What people use to view web pages

Navigation

Skip navigation.

Site search

Site navigation

More information

Why should you design properly?

So many people have the attitude 'if it works in what I use then that is good enough'. That is a bad attitude to have. There are so many people who don't or can't use what you use. They should not be exluded (see my Site Design tutorial for a more detailed reason).

I notice that most people who have that incredibly arrogant attitude are using a high-spec PC with a nice, fast processor running the latest version of Windows, with a nice fast Internet connection. Generally they use Internet Explorer or occasionally one of the Mozilla browsers. People who use anything else usually have suffered at the hands of those bad designers and will usually have a better attitude as a result. The thing that these designers forget is that the idea of a Web page is to provide information or services to other people; different people. Demanding that they use only the "correct" programs or setup simply means that people who do not have them will just go elsewhere. They will not give in to unreasonable demands, they will just find something else to look at.

My Web development is usually tested on a wide variety of browsers, including the major browsers like Opera, Mozilla/Firefox, Konqueror, Safari/Chrome, and of course Internet Explorer. I also test in less popular browsers like iCab, ICEbrowser and Lynx, as well as older versions of the major browsers. The general principles are easy to follow, meaning that even if these browsers are not all available on systems you have access to, you can still follow good design principles without much effort.

In general, Opera, Mozilla/Firefox and Safari/Chrome are available on most popular systems, and are the best development aids. Internet Explorer will always need special treatment. Konqueror is also worth testing in if you have it. Whatever system you are on, test in Lynx (or an equivalent). My tutorials have information on most of the browsers so you can use the tutorials if you do not have access to the browsers.

The following is a small sample of the many things that people use. I say small sample. This is the tip of a very large ice-berg. What I have written down here are what I know are currently being used to view web sites, but I also know there are many hundreds of things I have not mentioned, simply because I don't know about them yet.

Computers

IBM PC and compatible including laptops

These are by far the most common computers, and are made by a variety of different manufacturers, with a wide array of different specifications. There are several makes of processor, of which the most common are Intel and AMD. The fastest processors are around 4 GHz (and some are hyperthreaded), but capabilities increase quickly. (AMD processors are usually slower but are more efficient, making their performance similar to Intels.) Generally most that are currently in use have over 1 GHz, but slower computers are still in use. Memory is normally between 512 MB and 4 GB. Monitor resolutions can be as low as 640x480, but usually 1024x768 or above (typically upto 2560x1600), with between 256 and 4'294'967'296 colours.

Microsoft Windows is the most popular operating system on these computers, normally using XP, Vista or Windows 7, but older installations are still used. Linux and various UNIX versions are used and the numbers are growing, both for home and corporate use. Some run as text only based.

Apple Macintosh computers and laptops

Made by Apple. These are the second most popular type of computer. They usually run Mac OS X, but a small number of Mac OS 9 (or similar) installations are still in use. Many are converted into Linux or UNIX installations. They use custom processors, typically between about 1.5 GHz and multi-core 4 GHz. Memory is normally between 1 GB and 4 GB but can be as high as 16 GB. Monitor resolutions are usually 1024x768 or above (typically upto 2560x1600) but some will use 800x600, normally with 16'777'216 colours. Apple regularly abandons older hardware, forcing users to buy new hardware before being able to update operating system (and Safari) software.

Sun Microsystems Blade and Ultra workstations

Made by Sun Microsystems. Not used very often, but still used as research workstations. Typically running Solaris UNIX. Processor speeds are low, using SPARC and UltraSPARC processors (900MHZ max), and some workstations have upto 4 processors (450MHz max). Memory can be as high as 2 GB, but often much lower, around 100 MB or less. Monitor resolutions can be as low as 640x480, but can be 1024x768 or above, with between 256 and 4'294'967'296 colours.

