Web Browser Faceoff
Written by Alex Iskold and edited by Richard MacManus.
The last few weeks have been packed with browser action and the two market leaders, Internet Explorer and Firefox, have launched major new versions. So to round out our recent browser coverage, we present the Web Browser Faceoff - looking at how all the main browsers compare with each other in terms of features and innovation. We are basically looking for what is unique, interesting - and missing - in each browser.
Right now Microsoft still holds onto its huge market lead, but Firefox is gaining more ground every month. Probably more importantly, there are other major innovators in the browser space - such as the social browser Flock (a Read/WriteWeb sponsor) and the perennial innovator Opera. The Mac browser Safari of course has many passionate supporters, while new kid Maxthon is one to watch.
Regardless of who will prevail in the 'browser 2.0 wars', the users will win. While fighting each other, the browser makers innovate and simplify. They increase our productivity by integrating into the browser web concepts such as search, RSS, OPML, microformats and more. The core browsers are getting slimmer and faster, while extensions that cover a wide range of services are being developed by external parties.
Internet Explorer 7.0
Internet Explorer 7.0 is a major release
from Microsoft, after nearly 5 years of silence. We just recently
profiled this browser and concluded that it is solid - and even an exciting release,
at least compared to its predecessor. Clearly Microsoft felt great pressure from Firefox
to come up with the upgrade.
This release is mostly good. There are major improvements like Tabbed Browsing, beefed up security, support for RSS, built in search engines and better interfaces for bookmarks and history. Oddly, there are still some leftovers from IE6 - the major one being the in-page search box, which is nearly impossible to use.
Pros: Big improvement over IE6, nice user interface, very good RSS
support.
Cons: Leftovers from previous release, performance is not great, not
fully compliant with standards.
Faceoff bottom line: Solid release, which is going to help Microsoft
maintain the market leadership in the near future
Firefox
Firefox just launched its 2.0 release. We covered the launch
extensively with a Firefox 2.0 product
review, an interview with
Mozilla exec Chris Beard and a Firefox marketing
discussion post. Firefox 2.0 impresses with its speed, stability and coolness.
Mozilla has managed to create both a thriving community and strong extension ecosystem,
that drives both improvements and market share. Firefox also has many great productivity
features - like search engine integration, in-page search, simple RSS integration and
tabs. It excels in overall usability, security and accessibility.
Pros: Great performance and feature set.
Cons: No built-in RSS reader, no hugely innovative features (like Flock)
- so arguably not distinct enough from IE7.
Faceoff bottom line: We think that Firefox is going to continue
narrowing IE's lead, but await with interest the next major version!
Safari
No browser faceoff would be
complete without Safari, the browser for MacOS. Like all things Apple, Safari has cool
features - but it still feels like a 'web 1.0' browser. The most impressive feature is
RSS integration. For each page that contains an RSS feed, Safari presents a handy search
bar which allows the user to find entries by date, category and many other criteria. It
also has built-in spelling - a feature that was just recently added to Firefox. The
bookmarks and history are nice, but unexciting. Tabs are not enabled by default and there are no integrations
with web services.
Pros: Simple, relatively fast, good RSS support.
Cons: Lacks web service integrations and productivity features.
Faceoff bottom line: It's a clean and simple web 1.0 browser, but needs
a major feature boost in order to be a contender even on the Mac.
Opera
Opera 9.0 is an interesting
browser. It has a lot of good features, nice add-on infrastructure and a strong
community. In terms of basic features it is not far off from Firefox. It is also fast and
responsive, which makes us wonder why it is not used by more people. The answer, we
think, is due to a couple of things. First the default skin and some UI elements are bit
contrived. They look like a blend of future and past - and overall there is a lack of
harmony.
The marketing of the browser has not been as strong, at least for desktop - since this browser has been focusing primarily on the mobile space lately. On a positive note, there is fairly complete RSS integration - including a built-in RSS reader. The URL toolbar and home buttons are done in a very clever and convenient way. Tabs are done well (and as a R/WW commenter noted recently, Opera had tabs even before Firefox). One other interesting thing about Opera are the desktop widgets. We found them to be cool, but somewhat unrelated to the browser since they run on the desktop.
