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

Reader Comments (62)

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 11:26PM Beau Hindman said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@DLemke I appreciate your explanation, but I know too well about the issue. In the end, I will bet that any ISP will do the same thing. I will simply pick the best product and hope that it all doesn't end too poorly.

We're all using the pipes right now, so we'll have to just cross our fingers or stop using this luxury item. :)

Beau
Reply

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 11:01AM DeadlyAccurate said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman The Internet hasn't been a luxury to me for a long time, and I'm surprised someone who gets paid for content he writes for a website would consider it so. Internet service may not be on par with food and clean water, but neither is my car, and I would find life very, very challenging without my car.
Reply

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 12:33PM Djinn said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman

I'm surprised to see this answer from a tech-oriented person. I wouldn't consider the internet a luxury any more than I would consider the telephone a luxury. And I certainly wouldn't simply ignore this issue if I could potentially have an impact by refusing to use their service. In fact I'm probably going to stop using Google altogether now that I know their activities - and I have gmail and use their search engine and maps.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 10:31PM ChromeBallz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Only FireFox has NoScript. Nuff said :)

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 10:37AM ChromeBallz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Apakal That one actually doesn't entirely work - Malware can still get on to your PC due to how Chrome loads scripts. In Firefox, scripts are loaded seperately after addons can have their say, in Chrome, scripts are loaded first and that addon you link to is basically only trying to clean up the mess instead of actually preventing something from running. They're still working on getting it 'right', but for now it's functionality isn't yet up to par with Firefox' version. Note how the author of the chrome extension explicitely states that it 'tries to emulate the firefox addon within the limitations of the chrome api' - That's exactly what i'm talking about.

Please note, this isn't a riff on chrome. When they get this kink straightened out i'm probably going to switch aswell :)
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 10:39PM Averice said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
IE - annoying, buggy, constantly in your face. Granted I haven't actually used it in forever, but just having windows trying to force you to use it for as long as it did upset me. I refused to use it back in the day even, used Netscape.

Firefox was good, then it blew, now it's good again. Though the most recent update removed a feature I'm used to having - "bookmark all tabs", at least I haven't been able to find a button for it anywhere, maybe it's solely a keyboard shortcut now, but again haven't seen that. I use the noscript plugin as well. The beginning of firefox 3.0 was beyond annoying, and that's when I think many firefox users decided to switch to Chrome.

Chrome was great at first, then it started sucking. Just constant issues with the opening page, web page crashes, etc. Maybe it's fixed now, I have no idea, I tried out the updated firefox 3 and it's been wonderful ever since. Firefox 4, besides having no clue how to bookmark all tabs now, as far as I'm concerned didn't actually change anything that I can see, which is fine by me.

Safari is alright. Why anyone would use it on a non apple piece of machinery IDK. It's basically IE for A.

Oh, if you don't know where Firefox came from. It was originally netscape, which then splintered into two major groups, seamonkey and firefox.

You could try out seamonkey as well, I know a few people that prefer that over Opera these days.

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 10:43PM BIGGIN said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I was recently wooed from Firefox by Chrome and enjoyed many of its features, but the lack of NoScript support or a comparative extension turned me off. However if someone wants to correct me and then direct me to something similar, I would not mind it.
On a side note, I do still use Chrome for my Facebook game apps as it seems to play nicer for me. I have an older system, and my wireless connection always goes offline when playing via Firefox.

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 7:24AM Apakal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@BIGGIN

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn?hl=en

I posted this link above as well. I haven't tried as I'm not particularly fond of NoScript to begin with, but you might want to give it a swing.

All I really need in terms of Extensions are Mouse Gestures and Ad Block, so there's nothing Chrome can't do for me and I love it. I'm easy to please.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 10:53PM donweel said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Pretty much agree with you all the way. I would not touch IE with a ten foot pole, no matter what, I no longer have any trust in what microsoft does with that toad. Chrome is my workhorse, I run Firefox for specific plugins, Safari is like a comfy couch. I was happy in Safari for quite some time till it started acting like it was wearing snowshoes compared to Chrome which was like wearing atomics.

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 11:09PM DLemke said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report

Let me give you a gaming example.

Without internet neutrality, the following can and may easily occur,

Let’s say one customer is watching TV through the internet, and he’s watching some NBC programming. Comcast controls NBC. That customer isn’t charged extra.

Let’s say another customer is online gaming, but Comcast doesn’t control that particular game, or any games for that matter, and has made ‘gaming’ an ‘extra’ ‘service’ through their pipes, and Verizon and other carriers, because net neutrality has been broken down, have done the same.

