New
#20
Geez, foolish me.
I thought that they were going to test the security and vulnerability among the browsers both with and without addons.
Geez, foolish me.
I thought that they were going to test the security and vulnerability among the browsers both with and without addons.
Speckie - spell check for IE
Better than ieSpell as it automatically checks spelling, whereas ieSpell needs user input "Check spelling"
Personally, I browse the internet with Flash disabled. Those blinking ads are rather annoying. I can always enable it if I get to a page with some interestign video. Now, Html5 will be harder to disable, so I definitely don't want to see any html5 ads. No, I don't like to use ad-blocking extensions.
There are a couple of "live feed" types of sites that I use and those are all Flash. That's why I prefer to keep several browsers - one for Flash, one for banking, one for general browsing.
On the contrary, java seems to be used by the majority of the sites I visit. I limit the javacript though - I hate it when they resize windows or disable buttons, in my opinion they should not be allowed to do that at all.
Now as far as the software being proprietary - I see nothing wrong with that. Firefox is the only "open source" software that works for me, and given all the money that Google pays Mozilla, it's not really different from any other software company, except for the fact that the code is open.
I don't really notice much speed difference in real-world use between IE9 x64 vs Ie9 x32 vs FF4 vs Chrome. However they all did highlight how slow IE8 was.
I'll be glad when MS update IE 9 64bit's JavaScript engine to Chakra JIT.
I understand Silverlight 5 is going to be avaliable in 64-bit too.
Last edited by Zirro; 25 Mar 2011 at 20:04. Reason: additional comment
You imagine we would have an automatic spell checker for the reply window - with all the jargon we are using. That always bothers me in e.g. Word. I shut it off when I work on a tutorial for example.
For me, such comparisons don't mean too much, because all of those tests, except the one by peacekeeper, are devised by the same people that created the browsers. I know that tests can be weighed in a fashion to favor the browser that is desired. Obviously, a browser creator is not going to devise a test that makes them look bad.
I also find it curious that despite the fact that Opera tests very well on peacekeeper, not much is said about it. I just ran my own comparison, leaving out IE x64, and Chrome, which I have no desire to use, and below are my results. Though I have begun to adopt FF somewhat, I still consider Opera to be superior in many ways.
These comparisons might be of some interest to "power users", (a much over-used term which has basically come to mean anybody who can switch a machine on and off without crippling it), but they are not relevant at all to most users. What most users want, (surprise! ),is ease of use.
Instead of becoming easier and more intuitive, browsers and operating systems are becoming more and more complex to set up and use. Even some quite simple things are more or less impossible for a "normal" user to achieve.
These issues are rarely addressed, or are addressed in some way that results in knowledgeable users being "nannied" and annoyed to death.
The actual speed of these browsers makes little or no difference to most people who use them, they are dependent on their internet connections, not the browser speed.
Also, there is an ever-increasing trend towards the use of "eye-candy", often to the detriment of basic function.
Personally I use Firefox, because I can set it up exactly as I want it, I don't much care about the speed, as long as it is reasonable.
Even if IE9 was ten times faster than Firefox I still wouldn't use it, because it wont do what I want.
Opera is a great deal better, but still not as versatile as Firefox.
Regards....Mike Connor
This is just personal opinion, Im neither right nor wrong, this is just the way I see it.
I actually quite like Opera, and for me, like you Peacekeeper results trump Firefox and IE8 every time. However, in real world usage to me at least, Opera seems noticeably slower. Not slower than IE8, which runs like a dog on my machine (haven't played with IE9 so can't comment on that) but certainly a bit slower than my regular browser, Firefox.
Now I admit that this could be because I was running Opera on default settings with no tweaking at all, wheras my Firefox is quite heavily customised, but the difference is there, plus I prefer the almost endless configurations of Firefox, with Addons and such.
The thing that REALLY put me off Opera though, was the fact that they were acting like whiny children over the "Browser Choice" thing here in the EU. Fair enough, a little competition is not a bad thing, but moaning because they were in alphabetical order so Opera was always number 5 on the list? Pathetic.
Having said that, I DO use Opera on my mobile. IMO the Opera mobile browser is the best thing since sliced bread.
Just my tuppence worth.
How versatile that Opera is depends a lot on how well that a person knows the browser. I have found some things about Firefox that is easier to do with the right add on, but hunting through the myriads of add ons available to find the right one is a chore in itself, and there are a few things that Opera can do that Firefox can't, regardless of the number of add ons it has installed.Opera is a great deal better, but still not as versatile as Firefox.
Regards....Mike Connor