Rants, Raves, and Praise → Old browser?!?

I find Chrome works with a lot of sites that don't play well with even Firefox.

So does SW Iron. It's a Chrome clone.

Why? It supports more standards and is the single most secure browser. Chrome is faster, but IE is definitely more secure and supports the web better than FF.

 

I think you mean SRWare Iron. It's what I'm using right now. It is Google Chrome without the spyware.

That is meaningless. PaleMoon, for me, identifies as Fx because I filter through Proxo:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:25.1) Gecko/20141110 Firefox/31.9.9.9

That is a non-existent version of Fx also. User Agent is irrelevant these days for statistics as I purposely fake UA on ALL browsers and on Mozilla based browsers (including current Pale Moon) I rotate the UA. Pale Moon dev is correct on this issue.

Statistics may be meaningless for you because you spoof your UA. Your UA would be discarded from usage statistics anyway since it's bogus data if you're using a non existent browser version or versions that don't match the plugins your browser also reports. Why you pick a unique non existent UA is odd since it can be used to track you.

For the vast majority (easily better then 95% who don't spoof their UA), browser UA statistics are accurate. Many sites use them to serve out performance or compatibility tweaked versions of their pages. Conversely, using the wrong UA can cause site display problems in some cases. But that's not something you ever had issues with...

I didn't pick what Proxo uses. I use JJoe's 12/2011 Sidki configs and that is what it uses. Yeah, it is unique which I am not crazy about but most Proxo users want it that way. As for the rotating UAs those are all real browsers and versions from various extensions that offer this.

As for matching the plugins, why would I allow sites to sniff that? On Fx and Pale Moon I use Happy Bono extension.

You realize IE 11 Edge fakes the string deliberately? That is MICROSOFT doing it so I'd be careful about claiming hardly anyone fakes it. They want IE to appear to be what the Edge version actually is ...no Trident engine (but you can render a site in IE5-10 if it doesn't work well in Edge). What Microsoft will do with the final Windows 10 and IE 11 I don't know but from a Microsoft Virtual Academy video they are serious about this (as well as committing to new versions of IE as OFTEN as new versions of Fx and Chrome come out and committing to no longer supporting older versions of IE thus forcing everyone to keep current like Mozilla and Google try to do -this latter is OT).

The Pale Moon dev is correct on this issue. A lot I don't agree with him on but this I do. Any site relying on UA these days (to decide what to serve the visitor) is a badly written site by a lazy webmaster who is behind the times is what he claims and I tend to agree.

I think you miss understand what IE 11 is doing to the UA. Yes Microsoft changed UA behavior on IE 11, so it better reflects the platform it runs on, but it's not faked from what I've read. Got any links pointing to them "faking" the UA?

I also have no clue what Happy Bono extension is. Got any links?

It kinda makes me wonder how you expect websites to know what browser you have and what it's capable of running if you spoof the UA and block sites from sniffing plugins...

Ahh the Panopticlick EFF test... and plugin to thwart it. I vaguely remember that from a few years ago. Didn't know the plugin was called "Happy Bono"... actually it looks like the developers handle is Happy Bonobo and the plugin is called "Hide Plugin & Mimetype Identifiers"

So according to »panopticlick.eff.org/ how unique is your browser fingerprint? Are all of these "privacy enhancements" and odd browser choices making you more or less unique and trackable?

I would be very average and not at all unique according to panopticlick especially since I added Hide Plugin and Mime Type Identifiers as those no longer show at panopticlick.

I still have two unique identifiers - one being the Proxo string but since that site is https and I don't have Proxo set up to filter https sites the correct UA string is shown at Panopticlick and is not very unique since lots of folks use various versions of Fx. (IE 11 I didn't put in experimental Edge mode to thwart panopticlick. I wanted to test it and see how the various document modes work on IE 11 on Win 10 Preview - some testers were offered the chance to test it ...you had to be in the "fast lane" for Win 10 Preview and then some in the fast lane were given the ability to test it). So, for the test there, only the other identifier gives me away and makes me totally unique.

I have a very strange and unique monitor resolution there and at some other sites that detect monitor resolution where I can test. My resolution is 1920x1080 (native resolution) but panopticlick claims it is 1792x1008. I sent them an email recently asking how they got that wrong resolution but I haven't heard back. My video card reports it correctly but I noticed when I first got this Dell UltraSharp U2414H monitor a year ago that at Lagom LCD test site I tested it at it was showing as 1792x1008 but other test sites I used to put it through it paces it was reported at 1920x1080. So, I don't know how many websites I visit detect the correct resolution and how many detect it incorrectly.

Just because YOU do something it doesn't mean everyone does.They do? You must be really, really confused...

Why did you block out the URL in your address bar buddy?? -- Its not that big a deal that site you went to,who cares who goes to it??

Because it's a company unpublished website and I don't want random people hitting it.

Oh shit,its good you hid it then bud!!

Ah man!!

Trident is NOT part of IE 11 Edge so you are NOT showing the IE string for IE 11 Edge where Microsoft currently has it declaring itself as CHROME browser.

You are the one who is confused.

Educate yourself on what Edge mode is, then come and post again.
»msdn.microsoft.com/en-us ··· 85).aspx

Educate yourself. You're the one that needs it in this case.

Where did you get the idea that IE11 doesn't use the Trident engine? Besides UA strings.... which MS and multiple sites have reported over the last year and a half they've changed a few times in the developer version of Windows 10 to force sites to not serve legacy IE versions of pages to IE11.

I checked it. It got the browser right (the latest Palemoon and the build and that's about it.) I didn't enable javascript. All the other fields complained about no Javascript. I don't keep history. Everything gets dumped when I close the browser. I don't mind logging in.

I never enable Javascript or images unless I absolutely have to. I have no whitelist. Everything is site by site. That's why I didn't enable JS for Panopticlick

Best way to go these days!! (Scripts disabled)

So I'm confused. That IE browser reports that it uses Trident... yet... you're saying it's not using Trident at all? What is it using then?

Prime example. I'm trying to use zillow.com and get this stupid message.

I got that message also but I could still browse zillo....

I've updated Pale Moon on Windows, no more problem.
What's interesting is that I don't see any of this on Kubuntu. Some things like links on a banking site did not work, but no warning about browser. Pale Moon is not in the repository. I did update it manually.