MrPhyntch said:
I would turn the question around on you, actually, OP. Why do you think that Internet Explorer needs defending?
Because nearly everyone on the internets (including some people in this very thread) liken it to the retard child of browsers, the scum on the bottom of Chrome's shoe, the browser you use to download and install a "good" browser. I think that lambasting is unfair and unwarranted and comes mostly from ignorance of how it actually is.
MrPhyntch said:
"It's passable", "It's on par", and "It's not as bad anymore" are hardly ringing endorsements.
No, but those are the same endorsements I'd give to Chrome and FF, which are hardly perfect either and are barely any different today than they were back when they became popular. I'm "endorsing" IE in the sense that I think it's an adequate browser option, which is all the credit that it deserves, but way more credit than it gets.
MrPhyntch said:
The fact that it's taken so long to catch up is going to get residual hate from when it was still behind, and then there's the likelihood that they'll just fall behind again.
I don't care how bad something
was or how bad it
might be some day, we should be judging browsers on how they actually are. Otherwise we're basically telling Microsoft that they shouldn't bother trying to improve IE because we'll never go back to it no matter what, and that's not a healthy attitude.
MrPhyntch said:
1. Firefox is so easy to add add-ons to, as well as find add-ons that you want, it's not funny.
This is the one concession I gave the other browsers over IE. I don't know why Microsoft hasn't tried to tackle this. Perhaps because nobody would be willing to make apps for it. Or maybe because Windows8 already has an app store.
Either way, I still believe the apps Chrome and FF have are overrated. 99% of them are standalone programs that just run in a browser rather than the desktop, many of the ones I've seen were glorified website links. The ones that are legitimate enhancements to the browser are nice, but should probably just be built in features so that they can run more efficiently.
MrPhyntch said:
2. Chrome doesn't collect nearly as much bloat over use as IE, in fact I was sold on it with their initial promise that it's physically impossible to add toolbars onto it. Add the fact that Chrome can run almost any Android-based app (if I'm not mistaken) and Chrome has its extra functionality, too.
You can control exactly how much bloat you want any browser to collect in the settings, and I find it ironic that you're complaining about bloat when you just just praised FF for it's ability to install tons of apps. Apparently the ability to add things to a browser is only a positive when it's not in bar form.
MrPhyntch said:
3. Safari works really well for those with apple-heavy focus, such as iTunes and similar stuff, due to product integration features.
Kinda like how IE integrates with Windows 8, allowing you pin tabs to the start menu and do other neat things that you can't do in third party browsers.
MrPhyntch said:
4. You CANNOT beat Opera in terms of speed. Period. It was designed as a light-weight browser from the get-go and is simply great for those with low-power systems.
I agree, you'll notice I gave a shoutout to Opera in my OP for being an underused browser. People are so fast to leap to Chrome that they don't even bother looking at what other browsers exist.