Browsers
Browser Reviews
09/25/08 07:28 PM Filed in: Technology
After Al Gore invented
the internet for us, we realized we needed a way to
walk around the thousands upon thousands (and now
billions upon billions) of sites that were out there.
Meet the browser. To the best of my knowledge, Al
Gore has never claimed part in inventing the browser,
but I wouldn’t put it past him.
Just for fun, and before we start to really rip apart the benchmarks of Google Chrome, let's look at some old, failed browsers so we can scoff at them (by order of appearance).
WorldWideWeb (1991-1994) - I actually can't call this pioneer a failure. After all, it was the world's first web browser. By the way, it was only released for NeXTSTEP OS. The operating system created by NeXT Computer, a company that was founded by none other than Steve Jobs. The NeXTSTEP OS was quite literally the parent of Mac OS X, and it was also the very first object-oriented and multi-task-ready operating system. (Boy, it's amazing what that Steve Jobs can do ...) However, in 1993 the developers released the source code, thus making the program freeware and allowing for the development of it's children, ViolaWWW, MidasWWW, MacWWW, and their big brother Mosaic.
Netscape Navigator (1994-2007) - Mosaic/Netscape rose to power and popularity much faster than Internet Explorer did, and since it was owned by Netscape Communications, a succesfull company that was pivotal in getting internet readily accessible in every home, the browser had plenty of funding. However, Microsoft was simply a bigger, more powerful company, and the beneficial wars between Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer were eventually won by Internet Explorer. While Netscape failed miserably by allowing their poorly coded browser to get disgustingly bloated with features, their ultimate failure was in 1999 when they allowed America Online to buy then. Who cares if they offered you ten billion dollars! Immedietly following Netscape's acquisition by AOL, they lost over 30% of their market share in less than one year.
HotJava (1994-1999) - A very customizable, extensible browser that was built around Java in order to easily execute Applets. The ingenuity of HotJava is that it's a browser coded entirely in Java, thus making it extremely portable. The downside to HotJava is that it's coded entirely in Java, thus limiting it to the JRE and leaving it a fairly slow memory hog, and with the presence of Java so readily incorporated into more recent browsers and the growing popularity of Macromedia's Flash, the project was terminated.
Internet Explorer (1995-Present) - It doesn't need much introduction or explanation. But Internet Explorer has always been interested in integrating (not outsourcing to extensions) functionality at the expense of ease-of-use, security, and speed. And, let's be honest, it's Microsoft ... Therefore, a failure.
OmniWeb (1995-Present) - Wouldn't you know it, it's another NeXTSTEP OS browser! That being the case, it graduated, along with it's OS, to Mac OS X, and that is where it resides today. Unfortunately, this is a limit for it. While it was a good browser in the area of speed, and very minimalistic, it lacked key functionality and compatibility with some of the most recent web innovations, so it falls short.
Internet Explorer for Mac (1996-2005) - Wow. It was simply horrible. Probably the worst maintained browser of all time. It went through three updates in one year, went silent for three years, released it's fourth update in 2000, then was untouched until it's termination in 2005. It was incompatible, buggy, crashed more than anything, and incredibly slow!
Opera (1996-Present) - I've always felt that Opera failed when it came to honesty in advertising. They used to claim to be the “fastest browser” ever made. Well, they’ve since revoked that claim ... It claims it’s “faster” on their website now. Faster than what? I’m not sure, because until the most recent release (9.5) I’ve never been pleased with the speed of the browser. Though, even with 9.5, I still think Firefox is faster, and you can’t argue with the speed I get from Safari. Around version 7, Opera bloated the browser beyond belief, thus slowing it to a crawl. They’ve since revamped the interface and it the newest release it’s actually quite efficient. However, compatibility has always been an issue with it.
Gzilla (1997-1999) - The developer was last heard from on August 16, 1999, pleading for help on his very own site. Apparently he could get his browser to compile on anything other than Linux/x86, so he was begging for outside help. It's rumored the browser emerged a few months later as as Dillo, but that's just probably not true. I'm guessing Mozilla felt threatened by the last five letters of his browser's name, so they took him out.
