'Fast' Browsers
I have to admit I'm always quite confused when people start arguing about fast browsers. When this argument started I was using one of the slower broadband packages, you see, so my browser really wasn't the limiting factor.
My broadband's a lot faster than it was now and I still see little difference between 'fast' browsers and slow ones, even though I was expecting the limiting factor to be the browser now I had a more average connection.
I mean, it's not as if the connection's going to give you a higher rate just because you changed browser, what difference is it that people are anticipating?
On another note, I saw earlier tests of Google Chrome demonstrating stunning rates with JavaScript, but when I tried it out I realised it came with a stunning CPU usage, which was stupid because most web pages never used JavaScript for all that much other than interactivity, rather than performing ridiculous calculations or displaying 3D transformations. In short, they had succeeded in making a few cool demos run properly, and slowing your computer down whenever you entered a website that used JavaScript normally. And that was one of the original 'selling-points' of Chrome.
Back to browser speed, is there anyone who really sees the point of this 'speed'? Also, I've noticed on older computers that the older browsers run faster than the newer ones, and also that the HTML 5 collective seems to instigate large processing time for any older computer. This doesn't seem like the way forward either. I think it's about time people recognised the HTML 5 collective is a bad idea, a lot of people share my opinion about this, but all the big websites are switching over for their street-cred. I've seen HTML 5 (and its collective) do some clever stuff, but it's nothing that can't be done in HTML 4.1 or XHTML 1.1. I also maintain that JavaScript is far better than any other browser scripting method, since it is a scripting language and not markup or some silly markup derivative. All browsers support it, and websites support JavaScript rather than JScript, meaning that IE has been behaving itself on the compatibility front for a while.
So yeah, 'HTML 5' (apostrophes because HTML 5 is actually a slightly more hipster-friendly and worse version of HTML 4.1 and what people refer to as HTML 5 refers to a collective of new HTML, CSS and DOM for some reason) and 'fast' browsers have been cheesing me off.
My broadband's a lot faster than it was now and I still see little difference between 'fast' browsers and slow ones, even though I was expecting the limiting factor to be the browser now I had a more average connection.
I mean, it's not as if the connection's going to give you a higher rate just because you changed browser, what difference is it that people are anticipating?
On another note, I saw earlier tests of Google Chrome demonstrating stunning rates with JavaScript, but when I tried it out I realised it came with a stunning CPU usage, which was stupid because most web pages never used JavaScript for all that much other than interactivity, rather than performing ridiculous calculations or displaying 3D transformations. In short, they had succeeded in making a few cool demos run properly, and slowing your computer down whenever you entered a website that used JavaScript normally. And that was one of the original 'selling-points' of Chrome.
Back to browser speed, is there anyone who really sees the point of this 'speed'? Also, I've noticed on older computers that the older browsers run faster than the newer ones, and also that the HTML 5 collective seems to instigate large processing time for any older computer. This doesn't seem like the way forward either. I think it's about time people recognised the HTML 5 collective is a bad idea, a lot of people share my opinion about this, but all the big websites are switching over for their street-cred. I've seen HTML 5 (and its collective) do some clever stuff, but it's nothing that can't be done in HTML 4.1 or XHTML 1.1. I also maintain that JavaScript is far better than any other browser scripting method, since it is a scripting language and not markup or some silly markup derivative. All browsers support it, and websites support JavaScript rather than JScript, meaning that IE has been behaving itself on the compatibility front for a while.
So yeah, 'HTML 5' (apostrophes because HTML 5 is actually a slightly more hipster-friendly and worse version of HTML 4.1 and what people refer to as HTML 5 refers to a collective of new HTML, CSS and DOM for some reason) and 'fast' browsers have been cheesing me off.
I do find that Chrome loads pages faster than IE, although I haven't tried IE9. It also seems to generally start up faster for me, especially in comparison to the AOL browser my dad insists on using :/
I still use AOL as an ISP, been with them for a long time.
I used the AOL browser until I figured out how to get the dial-up to work in the task-bar. From then I used the far superior IE. That's right, IE is superior to the AOL browser.
I'm so glad that I can get the web without dialing now, it's so much more convenient.
I used the AOL browser until I figured out how to get the dial-up to work in the task-bar. From then I used the far superior IE. That's right, IE is superior to the AOL browser.
