Print
Internet Explorer
As the most targeted browser on the planet, the onus falls on Microsoft to ensure IE doesn't leave millions of users as sitting ducks. IE7 ushered in a defensive mindset that hadn't been attributed to previous versions, and for the first time, browsing on IE felt secure. Active X controls no longer ran by default, users are protected from an attack called cross-domain scripting, and a new phishing fliter warns users who are about to visit a malicious website attempting to harvest personal information.
In IE8, even more safety guards are put in place. Phishing and malware protection has been revamped with a new SmartScreen Filter. When visiting a known phishing site, not only does the Address bar turn red, but the entire browser window as well. To click through to the questionable site anyway, users must first click on 'More information' before the option to 'Disregard and continue appears.' Even then, the Address bar remains red for as long as you stay on the unsafe site.
In addition to anti-phishing measures, the SmartScreen filter hones in on sites and servers known to distribute malware. Should you attempt to download from one of these locations, a dialog box appears letting you know you may be in for more than you bargained for.
One of the most talked about features in IE8 is the new InPrivate browsing mode, or more candidly referred to on the web as 'porn mode.' InPrivate browsing leaves no traces of your browsing session behind, such as cookies, cached files, browser history, or other incriminating evidence. This isn't just helpful for hiding your tracks when looking up Katie Morgan's latest acting role, but is also useful for gift shopping during the holidays or birthdays. Other possible uses include looking up banking information on a shared computer, researching health issues, and anything else you want kept private.
Firefox
With its continued rise in popularity, Mozilla no longer has the luxury of resting on its laurels when it comes to Firefox's security. Building a secure browser has always been at the forefront of Mozilla's goals anyhow, only now Firefox has grown into a worthwhile target for hackers.
As an incremental upgrade, much of the same core security components in Firefox 3.0 find their way into 3.1. Phishing attempts are still thwarted with a less than subtle warning, and clicking a website's favicon brings up a security report. Clicking the 'More Information' button reveals whether or not the site is storing cookies on your PC, if you've saved any passwords for the site, and how many times you've visited that web page in the past.
Sites like Playboy.com, MacLife.com, and DetroitLions.com should all see an increase in hits once the next generation of browsers roll out, because nearly all of them include some form of privacy browsing to cover your tracks. In Firefox 3.1, you can initiate Private Browsing mode from the Tools menu. Only the files you choose to download and bookmarks you create are saved, everything else vanishes as if the session never took place. Kind of like the Detroit Lions' 2009 season.
Opera
Because of its low market share, Opera doesn't often find itself the center of security attacks. Nevertheless, the Opera team has generally been lightening quick to plug up security holes and vulnerabilities.
There hasn't been a whole lot said about the security in Opera 10, but one change forthcoming is that widgets no longer have network access turned on by default. In theory, this new security model should should help prevent hackers from exploiting errors in widgets.
Neither Opera 9.6 or the new Alpha build offer a true privacy browsing mode, though that could change as development continues on Opera 10. For the time being, users can cover their tracks by clicking on 'Delete Private Data' in the Tools menu. The downside is that all data will be released, not just the cache from the current browsing session, making it an all or nothing affair.
Chrome
Google's Chromium team approached security from the standpoint that no matter what you do, eventually your browser will be compromised. That would normally spell doom for an otherwise healthy system, but in Chrome, running processes in a permissions-based sandbox keeps malware isolated from the OS. In this multi-process architecture, each tab is a treated as a separate process, none of which are given rights to write files to the hard drive or pluck information from sensitive areas. An added benefit to this approach is that if poorly written web code causes a crash, it only affects the individual tab it was loaded in, not the entire browser.
(Image Credit: Google)
The downside to Chrome's sandboxing approach is that it depends on Windows for its security, making it susceptible to vulnerabilities in the OS. In addition, legacy file systems, like FAT32, don't support security descriptors, preventing some USB keys and other devices from being protected by the sandbox.
Maybe you're a Miley Cyrus fan but don't want the whole world to know it, or at the very least, your immediate family. With Chrome's incognito option, you can surf wherever you want on the web in a new browser window that runs in read-only mode. Once you close the window, all traces of your activity are wiped out.
Safari
If Apple added (or plans to add) any underlying security enhancements to Safari 4, it isn't saying what they are. The same security and privacy features present on version 3.2 are also present on version 4, only now they're being more actively marketed (note that none of Safari 4's security features are listed as 'new').
While there doesn't appear to be much new in version 4, Safari already boasts some modern security measures, including phishing protection, pop-up blocking, antivirus integration, and a Private Browsing mode. There's also a 'Reset Safari' option to erase all traces of your browsing with a single mouse click.
Comments are closed on this article
nitin123
April 04, 2012 at 6:06am
for you and examine out new products you publish. I was very grateful to see this website. I desired to thank you for this excellent read! I'm definitely experiencing every little search
brooklyn wedding photographers
jimmy123
March 12, 2012 at 9:53am
Microsoft ended a five year infringement after burying Netscape in the ground and finally jumped back into the browser prey with a long overdue update. easter quotes The IE strip went back to the plan crew and totally reworked the browser's supplying engine, also adding tabbed browsing and add-ons to the mix, and then finished it off with a facelift. mothers day quotes
janenobelk285
January 12, 2012 at 4:47pm
I think the reason why memory is not that big issue (in general) is because memory prices are very cheap, and almost no one talks about how much memory this or that program requires. India tours
ScotWetherington
January 07, 2012 at 12:15am
This was really a fun read. Thanks a lot for sharing this!
Robertpeterson27
October 29, 2011 at 12:14am
I Have found this resource so useful and informative. I commented it very often but now I think it is too good to comment here. OEM Manufacturers
jagitacopper
September 14, 2011 at 4:55am
Intimately, the post is really the greatest on this worthwhile topic. I match in with your conclusions and can eagerly look forward to your next updates..
rockybotha
September 13, 2011 at 10:08pm
I have been searching for some information about it almost three hours. You helped me a lot indeed and reading this your article I have found many new and useful information about this subject.<a href="http://www.facebookstatus123.com/category/famous-facebook-status">Famous Facebook Status</a>
dannadanna
July 18, 2011 at 5:28am
I hate IE...is too slowly.I use Mozzila...working better than IE. funny quotes
franks
July 13, 2011 at 12:20am
The best browser in speed has been Opera so far. Firefox is good for website developers - the firebug is awesome, to say the least. Google Chrome has some cool features, but the size iof install is the largest, it also is kind of slow. Internet Explorer has shown some improvements in a new IE 9 version. Very fast and secure browser.
jimenoni
May 28, 2011 at 11:46pm
I am prosperous to wit so homey utilizable grouping here in the dos, we chemical get communicator strategies in this curtilage, thanks for lug. best wishes
jimenoni
April 24, 2011 at 10:26pm
Victimized with unmingled situations is unrest unsmooth and I cerebrate we tie to be spanking assured in hiding with nonelective situations. Fascinating things mentioned here in this objurgate. Ngo you funny wishes
jimenoni
April 24, 2011 at 6:34am
Rale galvanising penalization. Transactions has been handwritten in hit overnice enounce. I tap accruement this palatalised of becalm. Thanks for coitus gaolbreak noesis. funny life quotes
yamahog
April 28, 2009 at 10:27am
I havent found any browser that I really like yet, firefox crashes almost as much as IE7, chrome ? meybe some day. I just whant a simple fast browser that works on all web sites and has easy to organise favorites, kind of like what Netscape used to be, and I dont need fricken tabs thats what I use the links bar for doh!
bigboehmboy
April 03, 2009 at 6:08pm
"The downside to Chrome's sandboxing approach is that it depends on Windows for its security, making it susceptible to vulnerabilities in the OS."
Not any more than any other browser is susceptible to these vulnerabilities...
"In addition, legacy file systems, like FAT32, don't support security descriptors, preventing some USB keys and other devices from being protected by the sandbox."
Chrome's "sandboxing" refers to the fact that separate tabs are in separate processes which means that a malicious script in one tab can't access the RAM segment owned by procecess for other tabs. It has nothing to do with NTFS file permissions.
mojosico
March 16, 2009 at 11:32pm
man i guess its ok to like firefox i used to be a big fan till vista wouldnt play nice with it . i recently downloaded firefox 3 to see how long it would take me to find all the extensions to equal what comes standard in opera . 4 FRICKIN HOURS !!!! wtf!!!!! and it still crashes i thought ff 3 was supposed to be soo much better . and chrome and safari , one tirck ponies . was not happy with ie 8 either . i guess different strokes for different folks . i really think people should give opera a chance since they are the real inavators . first to have most all of the important features that the other browsers copy off of . i resepct mozilla sticking it to microsoft but firefox users that wont try anthing else kinda sound like mac users oh dont dought steve jobs and yes we drank the kool-aid . lol !! ff 3 users say all the simalar things about mozilla oh everything is happy and shiny over here . man step outa the box try something new dont be a zombie .
bob818
March 12, 2009 at 12:07pm
It would be nice to see Google and Firefox get together and produce 1 super-browser. (Firechrome?) Use the Firefox add-ins and the speed of Chrome...I think Microsoft would start to sweat, if they are not already. IE is just to slow and bulky.
Naw-yi
March 10, 2009 at 10:47am
about:config is the best reason to use firefox. then the add-ons to personalize the browser to individual preferences.
xinoy
March 09, 2009 at 2:27am
Greate test, i am going to use the safari now i guess.
Surf IT Webdesign Twente
www.surf-it.nl
leifab
March 06, 2009 at 10:53am
Chrome 2.0 should have been included for completeness of the article. It passes the acid3 test with a 99.5 (see picture for what i mean about that)
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/193/acid3chrome2.png
smashingpumpin
March 06, 2009 at 7:42am
If only Firefox would've fix "Bookmarks" folders to arrange itself alphabetically without using "Organize Bookmarks" I'd give it a 9/10. (Vista 32, Firefox 3.0.7). On previous versions, I could just right click under Bookmarks and click "sort by name/folder" and it does it automatically. I find this quite a hassle as I have tons of saved links (mostly social sites, Youtube vids and, obcourse, gulp, streaming porn and the like lol). Maybe its just my configuration and maybe there's an add-on out there that i'm too lazy to find out about. Hmm I wonder if upcoming 3.1's private browsing, err... "porn mode" is just a dumb-downed built in CCleaner, or just another name for "Clear Private data" hehehe.
_______________________________________________
...tab porn surfing FTW!
master1121
March 06, 2009 at 6:18am
Chrome does not treat each tab seaprately. There were many times where I opened over 20+ tabs and if one of the java or media format get screwed up all of the tabs get screwed up. Do not know if a updated fix it, been 3 months since I used chrome.
somecomputernerd
March 07, 2009 at 8:48am
first off. Chrome 1.0 does NOT treat each tab seperately. However, Chrome 2.0 does. But we get back to memory. At about 4 tabs lower PCs start screaming. Each tab uses an average of 5000 k. Each tab with javascript, 20000 k. While I love how it will only lose one website, it is a memory hog.
Second. Memory. Chrome is great if you have a higher end PC. Chrome 1.0 hits the acid test with a 79, Chrome 2.0 hits 100, and Chrome Portable hits 100. But Firefox uses less memory. Hits acid with a 71. Firefox total uses about 20000 k memory. Chrome is obviously on the same direction as Internet Explorer. While Chrome 2.0 is currently available by the beta channel, (google Chrome 2.0 if you want to upgrade) portable can be found without changing channels.
Third. Chrome does not have a spellcheck implemented or a favorates icon. You can only get to favorates if you start a new tab or type it in. What a pain in the ass.
Fourth. While Chrome is stable, there is a annoying tab bug with 2.0... But while I have had it for about a day, I only know of that one so far. Javascript seems to mess with Chrome's code the most.
Fifth. Cool UI. But a browser is not on how it looks, how it performs.
Overall:
Firefox would be best for users who use 6 or 7 tabs and have a lower end PC. Firefox still loads pretty fast. But Chrome is really for users who are gonna operate two tabs at once. lol really, only then will you use less memory than Firefox. Firefox is more open to personality than Chrome IMO. For you morons complaining about the Awesome Bar, how often do you look at options? Wow. Safari has no chance against Firefox or Chrome. Considering about 10% of PC users use MAC, Linex, or whatever. Safari is a HUGE joke for Windows users. Internet Explorer is honestly a joke too. Opera is catching up in the wars.
IMO, the list of browsers are as follows.
1. Firefox
2. Chrome
3. Opera
4. Safari
5. Internet Explorer (omg Bill Gates give up and rewrite the damn thing)
Firefox scores 1 for memory conservation, speed, options, features, and stabibility.
siimonscuttle
March 06, 2009 at 2:46am
Once they add 1-click RSS support to Chrome, then the battle's over as far as I'm concerned. Faster, more real estate, searching from the address bar just makes sense.
MentalNotes
March 06, 2009 at 2:44am
Strictly speaking, Apple did not give "birth to the WebKit rendering engine". Webkit is a fork of KHTML, the rendering engine from KDE's Konqueror browser.
Beatnink
March 06, 2009 at 1:13am
Just about all browsers fall foul of claiming valueable screen real estate with their fancy toolbars and prominent tabs. Few allow you to reposition your toolbars so that they can be squashed up. And apart from Google Chrome, all waste extra space with having a title bar.
I keep trying different new / updated browsers but so far I haven't found one browser that recognises that the most import aspect of the browser is to show as much as possible in the browser window itself.
In fact, I keep going back to Avant Browser because it gives me good flexibility over the toolbars, even if it does fall foul as well of having the title bar take up valueable screen real estate. I would have been tempted to switch over to Chrome, but its still too basic in that it does not support plugins like RoboForm.
Ron, Wellington, New Zealand
Bishounen
March 05, 2009 at 10:08pm
The So-Called "Awesome Bar" is anything BUT Awesome. Not only is it's behavior non-intuitive, it breaks with expectations of what a URL bar SHOULD do, and you CANNOT CONTROL IT'S BEHAVIOR!
For example, it will AT RANDOM select items from your bookmarks and/or history to display when you are typing something in. (Always fun when you are trying to get to Maximum PC and the address for some porn site pops up in the search results on the drop-down, complete with boobie icon while your wife is looking over your shoulder! Now that's "Awesome"!) The algorithm it uses to determine results is horrendous, and it's nearly impossible to train properly. Oh yes, and the text and icons are so HUGE you can't see more than 10 entries before it scrolls off the bottom of your screen. HUGE WASTE OF SCREEN REAL ESTATE! Essentially, each and every function that Mozilla touts about it are PRECISELY the functions that make it a problem! In short, it STINKS.
Yet despite howls of protest from hundreds of people, the Mozilla devs continue to flip the user base the bird and FORCE people to use the Awful Bar rather than simply make the darn thing an extension that people can add on using the built-in add-ons functionality.
Thus, I (and many, many others) have been forced back to FF2 until somebody spends some time smacking the Mozilla devs around with the clue bat.
Not gonna use FF3 EVER, won't use IE (I LIKE my PC virus free, thank you!) Chrome is STILL a buggy mess, and Opera, while nice, has no extensibility built in, and is WAAAAAAY too strict with the way it renders pages, breaking most sites. And Safari? If I had a Mac, sure. The Win version stinks, and there is no Lin version.
Wahoo. :|
HeartBurnKid
March 06, 2009 at 3:02pm
Install Oldbar to get rid of the "HUGE WASTE OF SCREEN REAL ESTATE!"
Go to about.config and set browser.urlbar.matchOnlyTyped to True to get rid of the bookmarks and history popping in "AT RANDOM".
As for your obviously dysfunctional Caps Lock key, you're on your own. :)
Personally, I like the AwesomeBar, I think the URL bar was long overdue for a rethink, and I wouldn't ever want to go back to the old way of doing things, but to each his own.
gordonjc
March 06, 2009 at 8:50am
the link is here --
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/06/17/dont-think-the-firefox-3-awesome-bar-is-awesome-heres-how-t/
-- but, in short, go into about:config and set browser.urlbar.maxRichResults to zero (it's the number of items to show in the awesome bar drop down). setting it to zero will still show you ONE, but it's much better than 12. you can also get a FF2 URL bar with the "Oldbar" extension.
even if you keep awesome bar as is, you can prevent it from showing embarassing URLs by not bookmarking them, not tagging them and clearing your history - those are the three places it gets URLs from - if it's not in any of those lists, it can't display it.
Bishounen
March 06, 2009 at 11:18am
You suggestion, while appreciated, does NOT fix the issue.
Trust me, I've done everything short of learning to code and rolling my own version. Extensions DO NOT WORK. Screwing around in about:config DOES NOT WORK. The problem is that the old behavior has been REMOVED from FF3! There is NO WAY to get it back.
