Firefox 4!

[HTML5]

I would upgrade if I had enough cash to spare

Seriously? Get over design. Focus on implementation. Speed, as you note...

I agree with Deirdre's Dad, I don't really care about design.. Just the functionality.

[justsomeguy]

The only thing impressive about IE9 is that they tap into DirectX for superior GPU support.

Really? You don't think it's impressive that it compiles Javascript before executing it? What about, on a dual-core CPU, when it compiles the Javascript with one core while executing it on another, is that impressive? IE9 easily beats Firefox 4 at Javascript speed (and probably rendering speed also, since IE8 whoops Firefox 3 in rendering speed), and Firefox 4's Javascript engine is nothing to be ashamed about, so it's impressive that Microsoft has managed to not only catch up from so far behind, but leave Firefox in the dust with a single major version upgrade. I hope Dad can help optimize my use of commas in that sentence.

IE9 is trying hard to look like chrome.

Blah, Firefox 4 looks a lot like Chrome also. It's difficult to resist copying something that works really well. There was talk about self-respecting developers, so I'll add that no self-respecting developer would use an inferior UI just because they made it. It's egotistical to choose something inferior that you made when there's a better alternative. I've only downloaded Firefox 4 this week, oddly enough to benchmark a part of my application for one of the Mozilla devs. BTW, IE8 also beats Firefox 4 beta 6 at rendering speed, for a large structure it took IE8 7.5 minutes and beta 6 8.5 minutes. It took Firefox 3.5.1 13 minutes.

But XP users can't use IE9... So that's not going to help get people off the older browsers. They should shut them down or something

I would argue that Microsoft should remove the DirectX 10 acceleration or port it to DirectX 9 to help XP users run it. It would be nice if Microsoft acknowledged that XP is a good OS and kept supporting it, it could use a few new features. At this point XP is extremely stable, and that's why I used it when I built my last computer (in 2007). I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a blue screen or had a major OS failure, XP is solid. I'll be moving on whenever I build another computer, but it would be nice if Microsoft started re-marketing XP as a stripped-down, stable, secure OS like some Linux distros do. There's a lot of use for something like that, especially in business.

Which software you are using to scan your PC for some unwanted applications?

My little XP box has a wicked immune system, but when something at work gets infected I usually use MalwareBytes to at least start identifying things. Kaspersky and Eset NOD32 are both consistently highly-rated for AV. I would trust those over anything from a bloated company like Symantec or McAfee.

[HTML5]

Hey remember Firefox is still in beta

Blah, Firefox 4 looks a lot like Chrome also. It's difficult to resist copying something that works really well. There was talk about self-respecting developers, so I'll add that no self-respecting developer would use an inferior UI just because they made it. It's egotistical to choose something inferior that you made when there's a better alternative. I've only downloaded Firefox 4 this week, oddly enough to benchmark a part of my application for one of the Mozilla devs. BTW, IE8 also beats Firefox 4 beta 6 at rendering speed, for a large structure it took IE8 7.5 minutes and beta 6 8.5 minutes. It took Firefox 3.5.1 13 minutes.

Wait until you see the fully released product before you decide it stinks.

[boen_robot]

Offtopic://

When we are talking about malwares, I must go offtopic a lil bit. Which software you are using to scan your PC for some unwanted applications?

I use Microsoft's Security Essentials, because it's free AND pretty much never makes false positives, which is really important for me. I have enough experience to "detect" malware when the packaging is suspicious, but when it has seemed fine, I expect the AV to bail me. The only kind of sort of false positives Security Essentials makes are for VNC servers, cracks, keygens and the likes, but it explicitly tells you (if you bother to read the warning message) something like "This is a program that enables a VNC server. A VNC server lets other people use your computer. If you haven't installed a VNC server or don't know how to control it, remove this file".I also install it to my clients' computers for one additional reason - it is translated in Bulgarian, so they no longer have excuse not to read the warning. About 1/3 of the PCs I reinstalled once were actually due to false positives, not due to actual viruses. Since I started putting it, the number has dropped to something about 1/6. The top place is now held by registry cleaners instead, followed by "because my computer is slow" (which often translates to "I have 10 toolbars", but that's another thing that will hopefully be addressed with IE9...).I've used Symantec's Norton Antivirus, and I was quite happy with it. I don't remember ever getting a false negative... there were some false positives though, so I eventually ended up not trusting it when the packaging seemed fine, which in turn was the thing that made me reinstall what then was my 2 year old OS installation. I rarely installed that to clients because it's a too heavy AV (you need 2GB and/or a dual core CPU in order not to feel its weight), and as always, the majority of people prefer to have low end PCs.I don't really have enough experience with Kaspersky, but the versions I've seen were just as bloated as McAfee. I don't know... perhaps it's OK.Eset NOD32 was once a really light and rarely making false positives AV. In recent versions, its firewall (in the "Smart Security" package at least) has started creating more and more problems in my work (starting from not letting Apache by default, going to creating inconsistencies in local networks and more), and the false positives have risen. Not to mention it's now heavier. Still, for anyone looking for a payed non-Microsoft solution, I'd reccomend NOD32, because it's the least bad, light AV, while still not being very expensive.

[justsomeguy]

Wait until you see the fully released product before you decide it stinks.

I didn't say it stinks, it's faster than Firefox 3 in all respects. But it's still slower at rendering speed than IE8, and it's still slower at Javascript than Chrome, Opera, and Safari. You can see that it's getting faster, but it's not there yet. Maybe Mozilla should change Firefox's slogan to "still slower".http://arewefastyet.com/That being said, what we're seeing in beta 6 is very close to the final version. They aren't going to completely redo the rendering pipeline or Javascript engine between beta 6 and the final.

[jeffman]

I hope Dad can help optimize my use of commas in that sentence.

Commas? We don't need no steenkin' commas!

[[dx]]

Well, I'm using just Avira.. Before I've used Eset NOD 32, and when I've installed Avira, it has found 13 infected files.. So I stoped using it.

[boen_robot]

Offtopic://

Well, I'm using just Avira.. Before I've used Eset NOD 32, and when I've installed Avira, it has found 13 infected files.. So I stoped using it.

Now I remembered the third place in my "most frequent reinstallation reasons" chart - people who don't use just one AV program. If you have more than one, each will treat the other (or rather, the files that the other scans) as a virus, which in turn makes most people delete the files being scanned, causing various crashes and/or anomalies.I assure you that if NOD32 didn't found viruses, and you then uninstall NOD32 and install Avira (in this order), you shouldn't be seeing any virus warnings. Avira in fact makes a lot of false positives in general... I usually install it only on computers for which for some reason I can't install Security Essentials AND the client wants a free AV.(I'm starting to think we should separate the AV discussion from this...)

[HTML5]

// off topicI just use AVG.. not the best anti-virus (So I've heard)