MyIE/Maxthon (2000-Present) - Maxthon’s clincher is that it’s extremely customizable. It advertises itself as an adaptable alternative to Internet Explorer. The negative clincher is it’s only for Windows. On top of that, it crashes too frequently. It’s not slow, but reliability is a big factor when writing a browser, and if your browser crashes on me too often, I’m not going to use it.
Firefox (2002-Present) - The most successful browser to incorporate extensions. Since Netscape completely fell of the face of the planet somewhere around 2003, Firefox has been the most used cross-platform web browser. It boasts speed, elegance, and integrated functionality. Even better, you can add basically any functionality you desire through extensions; this is what has made Firefox so well known. Unfortunately, Firefox loses a lot of security when they allow third-party extensions. More than that, extensions are impossible for the creators of Firefox to maintain, so when the browser is updated, there’s always the risk (and it very frequently happens) of losing compatibility with extensions. Not very convenient for the extension programmers or their users.
AOL Explorer (2005-Present?) - It’s AOL ... We already know why it fails: Overpriced, slow, inefficient, and unstable. Apparently the browser is still around, but it’s now a part of the AIM package.
Flock (2005-Present) - Flock’s biggest asset is that it’s multi-platform. On top of that, much like Maxthon, it boasts customizability! It integrates beautifully with many popular websites, including Facebook, iGoogle, Flickr, Digg, Twitter, etc. On top of that, it does allow extensions. It has a main page that keeps all of your favorites and information organized and easily accessible. Unfortunately, it still is rather buggy, and speed is also a bit of an issue with it. It enjoys freezing on it’s users.
Now, read my review of Google Chrome!
Just for fun, and before we start to really rip apart the benchmarks of Google Chrome, let's look at some old, failed browsers so we can scoff at them (by order of appearance).
WorldWideWeb (1991-1994) - I actually can't call this pioneer a failure. After all, it was the world's first web browser. By the way, it was only released for NeXTSTEP OS. The operating system created by NeXT Computer, a company that was founded by none other than Steve Jobs. The NeXTSTEP OS was quite literally the parent of Mac OS X, and it was also the very first object-oriented and multi-task-ready operating system. (Boy, it's amazing what that Steve Jobs can do ...) However, in 1993 the developers released the source code, thus making the program freeware and allowing for the development of it's children, ViolaWWW, MidasWWW, MacWWW, and their big brother Mosaic.
Netscape Navigator (1994-2007) - Mosaic/Netscape rose to power and popularity much faster than Internet Explorer did, and since it was owned by Netscape Communications, a succesfull company that was pivotal in getting internet readily accessible in every home, the browser had plenty of funding. However, Microsoft was simply a bigger, more powerful company, and the beneficial wars between Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer were eventually won by Internet Explorer. While Netscape failed miserably by allowing their poorly coded browser to get disgustingly bloated with features, their ultimate failure was in 1999 when they allowed America Online to buy then. Who cares if they offered you ten billion dollars! Immedietly following Netscape's acquisition by AOL, they lost over 30% of their market share in less than one year.
HotJava (1994-1999) - A very customizable, extensible browser that was built around Java in order to easily execute Applets. The ingenuity of HotJava is that it's a browser coded entirely in Java, thus making it extremely portable. The downside to HotJava is that it's coded entirely in Java, thus limiting it to the JRE and leaving it a fairly slow memory hog, and with the presence of Java so readily incorporated into more recent browsers and the growing popularity of Macromedia's Flash, the project was terminated.
Internet Explorer (1995-Present) - It doesn't need much introduction or explanation. But Internet Explorer has always been interested in integrating (not outsourcing to extensions) functionality at the expense of ease-of-use, security, and speed. And, let's be honest, it's Microsoft ... Therefore, a failure.
OmniWeb (1995-Present) - Wouldn't you know it, it's another NeXTSTEP OS browser! That being the case, it graduated, along with it's OS, to Mac OS X, and that is where it resides today. Unfortunately, this is a limit for it. While it was a good browser in the area of speed, and very minimalistic, it lacked key functionality and compatibility with some of the most recent web innovations, so it falls short.
