digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Firefox 3 rated BEST of ALL brand new browsers by CNet

crave.cnet.co.uk — Cnet has rated Firefox 3 as the best browser out of IE 8, Safari 3 and Opera 9.5, and gives special mention to Flock!!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • P5ycHo, on 03/19/2008, -89/+12Too bad they didn't weigh it against Safari 3.1 ....
    • SuperWinner, on 03/19/2008, -41/+27Never fails, some mac loser has to inform us how his choice is best. Mac users are more brainwashed and less informed than religious people...
      • mywhitenoise, on 03/19/2008, -38/+11I'd say there's more ignorant PC users than there are Mac users.
        I've heard all that crazy ***** like "an iMac cost $6000!" "YOU CAN'T UPGRADE MACS" "Macs can't go online!".
        • daftman, on 03/19/2008, -13/+27Actually, you can't really upgrade a Mac. Can I upgrade my Mac CPU? From a PPC to Intel? Or from Intel to a better AMD?
          The only things you can upgrade Mac are just peripherals.
          • mywhitenoise, on 03/19/2008, -8/+19You can't upgrade from PPC to Intel, but you can install different hard drives, additional ram, and replace the video card. Many people believe you can't do that on a Mac.
        • kansai22, on 03/19/2008, -10/+6Agreed, I remember I came on here showing evidence that the new Mac Book Pro was an inferior laptop compared to the new Sony AR series and the mac fans wanted to crucify my for telling the truth and backing it up with facts.
        • mrection, on 03/19/2008, -2/+29Your wording is too funny -> "I'd say there's more ignorant PC users than there are Mac users."

          I agree, there are likely more ignorant PC users than there are Mac users total. However, I'd say that the percentage of Mac users who are ignorant is greater than the percentage of PC users who are ignorant *grin*.
        • theOster, on 03/19/2008, -1/+4also look at the reverse: take the percentage of pc users that really "hack" their systems and compare that number to the same types using macs (and of course lets not forget that linux users are prob running on pcs :)
        • scotticus, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4it's less ignorance (although that's certainly present) and more smugness.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1MySpace abusers who do nothing all day don't count.
      • fkr3, on 03/19/2008, -6/+11Never fails.... some editor decides they need a boost in ad impressions so they write something they know the kidiots on digg will vote for every single time. They offer no real reason why the FF3 beta is better other than it's better than previous versions of itself? Wow.
        • jemka, on 03/19/2008, -3/+13Marketing 101.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/19/2008, -2/+7RAM, Speed, Accuracy, and the new GUI. That's why its better.

          RAM usage: Much lower, Less memory leaks.
          Accuracy: More conforming than previous browsers.
          Speed: Its definitely faster.
          GUI: Just improvements in general, like the speed of the GUI, and the new features that make it easier to use.
        • fkr3, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1That's in comparison to previous versions of Firefox though. How does being better than old versions of itself make it better than current versions of other software? Right.... they don't say, they just wander off in a "Firefox is better because that's worth diggs" direction.
          • CarzorStelatis, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Firefox 2 was better than its competitors. The new versions of IE, Opera and Suckfari are not better than Firefox 2. Firefox 3 is better than Firefox 2. Therefore Firefox 3 is better than the new versions of IE, Opera and Suckfari.
        • Elranzer, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2"...some editor decides they need a boost in ad impressions..."

          Exactly. Firefox 3 is not supported by AdBlock ;-)
      • diggcensored, on 03/19/2008, -15/+5actually, mac users are more brainwashed and less informed than atheists.
        • mrection, on 03/19/2008, -8/+3well played sir!
        • glinsvad, on 03/19/2008, -3/+9LOL! The fact is that your world-views are so screwed up, you actually think everybody who doesn't share your *****-up opinions must be brainwashed and demented. I'm sure this will get you far in life, you ignorant mf
        • nmnnotmyname, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1That's simply saying good things about Mac users..
        • KimonoThief, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Diggcensored knows less about general relativity and the photoelectric effect than Einstein did.
        • GamerX, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2I always thought that the brainwashed ones were the religious, not the atheists. Thank you.
      • Brad324, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Amen, brother. Amen.
      • solistus, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Yeah, how brainwashed... He wanted the brand new version of Safari tested for the 'best of the brand new browsers' comparison? He should be happy we don't compare FF3B4 to Safari 1.0!
      • Kelmon, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Oh, the horror! Someone expressed an opinion that wasn't yours! Won't someone, please, think of the children?

        I don't know which browser you're voting for, or on which platform, but Firefox is not the best browser on the Mac, mostly because it is not a real Mac application and therefore doesn't support the standard services that anyone should expect, such as getting its network configuration options from System Preferences automatically. In this respect I'd suggest that you do your research first before suggesting that someone has been "brainwashed".
    • mywhitenoise, on 03/19/2008, -12/+39I have a Mac (been using them for more than 10 years) and I ***** hate Safari.
      • Audacitor, on 03/19/2008, -14/+2Ya, but you can't deny it's the absolute fastest browser available. It loads way faster than even FF3. I generally use it if I'm just looking something up, but for more serious sessions I use the fox.
        • solidus636, on 03/19/2008, -2/+6That's because Firefox has lots of extensions to be installed...so of course a bare browser will load faster.
        • justineatworld, on 03/19/2008, -1/+6... and the Firefox 3 beta 5 nightly builds are faster than safari with one tab and MUCH MUCH faster with multiple tabs
    • Mejogid, on 03/19/2008, -3/+14For me personally, Safari is too unstable (and with no particular trigger for this) and crashes at least a few times every week - this has actually got worse since the upgrade to Leopard/Safari 3. It also locks up worse when loading pages than Firefox 3 does, and on a slow connection Safari's pause before even starting to render a page is annoying. Safari now performs slower on most javascript sites, and while it has a more native feel in certain areas (rounded contextual menus, services, inactive window states) the GUI no longer feels more responsible and isn't themable. That's completely discounting the tonnes of useful extensions available for firefox.
      • skoober, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2interesting. I bought my first mac 3weeks ago and have been using safari on it everyday. Usually have between 5 and 20tabs open at any one time with video, flash e.t.c
        Hasn't crashed once. no lock either.
        If anything firefox (on my old pc) was the most unstable browser i ever used. Maybe it was all those extensions i had installed.
    • MacPPC, on 03/19/2008, -2/+9Well to be sure, CNet compares the latest firefox beta against Safari 3, instead of a nightly webKit build, which would be the safari beta.
    • DeathJux, on 03/19/2008, -4/+7I haven't tried Firefox 3 yet, but Safari 3 renders web pages wayyy faster than Firefox 2, so it's currently my browser of choice. I love the extensions and standards-compliance of Firefox, but until it can render pages as fast as Safari on my MBP, I will be using Safari primarily.
      • Audacitor, on 03/19/2008, -2/+4You should upgrade to FF3. Most of the major can't-live-without addons are available now for FF3b4 now; adblock plus, stumbleupon, web dev toolbar. I'm not sure but I think greasemonkey is functional too.
        • wiresjr, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Greasemonkey's working here on FF3b4. I do miss my googlebar though...
    • Brad324, on 03/19/2008, -7/+22they have the internet on macs now?
      • mirwoj, on 03/19/2008, -2/+10Yep. You buy DVDs with Internet on them.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1Until Microsoft patents internet and networking technology, yeah.
    • djbon2112, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I'm not a big fan of the new UI, but the rest of the browser seems awesome. Further proof that OSS can be better than proprietary.
  • dgblackout, on 03/19/2008, -26/+20safari 3.1 made me switch back to safari, much faster.
    flock sucks so hard it could get a golf ball through an IV, i don't even know where the interface designers were smoking weed whilst it was made
    • mrloco, on 03/19/2008, -2/+5It would be much better if they did.
    • mdoom, on 03/19/2008, -0/+16Not sure why the comments about Safari 3.1 are getting dugg down so low...it just was released today. And it is a lot faster! Its amazing. I messed around with the beta for a few months, but have been waiting for a full release from Apple before truely using it. I've been using FF 3 beta 4 exclusively, but I think I might be using Safari 3.1 for awhile now. At least until FF goes public release of 3.
      • Audacitor, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Have you found any sites yet that take advantage of its HTML 5 compatibility? I've been looking all day for something to try them out on.
      • vawksel, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4I agree, Safari 3.1 is amazingly fast. The new WebKit is amazing. Even submitting comments on Digg is faster. The Javascript implementation is just insanely quick.

