Talk:Web browser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the class scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] foo web browser

Who's been moving pages on web browsers to pages like Opera web browser and Chimera web browser? That is not standard page naming convention. Use the simple name, and disambiguation parentheses if required. The current form requires users to type "...[[Opera web browser|Opera]]. Most of these should be at "foo (browser)". -- Tarquin 00:12 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

And these can be simply linked to like this: [[Opera (browser)|]] (no space between the bar and the last brackets) in order to look like this: Opera (cute trick).
Indeed. That's the "pipe trick", fully documented on the FAQ & elsewhere. I'll be moving these back in a few days. -- Tarquin 10:39 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Web browsers by market share

There should be a note here that the user agent string does not necessarily correlate to the actual browser version used, for example the user can set Opera (and other browsers I'm sure) to identify as Internet Explorer in order to overcome poorly written web pages. This skews the statistics towards IE. -Wikibob | Talk 13:59, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

This skew is probably less significant than rounding errors. To mention it may be to overstate its importance. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely not. It's almost absurd to give browser usage statistics with promille precision. See here: http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm --Ados 13:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wikibob, I added a "disclaimer" which I hope fits the bill. When I first saw this page the same thing immediately caught my eye.-Randyoo 22:54, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Latest info from http://www.onestat.com/ as of May 28 2004

http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox30.html

The most popular browsers on the web are:


1. Microsoft IE 6.0 69.3% 2. Microsoft IE 5.5 12.9% 3. Microsoft IE 5.0 10.8% 4. Mozilla 2.1% 5. Opera 7.0 1.02% 6. Microsoft IE 4.0 0.6% 7. Safari 0.71%

Statistics like this are pointless without a date. As of March 2006 MS must dream of returning to such dominance!

[edit] Popular browsers

I amended the popular browsers bit to include the qualifier "on PCs". I do not think Internet Explorer is very widespread on mobiles, while even on pocket devices there are other browsers in use (not necessarily Firefox).

I think the opening statement is clearly written from the POV of looking at the PC situation (even if the PC situation accounts for most web browsers).

Does Opera have a greater role when one considers non-PC applications? Or what exactly is the situation on mobile platforms?

zoney ♣ talk 14:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am unable to find any Opera Mobile user share or even download stats. ~Linuxerist L / T 04:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IE and HTTP 1.1

Does anyone know exactly what this sentence is referring to? HTTP/1.1 has its own required standards which Internet Explorer does not fully support, but most other current-generation web browsers do. I thought about reverting this when it first appeared a month or two ago as POV Microsoft bashing, but I don't actually know that it's not true (and I suspected there would be plenty of Microsoft apologists ready, willing, and able to defined IE's "good" name if the statement indeed was not true). It has survived several edits to this section of the article so I'm starting to suspect it IS true. Just curious. -- Rick Block 15:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. I think I've heard something to that effect, and it wouldn't surprise me. I would just leave it there until someone can refute it. zoney ♣ talk 16:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I found a related mention in the IE article (when in doubt, look it up in Wikipedia!) and I've included a link. -- Rick Block 20:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Wikipedia's Browser Statistics

Wouldn't it make sense to include a link to the browser statistic of wikipedia itself?--Hhielscher 14:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The browser stats for any one site is really just trivia. If we link to browser stats, it should be to a stats source that attempts to get a representative sample of the web as a whole. Examples would be OneStat, TheCounter, or WebSideStory. Schapel 16:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is trivia in other pages as well
There are misspellings in other pages, too. Does that mean it's okay for this page to have misspellings? This seems like a logical fallacy to me. -- Schapel 14:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a popular site for an important web community. It really would be useful to have Wikipedia broswer stats.
We use screenshots of Wikipedia for all the browser articles, why not include the our stats? --Wulf 01:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
For the reasons stated above, and especially because Wikipedia should avoid self references. -- Schapel 02:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong use of Internet / Internet Browser

I affirm that there is no Internet Browser, the right expression is web browser! There are people who confuse Web and Internet (even MS has done so, by calling it's web browser Internet Explorer). For an encyclopedia it is important to use the right terms. I will try to clean up the article.

