Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Internet Explorer Mozilla The Internet

A Cheat Sheet To All the Browser Betas 188

Harry writes "I can't remember another time when there were so many Web browsers in prerelease form — 2009 should be a really, really good year for final browser versions. I have posted a quick recap of the state of the upcoming versions of Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Safari." It is nice to see a healthy market of competition driving innovation in a market that has been largely stagnant in recent history. What do other folks see on the scorecard?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Cheat Sheet To All the Browser Betas

Comments Filter:
  • Opera? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Friday December 05, 2008 @05:57PM (#26007883) Journal []
    Opera 10 alpha aces Acid3 browser test
    Newest preview boosts browsing performance by 30%, claims Norwegian company

    • As I mentioned in another posting regarding Opera 10 alpha:

      No border-radius? *sniff*

      Is it specified in some stupid way like Mozilla & Webkit do it?

      Still no replies, so I dunno...that's not promising. I wants me some border-radius, multiple background image, and border image support! (among other things) A small subset of the major CSS3 features would go a LONG way.

      • by Korin43 ( 881732 )
        Isn't CSS 3 not officially out yet? I think that's why mozilla and webkit have weird ways to do it.
        • Isn't CSS 3 not officially out yet? I think that's why mozilla and webkit have weird ways to do it.

          I believe border-radius has been in the CSS3 spec since the working draft from 2002. Should be time to standardize on 'border-radius' instead of 'moz-border-radius' or at least alias it to -moz-border-radius or something. As it is, one has to use -moz-border-radius and repeat with -webkit-border-radius to get it working in both, plus they each do individual corner specifications differently. Very irritating, b

    • No, Opera, and every other browser, failed Acid 3*, then the developers made changes to try and pass the test, without any work at all in fixing the underlying problems that caused it to fail. If you want to be impressive, work on passing Acid 4.

      *Opera was the least shitty iirc.

  • Yet still galeon is my favorite browser. I have like 200 tabs in it, while in opera I have just about 30 tabs and in firefox just one window with 8 tabs...

    • Re:galeon? (Score:5, Funny)

      by exley ( 221867 ) on Friday December 05, 2008 @06:53PM (#26008541) Homepage

      Yet still galeon is my favorite browser. I have like 200 tabs in it, while in opera I have just about 30 tabs...

      If you like tabs, you may be interested in another feature a lot of browsers have. Depending on the browser, it goes by various names -- "bookmarks," "favorites," et al. Check it out sometime!

      • Re:galeon? (Score:5, Funny)

        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Friday December 05, 2008 @07:58PM (#26009153) Journal
        Bookmarks come from the same school of thought that says you should quit applications. They are a work around for the fact that your operating system can't handle resources properly and that your browser doesn't handler persistence properly.
        • Still, unless galeon has some really smart way of handling tabs (and by a quick screenshot check it doesn't) I don't think having 200 tabs open is going to be easy to manage (by the user). The first poster probably thought about bookmarks or sites he visited but said 'tabs'.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            are you serious? I have right now 11 galeon windows with about 15 tabs in each.

            Of course I'm using bookmarks, galeon has a nice feature "bookmark all tabs in a window into subfolder...". And I'm using galeon more than firefox or opera, just because it's damn so good at handling hundreds of tabs open. And still uses less memory than firefox 3.0.3 with only 15 tabs open.

            • I did say "unless galeon has some really smart way of handling tabs". I guess it does have some nice features (I only looked at a screenshot, I was more interested on how a window with 200 tabs opened would look). OTOH, why do you need 11 galeon windows open? Do you really work with all 150+ tabs at the same time? If you spend 2minutes on each tab at a time, it takes 5 hours to go through all of them. Why not just bookmark, close, and open back?
              • Well it's just a matter of browsing habits. I tend to keep good stuff forever until I finally am in the mood to go through it (and read/hack/implement/apprecieate/whatever) then bookmark it and close. So they usually wait few months. If I bookmarked it immediately and closed I'd never remember to go back to it, because I have just so many goddamn bookmarks. Although really very well organized I think :) Bookmarks are to remember old useful stuff. Non-closed tabs are to remember new useful stuff.

                And of cours

        • A bookmark is just a reference to something you've looked at and might be interested in in the future. Your browsing experience would become far too cluttered if everything was always kept open. As much as the desktop paradigm has limits to its power as an analogy, I think it's applicable in this situation. You don't keep 20 books lying open at the pages you care about-- you put stickies on them and put them away-- to keep clutter manageable. the same goes for browser bookmarks. even if the contents of the

        • The Firefox "smart bookmarks" feature is quite nice too, but honestly, I want to tag my own bookmarks, and share or not share them with others ( explicitly, and not have my browser 'helpfully' remember all the annoying pop-unders a Poker site happens to display.

          See, I have additional knowledge the computer doesn't have -- I know what's important, and what's not. Now granted, bookmarking should be MUCH simpler; I'd love a simple true/false box of some form on each tab allowing me to mark it as '

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      So you like Galeon better because you have 200 tabs in it? Put 500 in Opera and you will like that better, I assume.

      • I'm using opera too :) I have 3 opera windows open with roughly 30 tabs total. And it fares quite good. But it doesn't have the features which made me to use galeon, so I'm not going to switch.

        BTW: switch? Switch? I'm using all those three browsers (galeon 150 - 200 tabs, 290MB of RAM; opera 30 tabs, 160 MB of RAM; firefox 8 tabs, 160 MB of RAM) for different kind of stuff. It's just another way to organize things on my desktop. Sometimes I fire up dillo, seamonkey, konqueror or epiphany if I need even more

    • Which brings up why I love the way things are today: choice. I remember the bad old days when it was either IE or if you wanted to suffer the really crappy Netscape edition(4 IIRC) and now we all have so many more choices. In my family alone we have Seamonkey [] for my mom(who refuses to surf without her "blue bird"), we have Kmeleon [] for my sister(who loves its layout and speed), we have Opera [] for my oldest boy (who says anything after version 5 sucks and refuses to update) and we have Flock [] for the youngest(w

    • I have like 200 tabs in it,

      The slightest bit bored at work, are we?

  • Acid (Score:3, Funny)

    by ojintoad ( 1310811 ) on Friday December 05, 2008 @06:02PM (#26007949)
    I judge all my browsers on Acid; my scorecard is a a blur of dinosaurs dancing, blue e's laughing, and JZW laughing at me. And I'm eating a lot of delicious delicacies.
  • by Dareth ( 47614 ) on Friday December 05, 2008 @06:03PM (#26007953)

    Reasons not to download it: can't get the Google Toolbar for it.

    Surely this should have been in the "Reasons to download it" it section!

  • I like Chrome for one primary reason and that is I'm looking at a web page within seconds of opening the browser. Both Firefox and IE take anywhere between 20-30 seconds on my computer to load first time out. That means the later two browsers either stay open my entire session just so I can switch to them when needed and I have to put up with the clutter they add to my desktop/task bar or I put up with a sluggish environment.

    Chrome doesn't make me make that choice. Since I'm not a big fan of add-ons, I don

    • by jfengel ( 409917 )

      I'm not a big fan of add-ons either, but I find some sort of anti-flashiness blocker absolutely essential. No flash, no animated gifs, no dancing javascriptiness unless I say it should go.

      Get that into Chrome and I'm all over it. I keep it around for certain pages that I know don't suck but which need a performance boost.

    • I like Chrome for one primary reason and that is I'm looking at a web page within seconds of opening the browser. Both Firefox and IE take anywhere between 20-30 seconds on my computer to load first time out. That means the later two browsers either stay open my entire session just so I can switch to them when needed and I have to put up with the clutter they add to my desktop/task bar or I put up with a sluggish environment.

      Chrome doesn't make me make that choice. Since I'm not a big fan of add-ons, I don't miss them.

      On a 2.5 year old $600 box running Vista, Firefox loads along with my home page (a my yahoo page with a lot of stuff going on) within 2 seconds after a cold boot. You're really short on RAM, running a computer from the 90s, or you need to reinstall Firefox. The browser itself opens with no detectable lag (meaning no more than 150 ms or so) after I run it, and the content fully loads 1-1.5 seconds later.

    • removing all the crap from web pages.

      All that flash+advertising isn't free to download.

  • I disagree with the summary. These days, having a ton of browsers in beta/prerelease probably means they're all buggy, but they'll be released as betas anyway, and if you'll pardon the pun, we may never see polish on the Chrome! But, perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic - we may not have to suffer through the betas if the rolling blackouts take down our computers.

  • Overall, how promising is it? Iâ(TM)d never argue that improving support for Web standards or souping up performance is insignificant, but overall, it looks like this is Opera 10.0 not because itâ(TM)s a huge deal but because the last version was 9.6. In other words, itâ(TM)s only .4 of a great big upgrade. If that.

    What the hell is "it's only .4 of a great big upgrade" supposed to mean?
    What about Opera 10 using a totally different engine? And since when are we back on measuring software by its version number?
    The rest of the article is just as pitiful, if not entirely wrong.
    Opera's mail client could always delete old mail, the new thing here is that it can automatically delete after n days.

  • by AmigaHeretic ( 991368 ) on Friday December 05, 2008 @06:38PM (#26008327) Journal
    These article always seem to miss OWB for AmigaOS 4.1. []

    It gets 100/100 on ACID3, check the screen shots on the site.