      • theOster, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1i just downloaded safari and i must say that as much as i hate apple, this is a good product (like their ipod). it's definitely much speedier than ff, but i've only been using the beta4 at work. now, can i get a home button in safari? ctrl shift H isn't doing it for me...
        • newbill123, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3theOster asked "can i get a home button in safari? ctrl shift H isn't doing it for me..."
          Select "Customize Toolbar..." from the "View" menu. Then just drag the Home button to the Toolbar and select Done.
      • jasz, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Agree.. it's more of a fanboy fight going on..
        I just installed FF3b4 and works like a charm but I still prefer Safari3.1... I guess I got used to it. FF3 is still a great choice...
    • ronoxQ, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Hopefully nobody's digging you down for Flock. I love Flock's features, I LOATHE its interface. Cluttered and messy.
  • khail250, on 03/19/2008, -90/+136cnet means dick.. its like searching on lycos, or infoseek
    • Dumbledorito, on 03/19/2008, -16/+6So if someone said to "suck my cnet"...
    • daftman, on 03/19/2008, -8/+118So instead of attacking cnet's argument, you attack cnet. Ad hominem? It's like me saying your opinion means ***** because you are a dick. You might get the mob to agree with you but you haven't done anything to disprove their statement.
      Firefox 3 uses less memory than all the major browsers, scores the highest acid3 points, has the fastest javascript parse time, and have plugins like firebug.
      Yes, and I know about nightly Webkit. But until it is in the latest browsers, it doesn't really matter to most people.
      Sources:
      http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/03/11/firefox-3-memory ...
      http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1470&page=2
      • skyshock1, on 03/19/2008, -4/+23Latest build of Opera scores a 77/100. Just sayin'.
      • jamend, on 03/19/2008, -2/+17And Safari 3.1 (final) scores 75.
      • benplaut, on 03/19/2008, -1/+5Ad Hominem Abusive, you dummy!
        (a logic pun... not often you get to use one)
      • phill, on 03/19/2008, -1/+5But isn't Firefox 3 a beta version also?
        • mtekk, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3So is IE8
        • xaxxon, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Yeah. Safari 3.1 is the only one that's officially released. FF3 is coming "real soon now", though.
      • p0tent1al, on 03/19/2008, -3/+6You miss his point. I think all of us on Digg know about Firefox, and the majority on here use it. The pure fact that Cnet endorses Firefox means absolutely nothing.
      • Karzyn, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Webkit and FF3 Beta are both developmental, so it's perfectly accurate to compare them. Rather than gloss over Webkit's superiority on Acid3 why not accept it and discuss the many great features of FF3? Just sayin'.
    • NyteStarNyne, on 03/19/2008, -6/+24Jesus H Christ... I can't believe you just brought up Lycos. My haed esplode with nostalgia.
    • brownr21, on 03/19/2008, -18/+3CNET does suck balls guys, this is the same website that says Vista sucks.

      Next.
      • ledzep19752000, on 03/19/2008, -4/+14Vista does suck!
        • Hoogs, on 03/19/2008, -5/+1It works absolutely perfectly for me!
          Why is it so cool to hate Vista?
        • muuhgnoo, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Because it just sucks for most people. Usually people who don't think that it sucks, suck themselves.
        • DemonWasp, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1@muuhgnoo: Are you saying you wouldn't suck yourself if you had the option?
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3And they were right.

        Coincidence I think not.
      • amadeusdemarzi, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Hehe, if you look at all their screenshots, they are from XP :)

        Vista does suck
    • omniatlas, on 03/19/2008, -5/+9you're kidding me. They're using the bug infested WINDOWS version of Safari to do the comparison.
      • theOster, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3what are the bugs? i'm completely new to safari and i dont know anything about it other than the default theme kinda sucks...
      • iofthestorm, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5Well, I suppose it's the best Windows browser, keeping the other elements equal. And yes, Safari for windows sucks although I suppose by now it's better than the initial beta which had completely garbled text on my computer.
      • secleinteer, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3You can't really compare Safari on Mac to all the other browsers on PC...that's not an appropriate method of conducting an experiment. Perhaps they could have compared all the browsers on a Mac, but Windows is more relevant than OS X to most people.
    • ElBeh, on 03/19/2008, -5/+3What the hell? There isn't just one critic who works for CNet, you know. And as far as I know they're really lenient on censorship.
    • judsond, on 03/19/2008, -4/+1I dunno, I like firefox the best too, but I still wouldn't trust cnet that much :)
    • Fixthemedia, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1oh man infoseek wasn't bad back in the day.
    • newbill123, on 03/19/2008, -0/+7There is a small group of people (like my old boss) who religiously follow the droppings of self-proclaimed IT insiders, press, and research groups. They've been invited to the exclusive parties thrown by Conde Naste, Cnet, et al after filling out surveys and claiming inflated responsibility for numbers of computers and budget dollars. They don't get their news and insight from Digg or Reddit but from following these articles, summary reports, and research papers before going out for their afternoon golf game.