I disagree. The name Internet Explorer implies that you will be able to explore the internet, it does not automatically mean that you'll be able to explore everything online, although the term www browser would be more specific! Google is a web search service, but it doesn't mean that the service have the ability to search through the whole world wide web (so it should probably come with a label saying partial www search)! bjelleklang 23:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
But the issue isn't what MS calls its product. The issue is whether Wikipedia uses the correct terminology, which is "web browser", not "internet browser". So I agree with the original poster. --Bonalaw 08:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brief? History

I don't think brief is the right word, since a large portion of the article is devoted to this history. I'm not sure whether we should just get rid of the word brief, or modify the article so that it is, in fact, brief. -Phantom784 23:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Only 4 web browsers in real world?

I'll tell you what. some say there are only 4 web browsers in real world, which are IE, Firefox, Opera, Konqueror.

they say, this 4 only use their own rendering engine for now,

So, Nescape/Safari/Avant browser/Maxthon/Slim browser or anything are not the original or real web browser.

What do you think?

Dillo and Amaya have different engines, that have a good amount of features. Also, Konqueror is Mozilla based. ~Linuxerist L / T 19:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Altough Safari's rendering engine (WebKit) is KHTML based.. Mozilla is based on the codebase released by Netscape... IE for Mac had a superior rendering engine to it's Windows counterpart(Win:Trident,Mac:Tasman) and they both were in no way related.. You can go on forever.. --RaviC 16:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HTTP cookie

I have submitted the article HTTP cookie for peer review (I am posting this notice here as this article is related). Comments are welcome here: Wikipedia:Peer review/HTTP cookie/archive1. Thanks. - Liberatore(T) 16:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge

I don't see why this article should be merged with Comparison of web browsers. Both are long articles and it seems like a justfied split to me. I'm interested in hearing the reasoning for the merging. I apologize if I have missed any disscussion about it. Jeltz talk 18:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it certainly deserves to be its own article. There is also plenty of precedent. See this search for examples. --Wedge Talon 22:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Would an encyclopedia include a separate article titled Comparison of Web Browsers? If not, that article shouldn't exist. Rather than simply delete that article, I propose merging the data in that article into this one. If you plan to argue that an enecyclopedia would have an article titled like that, you should probaly be prepared to back it up with non-Wiki examples. -- Schapel 15:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that the right way for this is to put it on WP:AFD. I don't think that the question here isn't about mergin two articles into one. It is about deleting an article. Almost everything in the comparison would need to be deleted to not make the merged artcicle ridiculously huge. I'm neutral about if Wikipedia should include articles like Comparison of Web Browsers so I think that the best course of action would be to ask people on Wikipedia if we should have this kind of articles or not. It's not the only one of its kind. Jeltz talk 21:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No This artical is targeted a lot (mostly for making a "WP:POINT") and they all get tagged with a nice "WP:SNOW" resolution slapped on them. This artical has seen hell the past few weeks from a proposal to delete, to a proposal to merge with other articles. Lots of good points raised why it should be left alone by an overwhelming majority in all those discussions. I know, this one seems the most legit but please leave it alone for a while. All tell you what, if you leave it alone, I will send you all a coupon for a free cookie at subway. --ZacBowling 20:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. I didn't know about the previous history of this article. Then I'm against putting it on AFD or merging it. Jeltz talk 13:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the merge is a good idea, the resulting article would be huge. Regardless of the history of the article, there are a large number of "Comparison of" articles on Wikipedia, there's strong precedent for this kind of thing. While a page full of tables may not be the most encyclopedic of articles, the fact that a) it's useful information that increases the repution of Wikimedia [1], b) it has a large number of relevant links to other encyclopedia articles, and c) it's GPLD'd, means that it should be hosted on at least some wikimedia server. If it really needs to be deleted from Wikipedia (which it probably shouldn't), it should at least be moved to wikibooks or something. --Interiot 19:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

-1 for merge! The resulting article would be too long. Moreover it's very common to have "Comparisons of foo".

--83.171.170.56 14:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Possible New Image

  • I don't know what you all would think of the quality, but I made Image:Web browser.png which could possibly used for the main image. Stock Exchange images have gone through so many problems here, I think we should not use them as often as possible. ~Linuxerist L / T 19:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot images

I am reverting the edits by Dead3y3 back to just showing the Firefox screenshot. While I see how having the multiple browser screenshots clearly enhances the article, I do not beleive that this use qualifies as "fair use." In the fair use license tag attached to the screenshot images, it specifically says: "for identification of and critical commentary on the software in question." I do not think that showing the browsers as exaples of implementations of a type of software qualifies "critical commentary." If this were the article "Comparison between popular web browsers," and there were a discussion about and a comparison between the three, then fair use would qualify. Also, I am reverting to the old Firefox screenshot simply because it is in PNG format, which is the preferred format for screenshots (see Wikipedia:Software screenshots). -Seidenstud 13:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I should clarify that I am keeping just the Firefox one as it is the only one of the three that is released under a free license, and therefore does not need to qualify for fair use. -Seidenstud 23:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I fully understood that the use of multiple scr's of web browsers isn't allowed (and in general, multiple software scr's in one article alone). But I don't agree with the use of the Mozilla Firefox image in the article, as an example of a web browser. The example should be the most well known possible. So since IE is the most popular related program for the moment being, a src of it should be used rather than one from MF. As for the fair use issue, the use of the IE src in Internet Explorer article seems to be ok. Concluding, I think that stating IE as an example is a more representative action towards the common knowledge. --dead3y3 16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that the IE one would better suit the article, however, I really don't beleive that such use would satisfy fair use as it is worded in the license tag. The license tag explicitly states that fair use is satisfied when the image is used "for identification of and critical commentary on the software in question." In the case of the article Internet Explorer, this is clearly met. But in the case of this article, which discusses the type of software in generic terms making minimal mention of IE - virtually none of which can be called "critical,"I do not beleive that the terms as specified in the licensing tag are met. Furthermore, in the Wikipedia fair use policy, it states:
Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious.
Firefox is licensed under a free license, so the fair use justification is not necessary. That is why I replaced IE with Firefox, not for any other reason.
There is a lot of great content that could greatly enhance the quality and usefulness of Wikipedia. For example, the complete lyrics to a song that has an article devoted to it, or long clips from movies in their articles. Unfortunately, these are copyright materials, and that must be respected. As Wikipedia grows to other markets and other media, such materials can cause problems. -Seidenstud 21:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I now fully agree with the use of the MF src. Thanks for clearing out the point of the Wikipedia fair use policy. From me, the article is ok. --dead3y3 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The screenshots of software are allowed to be used in Wikipedia without any copyright restrictions. Putting Firefox picture is biased. Just like article about Search Engine has screenshot of Google - the most popular search engine, the article about web browser should have picture of Internet Explorer - the most popular web browser. Wikiolap 05:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
But IE7 is not the most used browser out there, IE6 is.--Hhielscher 14:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The label on the picure actually doesn't break it into versions, it just says Internet Explorer, which is the most widely used browser. If you have good picture with IE6 - please put it into the article. Wikiolap 17:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point. The IE image is not clearly free (despite what you say above, it cannot be used without copyright restrictions). The reason to include the Firefox image has nothing to do with popularity or bias, and everything to do with using an image that assuredly has no copyright restrictions. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the general screenshot copyright issue. I am going to research the specific issue of IE screenshot more - from the licensing point of view, IE is different from other commercial programs. Until this is clarified, the FF image should stay. Thanks, Wikiolap 03:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Browser?

The article states: "A NeXTcube was used by Tim Berners-Lee (who pioneered the use of hypertext for sharing information) as the world's first web server, and also to write the first web browser, WorldWideWeb in 1990...

...The first browser, Silversmith, was created by John Bottoms in 1987."

So what was the first browser? WorldWideWeb or Silversmith?

I have no idea (I just came here looking for info) so I don't want to make any edit myself Vincethod 08:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't find any additional information on Silversmith. However, if the definition is an application that browses (X)HTML documents on the WWW, Silversmith can't possibly meet it, preceeding both by a few years. Avocadia 00:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I found a ref about Silversmith. It is actually a short biography of John Bottoms as a speaker. I still doubt though that Silversmith as the first WB is the case: usually the biographies of speakers at meetings are provided by the speaker itself. And there is no other source at Google: I searched for combinations of "Silversmith", "web browser", "John Bottoms", "1987". All results were from Wikipedia. I am to think that we have a case of self-credibility here. --Dead3y3 Talk page 02:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most popular browser?

