New Firefox makes browser war a fair fight

If you regularly read this space, you'll notice how the Google Chrome Web browser kind of grew on me, and after my initial reservations I've come to love it. Something about its speed.

But now Firefox, with its new 3.6 version, has seen enough improvements to almost make it a fair fight.

Some of the benchmark tests comparing the two intrigued me. When you figure in that impossible stability+speed combination, reviewers are calling them almost neck and neck.

Now, we don't do that benchmark stuff around here. I don't have time to mess with all that, and I'd rather put a piece of software through its paces. I'd rather max it out, try to break it, and take note of my findings. I'm not smart enough or geeky enough to plug the whole thing to an oscilloscope or whatever it is those propellerheads do.

So, take any speed or stability tests I run with a grain of salt -- or maybe even the whole shaker. Whatever test results I get depend on what mood I'm in at the time, and what I'm trying to do with the software. But I will try to max it out.

I'm one of those computer users who runs underpowered equipment (scary to think my netbook is the most muscular computer I have) and overclocks it like crazy. And to do the things I want to do, I go for lightweight, faster programs when I can. Even my usual graphical interface -- Fluxbox -- is really little more than a plain background, taskbar, and menus that I write myself from text files. That's why I was so eager to get my Chrome on, because of its simple and fast interface.

Being the experimenter that I am, after reading some of the reports I had to download Firefox 3.6. I've always liked the 'fox, used it even in its beta days when it was called Firebird (or was it Phoenix?), and kept going back to it after trying other browsers. But I knew 3.6 would really have to show me something to dislodge Chrome from the front line.

But I'm pleasantly surprised. I'm not sure what the developer did, but it's a whole lot quicker than Firefox used to be. It's not quite in the Chrome league, but this new version might be as fast as Opera.

From what I've noticed, Web pages don't seem to get lost in that nether world that's probably populated by everyone's stray socks.

Lifehacker recently ran some tests of some of the favorite browsers available, with several versions of Chrome, Firefox, and Opera, and Safari. Sorry, Internet Explorer wasn't in these tests, which takes away a lot of comic relief. That would have been like bringing a duck to a cockfight.

Here's the stuff according to Lifehacker, with my comments:

• Boot-up and warm loading; Winner: Opera - No surprises; Opera always was a fast loader.

• Tab Loading; Winner: Chrome Stable - I use version 4.0.249.30 for Linux, which is in beta but built from the stable version. And there's no dispute there; it's the fastest "name" browser I've seen in a while.

• JavaScript; Winner: Opera 10.5 Pre-Alpha.

• DOM/CSS; Winner: Chrome Developmental version.

• Memory use, no extensions; Winner: Firefox 3.6 - This is a surprise, and certainly worth my attention.

• Memory use with extensions; Winner: Firefox 3.6 - An even bigger surprise here. Firefox has always been fairly quick until I start loading in my extensions. Then my browsing experience was like watching paint dry. If this test holds up in real life, then Firefox just made up for a lot of lost ground in the browser battle.

• Overall winners, in order: Google Chrome Developmental, Google Chrome Stable, Firefox 3.6, Firefox 3.5.4: Opera 10.5 Pre-Alpha, Opera 10.01, Safari 4.0.4.

Will this new Firefox become my prime browser?

It's hard to say. I've always liked how you could add extensions to Firefox, but Chrome is starting to head in that modular direction too. And I like the independent tabs in Chrome; if one Web page gets stuck you only need to close that tab rather than shut down the whole browser. In Chrome I haven't run into the memory problems I used to encounter with Firefox. There's a lot to be said for both browsers.

Besides, it's still too early in my test flight for me to render a decision. I haven't broken Firefox yet. Or Chrome. Ask me then.

But if speed and memory use are your needs, it looks like this may finally be a fair fight.

###

Got my Chrome on -- finally!

After a whole bunch of testing, tweaking, and head-banging, Google Chrome is now working on my Linux box.

At issue was an nss file; I'm not real sure what it does, but it makes Chrome work. That's all I need to know.