Pros: Rich feature set, RSS integration, fast
Cons: Lacks coolness factor of Firefox, not as well known - but maybe an
unfair comparison since Firefox is open source
Faceoff bottom line: We can see why fans like this browser, but a bigger
future depends on spicing it up and poring in the marketing dollars.
Flock
Flock is the
newest and perhaps the most exciting browser on the market today. This Firefox-based
browser has taken the concept of browsing to the next level by radically integrating
support for web services. For example, stock browser feature bookmarks have been replaced
in Flock by integration with del.icio.us. Flock also features support for online photo
sharing sites like Flickr and Photobucket.
Flock comes with a built-in Blog editor, which supports many blogging services including WordPress, Blogger and MovableType. There is also a built-in RSS reader, which is one of the best RSS readers on the market in our opinion. The innovation goes beyond the service integration, since Flock also includes interesting new UI elements like TopBar - which is an improved search box and scratch area for storing web snippets.
Pros: del.icio.us and Flickr integrations, built in blog editor, RSS
reader, cool UI
Cons: Cloned Firefox code base, making it more work to make compatible add-ons.
Faceoff bottom line: Great productivity browser for web 2.0
Maxthon
We thought it would be
worthwhile to profile the China-based Maxthon browser, which had over 55 million
downloads by May 2006 - at which point it received an
investment from Charles River Ventures. This browser is based on the IE engine and it
claims to be 100% compatible with it. The first thing we noted is that the install was
super fast, just a few seconds.
The Maxthon browser comes with many pre-installed plugins, mostly for integrating with web 2.0 services like del.icio.us, Digg and Technorati. The look and feel resembles Internet Explorer 6, with the addition of tabs and a sidebar for plugins. The UI is not great and we noticed a few hickups, but the integration with web 2.0 services is very impressive - at least from a purely features point of view. Consistency is achieved by placing all integrations into the sidebar and adding a vertical control for toggling between them. Besides these plugins there are many other features - perhaps too many, which could also be the cause of slow page loads.
Pros: Impressive integration with the latest web 2.0 services.
Cons: Too many features, lacks coolness factor, slow.
Faceoff bottom line: Need to apply Occam's Razor (i.e. make it simpler),
but definitely could be a contender because of solid service integration.
Summary
In one of his recent posts on ZDNet, Richard published statistics on the current browser market share. According to his post, IE still maintains a strong lead but Firefox is gaining ground - particularly in US. Looking at the browsers reviewed in this post, we can be certain that a lot more innovation will come over the next few years. Each of these browsers brings a unique, interesting approach - which will fuel the competition between them.
Whatever happens, we as users are certain to see better browsers that are focused on productivity and web services. Even though IE and Firefox are far ahead today, we see that other browser like Flock and Maxthon are ramping up support for the latest web 2.0 services - making themselves stand out and attracting early adopters.
Faceoff bottom line: This round of browser competition is going to be at least as interesting as the Netscape vs. IE ten years ago. And hopefully less one-sided!
Share
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Safari most definitely has tabs. To enable them, go to the Safari menu, then select Preferences, click on the "Tabs" item in the resulting dialog box, and check "Enable Tabbed Browsing."
Thanks Evan, modified that sentence.
"Cloned Firefox code base" is not necessarily a con. Open source is meant to be built upon and tweaked, after all. ;-)
However, I've my own reasons for switching back to Firefox from Flock —— Favorites difficult to manage, no theme (and extension) support etc..
I'm quite happy with FF 2.0 currently.
You forgot about Netscape!
I think your review of Safari is off just a smidgin for a couple reasons. First of all, you called it a "web 1.0" style browser, and frankly, it handles RSS better than IE 7 and Firefox. Also, when developing CSS and HTML for the web, I find frequently fewer layout and design problems with Safari than with Firefox. The speed in Safari is untouched; it is definitely the fastest of all the current browsers. Apple has done a good job in integrating it with the OS potential of the Mac. And lastly, it has some nice add-on features available at Pimp My Safari that, frankly, impress me more than Flock and Firefox.
Um... Live Bookmarks? It's no Sage, but it does parse RSS out-of-the-box...
Maxthon actually uses IE. It is not a different browser which is compatible with IE, it actually is just a wrapper on top of IE that offers more features than IE does.
