Around the Browsersphere #15

Posted on January 7th, 2010 | 6 Comments »

We’re covering everything from the difference between Yahoo! Answers and Stack Overflow, to Firefox sabotage against IE8 add-ons, to Taco Bell marketing campaigns in this trip around the browsersphere.  Are you ready?

General

Chrome

Fennec

Firefox

Internet Explorer

Opera

The Minor Players

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Around the Browsersphere #14

Posted on January 1st, 2010 | 2 Comments »

I’ve been doing my best to keep my finger on the pulse of the browsersphere over on Twitter, but you know you’re not getting the real deal until we go “around the browsersphere.”

General

Chrome

Firefox

Internet Explorer

Opera

Minor Players

There’s a lot more to cover, but that should hold you over until 2010. ;)

Happy New Year, everyone.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Around the Browsersphere #13

Posted on December 17th, 2009 | 1 Comment »

I debated whether or not I should skip ahead to #14, but I’m not really that superstitious.

General

Chrome

Firefox

Internet Explorer

Opera

The Minor Players

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Microsoft to Offer Browser Ballot Screen in Europe

Posted on December 16th, 2009 | 4 Comments »

The big news in the browsersphere today is that European regulators have dropped their antitrust case against Microsoft after the company agreed to offer European users of Windows a “ballot screen” allowing them to choose from 11 alternate web browsers.  Internet Explorer will continue to be an option, of course, but the following browsers will also be available as choices for the users:  Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, AOL Explorer, Maxthon, K-Meleon, Flock, Avant Browser, Sleipnir and Slim Browser.

For more on the stipulations of the deal, be sure to read the coverage from The New York Times (via @MaxthonNews).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Around the Browsersphere #12

Posted on March 7th, 2009 | No Comments »

Whoa.  Has it really been like eight months since the last time we went around the browsersphere?  Not good.  I guess we should do something about it…

General

Avant Browser

Camino

Chrome

Firefox

Flock

Internet Explorer

Maxthon

Opera

Opera Mini

  • Armenia, a country with around three million people, saw its Opera Mini usage grow by 2800% last year.  See this and other interesting statistics in the State of the Mobile Web report (via Choose Opera).
  • “Yahoo! is expected to begin distributing Opera Mini via Yahoo! Mobile and also as a standalone download from Yahoo!’s mobile Web sites in the near future.”

Orca Browser

Safari

SeaMonkey

Skyfire

There was a lot to cover this time around, and there’s much more I haven’t yet covered.  Hopefully that means we’ll see the 13th installment of “Around the Browsersphere” sooner than November. ;)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Multi-process Web Browser Architectures

Posted on February 10th, 2009 | 2 Comments »

All the nonsense aside, now that it seems like multi-process architectures are beginning to surface in the world of web browser development, I thought it would be a good idea to dig in to the feature a bit and, at the very least, provide links to some useful information for those who are interested in what multi-process architectures mean for web browsers.

One of the more notable features included in the unveiling of Google’s Chrome was what Google refers to as “Crash Control.”  This feature allows for a “Windows Task Manager” type of interface for managing web browser processes.  Aside from providing the interface for explicit management of the running (or dying) processes, it is also meant to shield tabs within the same running instance of the browser chrome (for lack of a better word) from any issues arising in other concurrently running tabs.  In essence, when you accidentally load a web page in one tab that was developed using Microsoft Word, you don’t have to worry about the severe code bloat of the page bringing your other tabs to a screeching halt.  Or if the JavaScript of one page goes off into la-la land, you won’t necessarily lose any of the other non-offending tabs.

Months after this feature was unveiled in Chrome, it was announced as a feature of Maxthon under the name “The Isolator:”

Maxthon 2.5.1…includes a feature called The Isolator that separates the functions of each Web tab from all other tabs and other parts of the browser. The Isolator protects other tabs from also becoming frozen because a single unresponsive tab is monopolizing a computer’s resources.

Though it certainly wasn’t the first implementation (despite what MaxthonGuy might want you to believe), The Isolator is one of the first official implementations of a multi-process architecture among the web browsers that actually show up on the Browsersphere radar.  Unlike Chrome’s “Crash Control,” though, The Isolator is still considered to be “in advanced beta.”

Other than the press release, I wasn’t able to find much on Maxthon’s actual implementation.  On the other hand, there has been plenty of coverage on Chrome’s implementation.  Marc Chung, for example, does an excellent job of explaining Chrome’s process model.  He even goes so far as to show you how you can control the type of process model used by Chrome at launch time.  He also points to another interesting article from Chromium Blog that explains why Chrome uses the multi-process architecture and why the architecture is more relevant today than it was when web browsers were first created, and refers to a publication from which Chrome’s process model was derived.

Though the multi-process architecture has been heralded by many web users, it isn’t without its downsides.  Google Chrome Memory Usage – Good and Bad explains the trade-offs of separating tabs into their own distinct processes, including the following:

While the multi-process model provides clear robustness and performance benefits, it can also be a setback in terms of using the absolute smallest amount of memory. Since each tab is its own “sandboxed” process, tabs cannot share information easily. Any data structures needed for general rendering of web pages must be replicated to each tab.

