Apps > Browser Discussion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
<< Prev Next >>

#1148672 by unknown[189255] at 2009-06-22 10:47:46 (4 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

I have the 3.5 RC but I score only 93/100... How come?

#1148834 by unknown[4488] at 2009-06-22 18:13:18 (4 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

i tested firefox it fails badly with a 73 score
explorer did 70 google chrome did better with 80
opera did 100% so i realy duno
im no fan of firefox its way way to overrated its all here say and no actualy reason to listen to what people say about it

#1148949 by lordchawk Donor

(Power User) at 2009-06-22 22:21:17 (4 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

Tigermoth wrote:

im no fan of firefox its way way to overrated its all here say and no actualy reason to listen to what people say about it

yup, hit the nail on the head lol

#1149348 by unknown[4097] at 2009-06-23 22:13:58 (4 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

Tigermoth wrote:

I found this link that tests if your browser displays web pages correctly.
I scored 100/100 anyone elce score 100 ?

http://acid3.acidtests.org/

Firefox 3.0.11 got 72.
Firefox 3.5 RC3 got 93.

Tried it with Google Chrome and got 100.

Opera got 85
Opera 10 beta got 100.

Google Crome and Safari seem to be the best at this. Betas are not recommended to use for security reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3

#1149390 by Germs Donor

(Mackem Moderator) at 2009-06-23 23:31:18 (4 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

I got some weird results :
72 for FF
81 for Opera
12 for IE8

#1149400 by unknown[4097] at 2009-06-24 00:29:08 (4 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

23 June 2009, 16:13
Mozilla's new security policy

In an article on its security blog, the Mozilla Foundation has presented a new security policy – known as content security policy (CSP) – intended to guard against the epidemic of cross-site scripting attacks (XSS) and other vulnerabilities. This allows web administrators, by sending special headers, to tell the browser which domains it should accept as sources for trusted code. Standard XSS attacks sometimes utilise vulnerabilities in web applications in order to execute JavaScript in the browser with the rights of trusted domains.

With CSP, the browser will only execute scripts which originate from domains listed in a white-list – everything else will be blocked. This allows administrators to, for example, specify their own script server for loading and executing scripts. This should mean that it is no longer possible for attackers to inject scripts into HTML files.

With CSP, even JavaScript embedded within a page will by default no longer be executed. Websites will even be able to tell the browser to completely disable execution of JavaScript from their context. This may be useful on sites which don't use any scripts.

CSP should nonetheless be fully backwards-compatible. If a website does not include a CSP header, the browser will revert to the same origin policy. Browsers which do not support CSP will simply ignore the extra header. CSP should also offer some protection against clickjacking and automatically redirect from HTTP pages to HTTPS pages where the latter are available.

Google is also currently looking at delivering its pages over HTTPS by default to improve security and prevent eavesdropping. However, Mozilla Security Program Manager Brandon Sterne does not reveal when we can expect to see CSP implemented in Mozilla products.
http://www.h-online.com/security/Mozill … ews/113596

#1154484 by unknown[334483] at 2009-07-03 23:25:15 (4 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

chetah wrote:

Firefox 3.5 RC3 got 93.

Same here. Not using 3.5 yet.. but afaik there's no difference between rc3 and 3.5? And while I'm mostly on Ubuntu, Swiftfox is easier to keep updated to the latest Firefox version.

Got used to Chrome for a while, but ever since the memory tests Firefox 3.5 is by far the most efficient.

http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory

Seems Mozilla took those memory concerns more serious than a lot of people thought.

#1160005 by malah Donor

(Power User) at 2009-07-16 19:27:12 (4 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

(Firefox)

Drop-down menu for bookmarks (address bar/location bar/whatever it's called)

How do I re-enable it? 3.5 made most of my bookmarks disappear from there and after I reinstalled it I don't have any. WTH?

