Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Looks like Chrome, Firefox and safari need to catch up to IE.
1 posted on 12/16/2010 6:25:36 AM PST by for-q-clinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: ShadowAce

Tech ping please.


2 posted on 12/16/2010 6:26:31 AM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: for-q-clinton

9 is a very nice browser. Although the the Firefox 4.7 build is really nice too but with far more features.


3 posted on 12/16/2010 6:36:31 AM PST by Psycho_Bunny (Hail To The Fail-In-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: for-q-clinton

They tested Chrome 6. The current version is Chrome 8 so maybe Chrome has caught up.


4 posted on 12/16/2010 6:42:37 AM PST by relee ('Till the blue skies drive the dark clouds far away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: for-q-clinton

Firefox is becoming more of a clunker.

It has become bloated, slow, and is still a memory hog.

I recently ran a ISP speed test out of Firefox. Latency was in the 200ms range. The same test using Chrome shows the latency in the 60ms range.

I currently use Firefox 3.6.3. I tried some of the later versions, and they were so filled with crap that they would no longer run on my old XP computer.

Firefox and plug-ins have nice features, but it is becoming a monster to use.


6 posted on 12/16/2010 6:46:00 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: for-q-clinton

Nice to see IE competitive again.


7 posted on 12/16/2010 6:46:37 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: for-q-clinton

I nominate this as funniest thread of the week.


8 posted on 12/16/2010 6:48:44 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network (McCarthy Was Right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: for-q-clinton
I wonder how long it'll take for some hacker to blow a gaping security hole in IE's SSAR.

Kudos to MS, but the problem with being King of the Hill is all the folks aiming to bring you down hard.

9 posted on 12/16/2010 6:53:04 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: for-q-clinton

“The testing included 636 URLs identified as potentially malicious. ... Meanwhile, Internet Explorer widened the gap. Internet Explorer 8 improved its results over the previous study—increasing from an 85 percent block rate to 90 percent. Internet Explorer 9, though—which wasn’t available during the previous study—was nearly flawless. “

Folks, I’m no techie. However, in my experience, blockers regularly block sites I want to see. I was having problems accessing FreeRepublic at times, and also a number of history and religious sites.

I’m not at all sure I want a browser that decides to block websites for me. Is that what this is about, or is there something else that I’m just missing?

FWIW, my computer has only caught a virus twice this last year, and one of those was my daughter using it and clicking on an ad to ‘help’ find viruses - so I don’t feel like I’m too threatened anyways.


10 posted on 12/16/2010 6:54:14 AM PST by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: for-q-clinton

Maybe. But Macs are hipper.


11 posted on 12/16/2010 6:55:07 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: for-q-clinton

I’ll stick with my Firefox and its WOT filter. Thanks.


15 posted on 12/16/2010 7:05:15 AM PST by struggle ((The struggle continues))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rdb3; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; Salo; Bobsat; JosephW; ...

18 posted on 12/16/2010 7:32:30 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: for-q-clinton

Opera blocked none...the last of the pioneers...


22 posted on 12/16/2010 8:05:42 AM PST by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: for-q-clinton

None of this really matters. Windows is fundamentally an unsecureable operating system. I make a living removing malware and “virus-proofing” Windows computers.

The only thing that will keep malware from invading the system is to run from “standard”/”limited” accounts. Even then, malware can invade the login id itself (though it’s easy to remove because you can simply logoff the user account, logon to the admin account and delete the offending files).

Additionally, I’ve mostly solved the standard account invasion problem with a program I wrote that removes modification privilege by the user account from an additional 27 user account registry entries. So far, I’ve not had any “virus-proofed” clients that were invaded, though there’s a class of viruses that modify user-defined filetype handlers that my additional protection can’t address.


24 posted on 12/16/2010 8:12:53 AM PST by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Made from the right stuff!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: for-q-clinton

I currently use QTWeb. Wonder how it stacks up.


29 posted on 12/16/2010 9:04:27 AM PST by arderkrag (Georgia is God's Country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson