My C: Drive

It is on the top hit list on the developer’s arena. The Mozilla tab candy. My friend Voytek showed me the video about the tab candy project. I was awestruck and couldn’t even think how that was possible for the developers to think in tat perspective. All I can say is that they got a hell lot of brain. Okay enough dancing; let’s come to the details about the functionality of the “TAB CANDY”.

Actually it’s in the alpha stages right now. Hopefully it will be completely released in the Mozilla 4. Earlier browsers made it easy for the user to open multiple tabs in the same browsers, so that we may not have to navigate between windows. Though it was promising in the very beginning, the browser got cluttered with many tabs which introduced a little chaos in managing every tab. This issue was seriously taken up by the community which gave birth to tab candy effect. It allows to group more than one tab into a single tab. For example, suppose you are in a hectic quest on finding in buying a new laptop, you might have opened Dell, Sony, Acer, Hp, Lenovo etc. Simultaneously you wanted to open your mail box read the current news and some other pages. Now think of the situation how many tabs you might have opened. Now the tab candy comes handy, where you can group the entire Laptop search in the single tab called as LAPTOP and you can leave the rest as it is, so that you can clearly handle all the tabs easily. When you click on the master tab LAPTOP you might see the all the sister tabs which was grouped in that.


Another amazing factor introduced is the sharing a group of tabs with Mozilla sync. When some of your friends are working on a research project then you can share all your research done in the web with your friends by sharing the tab on which you are working on and similarly you can access your friends. Everyone is looking forward to the tab candy in live action.

INTRODUCTION
While issues like Net Neutrality remain a hotly debated issue among us NetNerds™, there are the majority of "netizens" who aren't as tech savvy and couldn't give a damn about things like standards compliance, JavaScript load times and fancy page element Inspectors in their everyday browsers.

Which is why if one were to make a decision on which browser to use based solely on things like full blown detailed browser benchmarking, then one might as well buy a car based on the size of it's fuel tank.

So for the purpose of simplicity and ease of understanding, this browser comparison (for the Windows platform), is going to be on the basis of installation, ease-of-use, and other general parameters.

DISCLAIMER
At the time of writing the latest versions of the 5 most popular Windows browsers are as follows:

• Internet Explorer 8.0.6
• Mozilla Firefox 3.6.3
• Apple Safari 4.0.5
• Google Chrome 4.1.249
• Opera 10.51

NOTE: I'm not exactly biased toward any one browser, though as I say that, I'm writing this on Mozilla Firefox and I have been accused in the past of being an unabashed Apple fanboy. So if you find any bias in this review, well then, tough.


1: INSTALLATION


The Installation round easily goes to Google's Chrome. Unless you've had Internet Explorer 8 installed by sodding Automatic Updates (which I highly recommend you turn on, by the way), Chrome's super easy installation will delight the average user who couldn't care less about where the install directory could be or where he should save the installer file. That's because the Google Chrome Installer is actually a 500 something KB file downloaded to the user's machine which then phones home the Google servers and then downloads the actual Chrome browser. While this may infuriate advanced users who like having the entire setup file and have a severe hatred of anything that doesn't allow them to set the Install Path (Eg: C:\Program Files\), the average user I'm sure will appreciate the ease with which with a couple of clicks gets the browser installed and ready to go.

Second, is Mozilla's Firefox. A few clicks on Mozilla's home page will get you the nearly 8 MB Firefox Installer which then asks a few routine questions before quickly setting up your browser. If you're a novice user, you can simply check the Automatic Installation option and avoid being asked unnecessary questions like installation directories and such.

Third is Opera Software's browser. Third because it needs a couple more clicks on the Opera site to bypass accidentally downloading Opera Mini for your phone and also because the Installer is a little larger at 9.3 MB, but really I'm nitpicking here, because to setup it's almost as easy, if not easier than Firefox and requires even less supervision than Mozilla's offering.

The absolute travesty of an installer here, is Apple's Safari. Not only is the browser's installation file a whopping 31 MB, but if you want the ridiculously useless QuickTime for Windows with it, then the Installer bloats to a truly colossal (for a browser) 50 MB! Added to that, during installation, the browser automatically enables the option to install Bonjour (an unnecessary network file sharing discovery utility) and whether you like it or not, installs Apple Application Support and Apple Software Update as separate utilities.

Google Chrome: http://www.google.com/chrome
Mozilla Firefox: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/personal.html
Opera: http://www.opera.com/download/
Apple Safari: http://www.apple.com/safari/download/
Windows Internet Explorer: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/


2: USER INTERFACE

Unless you've been living in a hole or a third world country without Internet (which is pretty much the same thing) for the last ten years, then I don't have to explain in detail to you the basics of a browser's interface: There's the Back/Forward/Home/Refresh button set at the top left, then a large white text box called the address bar ("Awesome Bar" in Firefox) and depending on your browser, a little search box on the upper right hand side. No browser featured in this comparison appears to want to mess with this standard template; with the exception of Google Chrome's Address Bar/Search Bar rolled up into a single text box.

For the sake of simplicity, let's dissuade further comparison of each browser's aesthetics and leave it to individual choice to decide which one looks best. With the screenshots though are a few points to note about each browser's interface.

GOOGLE CHROME

• Simple, clean, bare-bones interface.
• Thin window borders maximize web page area.
• Intelligent "tabs-on-top design" removes need for a space wasting title bar.
• When maximized, tabs move to top of the screen to give largest screen space for the web page.
• Menu bar integrated into the two icons next to Address Bar.
• Windows Vista, 7 get full transparent window borders.

MOZILLA FIREFOX

• Another clean interface style that has Windows Native integration
• Tab Bar and Title Bar display same information and feel superfluous.
• Navigation section takes up more space and leaves less space for web pages (NOTE: Menu Bar minimized in Screenshot)
• Interface can be greatly customized with add-ons to be better than the other browsers.
  

OPERA

• Chrome-esque design is actually an evolution of Opera's own UI design.
• Menu bar options are neatly packed into red Opera logo at the top left of Title Bar (as in Office 2007 and Windows 7)
• Windows Vista, 7 get full transparent window borders that look great unlike the Windows XP version featured here.
• Speed Dial feature is native to Opera and a great innovation (Not pictured here)
• As in Chrome, when maximized tabs move to top of the screen to give large screen space for the web page.

APPLE SAFARI

• Interface, unusually for an Apple product, is lackluster and feels like a mash of Internet Explorer and Google Chrome.
• Cover Flow view, as in iTunes, feels completely unnecessary and overly superfluous to browse History and Bookmarks.
• Thin Navigation bar is a boon and gives center stage to the web page.
• The unnecessarily effects heavy features of Top Sites (Similar to Speed Dial) demand very high graphics capability.
• Inconsistent interface feels labored and slow to user response.
  

WINDOWS INTERNET EXPLORER

• Standard template of browser design used in latest Internet Explorer.
• Interface feels surprisingly nippy and is pleasing to look at.
• At the same time, there's nothing revolutionary about the UI.

3: FEATURES AND FUNCTIONALITY

I'm sorry, but Firefox wins this one without the race even starting. There's just no way for the other browsers to compete. The master stroke that Mozilla's baby pulls off here is that it's Open Source, which means anyone is free to add, modify the browser's code to extend or alter it's functionality. This means there are tons of, quite frankly, brilliant "Add-ons" for the browser which add features that can only be explained/experienced by heading over to: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/

Finishing second in this round is Google's Chrome. Chrome only recently acquired the "Extensions" feature which can change the browser's functionality according to the user's whim, but it's extension count doesn't even compare to Firefox. Yet. https://chrome.google.com/extensions

Opera is next up, and while it may not have any extensions to speak of, out of the box, it already possesses some really neat features like Mouse Gestures, Opera Turbo (which speeds up load time by compressing images and graphics) and a rather large amount of Appearance customizability.

Finally, in joint last place in this round, are Apple's Safari and Windows Internet Explorer. Both the browsers have absolutely no saving grace in feature list extensions. This despite Apple's bold claim that there are "over" 150 improvements in this version of Safari. The key I think to these browsers' failure is that they both come pre-installed with OSes (Safari with Apple's Macintosh OS X and Internet Explorer with Microsoft's Windows line). Consequently, these browsers haven't had to actually work for market share. As a result, they've become the fat lazy bloated pieces of software they are; Always in the protected patronage of their parent companies who hug on to their source code like little girls who're afraid of the dark and hug on to their teddy bears.


4: CONCLUSION

Personally, I think it's highly unfair and presumptuous if I were to pick a "best" browser out of the 5 contenders. More likely, I would pick the one "I" find best. So to simplify your decision, I'm going to categorize the browsers into the user group it's most likely to please.

If you're:

The discerning web user/developer who tears web pages apart by examining their each element and customizing it, dresses your browser up like a drag queen, opens 5 billion tabs at once and uses every toolbar known to man; you want Mozilla Firefox/Opera.

The novice who just goes on the Internet to check their e-mail, occasionally watch some YouTube videos and maybe glance at some photos online once in a while; you want Google Chrome.

The egotistic maniac who wants web pages to look good and yourself to look good while browsing them or if you have a penchant for ostentatious things or if you own a super car and have a supermodel girlfriend; you want Apple Safari.

The kind of user who doesn't know what broadband means, can't bother with things like installing and have doubts as to what you're doing on this page; you want (and probably have) Windows Internet Explorer.

So there you have it, My C: Drive's comprehensive guide to web browsers. Coming soon, a look at Mac and Windows applications on each others platforms.

This is my second post on the software for ubuntu . Well this one could be installed on other platform though.This is a open source video manipulation program which embodies all the video filtering effect into them. Making color adjustment,bit rate modification,clipping a part of a movie can be done in a single clicks.One of the major highlight of the software is building up a dvd from other video formats. Since its named as AviDemux don't have the misconception that can only edit the .avi formats . It extends it hand to wide variety of file formats which includes AVI, DVD compatible MPEG files, MP4 and ASF.Avidemux is available for Linux, BSD, Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows under the GNU GPL license. Their GUI interface make a novice feel comfortable in working with the software.

Ubuntu user's type
sudo apt-get install avidemux in the terminal.

For more information and FAQ visit this link

Though there is a lot of DVD ripper available in the open source platform, this one is quite interesting “Acid DVD Ripper”. It has a lot of options to make the UI interactive. For the keyboard junkie’s lot of keyboard shortcuts are provided, more over we can even create some keyboard shortcuts of our needs. Ubuntu user may use the terminal to install it,by using the commands apt-get or the aptitude or else the separate tar ball are available in the Ubuntu archives.