Amiga Computer Systems

Made by Amiga. Often thought of as just a game station, these are actually fairly complete desktop computers. They normally run Amiga OS or some UNIX. They use Motorola processors 68000, 68010 .. 68060. 75MHz is the fastest, equivalent to 225MHZ PC processors. Memory is normally between 2 MB and 10 MB but newer machines can have a lot more. Monitor resolutions can be as low as 640x480, but can be 1024x768 or above, with between 256 (Web optimised) and 4'294'967'296 colours.

Television set-top-boxes

Made by many different manufacturers. These are used by most digital television systems, and often contain a browser. They normally run Linux or some UNIX, or a custom operating system. They use a variety of processors but these will generally be slow and low quality. Memory is normally very low as well, frequently less than 10 MB but occasionally with as much as 128 MB. Monitor resolutions are fixed to the size of the television screen. This will depend on the system, and monitor inefficiencies. The most popular systems, PAL/SECAM and NTSC, use 576x720 and 480x720 respectively, and between 0% and 20% of the resolution is lost due to inefficiencies. HDTV sets can offer higher resolutions. The number of colours is usually 16'777'216.

Mobile devices and tablets

Made by many different manufacturers. These generally run Android, iPhone OS, Windows CE/Mobile, BREW, Symbian, BlackBerry OS, Linux/UNIX or Palm OS. Systems are very limited, with processor speeds between 100 MHz and 1 GHz, and between 8 MB and 32 GB of memory (usually at the lower end on older devices, with the newest smartphones having a number of GB). Some browsers (such as Opera Mini) are designed to run on much less. Screen resolutions can be as narrow as 100 pixels wide. More advanced phones have resolutions of about 900x600 pixels with 262'144 colours, and newer PDAs are similar, but most have about 240x320 to 640x480.

Gamestations

Made by many different manufacturers, such as Sony's Playstation 2+, or Nintendo's Wii. They normally run Linux or some UNIX, or a custom operating system. They use a variety of processors, typically much lower than normal computers (the Playstation 2 uses 295 MHz). Memory is normally a bit lower than a normal computer, usually less than 64 MB. Monitor resolutions and colours will be the same as the television they are being displayed on.

Modem speeds

In Bits (not bytes) Per Second:

Normal modems (still required in areas without broadband)
8 K (v. rare), 14 K (v. rare), 28 K (rare), 56 K (normal).
Cable 'modems'
128 K, 512 K, 1 M, 2 M, 3 M, 5 M, 10 M, 20 M, 30 M.
Internal network
10 M, 54 M, 100 M.
Internal network backbone
1 G.
Internet backbone
2 G, 6 G, 10 G, >10 G.

Browsers

Surprise, there are quite a lot, certainly a lot more than just Internet Explorer. These are the most common computer browsers and mobile browsers that can display HTML pages. There are many more less capable browsers for both of those, some of which will support limited scripting, and some that can display only HTML 3, but I will not list them here. There are also WML browsers for mobile phones, but I am not including those.

'4th generation' browsers allow certain parts of the document to be hidden or shown, moved around on the page or have their colours changed. The functionality of many '4th generation' browsers is based on proprietary technology. '5th generation' browsers allow everything that '4th generation' browsers allow, and in addition, they allow any parts of the document to be created or deleted, or to have their content re-written. They are by far the most versatile and allow maximum control over the contents of the web page using the W3C's DOM standards. See my JavaScript tutorial for more details.

If you want to download these browsers, visit the vendor sites. You can also try the Evolt browser archive to download older versions. For Internet Explorer on Windows, you can download IETester or the TredoSoft installer (for older releases) that allow you to run multiple versions side-by-side on the same computer.

Quick browser links

Opera 7-9

Recommended.

Vendor

Opera Software ASA

Operating systems

Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP/Vista/7, Linux IBM-PC/SPARC/POWERPC, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Solaris, and hundreds of mobile phone models, PDAs, televisions, and other devices. Compiled for other platforms on request.

JavaScript

DOM 1, 2, partial 3. Proprietary DOM.

Capabilities

Description

Opera's latest and greatest browser. This browser is excellent, being truly DOM compliant, with one of the highest levels of scripting support of any current browser. In order to compete in a Microsoft dominated world, Opera supports a lot of the Microsoft proprietary DOM functionality in all modes, not just when emulating Internet Explorer.

