Firefox, Chrome, RON
 

If a person (at random, hypothetically speaking) was to try and convince a die hard IE user to change to a web browser that ( just for the sake of argument) didn't myteriously hog 50% of their system resources, what would be a good option.

If someody was to switch, the new browser would have to be bug free, easy to use, and automatically transfer over cookies and bookmarks.

Solid and smooth performance, not gimmicks and functions that'll never get used.

I use Firefox, and am happy with it, but read a lot that it's past it's sell by date and on the way out and the almighty Googles Chrome is on the ascendent.

RON ( Re Open Nominations) (used to win a lot of elections at University, but we always got some Lesbian with pink hair for President anyway NTTAWWT.) Opera, Safari, really?

I tried chrome. Liked its speed, but couldn't seem to give up my firefox plugins. xmarks which shares bookmarks between all my firefox locations is really useful if you use more than one computer.

Chrome is a mighty fine thing, but it's young yet. Firefox remains the best choice for everyday browsing. I will not give up my treasured FlashBlock plugin.

But by blocking flash, aren't you blocking more and more site content everyday, not just ads?

You can let through whatever you want, including on a site-by-site basis.

That sounds like a lot of work, to edit each site you visit. :confused:

Site content? Is that what you call it these days?:rolleyes:

Firefox has my sole loyalty.

Pshaw, a lot of sites are switching to flash to show pictures, especially artists and photographers. :p

Right-click, "Allow Flash from this site"

Or just click on the run button, for one-time acceptance.

I hate flash - not viewing their site is my way of saying that.

But don't you then get the ads too, or does adblocker take care of that? But if adblocker takes care of that, why block flash in the first place?

Whats wrong with flash?

When ads are flash-based, normal ad blockers don't block them.