The browser war Created 10 years ago2014-02-21 23:54:39 UTC by DiscoStu

Once upon a time, internet browsers were part of a death race to be the best browser out there. Netscape, IE, Opera, Firefox, Chrome, many were able to make the claim at some point. Now it would seem "being the best" is a long gone fad and now the race aims at being the worst browser out there. The main contenders are doing really well. Removing configuration options, privacy options, turning perfectly usable interfaces into usability nightmares. So much that ever since I read what the next version of Firefox will be like, I straight up turned off automatic updating. I looked at its more well known rivals and it seems they are all going to hell hand in hand together. FF, IE, Chrome, Opera, they are all doing an equally great job at turning into shit.

I think it's time to find an alternative, but I don't even know where to start looking. Even a starting point for my search would be welcome. I've searched the internet and most discussions are about IE, Chrome, Firefox, or perhaps Opera. So I am asking, does anybody around us know of an alternative browser with all of the great features and none of the bullshit? Perhaps an obscure branch of an old version of Firefox, or anything that's decent, really.

I'm sorry but how is opera going to hell?
Have you tried the browser?
It offers everything you said above and its improving , you should try it if you haven't.

Yeah lately my Chrome has been glitching on me. They added a bunch of cosmetic things that, I guess, that somehow interfere with its rendering.

I'm afraid I can't agree with Lajron. I've been using Opera for about 6 years and still do, but I'm in the same situation as you, Stu - the only reason I haven't switched is because I can't see a better alternative. Firefox and Chrome, both also installed on my system, offer nothing more than Opera - they'd just add the further frustration of a more unfamiliar interface. But yeah, Opera is pretty rubbish these days. Used to be awesome.

Well thats true archie opera 12 is far more better but it isn't supported anymore.Still i prefer Opera over Chrome or Firefox because at least for me it looks better it has all that i need and they are updating it constantly.

I've been a Chrome user since its launch. There have been re-designs and quirks but you have to take them as they come and adapt.
It's still fast, it's familiar, and it hasn't screwed me yet so I'll stay with it.

The changes they keep making is somewhat annoying, but for me, Firefox is still the best (and only) option, especially when a lot of the alternatives are closed-source. Mozilla actually cares about security and open-source, and they don't have an agenda. Google is as evil as Apple/MS/Oracle/etc these days, so it really is the only option for me.

Even though every browser (including FF) is trying extremely hard to copy Chrome's extremely limited interface in every way, Firefox at the very least allows plugins to restore those removed features again. It's not ideal, but it's better than the alternative of having no control whatsoever (Chrome plugins are quite limited and don't allow UI changes).

Stu: You probably want to look at Seamonkey. Imagine the rendering and security of modern Firefox with the UI of Netscape 6, plus it also has all the superfluous crap that pre-Chrome Opera had built-in.

I've been using Firefox forever. There's never been anything about it that bugged me to the point of even glancing at an alternative. It could be he worst browser there is by popular vote, but unless it breaks completely, hell, works just fine for me.

Out of curiosity, what kind of "features" are you referring to, Stu?

Things like configurability. From what I've read, they're dumbing down everything so much (and actually removing functionality in the process) that simple things that you normally use become impossible to use (or find, if they're still present at all). Apparently they're removing things like enabling/disabling JavaScript (I use NoScript anyway, but now it'll become the ONLY way to disable JS). Some things that used to be easy are now hidden... somewhere. And I have to dig through the menu to find them in a much less obvious place.

My limited experience with Chrome was enough to decide it wasn't for me. It pretty much has no settings at all, it's too limited as if they expected every user to be like my grandmother.

I didn't even remember SeaMonkey. I vaguely remember reading about it ages ago. Looks just like Firefox the first time I installed it, on Windows XP... like 10 years ago, lol.

...10 years ago?! D:

^^ What Scotch said, plus, i like the addons/plugins for FF; the last time i tried Opera, it didn't have an addon that i needed, so i never tried it again..

I would never use Chrome because it's made by Google. Call me old-fashioned, but i don't like the subtle way google has become more and more invasive/sneaky in general, kind of like the way i used to feel about Microsoft products. (if this is not the case and i shouldn't feel that way about google products, someone please school me!)

Like maybe someone can explain the point of google+ to me? Why does a giant like Google still feel the need to track my every movement, when they already have the market cornered?

Greed is a hell of a bad habit.

Well... brace yourselves for the next FF update. It's called the Borealis or something like that. I still tolerate the current version, but I'm probably not updating it anymore. I'm only using NoScript, Adblock, and HTTPSeverywhere. I don't know what other worthy plugins there are, but I like them and that's one reason to stick to FF.

I'm with CT there. I don't like Google and how they corner us into telling them everything about us with G+ and an extremely data-hungry update-pushing and EULA-rabid Android phone.

The Australis update is what you're talking about, and it's what I meant when I said that they're trying really hard to make it look like Chrome. Someone's already created an add-on for the beta version that restores the tabs-on-bottom mode that I use, but it's annoying that it's required. If you don't care about tabs-on-bottom mode, the only noticeable change is that the tabs are curvy and the file/edit/view/etc menu bar is replaced by the Chrome-button (but I think the menu bar can be switched back on). At the very least it can be customised, unlike Chrome's stuff.

The first screenshot with the new "simplified" interface is too much like Chrome.

Well, disabling JavaScript will break such a large percentage of websites these days that I think it's not a controversial decision to have it somewhere in the advanced settings, since only a very small amount of people is going to do it. You are a minority, and as such perhaps you should go for one of the alternative smaller browsers that cater to you.

NoScript should be built in to Firefox, ffs.

You don't need to disable JS entirely, 95% of sites run just fine with the site itself only allowed, and the rest of the horseshit scripts disabled.

If people aren't willing to protect themselves and blanket allow JS, they have noone to blame but themselves when their machine becomes compromised (I've learnt this lesson myself the hard way)

But you are right, most people cbf... my boss refuses to use noscript, so I refuse to help him now when he is attacked by some random shitware =p

JavaScript can not alter the client computer or install anything, since it runs in a protected context and can not perform actions outside it's typical "web functions".

JavaScript is heavily sandboxed by every browser - you won't get any sort of malicious software on your computer from JavaScript running in an up-to-date browser. NoScript is for paranoid people who don't understand that JavaScript cannot escape the browser. If you really think it's possible to bypass browser security that easily, you should use wget and read the HTML manually.

The worst you'll ever get from JavaScript is ad networks tracking your browsing habits, and AdBlock stops that without any need to disable JavaScript. Your boss is correct to not use NoScript. You're not "protecting" anything, just making your browsing experience worse.

I don't know what the fuss is about, i wish someone made a browser that just had tabs the home button the address field and the back button. There is nothing more you really need.
I was really a fan of IE before it went to shit long ago, firefox is really the only option for me even thought it sucks out a gig of ram everytime its on, i hate google and i don't like Opera just because its called Opera.
Where is my bloody IE styled download manager ! !! ! !

I don't know what the fuss is about, i wish someone made a browser that just had tabs the home button the address field and the back button. There is nothing more you really need.

That is quite literally the interface of Chrome.

Why does everybody hate Google? If you are concerned with a lack of privacy option there is a Chromium fork called SRWAre Iron, which is basically Chrome with substantially enchanhed privacy settings and without google features which has privacy implcations, such as search suggestions.

Wow theres a lot of hate on google.
I even have chrome on my phone. Works great.

I mainly have a problem with devs dumbing everything down and shuffling around randomly what's left every other version. Sort of like MS did with Office when they removed the toolbars AND the menu bar and the only way to do things was through that horrible ribbon bar. They should have at least left the menu bar. AutoCad did it too but at least they left their trademark text input, so I couldn't care less about toolbars in it.

I don't want everything hidden from me. I like to be able to easily access everything I need any time I need it.

If I want Chrome, I'd go and download Chrome (or the fork above mentioned). Making all other browsers look like it is stupid. I appreciate things for what they are, not for how much they look like other things. It's like those japanese girls that get surgery on their eyelids to get big round eyes and look like anime characters. They end up losing their identity and all looking the same (waiting for the first to say they already did anyway).

[edit] I just opened an old toolbox and found inside a floppy disk hand-labeled as "Netscape 3.0 Gold - 2/3". I thought it was funny. It's definitely not mine, but I can't even check what's inside, my computer doesn't have a floppy drive.

Opera > All.

You'd be a lot more likeable if you stopped presenting your opinions as fact.

You'd be a lot more likable if you stopped acting like an old granny.

I find that gloriously ironic coming from you, but please, explain how I'm acting like an old granny.

I find explaining that to you a waste of time.
You can not see a joke, you don't want to see a joke, you want people to be serious and fact full, but when they are you don't understand it.

