AARoads Forum

What browser do you use?  I always use Firefox.

Added Safari - popular enough.  Assuming the only "Other" was a Safari vote. - MSon

I'm firefoxing mostly, but I'm slowly transitioning myself over to Chrome because it seems to work better and uses way less RAM. I already use it to stream videos, but I'm still not used to it for general browsing

Google Chrome is the one browser that doesn't hog resources on my seven-year old PC...

Firefox for years now! I've tried the others FF works best for me! Yesterday I HAD to use IE to do ??something?? :hmmm: and the slownwess of IE was unbearable  :banghead: :sleep: :-( X-( :no: :-o!!! Actually I think I cancelled ?whatever? I had to use IE for and gave up.

Depends on what I'm doing.  Some sites work better for me in IE than FF and vise-versa.  For me, OSM editing seems to work better in IE than FF.  And I have two Gmail accounts, so I keep one logged in on IE and the other in FF.  So, it's a wash for me.  But I do most of my downloading in FF because I like their system better.  And I save pictures in IE.  I know, I'm crazy. :sombrero:

Safari. How could you not include that option for Mac users?

How could we miss that - I assume you're the only Other - so I added it in that place - MSon

Quote from: yanksfan6129 on July 05, 2010, 09:11:33 PM
Safari. How could you not include that option for Mac users?

Mac users don't count  :poke:.

Firefox 3.6.6 with a mock-up theme to look like Firefox 4.0.  I understand beta 2 is out for Firefox 4.0 from the mozilla nightly builds, but it's still labeled as Minefield.  I'll wait until the public beta is out.   

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi205.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb153%2FKEK_INC%2Ffx365.png%3Ft%3D1278381550&hash=7a69f80c2a90bf43fc2e83372aae7ac1edfa6e6e)

Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 05, 2010, 09:59:55 PM
I understand beta 2 is out for Firefox 4.0 from the mozilla nightly builds, but it's still labeled as Minefield.

It's more like Firefox 4.0 Beta 1 Build #2. ;)

Google Chrome, switched about seven months ago. Used Firefox for about 3 1/2 years, but switched full-time to Chrome because I find Chrome much faster and less buggy, not to mention I like the interface much better.  I still use Firefox as a secondary browser on the rare occasion that Chrome doesn't like a page I'm trying to browse.

I only use Exploder when it's the only browser installed on a computer I'm trying to use (which is very few...even all of my school's computers had Firefox and Chrome installed on them).

Firefox unless an entity (such as an employer) specifies I must use Exploder.  Also I use IE View to connect to sites that are only compatible to Explorer (God forbid these sites' owners need to wake the hell up (Including Microsoft).  Adblock Plus is a very powerful add-on to Firefox.  AFAIK the others do not stand up to that (esp Exploder and Opera.)

Been using Firefox for a while now. No complaints other than that it's a bit of a resource hog.

I use Google Chrome. It's a lot faster than Internet Explorer, I haven't tried FireFox, I'm not gonna try it, cause my sister uses it, and listen to her for long enough, it makes the browser sound horrible. So I'll stick to Chrome for now....
BigMatt

Quote from: BigMatt on July 06, 2010, 12:28:32 AM
I use Google Chrome. It's a lot faster than Internet Explorer, I haven't tried FireFox, I'm not gonna try it, cause my sister uses it, and listen to her for long enough, it makes the browser sound horrible. So I'll stick to Chrome for now....
BigMatt

Unless you use addons, Google Chrome is actually faster than Firefox in every way. 