Yeah, you should remove cloned firefox code base from flock cons... Good forks _should_ be encouraged!
Where's Camino?
forgot about Camino for the mac.
Chart!
I think you're missing the point with Safari. It's simplicity and lack of (mostly) useless features is what makes it so appealing, much like all of Apple's products. Also, to call it a "Web 1.0" browser is a bit confusing, as it has probably the most feature filled and modern rendering engine of all the browsers mentioned. Just because it isn't chock full of worthless features doesn't mean it isn't advanced.
Safari was the first web browser to pass the Acid 2 (http://www.webstandards.org/). Safari also views photos on web sites
accurately, since it understands embedded ICC
profiles. (http://www.color.org/version4html.html).
Safari had pop up blocking and tab browsing much before IE 7 and IE6 did.
Over the years I've benchmarked Safari against Opera, Firefox , IE and Netscape, Mozilla and it is only beaten by Opera when it comes to processing JavaScripts. Intially prior to Safari 1.3 its JavaScript performance was relatively poor. Calling it a 1.0 browser is unfair in my opinion. Safari leverages Mac OS X pervasive AppleSpell spell checker and in Tiger one can use a the built in Dictionary and Thesaurus to come up as a non-intrusive panel.
What do you mean 'no built-in RSS reader' for Firefox? Live Bookmarks' ability to show the headlines of dozens of feeds at once is a) unique and b) the most useful feature.
Thanks for your comments!
Firefox RSS reader should be close to Flock and also do what Safari and IE does when the user navigates to the box.
In terms features, I think Safari needs to become more integrated with the web, this is the trend with other browser, which is not accidental, because it drives productivity.
Alex
Opera is the best browser IMO. It is stable, passes the ACID test, have most features. I prefer it on any platform.
Firefox is getting wierd, they are already talking about version 4. Althought it is a good browser.
Netscape is another one, that is great, but the development on the Mac side has halted.
IE7 is a big disseapointment, they could have added a lot of more. And it is bad in CSS.
Camino, nice looks, but lacks alot.
Flock is just buzz, just a typical want to be "web 2.0" browser, but, it does not make sense.
Safari, easy to use, but a little bit too basic. Lacks many features that are useful.
Maxthon is a nice browser, lots of features.
Opera ownz.
If you include Maxthon in this list then you should include Avant Browser(http://www.avantbrowser.com) its a IE clone just like Maxthon and with millions downloads it is definitely as big if not bigger than Maxthon in regards to popularity. Its just not as publicized as Maxthon is.
Avant Browser is most definitely the best browser out there.
Ebrahim, folders for favorites are coming in Flock 1.0. We do have theme support but no one has picked up the torch yet and made a Flock theme. Almost all Firefox extensions have been working with Flock for months now, except those that deal with bookmarks (since we do that our own way).
Alexander, I'm not sure the "just buzz" charge really holds up. We've done more to innovate the web browser in the last year than has been done in the ten years previous, and we've been kept the buzz low since our developer preview of late last year. What about Flock doesn't make sense to you? I should probably also ask what definition of Web 2.0 you're using too, since everyone has their own :)
Cheers,
Will Pate
Community Ambassador, Flock
I'm sorry, but this article is just utter rubbish. Opera lacks the 'cool factor' of Firefox? Are you shitting me? Safari 'feels like a Web 1.0 browser'? Give me a break. Any web developer would tell you that Safari has led the pack in terms of standards compliance and support for years, not to mention that Apple has contributed a lot to the Open Source community in the form of KHTML patches (which power the popular Linux browser Konquerer).
Comments like 'The bookmarks and history are nice, but unexciting.' are so ridiculous I find it hard to believe you even published this article. Last time I checked, neither bookmarks OR history we're 'exciting', on any browser.
At least you give Flock a little credit for innovating, but I question how having del.icio.us bookmarks and blog integration increases productivity - hell, having my bookmarks online works functionally the same as normal browser based bookmarks... except I have to be online to use them.
Your use of completely made up facts is amusing, too - such as 'Clearly Microsoft felt great pressure from Firefox to come up with the upgrade.'?
Do you work at Microsoft? Do you have any hard information except your obviously misled gut feeling on this matter?
