| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (62)

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 8:10PM Firix said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Internet Explorer is misunderstood.

Most people who have security problems are usually using an older version (such as IE6) which does have security problems (it is quite old now, using an older version of Safari you would likely have similar problems).

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 8:21PM enamelizer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Chrome 98% of the time, then I find something I need another browser for (normally IT mandated) and I go "awwwweeee".

I also use Opera Mobile on WM6.5, and now PIE on WP7 which is actually not bad at all.

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 8:22PM Wensbane said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I started using Opera a while ago, to check the "Speed Dial" and "Smooth Scrolling" options, and immediately fell in-love with it. "Tab Stacking" is pretty much mandatory for me now.

It's true that Chrome can synchronize your browser data between computers/mobile phones, but so can Opera, with Opera Link.

It really is a smooth, safe, and highly functional browser. I don't see myself using anything else for a while.

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 9:56AM Aardvarkk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Wensbane

I am the same, I use Opera religiously. (Except for there rare time a page doesn't load, then I switch to Chrome.) Excellent browser, plus you can move the tabs to the left or right of the window.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 8:24PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I see you have the Netscape icon in there. You probably googled that pic. AFAIK, Netscape is no longer in full-scale development and relies on the kindness of strangers.

IE: I don't think it was misunderstood, as per above comment. For a long time, they never admitted or knew about security issues then a news story popped and admitted they had'em (I think with version 7). I abandoned IE after that for good (but I got it on my system, for games/sites that don't work with Firefox). If they didn't know about these security loopholes then...

...anyway, everyone should know Microsoft is the "evil empire", right?

Opera : I am curious about this, too.

Chrome : I know many don't seem to mind, but I am wearing my tin-hat and not liking that Google collects my info. Maybe one day I'll try it. But, there are lots of fans. They must be doing something right. I'd recommend it, besides my better judgement.

Firefox: Still use it, even though it's the new #2 target of hackers, in more percentage points. I really can't complain too much about it. Maybe I like starting my car up like a Model T and hand-cranking it, but Firefox doesn't seem that bad.

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 8:25PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 10:09PM Firix said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

IE: I don't think it was misunderstood, as per above comment. For a long time, they never admitted or knew about security issues then a news story popped and admitted they had'em (I think with version 7). I abandoned IE after that for good (but I got it on my system, for games/sites that don't work with Firefox). If they didn't know about these security loopholes then...

It was version 6 (i remember the news stories too). At the time, IE8 was out. People complain about security loopholes in outdated software.

Would you run an outdated Virus Scan/firewall?
Reply

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 1:52PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Firix

Yeah, but what's the assurance IE doesn't have any NOW and don't know about them or are ignoring them?

Maybe I am a bit tin-foil-wearing-hat here, but any negative about the "evil empire" tends to resonate with me. And really, if they did this in the past, they could do it in the future (now).
Reply

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 1:54PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

I could even add, that that was the straw that broke my particular camel's back. IE is still obnoxious in many, underhanded ways.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 9:08PM Slayblaze said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Tried Chrome in its first few incarnations real early on and although I like it just fine, ended up continuing to use Firefox for the extensions and the incredible degree of customization that can be done to it. I know Chrome is a lot better and further along in its lifespan than when I first tried it, but then again so is FF so I still use it. The currently released FF4 makes some noticeable improvements so I'll be staying with Firefox for the foreseeable future.

I don't like Opera - but no real reason other than it is just outclassed and outgunned by the others, even moreso with the IE9 release which is surprisingly awesome actually. In fact right now I would almost choose IE9 over Chrome if forced to choose. Almost...

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 9:33PM Beau Hindman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thanks guys! Yeh, I stopped at these major browsers because I wanted to recommend the easiest ones to find. There are some different ones for mobile, too, but one of the costs for example.

It's good to hear different opinions on it! Thanks!

Beau
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 9:40PM GryphonStalker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm a Google fan girl but I just love my Firefox, like Slayblaze I checked out Chrome very early in it's life but fell back to Firefox pretty quickly. I'm happy with where FF4 is going and really how can I interweb without my theme? I can't!, I just can't! (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/red-cats-blue-flavor/) :)

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 9:44PM DLemke said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
If you want to lose friends, talk about religion or politics, bring up divisive issues, which, although I’d like to name some, I can’t even do, because even bringing one up , let alone taking a side, will make people go nuts…. Understanding that is 101 in keeping guilds and forums remotely civil.

Still, I’ll bring up the politics because you brought up browser choice and you like Chrome so much.