Like an old demented granny who constantly eats shit over things (Serbian phrase translated to English). Trying to explain basic human relations to you seems like a waste of time at the moment.

Simply put, there are different people in the world and not all will communicate in the same fashion as you. But at least one of them tries to understand you. You could try the same.

If you're now claiming that when you flat out say X is shit or Y is greater than everything without contributing anything else to a discussion you are joking, I don't think your sense of humour translates.
Everything you say is either black or white - you never seem to consider the grey.

If it is indeed intended as a joke, then I do apologise, but you should know that the vast majority of your posts come across as incredibly negative in tone.

That is simply how i communicate with people.
I do not mean harm to any one, nor do i want to be taken more seriously than any one else. I don't want people to take what i say for fact, but to think about it and make their own decision.
Different thing is when i am providing technical information.
Its plain logic that when some one says X good, Y shit, that he is talking crap.

But instead of telling him he is talking crap, try asking why.

Stu, well, I guess that is the problem with the fact that most people in the industrialized world use computers now. The vast majority of users of browsers and office software don't want settings, they want everything to work and devs trying to pick market shares naturally cater to this. Hell, even most Linux distros are user friendly now.

I agree that the Ribbon thing in MS apps is a bit weird, and overall the Windows 8 design philosophy took some time to get used to. I don't mind it now, though.

Also, why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends?

Ok PB, Thanks for the schooling!

I just assumed it was noscript keeping me safe from all the baddies, since i haven't had a single malware problem since i started using it a couple years ago. I have my browser set to update automatically always, but probably back then i didn't, and that's how i got infected..

My boss uses a full paid security suite and still continuously has problems with his machine acting unpredictably(freezing, crazy-random shit getting installed, etc), but maybe that's just due to him installing things he shouldn't, or, maybe he simply has a hardware problem?

Anyhoo, serves me right for speaking about something i really no nothing about... at least now i can stop misinforming people, sorry!

Well, ads can do a lot of damage there. Remember those ads for "spyware scanners" or whatever that say "100 bugs found on your computer, click here to scan!" - well, people actually click those and install the software. Usually they're harmless and just nag you to pay for the full version, but that kind of stuff adds up and can contribute to crapware being put onto computers.

It doesn't help that "legitimate" software like Flash and Java include millions of toolbars and other crap, and the regular user will just leave those boxes ticked because they don't understand what they mean. There's a lot of value in educating users to ignore ads and avoid installing extra junk bundled into software.

Once upon a time it was considered bad practice to write a website that relied on JavaScript to work. Based on that principle, and seeing how many websites only use JS to do annoying things, I only enable it when it provides useful functionality or when the site is so broken that it won't render without it (which could be under the broad definition of "useful functionality")

@ChickenFist: Yeah well, that's true, but it's also the reason why default settings exist. Don't touch them and things will work out of the box. What's also true is that many programs present you with simple settings AND give you an option to access the advanced settings that simple users don't care about, and by doing that, both types of users are happy. Completely removing all but the simplest settings doesn't help anyone.

• I used to think Stojke was a reasonable person.

@Stu: Those days are long gone. JavaScript is universally supported and is a part of the web ecosystem, just like HTML and CSS are. If you disable JS and the website is "broken", that's not the website's fault, it's yours - it's like disabling CSS and expecting a website to still look nice. HTML specifies structure, CSS defines style, and JavaScript controls behaviour.

Back in the days when CSS was first becoming common, many people still used table-based layouts in their websites so that people using browsers that didn't support CSS still had a rough equivalent of the page layout they wanted to achieve. As browsers that supported CSS properly became extremely common, people started ditching the table layouts and used CSS-based ones instead. These days nobody would even consider using table layouts or disabling CSS, because it's fundamental to how the web operates.

More recently this was the case with JavaScript too, but now that pretty much every mobile device and desktop browser has full support for JS, it has also matured to the point that it is a required part of browser infrastructure. Sticking to the idea that "10 years ago it was considered bad practice to rely on JavaScript" is just backwards thinking, in my opinion, and doesn't have a very solid logical foundation. If you don't like how a website uses JavaScript, either block that individual script/domain, or just simply don't visit that website.

NoScript is still useful, but I think it should be used as a blacklisting tool rather than a whitelisting one.

I've been doing a very heavy JavaScript app at work recently and TWHL4 will rely on JS, so I'm a bit opinionated on this matter >_>

Without JavaScript you can't do things like large file uploads, screenshot slideshows, live updating shoutboxes, autocompleting dropdowns, tooltips and popups, and other cool stuff like that.