I been using Firefox for a few years now. I use a theme on mine to make it look like the older 1.5 theme and run Adblock plus to get rid of those pesky flash ads 

I only use explorer only when I'm using a computer that doesn't have any other browser on it or if it forbids me from installing Firefox

I chose Firefox because that is my primary browser, but actually I use Internet Explorer and Opera as well.  I use IE with PennDOT's ECMS because the drop menus don't work properly in Firefox, though the links do work, and I also need IE to launch MaxView to download electronic plans from Nebraska DOR (they used to allow read and list access to the actual plans directories, but they withdrew that a few years ago, so unless I am on a slow or high-latency Internet connection, it usually saves time and trouble just to use MaxView to download rather than to try to build rainbow tables and turn Internet Download Manager loose on them).  I also collect plans dossiers from the French "Marches publics" site, which used to allow downloading multiple files at the same time but now does so no longer.  Since the thread control is done by user agent identification, I use Opera at the same time as Firefox if I want to download multiple dossiers at the same time.  (Why the French, you ask?  They occasionally do really large signing contracts--there was a recent one on the A31 etc. near Nancy which ran to over 400 pages of sign design sheets.)  Last year the Junta de Castilla-La Mancha released documents for a couple of really large DBFOs.  Each DBFO had a ZIP file running to over 3 GB and Opera helped me pull those in.

IE is a turd.

I really like Firefox, but unfortunately it uses way, way too much memory, so I've switched to Chrome. I check out Opera intermittently, but have never really committed to it like Firefox and Chrome.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 06, 2010, 04:37:39 AM
IE is a turd.

I really like Firefox, but unfortunately it uses way, way too much memory, so I've switched to Chrome.

Firefox is indeed a resource hog, but I have 4 GB of RAM so it's not a problem.  I run several programs at one time and haven't had any problems.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 05, 2010, 09:59:55 PM
Firefox 3.6.6 with a mock-up theme to look like Firefox 4.0.  I understand beta 2 is out for Firefox 4.0 from the mozilla nightly builds, but it's still labeled as Minefield.  I'll wait until the public beta is out.   

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi205.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb153%2FKEK_INC%2Ffx365.png%3Ft%3D1278381550&hash=7a69f80c2a90bf43fc2e83372aae7ac1edfa6e6e)

I don't like that at all.  It looks like a poor-man's IE.  Hopefully when FF4 comes out, there will be a skin that allows you to have the menus and icons like FF3 has.

TBQH - It really matters not what the interface of the browser it - it's always going to change no matter what you want.  If you don't like it, don't upgrade ;)

Quote from: bugo on July 05, 2010, 09:15:36 PM

Quote from: yanksfan6129 on July 05, 2010, 09:11:33 PM
Safari. How could you not include that option for Mac users?

Mac users don't count  :poke:.

Safari does work on Windows :pan:

Quote from: Master son on July 06, 2010, 08:40:08 AM
Safari does work on Windows :pan:

I was giving Safari 5 (on Windows 7) a spin, and unlike its WebKit-cousin Chrome, a plug-in problem still caused the entire browser to crash  :banghead:. As of right now, I primarily use Chrome (after using Firefox as the default for several years). I've grown accustomed to its simplified interface, although I've yet to see any appreciable difference between Flash being "built-in" vs. a plug-in in prior versions.

I use Firefox simply because IE is full of flaws that allow hackers into your PC. However, if Firefox gains a large share of the market do you think they'll write viruses for that instead of IE?

I've used so many browsers in my life. I started with Netscape (1.2), moved over to IE when Netscape development stalled and got bloated. As soon as Mozilla Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox came out, it became my fav. Unfortunately, like Netscape, it eventually got bloated and slow, even without the add-ons. Chrome (and its open-source buddy Chromium) is now my fav and default.

While on the Mac, I gave Safari a spin as my default, but as soon as the Chrome development builds were available on Mac, I jumped in a heartbeat.

On all computers, I still have Firefox as a secondary browser for testing purposes, but Google owns me now, and I'm quite okay with that.

Chrome is also the default browser I install on everyone's computer that I work on. Auto-updating, Flash built-in (which auto-updates as well), simple, and no nonsense.

I've used Firefox, Safari, and Explorer. The former(s) I've used at school (Georgia State) only; I've used the latter at home and at work, of which I'm more familiar with.


Be well,

Bryant

I used to use Firefox, but I have switched to Chrome on all of my computers. It uses less RAM, has separate processes, and the extensions let you use Ad Block Plus or Ad Thwart.

I am not sure how Google Chrome would help with my major Firefox performance problem, which arises from my tendency to open dozens after dozens of Wikipedia articles in Firefox tabs for later reading.  At the moment I have tabs open for Wikipedia articles on the following:  Mycenaean Greece, Bronze Age collapse, Dorian invasion, Tiryns, Palace economy, Destruction layer, Hekla 3 eruption, Greek Dark Ages, Sea Peoples, Akrotiri (Santorini), Sovereign Base Areas, Ernst Ziller, Heinrich Schliemann, Wilhelm Dörpfeld, Omonoia Square, ISAP, Athens Metro, Axis occupation of Greece during World War II, Greek civil war, Greek military junta of 1967-1974 (search term for that was "junta of the colonels"), Georgios Papadopoulos, Eleftherios Venizelos, . . . , Biedermeier, Jugendstil, Heeresgeschichtes Museum, Landestrasse, Paolo Veronese, Sachertorte.

I use Firefox on my laptop and at school (if the computers at the University of Akron has it), although I use IE in certain situations.

I have a mixed environment at home with one PC running Windows 7 and two Macs running Snow Leopard (10.6).  If you've followed my posts in the Road-Related Illustrations thread, you'll know that I use both systems to create my road signs though most of the finishing work is done on the Mac.

Since I spend most of my time on the Mac, my primary browser is Safari although I am starting to use Chrome on my MacBook Pro.  When I'm on the Windows box, I use Firefox.

In the end, I voted for Safari.

Quote from: Truvelo on July 06, 2010, 11:40:46 AM
I use Firefox simply because IE is full of flaws that allow hackers into your PC. However, if Firefox gains a large share of the market do you think they'll write viruses for that instead of IE?

No. The reason that people write exploits that target IE is because of the large number of flaws it has. Due to the open-source development model, Firefox has a much reduced number of such flaws, and what flaws are discovered will usually be patched before they can be widely exploited.

It's similar to when people ask things like "When Linux gets more market share, won't people just write viruses for it?" You would logically think that would be so, but the reason Windows is so virus-prone has less to do with its market share and more to do with the way the system is set up which makes completely hosing it trivial once you get access. Since the concept of user accounts on Windows was only introduced in XP, much software (at least of the time that I was actively using Windows prior to 2005, maybe it's changed since then) gets confused when it's not running under full Administrator permissions, so most people are logged in as Administrator all the time. Contrast that to the Unix family, which includes Linux, where logging in as root at all is nearly always unnecessary (in fact Ubuntu doesn't allow logging in as root at all by default); things needing root permissions can usually be invoked via the "sudo" utility which elevates just the one process to root permissions.  As a result, most processes are running as a normal user, which means about the most they can do is wipe out your /home directory (My Documents equivalent) while leaving the system files untouched.

I use Firefox and several add-ons (Ad Block Plus, Greasemonkey and Foxclocks to name a few.) I have all mainland U.S. time zones in my browser, very convenient when I'm chatting with someone from the U.S.A.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg818.imageshack.us%2Fimg818%2F3057%2Fffbar.png&hash=d0a4071e10ef473b21a2a274cfa296b57da55e6d)

I mostly use Opera, but occasionally use Firefox. Now that Flickr has been "upgraded", I'm finding it harder to use in Opera and have to use Firefox, slow as it is.

I mainly use Chrome, but sometimes it doesn't work as well with my Facebook as it should, so sometimes I use Firefox or IE.

Firefox 4b1 just got released today.  And most of my addons are incompatable.  X-(

Firefox for my laptop (though I do have Google Chrome and IE), IE at work (the only browser they use).

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 06, 2010, 05:37:51 PM

Quote from: Truvelo on July 06, 2010, 11:40:46 AM
I use Firefox simply because IE is full of flaws that allow hackers into your PC. However, if Firefox gains a large share of the market do you think they'll write viruses for that instead of IE?

No. The reason that people write exploits that target IE is because of the large number of flaws it has. Due to the open-source development model, Firefox has a much reduced number of such flaws, and what flaws are discovered will usually be patched before they can be widely exploited.

It's similar to when people ask things like "When Linux gets more market share, won't people just write viruses for it?" You would logically think that would be so, but the reason Windows is so virus-prone has less to do with its market share and more to do with the way the system is set up which makes completely hosing it trivial once you get access. Since the concept of user accounts on Windows was only introduced in XP, much software (at least of the time that I was actively using Windows prior to 2005, maybe it's changed since then) gets confused when it's not running under full Administrator permissions, so most people are logged in as Administrator all the time. Contrast that to the Unix family, which includes Linux, where logging in as root at all is nearly always unnecessary (in fact Ubuntu doesn't allow logging in as root at all by default); things needing root permissions can usually be invoked via the "sudo" utility which elevates just the one process to root permissions.  As a result, most processes are running as a normal user, which means about the most they can do is wipe out your /home directory (My Documents equivalent) while leaving the system files untouched.

Most software in Windows these days is able to run without needing administrator permissions, and for those that are designed to write to their Program Files folder, in Vista the system automatically puts these files in the home directory so that administrator permissions aren't needed. As for whether Linux is more secure than Windows, the main problem these days are users who run unverified programs from the Internet, as well as websites exploiting security holes in web browsers. For the first problem, if a user is willing to click "Allow" on the user account control dialog in Windows, what's going to stop them from typing their root/sudo password in Linux? Once the malicious program has that password, the security measures in Linux don't matter.

Firefox 2 for me. I tried Chrome for a while at home on dialup, but found that it didn't load anything (particularly Gmail and Google maps) as quickly as Firefox 2 (which struck me as strange). That's also the reason I do not use Firefox 3. I suspect the reason I find Firefox to be faster is exactly that I use the older version. I don't do much other than basic email and such, so I don't need the newer browsers.

Quote from: tmthyvs on July 07, 2010, 03:53:44 PM
Firefox 2 for me. I tried Chrome for a while at home on dialup, but found that it didn't load anything (particularly Gmail and Google maps) as quickly as Firefox 2 (which struck me as strange). That's also the reason I do not use Firefox 3. I suspect the reason I find Firefox to be faster is exactly that I use the older version. I don't do much other than basic email and such, so I don't need the newer browsers.

The thing to be leery about when using older browsers (as it is with older OSes) is that they're less likely to be supported should exploits need to be patched and new markup standards implemented. I know Mozilla stopped supporting 3.0, so I would have to presume that earlier versions would no longer get bug fixes as well. I've just downloaded the beta of Firefox 4, and so far, it just about equals Chrome and definitely blows Firefox 3.6 out of the water in terms of rendering speed. I think Chrome got the Mozilla boys thinking about how Firefox could be more "slender," and it looks like version 4 is the result of that work.

Quote from: algorerhythms on July 07, 2010, 12:39:36 AM
For the first problem, if a user is willing to click "Allow" on the user account control dialog in Windows, what's going to stop them from typing their root/sudo password in Linux? Once the malicious program has that password, the security measures in Linux don't matter.

I think it has to do with how often you see the dialog. I used Windows Vista for all of about 30 minutes when I got my current computer, and encountered a spate of those "Allow/Deny" things during that time, for things that seemed trivial. If a user is conditioned to see those regularly, they're liable to enter "SHUT UP AND GO AWAY" mode and just click on "Allow" for everything. On Linux, generally the only time you'll see the root prompt is if you specifically started some config process, where you're probably expecting the prompt to appear.

The way software is set up on Linux makes the "download compromised programs from the internet" route less likely too, since most of your programs come from the RPM/deb repositories, and if not, they need to be compiled from source. The repos contain only trustworthy software, and if you're compiling stuff from the internet, you're acting far too deliberately for a mere root prompt to save you...

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 07, 2010, 08:43:22 PM
The way software is set up on Linux makes the "download compromised programs from the internet" route less likely too, since most of your programs come from the RPM/deb repositories, and if not, they need to be compiled from source. The repos contain only trustworthy software, and if you're compiling stuff from the internet, you're acting far too deliberately for a mere root prompt to save you...

Is that why there are no installers for Linux?  I've always considered that a flaw, as it requires one to be a major computer geek to get anything running on Linux that isn't in the repository.  I actually had to download and make a disc for 9.10 specifically because the repository for 8.04 (which I did have a disc for) doesn't have a version of TILP that works with my calculator and I couldn't figure out how to install the newer version and all the libraries it needs.

Quote from: rawmustard on July 07, 2010, 07:37:34 PM

Quote from: tmthyvs on July 07, 2010, 03:53:44 PM
Firefox 2 for me. I tried Chrome for a while at home on dialup, but found that it didn't load anything (particularly Gmail and Google maps) as quickly as Firefox 2 (which struck me as strange). That's also the reason I do not use Firefox 3. I suspect the reason I find Firefox to be faster is exactly that I use the older version. I don't do much other than basic email and such, so I don't need the newer browsers.

The thing to be leery about when using older browsers (as it is with older OSes) is that they're less likely to be supported should exploits need to be patched and new markup standards implemented. I know Mozilla stopped supporting 3.0, so I would have to presume that earlier versions would no longer get bug fixes as well. I've just downloaded the beta of Firefox 4, and so far, it just about equals Chrome and definitely blows Firefox 3.6 out of the water in terms of rendering speed. I think Chrome got the Mozilla boys thinking about how Firefox could be more "slender," and it looks like version 4 is the result of that work.

Glad to hear it about the speed. I'll likely be getting a higher-speed internet connection in the near future, and upgrading to a more supported browser is definitely on the to-do list when that happens.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 07, 2010, 08:43:22 PM

Quote from: algorerhythms on July 07, 2010, 12:39:36 AM
For the first problem, if a user is willing to click "Allow" on the user account control dialog in Windows, what's going to stop them from typing their root/sudo password in Linux? Once the malicious program has that password, the security measures in Linux don't matter.

I think it has to do with how often you see the dialog. I used Windows Vista for all of about 30 minutes when I got my current computer, and encountered a spate of those "Allow/Deny" things during that time, for things that seemed trivial. If a user is conditioned to see those regularly, they're liable to enter "SHUT UP AND GO AWAY" mode and just click on "Allow" for everything. On Linux, generally the only time you'll see the root prompt is if you specifically started some config process, where you're probably expecting the prompt to appear.

The way software is set up on Linux makes the "download compromised programs from the internet" route less likely too, since most of your programs come from the RPM/deb repositories, and if not, they need to be compiled from source. The repos contain only trustworthy software, and if you're compiling stuff from the internet, you're acting far too deliberately for a mere root prompt to save you...

It is in fact possible to download executable programs for Linux from the Internet and install them without going through the package manager or compiling. In fact, to install Mathematica, the only way you can do it is to use the installer from its CD. All someone has to do to compromise a Linux machine is to convince the user to download a shell script or executable program, tell it to run, and give it the password. Give the average computer user the right motivation (porn, for example), and they'll do it.

Quote from: deanej on July 08, 2010, 11:22:46 AM
Is that why there are no installers for Linux?  I've always considered that a flaw, as it requires one to be a major computer geek to get anything running on Linux that isn't in the repository.  I actually had to download and make a disc for 9.10 specifically because the repository for 8.04 (which I did have a disc for) doesn't have a version of TILP that works with my calculator and I couldn't figure out how to install the newer version and all the libraries it needs.

The lack of "installers" per se isn't a flaw, it's just that Linux handles program installation in a way that catches people used to the Windows way of program distribution off guard. I used to feel the same way when I first switched (god, has it already been five years?) but once I understood the way it works better, I grew to appreciate it.

How it works is you have a "package manager" that handles all the software packages (on Fedora, this is RPM, on Ubuntu, this is dpkg). When you use yum or apt-get and say "Fetch me the latest Firefox", it contacts the repo and grabs a package file (an .rpm or .deb file) and checks the prerequisites the package file specifies. If there are any that aren't met, then it goes and grabs the packages it needs. (Those can also have unmet dependencies, leading to a long "dependency chain" where the software may have to obtain dozens of other packages.) When all the required packages are downloaded, they are installed into the RPM/dpkg database. Now, you have your software, and the computer keeps a record of what's installed and what it depends on, so should you attempt to uninstall or upgrade one of those needed packages, the software can resolve the situation or alert you to what's going on. This has several advantages, one of them being the "DLL hell" issue you can sometimes cause on Windows, where two programs fight over which version of a DLL to install (one requires 3.5, the other requires 3.6, and only one can be installed...). 

You can make an end-run around the repositories by finding the appropriate package file yourself, which is often available from specialized RPM/deb search sites, as well as the program's website (sometimes even old versions are available). The only problem with this approach is that you don't have the repos to bail you out if you run into a dependency chain. Most of the time when you are needing to compile something, it is either hobbyist software that is so obscure (or possibly terrible) that it hasn't been added to the repos yet, or brand-new software that simply hasn't been packaged and added to the repos yet.

Quote from: algorerhythms on July 08, 2010, 02:10:49 PM
It is in fact possible to download executable programs for Linux from the Internet and install them without going through the package manager or compiling. In fact, to install Mathematica, the only way you can do it is to use the installer from its CD. All someone has to do to compromise a Linux machine is to convince the user to download a shell script or executable program, tell it to run, and give it the password. Give the average computer user the right motivation (porn, for example), and they'll do it.

Yes, pre-compiled binaries do exist, but it is a rarer mode of distribution than anything else on Linux, possibly because it loses all of the benefits from going through the package manager. It's generally only seen in software releases by big, closed-source companies like Adobe and Wolfram that release "must-have" software for Linux. The vast majority of Linux software is open-source and available in the repo.

It is of course true that unbridled idiocy can ruin even the best security plans...but that's not a fault of the OS. You could break into Fort Knox if everyone insisted on keeping the doors unlocked.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 09, 2010, 06:57:59 AM
It is of course true that unbridled idiocy can ruin even the best security plans...but that's not a fault of the OS. You could break into Fort Knox if everyone insisted on keeping the doors unlocked.

Which is exactly my point. It doesn't matter how secure the average computer user's operating system is when the average computer user is an idiot. For non-idiots, a more secure operating system is better (but still not perfect).

Firefox at home  :D, but am forced to use IE7 at work  X-(.

Quote from: rawmustard on July 07, 2010, 07:37:34 PM

Quote from: tmthyvs on July 07, 2010, 03:53:44 PM
Firefox 2 for me. I tried Chrome for a while at home on dialup, but found that it didn't load anything (particularly Gmail and Google maps) as quickly as Firefox 2 (which struck me as strange). That's also the reason I do not use Firefox 3. I suspect the reason I find Firefox to be faster is exactly that I use the older version. I don't do much other than basic email and such, so I don't need the newer browsers.

The thing to be leery about when using older browsers (as it is with older OSes) is that they're less likely to be supported should exploits need to be patched and new markup standards implemented. I know Mozilla stopped supporting 3.0, so I would have to presume that earlier versions would no longer get bug fixes as well.

rawmustard is right on the money. You need to stay up-to-date with a supported web browser because those that are not being actively supported (like any Firefox earlier than 3.5) are NOT secure. Being on dial-up won't save you.

There are tweaks you can do in the about:config in Firefox to improve performance on dial-up (and to dial down memory use, if you need it). But frankly, being on dial-up in 2010 is not a good experience regardless of the browser you use.

I primarily use Firefox (currently 4.0 Beta 1), in part because it has some very important security add-ons not available in Chrome, like NoScript and HTTPS-Everywhere, in part because I use Tree Style Tab for tabs on the left-hand side.

Firefox is not as speedy as Chrome (though each new version gets closer to parity), but my hardware is fast enough that I don't find the lack of speed an issue.

Chrome is my backup, and it is pretty useful. I also appreciate the add-ons that are being made available for it (AdBlock in particular - ad blocking is highly underrated as a security feature).

I don't use IE frequently, but I have it for the handful of websites that are so IE-centric they fail in other browsers.

Opera and Safari are awkward and weird to use, and offer no compelling reason to use them over Firefox or Chrome.