QOTD: How Would You Change Your Browser?

IExplorer : get less bulky
Firefox: less memory footprint
Safari: get faster - it just makes my laptop stop for a second sometimes
Chrome: get a plugin manager - tired of killing each plugin process

Opera: Plugins, or better widgets
Transparent theme
Better Win7 integration (like IE does)
Oh yes, and a custom height tab bar, so, it doesn't auto-height it to like, 4 lines if I choose that option.

IExplorer - I would integrate it with Windows at install and tell the EU to kiss my ass from now till the end of time. If they threaten to fine me I would refuse to ship the entire product to the whole of the continent and force people to import it from elsewhere in the world.

Firefox - They should stop crying like a big baby to the EU because something they give away for free and already has a huge take-up isn't being bundled with someone elses software, maybe they should pay towards production costs. Either that or ask the EU to fine Apple for not bundling it with OSX as well.

Safari - They should brace themselves for a huge ass-shafting from the EU, because if they can do it to MS then Apple may be next. By the way, when iTunes is downloaded, trying to sneak Safari in during the process is wrong and worth a few hundred million dollars of fines at least.

Chrome - They should keep plugging away, maybe they should use the same trick of trying to get the google toolbar installed everywhere to get Chrome out there as well. It will annoy the hell out of people for the scattergun approach but if you throw enough crap some will stick.

Chrome: Closing last tab – do not close the browser but go to “Most visited”.
FireFox: Right click h-link popup menu – Change it that “Open in new tab” menu is first on the list so it is like in another browsers.
Make it to start fester.
Safari: Shortcut “Ctrl + Mouse wheel” gives the opposite result the other browsers

IE: just kill it, delete it, stop development - enough is enough.
FF: speed on linux is four times slower than on windows (Kubuntu 64bit vs Vista 64bit) but speed of FF compared to others is still something to be desired, add option "Clone tab".
Opera: Nothing - perfect browser but the web need to "catch up"
Safari / Chrome - not using.
Now the important part: GET RID OF ADOBE FLASH / MS SILVERLIGHT / AND ALL OTHER STUPPID PLUGINS THAT ARE NOT CROSS PLATFORM COMPATIBLE!
Flash is the worst - it's shady code keeps crashing on EVERY linux distribution I know. Silverlight is supported only in 3 browsers - with only ONE being available cross platforms and it's support on linux is rather limited. Web does not need temporary solutions - if the browser's manufacturers would impose the limits of the web in their products the web would become eventually a very solid platform that would be easy to use, easy to develop and most of all - predictable. All the tweaks that all browsers / plugins offer are simply breaking the rules causing the web to be the mess it is right now.

Oh yes... and another thing for FF: add option in the preferences to disable gestures.

Hilarious, maybe follow your stand up routine with a song.

Firefox: Remove the many bugs in it.

IE: Nothing. It works much better than Firefox already.

That's the stupidest idea I have heard all year. Let's remove a plugin for Flash, then half the websites you visit don't display their content. Maybe it crashes on your Linux distro, but why does anyone have to spend money supporting a non-commercial product? If it's such a big deal then why don't you do what every Linux dweeb has been harping on about since day one and get someone "in the community" to write something that makes it work. Whilst you are at it, get in touch with the million or so website that use flash content and ask them if they wouldn't mind spending millions redoing their website to remove flash content just to make Linux users happy.

Actually it's the stupidest idea I have heard in history of stupid idea's, even stupider than sitting on the top of a ladder outside the CIA headquarters in a turban with a sign saying "I am a terrorist".

IE: I would ship it with my OS in the EU
Last time I checked, Safari came with Mac OS X, so what's the problem? And if I don't like the bundled browser, I install another.
Job done.

Because the EU has a hard-on for billion dollar fines for MS and not Apple. Maybe Steve Jobs has been round to the EU and given each and every weasely bent corrupt non-elected official a quick one in return for preferential treatment. Maybe Steve Jobs long term illness is that his backside is still hurting.

Have you been living in a cave? The EU is doling out billion dollar fines and has tunnel vision for MS. It's not that Apple is next, they don't even know they exist.

The EU is the world's biggest economy. European governments are already switching to cheaper alternatives like Linux distributions, and OpenOffice.org If Microsoft were to listen to ranting nerds on the Internet and stop shipping to the EU, it would be the most self-damaging decision they ever made.

I'd like to see Firefox get a lot more efficient and open each tab in a sandbox so if one crashes it doesn't take down the rest of them. Although, I'm on the verge of switching to Chrome as my primary browser now anyway, which I'd like to see give users the option to disable all the usage tracking functions. I'd like to see all browsers get full marks in the Acid 3 test.

my point merely was that my change to IE was that it SHOULD be shipped with Windows, no matter where you live, I can't be arsed to argue about the EU
otherwise I'm quite happy with both the browsers I use, IE8 and Opera Mini.

Not everyone is switching to Open Source, and if you haven't noticed already a Governmental body in any country is years behind professional commercial organisations when it comes to IT technology. A bank would never go open source, big IT institutions like IBM walked away from an offer to do the NHS IT, because Governments don't know what they want and are so short sighted in terms of IT policy. The only reason some are going Open Source is because it's free, well so is dog shit so there you go, it's all about cutting corners and saving money.

Nothing wrong with saving the taxpayer millions by changing to perfectly suitable alternatives. Also, ukcal, my previous comment was aimed at the "If they threaten to fine me I would refuse to ship the entire product to the whole of the continent and force people to import it from elsewhere in the world" style comments, not yours.

If you understand the nature of the bluff, you would realise that the EU would never let the situation go as far as not having Windows, they are far more interested in squeezing a billion dollar fine out of them. And the EU are not interested in saving taxpayers any kind of money, if they don't spend all the money they get from member states there isn't any kind of rebate.

The EU and European governments are the same thing, son. Individual European governments and governmental organisations are switching to FOSS software to cut costs and improve interoperability, this is a seperate issue from the EU, but it related because Microsofts grip over the software ecosystem is faltering, that was my point there.

The EU would never let the situation go as far as Microsoft not selling Windows in the EU, but this doesn't matter as Microsoft would never go that far either. That's why your original comment was silly, which is what I was pointing out to you. The EU is one organisation even Microsoft can't just bully to get it's way, as they've done with weaker organisations in the past.

Slip of the tongue, still the same applies, when was the last time you saw Gordon Brown handing back any of your cash. Plus, the UK Government is notoriously rubbish at doing IT, look at the NHS and the MOD. Crap. IBM walked away because it won't deal with unprofessional idiots, they would only bring down IBMs image.

And how do you define MS as bullying anyone exactly, by hitting the end user with convenience and ease of use? Since when do they put up roadblocks to using an alternate browser, or indeed an alternate to any other function? Is freeware something that MS has an obligation to advertise alongside or even ahead of their own free software?

Have you seen just how stupid and ridiculous the rulings against MS are? Is the only reason that they are allowed to be fined for bundling IE because they have a high market share or because they are preventing people from using another browser. If it is market share, where is the market? What commercial gain does a browser have when it is freely given away? If browsers were paid for software and bundling affected sales of units then I understand an anti-trust case so this is just bullying MS, not the other way round.

Does this mean that if Apple had a higher market share it would enforce the same rulings on them and ask for Safari to be de-bundled or alternate browsers offered?

If a fine is imposed on MS for its supposed market dominance will the EU give that money to the rival browser companies to compensate for their loss or will they keep it? If they did give it to the browser companies, why are they getting money for freeware?

When they keep the cash will they give it to people in the EU or will that money go to fund the Christmas party? Not in a million years.

If going Open Source is such a good idea for saving money, I challenge you to name a single major bank or financial institution that uses a free Linux distro or Open Office as standard.

This is totally off the points I was even making, I don't care about discussing Linux or Open Office, or government IT infrastructure. My point was Microsoft is losing marketshare, and profits are down, competition is getting tighter and they can't afford to act arrogant like they have in the past. So your ideas about how Microsoft should act toward the EU is absurd, since the EU has them by the balls, which is why they're acting they way they are.

Microsoft's past transgressions and anticompetetive practices are common knowledge, that's why they had an antitrust suit thrown at them and their reputation tarnished. If you're going to pretend a huge chunk of Microsoft's history never happened, then what's the point even trying to discuss rationally.