I couldn't find it on any of my Vector Linux repositories, so I had to do some serious Web searching to dig it up. But it's there, on a web site called slackfind.net -- of course, it is now bookmarked in my system.

Here's the file:

Keep in mind, this is for a Slackware version of Linux, specifically Vector Linux, which is the one I use. It's in .tgz format, for me a breeze to install.

And Chrome is as fast as I knew it would be.

Firefox? What's Firefox?

###

Chrome becomes headache on Linux box

I'll admit it. I had my early misgivings about the Google Chrome browser when it was first coming out. Like, what's Google doing in the software business?

But after using Chrome a few times on Windows systems, it sort of grew on me. It's one fast browser, maybe even faster than Opera. It's less likely to blow up in memory like Firefox. I have a Portable Apps version that I use on borrowed Windows machines, though it doesn't seem to save my bookmarks.

On my Linux box, I'm always experimenting with browsers. I have Firefox, Seamonkey (which is built off the old Mozilla code), Dillo, Lynx, and Opera available to browse the Web, and I use them all. For the past few months Opera has been my go-to, and even that feels poky next to Chrome.

So I put myself on the Chrome mailing list, waiting for the Linux version to come out. A few weeks ago, the first version for MacIntosh and Linux was released, with all the warts.

Now, understand, this version is in beta. Which means it may or may not work. That's what happens when you go for such bleeding-edge software. You're volunteering your services as a crash-test dummy.

So far, only binaries of Chrome seem to be available in Linux; I haven't seen any source-code bundles just yet. I use Vector Linux, which runs with .tlz and .tgz binary packages, but I like to compile my programs from source. Best I was able to do was to download the .rpm binary (which Red Hat and Fedora use), and convert it over to .tgz. Here's what I did, from the root shell:

root:# cd /home/eric
root:# rpm2tgz google-chrome-beta_current_i386.rpm

From there, I was able to install it directly into my system. I was ready to go. I had my seatbelt buckled and my Tony Stewart racing gear on, 'cause this was going to be one fast browser.

A problem, though. I could only go so far; the sandbox (a security tool) wasn't configured right. My command shell told me what to do, so after a few days of deliberation I went ahead with the fix. Here's how, again from a root shell:

root:# su /opt/google/chrome
root:# chown root chrome-sandbox
root:# chmod 4755 chrome-sandbox

Then fired Chrome up from the command shell -- success, for a minute.

As it stands now, I can work Chrome all day, as long as I don't use it to go online. That's when it quits.

Seriously. Here's what I get in the command shell:

eric:$ google-chrome
[7241:7253:703254262:ERROR:/usr/local/google/home/chrome-eng/b/slave/chrome-official-linux/build/src/base/nss_init.cc(89)] Error initializing NSS with a persistent database (sql:/home/eric/.pki/nssdb): NSS error code -8174 Assertion failure: lock != NULL, at ../../../../pr/src/pthreads/ptsynch.c:205 Aborted

In non-technical language, that means it crapped out. Back to the drawing board.

Might need to download the next version, maybe attack one of the nightly builds. And if anyone has any ideas of their own, I'm willing to try them. But despite my early misgivings I see Chrome in my future, and I'm not talking about a chrome dome here.

I'm gonna keep trying, because I'm stubborn and enjoy fooling with software when it's in beta. Face it. I make a good crash test dummy.

###

(You tell me: How about the rest of y'all Linux users? Have you had any better luck than me? Use the comments section below.)

Chrome browser finally available for Linux

A beta of the Google Chrome web browser is now available for Linux.

About time!

Downloading now ... as I write this. Expect more after I install it.

Available in .deb (Debian) and .rpm (Red Hat/Fedora) binaries.

Try it with me, y'all penguinistas!

Chrome OS promising, but it's more for the future

It won't be ready for the general public for another year, but the sneak preview of the Google Chrome OS is generating quite a buzz.

It may be a Windows-killer, some claim. It'll put Linux on the map, say others. It'll be a fiasco, say still more pundits. So far, nobody's neutral.