"Cool stuff like that" is, like you said, cool stuff. Non-critical additions that improve already present functionality. Which is fine by me, because I'm only saying that (to me at least), a website that is completely broken with JS disabled is worthless. Minimum/basic functionality should be provided. Besides, some devices (I'm thinking mobile) aren't fully compatible with JS and will choke when presented with it. That's another reason in favour of not relying on JS for basic functionality. A bit like those websites where all navigation is implemented in flash. I'm old-school like that.

No, in the case of many of those, they are things that are critical from a functional standpoint. For example, large file uploads are a key piece of functionality that I need to have to meet my requirements. Autocomplete dropdowns are necessary because requiring a user to type a user's id to send them a private message is ridiculous, and typing the user name is not compatible anymore because multiple recipients are allowed now. Modals and popups are necessary to notify the user of various things.

I don't design for a lack of JavaScript because I wouldn't be able to implement my functional requirements without it. In the case of TWHL4, without JavaScript, you would not be able to upload maps > 2mb, use the live shoutbox, or send private messages (among other things) without JavaScript enabled.

Mobile browsers have practically universal support for basic JS. Even many old phones with proprietary operating systems. Basically, JavaScript works for everyone, unless they choose to disable it, which there really isn't any logical reason to do. Most top selling old phones - if they have a browser at all - use Symbian OS which browser supports JS.

Here is an interesting statistic. 88% of the 10 million largest websites in the world use JavaScript.

My Android phone SUPPORTS JS, but it crashes or freezes with some implementations. So I had to turn it off.

What browser is everyone using over mobile?

I like Dolphin the best so far. It's not perfect, but offers the most flexibility of other android browsers I've tried. I also use Opera for a few mobile sites(like GameBanana), because it seems to handle them better.

One thing i really like about Dolphin is the user agent, that allows you to choose the UI you want to view a site, e.g., Android, Desktop, iPhone, or iPad.

I use "desktop" mode for youtube, so now I can comment without using Google+, and some sites i just really prefer the desktop mode in general.

I'm so luddite, I don't even have a phone.

Well, I do, but it certainly is old enough to not be able to handle internet browsing. Besides, I don't use it for anything other than its alarm.

I use Firefox. It's the standard at work since FireBug is just awesome for web design. It's what I'm used to and I see no need to change. Opera has always been a close second but from time to time it just craps out with Flash stuff, making YouTube unusable.

On my mobile I use the built in android browser. Used Firefox for a while but my model is no longer supported.

On my Android tablet I use Chrome.

One thing i really like about Dolphin is the user agent, that allows you to choose the UI you want to view a site, e.g., Android, Desktop, iPhone, or iPad.

You can do that with the default android browser, assuming that it's similar across all android devices. You have to enter "about:debug" into the address bar and then in the settings changing UAString to desktop.
It's annoying that it's a hidden setting however, as having websites default to mobile view on a screen that's higher-res than my laptop is stupid. Especially those websites where the 'desktop view' link is buggy and doesn't always work.

I have a "Request Desktop Version" in my version of the default Android browser. Possibly because I run CyanogenMod, I guess.

I didn't realise I could also download a browser on my phone. I don't use a lot of apps. I thought I could try it, but then...

On my mobile I use the built in android browser. Used Firefox for a while but my model is no longer supported.

...it's probably the same with mine.

Nice ChickenFist!

One day I will try to root my razr m... I can definitely say I'll never buy a phone with a locked bootloader again, I.e., anything by Mororola =)

Edit
Finally overcame the fear of bricking my phone, and used this extremely simple method for rooting droid razr m, and now i have su access! =P

NOW, I can try unlocking the bootloader and installing CyanogneMod

Nice! It's definitely worth the effort. Especially if you like me have a midrange phone. The performance gains from KitKat and not having a bunch of oem bloatware alone makes it worth it. Overclocking is nice too.

...it's probably the same with mine.

There's a lot of browsers. Dolphin is nice. If you have an old phone Opera Mini is worth a go.

I'll have a look at it.

I have a "Request Desktop Version" in my version of the default Android browser. Possibly because I run CyanogenMod, I guess.

Thought that was a standard feature. I have that on my vanilla android browser on my HTC Desire.

Unmodded, stock Samsung Galaxy Discover also has that feature default.
I'm pretty sure it's in any android version because it's a chrome feature and not an android feature.

My stock browser isn't Chrome.