One customer, the one watching the TV, might be streaming video data, and might be using up a lot more bandwidth, but isn’t charged an extra fee because Comcast is promoting that content.

The other customer is gaming, and now, even though that gaming content uses LESS bandwidth, that gaming customer is charged an extra gaming fee because Comcast and the other ISPs in the U.S. have no interest in promoting it. They are allowed to ‘tax’ content any way they like regardless of the actually bandwidth ‘weight’ of that content. More than that, each gaming company might have to pay a fee to each ISP to get their data through the pipes. There you go, costs of gaming went up for both customer and producer. That hurts start up gaming developers, I don’t think you want that.

That was a gaming example. It’s worse when it comes to something like news. Do you want extra fees for an extra service called ‘news’ bundles on the internet? So only the big boys with big money can afford to use ‘news’ pipe time? Or do you want net neutrality where anybody and everybody is able to communicate news to you freely because technically sending you news is super tiny in terms of bandwidth.

Posted: Mar 29th 2011 11:46PM Greyhame said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I started using Chrome recently, and I like it for most things. I haven't used Firefox 4, but 3 was just not running well. I may switch back to it at some point, but for now it seems to work.

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 1:54AM MacDexter said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
FF4 over here. It is a great improvement over FF3 and I will not visit the web on browser that do not have NoScript, AdBlock Plus, Ghostery, BetterPrivacy, OptimizeGoogle and Https-Everywhere. And being a software-developer, FF is the only choice anyway because of HttpFox, Firebug and FireQuery. The plugins make the difference.

I tried Chrome but could not see the benefits it has.

IE: never in my life. If it is the only way to visit a specific page, then that page does not exist in my web.

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 2:48AM CCon99 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I still use Firefox with the No Script addon. Haven't had any spyware problems or unwanted ads in years.

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 3:17AM Addfwyn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I use Safari, but I also use OSX, where I imagine it works better (Apple tends to be as bad at making Windows software as MS tends to be at making OSX software, probably not entirely unintentionally).

It`s very speedy and lightweight, no other browser I`ve used is quite as snappy, and I really like the UI and interface design. It`s not incredibly expandable like some other browsers, but the design for it is to be lightweight and snappy, not excessively full-featured like a certain other bloated web browser.

Any web apps or the like Ive tried to run on it work just fine, and I`ve never had any notable security issues either.

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 8:08AM Raikulxox said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Addfwyn Microsoft is decent at making Apple software. Microsoft Office on OSX is just as good as on Windows.
Reply

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 3:55AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I used Opera for a couple of years and I became totally dependent on Opera link - the service that synchs Opera between multiple PCs and most importantly between phone and PC. I also happen to think that Opera mobile / Opera mini is a really great mobile browser once you get used to it.

My big bugbear with Opera is that I still come across web pages that are not compatible with it. Not very often it is true but it has happened on important pages where I need to fill in forms.

I was recently tempted back to Firefox because the new version 4 now has a sync feature and they have also introduced an Android version for mobiles. I love the new Desktop version of Firefox but I hate the android version. It is abominably slow at rendering pages.

You would think that Chrome would be the logical choice to synch to an Android phone but bizarrely Chrome doesn't sync properly to Android yet.

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 4:05AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am a Web Application developer and we are using IE 8 and I can tell you this browser is by far the slowest compared to FireFox and Chrome. And it is not just 10-20% slower but the response time, when compared to other browsers, for rich internet application is in the magnitude of more 2-3 times as slow. So we developers hate it with a passion.

Personally I use Chrome, it is very fast and have useful features like bookmark synchronize and it feels more fresh than FireFox which used to be my standard browser.

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 5:02AM FrostPaw said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I just use IE8, works ok for me except when a web designer specificly doesn't support their websites/pages to show properly which is more their issue than mine.

You know the type...on a personal crusade to try and convince you when you visit their site that Firefox/Chrome or some other browser is perfect and their site has been designed to work well with them so you should download it purely to enjoy their site....load of rubbish.

Explorer has security issues not because its rubbish but because its the single most popular browser so anybody trying to hack or exploit other peoples software will attack whoever gets them the most disruption and notice. If Explorer wasn't the most popular other browsers would be attacked and exploited just as much.

Posted: Mar 30th 2011 5:04AM dudes said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Netscape? I thought M$ finished that off ages ago, mafia offer you can't refuse style.

Featured Stories

Perfect Ten: My World of Warcraft launch memories

Posted on Oct 25th 2014 12:00PM

WRUP: WildStar's sadface

Posted on Oct 25th 2014 10:00AM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW