Is This REALLY Neccessary?

[UncFester]

I was browsing some game stats on a particular song when I noticed this at the very bottom of the page:

"You seem to be running Internet Explorer. This site is best viewed in a better browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox."

Now, some people like this browser, that browser, or some other browser. Who fricken cares so much that they put crap like that on a Web page?

Fact is, I also use Firefox at times and don't see any damned difference between what I see with IE or Firefox.

A so-called "better browser" is a subjective choice regardless. This is like the MAC vs PC nonsense at best.

/rant

[Passerby]

I was browsing some game stats on a particular song when I noticed this at the very bottom of the page:

"You seem to be running Internet Explorer. This site is best viewed in a better browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox."

Now, some people like this browser, that browser, or some other browser. Who fricken cares so much that they put crap like that on a Web page?

Fact is, I also use Firefox at times and don't see any damned difference between what I see with IE or Firefox.

A so-called "better browser" is a subjective choice regardless. This is like the MAC vs PC nonsense at best.

/rant

it isn't subjective, some versions of IE do a horrible job at following web standards, and usually require a lot of extra work to make a page render properly on them.

though better wording should have been used, such as removeing the term better, and just saying it is best viewed in Firefox and chrome.

[S.]

[GeoLuz]

I have used both Internet Explorer and Google Chrome for the Audiosurf site. I find that Google Chrome renders a better viewing of the Audiosurf site than Internet Explorer. With the Internet Explorer, the Audiosurf site feels little slower than when the site is viewed in Google Chrome. It's not subjective, the message at the bottom of the page seems to be true.

[GeoLuz]

I would like to add that Internet Explorer is my default browser. However, I prefer to use Google Chrome to view the Audiosurf site because it is more efficient for the site in question.

[UncFester]

I would like to add that Internet Explorer is my default browser. However, I prefer to use Google Chrome to view the Audiosurf site because it is more efficient for the site in question.

I tried Google's Chrome way back when it first came out and wasn't impressed with it at the time.
As for Firefox, it seems to load pages just as fast as IE8 and the page appearance seems to be the same.

I'll give Chrome another try since they've had a long enough time to improve the thing.

In my opinion, it's still a subjective matter unless/until a page has a substantial difference in one browser over the other. My connection is fast enough that if a couple of milliseconds load time is wasted, it's not significant enough for me to notice.

So... where are all of the Opera and Safari zealots in this thread?

[UncFester]

Well...I'll be damned!!!

Just installed Chrome and it is faster than IE8 or Firefox!

It's actually noticeable!

I can't seem to use enough sentences ending in exclamation marks about this revelation!

So...I guess the notice at the bottom of the page I originally complained about was speaking half of the truth -- eliminate the mention of Firefox and it will be completely true!

[Passerby]

I would like to add that Internet Explorer is my default browser. However, I prefer to use Google Chrome to view the Audiosurf site because it is more efficient for the site in question.

I tried Google's Chrome way back when it first came out and wasn't impressed with it at the time.
As for Firefox, it seems to load pages just as fast as IE8 and the page appearance seems to be the same.

I'll give Chrome another try since they've had a long enough time to improve the thing.

In my opinion, it's still a subjective matter unless/until a page has a substantial difference in one browser over the other. My connection is fast enough that if a couple of milliseconds load time is wasted, it's not significant enough for me to notice.

So... where are all of the Opera and Safari zealots in this thread?

my point was sometime web-pages render completely different on IE so it isn't only rendering speed,

and besides im a Opera user and i get no warning and the page renders extremely fast with identical results to FF, and Safari is actually the same render engine as chrome so it should get the exact same results as chrome since they are both web-kit browsers.

and why the term zealots, this is'nt about pushing a browser on someone, it gives the warning because the web dev knows the page wont render properly on all browsers, so he suggests a few that will Render it properly.

[UncFester]

and why the term zealots,...

Because I was making a subtle joke.

There are other kinds of zealots but I will refrain for the moment.

[S.]

Ugh, back in the days when I used IE, I tried out Firefox.

It gave me more errors in one day than I had ever seen on IE the past year.

I prefer IE over FF


Using Chrome now though.

[blue_h3x]

Chrome's faster, but more resource hungry and degrades at high tab usage. Also there's many privacy concerns about Chrome and how often it likes to phone home, and what it calls about.
IE9 is actually faster in many cases that any browser out there, and fully compliant as far as the acid3 test is concerned.
Firefox does large volumes of tabs well, and works for those who use tabs more so. Firefox's extensive dev tools is also useful if you do web dev.

In previous versions of IE (talking IE6 here) the page would render so differently that you would end up making two forms of the same site for IE6 compatibility and the rest. Though now IE9 is pretty much spot on, and between IE, FF and O there's next to no difference.

On one hand, having your site not function well due to a browser can be annoying, but I'd prefer to take the stance that any decent developer will get their site to work on all the popular browsers and not spend time bitching about this over that. I prefer X, but I'm happy I have a choice.

In short, my answer to the original question would be: no.

[UncFester]

It would be nice if I could test IE9 on my home machine -- alas, ' tis still XP Pro until Santa (or my fairy godmother) comes through with some expendable cash.

We've a lot of machines at my workplace running XP Pro, Vista and Win 7. But without being able to compare the different browsers on my own machine (the workplace machines all suck badly) I'll just have to take anecdotal evidence of IE9 being better than IE8.

I've heard that Chrome opens a new process for each tab, so that probably explains the resource appetite you mentioned.

This entire afternoon has been spent jumping back and forth between Chrome, IE8 and Firefox to see just how much difference there might be (or not) between certain pages on each browser and the differences are so small as to be nonexistent.

The speed of Chrome is the only thing which has really jumped out and hit me.

As to your advisement about privacy concerns in Chrome (phoning home, etc.) I'll try to restrict my visits to porn sites unless using the other two browsers.   Just kidding. Actually, the Web pages I visit would probably bore them to death if they bothered to do a detailed look at my habits.

[leileilol]

I just use the built-in browser in Audiosurf.

[UncFester]

I just use the built-in browser in Audiosurf.

Will it go anywhere but Audio-Surf?

Probably not, but then, I never even thought to try (if there's an address window, that is).

[NovaTerran]

I've used firefox for almost 10 years now, I love it too much, it's all personal preferences.
Also firefox 4 is a lot faster than the older firefox if you haven't tried it since then.