Last edited by malah at 2009-07-16 19:37:54

#1160258 by I (Power User) at 2009-07-17 08:44:39 (4 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

^^^
Tools Options Privacy When using the location bar suggest... (If I understand you correctly)

The new good thing in FF 3.5 (I w8ed for this for months) is create new tab button in the tabs bar, I like it

Last edited by I at 2009-07-17 08:54:54

#1160349 by malah Donor

(Power User) at 2009-07-17 14:37:29 (4 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

I wrote:

^^^
Tools Options Privacy When using the location bar suggest... (If I understand you correctly)

It seems those 'bookmarks' were in fact my browsing history. The top was simply made up of my bookmarked sites, which I visit most often (duh).

#1171115 by roxarn (Power User) at 2009-08-13 21:36:55 (3 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

Dunno if this is the right thread to post in but I will try anyways. So I was browing the intrawebz using Firefox 3.5.2 a couple of days ago and suddenly there was a power failure.. After that the browser cant seem to log me in automaticly when I visit sites. It saves the username and password but doesnt log me in. Any ideas? Already tryed re-installing and clearing cache, cookies etc.

EDIT: Nevermind solved. I just had to go in and delete the cookies in the mozilla folder manually, neither the built in cleaner in firefox or CCleaner could clear out the cookies for some reason.

Last edited by roxarn at 2009-08-15 20:15:24

#1174590 by unknown[371833] at 2009-08-23 05:32:47 (3 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

K-Melon : 52/100
FF 3.0.13 : 2/100

IE 8 : 12/100

Safari 4: 100/100

#1177109 by kr0xx (Power User) at 2009-08-31 00:06:20 (3 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

Chrome is the shit!

Firefox comes second.

#1177110 by unknown[239832] at 2009-08-31 00:12:22 (3 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

kr0xx wrote:

firefox is the shit!

Chrome comes second.

fixed

#1177846 by lordchawk Donor

(Power User) at 2009-09-01 23:47:00 (3 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

opera 10 final is out :dance:

#1183377 by unknown[299785] at 2009-09-17 22:43:56 (3 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

chorme kicks buttZ!

#1183389 by unknown[376629] at 2009-09-17 23:20:29 (3 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

Firefox does the job for me with the added plugins too.

#1183401 by Angelitta (Power User) at 2009-09-18 00:14:32 (3 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

Acid3 scores are pointless in real life scenarios... they only show the browser is very lenient on malformed pages or support some stuff that very rarely is used.

For example, stuff like "the img tag supports a primary picture and a low quality picture which is usually ignored and missing so acid2 relies on the fact that the original picture does not exist and browser should fall back on the second grayscale picture and draw it as a black pixel" (i'm just making this up but something very similar was in the tests)... ridiculous...

or another example that was one point in a test, was the ability for the browser to support defining as background an embedded picture in a css file...

example:

< .classname { background-image:url(...343243232fsdA) scroll left; }

Who in the right mind would embed a 1 MB png image inside a CSS file like that, especially when base64 encoding further increases the size to ~ 1.2MB...

Firefox has ridiculous bugs and very old ones and even annoying regressions (bugs solved in one version which appear appear several versions again) but even so versatility wins for me, it's great as developer browser because of the extensions.

#1183406 by xosemp (VIP) at 2009-09-18 00:33:51 (3 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

Yeah, for users it doesn't matter, it's only us, the web developers, that do care.

A standard is made to be followed. If the standard says a img tag can have a low resolution image, then we, the devs, *could* use that whenever we wanted (ie, for a mobile phone not to download a huge picture over the air) expecting the browser to do it correctly.

The same goes for embedded background pictures, you're obviously not going to embed a 2MB image, but you could embed a small 2x2px image for a rounded border. This image will only be a few bytes long on the CSS, but downloading it through an HTTP connection will have a huge overhead (all HTTP headers, TCP connections and so on, especially when you have many of these). It would also help, for example, with embedding a whole webpage with all images and CSS on a single HTML file, for storage purposes, you can't do this without that part of the standard.

So yeah, knowing that you can use this kind of stuff and get it rendered correctly in all browsers without making a different version of your websites for each browser does make our life easier.