I think that IE7 was a major part of Microsoft's new online strategy. It's the same reason they've included all the RSS/Web Service support in Vista, and the same reason they're releasing competitors to all the major web applications already out there.
Were you aware that Microsoft actually invited Firefox developers to Redmond to ensure that the new releases are compatible with Vista? Does this sound like a company that is 'feeling great pressure'? Again, give me a break.
God, even your description of Firefox (which you're quite obviously biased towards) is totally ridiculous. You list the Pro's as 'Great performance and feature set.' and then on the NEXT LINE write how it doesn't have a built-in RSS reader. Hell, you even list built-in search engine support as a major feature, something that almost every popular browser has had for _years_.
I have to say, I have enjoyed reading this blog, but this is bordering on pathetic. Didn't you read this before you edited it, Richard?
"Opera had tabs even before Firefox"
Yeah, like five or six years before Firefox!
Every other browser is trying to catch up to Opera. Opera's 'zoom' feature was a first and is still the simplest to use. Also, I think Opera is the most customizable browser out there. It has hundreds of 'Skins' available. How many browsers offer a simple file 'Open' icon? Opera is the innovator of the group. Main reason it's not as popular is because it only became 'free' about a year ago. Most people still think you have to pay for it. I believe it's also the most W3C compliant of all the browsers.
Maxthon has too many features? I just can't understand the logic of this. Should it be like Safari? Ever since I first downloaded Maxthon, I've been unable to spend much time using any other browser . The feature set and the level at which you can customize (before even downloading plugins) is just impressive. Opera 9 is the only browser close enough in browsing features, but it lacks a few details that Maxthon covers well.
I understand how the default interface might seem to lack the 'coolness' of others, but a nice library of skins (just like Firefox or Opera) exists for that. With the Maxthon 2 preview (modeled shamelessly after IE7, but better), looking pretty and feeling smooth are taken care of.
I'm a fan of many of the cool features in IE7, Firefox and Opera, but I need the rich feature set to set them apart. That's Maxthon for me.
Hmmm, browsers seem to evoke very passionate responses from people - everyone has their favorite.
Jake, your comment is very harsh. It's important to remember that our post here is focused on features for *normal users*. So while it's very admirable that Opera and Safari support open standards etc, it really fell outside the scope of our post.
I thought your comments on our Microsoft conclusions were a bit much - "obviously misled gut feeling"? Hello, isn't it obvious IE7 was only ramped up after they realised Firefox was gaining traction?! If it was so important to them, why did they wait 5 years to make a big effort on IE??
While I appreciate your passion for the topic Jake, I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to attack us in such a way. I think this is a great post by Alex and I'm proud to have published it on R/WW.
Richard,
In my opinion, it is not obvious that Microsoft only ramped up developed after Firefox gained traction. I have never read a quote from someone on the IE team, or anyone at Microsoft that would lead me to believe such a thing. I think it is foolish to make assumptions about these things when as consumers we have very little inside knowledge about Microsoft's corporate politics regarding these issues.
Had you considered the possiblity that maybe Microsoft wasn't ready to fully support the web as a viable platform for their applications, especially since they had just released Windows XP?
In any case, the reason I am 'attacking' you is that I have been a reader of this blog for a long time and this post was just really poor. I honestly don't give a shit what browser people use, I just found the way this post was written irritating and felt like commenting.
I find Jake's comment to be a real value-add here. It is important that an article of this nature represents a true understanding of each browsers strengths and weaknesses. This article seemed to conflict with my experiences and I question the research behind it. Admittedly I don't have much exposure to every browser mentioned. But I have used most of them for business and personal use.
Jake pointed out something that occurred to me. You seem to have a bias towards Firefox. This should preclude you from trying to pull this off as an objective article. I understand why people may be inclined to stand behind the great effort and product that is Firefox. But radical independent promotion such as this seems to be rampant and I am growing tired of it. I know I only have my self to blame for following a digg. digg although overall a terrific site, seems to have a lot of influence from a passionate Firefox fanbase.
Here is my rundown of quick and inelegant opinions of each the browsers you mention in the order they appear in your article:
Internet Explorer 7 - Internet Explorer is used because it comes pre-installed and heavily adopted business applications require IE for it's handling of ActiveX controls. IE, in some cases, requires specific CSS hacks. Although I am beginning to believe this os a small problem and found in seemingly every browser. In versions prior to 7, IE's willingness to execute powerful code has made it a target among the blackhats out there and as such is a security threat in the hands of the free-clicker; but also allowed for rapid development of many feature rich applets and controls.