      The significance is that, in the past, if a product had Microsoft as it's maker, it usually came out at the top of these recommendations. For whatever reason, the fact that Firefox is at the top of CNet's heap may influence a small group of very powerful people. The debate about whether Cnet is still relevant today is another matter, but to a small group of folks it is still very relevant and very influential.
    • moush, on 03/19/2008, -3/+2Suck my cnet.
    • CarzorStelatis, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Bury pls.
  • ptFoe, on 03/19/2008, -18/+11Safari doesn't have the addons like FF, and it only runs well on OS.
    • mywhitenoise, on 03/19/2008, -13/+5Safari has add-ons.
    • DaffyDuck, on 03/19/2008, -3/+5http://pimpmysafari.com/
    • PathDaemon, on 03/19/2008, -4/+3Safari has plenty of add-ons, just not as many as FireFox.
      Actually, a hearty "hell no" for CNet calling it "a cute underdog."

      It's hardly news that Firefox won, though — among all platforms, among all competitions, it is and will (let's hope) always be the best.
      • DarkShroud, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Opera is #1 in performance, standards, and supports the most OSs. I'm actually waiting for the full FF3 to come out just to see how it stacks up.
      • Karmavs, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Why hope Firefox will always be the best? Wouldn't it be better if another browser came along that was superior to firefox?
        • muuhgnoo, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0No, since you then probably would have to buy a Mac just to be able to run it.
    • ptFoe, on 03/19/2008, -3/+5attack of the rich artyfarty mac users
    • Amiga500, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I use Safari on my Vista machine, mostly for compatibility testing. It's the the fastest, but kinda fun to use.
      • delmar14, on 03/19/2008, -3/+2Wow, you use Apple's worst program ever on Microsoft's worst OS ever...why?
    • Kelmon, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I like the ideal of cross-platform applications but I hate the restrictions that they can impose because they usually mean that your features are limited to the base OS. Firefox has a great rendering engine but the application itself isn't very good on a Mac because it doesn't support the services that the OS provides to all native applications, such as getting its settings from System Preferences. Camino is a better idea since it takes what's good about Firefox and wraps it in a native Mac application. Most OS have features that make them great but cross-platform tends to mean you cater to the lowest common denominators. Embrace the differences and make the best use of them.
  • johanm, on 03/19/2008, -8/+41best of ALL the 4 browsers that just came out!
  • MasterThief117, on 03/19/2008, -4/+45I would use it, but as of now there is little addon compatibility with this version.
    • saleem, on 03/19/2008, -4/+11is adblock plus on FF3 beta yet??
      • bmonet, on 03/19/2008, -2/+23yes
        • Syphon8, on 03/19/2008, -1/+11But for the love of God, don't enable filterset.g
          • TheSabre, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3For those of us who haven't picked up a FF3 beta yet, would you care to elaborate why we shouldn't enable filterset.g?
          • iofthestorm, on 03/19/2008, -0/+9Filterset g sucks, use easylist. I think g causes memory leaks and stuff, has more false positives and is updated less often. Also, ABP is usually updated for all nightlies of Firefox since so many nightly testers use it. It's one of the better extensions in terms of nightly compatibility. Tab Mix Plus is another good one, and if an extension refuses to install/enable you can always try setting extensions.checkCompatibility to false in about:config.
          • Syphon8, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3@TheSabre It makes it crash on load, every time.
    • HueytheFreeman, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5I don't like the new "skin" and the overall button placements. I know it's skinnable; no doubt that is one of Firefox's strengths, however it's still bothering me enough to not use the beta.
      • HueytheFreeman, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5Oh shoot, the edit time ran out.
        It took me a while to get used to the Firefox 2.0 skin as well (compared to 1.5): the icons were very "glassy."
      • ElBeh, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4You can customize the button placements with View --> Toolbars --> Customize. But yeah, I agree, they're pretty ugly. I see some improvement in the back/forward buttons in B4 as opposed to B3, though.
      • Audacitor, on 03/19/2008, -2/+4What system are you using? On OS X, I couldn't ask for a better look and feel; it's just like a native app.
        • HueytheFreeman, on 03/19/2008, -1/+4Yeah I forgot to add that I'm on XP. The OS X integration is really great looking.
        • Karmavs, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Seriously? You couldn't ask for it to not look like it's the active window ALL THE TIME? That alone makes me prefer the old skn.
    • PsychoticDude85, on 03/19/2008, -0/+6Seems like it's starting to happen. Web Dev Toolbar is now FF3 compatible, there are firebug and fireftp releases with support for 3. I'm hoping we'll see more in time - but it's the main ones I use so I've made the change.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I havent had an issue with any of my addons. I dont get what the complaints are about.
      • iofthestorm, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Your addons might not be reflective of the addons others use. Anything that uses bookmarks at all will be completely borked for Firefox 3.
    • zwaldowski, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Everything I use is compatible. Don't expect 'my 5-min hello world w/ sparkles' addons to be compatible with FF3 on Beta.
    • grav3k33p3r, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2All my extensions are working fine. You just have to go to the "about:config" page and set the "extensions.checkCompatibility" setting to false.
  • keviniskool, on 03/19/2008, -20/+8Because CNET is still totally relevant, right?
    • saleem, on 03/19/2008, -1/+13actually if im out and about to buy a new digital camera or printer or the like, YES, i do check the cnet review.
    • thefinger, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2some people missed the sarcasm
  • psycoticparrot, on 03/19/2008, -4/+61Im using the FF3 beta 4 right now to type this...I have noticed it is much faster(especially on digg), however i prefer FF2's UI
    • skyshock1, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Is smooth scrolling still busted in the latest beta?
    • transfuse, on 03/19/2008, -0/+20So download a Firefox 2 theme.
      There'll surely be one out there somewhere.
      • ElBeh, on 03/19/2008, -5/+1Not yet. In fact, no themes work for FF3B4. D:
        • goofygarber, on 03/19/2008, -1/+5Not true. I'm using a Safari theme made exclusively for FF3.

          Edit - I'm on Mac and apparently the default Mac one is better too - I like it. Haven't tried Windows yet.
        • balaknair, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0Phoenity Modern and NASA night launch both work just fine on FFb3, as do Aerofox and Aquatint(these are just the ones I've installed and tried on Windows and Linux)
          The number of themes that work on FF3b4 at present is pretty low at present, but there are some. There are a few that work only on Macs as well.
    • SPThom, on 03/19/2008, -3/+10The Fx3 default theme on Windows kinda blows... It's REAL slick on OS X though. Wish they'd borrow some design elements from the Mac version to put back in the Windows side.
      • Audacitor, on 03/19/2008, -1/+5Screenshot for anyone who cares: http://skitch.com/audacitor/863b/ff3b4
        • blingfinger, on 03/19/2008, -2/+4OS X version looks like *****. I almost puked when I downloaded it and put it on instead of FF2, then I took it right back off.
      • iofthestorm, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Well, the Windows theme looks more like IE, which is kind of sucky, but then the OS X one looks like Safari and fits in more, whereas I think overall Windows has less visual cohesion than OS X so the Firefox theme looks crappy. However, if you are using Vista you can add some shininess to the toolbars using some userchrome.css; although they exposed native toolbar skinning to the css it's not used by default. You can do something like the following:

        #nav-bar {
        border: 0 !important;
        -moz-appearance: browsertabbar-toolbox !important;
        }
        #PersonalToolbar {
        -moz-appearance: communications-toolbox !important;
        padding: 1px 1px 2px 1px !important;
        }

        to get a glossy blue bookmarks tab bar and a silver nav bar. Looks rather slick on Vista, but it won't work on XP.
      • majormunky, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2I haven't seen it mentioned on this thread yet, so i'll mention it now, is that Firefox 3, the UI, comes from the native ui that the OS uses. So, if its running on a mac, it uses the standard controls a mac uses. That's why tit looks better on a mac.
      • CarzorStelatis, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1The Windows one's lovely, at least on Vista it is. I suppose it wouldn't really tie in well with XP, the same way that IE7 sticks out like a sore thumb.
    • ElBeh, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Same here, dude.
    • jasonsalas, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1i dig FF Beta 4 on a development machine, too, and it is notably faster, but i rely on so many add-ons that haven't been migrated up yet, so i functionally can't pull myself away from v.2.0.0.12 on my laptop (although several have recently been upgraded to B4).
  • SmellyFingers, on 03/19/2008, -9/+29This comes as a surprise to no one. The only thing I'm surprised about is the fact CNet is actually still around...
    • Hoogs, on 03/19/2008, -1/+5Why does everyone seem to hate things that are popular? Cnet, to me, has always been a great resource for videos and reviews on electronics.
      • mnick, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3Their review content seems shallow in comparision to others. Now that streaming video has become common place, I prefer to use more specialized sites when reading reviews. Also I find their site pretty bad when it comes to usabilty. The flash player often stalls and crashes, finding version two of a product with a similar name to version one is hard, they often don't review the products I am looking for and the list goes on.
  • Lick, on 03/19/2008, -11/+61LOL. Flock.
    • thefinger, on 03/19/2008, -9/+5Flock is a bloated piece of *****.
      Go pedal your molasses elsewhere.
  • vawksel, on 03/19/2008, -6/+20I wonder how it compares to the new 3.1 Safari that Apple just released.
    • rpark, on 03/19/2008, -1/+9I know, it sucks that this article is outdated the second it became "popular".
    • judsond, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Safari has web fonts, and css transitions, which ff3 won't have, but firefox has add-ons... it's a trade off imo, but i'm going with firefox.
      • usingpond, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Basically, it boils down to this: Firefox for plugins and compatibility, Safari for bleeding edge.

        And of course you have IE for general suckage.
    • MikeCerm, on 03/19/2008, -2/+6I'm sure Firefox 3 will continue to beat Safari, just like it always has. It fixes most of the performance issues that Fx2 had, packs more features than before, and is still more customizable than Safari.

      Safari is obviously total joke on Windows, but I'm pretty sure that even a majority of Mac users choose Firefox.
      • alexmarchuk13, on 03/19/2008, -1/+5Have you ever tried using Firefox on a Mac? It's a load of *****, always lags up when I launch it, and randomly quits.
      • Kelmon, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I don't know of the majority of Mac users but I don't use Firefox. I'm back in the Safari camp but sometimes use Camino when I need the rendering engine of Firefox since it wraps it in a proper native Mac application.
    • fatejudger, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2It doesn't. For anyone who isn't concerned about extensibility, Safari's features and performance beat out every browser I've tried on my mac. Now that Safari 3.1 is out, there will be little reason to question Safari's stranglehold on the mac market.
    • neckaros, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Safari is customizable thanks to SIMBL (Inquisitor, SafariStand...)
      I prefer Safari under OSX, much lighter and faster it seems. And i don't like the Beta 4 UI.
      But it's only my point of view
    • MattBD, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I tried both yesterday in Windows and I thought Safari was utter pants. Firefox 3 kicked its arse. And it looked better. I think both iTunes and Safari look crap.
  • DannoSpeaks, on 03/19/2008, -3/+44Seems a little premature on all accounts.
  • Acronym, on 03/19/2008, -7/+33lulz my beta build just froze up while digging this
  • hotdamn, on 03/19/2008, -13/+22Acid 3 Test says otherwise.
    http://acid3.acidtests.org/

    Recent version of Safari (3.1) gets 75, the nightly gets 93 even.

    I don't remember the exact score of ff3, beta 4, but I know it's lower.
    • mdoom, on 03/19/2008, -1/+9I just got a 68/100 with FF3 beta 4
    • vawksel, on 03/19/2008, -1/+275/100 on the beta, but this RED image of a dog looking thing appears, guessing thats some kind of fatal error.
    • SQLserver, on 03/19/2008, -12/+6Believe it or don't, there are some of us who want more important features in our browsers then just good web standards.
      • skyshock1, on 03/19/2008, -3/+13You're right. Who cares whether or not a web browser displays web pages properly. Forecast Fox to tells you what temperature it is currently outside your window. THAT's what I consider important in a web browser.
        • jakem1, on 03/19/2008, -6/+1I think you'll find that web devs are the ones who care about standards compliance. If my browser doesn't render a webpage correctly it's the developers fault, not the browsers.
        • kaeppler, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5that's a pretty ignorant way to look at this issue. When talking about standards conformance, there are always two players in the game: content providers and tool providers. If any of em does not care about standards, the problem gets shifted towards the other party, making the process of delivering a good use experience more difficult.

          In the end, it's the user experience that will suffer, and that's the worst thing that can happen. So, no I don't agree. Standards compliance is crucial. And even Microsoft starts to agree on that: http://digg.com/microsoft/IE8_will_render_standard ...
        • kaeppler, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4In fact, my last reply was aimed at jakem1, not skyshock1. Sorry :-/ These digg reply boxes can get confusing at times.
      • iofthestorm, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5Acid tests don't actually reflect good coding practices though, and I think although they had good intentions it's become something of a ***** match for browsers now. Also, fwiw yesterday's nightly build gets 71/100
    • SPThom, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2Firefox 3 gets a 68.
    • Syphon8, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4FF3 nightly gets 71, with the same types of bugs as Safari.

    • jmechy, on 03/19/2008, -1/+4and todays weekly of Opera gets 77.
    • stoanhart, on 03/19/2008, -1/+23Acid3 isn't the only metric of how good a browser is. To most people, it's probably the least significant. All of the major browsers will most likely pass it relatively soon, now that the "standards compliance race" is on.
    • kss42, on 03/19/2008, -0/+151) The Gecko/Firefox dev team has an active tracking bug and spreadsheet for the Acid3 test, and the latest builds of Firefox keep scoring higher and higher. It's only a matter of time before FF scores a 100.
      2) The Acid3 test was designed such that every browser would fail it; it uses obscure and arcane JavaScript "standards" which no web developer in their right mind would ever rely on. The only real benefit of a high Acid3 score right now is bragging rights.
      3) A 75 (or 93 or whatever) is not the same as a 100. A website which is foolish enough to use unsupported standards will fail to run, without discrimination, on Safari, and Firefox, and everything else.
      4) Performance, usability, and feature set are all that should matter to end users; standards compliance is really only important to site designers and the browser developers themselves. Firefox leads in every category that really matters to 95% of the populace.
      Don't worry about Acid3 numbers. Give Firefox 3 a try, it's the best browser I've ever used.
      • newbill123, on 03/19/2008, -1/+4kss42 made 4 very good points questioning Acid3's practicality and the irrelevance of Firefox's performance numbers. But I have to disagree with his conclusion that we should all just ignore Acid3.