Google Chrome, built from the Debian GNU/Linux operating system (which I've always liked), is designed for the ultralight, ultracheap netbooks that are not really built for much more than Web browsing and lightweight office work. And the Chrome system is really little more than a front end for "cloud computing" -- the use of online applications and storage.

According to the Google blog:

... it's all about the web. All apps are web apps. The entire experience takes place within the browser and there are no conventional desktop applications. This means users do not have to deal with installing, managing and updating programs ...

That in itself is enough to really stir the pudding in the computer world.

I guess that's the future of computing, and it stands to reason that one may not even need a hard drive in the future. That's the trend I'm seeing carried out to its logical conclusion, though it doesn't mean I have to like it.

I've fooled around some with online applications, such as Google Docs. While they're OK, I have trepidations about using these for everything. I've also played with bubbl.us, an online mind mapping program. While these concepts are great for portability -- you can access your stuff from any computer without even a thumb drive. I'd rather keep my documents on hard drive. I'm even chary about backing them up online, and I like a lot more choice about what applications I do use. But from what I've read, the Google Chrome system throws you right into the future.

Although InfoWorld’s Randall Kennedy says Google’s Chrome OS will be a big failure, Robert Scoble thinks it's just ahead of its time:

... what about my son who is in high school? By the time Chrome OS comes along in big numbers he’ll be in college. Why take a $1,000 computer to class? Couldn’t he do everything he needs to do on a low-cost computer that’s lightweight, replaceable, uses low power, and just uses the web? Absolutely. InfoWorld is making assumptions that the world is going to stay the same. That simply is NOT true ... what will run on these new devices? A heavyweight OS like Windows 7 that takes me 40 seconds to boot up and does a ton of stuff I really don’t need, or a new OS that just has Google Chrome as its centerpiece?"

Even with nothing but a Web browser? Scoble says this:

... hey, I just wrote this post on Google Chrome while sitting listening to Marc Benioff at the TechCrunch Real Time Crunchup. I have not seen a single thing demonstrated on stage yet that won’t run on Google Chrome OS ... this is a winner, but on a new field ...

I may download the Chrome OS and give it a shot, though I'm not all that enthused about it. Since it's a front end with little more than a graphic user interface, a few core programs, and the Chrome browser, why does the download weigh in at around three gigabytes?

Out of the box, the download on my current Linux operating system is a tick over 700 megabytes. And that includes all the programs that make the computer a self-contained one. You can get surprisingly complete Linux distributions on a 100-megabyte download.

Still, I'm intrigued by this system, and hope it is adopted early and often. There's no secret that I'm a big fan of Linux, and the Chrome OS may finally dissolve the perception that Linux is too busy being geeky to be useful.

Now, understand that none of this is carved in granite, or even in bologna. This sneak preview is available in source code format, and it'll be a while before the final, battle-ready version is ready. In the interim, those who grabbed the download are essentially beta testers. Run it, crash it, make note of what you did, and report back to the developers.

The new operating system still begs the question: What will it do with Microsoft's death grip on the PC market?

Taking the pundits' comments and working the middle ground, the answer is not a lot. TechCrunch writer M. G. Siegler suggests Chrome will nibble into the bottom end of the Microsoft market -- the netbooks, the cheap computers. But until Windows 7 was released, Microsoft had conceded that end of the market. Most netbooks came with some form of Linux preloaded, while a few had Windows XP. Part of the game plan behind Windows 7 (which I'm not going to review; I'm more interested in open-source software) was to recapture some of the netbook users, and by most accounts the new Windows is one of the best systems Microsoft has ever produced.

Siegler writes:

... Google’s positioning for Chrome OS reads like a page out of Apple’s playbook, only from the opposite direction ... Apple, of course, takes the opposite approach, targeting the high end of the market with their high-quality and high-margin machines. If Google is successful with its Chrome OS netbooks (let’s call them ChromeBooks), what we could see is the squeezing of Microsoft, an idea I first laid out a month ago. With attacks from the top and bottom, Windows will be relegated to the middle. And ultimately, if Google has its way, marginalized ...