If you understand Google and Verizon’s actions against net neutrality, if you understood the issues, you wouldn’t use Chrome. There I said it.

Bottom line for the layman on net neutrality…

If you mail a package by UPS, USPS, FedEx, DHL, etc… they care how fast you want it to go and how much it weighs. Sure, there are exceptions, but that’s usually how it works. That’s how it should be.

If the same applied to the internet, carriers would charge you for speed and bandwidth, NOT discriminate according to the contents of your data.

Carriers like Verizon, in cooperation with Google and others, also notably Comcast, very much want to charge both providers and carriers specifically based on content, rather than fairly by speed and bandwidth.

If you charge people specifically based on content, rather than speed and bandwdith, you crush independents, and you create all sorts of extra feels, tolls, roadblocks for everyone. That’s it in a nutshell.

You support Google and Chrome, you support political lobbying which reduces choice and freedom on the internet for customers. Kudos to Google and Verizon and all the information companies for all the wonderful things they’ve done, I mean that non-sarcastically, because they have provided some wonderful services, but… but their stance on internet neutrality in the U.S. is awful. Vote with your dollars and at the polls and in communication with your representatives and these companies imo.

That’s with respect to Google’s Chrome, don’t even get me started on Microsoft.

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 9:48PM Beau Hindman said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@DLemke I'll still stay with Chrome, because it works. Internet providers can charge me whatever they want, it's a luxury service. I can always go somewhere else or just buck up and pay the price! :)

Beau
Reply

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 11:48AM fagdroidlol said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman

lol.
Reply

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 1:46PM Ohhlaawd said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman

Hard to go somewhere else when a service provider holds a de facto monopoly in your area.

Also, your own website has reported on providers throttling back on known bandwith hogs like WoW. You can't just "pay the price" because throttling isn't the same as capping.
Reply

Posted: Apr 3rd 2011 6:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman Hands down that has to be the most ignorant statement I've read on this entire site.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 9:47PM DLemke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Corrections...


carriers, middle men, unlike postal services, want to charge both end users as well as content providers for specific content, rather than weight (bandwidth)

creating many fees (not feels).. road blocks, tolls, etc...

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 10:57PM Slayblaze said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This little video helps explain what DLemke is saying, for those who haven't seen it. Pretty scary really, and if *either* side ever gains control - the government OR the telco's - then we're all screwed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zASHI9qdB0U

I'm not sure that boycotting Google or Verizon is the answer though, or that it would make much difference either way, but who knows?
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 10:28PM DLemke said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
If I didn’t explain that well, let me put it another way…

If ISPs like Comcast and Verizon charge you for total bandwidth or speed only, then… anybody and everybody, both YOU the end user, the customer, and those companies that produce the ‘content’ for you, whether the ‘content’ be applications or entertainment or communications or whatever, have a lot of freedom and choices. That’s how things usually work with postal services. Postal services charge by weight and speed, and keep their noses out of your ‘content’ if you package it.

Google, which makes Chrome, in cooperation with ISPs like Verizon and Comcast, have successfully lobbied, and still lobby heavily, in Washington to erode that ‘net neutrality’ in the U.S. They want more money, more control, by charging the customers and the content producers specifically with special tolls, fees, conditions etc.

The HUGE problem with that is,… if IPSs are in the business of selling customers bandwidth and speed… then great, we can hope our money goes to improving bandwidth and speed delivery.

BUT, when IPS like Verizon and Comcast, in cooperation with large internet players like Google, start messing with charging different fees for different content, different fees for different bytes of bandwidth, that changes the whole game.

Freedom and independence on the internet are curtailed because these middle men promote some content by lower fees, crush other content with higher fees, totally aside from bandwidth and speed. As in… one company competes with Comcast’s NBC programming, BAM, higher fee, while another company is partnered with Comcast’s NBC, BAM, lower fee, FOR THE SAME BANDWIDTH.

Ok… specifically to Beua… Up to you man, but imo, the internet isn’t a luxury, it’s a huge part of our lives now and it’ll become more so in the future. I’m happy to pay ISPs for the bandwidth, I have no problem with that at all. I’ll pay for my traffic through the pipes. Imo we’re all screwing ourselves if we stand by while that traffic gets manipulated, instead of leaving it free for all traffic.

With postal services and with roads, it’s nice. Almost anyone and everything can move around as long as it’s legal. With the internet, imo, it’s an insidious problem when some traffic gets slowed, some traffic promoted, by middle men manipulating those pipes. Bad Google, bad Chrome.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW