Downgrade? Don't be a fucking faggotFinray wrote:
Yes but now Firefox has it so there's no reason to downgrade for one feature..Sup wrote:
Chrome had this first
Poll
What's the best internet browser?
| Opera | 12% | 12% - 15 | ||||
| Safari | 0% | 0% - 1 | ||||
| Mozilla Firefox | 79% | 79% - 95 | ||||
| Internet Explorer | 7% | 7% - 9 | ||||
| Total: 120 | ||||||
Bahaha I knew that'd get you started..Sup wrote:
Downgrade? Don't be a fucking faggotFinray wrote:
Yes but now Firefox has it so there's no reason to downgrade for one feature..Sup wrote:
Chrome had this first
You can't wait to piss me off you little adolescent twatFinray wrote:
Bahaha I knew that'd get you started..Sup wrote:
Downgrade? Don't be a fucking faggotFinray wrote:
Yes but now Firefox has it so there's no reason to downgrade for one feature.
Sup is so full of anger.
Yeah what's with you today
This thread is like asking what the best car brand is.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
What is this retarded obsession with Chrome?
It IS the worst browser out there. Worse even than IE. It's really, really bad. No one should use it ever. More bugs than you can shake a stick at. It breaks stuff with alarming frequency and it's not even fast like Safari.
FF is the most adaptable, intuitive and stable browser around. It's not the fastest, but the feature set and the fact that it does just work for things that other browsers somtimes fall over on makes it the best by miles.
FF>Opera>Safari>>IE>>>>>>>>Chrome
It IS the worst browser out there. Worse even than IE. It's really, really bad. No one should use it ever. More bugs than you can shake a stick at. It breaks stuff with alarming frequency and it's not even fast like Safari.
FF is the most adaptable, intuitive and stable browser around. It's not the fastest, but the feature set and the fact that it does just work for things that other browsers somtimes fall over on makes it the best by miles.
FF>Opera>Safari>>IE>>>>>>>>Chrome
Now, that's a bit overly harsh. I've tried Chrome a little while ago, and it's not all that bad. It was worse than IE when it was new, but as of now, it's decent. I wouldn't use it over Firefox, but I'd use it over IE.Bertster7 wrote:
What is this retarded obsession with Chrome?
It IS the worst browser out there. Worse even than IE. It's really, really bad. No one should use it ever. More bugs than you can shake a stick at. It breaks stuff with alarming frequency and it's not even fast like Safari.
FF is the most adaptable, intuitive and stable browser around. It's not the fastest, but the feature set and the fact that it does just work for things that other browsers somtimes fall over on makes it the best by miles.
FF>Opera>Safari>>IE>>>>>>>>Chrome
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
It's a matter of preference. I use both Opera and FF. I will use Opera for main browsing and FF for developing (mainly because Dragonfly isn't finished yet) but there is not best browser. Up to you to decide what you prefer using.
IS THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST.Cheez wrote:
Dave Grohl.
As far as speed.
Take it with a grain of salt.. but according to Futuremark it is "the average results from thousands of users".
Take it with a grain of salt.. but according to Futuremark it is "the average results from thousands of users".
Yea this.Well that depends on how you define best? We can’t tell you which browser has the best features for example. Most of the internet would disagree with us on principle, so we’re not even going to try. You should though. You should try all the browsers. They all have something unique and interesting to offer that could enhance your web experience.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Why does Chrome suck so badly with AMD?Kmarion wrote:
As far as speed.
http://i38.tinypic.com/a27ofl.jpg
Take it with a grain of salt.. but according to Futuremark it is "the average results from thousands of users".Yea this.Well that depends on how you define best? We can’t tell you which browser has the best features for example. Most of the internet would disagree with us on principle, so we’re not even going to try. You should though. You should try all the browsers. They all have something unique and interesting to offer that could enhance your web experience.
You're looking at the beta version of chrome result? It probably hasn't yet been optimised for AMD.some_random_panda wrote:
Why does Chrome suck so badly with AMD?
I don't really agree with those Benchmarks. I consistently get just as fast, if not faster results on Opera in comparison to FF. Now, Safari is faster, granted, but not that much faster and it's only faster with certain things. That benchmark is flawed.
To be honest, it's a bit of a pain that there is more than one browser on the internet. It means each browser has different rendering capabilities, speeds and fanboys. It would make the world a lot easier if there was one global one, supporting the necessary rendering capabilities for modern websites and the sort. It's just stupid having, for exampe, FF3.5 running with parts of CSS3 like "border-radius" and "column-width" but not with "text-shadow" or other properties. Either integrate CSS3 entirely or leave it out until you actually have everything ready. Developers are all desperate to use @font-face and border radius and shit, but the ignorance of the programmers behind the web browsers makes them think twice before using it because not every browser supports it, and not every browser supports it in the same way. It's fucking ridiculous. And then other browsers decide to add their own specific css3 extension like -moz- and -webkit- which just makes everything even more annoying, plus making your CSS3 validation completely and utterly useless.
If IE8 was to rule them all and no other browser was allowed to exist, I would be happier than I am now. It's a competition to show who has the biggest browsing penis, and it's causing a hell of a lot of problems on the internet. Any developer who only develops from one browser is wrong, and any developer who tries to develop for every browser has a hellish time. They should all join forces and create an ultimate browser.
To be honest, it's a bit of a pain that there is more than one browser on the internet. It means each browser has different rendering capabilities, speeds and fanboys. It would make the world a lot easier if there was one global one, supporting the necessary rendering capabilities for modern websites and the sort. It's just stupid having, for exampe, FF3.5 running with parts of CSS3 like "border-radius" and "column-width" but not with "text-shadow" or other properties. Either integrate CSS3 entirely or leave it out until you actually have everything ready. Developers are all desperate to use @font-face and border radius and shit, but the ignorance of the programmers behind the web browsers makes them think twice before using it because not every browser supports it, and not every browser supports it in the same way. It's fucking ridiculous. And then other browsers decide to add their own specific css3 extension like -moz- and -webkit- which just makes everything even more annoying, plus making your CSS3 validation completely and utterly useless.
If IE8 was to rule them all and no other browser was allowed to exist, I would be happier than I am now. It's a competition to show who has the biggest browsing penis, and it's causing a hell of a lot of problems on the internet. Any developer who only develops from one browser is wrong, and any developer who tries to develop for every browser has a hellish time. They should all join forces and create an ultimate browser.
Zimmer without competition we would be paying to use a browser. Competition is always welcomed.
I would rather pay for a browser that complies with all standards and displays every website exactly how it's meant to unless it's poorly coded, rather than have several free browsers, all displaying different things on the website in different ways. I couldn't give a shit about the competition. The internet is meant to be accessible to everyone, and currently, with all the different browser capabilities. It isn't. I want to stab every developer who states on their site "this site is best viewed with FF or IE". It's fucking ridiculous. Plus, there are too many corporate sites (most of them banking sites, online banking and the sort) that are only supported by IE. It's just getting stupid. With sites looking disgusting in IE because they don't support CSS3 and the sort. I know for a fact that Lotus Notes does not work on Opera or FF (well, the versions used in several companies - HP, IBM etc ) and that just causes major problems..Sup wrote:
Zimmer without competition we would be paying to use a browser. Competition is always welcomed.
I would gladly pay for a browser that supports everything as it's meant to be supported.
If there was a browser that we had to pay for, the chances are it would be the best available, I suppose.
And therefore everyone would just download it without paying.
And therefore everyone would just download it without paying.
But you know Microsoft doesn't like competition and maybe the only existing browser IE wouldn't support Google Earth or other programs and sites. There would be nothing to do about it because its the only available browser. They would be the ones to decide what software and web sites will "live" and which won't. Microsoft would have monopoly over everything. And that's never good.
Think about it, its the same as having only one OS available - Windows
Think about it, its the same as having only one OS available - Windows
Last edited by .Sup (2009-09-21 03:27:49)
You don't seem to get it. If there was only ONE BROWSER, everything would work with it. There would be nothing else to make it work with, so therefore everything would be automatically compatible with said browser. The whole idea of support wouldn't exist..Sup wrote:
But you know Microsoft doesn't like competition and maybe the only existing browser IE wouldn't support Google Earth or other programs and sites. There would be nothing to do about it because its the only available browser. They would be the ones to decide what software and web sites will "live" and which won't. Microsoft would have monopoly over everything. And that's never good.
Think about it, its the same as having only one OS available - Windows
Also, liq, it would be very hard to pirate a browser like that when you're always connected to the internet and you actually want to update it to new builds. It's different when it's a game or an Anti Virus program, this you want to keep up to date at all times and finding a way around that is hard.
No, Microsoft would get to pick what they will support.Zimmer wrote:
You don't seem to get it. If there was only ONE BROWSER, everything would work with it. There would be nothing else to make it work with, so therefore everything would be automatically compatible with said browser. The whole idea of support wouldn't exist..Sup wrote:
But you know Microsoft doesn't like competition and maybe the only existing browser IE wouldn't support Google Earth or other programs and sites. There would be nothing to do about it because its the only available browser. They would be the ones to decide what software and web sites will "live" and which won't. Microsoft would have monopoly over everything. And that's never good.
Think about it, its the same as having only one OS available - Windows
Jesus fucking christ. That isn't how it works. They don't choose, it's the developer that chooses. MS release a browser with a certain rendering engine, and the developers would develop for that. Just like developer right now for Lotus Notes, still don't know how to apply it to FF, or developer that make HTML5 sites now or are developing them, will only be supported by FF. It's the developers choice, not the browsers. If it is the browser deciding, then the developer doesn't know shit..Sup wrote:
No, Microsoft would get to pick what they will support.Zimmer wrote:
You don't seem to get it. If there was only ONE BROWSER, everything would work with it. There would be nothing else to make it work with, so therefore everything would be automatically compatible with said browser. The whole idea of support wouldn't exist..Sup wrote:
But you know Microsoft doesn't like competition and maybe the only existing browser IE wouldn't support Google Earth or other programs and sites. There would be nothing to do about it because its the only available browser. They would be the ones to decide what software and web sites will "live" and which won't. Microsoft would have monopoly over everything. And that's never good.
Think about it, its the same as having only one OS available - Windows
MS can't pick and choose, nor would they want to, they would lose out massively. If they had a browser that was the only one in existence, they would make sure it supported everything that got created. They know how much more important that would be than some stupid Google vs. MS, because MS would have already won by owning the rights to the only browser in use.
@Zimmer, at least this chaos keeps us in work
Don't they?Zimmer wrote:
Jesus fucking christ. That isn't how it works. They don't choose, it's the developer that chooses..Sup wrote:
No, Microsoft would get to pick what they will support.Zimmer wrote:
You don't seem to get it. If there was only ONE BROWSER, everything would work with it. There would be nothing else to make it work with, so therefore everything would be automatically compatible with said browser. The whole idea of support wouldn't exist.
What's the Apple app store if not a shining example that, with a monopoly on a sector of the market, companies do exactly that.
You mean like Apple Vs. Google? With the big falling out they've had over Apple refusing to approve their VOIP app on the app store...Zimmer wrote:
MS can't pick and choose, nor would they want to, they would lose out massively. If they had a browser that was the only one in existence, they would make sure it supported everything that got created. They know how much more important that would be than some stupid Google vs. MS, because MS would have already won by owning the rights to the only browser in use.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-09-21 11:57:29)