So please don't waste my time spouting all the tired old pretend "fixes" when there isn't any practical method of getting the old url bar back without reverting to FF2.
vrroom
March 09, 2009 at 5:04am
dude, take it easy hahaha. You're life really depends on it, doesn't it? It's not easy to try and take you serious haha. Learning about and dealing with CAPS might help.
nuculerman
March 05, 2009 at 8:10pm
I think this is the real war. Safari and IE aren't going to keep up, and Opera has never had the number of users needed to really compete.
I currently spend my time between Chrome and Firefox. Firefox is more polished and thus is my default browser. Chrome, however, has a -lot- of potential. It's faster, and the google address bar is almost as good as the awesomebar already. However, Firefox is much less buggy and much more customizable, so it's currently winning the war, IMO. Currently, having used all the browsers listed here, I think the best to worst goes:
1. Firefox
2. Chrome
3. Saphari
4. Opera
5. Internet Explorer
This is all the stable releases, mind you. Except Chrome which I guess is still technically in beta.
willsmith
March 06, 2009 at 8:52am
For what it's worth, Opera is the third or fourth most popular browser on Maximum PC on any given day. It just passed IE6 with a total of about 10% of overall share year-to-date. Chrome is hovering around 4%.
We're an enthusiast site, but I would have expected Chrome to take that spot earlier. When Chrome adds extension support, that will change things, I think. However, until I can get mouse gestures and Greasemonkey, it'll be hard for me to use Chrome regularly.
kingspatula
March 05, 2009 at 6:12pm
I have Chrome and IE and neither do it. Haven't tried opera and safari but yea it is nice to have not only an Awesome Bar, but a smart Awewsome Bar.
amacieli
March 05, 2009 at 12:52pm
and can someone explain to be in non-fanboi language why i should care about "wars" and what the "wars" are about anyway. so what if i use IE rather than FF. what revenue do the creators get from me using FF, for example? nothing, right? no adverts, no forced links to sites i don't want to see, nothing. so what's the big deal? for example, just because safari 4 might be good does not mean (at all!) that i will start using other apple products (frantically finds a scrap of wood to touch).
wrobin
March 05, 2009 at 1:19pm
The reason the browser wars matter is because whoever controls the browser, controls the internet.
Microsoft figured out a long time ago that as the web gets more and more full featured, operating systems matter less and less.
So Microsoft's approach has been to try use it's huge OS install base to get people to use IE, which they could in turn build in features that would make it so that webpages that work with IE wouldn't work with Netscape (and later Firefox, Opera, etc).
If you can do everything you need to do on the web (which honestly most people who aren't either gaming or video encoding can do) then it doesn't really matter what OS you use. If it doesn't matter what OS you use, it's going to be pretty difficult for MS to sustain their OS prices.
The browser wars are essentially the fight for the future of computing.
Paul_Lilly
March 05, 2009 at 1:18pm
"what revenue do the creators get from me using FF, for example? nothing, right?"
Actually, quite the contrary. You bring up a good point that's probably deserving of a more lenghty introduction, but to answer your question, there's big money involved in dominating the browser market. This primarily comes from the default search bar, for which Google and others shell out oodles of money.
To give you some hard numbers, Google paid $57 to Mozilla in 2006 to remain the browser's default search option, which accounted for 85 percent of Mozilla's total revenue. More recently, Google inked a 3-year deal with Mozilla that extends its contract to 2011, and ensures Mozilla will have enough funding to pay its staff, support its bandwidth and hardware infrastructure, and continue to distribute grants.
Make no mistake - browser makers have a vested interest in being your default browser that goes beyond just being a good samaritan.
kwanbis
March 05, 2009 at 9:31pm
That is not correct.
Google pay that much to Mozilla, as per their search agreement.
Like,
each time you search using firefox with the google search bar, the same
for others, Mozilla gets a little of the revenue that Google has on
adsense.Is not much, but multiply it by the millions of users of Firefox, and the millions of search per day, and you have a big number.
Is the same principle that works for adSense.
Cadmium
March 05, 2009 at 2:20pm
"...Google paid $57 to Mozilla in 2006 to remain the browser's default
search option, which accounted for 85 percent of Mozilla's total
revenue."So Mozilla made around $70 in 2006?