Internet Explorer for Mac (1996-2005) - Wow. It was simply horrible. Probably the worst maintained browser of all time. It went through three updates in one year, went silent for three years, released it's fourth update in 2000, then was untouched until it's termination in 2005. It was incompatible, buggy, crashed more than anything, and incredibly slow!
Opera (1996-Present) - I've always felt that Opera failed when it came to honesty in advertising. They used to claim to be the “fastest browser” ever made. Well, they’ve since revoked that claim ... It claims it’s “faster” on their website now. Faster than what? I’m not sure, because until the most recent release (9.5) I’ve never been pleased with the speed of the browser. Though, even with 9.5, I still think Firefox is faster, and you can’t argue with the speed I get from Safari. Around version 7, Opera bloated the browser beyond belief, thus slowing it to a crawl. They’ve since revamped the interface and it the newest release it’s actually quite efficient. However, compatibility has always been an issue with it.
Gzilla (1997-1999) - The developer was last heard from on August 16, 1999, pleading for help on his very own site. Apparently he could get his browser to compile on anything other than Linux/x86, so he was begging for outside help. It's rumored the browser emerged a few months later as as Dillo, but that's just probably not true. I'm guessing Mozilla felt threatened by the last five letters of his browser's name, so they took him out.
MyIE/Maxthon (2000-Present) - Maxthon’s clincher is that it’s extremely customizable. It advertises itself as an adaptable alternative to Internet Explorer. The negative clincher is it’s only for Windows. On top of that, it crashes too frequently. It’s not slow, but reliability is a big factor when writing a browser, and if your browser crashes on me too often, I’m not going to use it.
Firefox (2002-Present) - The most successful browser to incorporate extensions. Since Netscape completely fell of the face of the planet somewhere around 2003, Firefox has been the most used cross-platform web browser. It boasts speed, elegance, and integrated functionality. Even better, you can add basically any functionality you desire through extensions; this is what has made Firefox so well known. Unfortunately, Firefox loses a lot of security when they allow third-party extensions. More than that, extensions are impossible for the creators of Firefox to maintain, so when the browser is updated, there’s always the risk (and it very frequently happens) of losing compatibility with extensions. Not very convenient for the extension programmers or their users.
AOL Explorer (2005-Present?) - It’s AOL ... We already know why it fails: Overpriced, slow, inefficient, and unstable. Apparently the browser is still around, but it’s now a part of the AIM package.
Flock (2005-Present) - Flock’s biggest asset is that it’s multi-platform. On top of that, much like Maxthon, it boasts customizability! It integrates beautifully with many popular websites, including Facebook, iGoogle, Flickr, Digg, Twitter, etc. On top of that, it does allow extensions. It has a main page that keeps all of your favorites and information organized and easily accessible. Unfortunately, it still is rather buggy, and speed is also a bit of an issue with it. It enjoys freezing on it’s users.
Now, read my review of Google Chrome!
|
Chrome ... A New Way to Look at Browsing
09/25/08 08:39 PM Filed in: Technology
Healthy competition is
good. But if all the companies competing aren't on an
equal playing field, one company will be dwarfed and
squeezed out of the race fairly rapidly. That is what
the three-year-old, California-based company was
afraid of in 2001 when the concept of a building
their own browser first emerged; they weren't big
enough yet.
Now, in 2008, Google employs nearly 20,000 people, has a net income of over four billion dollars annually, and has the most widely used, well known search enginge in the world. Heck, they have their own verb! They're finally ready to compete in a battle that matters and is grossly overlooked. The battle of the browsers.
On September 2nd, 2008, Google released it's beta browser, Google Chrome.
So, why do we need another battle of the browsers? Didn't we finally settle down and decide Firefox was simply the best browser there ever was or ever will be? Simple answer: No. Firefox leaves a lot to be desired, and we certainly can’t be expected to rely on Internet Explorer or Safari for our browsing needs. Before reading what I love about Google Chrome and why it could be the solution to all our browser woes, first read my critique of old, failed browsers.
