.

-- Somebody who started using SeaMonkey at Milestone 8.5, and still does.


----------



## Oovie (Jun 26, 2010)

Syradact said:


> Firefox. Reasons why are in this thread.


 "Because it's mascot is a cute fox!" I'm bewildered 47 people voted just because of that.


----------



## Syradact (Jun 27, 2010)

Oovie said:


> "Because it's mascot is a cute fox!" I'm bewildered 47 people voted just because of that.


 I bet they were being facetious. This is FAF.

The other night I decided to give Opera another go, this time on my Mac. I think the previous version I used was 8.6 or something, now they have 10.54. I customized it to my liking, added Fanboy's urlfilter.ini to kill advertisements, imported my bookmarks, etc. For a while it was alright, nothing special to use. The program actually took some time to start up, slower than Firefox (wtf?). Webpages were a bit slower to load; I found myself looking at a white page for X number of seconds while "Loading Objects 16/16" would count up to something like 58/58 in the address bar, the page finally loading when that was finished.

Unlike Firefox, I couldn't hold down my scroll-wheel button to scroll webpages; I was forced to spin the wheel (of fortune). It also seemed a bit bloated, with /disabled/ toolbars running along the bottom for things like Opera Unite, Turbo, something to do with Links, none of which I would ever use. I had to right click hide them. Then there was the final straw: FA's banner was missing, likely blocked by Fanboy's .ini file that was a poor substitute for Adblock Plus. There was no easy way to make it reappear, so I removed Opera from my system.

It's so strange they have decided to claim Opera is "The fastest browser on Earth" because I find Firefox significantly faster starting up and loading pages. Once again, there is no reason for me to switch from something that already works well.

EDIT: However, I was happy to find Opera as a downloadable browser for my iPod Touch, and it kicks Safari's ass in usability. Highly recommended for that platform. Go to m.opera.com to easily navigate to its download in the App Store.


----------



## Eric (Jul 4, 2010)

Firefox. It's fast and anonymous. Oh, and there are lots of plugins and stuff.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 4, 2010)

I'm thinking that the purpose of this thread is so we can know who is retarded by looking at who voted for IE8.


----------



## Willow (Jul 4, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> I'm thinking that the purpose of this thread is so we can know who is retarded by looking at who voted for IE8.


 Point and laugh everyone


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jul 4, 2010)

Internet Explorer 8.  c:


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jul 4, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> I'm thinking that the purpose of this thread is so we can know who is retarded by looking at who voted for IE8.


 


WillowWulf said:


> Point and laugh everyone


 
'sup, fags?


----------



## Willow (Jul 4, 2010)

I haven't even set up IE8 on my computer and I don't really want to 

I wish my school would switch to using Firefox


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 4, 2010)

WillowWulf said:


> I wish my school would switch to using Firefox


 I saved firefox on all of my school's computers that I used and set it as default browser :3c


----------



## Willow (Jul 4, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> I saved firefox on all of my school's computers that I used and set it as default browser :3c


 They probably wouldn't let us do that at my school :c


----------



## SnowFox (Jul 4, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> I saved firefox on all of my school's computers that I used and set it as default browser :3c


 
You can get portable versions that you can run from a USB disk, that way your furry porn history doesn't get left behind


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 4, 2010)

SnowFox said:


> You can get portable versions that you can run from a USB disk, that way your furry porn history doesn't get left behind


 That's cool but I never looked at porn in school.


----------



## Aden (Jul 4, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> That's cool but I never looked at porn in school.


 
k bro


----------



## SnowFox (Jul 4, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> That's cool but I never looked at porn in school.


 
Well you could look at it at home, then bring it to school with you.

Show your classmates, I bet they'll be impressed. If not, just piss in a bucket and leave it under the desk.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 4, 2010)

But I'm in college now. If I wanted to do that, I'd just bring my laptop.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 4, 2010)

Eric said:


> Firefox. It's fast and *anonymous*. Oh, and there are lots of plugins and stuff.


 
A-wha? How is Firefox anonymous?


----------



## AlpineLupine (Jul 5, 2010)

Runefox said:


> A-wha? How is Firefox anonymous?


 
Well, technically they're all anonymous if you turn private browsing on.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 5, 2010)

AlpineLupine said:


> Well, technically they're all anonymous if you turn private browsing on.


 
I wouldn't call it "anonymous", more like "there's no caching on the hard drive and cookies are disabled so _tracking_ is difficult". It's not like everything is encrypted, and even then it wouldn't be anonymous.


----------



## Pine (Jul 5, 2010)

I use Chrome because I love the extensions and the custom themes. Marc Ecko ftw


----------



## Eric (Jul 5, 2010)

Runefox said:


> A-wha? How is Firefox anonymous?



By anonymous, I mean that people that access my computer at home don't see which pages I've been on(Internet Explorer keeps your stuff in so many ways, it's hard to delete it all). Of course all internet-activity is protocolled somewhere, but that's not what I meant. Yeah, so "anonymous" may be the wrong term, but you see what I mean. ^^


----------



## anthroguy101 (Jul 7, 2010)

I'm currently testing the beta for Firefox 4.


----------



## CatWaffles (Jul 9, 2010)

I've been using firefox all my life.


----------



## auzbuzzard (Jul 9, 2010)

I love safari, but the recent safari 5 is getting worse. I freezes up a lot.

And the reader thing just don't make sense. It's supposed to make reading blogs easier as if you're reading PDFs, but I don't think YouTube pages need that.

Chrome is very compact in my point of view, and it's the only browser I can instantly install in my school's computer (which uses IE6 til' now) and no one notices it.

I don't like firefox that much, kinda fact little hate it, it's not that fast, it launches quite slow, and I think my customization has destroyed it. Plus Firefox for mac looks insanely ugly.


----------



## cataloof (Jul 11, 2010)

theyyy all the same man who cares cmon man ff if you neeed plugins, otherrwise its all the samme


althou if you're a furrrry then why arent you using firefox i mean cmon what,, are you doing you frontin'' too hard. IF you dont use firefox you fail as a furry, a good friennd of mine once said


----------



## Fenrari (Jul 11, 2010)

I use both Firefox and Chrome... Because they're separate programs with separate settings, I can be logged into multiple facebook/email accounts originating from the same website.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Jul 11, 2010)

Fire Fox for me.
Tried chrome. It was good as well.

IE I had so much problems with.


----------



## Armaetus (Jul 11, 2010)

Chrome, formerly Firefox..because it's faster to load up (3-5s vs 15-20s)

The poor saps who voted IE8 were: Dan, DragonLover17, Evandenoob, LollipopInMyHair and Shark_the_raptor


----------



## SnowFox (Jul 11, 2010)

Well I gave up firefox a few months back because of it being unusable while tabs were loading, I moved to opera which worked well enough even though it's difficult living without some of the addons.

After a lot of crashes while trying to close tabs that contained dodgy flash (or something) I made the mistake of updating to opera 10.6 and now it's horrible and sluggish while scrolling.

Why does every browser have to turn to shit? :x

It's still usable, but I'm looking to change again. Does anyone have any suggestions? I'm trying out midori, but I don't know how to make custom stylesheets site specific, and I can't work out if there's a way to have a whitelist for cookies.


----------



## Obsidian Eternus (Jul 14, 2010)

My preferred browser is elinks (especially with the svgalib module enabled) but I've been known to use Firefox, K-Meleon, Netscape, Kazehakase, Chimera, lynx, IE, and when I've felt adventurous, I've used nc as a web browser


----------



## Runefox (Jul 14, 2010)

elinks+svgalib is surprisingly fun to use, but I couldn't use it as an everyday browser, personally. That's getting a little too close to RMS territory.



			
				ThyWikipediaShire said:
			
		

> For personal reasons, he does not actively browse the web from his computer; rather, he uses wget and reads the fetched pages from his e-mail mailbox.


----------



## auzbuzzard (Jul 15, 2010)

C'mon? Is safari that bad? At least it let's you download *ANYTHING* with activity window.



Yeah I know what you think, you're gonna download pr0n with it.


----------



## Riv (Jul 15, 2010)

auzbuzzard said:


> C'mon? Is safari that bad? At least it let's you download *ANYTHING* with activity window.


 
Oh, yeah, I can't believe I forgot to mention that. I use it, like, almost every day!


----------



## Ikrit (Jul 15, 2010)

chrome

firefox had problems downloadng crap for me and it's slow compared to chrome


----------



## Jaden (Jul 15, 2010)

safari works great for me


----------



## benanderson (Jul 16, 2010)

Chrome by a country mile. Though I wish I could find a blue theme for the mac version, there is only so much silver a man can take! XD


----------



## Runefox (Jul 16, 2010)

benanderson said:


> Chrome by a country mile. Though I wish I could find a blue theme for the mac version, there is only so much silver a man can take! XD


 
This might whet your appetite.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 16, 2010)

EDIT: Whoa, double-post. What happened there?


----------



## SnowFox (Jul 16, 2010)

Runefox said:


> EDIT: Whoa, double-post. What happened there?


 
I'm noticing the forums are very slow today, that usually ends up causing double posts after it takes about 15-20 seconds to submit


----------



## benanderson (Jul 16, 2010)

Runefox said:


> This might whet your appetite.


 
My Trousers have tightened in joy!


----------



## 8-bit (Jul 16, 2010)

Firefox. Just cause.


----------