Stay tuned.

###

After rough start, Firefox marks fifth birthday

I never would have expected this. Firefox is five years old.

Despite its promise from the jump, Firefox spent its beta period without any real identity. Literally.

At first no one was really sure what to call it. For a while it was known as Phoenix, then Firebird. I believe the developers had to come up with a fast name change because there's another piece of software called Firebird, and branding is a big thing in the computer world.

With such an inauspicious beginning, it's amazing to see that the product survived, let alone developed a reputation as a stable browser.

To further confuse things, Firefox is open source, meaning you can take the code, tweak it, build something else from it, and rebrand it. This was done with Debian Linux, as the Firefox brand is copyrighted though the source code is not, so that thing that looks and feels like Firefox is called Iceweasel or some such thing. I've also used BonEcho, a rebranded, stripped-down version of Firefox for the ultralight Puppy Linux.

For a while, one of the lesser-known and more tongue-in-cheek Firefox extensions available was called firesomething, which would put a whole different name on the browser every time you run it. The name on it may be SnowSnake this time, and maybe something like BlizzardLizard the next. It was a goofy extension, but brought a chuckle to this user who remembered Firefox's early search for a name.

The browser made it out of beta and released Version 1.0 five years ago this week. Within four days, more than a million people downloaded it. I was one of them.

I was one of the early Firefox adopters. I was running an assembled-from-scratch computer, and already I was sick of Internet Explorer's balkiness and security leaks. I went to the old Mozilla suite, and when that company announced it was throwing its resources into a new, browser-only project, I had to try it out.

The design was a thing of beauty. You were getting a basic browser, and you'd add whatever you feel you needed to it. Now, five years later, the modular design remains. My Firefox has the experimental Google Gears extension, plus the LastPass password keeper. But the biggest extension I have is ScribeFire, which allows me to compose blogs within the browser and post them seamlessly. ScribeFire is big, adds more bloat to the browser, and is sometimes buggy so I'm a bit lukewarm about it. But I use it.

A caveat about Firefox: The more add-ons and extensions you install, the slower it will run. It's like running a car with all the options instead of a model with power nothing and the kind of air conditioner you get when you open all four windows. But even with a lot of chrome on it, Firefox is a good browser, stable, and secure. The developers stay on top of things, and are quicker to solve their bugs than the Microsoft people are at admitting there's a problem with IE. For a while, Firefox had a problem where it would blow up in your memory and consume every CPU cycle you had, but that was solved several updates ago.

Over time, Mozilla dropped its old browser and made Firefox its big Web browsing application. Recently, some fans of the old Mozilla browser took the source code, tweaked a few things, updated the whole thing, and released it as Seamonkey.

Now, Firefox is taking a decent chunk of the browser market. It's the main browser by about 25 percent of Web users, but that's a funny number. Firefox is not routinely installed on computers out of the box, and many users tend to stick with what's already on the box -- like Internet Explorer. Figure it. To use Internet Explorer you unpack the computer, plug it in, and double-click on the big "e" on the screen. You have to go out of your way to get Firefox -- and then install it yourself. But, Firefox now grabs a bigger share than the obsolete IE version 6, which is still a step ahead.

Recently, MozillaZine announced that Firefox was present on a majority -- 50.6 percent -- of computers, based on numbers by the exo.performance.network. So someone, somewhere, is doing an awful lot of downloading.

But while Firefox has seen some real growth lately, the year-old Google Chrome is growing even faster. Roughly four percent of computer users are making Chrome the prime browser, so that one has a way to go, but the growth rate matches the buzz it's generating. I played some with Chrome, but its development has primarily been on the Windows and, more recently, MacIntosh side. Still, I'm pleased by its lightness and speed -- by comparison a fully-loaded Firefox is kludgy -- but Chrome has an unfinished feel to it. I do suspect that, once it is ported to Linux, I may put it on my front line.