Oh, you mean like the antitrust cases brought by the Eu for the bundling of Windows Media Player for the crime of upsetting Real. The RealMedia player did have a pay for Pro version didn't it? I suppose that was an unfair imposition on a commercial market. Apart from the fact that it wasn't. RM had a freeware player as well, which they kept bombarding the users with requests to update.

They also had the dingdong with Netscape, which is the same arguement as now, a piece of freeware, if people at Netscape lost work because IE took share where were they getting money from?

If the EU has anyone by the balls it is because the EU can, not because it should. Without refering to blase passages about "history is known" why dont you actually explain, without sounding stupid, exactly WHY MS is in breach of Antitrust. These charges Dont. Make. Sense.

Are you serious? Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust violation by the US department of justice, not the EU. The initial sentence that Microsoft be split into two seperate entities was later dropped during the appeal case in favour of a more lenient settlement, but the findings remained the same, and Microsoft was still guilty in the eyes of the US legal system. If I'm sounding stupid it's because you're failing to understand basic recognised facts.

By the way, nice of you to completely not answer the question. The US DoJ found them guilty. Why? Because the ruling was correct and made total sense? Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust

If I can just pick out a few choice phrases like "restrict free trading" and "dominating a market" and "compete in the market economy".

One last time I am going to ask, if you cant answer you are wrong.

If. It. Is. Free. Where. Is. The. Market?

Further down the same article, by the way...

"A modern wrinkle in anti-trust litigation was made starkly evident by Microsoft. Microsoft was founded in 1975, but had a peculiar blind spot. They were not making large political contributions to anyone. The filing of the anti-trust suit was shortly followed by Microsoft becoming the country’s fifth largest political contributor in 2000. Staff members of the Department of Justice went on the nationally broadcast Diane Rehm radio show to specifically deny that they were part of a bi-partisan effort to shakedown Microsoft for contributions."

And to further ram home the idea that just because the DoJ found them guilty of Antitrust, doesn't mean they did anything wrong. There was a little town called Salem where a perfectly good body of legal people managed to find innocent women guilty of witchcraft and had them hanged or burned.

I have the perfect analogy for this situation.

Feed The Children and the Red Cross both spend huge amounts of money on staff, materials and organisation so they can go over to Africa and hand out free grain and water. The Red Cross has 10 times as much food and water to give away. Feed The Children decides to report the Red Cross and Antitrust proceding are brought against them.

At this stage, I'm guessing you're either a low level Microsoft employee, or a troll.

Neither, but i'm guessing you work for the EU, the DoJ or they let you have internet access in Arkham Asylum.

Yet again though, you still haven't answered he question.

If it is free where is the market? Why fine a company for promoting something that doesn't cost anything over something else that also doesn't cost anything?

Firefox really doesn't need the help, it's doing a bangup job all by itself.

Well I wasn't answering because the question was so ludicrous and bizarre. But if you insist, it's because there's no rule that says if the price is zero then a market doesn't exist. The browser market consists of producers, customers, competition, advertising, revenue streams, and everything else that's part of a traditional market, the fact the price of most browsers is zero isn't relevant.

I disagree. The browser market has no customers, no one pays for it. No one. There isnt a "Pro" version that businesses use, it is free for all. I agree that it has costs associated with production and a staff base that continually improves it and maintains it, revenue streams may very well exist but where are the advertising bars on Firefox? I can see them on websites but the actual browser? I don't think so. They are not in any kind of traditional market, this is all very new. The cost issue is very relevant here.

Just because something costs money to produce then is given away for free, does that give someone the right to bring antitrust procedings? Why don't the companies or individuals that produce the freeware defrag tool that are downloaded from download.com doing this? They have had to put time, effort and money into making them so it is the same principal. If the arguement is that Firefox has invested much more money and have higher associated costs and therefore more to lose than for example "some dude" who writes a freeware utility, well like any business they have overextended themselves, a bank would have refused any ordinary business credit on this basis. If this is allowed to happen it sets a legal precedent. The freeware utility could have the full power of EU legislation to have it shoehorned into Windows 8 or some other future release, it you cant see the longterm negative implications of this you must be blind.