Designed and written by (amongst others) the inventor and co-author of the CSS 1 standard, the co-author of the CSS 2.1 standard, and authors of many CSS 3 modules, its CSS support is excellent - the highest level of any current browser. The Opera 9 releases also have one of the highest levels of DOM support. It is also one of the fastest browsers available, with the smallest footprint of any of the major browsers.

It offers the user more control than any other browser over their browsing experience, and manages to pack a full, configurable Internet suite (browser, email, newsgroups, chat, torrent client, etc.) into a clean and simple interface, and a package smaller than other basic browsers. It is also one of the most popular browsers available on mobile phones and other devices, due to its extremely efficient use of bandwidth, low resource requirements, and impressive capabilities and standards support.

To make it even better, Opera is completely free.

My opinion

This browser is one of the most flexible and popular and it is well worth supporting. It is also made with features specifically for users with accessibility needs, and is very important from that perspective, not just for "normal" Web users. Unfortunately, a few people do not realise how much Opera has improved since Opera 6, and still incorrectly say it is a low capapability browser, when it is actually just as capable as most other browsers, if not more capable. Ignore them. They are misinformed.

See my Opera article for more information.

Other browsers

Other browsers/devices using the Opera Presto rendering engine include: AMD Embedded Products, Ericsson Cordless Screen Phones, IBM NetVista Internet Appliance, Canal+ MediaHighWay iTV Appliance, JavaOne Lineo's Embedix Plus Browser, LabourStart Browser, Nintendo DS and Wii, Nokia Cellphones, Opera Mini, PalmPalm Wireless Appliances, Psion Series7 & netBook etc., Screen Media's FreePad Web Terminal, Sharp Zaurus SL-5000D, Symbian Communicators, Symbian EPOC, Symbian Magpie, and loads of others.

Mozilla

Recommended.

Vendor

Mozilla Corporation

Operating systems

Mozilla/Firefox
Windows NT4/2000/XP/Vista/7 (98/ME abandoned from Firefox 3.0 onwards, 95 abandoned from Firefox 2.0 onwards), Mac OS X 10.3+ (8.5-9 abandoned after Mozilla 1.2, 10-10.2 abandoned from Firefox 3.0 onwards), Linux (IBM PC). Available for other UNIX systems (such as FreeBSD), but needs to be compiled, and may need some porting. Ports available for Amiga OS. Minimo/Fennec is available for some mobile operating systems.
Netscape 6+
Discontinued. Windows 98SE/ME/2000/XP/Vista, Mac OS X 10.2+, Linux, all abandoned from Netscape 9 onwards.

JavaScript

DOM 1, 2, partial 3, minimal hidden proprietary DOM support.

Capabilities

Description

The browser produced by Mozilla.org, using their open source Gecko rendering engine, one of the best and most standards compliant browser rendering engines currently available, with one of the highest levels of DOM support. It's CSS engine, although very reliable, tends to be more slowly updated than other browsers. As a result, it is typically behind several other browsers, such as Opera, Safari/Chrome and Konqueror, but at least it is still better than IE. However, due to its Netscape heritage, it is well respected and quite popular.

Firefox is one of the most common browsers in use, initially fairly simplistic, relying on users to locate the appropriate extensions to build up a browser that suits their needs. Mozilla SeaMonkey is the Internet suite version of the same browser, but has lost a lot of popularity due to its more cluttered interface, and large download size.

Netscape 6+ uses the same rendering engine. Netscape is owned by AOL, and it shows. Each version of Netscape from 6 onwards has included more and more AOL clutter; branding, propaganda, and marketing. The current release, now based on Firefox instead of Mozilla, has become so bloated with AOL additions that it is twice as slow as the normal Firefox. Previous versions even removed all the possible security improvements by optionally embedding the Internet Explorer engine as well.

My opinion

This browser is, and will no doubt remain, one of the most popular and flexible ever, and it is well worth supporting. Netscape 6+ is not worth anything, it is best to convince users to use the related Firefox.

Other browsers

Other browsers using the Mozilla Gecko rendering engine include: 3B, AOL-Compuserve 7, Aphrodite, Beonex Communicator, Blackbird, Browser G!, Camino/Chimera, Conkeror, Doczilla, Encompass, Epiphany, Firebird/Phoenix, Flock 2-, Galeon, Gnuzilla, IBM Home Page Reader 3, IBM Web Browser for OS/2, IceWeasel, K-Meleon, Light, Madfox, ManyOne, MultiZilla, Nautilus, Neoplanet, OEOne Browser, Oxygen, Pogo, Pornnzilla (retired), Q.BATi, SashXB, SeaMonkey, SkipStone, SkyFire 1.x, Sleipnir (via plug-in), Swiftfox, Torpark, TV Navigator (Liberate & AOLTV), Warpzilla, WebRenderer, X2Web marbrow, XParts

Others claim to still be in development, including: Dino!, Kiosk, MozAmiga (DE)

(Windows) Internet Explorer 5-9

Warning; not recommended.

Vendor

Microsoft Corporation - earlier releases via Evolt (true installs), IETester (side-by-side installs) and TredoSoft (side-by-side installs for older versions)

Operating systems

Windows Vista/7. Windows XP abandoned from IE 9 onwards. Windows 98/ME/NTSP6a/2000 abandoned from IE 6 SP 1 onwards. Windows 95 abandoned after IE 5.5. UNIX (Solaris, HP-UX) abandoned after IE 5.0 (unstable and buggy). Pocket PC and Windows CE releases supported, but not related to desktop release.

JavaScript

DOM 1, DOM 2 and limited DOM 3 in IE 9. Partial DOM 1 in IE 5-8. Proprietary DOM, with several extensions.

Capabilities

Description

Microsoft's flagship browser which also serves as the file manager for many of their Windows operating systems. Uses many proprietary extensions, but supports many basic Internet standards.

Microsoft have made a few improvements to IE's CSS support in version 7, but these are quite disappointing. There were quite a few more improvements in IE 8 that actually make it have reasonable CSS 2.1 support. There were significantly more improvements in IE 9 that increased its DOM support to most of DOM 2 and part of DOM 3, and added several CSS 3 modules. However, it still has some way to go to catch up with other browsers, and there are still a huge number of popular standards that IE fails to support, such as XPath. They took several years longer than any other major browser to implement common standards like CSS and DOM, and only seem to be pushed into it by losing market share. Despite having forced IE to be the most popular browser, the Internet Explorer programme has shown far less dedication to standards than any other major browser, relying instead on users not knowing how to switch to better browsers. Most Windows platforms have now been abandoned, and are stuck with IE 6 or IE 8 - users of those platforms should use an alternative browser.

There is also a version of IE for PocketPC and Windows CE, but its capabilities are noticeably lower than the other major device browsers. It only understands basic CSS 1 and minimal CSS 2, and it's scripting engine does not understand regular expressions (so form validation is almost impossible), and only the the simplest DHTML. Aditionally, it makes some very ugly mistakes when reformatting pages for small screens, either failing to scale large fonts and margins (producing scrollbars or resulting text being compacted to one word per line), or mispositioning floats so that they obscure text. It tries to render framesets as if it had a desktop screen, so they do not have enough space, and look very clumsy. To make matters even worse, most current versions do not correctly understand media types, so it can be difficult to give it a proper handheld stylesheet. (Microsoft's own page does not document reality. Even the Pocket IE WM6 versions are not capable of rendering the demo page the way they claim.)

My opinion

This browser is likely to remain the most popular, mainly due to Microsoft's brutal marketing techniques, although partly due to the fact that it is a reasonable browser, in terms of speed, and ease of use. Mostly, though, it is used because it is installed by default on Windows, and many users do not know there is anything better that they can use (or how to install a better browser). Web developers have no choice but to support it.

IE is not a good browser in terms of standards support or security, as it fails badly at both of these. Past history shows that the browser's standards support is rarely improved as long as it holds the majority of the market share. This means that the browser gets short periods of activity to bring its capabilities up to the level of competing browsers whenever it is losing share, but then it is left to stagnate for many years, with only token updates. Microsoft have also been far too eager to abandon older operating systems, forcing users to pay for updated operating systems in order to get the latest browser updates. In essence, it is used as a marketing tool, encouraging users to pay for system updates.

After many years of virtually no changes, IE 7 and 8 were merely token updates, without much effort to bring IE in line with other browsers. It was too little, too late, and quite deservedly, the browser lost its market share to better browsers. IE 8 was a little better for CSS only, but still far behind other browsers. IE 9 is better for CSS and scripting, but still cannot keep up with the pace that other browsers have set with standards. IE 7-9 are not available on most Windows operating systems, and no doubt older versions will still hang around for far too long.

From a security point of view, I do not consider this browser safe to use. If at all possible, switch to one of the recommended browsers, such as Opera or Firefox. Even though Microsoft do update its security, their track record speaks for itself, and large numbers of security holes are regularly found and exploited by various malware packages. In addition, Microsoft frequently ties IE releases to the newest versions of their operating systems, leaving users of the older versions without any way to update the browser and keep themselves protected.

Other browsers

Other browsers using the Internet Explorer 5+ rendering engine include: ActivatorDesk, AOL 7, AOL-Compuserve 5 and 6

Plugins that change the Internet Explorer 5+ interface include: Ace Explorer, ActiveBrowser, Avant, Children's Desktop & Browser, Browzar, CooZilla, Copernic, Crazy Browser, CrystalPort, CubicEye, EarthLink Browser, Enigma, Explorer 2002, Fast Browser, Green Browser, IBM Home Page Reader, Kidnet Explorer, Mad Cow, Mathbrowser, Maxthon/MyIE2, MSN Explorer, NeoPlanet, NetCaptor, Netscape 8, Oligo, RapidBrowser, ResearchDesk, Sleipnir, SlimBrowser, Smart Explorer, StarOffice, UltraBrowser, WebRenderer

Plugins that appear to be unavailable include: Mediadome, Safexplorer, ViOS

(Internet) Explorer 5.x (Mac)

Discontinued.

Vendor

Microsoft Corporation

Operating systems

Mac OS X abandoned after Explorer 5.2. Mac OS 8-9 abandoned after Explorer 5.1.

JavaScript

DOM 1. Proprietary DOM.

Capabilities

Description

The Mac version of the browser uses completely different rendering and JavaScript engines; the Windows and Mac versions have very different bugs and quirks. The Windows version has more features and extensions but up to version 6, it has worse CSS support. The Mac version is far slower, particularly when performing 5th generation DHTML, but tends to comply better with the standards (for example, the DOM method for adding options to a select box is implemented correctly, instead of using a proprietary syntax).

Microsoft will not be releasing any more versions of Explorer for Mac and have now discontinued this browser, as Apple's Safari browser is now the default browser on the Mac OS X operating system.

My opinion

The Mac version has now been replaced by Apple's Safari browser, which is a good thing. Although the Explorer for Mac team put a lot of work into supporting standards correctly (more work than the Internet Explorer for Windows team so it would seem), they appear to be incapable of producing a browser that is fast enough or comfortable enough to use regularly. It was a big innovation when it was first released - the first 5th generation browser for Mac - but it does not seem to be able to compete any more, and quality rendering engines like Presto, KHTML/WebKit and Gecko have taken over. Still, even though it is slow, it is capable of performing 5th generation DHTML, so it can work with many pages. However, it hardly ever used now, and is no longer worth supporting.

Other browsers

MSN for Mac OS X is the only browser still using this engine (and apparently it includes support for a few more CSS selectors). However, it is not available for testing. Older versions of AOL for Mac OS used to use this engine.

KHTML/WebKit (Konqueror/Safari/Chrome)

Recommended.