        Though the Gecko crew has committed to Acid3 compliance, there's much discussion that due to where Firefox 3 is in development that this isn't the right time to try to hit 100%. Changes to the Gecko rendering engine, adding new features, and heck, even string localization changes are things that shouldn't be forced in to a product closing in on release candidate status. Despite the bad timing, I don't think you'll see anyone at Mozilla arguing that the Acid tests are irrelevant or a waste of time or effort.

        The standards being tested in Acid3 have been around since 2004. It's true that most web page authors won't directly encounter a bug exposed in the Acid3 tests, but developers building Javascript libraries like Prototype, JQuery, ext, mootools and scriptaculous will run into many of these edge cases. And there are a LOT of users of these libraries that may be impacted by one these edge cases. Right now these tool makers spend a lot of time creating work arounds for non-compliant browsers. The more compliant the browser community are with the spec and quirky edge cases means the more time these tool builders will be able to spend adding new features and FX rather than just fighting for compatibility with yet another browser. This is a very good thing.

        While it's disappointing that Acid3 was released during Firefox's beta cycle, what's amazing is to look at what fighting for Acid3 compliance is doing for development with a team that isn't constrained and can aggressively pursue compliance. The webkit team has a tracking bug ( http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17064 ) and they've been fairly transparent in their work. One very visible change is that Webkit has improved their garbage collection in both spec compliance and performance; this probably won't be acceptable yet to pass Acid3's "smooth animation" requirement but it's going to be a huge improvement end users will see because javascript intensive sites will no longer seem to "burp" during garbage collection. Additionally, their experimental SMIL animation code that was broken and turned off for ages is now on the radar to be fixed and re-enabled. Testing timing issues while trying to understand why a certain SVG test passes sometimes and fails others exposed a priority 1 crashing bug to fix even if they decide to give up on Acid3.

        Personally, I think the acid tests are more about the journey than the destination. The fact that Firefox is committed to pursuing that destination is more significant than their current score. I doubt Gecko will be first across the finish line, but already being in the range of two thirds compliant through fixing low hanging fruit during a feature freeze means they have a very compliant javascript engine already. For 2008, I'm already satisfied. Moving ahead, I'm happy that they see the value in pursuing 100% compliance even if they aren't first across the finish line and I hope other browser makers (especially Microsoft) will come to the same realization.
      • 0ceanic, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2my opera gets a 46, and looks nothing like the reference page.
      • mrrish, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Standards compliance matters for the end user when it is properly implented by the web developer. That's when the good browser can take advantage of it. Apple's Webkit is the epitomy of clean browsing. I got plug-ins too. I have SafariBlock which blocks crappy webpage ads. PicLens lets me view photos on a webpage in a gallery fashion (perfect for facebook). So on that note, go give Safari 3.1 or WebKit a run. you'll love the clean, fast interface.
    • caspy7, on 03/19/2008, -0/+35) That and Acid3 JUST came out.
    • Dustmuffins, on 03/19/2008, -1/+13IE 6 gets a 4/100...
    • MyNameIsJoe, on 03/19/2008, -2/+3Safari on the iPhone gets a 27.
    • igeoffi, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Nightly gets a 71.
  • Tony52, on 03/19/2008, -21/+2the new UI looks ghey, i hope the default back to FF2.
  • krystynheide, on 03/19/2008, -10/+8Hmm, I'm not sold on it yet. Still a little sluggish, it has a strange GIANT back button and I'm not fond of the default theme for Mac. It looks like Safari. If I wanted that, I'd use Safari.
    • SPThom, on 03/19/2008, -1/+111) Sluggish? I'm not seeing that.
      2) "Giant" back button is a design assumption that it's used more than any other button. I hate large buttons in general... If you customize and choose "small icons", this HUGE button goes away.
      3) I've heard LOTS of people say they wish Firefox (and Camino) looked more like Safari. IMO the news skin looks much better than Safari. Going back to Firefox on my work PC is mildly depressing, this new version is so slick on the Mac.
    • wdavis0911, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0You could always try the grapple themes. It makes Firefox 3b4 look like Safari. Very Nice.

      http://www.takebacktheweb.org/
    • newbill123, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3A number of GUI designers will say that the big back button makes a better target to hit. But emphasizing the back button is also a language localization issue. Not all languages read left to right so having the buttons be unequal gives you more localization options where "back" doesn't intuitively mean "left pointing arrow". The weightier back button will have meaning even if it's surprising the user by the direction it is facing. I don't know if any localizations actually use this feature yet, but it was a very forward-thinking idea.
    • mossblaser, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4"It looks like Safari. If I wanted that, I'd use Safari."
      Is this a typical trend of a mac user? If something looks nicer you'll use it because its clearly going to work better?
  • GIACOMOSAN, on 03/19/2008, -11/+7Firefox has proven to be one of the top tiers when it comes to browsing. Some might even call it the best and with their role in add-ons and other FF only features, I beleive Firefox beholds a bright feature.
  • scy1192, on 03/19/2008, -11/+6of course, they just compare the new features and pay no attention to the mountains of add-ons still required by Firefox to make it usable in everyday surfing.
    • hawleyjr, on 03/19/2008, -1/+5Add-ons that are optional not forced like other browsers...
    • allan17, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4"... required by Firefox to make it usable in everyday surfing."

      Such as? I have a couple add-ons, but would have no problem using a clean version (+ flash) of firefox.
  • aaoral, on 03/19/2008, -8/+2Hah, that shows all those nay-sayers. IE sucks!
  • skyshock1, on 03/19/2008, -12/+13FF is definitely the most extensible, but is SEVERELY lacking in rendering speed/power when compared to Opera, Webkit, Konqueror, Safari, etc... I don't even know that I'd rank it in my top 3.
    • balaknair, on 03/19/2008, -2/+4That is one of the issues they've attempted to fix in FF3, and since I've been using it as my default browser on XP and Kubuntu since beta4, I have to say they've pretty much succeeded. It's faster than Opera and Konqueror(and of course IE7 isn't even in the picture). I don't use Safari/webkit on any OS, with it's abysmal security 'features'
    • KloroFormd, on 03/19/2008, -5/+4Check current statistics. Firefox is leading them ALL.
    • zman14321, on 03/19/2008, -1/+6[Citation Needed]
      • Thundercat1971, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Does Chevrolet still make those?
    • kruxigt, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0That's the thing.. It seems to be impossible to make that damn gecko do anything but crawl when it gets to pages like www.starcraft2.com
  • Jarasmen, on 03/19/2008, -7/+33That's cool, but I'm still waiting for that Opera 9.5 final
    • thefinger, on 03/19/2008, -11/+1Don't bother waiting. If the Opera 9 beta has problems (which it does), I doubt the final release will be much better.
      • johnnysaucepn, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5*rolls eyes* That's why they call it beta testing.
  • ljkelley, on 03/19/2008, -1/+9Not to mention the products are not final release... you know you have your opinion preset when you judge browsers based on beta.
  • tech10171968, on 03/19/2008, -8/+24Seems a little early to start rating these browsers since at least two of them (IE8 and Opera 9.5) are still in beta. Why don't we just wait until all of them are in final release stage and THEN compare them?
    • scottybea, on 03/19/2008, -3/+18lol you didnt even read the article did you? Firefox BETA 4
      • jakem1, on 03/19/2008, -1/+4The point he's making is that all the reviewed browsers are at different stages in their development whereas if you were to compare final versions it would be a bit farer. For instance, IE8 beta just came out whereas, as you pointed out, FF is up to beta 4.
      • whitehatlurker, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3The parent still has a point. Why compare beta versions of the browsers?
        As well, on strict reading the parent post is correct - at least 2 are in beta.
      • EtherGnat, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Regardless of the beta status of the browsers, I'm still happy to see the comparison. People just need to keep in mind the information is subject to change.
    • maninblac1, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Agreed, IE8 is beta 1, and i wouldn't even call it a beta, it's so bad i'd call it an alpha 1 not a beta. I installed it, omg it was bad. Even IE7 emulation didn't work right. And that's already developed.
    • thefinger, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4So is Firefox. Haven't you been following the news?
  • vawksel, on 03/19/2008, -9/+4Safari 3.1 scrolls MUCH faster with the mouse wheel than ff3b4. "Smooth Scrolling" disabled on ff3b4.

    Looks like Apple has an inside job going on.
    • upeneff, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Yeah, FF3 doesn't scroll very nicely.

      But it's finally a lot faster than what it was. Which was why i never used it.

      However the new Safari is REALLY good compaired.
      IE8 Still breaks things, but atleast now it lets you view the internet in 7 or 5/6. SO you can flip through and maybe get one that looks like it was intended.
    • iofthestorm, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2You know you can set how many lines to scroll for each tick on the scroll wheel? Opera scrolls faster than Firefox too, but I personally hate how far it scrolls and prefer Firefox's more conservative 3 lines per tick.
  • ryankeiser, on 03/19/2008, -2/+0Love almost everything about it, except this new UI. Something has to be said about symmetry. A larger back button seems more symbolic than easier to use, to me. It also takes forever to load for me. Sticking with version 2 for the time being.
  • lupinglade, on 03/19/2008, -12/+4Safari 3.1 came out today, far better :)
    • Mrdudeperson, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1No talking about Safari on Digg. If it's one thing Apple can't do it's making a decent web browser.
    • vawksel, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2As far as speed is concerned, you are absolutely right. Safari 3.1 is INSANE I can't believe what a beast this Javascript implementation is.
    • rstarr, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1Why the hate?

      Safari loaded up with the latest nightly nightly.webkit.org screams on Mac and PC (although the PC version is pretty buggy for some).
  • eigh, on 03/19/2008, -14/+3safari is like the slow retardid brother of internet browsers
    opera is the teenage goth girl that cuts herself to get attention, but no one ever does pay attention to her
    IE is the jock that everyone loves to hate
    and as ususal firefox can have your firstborn child.
    • webandflow, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3retardid???
      Doesn't FF have a spelle chekcer?
    • rpark, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Actually,

      All that safari has going for it is speed.
      Opera is more or less the nerd who gets straight A's but can't get a date to save its life.
      IE is probably the bully because aside from idiots, no one likes him.
      Firefox is probably the guy who tries to please everyone with its cool plugins or 1/2 decent rendering of sites. Always a tad behind on everything though and he won't shut up about joining his club.

    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Lol, I think of it as
      Safari is cool to hang out with but isn't as much fun to be with unless your hanging out on his territory. Not all that interesting, though.
      Opera is the one who keeps on trying to be everyone's friend, but has no 'human' side. (the geek... In other words... like me >_>)
      IE is always behind the times, but manages to force his way into popularity using his parents.
      Firefox is sort of a nice guy who shares his work with others. He has a group of friends of his own, but IE's friends are always trying to prove how much of a misfit Firefox is. (If you don't believe me... Well, I have some... 'friends' for you to meet.)
  • reedatschool, on 03/19/2008, -5/+2From what people are saying Firefox 3 will be the first browser ever not to leak memory like a sieve. Be interesting to find out if it turns out to be true.
    • PKO17, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1No, it will just be the first Firefox version not to leak memory like a sieve.
  • slicker76, on 03/19/2008, -8/+6Ever notice english cnet is more bearable than american cnet?
  • TokenBlack, on 03/19/2008, -13/+10Did anyone think Firefox 3 WOULDN'T be the best of all new browsers?
    • DarkShroud, on 03/19/2008, -2/+3Yes. Because some of us use a variety of browsers for different reasons. Since they all have their strengths and weaknesses.
    • stonklit, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0Uh... considering FF2 was bloated compared to 1.x ... I don't see anyone who WOULD think it'd be the best.
  • ressiver, on 03/19/2008, -12/+6firefox is the best!!!
  • Mrdudeperson, on 03/19/2008, -2/+36I'm just happy that they fixed a lot of the memory issues in firefox 3.
    • dAbReAkA, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1strangely enough, beta 4 is worse than everything i've seen before - 250mb of RAM with just 5 tabs.. and it doesnt return anything when a tab gets closed as we read in an article about the new memory management
  • vawksel, on 03/19/2008, -8/+8I just decided to try Safari 3.1 and FF3b4 -- Holy crap Safari 3.1 did something! Everything is faster, the acid test renders MUCH faster than on Firefox and gets a higher score (75 vs 68).

    The strange thing is though is something going on in the graphics layer. Scrolling on Safari 3.1 is much more responsive, it's as if its 0ms delay now. Previously and with ff3b4 scrolling is lagged a tiny amount, feels like 30 to 60ms and it's annoying.

    I notice every TYPING in Safari 3.1 the 30ms lag is gone, the letters appear on the screen instantly instead of the minute lag.

    I know this sounds crazy, but it's true, mac users, try 3.1 and see what im talking about.

    I know people were bitching already Apple has some advantage linking Safari in at a lower level or something into the graphics layer that the rest of us dont have easy access to.