Firefox is still my go-to browser, but mostly because it works better with much of the stuff on the Web (particularly the experimental Google Labs widgets). It's probably a little bloated for my taste, though. Much as I tend to shy away from those large, do-everything suites (such as Open Office), I like Seamonkey (the rebuilt and reissued Mozilla browser suite) a bit better. Even with the built-in mail reader and HTML editor, its design is lighter than the browser-only Firefox. I do like Opera for the same reason, though it hasn't caught on in the mainstream computer world at all. Too bad. Opera is the only one that has a chance of outrunning Chrome in a speed test. Both of them are much quicker than Firefox, while IE lags so far behind you'd need searchlights to find it.

But if you want pure speed, Lynx runs circles around all of them, including Google Chrome. But since Lynx is text-only, you might have a problem watching those YouTube videos on it.

Internet reaches middle age

Although few had even heard of this Internet thing (then known as the "information superhighway" until the early or mid-1990s, it got its real start 40 years ago this week.

It was Oct. 29, 1969 when the first two nodes of ARPANET were interconnected between UCLA’s School of Engineering and Applied Science and SRI International (SRI) in Menlo Park, California. And unless you were one of the guys on the inside, you really didn't know or care.

I was a bit of a late adopter. It was 1996 when I used a noisy modem to link into an Internet provider in a nearby city. My computer was an old Leading Edge XP, with an 8088 processor, Hercules graphics card, DOS 5, and 2400-bytes-per-second modem. I used Procomm to link up, and the text-only Lynx browser to surf.

This wasn't the first time I'd used a modem. By then I was an old hand at sending text files point to point over the phone lines. I worked for a newspaper in Kingman, Arizona at the time, and generated a lot of stories from my home office in Bullhead City, 40 miles away. I'd call the publisher, Matt, and tell him to set up the computer for incoming copy, give him five minutes, then send the stuff. Soon Matt would see my text streaming across his screen, a character at a time. One of my other reporters would send me his copy from his home office, I'd edit it from home, then send it to the home office the same way. I was even able to execute commands on my home computer (the Dos-driven PC) from the MacIntosh at work, using an old-school program called Telnet.

Once I got the knack of surfing the Internet, it became a bigger part of my life. And I remember telling my parents about my experiments. Dad was already good with computers -- we'd traded software for several years -- but he wasn't sure about this online thing. A curious toy, he concluded.

At the time, Netscape was the go-to browser before Internet Explorer nuked it in market share. There were rumors that you might be able to surf on the same infrastructure that your cable TV used, and much faster than dialup. Companies began building their own primitive Web sites, and ordinary people were cobbling together their own Web sites on GeoCities (which shut down a few days ago). It was a whole new world out there, the Wild Blue Yonder.

It's been 13 years since I fired up my first Web browser (Lynx, by the way, is still available and still text-only). But a lot has changed since then. Rather than write for print, my work shows up in the ether of the Internet and many of my readers are on the other side of the world.

I've developed friendships with people I'd never met, and who live in places I've never visited. I've discovered musicians I've never heard before and downloaded their music. I've downloaded entire a lot of software and quite a few operating systems -- and asked questions about the software online. I've communicated with a Linux developer in Australia and let him know how I was able to get his system to run on computers that even he wasn't sure could be done. I've debated many a subject online. I've set up the computer to download news from several hundred sources at a time.

I'm an experimenter, and can't leave stuff alone. Besides Netscape, I've used Internet Explorer, Mozilla, Seamonkey (which is what Mozilla has become), Opera, and Google Chrome. Firefox is my most-used browser now, but I notice Seamonkey is now in 2.0 and it deserves a look.

Instead of listening to a whining modem, I go straight wireless. I have about a half-dozen places where I go to do my work -- some indoors, some outside, and I'll unpack my netbook, hit a few buttons, and talk to the world. In fact, once I left dialup I had no earthly reason to even keep a landline -- a cell phone on my hip, wireless Internet close by, a second, Internet-based phone line through Google Voice, all my communications needs are met.