I'm so glad that I can get the web without dialing now, it's so much more convenient.
I'm with AOL too. We now have BT Infinity in the area, so we might swap. However, I think I'll miss AOL's unlimited policy as my internet usage is *huge*.
I'm pretty sure the AOL browser is just IE with a load of bloatware crammed in too.
| That's right, IE is superior to the AOL browser. |
I'm pretty sure the AOL browser is just IE with a load of bloatware crammed in too.
Nah, it was actually different when I used it. I've got BT infinity in my area too, and since I've had a faster internet connection, which is quite funny because it means I don't need to upgrade to BT.
My friend is on the super Virgin deal where he has a ridiculous internet connection, and he also lives right next to the damned internet node for Kent so he gets a mega internet connection anyway.
I could make a joke about the name of the company 'Virgin' and the amount of sex that people who use the internet a lot get, but it's bad taste, and these days pretty much everyone seems to use it for their socialising and whatnot.
My friend is on the super Virgin deal where he has a ridiculous internet connection, and he also lives right next to the damned internet node for Kent so he gets a mega internet connection anyway.
I could make a joke about the name of the company 'Virgin' and the amount of sex that people who use the internet a lot get, but it's bad taste, and these days pretty much everyone seems to use it for their socialising and whatnot.
There was no need to make the joke. You gave me the source code and I compiled it myself ;)
Last edited on
I don't understand what the rage with Chrome is.
The only thing I noticed about it when I used it was that the interface was awkward and several websites didn't work.
I'll keep firefox kthx.
The only thing I noticed about it when I used it was that the interface was awkward and several websites didn't work.
I'll keep firefox kthx.
I found the interface too minimalistic at first, but I quickly warmed to it. I am aware of the website issues though; for months I had to specially use a different browser to access my university emails.
When I first saw Chrome I was irritated by how obvious Google is being about competing with Microsoft without actually coming out and saying it. That sort of behaviour doesn't earn my respect, no matter how little I think of Microsoft.
I know this stuff is always dog-eat-dog but I must say it irritates me most that Chrome is steering people away from Firefox, which literally couldn't be any better in any way (in my opinion, both technologically and politically).
If Google cared they'd improve Firefox, not build another browser for the sake of competing with Microsoft's image. And they do an awful lot of pretending to care for their credibility.
I know this stuff is always dog-eat-dog but I must say it irritates me most that Chrome is steering people away from Firefox, which literally couldn't be any better in any way (in my opinion, both technologically and politically).
If Google cared they'd improve Firefox, not build another browser for the sake of competing with Microsoft's image. And they do an awful lot of pretending to care for their credibility.
I'm pretty certain Google got us into this 'craze for HTML 5 related stuff' mess, as they have many members who are high-ranking officials at W3C who constantly push out new ideas to bring control of the internet away from the people and towards making everything Web 2.0ish. I'm not sure why people like the addition of new tags in HTML 5, since we all know that if we use the same tags for everything and then different IDs and styles it becomes easier to add dynamics and CSS. I'm not sure why so many dynamics are being added to CSS for its new revision, when it was fine as it was and worked far better alongside JavaScript and the old DOM in what was coined DHTML. I'm not really sure why we should use SVGs, when it is obviously more efficient and still very open to use open file types instead, because making an image type that can be made with a text editor minimum is too much a dumb requirement. And I don't know why everyone's forgotten about XHTML, which is far superior to HTML 5 itself in every way.
The worst part is the extensive marketing out there to convince people that HTML 5 is faster (despite the language or anything else that was recently revised making no effect on how people program browsers other than what the markup convention is) and better (or as Microsoft puts it; 'more beautiful'). The only advantage would be a step closer to replacing flash, but they forgot about that and didn't really need to do anything anyway since it seems to be a requirement of all new browsers to give a silly amount of processing time over to JavaScript.
I'm adamant HTML 4 is better, and XHTML is better yet, and that HTML 5 needs to be cancelled and re-thought, but we all know that with every big company as the driving force (including Google and Microsoft) trying to look like they want to drive technology forwards, we're going to take a big step back with HTML 5 and the rest.
Also, I'm still not sure why people think HTML 5 means HTML 5, the new CSS, the new DOM and whatever.
The worst part is the extensive marketing out there to convince people that HTML 5 is faster (despite the language or anything else that was recently revised making no effect on how people program browsers other than what the markup convention is) and better (or as Microsoft puts it; 'more beautiful'). The only advantage would be a step closer to replacing flash, but they forgot about that and didn't really need to do anything anyway since it seems to be a requirement of all new browsers to give a silly amount of processing time over to JavaScript.
I'm adamant HTML 4 is better, and XHTML is better yet, and that HTML 5 needs to be cancelled and re-thought, but we all know that with every big company as the driving force (including Google and Microsoft) trying to look like they want to drive technology forwards, we're going to take a big step back with HTML 5 and the rest.
Also, I'm still not sure why people think HTML 5 means HTML 5, the new CSS, the new DOM and whatever.
| Veltas wrote: |
|---|
| Nah, it was actually different when I used it. |
AOL has been using IE for a VERY long time and before that I believe it was mosaic/Netscape. I begrudgingly used AOL for many years before broadband came out and at the time it sucked less than Prodigy and Compuserv. The early nineties on the internet really sucked.
On topic now, I've yet to be particularly interested with web programming, though I took a class that was fairly heavy in PHP. So I don't have an opinion on HTML4 vs. HTML5, so I am curious what your issues with HTML5 specifically are.
| Veltas wrote: |
|---|
| trying to look like they want to drive technology forwards, we're going to take a big step back with HTML 5 and the rest |
I don't really understand the reasoning here. Granted not every new tech is going to be successful, but to suggest they should stop seems counter intuitive to innovation to me.
I'm using Opera for a good 2 years now.
Chrome is also pretty good but I don't like how they hide all their stuff behind one button. Another plus (big IMO) for Opera is that it saves your passes and with a single click I'm logged in. I know that Chrome supports it also in one way or the other, but I yet have to find it. IE is simply horrible...
Chrome is also pretty good but I don't like how they hide all their stuff behind one button. Another plus (big IMO) for Opera is that it saves your passes and with a single click I'm logged in. I know that Chrome supports it also in one way or the other, but I yet have to find it. IE is simply horrible...
Firefox is somewhat slow and resource-heavy, and I'm not sure about FF4 but 3 had some problem with memory leaks as well. Chrome isn't alot better, though. If Chrome actually had any addons or any preferences in its preferences menu (seriously that menu is virtually useless) I would switch. But I like Firefox too much. It has enough settings in its preferences menu, and it has about:config for when you want to change other things (you can significantly speed it up or make it less resource-intensive via about:config). It has thousands of add-ons (it's kinda like Emacs, in that it does everything, and it lacks a decent editor :P) to add functionality or remove it or just to make it look nice. You can move almost everything in the GUI.
In short, I use Firefox because
1. Configurable
2. Easy to use/intuitive
3. Add-ons
4. Nice GUI
It's also never noticeably slows me down either, although it is currently using ~145 MiB of memory with only 3 tabs (Windows 7), which is almost a third of what my entire Linux system uses.
In short, I use Firefox because
1. Configurable
2. Easy to use/intuitive
3. Add-ons
4. Nice GUI
It's also never noticeably slows me down either, although it is currently using ~145 MiB of memory with only 3 tabs (Windows 7), which is almost a third of what my entire Linux system uses.
Last edited on
| although it is currently using ~145 MiB of memory |
You say that as if it were a lot.
Machines these days have several GB of memory. Who cares how much one program uses if it doesn't come anywhere near using your max.
That's what the RAM is there for: to be used.
@Disch: Exactly! And that's why I do not understand the argument of some people that is Chrome is less of a resource hog than Opera (a difference of about 20MB). I don't care if my browser uses 200 MB from my 8GB RAM. Atleast not for such an important app!
closed account (z05DSL3A)
The most important thing for me regarding a browser is that 'I don't notice it'. It is all about the sites that I go to and not about the funky stuff the browser is doing.
Last edited on
closed account (zb0S216C)
I use SRWare Iron. Iron is based on Chrome's source code - with less features, thus making it lighter. Personally, I tried Safari; I didn't like it. Safari was too slow for me. I also tried Internet Explorer; I didn't like that either. IE was, again, too slow for me. Finally, I've used Firefox also; It seemed to have a memory leak in the earlier versions, but that no longer seems to be an issue. Although Firefox is customizable, it still uses too much memory.
After testing all of the browsers, I fell for Iron.
After testing all of the browsers, I fell for Iron.
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.