Talk:List of web browsers

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Software: Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance). Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Archive 1

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[K-Meleon#K-MeleonCCF ME|K-MeleonCCF ME]] The anchor (#K-MeleonCCF ME) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Ok, what about to add Cello (the first windows browser) and UdiWWW (the first html3 web browser) ? mabdul 20:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much impact did they have?

Tedickey (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

UdiWWW was widley used (as you could read in the article), cello was really buggy and it was fast overtook by overs releasing their browsers. mabdul 23:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get that impression from reading the topic; google suggests that it was only notable for about a year. I agree that a substantial amount of work has been done on the wikipedia topic.

Tedickey (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I just took Cello out of the 'notable' list: the above doesn't look like enthusiastic consensus for its greatness, and no-one can argue that it's up there with IE, Firefox, Mosaic etc. Next time someone does something with the impact of Chrome or Opera, we'll have a new one, I feel. --Nigelj (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google isn't able to even sample statistics out of US (Greater India, Nigeria and UK for instance), and possibly non-American sites keep invisible to avoid nosy FBI meddlings.

How about ViolaWWW? I will expand he article next week, but until this I do think that is notable as it was the first browser displaying inline images... mabdul 22:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Berners-Lee states in the first reference used in the ViolaWWW article that Mosaic was the first browser to get inline images working. It does appear that Mosaic resulted from Marc Andreessen being shown ViolaWWW; if true, then, if nothing else, it is historically notable. It is claimed to be the most popular browser prior to Mosaic. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ViolaWWW is indeed quite notable: it was the first to implement style sheets and in-browser scripting. It's also notable for suing Microsoft over prior art.Smallman12q (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BrowserChoice.eu

Should we add the list from BrowserChoice.eu into notable browsers:

Browsers listed

   * Chrome
   * Internet Explorer
   * Firefox
   * Opera
   * Safari

Second tier

   * Avant Browser
   * Flock
   * GreenBrowser
   * K-Meleon
   * Maxthon
   * Sleipnir
   * SlimBrowser

BrowserChoice.eu is supposed to list the most popular browsers by marketshare...at least according to eu.Smallman12q (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps as a see-also. That list is using different criteria, and merging would confuse things

Tedickey (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Second Life, which has had over 20 million downloads or so (est. number), with 800,000+ regular monthly users (see latest statistics), implements WebKit as the in-world browser, to the exclusion of any other. While "close to a million users" is not much in terms of the 3 billion or so Internet population, and hardly registers on the statistics, it's still one "major WebKit-based browser" out there. I wonder, thus, if it should be added to the list then...

Gwyneth Llewelyn (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Safari forks from Konqueror (well, WebKit from KHTML)... ok. But I'd say we should separate KHTML and WebKit after the Konqueror/Safari fork. -- ekerazha (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should Spyglass Mosaic really under Mosaic-based? It was a clean-room programmed application independent from Mosaic... mabdul 08:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then IE doesn't belong there either since it was based on Spyglass Mosaic. I think it is clear that the look of the Mosaic GUI was used for both Spyglass and IE. It is very unclear what "code base" means. Did NCSA Mosaic, Spyglass Mosaic and IE all use the same LIBWWW2 (as modified by NCSA)? If so, then it is a lie to say the code bases were separate. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW most of the browsers after Netscape were "Mozilla compatible"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.74.247.224 (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mabdul, Spyglass Mosaic isn't clean-room. Spyglass even had a contract regulating NCSA Mosaic's source code traffic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Waterfox? http://waterfoxproject.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.180.138.50 (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere: not

notable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Article exists (Waterfox) and it is notable because it is referenced in multiple third party sources. It would be good to see it added to the list here. Greenshed (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just found a much relevant link related with both Maciej J. Woloszyk and Vironix WORLD wide browsers (Connectix) without going through AhMIAfi!!! Does notability mean popularity, BTW? Vincent van Gogh was not popular...

I think the Webkit list should have Webkit2 and Blink sub-lists added. Both are derived from the original Webkit, but are significantly different. Note that there may be browsers that continue to be based up on the original Webkit as well as others based on Webkit2. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was never a public version of Opera 15 before Google forked it and created Blink which the current 15+ Opera versions are based on. --Unverbluemt (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is not readable at all!!

Sincerelly yours

--Cosy-ch (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a type of speciality browser used in education, for students doing exams. This locks down the students computer while it is running, to try to reduce the possibilities for cheating (however you define that). Two examples would be Safe Exam Browsr (http://www.safeexambrowser.org/) or Respondus Lockdown browser (https://www.respondus.com/products/lockdown-browser/). I was quite surprised to find no mention of those anywhere on Wikipedia (unless my search skills are failing me). Should the have a place somewhere here? If so where? I could probably write a reasonable stub page about either or both, although I am not a very expert Wikipedian. Thanks.--Tim J Hunt (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The historical section have non-updated values that give a wrong impression about today uses. The graphic is outdated of 6 years, showing a IE with majority when today is one of the less used against Chrome/Firefox. I would suggest to update / remove this section. I am not able to make it mayself.

--User:AdrianMaire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:507A:6A10:60D0:5EC:FA91:F815 (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of web browsers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607164906/http://my.opera.com/ODIN/blog/2013/05/28/a-first-peek-at-opera-15-for-computers to http://my.opera.com/ODIN/blog/2013/05/28/a-first-peek-at-opera-15-for-computers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of web browsers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916202818/http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.0.html to http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

should we remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottedwards2000 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An edit presented this as "Further information", misleading the reader to expect relevant information rather than (the actual) poorly-sourced topic for a browser. The source for that does not give the date of introduction, nor actually any support for "early browser".