For the last too-many-years, Internet Explorer and Firefox have been battling it out, trying to keep their users. The problem is, both browsers lack something significant. They’re entering the browser race from the wrong perspective. Internet Explorer only recently allows extensions, and they’re very limited. Firefox allows extensions to run rampant, but even worse it relies on them for all of its functionality. What we need is a browser that relies on the website itself for the functionality. And how about some old-fashioned simplicity? Apple knows where that’s at ... So does Google.
When we need a map (Google Maps), have a question relating to anything in the world (Google Search), need to check our email (Gmail), write a blog (Blogger), watch a video (YouTube/Google Videos), or check the latest headlines (Google News), Google is our ultimate destination. So, if one company understands the internet, how to search it, and how to manage it so well, why don’t we allow them to design our browser, which will peruse the internet they allow us to search. They know what we need.
Google Chrome boasts privacy. Though many are up-in-arms about the agreement you’re forced to agree to before downloading the software, you must realize it’s in beta ... Of course they’re going to analyze your browsing for testing purposes. That doesn’t mean they’re selling it to Russia. Google Chrome allows you to search and edit your browsing history. Not only that, there’s a “silent mode” which allows you to browse privately without leaving a trace on the site or the computer.
Google Chrome will soon be multi-platform. The Mac and Linux versions are in currently being developed. After all, if Google Chrome is really going to try to compete with Firefox, they simply must be cross-platform. Additionally, Google Chrome is open source currently, as it is in beta, which leaves it open to innovation from nerds all over the world. Luckily, we have our friends at Google monitoring this to make sure nobody bloats it; only the useful stuff will be added into later releases.
Google Chrome provides a simple, elegant interface that just makes sense. “Intuitive” comes to mind ... makes me think of Mac, for some reason. Searching Google, typing an address, and searching your history are all combined into the one bar at the top of the browser. Of course, there is tabbed browsing, and new tabs can display a list (images included) of your most visited websites. Drag the tab away from the menu bar and make it a new window easily.
Google Chrome is reliable. Tabbed browsing is great, but, let’s face it, something’s going to make you crash someday ... Luckily, Google Chrome looks at each individual tab as its own instance of the browser, and if once freezes, it won’t crash the entire browser.
Google Chrome is fast. Really fast. Some folks bothered running these fancy things called “benchmarks” on the browser and, who knows how, determined that Internet Explorer is still faster. Yah, they’re wrong. There’s no way that’s true. Run your benchmarks all day long, people, but no matter what algorithms your benchmarks run to determine performance speeds, they can’t argue with the fact that I can sit here and visibly see a difference. If I can visibly see a difference, your benchmarks are wrong. Do them again. Not only do pages load faster and tabs open instantaneously, the browser launches without a hiccup as well, largely in part to it’s very small footprint.
Google Chrome comes JavaScript ready, enhancing sites that use Java and allowing them to load faster. Included in this functionality is the ability to create shortcuts to web-based applications straight on your desktop. For instance, Google Docs (or Zoho Docs, if you’re not a fan of Google Docs), Gmail, your blog ... Create direct links to them straight on your desktop, and have them open quickly in their own little Google Chrome window, just like an application. In fact, this was the main concept which Google Chrome is built around.
A lot of the flack I’ve heard about Google Chrome is, in fact, it’s simple design. People seem to think that because it’s so simplistic, it can’t do anything. Apparently that’s the culture we’ve been drowned in. Look, something doesn’t always have to be flashing in your face, offering you things to click on, for it to be good. You should control the your computer and it’s programs, the computer and it’s software should not control you.
What I’m most comfortable with is simply the fact that this browser was developed by Google, a company I’ve come to rely on and trust for my web browsing. As it develops and comes out of beta, I don’t think they’ll allow it to bloat. It will continually be developed around internet-based applications and support for them.
I only have one more pressing question that will need to be answered in the coming months: What will the next Firefox browser look like?
Now, in 2008, Google employs nearly 20,000 people, has a net income of over four billion dollars annually, and has the most widely used, well known search enginge in the world. Heck, they have their own verb! They're finally ready to compete in a battle that matters and is grossly overlooked. The battle of the browsers.
On September 2nd, 2008, Google released it's beta browser, Google Chrome.
So, why do we need another battle of the browsers? Didn't we finally settle down and decide Firefox was simply the best browser there ever was or ever will be? Simple answer: No. Firefox leaves a lot to be desired, and we certainly can’t be expected to rely on Internet Explorer or Safari for our browsing needs. Before reading what I love about Google Chrome and why it could be the solution to all our browser woes, first read my critique of old, failed browsers.
For the last too-many-years, Internet Explorer and Firefox have been battling it out, trying to keep their users. The problem is, both browsers lack something significant. They’re entering the browser race from the wrong perspective. Internet Explorer only recently allows extensions, and they’re very limited. Firefox allows extensions to run rampant, but even worse it relies on them for all of its functionality. What we need is a browser that relies on the website itself for the functionality. And how about some old-fashioned simplicity? Apple knows where that’s at ... So does Google.
When we need a map (Google Maps), have a question relating to anything in the world (Google Search), need to check our email (Gmail), write a blog (Blogger), watch a video (YouTube/Google Videos), or check the latest headlines (Google News), Google is our ultimate destination. So, if one company understands the internet, how to search it, and how to manage it so well, why don’t we allow them to design our browser, which will peruse the internet they allow us to search. They know what we need.
Google Chrome boasts privacy. Though many are up-in-arms about the agreement you’re forced to agree to before downloading the software, you must realize it’s in beta ... Of course they’re going to analyze your browsing for testing purposes. That doesn’t mean they’re selling it to Russia. Google Chrome allows you to search and edit your browsing history. Not only that, there’s a “silent mode” which allows you to browse privately without leaving a trace on the site or the computer.
Google Chrome will soon be multi-platform. The Mac and Linux versions are in currently being developed. After all, if Google Chrome is really going to try to compete with Firefox, they simply must be cross-platform. Additionally, Google Chrome is open source currently, as it is in beta, which leaves it open to innovation from nerds all over the world. Luckily, we have our friends at Google monitoring this to make sure nobody bloats it; only the useful stuff will be added into later releases.
Google Chrome provides a simple, elegant interface that just makes sense. “Intuitive” comes to mind ... makes me think of Mac, for some reason. Searching Google, typing an address, and searching your history are all combined into the one bar at the top of the browser. Of course, there is tabbed browsing, and new tabs can display a list (images included) of your most visited websites. Drag the tab away from the menu bar and make it a new window easily.
Google Chrome is reliable. Tabbed browsing is great, but, let’s face it, something’s going to make you crash someday ... Luckily, Google Chrome looks at each individual tab as its own instance of the browser, and if once freezes, it won’t crash the entire browser.
Google Chrome is fast. Really fast. Some folks bothered running these fancy things called “benchmarks” on the browser and, who knows how, determined that Internet Explorer is still faster. Yah, they’re wrong. There’s no way that’s true. Run your benchmarks all day long, people, but no matter what algorithms your benchmarks run to determine performance speeds, they can’t argue with the fact that I can sit here and visibly see a difference. If I can visibly see a difference, your benchmarks are wrong. Do them again. Not only do pages load faster and tabs open instantaneously, the browser launches without a hiccup as well, largely in part to it’s very small footprint.
Google Chrome comes JavaScript ready, enhancing sites that use Java and allowing them to load faster. Included in this functionality is the ability to create shortcuts to web-based applications straight on your desktop. For instance, Google Docs (or Zoho Docs, if you’re not a fan of Google Docs), Gmail, your blog ... Create direct links to them straight on your desktop, and have them open quickly in their own little Google Chrome window, just like an application. In fact, this was the main concept which Google Chrome is built around.
A lot of the flack I’ve heard about Google Chrome is, in fact, it’s simple design. People seem to think that because it’s so simplistic, it can’t do anything. Apparently that’s the culture we’ve been drowned in. Look, something doesn’t always have to be flashing in your face, offering you things to click on, for it to be good. You should control the your computer and it’s programs, the computer and it’s software should not control you.
What I’m most comfortable with is simply the fact that this browser was developed by Google, a company I’ve come to rely on and trust for my web browsing. As it develops and comes out of beta, I don’t think they’ll allow it to bloat. It will continually be developed around internet-based applications and support for them.
I only have one more pressing question that will need to be answered in the coming months: What will the next Firefox browser look like?