Whenever an issue as sensitive as the preference of a user towards a specific application is touched upon, the controversial debate is formed where everyone tries to convince everyone who reads their comment with their arguments.
That is normal, whenever we comment we run the risk of losing objectivity by using personal preferences as a basis for our arguments. I myself have committed that sin on several occasions, especially when speaking of Firefox, Chrome and other browsers.
And it is that in today's world a browser is a vitally important tool, on which our productivity, our entertainment and many tasks that we normally perform on a daily basis depend. Knowing how to choose the best option in terms of speed, performance, consumption, can be a Mission Impossible for some. That is why I will try for a moment to put aside what I like and I will share with you the things that each browser lacks.
Chrome / Chromium:
- You are missing an integrated RSS reader: It doesn't even have something as basic as what Firefox includes to show the latest news from our favorite sites.
- It still lacks many extensions: In this section, Firefox is the king yet.
- Use global variables for the proxy: So much Opera as Firefox have the option to configure a proxy without depending on the system in which it is used, Chrome / Chromium No.
- Very poor Download Manager: Compared to Opera's, the download manager lags far behind.
- Paste and go: Chrome it doesn't have something as simple as this. Opera was the first to include it and Firefox followed suit.
Firefox:
- Obsolete extension system: If something good has Chrome / Chromium, is that you can use the same extensions in any version of the browser and above all, you can install and uninstall without having to restart it. This is something that a Firefox hit it still.
- FastDial: Most browsers already include Fast dial (o Speed Dial as you prefer) default. It is nothing that an extension cannot solve, but it is something that would be greatly appreciated.
- More productive unified menu: I don't know if "productive" is the exact word, but the unified menu of Firefox it leaves much to be desired. Sometimes you have to use the traditional menu bar to access certain options.
- Download Manager: The same as for ChromeIt also includes both that do not have torrent support. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Opera:
- Site rendering: Many sites that I access normally do not display quite well in Opera. Or at least some of its elements.
- High RAM consumption: Opera It is the browser with the highest consumption of all available on the market. I do not know if it will be on account of everything that it includes.
- Closed code: It is the most closed of all (not including IExplorer) which possibly causes that it does not have a greater share in the market.
- Poor in extensions: Extremely poor in terms of extensions and the ones I have tried, do not have very good quality.
These are roughly the things that affect me the most about each of these browsers. All three have a lot of positives that are not worth mentioning now, such as support for HTML5 y CSS3But even in this respect, some stand out more than others.
So my question is: What do you miss each of these browsers? From his personal taste and experience, of course.
Well, many times things are not done because they are not requested, this has happened to me in many open source programs, when it is missing you can always ask, I suppose that chromium developers can be sent a request, those of operates a suggestion etc etc etc
I use firefox, chrome and opera, as I please, for the ramm, I solved it by putting 8 gb to my laptop.
I like all 3.
regards
Ha! If everything were as simple as that. I don't even have a computer ¬¬
Best LOL XDDD Solution
I agree regarding Chromium and Firefox.
As for torrents, there was an extension (I think it was called Firetorrent), but the project was closed (I don't remember why)
Although I have used Chromium as the default browser for a while I went back to Firefox and I think I will continue with it for a long time
I started with Firefox and I was introducing Chrome (now Iron) little by little by the add-on that I mentioned in the post I made XD But the truth is that Iron is much faster than Firefox, and it may not have as many add-ons like this , but the truth is that I don't think I have anything to envy it, since it has everything I need, in addition, the omnibox is very comfortable, although I still use Firefox (well, exactly Iceweasel) for certain things, in general I use Iron.
As for Opera, it consumes too much and the extensions are poor, as said before, it does not quite convince me. In fact, I use Opera, but on my mobile (a Nokia 5800) and because it is either that browser or the default ... if they released a version of Firefox for Symbian, I would certainly switch to Firefox.
Good article, these do contribute interesting things not like the one I read a few minutes ago about opera, of which I left a comment on the subject.
This article is an example of what I was referring to there.
Thank you.
I use several browsers, both on my pc and on my Android, and for the same reason you say, because each one gives me something.
On the pc I use Chromium, Midori and Firefox and on my Android I use Dolphin, BoatBrowser and Firefox. Because it is the one that works best for me, because it is the fastest and easiest and because it never fails me, respectively.
Chromium lacks support for the electronic DNI or any other cryptographic card. If it does, I don't know how it is activated.
elav <° Linux:
I write this hoping that my lines are not going to be taken as an attempt to hijack the subject or induce it in other directions.
After reading the song "I Love Opera", written by pandev92, and all the comments that were raised about it, I can't help but think - yes, I am very badly thought - that you are somehow trying to correct the page or, at least , undo the mess.
One of the differences that I noticed about this place, with respect to the Muy blog, is that both the rock and the editors have such an intellectual background that allows them to approach the issues with a much higher maturity and intelligence. So much so that, from my point of view, we may be able to distinguish between what is news - "pandev92 and elav <° Linux wrote two topics about the Chrome / Chromium, Firefox and Opera browsers" - and a point of view editorial - "pandev92 and elav <° Linux" wrote "two topics on the Chrome / Chromium, Firefox and Opera browsers" - and comment accordingly on the context in question.
Personally, the exposition of pandev92 seemed very correct to me - since I do not see that, like the street gambler, I roll loaded dice to favor one side ("I Love ..." is not the same as "We Love ...") - not so his visceral reaction to Eduar2's comment. You have to know how to assimilate criticism and pandev92 certainly deserves a slap on the wrist ... but I will not be responsible for applying the punishment 🙂
I have already entered the subject that is discussed here: I use Firefox and Opera / Opera and Firefox in particular - both mount / mount so much - and the truth is that there are some things that I don't even miss about them ... particularly the download managers since normally I leave JDownloader and qBittorrent those tasks.
I tend to be somewhat pragmatic with the issue of open source: if the program works for me and works well, I don't care if it is open or closed source. In truth, this point does not cause me any moral, existentialist or other conflicts.
The issue of the "Fast Dial" I do not see it as a limitation in Firefox. Of course, it would be much more comfortable for it to be a default function, but installing the plug-in is not much of a waste of time.
What I do see as very problematic is the fact that every time Firefox is updated it disables the extensions that, for some reason, are not compatible with that new version. It is also annoying to have to restart the browser every time a new functionality is installed or we change the appearance.
Greetings to all and, please, let's not make this site another Very.
Unfortunately the issue of extensions in firefox, is that at first it was not thought of programming the extensions to run in separate processes from the main browser process. I don't know if mozilla is considering doing so, but I think that if I did it would be great window. Some time ago when I was an archlinux user, I had the flashvideo replacer installed, but after a simple update it stopped working.
True.
Another "flaw" is that on Linux, Firefox looks horrible ... sure, compared to the Windows editions.
True, but for kde, in case you don't know it, you have the oxygen kde extension for firefox, which for my taste makes firefox look even better than it does in windows since it allows you to tweak a lot of things and improve the appearance a lot. Give it a try if you use kde.
http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=117962
Greetings Tina Toledo:
Well, I'm not trying to obscure, correct or correct with this issue the one that my friend pandev92 wrote. My intention did not go beyond gathering through comments, which is what bothers the users of these browsers, or rather, that they would like each of them to have. Maybe I didn't do it the best way, but that was my intention.
In the end one of the great shortcomings of Firefox has been solved, or so it seems:
Synchronize plugins:
http://is.gd/uIJAVl
I am a Firefox and Midori user, and I agree with the unified menu issue. If I was a developer, I would take Midori's unified menu, which I think is better (it's like using a vertical toolbar). If it weren't for the fact that I love firefox privacy extensions (adblock plus, ghostery, and betterprivacy) and downthemall (download manager extension), I would use midori by default (plus I love how it integrates with xfce and gtk).
If what you want is privacy use this search engine: http://yacy.net/es/
I did not know about that project. Still, I use duckduckgo as the main search engine. There is also ixquick.
I use YaCy and Ixquick but YaCy as it is p2p it is practically impossible to track a search since nothing is recorded.
I use firefox as the main one and in some google services I use chrome as it works better.
I have problems with watching flash videos in Chrome and Opera, they look slow D:
Change in Firefox looks perfectly I don't know why that will happen: l
More than going into technical questions, I am going to refer to why?
1st - I use "Google Chrome" (stable) for its speed, its good cache management and its fabulous tool for developers.
2nd - I use "Iceweasel" (Firefox) in its latest version, currently 9.0.1. A way to be almost up to date on Debian.
Certainly no browser has it all. However, I am going to comment on some aspects (which generally apply to all) that should not be used at least in the way that they are traditionally used.
The Extensions: I do not blame anyone because I also suffered from that, but the extensions far from being a virtue that serves to raise points in the rating of a browser, I consider that they are the opposite. If an application requires patches to satisfy its user, something is wrong and the more patches it requires, the more bad things will be, therefore the need for extensions is a counter and the greater availability of them could be a symptom and severity of that wrong.