    Geez!! :-)
  • by AnalPerfume ( 1356177 ) on Friday December 05, 2008 @06:43PM (#26008395)

    This may be off-topic; if so....sorry.

    I've liked Opera each time I tried it although the interface is different it's a damn good browser. The reason it never grabbed me was the lack of any useful (Chuck Norris trivia anyone???....I'm serious, they have one so I guess at least one person on the planet has a use for it) plugins, specially for blocking adverts. In the settings you can disable JavaScript etc but there's no way to block adverts. Well I found one....and it works. []

    The above link explains how to create a blank urlfilter.ini file in your Opera profile directory, copy and paste some urls to filter out and restart Opera. Every site I tried before and after, it was like surfing in Firefox with AdBlock.....bliss. I don't think it's perfect, it depends on the site and the type of advert but it's a damn good start. It's also easy to add a new line to the text file if you come across an adserver not on the list.

    Having said all that, I'm still blown away by how fast Opera is, even WITH adverts. Being able to block them helps speed that up further. I've been a Firefox user for so long that I don't think I could switch but Opera is a damn good second browser for site testing.

    I recently tried Epiphany with Webkit, it may be one to watch for the future but it's a bit early yet.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You are welcome.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      You don't need to manually edit urlfilter.ini to block ads in Opera!

      Ever since version 9.0 (I think), you just right-click anywhere on the page and choose "Block Context" from the menu, then click on all ads on the page you want to be gone, and click "Save". That's it.

      Or, if you want to edit the list directly, it's in Tools -> Preferences -> Content -> Blocked Content.

      The main remaining use for urlfilter.ini - which is still there - is to get premade blacklists from other sources.

  • 2009 should be a really, really good year for final browser versions.

    Yeah, lots and lots of versions as they fix lots and lots of bugs due to everyone trying to beat everyone else to market.

  • What do other folks see on the scorecard?

    Bit's of my brain as I try to deal with cross browser Javascript incompatibilities. I think it will go something like this...

    aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - BOOOOM

  • onhashchange []

    msie8 is the first to implement this event. don't know what that is? ajax is the most important technological development in browsers in recent history (invented with microsoft's xmlhttprequest object, btw). however, ajax breaks history and bookmarking (can't go forward/ back, can't bookmark deep into an ajax session)

    a way around this has been to hijack the hash part of anchor links, since they stay on the same page, but create a history. initia

  • dear firefox: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquare AT gmail DOT com> on Friday December 05, 2008 @07:24PM (#26008843) Homepage Journal

    fucking support disable-output-escaping already []

    your reason for not supporting it is arrogance: []

    Can I do disable-output-escaping?

    This is actually pretty close to the question above. And in short, no. Disabling output escaping requires us to add a parsing step to our output generation, which we don't. In most cases, there are pretty easy workarounds. The only use cases we have seen are bad XML or bad XSLT. And RSS feeds. The latter is pretty much the only issue to us, and we're sorry that we can't support it. But mixing parsing with XSLT is brittle and we rather not support d-o-e than either crash or be even slower.

    really? a desperately needed piece of functionality is bad xml?

    you had pretty much the same holier-than-thou attitude behind your resistance to supporting innerHTML, and you reversed yourself, for good reason: its what programmers need and want. programmers are your friends. keep us as your friends

    we shouldn't have to spend time coding special scenarios to support your browser, for the most stubborn and shortsighted of reasons

    leave that kind of hatred for msie, ok? thanks

  • And just read the artcile, which is OK, and certainly better than most of the user-submitted comments with their own insightful (ahem) judgements.

    Ah yes, I know this is /. and no I'm not new here...

    Mind you, nothing in the article that most people here will not already know... /end grumpy rant

  • For most of human history, all browsers were in prerelease. Until 1995, only a few weren't in prerelease, like www and w3.

    In fact, almost all browsers are still in prerelease. As they always are, except momentarily when they are released.

    And this isn't just pedantry. All these browsers have the low quality that prerelease versions of software used to have before browsers were released, in the mid 1990s. They've lowered the quality of released software of all types down to what rarely would have been release

  • "...largely stagnant in recent history."

    Whereinthefuck have you been for the last five years?
  • Firefox has stealther, but its an add-on and so obvious that you've installed it to look at porn. (Obviously you could always set and reset privacy settings everytime, but that could be a pain)

    But Chrome has a stealth feature built in, so you're not a fiend just for having it. Although you're still a fiend. But a fiend with some shame at least!

  • You can download Webkit nightlies for Mac OS X and Windows here [], and you do not have to be a developer to do so. They will come with the latest version availiable of the Safari shell, which is right now 3.2.1.

Building translators is good clean fun. -- T. Cheatham