For more information on Chrome’s implementation of the multi-process architecture from both a developer’s and end user’s perspective, I recommend checking out the following links:

And finally, here are some other multi-process-related links related to web browsers other than Maxthon and Chrome:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MaxthonGuy Yells ‘First!’

Posted on February 10th, 2009 | 7 Comments »

I always get a kick out of reading the Maxthon Blog because some of the claims made about either Maxthon or its competitor web browsers are so outlandish.  This time around, a press release was posted claiming the following:

Maxthon’s engineers redesigned the browser’s framework so that each tab associated with a Web site works independent of each other. With that new architecture, if a tab becomes unresponsive for any reason, the other tabs and the browser are unaffected. The computer user can continue to browse normally and can refresh, reopen, or close the tab that is creating problems.

“Basically, our technology separates the tab and the browser,” said Jeff Chen, CEO of Maxthon. “That [sic] why the tab’s problem will not affect the browser’s performance, and so the browser can be a better environment to run Web application in tabs.

“As far as I know, no other major browser has such a feature,” Chen said.

I can understand making a claim like that last one in a press release, since you’re trying to set yourself apart from the competition.  Plus, Jeff Chen said “as far as I know,” which at least keeps the claim from being matter-of-fact.  However, I think it’s pretty inexcusable to make such matter-of-fact claims directly on your product’s blog when common knowledge suggests the opposite.

Before posting the aforelinked press release, the following was posted to the Maxthon Blog:

“…other browsers without [Maxthon's new feature] The Isolator – which would be, let’s see…. All of them. – can’t protect their tabs the way Max does.”

When an astute (or at least, non-delusional) commenter mentioned Google Chrome as a browser already supporting this feature, MaxthonGuy, the persona behind the madness that is Maxthon Blog, had this to say:

“Chrome does have a feature, Crash Control, that has a purpose similar to that of The Isolator. But the two technologies work differently, and Crash Control can’t save you from the Flash-inspired crashes that The Isolator blocks.”

So I guess if a feature has been implemented differently, then it doesn’t actually exist in any other browser.  Using that logic, I suppose Internet Explorer was the first web browser to support tabbed browsing.  But don’t worry, Firefox and Safari fans, your browsers were, too – despite what Opera or NetCaptor might have to say about it!

I just had to get this absurdity out of the way before I post a more in-depth look at multi-process architectures in web browsers.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Around the Browsersphere #11

Posted on July 11th, 2008 | 1 Comment »

Since my last installment of Around the Browsersphere was posted back toward the beginning of May, there’s simply way too much going on to get all caught up without breaking things up a bit.  Therefore, this eleventh edition will focus solely on the “minor players,” or the web browsers not named Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera or Safari.

Avant

Flock

Konqueror

Maxthon

SeaMonkey

Others

I’m hoping to catch up on the major players soon, so stay tuned.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Add-on Argument

Posted on July 9th, 2008 | 5 Comments »

In a few blog posts I’ve read recently, I’ve witnessed at least two backers of separate web browsers claiming that their respective browsers have an edge over Firefox because they don’t require all the add-ons Firefox does in order to behave the way a user expects them to.

First off, over at the Maxthon Blog last week, a Maxthon user was quoted as having said the following about Firefox 3:

I’m sure Firefox has add-ons that can compensate for its apparent lack of features but…my hard drive says it was nice knowing you but you have to go.

Given that the Maxthon Blog reminds me of a certain other source of information, I took the opinions there with a grain of salt.  However, I soon spotted a similar refrain at a much more trustworthy source.

Opera Watch has an article titled Guardian: Forget Firefox – I’m going back to Opera for browsing and email which quotes The Guardian columnist Andrew Brown as having said the following of Firefox 3:

With the release of Firefox 3, I mounted a private celebration: I went back to using Opera 9.5 as my main browser. This wasn’t just perversity. Firefox without its add-ons is clearly inferior to Opera. Firefox with enough add-ons to make it really useful is very much slower.

Although the reasoning behind Firefox’s add-on architecture has been well-publicized by Firefox spokesmen like Asa Dotzler and there are obviously those out there who appreciate that architecture, it appears that the latest approach by those supporting other web browsers is to suggest that the add-ons approach to feature support contributes to both a lackluster default set of features and excessive bloat once the desired features have been added.

So what’s your take?  Is Firefox’s add-on approach the right approach, or is it better to try and target a larger set of features out-of-the-box?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Browser Wars in China

Posted on May 11th, 2008 | No Comments »

An interesting article over at Mobinode sheds some light on the current state of the browser wars in China.  The following is an excerpt:

There is no doubt that Maxthon is still the No.1 Chinese browser in the market, but we can see that the competition is getting more intense. Tencent has its so called TT browser bundled with QQ for a long time, Firefox is more and more accepted by high educated Internet users; If you search for ["Browser" in Chinese], there are a couple of Chinese browsers which are good alternatives. I have tried one called EnjoyIE developed by a team based in Beijing. Even though the founder told me that he was doing this for his own interest, but the fact is that this browser has already got 2 millions users and for me it is working even faster than Maxthon.

The article also goes on to discuss the mobile space, in which an up-and-coming browser called UCWeb is showing promise with upwards of 25 million users.

Be sure to read the entire article, because it’s certainly interesting to see how the browser wars are shaping up overseas.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,