Even then, I'm a bit of a primitive. My cell phone merely makes calls and sends off text messages. It doesn't browse the Web. I can send short text messages to Twitter or this blog, even an email, but my single-function LG doesn't stack up to those iPhones or Crackberries that do everything.

When you consider the all-purpose cell phones, netbooks, laptops -- and I recently read about a pen that's really a computer -- you just may see desktop computers as another dying breed. Even hard drives may become a thing of the past, what with USB thumb drives and online file storage. Some of your netbooks work with just internal flash storage and USB drives, without a hard disk in sight.

The folks at UCLA and Menlo Park had no idea at the time what they'd started.

(Screenshot: The old text-based Lynx web browser, where I made my first forays on the Internet, is still around. It's shown here with Firefox 3.5.3.)

###

You tell me: Remember your first time on line? Care to share? Use the comments section for your input.

Ways to keep phishers out of your email

A few days ago, I wrote about how phishing (Password Fishing) attacks exposed a lot of Hotmail user accounts. It turns out the attacks were much bigger than Hotmail -- Google's Gmail (which is my go-to email system) got compromised, along with Yahoo, Earthlink, Comcast, and AOL.

Shoot, it might be easier to list the major email carriers that didn't get hit.

Meanwhile, the major email carriers are in damage control mode, and many put out statements and how-to's for self protection.

Here are some basics, courtesy of Mashable. Most of these involve passwords, the user's first line of defense:

*****

Use different passwords on different sites — After all, if you use the same login credentials for multiple sites and one gets compromised, they all are. Since many of us use umpteen web services daily, it’s worth checking out a good password manager tool to help you keep the all straight — and safe.

Don’t use common words or sequences — Simple dictionary terms or sequential numerical sequences won’t cut it. You should make sure your passwords are a mix of letters, numbers and symbols.

Don’t base passwords on personal data — Hackers often use “social engineering” techniques to greater effect than running actual lines of code. Since we routinely share various bits of personal data with others, things like pet names, middle names, birthdays and so on don’t make a good basis for passwords.

Don’t leave your password somewhere visible — If you simply must write it down, don’t put it on a post-it attached to your monitor. Relatedly, if you keep a list of passwords on your computer, name the file something more cryptic than "password file."

Make sure your password recovery questions are also secure — Strong passwords that lack semantic meaning are unfortunately also easier to forget. Many sites allow you to reset your password over email or after answering one or more Security Questions you set up when creating the account. Make sure these aren’t based on common-knowledge personal data either — try to make them difficult to guess, and avoid any information you’ve posted publicly online anywhere as well.

*****

Good advice, that. An analysis of the data from Hotmail showed the most common password among the compromised accounts to be '12345.' I mean, duh! You don't need expensive software to crack that password, and it appears there are quite a few folks around that have no business running a computer. But that's fodder for another rant.

Here's more, from gHacks:

*****

The most powerful weapon against phishing is common sense and the following rules that every user should oblige to.

If you are not a customer of the site delete the email immediatly. Don´t click on the link or reply.

If you are a customer and you are not sure if the email is legit do one of the following:

Contact the institute by phone or contact at the official website ( do not use the email link of course) and ask if the mail is official.

Instead of using the link provided open the website by typing in the official link there. The site should have news about the email on their starting page. (most of the time).

*****

There's plenty more on that site. I highly recommend checking it out.

If you're using Firefox (as I am), go into the Tools > Options > Security in the Firefox options to set up your protection levels. I really recommend you do this now, while you're reading this. If you don't find these options, you're probably using an older Firefox. You'll find more Firefox phishing protection and testing tricks here.

Also, I did download LastPass, though I haven't installed it yet. I see where it involves creating an account online, though it's free for private use. According to the manufacturer, the password information is stored on your own computer. Still, I'm a little chary of using any Web-based password keeper. I'll install it and take a look at it, but my instincts tell me it's not a perfect solution.

In the meantime, enjoy your computer. It's a great tool, and the more plugged-in the world is, the more your computer will become a part of your life. But be careful. It's a jungle out there.