    • wdavis0911, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Try using the nightly build of webkit. It scores 93/100 and is very fast probably slightly faster that 3.1. You can find the builds here:

      http://nightly.webkit.org/start/trunk/31114

      And yes you can run Safari 3.1 and the Webkit build at the same time.
      • newbill123, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1The webkit nightly is more compliant, but it isn't faster than Safari 3.1 in my testing. Admittedly Safari 3.1 and Webkit nightly are very close and they both blow away Safari 3.0 in speed tests. But the slowness of the nightly is reproducible and long enough that I can't just chalk it up to statistical noise. My guess is that the slowness is because it's a cutting edge release: there may be debugging code and there may be new code put in for compliance reasons that's not yet as optimized as the noncompliant code in the 3.1 release.
  • SQLserver, on 03/19/2008, -5/+5Man, they really screwed up on the new interface in FF3.
    What was wrong with the old one again?
    I liked the FF2 interfaces.

    Otherwise, FF is still my favorite browser. Under Linux my 2 GB of RAM makes memory never an issue/ hardly noticeable, my speeds are fine enough for me(still faaaar better then IE in Windows), and I couldn't do without many of my addons.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 03/19/2008, -4/+2then use ff2 no one is forcing you to use 3
    • rpark, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1Actually for the Mac, the FF interface refresh is very welcome. For me at least, FF2 looked like ass.
    • wdavis0911, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0The grapple themes look a lot better.

      http://www.takebacktheweb.org/
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4I seriously doubt you couldn't get used to the default new theme. If you REALLY can't, get a different theme... They may even make one that resembles FF2's default. However, I like the new theme anyways.
    • thefinger, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1No they didn't. You're just nitpicking.
      • EtherGnat, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Every time interfaces get changed, there are a few who complain. Some people are just resistant to change, and everybody likes something different. I remember a lot of complaints about the FF2 interface when it came out.
    • stonklit, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0Because devs are assholes sometimes.

      No, seriously. Like the Pidgin devs.

      So far they have removed closing an IM window by hitting escape (commonly used) AND resizing of the text space on the IM window itself.

      If you notice, you can no longer click on the formatting toolbar between the actual IM text and the input area to make that input area larger. And they default the new one to WAY too ***** small compared to what *I* use.

      It's really dickish for developers to do that, because one question stands that can never be answered: why did you change that? Then they have the nerve to tell you "that's the way it is."

      WTF? If it worked in 2.3, then 2.4 should maintain that consistency. So now I have to sacrifice an annoying UI for bug fixes? What the hell kind of mentality is this?
  • dineth, on 03/19/2008, -4/+6wow, was that biased or what.. like how about saying, why it would be better than other browsers than merely listing the f~ing features down. so pluggin memory faults in its earlier version and making resumable downloads with a stupid interface makes it better???! cnet did a terrible job. they were like... nahhh... IE8... we wouldn't use it..... y??!?!?!?!?!?!

    anyway, i'm using FF. just thot review was terrible. wasn't worth my time reading.
  • sfcaptainrob, on 03/19/2008, -6/+2Oh flock me.
  • vawksel, on 03/19/2008, -12/+6http://celtickane.com/webdesign/jsspeed.php

    Safari 3.1: 189 ms
    Firefox 3 Beta 4: 2008 ms

    • phinn, on 03/19/2008, -0/+10Your kidding right? I just ran it with Firefox 3 beta 4 (and i have 6 tabs open) and I got 269 ms
      • vawksel, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1On OS X?

        I'm not kidding! I'm really getting 2008ms on FF 3 beta 4 on OS X
        • Amiga500, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Ah, that explains it. Every 500ms, Apple programs send usage data via the Internet back to Apple headquarters where they sit on their central server. Each morning, Steve Jobs is given a printout of these results on paper made from the finest Egyptian papyrus. He looks over them, smiles a bit, then declares himself to be glorious.
      • jamend, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3In XP I get ~100 ms in Safari 3.1 and ~200 ms in Firefox 3 b4.
      • Fayettemat, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3OS X 10.5.2 on a Macbook (Late 2007)
        Firefox 3 Beta 4: 279 ms
        Safari 3.1: 134 ms
        still faster but your time for Firefox is WAY off
      • rpark, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Actually my Firefox 3b4 has similar scores, 1904ms.

        If anything, this shows Safari 3.1 is more consistent on Macs. Which I'm not surprised since Mac users get the short end of the development stick (though not shorter then LInux).
        • kawsper, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1The firefox developers stated somewhere that they too have experienced problems like these. And that they have talked with Apple developers too find out where the problem was. I just can't find the article or blog right now.
      • Narbo, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0In OSX I get 140ms in Safari 3.1 and 315 in Firefox 3.0b4

        2.4Ghz SR MBP w/10.5.2 both browsers open at the same time with a few other apps idling (vienna, adium etc...)
    • MutatedNantuko, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5Just ran it while watching an imbedded video with 235 ms, XP.
  • Greg2k, on 03/19/2008, -13/+12Well I for one think the interface SUCKS. That's why I have Internet Explorer 7 as the default browser in Vista; it just seems better integrated into the UI. It's also why I have Firefox 2 as the default browser in XP (IE7 looks ***** in XP). Call me shallow, but to a lot of people, stupid crap like this makes a big difference between one option and the other.

    Port Firefox to Aero instead of slightly changing some icons or gradients from the XP version and you have yourself a winner, at least in the aesthetics department. I'm pretty confident the guts are brilliant.
    • phinn, on 03/19/2008, -6/+13Your running IE7 over FF3? LOL
      • Greg2k, on 03/19/2008, -3/+9And over Firefox 2.

        Vista has been out for a while, is pretty decent, and I think Mozilla should take advantage of the better UI, that's all really.
    • cheez124, on 03/19/2008, -3/+2i totally agree with you, FF2 on leopard looks like garbage compared to Safari 3, same with windows
    • bernlin2000, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1IE7 is remenicient to Office 2007, in that it got rid of a simple interface that is fairly standardized in favor of a split interface that can be very confusing and messy...I dislike it in comparison to Firefox. However, I have XP and haven't tried it in Vista (I uninstalled it too fast to really test out much of anything...god it sucks)
  • fredmv, on 03/19/2008, -2/+16Firefox was always superior to IE even back when it was called Phoenix in the pre-1.0 days. Gecko is just the superior engine. Not exactly breaking news. KHTML is just `ok' and Presto (Opera) is quite good. But IE has always been nothing more than a joke.
    • kaeppler, on 03/19/2008, -4/+1Actually, a lot of people thought that Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox was much better back then than it is today, for the mere reason that the project *actually* started out as a *lean* alternative to the Mozilla browser suit. Now how lean is Firefox today? It carries a lot of bloat, like inline spell-checking and has lost much of its performance in the process. Somewhere on the road they simply dropped their initial philosophy about FF, probably to get a better market share (sounds reasonable enough).