It said" Web browsers available for personal computers include Microsoft Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Netscape, and Opera, in order of descending popularity (as of August 2006).". I disagree, because according to [this], Firefox is the most popular. Can someone check for me? --Gravity<float>[[|User talk:Gravity|Talk]]</float> 03:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No. According to that chart, the most popular browser used to look at the w3schools site is consistently IE 6, for 2006 and up to June 2007. More to the point that measures one particulr site, and the sample is therefore highly unreliable as an indicator of the Web at large. Even given that browser statistics are notoriously unreliable in general, and vary enormously by country (something that implies statistics gathered by an english speaking company are quite possibly useless when applied to Russia, and vice versa)... Chaals 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most popular browser?

It said" Web browsers available for personal computers include Microsoft Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Netscape, and Opera, in order of descending popularity (as of August 2006).". I disagree, because according to [this], Firefox is the most popular. Can someone check for me? --GravityTalk 04:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The stats you site are for that one site only, not overall global usage. See the usage share article for much more detail on browser usage share. -- Schapel 23:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image modified

I changed the main image to IE 7. I'm sorta guessing it fits in with the fact that IE is currently more popular than Mozilla (as it says in the chart). Also the images below already list Mozilla but not IE 7, so I just thought it would be a good addition.

Travis 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UDIWWW

I believe UDIWWW has been forgotten. I remember a time when the browser was considered better than the one of netscape. [2] indicates that it was quite popular and from the look of it, it can still be downloaded from [3]. Maybe anyone is willing to research more on its history and add it to the site. ;)

80.227.107.194 12:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messy and Long History Section

I was thinking that maybe the history section should be split up by browser (FF, IE, Safari, etc). Right now it is very long and hard to read or find the info you're looking for. Or perhaps merge the "Browser timeline" article into this section? At any rate, I think there should at least be some subheadings to more easily navigate through the subsections. Stagefrog2 02:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff that was above the Toc

As far as accuracy goes, I'm not sure that the first paragraph is correct. A web-browser can support more than just HTML files. It can directly display images, XML, plain text and more. Modern web-browsers are fully extensible. IE: Macromedia has a plugin for internet explorer and netscape navigator that allows the browser itself to render SWF files without having these files wrapped in an HTML file. And with non-HTTP protocals, the browser can act as a generic client, not a document-viewer. For example, IE5 and above can connect to an FTP server and allow the user to create folders, remove files, drag and drop files/folders to and from the server and so on with a graphical interface. Netscape and Mozilla have similar abilities.

I think a web browser can be more accurately described as an extensible network client and document editor/viewer specializing in the HTTP protocal and HTML document format.

Just my $0.02. --Rlee0001 16:02 Sep 9, 2002 (UTC)

Well, if it does more than just that, then it's a program with web-browser-like capabilities, isn't it? --Colonel E 16:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


This is the first paragraph: "A Web browser is a piece of software that enables a user to retrieve and render HTML documents from Internet servers around the world. This network of documents is known as the World Wide Web."

In this paragraph, a web browser is defined in terms of what the web is, namely a network of HTML documents.

Just as one would not define an automobile in terms of what a car is besides an automotive vehicle, it could be argued that a web browser should be defined by its primary function, with other possible functions listed later on.

If something can browse HTML documents on the web, it is called a web browser. However, it is not necessary that a web browser can browse ftp sites: if it cannot, it is still called a web browser.

If we would redefine the term web browser as a tool that can do everything from the original definition plus browse ftp sites, then all tools that can browse web sites but cannot browse ftp sites would drop out of the definition of 'web browser', which IMO would be undesirable.

If you define the world wide web as a network of HTML and XHTML documents, then you could redefine a web browser as something that can browse (X)HTML documents on the web. --user:Branko

[edit] Technical Overview

I want to know the steps of how web browser load a web page, from sending web address until showing a complete page. Especially I want to know what happen after we insert a site address. 69.88.4.165 00:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Read: HTTP. -Etafly 22:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The existence of freely available images invalidates the fair use claim for screenshots of Internet Explorer (and possibly Opera)

IE7 screenshots' fair use claims advise us to use freely available replacement images whenever possible. The IE7 screenshot as used on this page illustrates web browsers, not the specific Internet Explorer browser. A screenshot of Firefox or another open-source browser can portray web browsers as well as screenshots of Internet Explorer can, but are less risky (with regards to copyright). Out of the open source browsers, Iceweasel is probably the least risky because both the software and the logo are freely licensed (GNU GPL) while Firefox's logo isn't.

Explorer is, however, the most widely-used web browser, but that fact does not make Explorer more illustrative of web browsers than less popular, more freely licensed browsers. SteveSims 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The IE7 image was replaced with one of IE6. The most popular version of IE (IE6) must be used as the main image instead of an image of IE7 if being the most popular web browser justifies a fair use claim for this page's main imageSteveSims 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • A screenshot of a browser using the unbranded Firefox globe would also work. I will replace the article's main screenshot with one of a browser without image restrictions (i.e., not Firefox, Explorer, or Opera). I'm having trouble finding a screenshot of Iceweasel showing the main Wikipedia page so I might just use one with the unbranded Firefox globe, even though most browsers using it are betas. WP:Bold. SteveSims 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • My replacement will probably be uploaded tomorrow, so if anyone has a screenshot of an acceptable browser for the main image they should post it. SteveSims 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Business Model

I keep wondering what is the business model of developping a browser: it is costly and complicated, available for free, can bring damaging legal troubles (in the case of Microsoft)... the very existence of a browser war indicates companies or communities (in the case of free software like Firefox) vie for the predominance of 'their' browser. Thomas

Hmm. Mozilla corporation turns over tens of millions of dollars each year. As far as I know, all it does is pay for Mozilla to be made. How is it not a company? There are different business models in different places. This article is so heavily desktop-oriented that I amnot sure it is worth pointing out the non-desktop ones, but basically people buy mobile browsers (except for Opera mini) - and many browsers get a lot of search-generated revenue Chaals 15:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote Bill Gates, interviewed as part of PBS's 1998 special "A Brief History of the Internet" (Part 2, approximately 53 minutes into Part 2):

"Microsoft's never been accused of not knowing how to make money [laughs]. It's pretty straightforward: if you sell volume software, you can do quite well. Now, in order to keep Windows very strong, we felt having a free browser, that promoted our extensions, as well, as providing the power of all the other standards, that was critical to our strategy. And so the browser investment is totally paid for by the fact that it helps Windows. And Windows is a very good, quite profitable business." Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.208.94 (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The freebie browser also helped Microsoft kill off a powerful competitor called Netscape. Netscape was THE dominant browser with powerful influence over HTML/javascript standards (introducing many new extensions to what was, originally, a bland text-only web). But then Microsoft decided to give away its browser for free. Goodbye Netscape's revenue & eventually the company was bought out, so Microsoft's strategy was not just to strengthen its Windows OS, but also to weaken the competition and drive them out of business. - Theaveng (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSS history correction - not an MS proposal

The first CSS Recommendation from W3C lists Håkon Wium Lie (then of W3C, now of Opera) and Bert Bos (W3C) as authors. It explicitly acknowledges other proposals from Pei Wei (of Viola fame), Joe English, and Robert Raisch as having influenced their proposal. But this is the first time I have seen CSS accredited to MS. They did have a stylesheet mechanism in Word in the 80s, but it was nothing like CSS beyond the basic fact of being a style sheet system (one of the many around before the web). There are further references in Arve Bersvendsens post on CSS history Chaals 14:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toolbar not valid for browser share

  • "Browser Market Share, July 2007, courtesy of Net Applications, a marketing company which obtains its data from the Alexa Toolbar or related products. Because people who install these products on their computers are not always aware that the product reports web browsing habits back to the marketers at Alexa some security software considers the Alexa Toolbar spyware and removes it. Both the automated removal-as-spyware and the self-selecting nature of those who install software that reports on personal web browsing habits raises questions as to whether the resulting data represents a unbiased statistical sample of Internet users."
I don't think this is a very accurate source. I would think that the Alexa toolbar is more commonly used in Internet Explorer than, say, Safari and Firefox. Also, looking at stats from various popular non-computer blogs indicate that Firefox and Opera are a a couple percent more popular than this source indicates and that IE is a couple percent lower than this indicates. I guess it's a bit trivial, but is there a better source than people who decide to install toolbars? (And why is the stat for IE bold?) Althepal 19:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flock?

Yea, this line in the first part: "Recently a new web browser has came out of the blue, Flock. Its like a Firefox, but better.", should be modified and moved to reduce bias to the new browser, despite it being good. Thanks!

~Ark =^-^=

~Ark =^-^= 06:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Explorer as featured picture

You chose the most non standards compliant, slow and adware ready browser to feature on this page. Well done, I thought you guys used the best (open stuff like GNU/Linux and Wikis).....--172.141.26.85 16:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay.. IE isn't standards compliant so I added the existing screenshot of Firefox2 (Ubuntu Linux) from the Commons. --RaviC 16:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Argh. Can we pick a primary browser screenshot and stick with it already? People keep changing it, despite the fact that it has discussed several times on this page. In the past few weeks/months alone it's gone from IE7 to IE6, then to Konqueror, then to IE7, then to Firefox...Doesn't matter to me whether we go with the most "free" image or the most popular browser, but one of the two should be picked and reverted back to if anyone else decides to change it. And it makes no sense to pick the browser based on how well it supports standards. Wikipedia is not a product guide. --ADeveria 17:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If we read this very talk page, it seems that, pending further research by User:Wikiolap, the choice of FF (or some other freely licensed browser) has consensus. I am restoring it to just the FF image. -Seidenstud 18:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a thought: Why don't we display the original popular browser that gave birth to the web? i.e. NCSA's Mosaic browser without which the web might never have got off the ground. It makes sense to pay homage to the browser that created the "boom" in WWW growth.
Here's another thought: Fighting over "which is better", Firepox or Exploder, is as silly as fighting over which computer is better, Commodore 64 or Atari 800. It was juvenile then; and it's juvenile now. Who cares which is better??? I don't and neither should you. To borrow a phrase from William Shatner aka Captain Kirk, "Get a life." (I'm just joking; sort of.) - Theaveng (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Why won't you use the Amaya browser since it is the browser the W3C uses to test new HTML, plus it W3C compliant, or the NCSA's Mosaic browser since it was the first browser just like Theaveng said. --Antonio Lopez (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] REFERENCES TO NEIL LARSON

I would like to see any reference to the fist part of the history of web browsers, because I could not find that info in any other site in the web. Please I would really like to see some references to the history of Neil Larson. Thanks. Cesar 200.122.176.140 (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] DO NOT edit other persons' talk entries

The person named Wikiolap edited my recent entry from this: "Fighting over which is better, Firepox or Exploder." to "Explorer". This is NOT acceptable behavior. You do NOT change other people's words w/o their permission. - Theaveng (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what a shame he changed that since it's such a gut-rippingly and refreshingly original pun you have inserted there. Oh, no, really. My sides. Please. Stop. You know what Captain Kirk would say to you.139.48.25.61 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
He'd probably tell you to stop insulting me. ----- Theaveng (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of web browser

The History section takes up about 75% of the article.--Kozuch (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

First, if the section does split, I hope it's called "History of web browsers" or "History of the web browser". "History of web browser" just sounds strange.
Second, browser wars also contains some history, and may be another article to consider in the merge. -Clueless (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lolifox - another web browser to add to the list

Sorry, I am not familiar on which area it should be added in. |lolifox

Thanks, Marasama (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop using this article to Advertise your favorite browser

Whether your favorite is Explorer, Firefox, or some other brand... doesn't matter. This page should not be used as "free advertising" to try to promote your favorite. The browser that is currently being used for the top image is a NEUTRAL image, and specifically chosen not to promote/denigrate anybody. Please leave it as is. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)