Plug-in turns Explorer into nemesis Google browser

Who would've thunk it?

So you don't like Internet Explorer. You'd rather play hand grenade volleyball than use IE to browse the web, but the computer isn't yours. It may be one of those work-issued laptops and you're stuck with what you have.

Google came out with a plug-in that basically turns IE into Google Chrome. I find the whole concept a real hoot, as there is no love lost between Google and Microsoft. According to TechCrunch:

... Google seems to dislike IE so much that it has spent its own time improving it. Google claims its goals are noble. Talking to Group Product Manager Mike Smith and Software Engineer Alex Russell, they tell us that they simply want to make a more seamless web experience for both web users and developers. That said, they are only targeting one browser, IE, right now ... and that seems fair. IE, which is of course made by Google nemesis Microsoft, is both the largest web browser and the one with a poor history when it comes to web standards. Things have gotten better since IE6, but that’s really not saying much ...

The way I understand it, ChromeFrame builds a whole new frame inside of IE that is really the Google browser. You'll lose some resources because you're running two browsers, but Chrome is plenty fast. Even with the extra load on your system, using the "fake" Chrome on top of IE is still a sight faster than running IE straight.

Years ago, before I discovered Mozilla, I came across what was then called Crazy Browser. It also ran on top of IE, but it offered a popup blocker and tabbed browsing. At the time, popup blocking was in its infancy (you needed a third-party application to do it), and tabbed browsing -- the greatest invention for ADHD Web surfers -- was still several years in coming for IE though Mozilla was playing with a kludgy rough draft of it. And even on my dial-up connection, Crazy Browser was blistering fast. I found this especially amazing because IE (I was then using the abortion called IE 6) was, to put it kindly, glacial. Call it fuzzy math -- extra memory used to run Crazy Browser atop the IE framework should not equal faster, but it really did.

Crazy Browser more or less disappeared off the face of the Web, but I see it's back. Just for grins, I downloaded it to check it out.

I've tested out the real Chrome, and I like it so far. It's a little goofy in handling bookmarks, but I think most of that is because I'm not used to it. It's a fast browser -- to my nonscientific touch-annd-feel tests, it's right up there with Opera in the speed department, and of course it handles my Google applications easily. For the most part, though, I use it for posting blogs and little else. I'll admit I haven't really scratched the surface as far as Chrome's capabilities; I don't know if it has all the extensions and plug-ins you'll find in, say, Firefox, but it's a whole lot better than using IE.

In case you're interested, you can get ChromeFrame here.

Firefox now on more than half of computers

I'm glad to see I'm finally in the majority about something here. Firefox is my go-to browser (I'm using version 3.5.3).

This is from MozillaZine. Have to admit, this site is a little biased, as Firefox comes from Mozilla. I feel better, though, that they quote from other sources:

... it finally happened. After years of building momentum -- and more than a few false starts -- Mozilla's Firefox Web browser has finally reached critical mass. There are now more users running some variant of Firefox (50.6 percent) than not running it, according to the latest statistics from the exo.performance.network, which tracks the actual usage and configurations of thousands of PCs globally, providing a real-world snapshot ...

A couple of things come to my attention here. Firefox is not normally bundled on Windows computers. To get it, you have to take the initiative and download it. This suggests users are getting more savvy about their computers, and less likely to use whatever software set they're given.

And it's an indicator of how lacking Internet Explorer really is.

I've fooled around with nearly all the browsers that are used these days -- IE, Firefox, Seamonkey (which is really just the old Mozilla code with a new name on it), Opera (which I really like), Google Chrome (which is promising), and Netscape (which still exists). Plus a handful of browsers you may not have heard of -- Lynx, Konqueror, Skipstone, and eLinks. Not to mention Iceweasel, a rebranded version of Firefox which is more in line with the the GNU (free software) user agreement.

I do have my crochets with Firefox. I've had problems with it blowing up in memory and eating system resources like popcorn, though it seems to be less of an issue with 3.5. And it's real easy to load up extension after extension, making it one real bloated piece of software. But I still recommend Firefox.