What browser do all y'allins use?

[Kamean]

s]Safari[/s] Internet Explorer? Why?

Agreed. Internet Explorer - is a nightmare.

[Yawne Zize’ite]

s]Safari[/s] Internet Explorer? Why?

I use IE9 - on sites that don't work properly in Firefox.  I'm glad so few are left.

[Ekirä]

s]Safari[/s] Internet Explorer? Why?

I use IE9 - on sites that don't work properly in Firefox.  I'm glad so few are left.

People talk about needing IE for that purpose all the time, but I've yet to find one of those pages.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

IE 9 works like a charm. It is now FINALLY standards-compliant AND somewhat compatible with old pages with the compatibility view.

Other than that, I use Fx 5 and my Daedalus Browser (check my sig)

['Oma Tirea]

IE 9 works like a charm. It is now FINALLY standards-compliant AND somewhat compatible with old pages with the compatibility view.

* 'Oma Tirea still remains an IE user over FF

There are some things that that browser can do that the other browsers just can't And for most practical purposes, it is fine.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

I'm neutral about Fx vs IE (by the way, officially it is Fx and not FF) but pretty strong for IE when it comes to IE vs Chrome. Chrome doesn't have many extensions, phones home, is a closed source browser based on open-source Chromium, and isn't that faster than IE. Worst of all, Chrome doesn't have good protection against malware and phishing and no analogue to IE's SmartScreen filter (which from my experience works very well.) Of course I am talking about IE 9 here...

For Linux I use Konqueror. Yeah, its compatibility and JS speed are not very good, but the HTML loading speed is just...terrific. I'm begging KDE to continue devving KHTML and not switch to WebKit, which is made by Apple, the arch-enemy of all things open and free. Think about lock-in...

BTW Safari's font rendering doesn't compare with Windows ClearType or Freetype with hinting off. And with DirectDraw hardware acceleration technology IE 9 and Firefox 4+ the ClearType text doesn't look as rainbowy or fat as before. I am one of those few who actually like the new font anti-aliasing style in IE 9 and Fx 4.

[Tsäroltxe te Eyrutì Tantse'itan]

FF 5 looks just like Opera. haha.

I use IE9, Chrome, FF 5, Opera, and...Safari. 

Safari? Why?

I second this motion.  Honestly, is there anything Safari does that Chrome doesn't do better, other than demonstrate how your page will look to lazy Mac users?

Haha, I have Safari just to make fun of it.

[Ekirä]

FF 5 looks just like Opera. haha.

I use IE9, Chrome, FF 5, Opera, and...Safari. 

Safari? Why?

I second this motion.  Honestly, is there anything Safari does that Chrome doesn't do better, other than demonstrate how your page will look to lazy Mac users?

Haha, I have Safari just to make fun of it.

Oh, okay, that makes sense.

[Sіr. Ηaxalot]

Internet Explorer 9 is actually good. I've for a while b**** about that it's severely lacking on the mobile web page rendering is severely lacking, which is a bit irritating since I'm a Windows Phone 7 user and kinda locked in to IE9 Mobile.

However I've recently discovered that most compatibility issues is due to web designers that doesn't really know what they're doing with the CSS(3) markup. Unfortunately many mobile websites use the -webkit- preposition in their CSS markup, which is by no means complaint to any standards and just provided so that web designers should easily be able to correct rendering issues for specific engines. Of course using -webkit- prepositions without the real markup present is bad and will result in the website only working in webkit based browsers, such as the standard iOS and Android browser. It's very annoying because you can't really do anything more than complain on the web designer and hope that (s)he gives a f***.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

WebKit is actually very standards-NONcompliant because to make CSS3 work with webkit you have to use the -webkit- prefix. This is such a stupid idea. I'm thinking that this will throw web designing back to the Netscape vs IE phase, with tons of bloaty JavaScript deciding whether to ad the -webkit- or the -moz- prefix. Oh man, that is just WRONG!

[Yawne Zize’ite]

WebKit is actually very standards-NONcompliant because to make CSS3 work with webkit you have to use the -webkit- prefix. This is such a stupid idea. I'm thinking that this will throw web designing back to the Netscape vs IE phase, with tons of bloaty JavaScript deciding whether to ad the -webkit- or the -moz- prefix. Oh man, that is just WRONG!

You speak the truth.  Earlier this year I tried to set up a page with vertical text and learned how to do crude browser sniffing just to use the right tags (forget niceties like the right prefix, Webkit and IE use different tags), work around Chrome bugs, rotate the text (Opera), or do nothing (FF).  I guess that's why it's called cutting-edge; I got cut.

[bommel]

Safari on my Macbook, on all other machines Firefox

[Sіr. Ηaxalot]

WebKit is actually very standards-NONcompliant because to make CSS3 work with webkit you have to use the -webkit- prefix. This is such a stupid idea. I'm thinking that this will throw web designing back to the Netscape vs IE phase, with tons of bloaty JavaScript deciding whether to ad the -webkit- or the -moz- prefix. Oh man, that is just WRONG!

Well, the -moz- prefix is just as non standard compliant as the -webkit- prefix. I know for a fact that Firefox and IE does CSS3 according to the standards, without any prefixes and I'm pretty sure Opera and Webkit does too.

Also: TIL that Microsoft has a override tag on their own, the -ms- tag.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

IE does CSS3 without any prefixes. AFAIK Gecko (Firefox) used to require prefixes, but changed that in Fx 4. WebKit uses the -webkit- prefix, IDK if it supports straight CSS3.

[Sіr. Ηaxalot]

I doesn't consider a browser CSS3 compliant if it doesn't support straight CSS3.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

I doesn't consider a browser CSS3 compliant if it doesn't support straight CSS3.

Mllte.

[Takmeyalan te Tsu'erak 'Ewfwefpìkxap'itan]

I use Chrome, a lot. Like, a lot. =?