Talk:List of web browsers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Notable browsers" again[edit]

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

How much impact did they have? Tedickey (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)[edit]

Should we add the list from into notable browsers:

Browsers listed

   * Chrome
   * Internet Explorer
   * Firefox
   * Opera
   * Safari
Second tier
   * Avant Browser
   * Flock
   * GreenBrowser
   * K-Meleon
   * Maxthon
   * Sleipnir
   * SlimBrowser is supposed to list the most popular browsers by least according to eu.Smallman12q (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps as a see-also. That list is using different criteria, and merging would confuse things Tedickey (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Life includes WebKit now[edit]

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)

Timeline of web browsers corrections[edit]

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)

Spyglass Mosaic[edit]

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

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)
BTW most of the browsers after Netscape were "Mozilla compatible"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Mabdul, Spyglass Mosaic isn't clean-room. Spyglass even had a contract regulating NCSA Mosaic's source code traffic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 12:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


Where is Waterfox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere: not notable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

On Historical[edit]

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...

webkit2 vs blink[edit]

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)

Opera never Webkit based[edit]

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)


This picture is not readable at all!!

Sincerelly yours

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

What about secure web browsers for exams[edit]

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 ( or Respondus 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)

Old History references, giving wrong impression[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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