      Well fortunately it seems that FF3 will bring back some of the performance losses, but I too am all for taking as much optional stuff out of the FF code base and turn it into plugins. Such things as the spell checker. It's a feature I don't use, which means I am wasting resources for it. I don't like paying for things I have no need for.
    • thefinger, on 03/19/2008, -1/+4Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox was nothing special until it had built up some usable extensions. FF on its own, is nothing special. It's the addons that make the difference.
  • SoxSweepAgain, on 03/19/2008, -14/+7I'm sticking with IE. I've tried 'em all, and NO I am not a Windows/Coke vs. Apple/Pepsi guy- I have had the least issues with IE.
    • jakem1, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Don't worry, you're not alone. IE has a number of advantages on Vista that Firefox sadly lacks: Protected Mode, proper tablet support, looks, etc. I hear that FF3 fixes the tablet issues though.

      Also, although Firefox's extensions are a big plus, I often find that I need to install an extension just to get functionality that should be built into the browser. It can be a pain keeping all your extensions up to date and installed on multiple PCs.
      • EtherGnat, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Somebody REALLY needs to write an extension (maybe I've missed something) that synchronizes your extensions across multiple machines.
        • brillyfresh, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0you could use FEBE extension to backup your extensions, and then restore them to a different machine
          not the most elegant method of syncing, but it works
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Protected mode is almost not needed - But if you wanted safety, disable Javascript & Java. And you can do stuff like this per-page or script/applet/element if you use extensions(AdBlock Plus). FF3 does fix tablet issues. And, to finish, the theme is much better, though that should never be a basis for switching browsers especially when the browsers in question all support themes quite nicely. A lot more is supported with out extensions in FF3, including magnification of all elements at once (Text magnification is still available, and with extensions you can control it further.)

      To keep extensions synced between computers, Portable editions are released often.. http://tinyurl.com/mam23
    • newbill123, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2SoxSweepAgain insisted "I'm sticking with IE... NO I am not a Windows/Coke vs. Apple/Pepsi guy."

      Apple/Pepsi? Is that you John Sculley?
    • Cryoniq, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Suit yourself. It will be on your tombstone. Smart people do GNU/Linux and Firefox alt. Opera.
  • Locrian, on 03/19/2008, -3/+5Mac version is still pretty glitchy... :(
    • Fayettemat, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3Not for me Locrian
      • Locrian, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Do you not have problems with flash players?
        • Twee, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2I have lots of problems with flash players in Firefox on Mac OS X, like embedded videos will have half of the image cut off or no image at all with just the player controls showing up. Also, Firefox 3 beta crashes a lot for me. Thus, I prefer to use Safari.
        • xaxxon, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I don't have any more problems with flash than I did in FF2. Which is to say a lot of things don't work. Does anyone else have to scroll flash videos to the top of the screen so there's just a sliver hidden at the top and then *poof* it all shows up.
  • phambam, on 03/19/2008, -3/+4Firefox is definitely the most customizable with all the add-ons. I don't think I'll switch to a new browser any time soon. Plus the memory issues should be resolved in FF3.
  • rsmithrun, on 03/19/2008, -2/+6IE 8 beta was released just before the weekend. I'm pretty sure they didn't do any serious testing in that time. I also don't think it is better than Opera at all. Just seems like a biased fan boy article.
  • HaloZero, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1I like my theme (Noia), and they aren't releasing their skin until 3.0 comes out. So no Beta :(
  • alpha88, on 03/19/2008, -3/+9Safari is far superior. First to use new features of CSS3 and much faster with a simpler interface. Best of all worlds.

    Don't know why everyone' hating on Flock though, the integration with social websites is fantastic.
  • louiebaur, on 03/19/2008, -10/+4Firefox blows all other internet browsers out of the water.
  • Vzylexy, on 03/19/2008, -5/+4Firefox still needs memory tweaks. I only have six tabs open and FF is using up nearly 150mb of RAM.
    • andycr512, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4I have 8 tabs open in 2 windows and it's using only 85.
      • allan17, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2I've almost never seen my FF past 70 - 80 MB, even with around 10 tabs open... I guess I'm just lucky...
    • aserer511, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1i'll give you that ff CAN be a memory hog
    • lovecss, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Only 150MB?! Count yourself lucky!
    • unrealmp3, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Try other browsers with the same pages, you'll see it's not that big.
    • bernlin2000, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Firefox is a memory hog, there's no denying it...I have only three tabs open and its taking up 107mb! That's pretty retarded...however I have 2gb so it's not a big deal...but it usually means that when I'm doing something very memory intensive (like gaming) I usually close firefox...it's a hog
  • flosik, on 03/19/2008, -7/+5Flock is very nice - it's baisicly a firefox with full web 2.0 support
    • thefinger, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2that's the problem right there... "web 2.0"
    • DevilInPgh, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Uh, what the hell does that mean? I know what Web 2.0 is, but what does "full web 2.0 support" mean.
    • davewashere, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Does that mean I can finally visit sites like Facebook and YouTube? I haven't been able to visit them before because I always get an error message telling me I don't have full web 2.0 support. Oh, and when I try to visit MySpace I get an error message that just says I'm a douche.
  • alpha88, on 03/19/2008, -6/+3Oh I'd also like to add that Internet Explorer's improved support of web standards... is still absolutely terrible compared to Opera or Safari (or even Firefox).
    • rpark, on 03/19/2008, -2/+3I personally found it when IE 7 was released my work load went up instead of down even though they touted "improved standards". Why? Because IE7 was still a sack of ***** and hacks that worked for IE6 doesn't work for 7 so I have to sit there and hack it for 6 and 7. I hope this isn't going to be the case with 8. I hate you MS.
    • RonPaulPres2008, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3umm... how exactly is IE8 worse if it passes acid 2 perfectly? You can't pass the test BETTER rofl. Acid 3 is fairly new, wana give them some time to work on it or do you want to hate a product before it's even out?
      • alpha88, on 03/19/2008, -2/+0Perhaps you have a newer beta of IE8 than I do... because when running IE8 on Windows XP Home.... it horrendously fails the Acid2 test. Not to mention some sites that worked fine in IE7 don't work anymore due to the hacks not being effective anymore.

        Other betas pass the Acid2 test with flying colours (and so did their older versions), why is it so hard for Microsoft to due the same and spare us the hacks for once?
        • alpha88, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0Reinstalled IE8 Beta and it does pass the Acid2 test now, however go to Youtube. Click on a video and then look on the right-hand side at the list of similar videos. It looks messed up, their web standards still aren't up to par.
    • Cryoniq, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1Seriously.. noone cares. IE is crap and will forever be as long as Microdick have their part of it and their closed source.
    • bernlin2000, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1It's pretty funny that it does so well with the standards...when IE 6 was infamous for being incredibly sloppy with standards...it pretty much demanded its own standards
  • CaviMike, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1I'll still take 1.0 over the rest of them anyways.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.