Paul_Lilly
March 05, 2009 at 3:40pm
Correct. According to the numbers floating around the web, Mozilla pulled in roughly $67 million in 2006, and about $75 million in 2007 (91 percent of which came from Google).
NeauxFear
March 05, 2009 at 6:04pm
I think he was trying to tell you that you wrote "$57" instead of "$57 million."
amacieli
March 05, 2009 at 12:43pm
so, well, i do like chrome and how fast it is (actually, srware iron, because i need a tin hat) but the damn thing crashes on every third site, including youtube and google maps. pdf files don't feel much love either. inevitably i use chrome for doing things like "300 gbp in usd" and leave website building for FF3 and IE8. and pretty much the only thing wrong with IE8 that i care about is the speed, which needs a serious boost.
gilleshache
March 05, 2009 at 10:34am
The features are nice for most browser. Getting IE to comply more can only be good...But nobody seems to look at memory usage for all the browsers....
IE8 RC1...Each tab that you open is a separate process in the task manager...200Metg per tab for an empty tab!
IE7...Memory hog also. Hit almost 200Megs on the first page you open and each new tab doesn't make it better.
I tried Firefox...Hit the 100-150 also and has you add tab naturally gets a lot higher.
The one I prefer: Chrome. Each tab takes between 30-40megs depending. Even it is still high it is doing better than others. I did not try the other browser so won't say anything about thoses.
Personnaly 200 megs of memory just to open an applicaiton is ridiculuous. When I tried IE8 RC1 I open a couple of tab and notice memory usage. I pushed it open 20 tabs (all empty)....My machine went blue screen out of physical Memory!!!! And this was the release candidate which mean that it will pretty much it the market has is!!!
Gilles
penguinboy
March 05, 2009 at 9:57pm
Minefield (the nightly trunk build of Firefox) is actually pretty good about memory usage. Here's how things went as opened a few tabs:
1 tab, maximumpc.com: 45MB
add Tom's Hardware: 50MB
add economist.com: 59MB
add ugent.be: 59MB
add weather.com: 68MB
...keep adding tabs until I reach 12: 95MB
So, Firefox is getting better about memory usage. In Minefied, the memory use really seems to depend on what the content of the websites is. When I opened ugent.be, I didn't even notice it; the memory used got lost in the fluctuations caused by whatever background stuff Minefield was doing.
gamesfrager
March 05, 2009 at 12:38pm
I think the reason why memory is not that big issue (in general) is because memory prices are very cheap, and almost no one talks about how much memory this or that program requires.
I bought 8 GB of memory and it didn't break the bank. My 32 windows only see 2.75 GB and my firefox takes sometimes 250 MB, so what! I'm still left with 2.5 GB, and if I REALLY need memory for a game I just quit firefox and everyone is happy. So if a browser is consuming 500 MB which is really extreme, it is still nothing.
regards
urbanpt
March 06, 2009 at 5:54am
I don't agree. Memory is definitely a big issue. If you have a 1.5GHz+ cpu with 512MB of RAM it should be enough to give you a smooth web experience, but nowadays browsers eat memory as hell... Today a 4 year old PC struggles to have 5 or 6 tabs open, and I think it's only the browsers fault. If browsers swallow al the physical mem available, your PC will start swapping and everything will get extremelly slow.
Oh, and Flash is also accountable for this too.
PS: If you have 8GB RAM with a 32bit OS you might as well have tossed your money to the street. If you buy 4GB RAM (2x2GB) your 32bit Window$ should see it.
gamesfrager
March 07, 2009 at 5:36pm
I bought 8 GB because I was thinking I will do a lot of 3D rendering. I already have 64 bit xp installed.
But a 4 year old computer (and I hope it is a laptop) is really OLD. beside; you can easily upgrade it's memory to 3 GB. They are cheap now. So what is left? You can have 2.75 GB and in some cases xp 32Bit will recognize 3GB (my brother's PC does), so really there is no excuse for not having more than 1.5 GB of RAM.
MeTo
March 05, 2009 at 7:23am
The picture of the engine i think is a GM 2.0 litter 4 cylinder Ecotech Turbo.
Jeffredo
March 05, 2009 at 3:02am
Just typed in "Maxiumumpc" and hit enter. Went right to the website. Been using Opera for years - its just so polished and well thought out. The "issues" it has with some websites are slowly getting ironed out, but are frustrating enough I split my time between it and Firefox.