In addition to the fact that the existence of more extensions can be negative, it is considered a virtue that there is a greater number of them, thus dry and without nuances, without considering, for example, that:
- How many are really useful and not fillers of bulk and bullshit.
- How many currently serve and are not obsolete or broken by the latest versions of the base browser.
- Not all browsers have the same deficiencies, therefore a more complete browser could be fine with few extensions, and it would not be a defect to have few! On the other hand, another less complete browser is correct if it has lots of them. When the numbers of extensions are usually compared, it seems that it is thought that all browsers are the same and of course it is not.
Consumption: I already commented on it better in another article, but I will make a mini summary.
Consumption is an aspect that is often treated very poorly since it is becoming commonplace (by "common people" and by "geeks") that "consuming little" is good and "consuming more" is bad and it is completely forgetting that Consumption is not the main thing, but Performance.
The primary objective of any application is to offer Performance and Functionality and applications have to Consume Resources to offer them, the Hardware is to be used and to be used well. If an application offers good functionality and performance then it is consuming correctly; On the other hand, if another is consuming less and crawls and is branded, it will never be better for consuming less, on the contrary it is poorly designed, perhaps on purpose because now it seems that it is developed for "tests" and "benchmarks".
Furthermore, not all applications have the same treatment of resources but rather adapt it to the hardware where they are. That is why you often see things like "Opera consumes me too much" and on the other hand "I have a very modest machine and Opera consumes me the same as the rest and in fact it is the one that works best".
Site View: Unfortunately it is becoming a cliché too and it seems that it is forgotten that sites are made to work in X browsers, that's all and it has always been that way, from the days of Netscape, through IE and now with Firefox (and later Chrome, at least Google with their sites).
For sample I leave a button, here It can be seen what was obvious, the developers make their sites in a certain favorite browser and of course this will always "show the sites well" (if not, they would not consider their work finished, right?), but also we see almost no the hassle of testing other browsers !!, for whatever reason.
In short, neither standards nor mothers, it has never been a merit of the browser to show the pages well and that does not make one browser more standard than another. I would say please don't go back to the time of making browsers "de facto standard", even if we "like that"; but we have never left that era, only the name "of the big brother" has changed. What I ask is that we do not ignore that we still live in that reality.
I don't really agree with what you say about extensions. It is difficult for a serial browser to incorporate so many things or functionalities, apart from the fact that the browser developers would have to consider what to include and what not to, what its users may like and what not, and above all not to load the browser with things that users they will not use.
There are some that could be used by default due to their functionality but this makes the browser more modular and that the user adds what they use and need.
One of the things I don't like about opera is that it comes standard loaded with things that I don't need like the rss reader, the mail manager…. It would not be bad if they were like extensions that could be installed separately and thus make the browser more modular and not load it as standard with things that its users may not need.
Each development team has its own way of seeing things, it is impossible to find an application that is 100% perfect for oneself or that suits all users, but I think that the more modular the better the better and not «impose or load so many things by default".
Although it is loaded with things, if you do not use them they do not spend resources, in fact the beauty of opera is that it is not like other browsers, if it were like the others then it would not be worth it, since it would be more of the same, for that would be better to use a webkit browser.
You have not understood me at all, I am not saying that browsers bring everything for the taste of any possible user. An application, anyone (but in the current case it is a browser) must include a good series of characteristics that are useful for the purposes that are proposed, it will not be able to have them all nor should it do so, but trying is positive, never negative, negative fact is to do the opposite.
What I'm saying, and I don't want to be racist with colors, is that I need! (not "having") extensions and having few native features seem to be considered as a blue line pointing upwards, when in any other area it would be considered a red line pointing downwards, which would also be a correct approach. What are the players that you prefer? What about graphic editors and photo retouching? and so any example; I'm sure most choose the most complete for natural use.
Nor do I say that extensions should not exist, but that the more they exist, the more a sign of the possible existence of the previous problem, because something that is "less broken" needs "fewer patches." So this aspect should not be considered as to have cheers! On the contrary, if there are more extensions it is as if that red line points further down. And if the need for more extensions is greater, it is certainly that line pointing further down.
From the new Firefox I do not need or want to see the Panorama / Tab Candy in paint, however I could not remove it. The same for Firefox Sync, I could not remove it, however this seems to be very useful for several and I do not criticize its inclusion so much. I don't see anyone complaining about how "loaded" Firefox is.
About building a custom browser sometimes seems silly to me, I used to use several extensions, the ones that improved usability and my productivity a lot, not even stupid. I stopped using it because Firefox performance was (more) awful with them. My biggest helplessness was seeing that Opera was light: S.
With browsers it is happening exactly the same as with cell phones: fifteen years ago its function was to speak for it as we would any normal telephone with the advantage of being mobile, but today we cannot conceive it without all these new functionalities, even some of them superfluous.
I like the existence of extensions that add functionalities to browsers and, from my perspective, they do not seem lacking:
Which browser i use ..
… It doesn't show me a download bar or it doesn't pause the process?
I don't care, because I use JDownloader which is also faster.
… It does not allow me to see the new email that has reached my GMail account?
I have a feature in Cairo Dock that informs me of any new mail whether or not the web browser is open.
… Won't download torrent files?
Well, I still use qBittorrent.
It seems to me that the question of functionalities depends on the very personal uses of each user and it does not seem to me that it is an advantage or disadvantage that a browser has them or not by default. What if I find it very bad, and I said it before, is having to restart the browser every time I install a patch or doubt if I update to the most recent version because I don't know which extensions will work and which ones will not. That is a serious lack in Firefox and it must be admitted.
The jdownloader, no matter how good it is, I don't see it as a good example of what is going well, right now for example I'm compiling clementine 1.0, listening to music with tomahawk and browsing with opera, if I open jdownloader for a download I will cause a Total freezing of the pc, remember that it is java and if you are not careful it can easily consume more than any browser on the market (opera, chrome, firefox etc ...)
The firefox thing if it is a problem, they should do like those of opera, have some extensions but that are not part of the browser, that are external to it.
Okay, but still that of the resources is relative, in my case I can have open Clementine, any browser -usually Firefox- some design program and be able to use JDownloader without my PC bending over.
The truth is that I had never noticed that point of resources when I use JD and what I like is that on average I download a file at a speed of between 450 to 600mbs. In fact, what I do have to configure is that it does not exceed 700mbs because then the downside is that it consumes a lot of bandwidth on my internet connection.
Your first paragraph tells the whole truth. Although the function of cell phones is simply "talking on the phone" today it would be inconceivable one that does not bring certain "basic" and useful characteristics, perhaps not useful for everyone but for a large mass. The same happens with browsers, but when it comes to their extensions and their quantity, this aspect is not taken into account, but continues to speak as in the time when browsers were only to paste a URL (9x years). It would be like that in the case of cell phones they are compared to each other and the one with more "extensions" is praised, but it turns out that there is one (s) that does not even have an agenda because you install them with extensions. Not only that, it is as if that were the case then it would be heard "it is better this way, because others bring you an agenda but you may not like it, instead here you choose the one you like the most."
I mention again the fact that you say that with browsers it happens that they come with more functions than just browsing. The interesting thing is that many of those features that no one can live without today and everyone accepts as basic in a browser have been in Opera for a long time, but when Opera had them it turns out that it was "loaded" and what was cool was adding them as an extension. To sum it up, something like «A brings X things so it is bad, to B you can add X things so it is good; then B brings X things so it is good and A is still bad because it is A »:). In this I already think that it is an excuse made to measure and nothing more.
The rest I think the answer I gave to jony127 can be applied because I am not saying that there should not be extensions, but ... etc, I will explain it better there.
What you say in your last paragraph you are absolutely right, but there is no one who hears: S. I have even received justifications of the type "this is better because ...".
Ares:
Your approach seems very correct to me, however there is one thing with which I do not agree: I cannot affirm that my needs are the same as everyone else's.
What am I trying to tell you with this? Well, simply that there are users, like you, who prefer Opera Because of its default functionalities, others prefer the modular style of "Removable" de Firefox and others neither one nor the other.
On what objective basis can we determine, without fear of error, what functionalities are «So indispensable that nowadays no one can live (?) Without them»? That of our need and, in many cases, our particular taste or the specific need of each person?
On the other hand, who needs the extensions: the browser or the user? And depending on what are needed, general or for very specific cases?
In the same way, I do not share with you the idea that adding extensions is to repair breaks or deficiencies because then we lose sight of what they serve to ADD functionalities, hence the very name of EXTENSIONS.
What I do share with you is that even though Firefox It has a wide catalog of them, it still manages them very poorly.
I am not going to defend myself, because everyone will see what they choose to navigate ... but some things about Chrome / Chromium that you mention and can be solved very easily. I hope it helps some.