Browser recommendation

DaMadFiddler · Post by **DaMadFiddler** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 5:20 am

I've spent the last month or so evaluating different web browsers, trying to determine which one loads the fastest, seems the most stable, and operates best with different websites and such.

A lot of people have very specific favorites around here...most commonly, Firefox, Opera, and Camino. I've been a longtime Mozilla/Firefox user, but it has gotten somewhat bloated over the years, and I wanted to see if there was anything faster or with more to offer. Camino (for OSX only) seemed a likely choice at first, but it is very buggy in how it handles some websites. I just didn't like the feel of Opera. IE is a mess, and Safari is out of date in terms of features.

Well, after using it exclusively for about a week and a half, I think I have a winner: Flock.

http://www.flock.com

It's Firefox-derived, so you can still use plugins (such as the ever-vital Adblock). It's also cross-platform. It handles tabs better than Firefox, it has a deeper bookmarking system, and it does some incredibly useful and extensive things with the search bar. It's got a bunch of little time-saving caveats, like batch integration with various social networking sites, a built-in RSS manager, and little integration things like shortcuts. For example, if I'm in a text edit field on a website, and I drag a picture and drop it into the text box, it'll automatically insert the appropriate HTML tag.

Plus, my preliminary tests seem to show it loading faster and using slightly less resources than vanilla Firefox...and the interface is a lot sleeker.

The way it's promoted is kind of annoying, with this sort of me-too chic (even the name reflects this), but the browser itself is a really solid piece of software.

I'd never seen it mentioned here before, so I thought I might suggest it and see what other people thought.

Sir Savant · Post by **Sir Savant** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:54 am

I will try it with the extensions I have installed in Firefox. I wonder if the profiles are backwards compatible...

JellyWarrior · Post by **JellyWarrior** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:27 am

Yea Flock is a great version of Firefox, but I switched back to regular Firefox just for personal reasons till Flock progresses a little more.

For the adventurous of you out there, perhaps you could consider trying "Swift". It's a Windows browser that uses Apple's WebKit rendering engine, the same engine that runs Apple's internet stuff like Safari.

Get it from this link - http://www.getswift.org/

Currently it is at version 0.1, it is very very alpha, in fact it is so alpha that you can't even click drop down boxes yet.

It's well worth checking out if you just want to see how Apple's WebKit engine runs on a PC, I've suffered no bad effects from installing it and trying it. Just don't expect to make it your primary browser for a little while.

JellyWarrior · Post by **JellyWarrior** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:28 am

Sir Savant wrote:I will try it with the extensions I have installed in Firefox. I wonder if the profiles are backwards compatible...

Extensions need to have their install files altered, so there are Flock versions of most extensions.

Profiles are not backwards compatable but you can import profiles from Firefox, so it's a non issue really.

Sir Savant · Post by **Sir Savant** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:21 am

They killed bookmark support. Sorry. And it loads slow, I think because of the way it imported the Firefox Bookmarks.

Post by **Specially Cork** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:38 am

Im not sure, it seems far slower than firefox to me, and uses slightly more resources. Also I dont like any of its extra features, and Im having trouble with extensions. Ill pass for now.

Covar · Post by **Covar** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:37 am

on the mac version it was barely better on resources than firefox with all my extensions, flock had none. and since filterset.g is not available i decided to just stick with firefox.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:46 am

How is Firefox "bloated"? That's ridiculous to call Firefox bloated. The only problem I have with it is that sometimes it doesn't work correctly with websites. Otherwise, it does everything I need. And it only takes up like 70 MB RAM or something like that, which isn't that much when you should probably be rocking at least 1 GB or more.

Wagh · Post by **Wagh** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:51 am

<3 for Opera. I tried flock once. Didn't like it. Went back to trusty old Opera.

Sir Savant · Post by **Sir Savant** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:57 am

Flock does not like bookmarks, which are the foundation of my existance. Although it did get me to sign up for del.icio.us, photobucket and flickr, the integration is not enough to overcome the buggy performance.

bizzle · Post by **bizzle** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 5:07 pm

Nick wrote:How is Firefox "bloated"? That's ridiculous to call Firefox bloated. The only problem I have with it is that sometimes it doesn't work correctly with websites. Otherwise, it does everything I need. And it only takes up like 70 MB RAM or something like that, which isn't that much when you should probably be rocking at least 1 GB or more.

Fiddler just likes to complain.

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 5:48 pm

Nick wrote:How is Firefox "bloated"? That's ridiculous to call Firefox bloated.

It's definitely bloated compared to browsers that avoid bloat as a major project goal, such as Dillo.

Nick wrote:And it only takes up like 70 MB RAM or something like that, which isn't that much when you should probably be rocking at least 1 GB or more.

Not everybody replaces their computer every year, and even low-end systems sold today still have 256MB or 512MB. Web browsing is not Doom 3 or Oblivion, FFS. Outside of things like Flash and Java it's not really justifiable for the requirements to keep going up, and even with those it's questionable.

MulletMan13 · Post by **MulletMan13** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 5:52 pm

I don't get why people are so crazy about extensions.

Give me a small, quick, light browser that lets me view webpages and I'm set.

GratefulDead · Post by **GratefulDead** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 5:58 pm

Looks like it has potential, but still... Firefox > Teh Wordl.

djray · Post by **djray** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:25 pm

Nick wrote:How is Firefox "bloated"?

Nick wrote:And it only takes up like 70 MB RAM or something like that...

i rest my case! lol
you should never have to spend that much RAM using a web browser!

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:40 pm

You do realise that all web browsers use lots of RAM, right? It's more a matter of changing content on web pages driving up memory usage than "bloated" web browsers.

Post by **|darc|** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:59 pm

MulletMan13 wrote:I don't get why people are so crazy about extensions.

Give me a small, quick, light browser that lets me view webpages and I'm set.

Agreed. I use Safari on Mac and Firefox on Windows.

MulletMan13 · Post by **MulletMan13** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:19 pm

To be fair to the OP, FireFox on OSX isn't as great as it is on Windows... comparatively its one of the slower browsers. Modified versions of it running the Gekko engine are quicker, whereas Webkit based browsers are the quickest... its like a whole different world.

I use FF on Windows and Camino on OSX.

AuroEdge · Post by **AuroEdge** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:05 am

70MB for a browser is ridiculous. If I go to a flash intensive site such as Newgrounds, the RAM usage skyrockets. Not to mention the flash plugin for Firefox runs flash much slower than on IE. This is very noticeable on slower machines. I don't know if this can be avoided, but once you leave newgrounds no matter what sort of site you go to the RAM usage still stays high. On older machines you may as well just disable flash unless you absolutely need it for a specific site.

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:26 am

So the Flash plugin being a slow, resource guzzling pile of crap is somehow Firefox's fault?