Firefox - Great browser, great extensibiltiy, good rendering of established web standards, no where near as fast as everyone rants about. Firefox is popular. It's fanbase promotes it to the hilt.
Safari - Fine browser, does the job nicely including bookmarks and history.
Opera - Good browser especially on handhelds
Flock - I have no experience,
Maxthon - Great browser, great extensibilty. Good choice if you need IE rendering. Just as slow as Firefox.
You failed to mention that Opera has Bittorrent built in. It's a great way for "normal users" to access Bittorrent downloads. Opera is a lot easier to install than a Bittorrent client for most people. I've told several non-geek friends to use it for that, and they've said it was very easy.
You certainly have the right to voice your opinions Jake, so I have no problem with that. You can't please everyone all the time, I guess...
Dan, we probably do have a bias towards Firefox. I don't think I can argue with you on that. I thought our conclusion was very fair though: "Looking at the browsers reviewed in this post, we can be certain that a lot more innovation will come over the next few years. Each of these browsers brings a unique, interesting approach - which will fuel the competition between them."
Once again a boring faceoff...which leads to no Decision but to wait and watch the war.
Every site has such review and the things they write are same. Not a word different. How is it gonna be useful for us to decide?
Flock - Crashes a lot and takes heaps of memmory while running
Same goes for Firefox. Requires Tons of Resources.
IE7 - People say no to it. :) But overall its gonna be good soon.
Opera - A brillinat thing. There's nothing gainst it. Just that it lacks the COOL feature.
Maxthon - No Complaints other then being a bit Slower
My Thing - Opera + Maxthon(with IE7 Installed)
Some further comments on Safari. As someone noted, it is a typical Apple product, in that it offers a restricted or simplified feature set, done well. This is one reason why tabs are disabled by default.
You can extend it with delicious integration, etc, but of course this is less clear than with Firefox - which has superb extension management facilities - and is far less supported.
I get the feeling Apple's strategy for web service integration is based more around the Dashboard (which utilises the WebKit engine) than in extending the Browser.
Most of the (non-development) extensions I use in Firefox have a Dashboard widget equivalent.
The developer extensions on Safari seem to be coming on a bit (need to download the WebKit nightlies) which is good as this was one area where it REALLY lagged behind - the CSS HUD is neat - like the way it visually outlines the elements as you click on them, and the JavaScript debugger is looking good.
There is also the matter of .mac, which offered bookmark sync between machines some years ago, but has always been ridiculously expensive. I think this may be responsible for some of the direction Apple has pursued - i.e. reluctance to offer integration with free services where Apple have a chargeable one.
There are, of course, a number of alternative WebKit based browsers on the Mac, with more powerful feature sets than Safari - OmniWeb (commercial, but 'free' as part of the Omni productivity suite) has always been innovative - first browser I know of with visual tabs, and Shiira are the main two that come to mind. Neither seem to offer much in the way of web integration, but seem to concentrate more on management of lots of open pages. OmniWeb's 'workspace' concept is good, allowing you to open/close sets of related pages.
I've got Flock, Camino and Opera installed too, but mostly I find myself using Safari and Firefox over anything else. Safari because of the RSS integration - I'm dissapointed with Firefox 2.0 and IE7 haven't made it that smooth. And Firefox because it works in the places where Safari doesn't, and because of it's extensions.
I think I may not be 'Web 2.0' enough to really see the benefit of Flock, but it is probably worth remembering that the 'normal' user is still Web 1.0. My wife doesn't even use bookmarks, let alone delicious - she just goes to Google every time - and she is fairly IT literate.
Your view on Opera: "In terms of basic features it is not far off from Firefox."
Dude, are you high? It is so far ahead of Firefox it's a joke.
I've been testing on IE7, Firefox 2 and Opera 9 and there's one thing that IE seems to win on. Support for the "accesskey" attribute - It doesn't seem to work at all in Opera or Firefox.
Opera is certainly the best from usability viewpoint. It allows you to overrun the bad design decisions of web site authors with ease. Too small font? Zoom. Green text on pink background? Click "my style" and you have it in normal colours. Zillion flash anims on a page choke your PC? F12 (for quick prefs) and disable plugins/whatever, done. Other browsers have all this too, but the implementation is awkward or you have to dig in menus to get them.
Opera's big minus is really confusing bookmark management.
"Need to apply Occam's Razor (i.e. make it simpler), but definitely could be a contender because of solid service integration."
In the same breath I could ask why editors always have to make their own output more complicted than in should be. Why not just say "make it simpler", why go through the process of tarting up your prose and then having to explain it?
Boy, tough crowd tonight. Even the editing is getting pounded :-) I can see some irony in our use of the term "Occam's Razor" though, so point taken michael.
Zoom on Firefox and IE7 - CTRL+/CTRL-
Ditto on Safari (but 'Apple' key rather than CTRL).
IE7's zoom works slightly differently (scales up bitmaps as well as the font size). I guess it's arguable which is the better approach - IE7 tends to preserve layout, at the cost of being technically correct and relaying out the page to fit the user's requested font size.
Will, what is so innovative with Flock? The tight intergration with Flickr, which is another "web 2.0" website? RSS? Done already years before Flock.
On your website Flock.com you are showing "RSS", as I said already made. Photos? Okey, that one is something new from Flock. Search? Not new, many browsers have had this for a while.
So what is so special about Flock? And especially when it is built upon Firefox, then it is even less unique and innovative.
I am not saying Flock is bad, but to call it a revolutiona nd that it has changed more than any other browser in 10 years is a big lie. Opera and Netscape can take credit for that.
I don't think the web is "web 2.0" yet, but since people like you are saying that, I guess sites like Flickr is "web 2.0". I think it is buzz around Flock.
Alex, I didn't say Flock was a "revolution" or was "Web 2.0", that was you my friend. To me both those terms are buzzwords and I avoid them, especially the latter. "Web 2.0" means different things, depending on whom and when you ask.
Here is what I did say about innovation:
"We've done more to innovate the web browser in the last year than has been done in the ten years previous..."
I believe this is true. Look at web browsers right now and tell me where the innovation has happened since 1996. Stack it up to what Flock has done and I think we can humbly say that we're the most focused on innovation. One notable exception to this is Firefox extensions, which are not built into the web browser and reach less than 5% of Firefox users.
Here are some of the innovations that Flock has brought to our users. We may not have been first to do each of these in any form, but we did them all our own way and tied it together in an integrated experience.
* Full content index of history and favorites
* Search results as you type from index of history, favorites and Yahoo! live search results
* Drag and drop photo uploading, drag and drop photo blogging and drag and drop photo commenting on any textarea that supports HTML or bbCode
* Subscription to Flickr and Photobucket photostreams in the browser
* News reader built into the browser, without a single mention of the word "RSS"
* Blog editor built into the browser, with spellcheck and a simple interface that you don't have to be a geek to understand
* Drag and drop web snippets shelf that automatically creates a blockquote and link to the original source
Reading the website probably doesn't do the product justice. I encourage you to actually take Flock for a test drive, Alex. I think you might be pleasantly surprised with what you find. Either way, I'd love to hear your feedback again after you do.
Cheers,
Will Pate
Community Ambassador, Flock
Will, I understand you now. I have tried Flock before but I will try it more and will see how it is. I will report back in this article soon.
/Alexander
No Lynx? ;)
wow, Maxthon is on the list.
Although I never use Maxthon, as a Chinese, I feel happy.
Oh please, Jake - Pipe down. First of all, Microsoft did admit about a year ago, that they had lost their focus on browsers, and that they where indeed lacking behind the newly founded competition (Read: Firefox). And sure enough, wouldn't you know, the development of IE7 really took off after that remark.
You can't really blame them for slacking a bit, they are really stretched out over to much bread. But they are getting there slowly. I've tried several browsers besides IE, but I always return to the fold. With IE7 I won't even consider switching once again. I need more solid arguments than "Yay! we've build a web 2.0 browser with social bookmarking." To a normal person that's like saying; "Flafidbob duuuub. And then a whole lot of numbers." Except that the last part, probably would make more sence to them.
I have tested Flock and sorry, I am not that impressed.