Telltale Autumn Sale

What does your browser look like?

edited February 2013 in General Chat
Title says it all really:
What does your browser look like and why?
mybrowser.png

The browser is a nightly Firefox trunk build ("Minefield")
The layout is simply done by Showing only the menu bar with small icons.
Elements from left to right: Navigation, Reload, Stop, Menu, Location, Search, Bookmarks, Fullscreen.
The design is the default theme with the "Elegance" persona applied.
The Persona icon in the bottom left corner is the only icon added by extension.
Window design is Windows7 Aero with black and about 50% opacity.
Close button on tabs is moved via browser.tabs.closeButtons:3

P.S. The window is usually quite a bit wider so that the location bar expands.
Installed addons: Adblock+, APNG Edit, Base64 Encoder, Chatzilla, DOM Inspector, Firebug (only enabled when I need it, as it's prone to create conflicts), FlashGot, Full Screen Video, Greasemonkey, LiveHttpHeaders, PasswordExporter, Personas
«1

Comments

  • DjNDBDjNDB Moderator
    edited August 2009
    Title says it all really:
    What does your browser look like and why?

    Looks nice, but I would not like the small location bar. Since i limit the width of my browser it would still be too small then.

    Mine looks quite different. It's basically form follows function.
    I love to see the full URL and GET Parameters in the location bar since i care a lot about how web applications work. I don't mind spending some vertical space for that since I'm on 1920x1200.

    I use the English version of Firefox, because i hate applications translated to German. Just makes menu entries longer and feels awkward to me.

    I put the Bookmarks toolbar to the Right of the Menu and limited it to show only icons. That way i have 1 Click access to my most visited websites.

    There's a lot going on in the status bar.
    DownloadHelper - I don't really remember using it. It's for downloading flash movies
    TextArea Cache - A lifesaving add-on, because it saves backups of what i type, so i can restore them if the browser crashed or i accidently navigated away.
    AdBlock - Does just that
    Spelling correction, changing automatically between English and German depending on what site i am on
    FoxyProxy - Easy Access to Proxy configurations, which comes in handy when analyzing web applications with WebScarab
    Greasemonkey - Enables me to write custom scripts to adapt web applications to my liking
    JsView - Gives my quicker access to a web sites JavaScript and CSS files
    Stylish - Lets me modify websites CSS
    Torbutton - For Enabling/Disabling Tor

    331ad_1249935294.png
  • edited August 2009
    Mines Just plain ol' safari 4.0: Faster than Firefox, but Boring.
  • edited August 2009
    DjNDB wrote: »
    Looks nice, but I would not like the small location bar. Since i limit the width of my browser it would still be too small then.

    Mine looks quite different. It's basically form follows function.
    I love to see the full URL and GET Parameters in the location bar since i care a lot about how web applications work. I don't mind spending some vertical space for that since I'm on 1920x1200.

    The location bar is the thing that resized when I make the window wider. I made it a lot more narrow for the screenshot, it's usually set to around 80% of my 1680px (external) / 1440px(internal) resolution, so I can see most parameters. And if I really want to see what's happening, I open LiveHttpHeaders in the sidebar.

    I should probably add what addons I am using (even if I disable the icons):
    Adblock+, APNG Edit, Base64 Encoder, Chatzilla, DOM Inspector, Firebug (only enabled when I need it, as it's prone to create conflicts), FlashGot, Full Screen Video, Greasemonkey, LiveHttpHeaders, PasswordExporter, Personas
  • edited August 2009
    natlinxz wrote: »
    Mines Just plain ol' safari 4.0: Faster than Firefox, but Boring.

    Well, that depends on who you ask. Complex CSS selectors for example are very slow in Safari, but simple selectors are relatively slow in Firefox, because the overhead per function call is longer :)

    Safari is generally more hacking and more benchmark oriented. For example when the system is very busy (as is usually the case during benchmarks) Safari will drastically reduce the number of events passed to the page.

    Try it: Run some benchmark and try to select some text while it is running... notice anything? ;)

    But concerning raw Javascript speed, Safari4 currently really is faster. Firefox on the other hand is much more memory efficient.

    There are pros and cons for any browser really (well, except Internet Explorer)
  • edited August 2009
    I've just got the standard current version of Firefox, with Tab Mix Plus, NoScript, IE Tab and TwitterFox extensions visible.

    You can see it here - it's just almost always fully opened on my 2nd monitor letting me play games (and/or do my uni work) and browse the internet at the same time.
  • TeaTea
    edited August 2009
    Well here it is...

    browser.png

    It's a custom Firefox Persona made with the cover of "Everything that Happens will Happen on this Tour" by David Byrne. Mozilla won't allow me to release it.
  • edited August 2009
    Like google chrome.
  • DjNDBDjNDB Moderator
    edited August 2009
    I've just got the standard current version of Firefox, with Tab Mix Plus, NoScript, IE Tab and TwitterFox extensions visible.
    Tab Mix Plus is one of the most important extensions for me. Second Place is All-in-One Gestures. I am just confused when i use a Firefox without it.

    I have configured a lot of actions to it in a way that seems intuitive to me and use it all the time for switching between tabs, closing tabs, undo closing tabs, closing other tabs, going to top or bottom of the page, history back-/forward and following previous-/next link. All with just some short mouse movements.
  • edited August 2009
    bowser_mp7.jpg

    Oh, sorry, I think I missed a "r"
  • edited August 2009
    Now let's see that Certificate of Ownership...
  • edited August 2009
    Ever see Google Chrome? There's what mine looks like. :p
  • edited August 2009
    Mine looks like Firefox 3.5.2
  • edited August 2009
    There are pros and cons for any browser really (well, except Internet Explorer)

    How true. I can't believe that 60% of the computer users use that crap.
  • edited August 2009
    Speak for yourself. Actually, Internet Explorer works fine for my needs. It does what I want. It browses the internet, which is what I want to do if I download an internet browser. I have other programs on my PC which accounts for everything that you can get in terms of Firefox addons, which means I don't need the addon feature. Firefox is no better for the rare popups that you do get, IE and FF both have the same amount of popups. IE is just as fast as Firefox, not to mention you don't get those annoying red x boxes when you load the page up. Chances are Firefox will get hacked just as much as IE would, now that most people use FF now. Not a big fan of custom skins, either(No offense to those of you who do, it's all personal choice, really). Consequently, Firefox really isn't that much better than Internet Explorer, for me, anyway. I do apologise if I seem a tad mean there. Ofcourse it's all personal preference I guess.

    ANYWAY, consequently, my browser just looks like the plain old Internet Explorer 8. :) Nothing fancy, but I like it, it's clean and does what I want it to.
  • edited August 2009
    IE is and always has been ridiculously slow.
  • edited August 2009
    Then thats to do with your computer, not the browser. I've tried both Firefox 3.5 and Internet Explorer 8 and I've found no difference in speed. I would prove it now, but unfortunately I was forced to wipe Vista the other day, so I've no longer got Firefox installed. But I don't want to start a stupid which Internet Browser is better war, because it's a waste of time, and neither side wins.
  • jmmjmm
    edited August 2009
    32-bit Chrome and IE8. I'd rather use 64-bit browsers but without flash support ... :|
  • edited August 2009
    Standard Firefox 3 scheme. I used to have the Bookmark Toolbar enabled and categorized as I have way too many bookmarks but that was in Ubuntu and I find myself using Windows more lately for games and music production. Haven't touched Ubuntu in ages. Gotta get all my settings back from there.
  • edited August 2009
    Rawr, I hate to break it to you, but MSIE really IS terribly slow. No matter how you look at it. From any point of view. And that's already taking into account that people like myself spend weeks optimizing their code so that it runs as fast as possible in MSIE, sacrificing speed on all other browsers.
  • edited August 2009
    I avoid Internet Explorer like the plague.
  • edited August 2009
    TheJoe wrote: »
    Well here it is...

    browser.png

    It's a custom Firefox Persona made with the cover of "Everything that Happens will Happen on this Tour" by David Byrne. Mozilla won't allow me to release it.

    NDA Stuff?
    ShaggE wrote: »
    Ever see Google Chrome? There's what mine looks like. :p

    I was about to say the same thing.
  • edited August 2009
    Rawr, I hate to break it to you, but MSIE really IS terribly slow. No matter how you look at it. From any point of view. And that's already taking into account that people like myself spend weeks optimizing their code so that it runs as fast as possible in MSIE, sacrificing speed on all other browsers.
    I hate to break it to you, but it isn't. Infact I just tested it. Downloaded Firefox just for you guys, feel proud. I wiped my cache and made sure I used a site which I haven't been on since I reinstalled Vista, so there wasn't any of the images left on the pc which would of made the test unfair. Also used an heavily html website. Used the exact same stopwatch. Started the stop watch as soon as i pressed enter on both times. I got pretty much the same results on both browsers, 6.8seconds on Internet Explorer 8 and 6.9seconds on Firefox 3.5. So clearly, there isn't a big difference.
  • edited August 2009
    And, IE was faster.
  • edited August 2009
    Rawr wrote: »
    I hate to break it to you, but it isn't. Infact I just tested it. Downloaded Firefox just for you guys, feel proud. I wiped my cache and made sure I used a site which I haven't been on since I reinstalled Vista, so there wasn't any of the images left on the pc which would of made the test unfair. Also used an heavily html website. Used the exact same stopwatch. Started the stop watch as soon as i pressed enter on both times. I got pretty much the same results on both browsers, 6.8seconds on Internet Explorer 8 and 6.9seconds on Firefox 3.5. So clearly, there isn't a big difference.

    Well, if you wipe the cache on both and measure the load time, then that's pretty much what you can expect (seeing as the server responses are the bottleneck here). Try to load some long files from HDD and see what happens, for example: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/

    kitten.png
  • edited August 2009
    Yes, and how many people actually load files from their HDD? The entire point of the internet is it's online. You don't save it to your hard disk to load later. You look at the web pages there and then, freshly updated. Fair enough if you're working on a webpage, then Firefox might be better, but, I'm not, and so, firefox isn't better for me. Consequently, you can't really call it crap, just because it might have a few extra features that some people might find handy. For the average internet user, Internet Explorer does the job just fine.
  • edited August 2009
    what I'm saying is that you can't measure the speed that way... you just don't get ANY useful results.

    I'd love to point you to pages that make good use of the additional speed offered by Firefox/Safari/Opera, but unfortunately any that do just don't work with MSIE's crappy rendering engine and missing features (including my own).

    On any other browser we can by now render realtime 3D animations, the only reason why we can't do it on the web is because MSIE would use up all your memory, then crash.
  • edited August 2009
    Perhaps you can't. But the point is it doesn't matter if the browser is "Faster" if you can't put that speed into action on the internet due to the servers. I honestly couldn't careless about the rendering engine as long as I get the page loaded up.. You guys don't seem to get that not everyone cares about the small details, not everyone is as petty as that. I'm going to say it again, since you don't quite seem to be getting the picture here. As long as it loads the internet pages at a fast speed, like it does, as shown by that test I did above, then it doesn't matter how it does it, or if the system is inferior, we don't care. It loads the pages at the same speed, and thats all that we ask for, after all, a web browsers job is to browse the web.
  • edited August 2009
    The thing is we could do wonderful stuff on webpages, mind boggling stuff. Think 3D world, think music visualization, think games. That and much, much more.

    But, we can't because MSIE is holding us back. We can't make use of the speed other browsers are offering while MSIE still exists.

    The other thing is that developing MSIE compatibility costs a lot of time & money. Money we don't get from Microsoft, so we have to charge the customers for it. That and it's really quite frustrating to develop a program for 2 hours, then spend 20 getting it to work in MSIE (no, I'm not exaggerating).
  • edited August 2009
    Last I checked, you can play 3d games, play music etc perfectly well in Internet Explorer using other plugins. I don't really care for internet pages with a 3d world, music visualisation or whatever. I have other programs for that. Besides, that isn't your only hold back, alot of us don't have strong enough internet connections to be able to withstand downloading that much data for just a webpage we're going to be on for a few seconds. If there really was a need for me to swap over to Firefox, I would. I don't hate the program, believe me. Just for the current things the internet offers, theres no point me swapping over yet.

    Anyway, now Microsoft aren't allowed to ship Internet Explorer with Windows in Europe, you'll probably be happy to hear that you might get your wish of people not using IE anymore.
  • edited August 2009
    Without plugins. Plugins and their little brother ActiveX are a security, accessibility and archival nightmare and should never have become mainstream. How do we expect user to make informed decisions about what to install on their system if we constantly wave "now install plugin X, then plugin Y and plugin Z (trust us, they're not evil)" type messages in their face.
  • edited August 2009
    Thats quite true. Most users would probably be put off by that, infact, alot will. Although sometimes it is for the best for example with those annoying advertising plugins. Unfortunately a lot of people would install those if they were allowed to make a normal decision with it. I complain alot about stupid messages Windows gives off. Like for example when you delete a shortcut, you get an annoying message telling you that it doesn't uninstall the program. Also in the Task Manager, you get messages popping up saying "Are you sure you want to shut this program, it might loose your data, and cause an unstable system" etc. They're stupid and annoying things, but without them, people might not realise those things unfortunately.
  • edited August 2009
    At least that we can agree on (BTW, you're surfing with an open SSL vulnerability that Microsoft hasn't fixed for half a year, making all encryption useless).

    We could also bring down your bandwidth usage quite a bit if we were allowed to use the more modern standards that everybody except MSIE supports. Heck, getting rid of animated GIFs and replacing them with APNG/lossless-h264 alone would probably reduce your bandwidth bill by 10%. Not having to download 10 different versions of each transparent image because MSIE doesn't handle transparency correctly would probably bring another 10%. And creating most standard effects dynamically (like reflections) instead of downloading prerendered images may even bring in 20%.

    More processing power doesn't mean more data, it means less. You can ask Yare for more details on CPU-vs-filesize :)
  • edited August 2009
    BTW, if you have Firefox 3.5 installed anyway right now, here are a few little demos I've written that show off what you can do with a modern browser (they're pretty unpolished, but you'll get the idea). They could be faster with a bit of optimization, but they're already lightyears ahead of what you can do in MSIE.

    Music visualization
    Voxel island
    Mario Kart
    3D Model viewer
    Dynamic texturing
  • edited August 2009
    Updates were made available not long after that "SSL Vulnerability" was found.

    Those are nice demo's but, it makes me wonder, would we really want those in a browser. I mean Music Visualisation can already been done well by media players such as WMP(Yeah, I still use that too along side video plugins, so sue me.) and you can also have a library of your songs in those programs, allowing you to choose what ever song you want to see the visualisation for. All games, like mario kart, work fine in an .exe, so why change it, you'd also be forced to go online if you had games in your browser. As for all of the modeling, the only thing I can see that to be good for would be for game developers wanting to show off their character models or world models or whatever, and I can already see that in screenshots.
  • DjNDBDjNDB Moderator
    edited August 2009
    Rawr wrote: »
    Those are nice demo's but, it makes me wonder, would we really want those in a browser

    I don't know much about the demos, because i still use firefox 3.0.x until some add ons have been ported and i see a need for change, but part of the Features are HTML5 Elements which could replace proprietary and therefore problematic plugins in some places such as Flash, Real Player and Quicktime.
    That kind of progress is important, because the Web needs standards and not several different approaches for the same thing.
    I am worried when I see the competition between JavaFX, Silverlight and Flash. Just more junk for the Browser to handle. Although I like Java, but that's not the point.

    Who knows what people come up with when the possibilities exists. Just look at AJAX. The technology has been existing for years, and suddenly, several years later, someone comes up with a way of using it that is considered a revolution for web applications.
  • edited August 2009
    The SSL vulnerability is still open in MSIE8 according to all reports I've found. If you do know otherwise, you may want to amend Microsoft's own report.

    The demos are naturally just that: demos. They're not useful on their own, they just show what the technology is capable of so that when it is needed, people know that it can be done.
  • edited August 2009
    Oh thats a different one than I was thinking of, since you said since half a year ago, when it would seem it was actually 3months for this one. :P There have been updates recently taking care of other CVE's lately, so they aren't sitting around doing nothing I guess. But meh. Edit: just checked Sun's and other websites site, with their reports on those CVE's and apparently they meaning Firefox only fixed it a couple of days ago.

    @DjNDB, You're right one day someone may find an ingenius way to incorporate those demo's into something revolutionary for webpages, but that day isn't today.
  • edited August 2009
    BTW, if you have Firefox 3.5 installed anyway right now, here are a few little demos I've written that show off what you can do with a modern browser (they're pretty unpolished, but you'll get the idea). They could be faster with a bit of optimization, but they're already lightyears ahead of what you can do in MSIE.

    Music visualization
    Voxel island
    Mario Kart
    3D Model viewer
    Dynamic texturing

    So, Firefox can do Mode 7 now?
  • edited August 2009
    Not the way you think :) We'll have to wait for Firefox 4 until we get a true 3D API as the WebGL spec is still in its early stages. The demo you see here actually works quite differently: It uses a displacement map to transform a flat image into a perspective one (or in the case of the pseudo-voxel demo 5 displacement maps). Alternatively, you can use Canvas to implement your own rendering algorithms, but it's difficult to do textures at a similar speed, that's why the 3D model viewer demo (which is implemented via Canvas) only uses flat polygons so far.

    If you want to see the current progress on the GL API, check out http://www.c3dl.org/ . You'll need Vlad's WebGL plugin ( https://people.mozilla.com/~vladimir/canvas3d/ ), which right now is only available for 3.5b4 though
  • edited August 2009
    So, Firefox can do Mode 7 now?

    *And* Blast Processing. Consider your mind blown. :p
Sign in to comment in this discussion.