#1183512 by unknown[309897] at 2009-09-18 14:08:52 (3 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

xosemp wrote:

A standard is made to be followed. If the standard says a img tag can have a low resolution image, then we, the devs, *could* use that whenever we wanted (ie, for a mobile phone not to download a huge picture over the air) expecting the browser to do it correctly.

I'm not a programmer (I did take a basic Java and C courses in school but that's about it) so I don't quite get it. How come is it so hard for companies to produce programs that follow the standards that as far as I know have existed for a long time already?

#1183528 by Angelitta (Power User) at 2009-09-18 14:54:07 (3 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

It's not hard,it's just not in some company's interest to follow standards.

Netscape added some features that were outside the standards when their browser was popular lots of years ago, hoping these features will be implemented in later standards.

Microsoft added attributes to some html tags that basically did the same some already defined attributes but with slight nitpicks (they said "we feel developers would not understand the standard as it's written and it makes more sense for us to implement it this way") and intentionally added some tags and omitted some other stuff because it was in their interest to do it.

They made their own version of standards and then implemented it in various products, like Outlook, Office (almost all Office versions, from 97 to 2003 afaik use html attributes and tags that are only supported properly by IE and are not part of standards - even though there's no excuse to not fix it even in 2003 after n versions).

The idea is a company someone makes a website used for tracking stuff in a warehouse or something, and designing it in something like ASP, by default it will use some of the tags and attributes that are not part of standard so the application will only render correctly in IE, so all companies that will buy that website for their warehouses will have to buy Windows licenses.

As for why it's so hard for other browsers to follow standards nowadays, it's mostly because they have to provide workarounds to badly written pages, with tags and attributes missing or incorrectly placed and even more some standards really are confusing leaving some strange cases or behaviors to the developers to do as they like.

For example you have the input textbox, which you can use to select a file. There's very little in the standard about it how it should be shown, how big browsers must make the browse button (or even if it has to be shown or not), the position of the browse button (at the right or below the text box) and so on... Google Chrome will show the browse button on the left and won't render the text box, Firefox will show the button on the right, but you're not able to specify a specific width correctly...

Last edited by Angelitta at 2009-09-18 14:54:42

#1185151 by xosemp (VIP) at 2009-09-22 22:03:14 (3 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

It doesn't really matter anymore! Introducing Chrome Frame:

http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/

It's an Internet Explorer plugin that replaces the IE rendering engine with WebKit (the engine on Chrome and Safari). This way developers don't have to worry about IE hacks anymore and noobz can keep using their crappy browser

#1185201 by Shaamaan Donor

(Power User) at 2009-09-23 00:15:57 (3 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

xosemp wrote:

This way developers don't have to worry about IE hacks anymore and noobz can keep using their crappy browser

Except noobs, if they ARE noobs, won't know of it's existence, and even if they do, they won't understand the need for this.

Good idea, but unless it's forced as default into all Windows installs, I predict it won't have a huge support group. The most likely users will be administrators, who want to secure the browsers in a given company while retaining the simplicity of IE so the poor workers don't get overwhelmed overnight.

#1185222 by SaveFerris Donor

(Cavia porcellus) at 2009-09-23 01:27:14 (3 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

Shaamaan wrote:

Except noobs, if they ARE noobs, won't know of it's existence, and even if they do, they won't understand the need for this.

Exactly, it seems like a giant bunch of pointlessness to me. Nobody chooses to use IE because they like it as a browser, they either use it because they don't know any better or they can't be bothered to change (if they don't use the PC much or sommat).

#1185289 by xosemp (VIP) at 2009-09-23 07:56:07 (3 years ago) - [Quote] - [Report]

They don't need to know about it's existence at all or install it themselves. It's a plugin, just like Flash or any other, and websites that don't want to deal with IE can request it to be installed.

EDIT: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ … le_plug_in

Last edited by xosemp at 2009-09-25 15:11:06

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
<< Prev Next >>