Vendor

KDE e.V., Apple, Omni Group, Alexander Clauss and Google

Operating systems

Konqueror
Linux/UNIX with (at least parts of) KDE desktop.
Safari
Windows XP/Vista/7. Mac OS X 10.5+. OS X 10.2 abandoned after Safari 1.0.3. OS X 10.3 abandoned after 1.3.2. OS X 10.4 abandoned after 4. Ports of the engine available for Linux/UNIX.
OmniWeb
Max OS X 10.4+. OS X 10.2-10.3 abandoned since OmniWeb 5.1.
iCab
Max OS X 10.3.9+.
Chrome
Windows XP/Vista/7, Mac OS X 10.5+, Linux.

JavaScript

DOM 1, 2, partial 3, minimal hidden proprietary DOM support in Safari 3.0+.

Capabilities

Description

Konqueror is a file manager for the the KDE desktop for Linux/UNIX. Also serves as a highly capable and standards compliant browser. Its level of DOM and CSS support are very high, one of the highest of all current browsers. Versions 2 and earlier have significant event bugs and are not worth supporting. Future versions may switch to the WebKit engine, which itself is derived very closely from the KHTML engine used by current Konqueror versions. The KHTML and Webkit branches have been developed separately, however, and do have sigificant differences, with the KHTML branch usually having somewhat lower abilities in terms of cutting-edge standards support and enhancements.

Safari is a fast and flexible browser created by Apple for their Mac OS X operating system and ported to Windows, using derivatives of KDE's KHTML rendering engine and KJS JavaScript engine (named WebCore and JavaScriptCore respectively, or collectively; WebKit). It has been extended a little beyond Konqueror, but primarily this is for extended scripting features (such as canvas). Some of these have since become standards, and will make their way into Konqueror as well, though often these would be an independent implementation. The CSS handling is generally compatible with Konqueror, but differs in a few places, such as text shadow and CSS 3 selector support. The Windows version uses ported features that the Mac version would normally use the operating system for, including canvas, text-shadow, fonts and even font smoothing. As a result, the response is almost identical to the Mac version. It is not really designed to fit in with Windows (it uses Mac OS UI features, and ignores system settings such as those governing font handling), but is instead to allow developers to see how Safari will behave on a Mac.

OmniWeb 4.5+ is a major update to OmniWeb, utilising the Mac OS X operating system WebCore and JavaScriptCore features - the same ones that power Safari. Finally, OmniGroup made the sensible decision to abandon their hideous rendering and JavaScript engines, and to use the standards compliant Safari core, allowing them to concentrate on their otherwise excellent user interface.

iCab 4+ also uses the same engine as Safari. The old iCab engine was very capable, but presumably was too much work for just two developers to maintain, and was exceptionally slow. iCab has become just another very capable interface for the Safari engine.

Chrome (not to be confused with user interface chrome) uses Google's version of WebKit, which has a slightly different ECMAScript engine. Although this technically means it can have different bugs, the ECMAScript engine generally has very little effect on the overall JavaScript functionality. To all intents and purposes, this browser is basically the same as Safari, though at least it does respect Windows font settings. It does have a few differences, since it does not use Safari's porting layer for Windows, so it needs its own implementations of some of the effects that rely on the Mac OS, such as text shadow (available since Chrome 2.0 but with many problems), and some may not be available at all. However, that makes only a very little difference in the overall browser behaviour. This site will not consider this as a separate browser, and will treat it as just another Safari interface.

Of all browsers using the KHTML or WebKit engines, Chrome has become the most popular, backed by Google's pervasive advertising on their own Web sites. However, the WebKit engine it uses is most closely controlled by Apple, the makers of Safari. As a result, I treat Safari as the main WebKit browser. Google do produce a substantial amount of the functionality that makes its way into the engine, however, and realistically speaking, it is a collaborative project between the two vendors.

My opinion

This browser improves at a very fast pace, and has already become a fast and flexible browser. There is no doubt that with backing from several companies, the KHTML and WebKit projects will continue to produce excellent browsers. Version 2 had significant bugs making it hard to code for, but version 3+ (including Safari and Omniweb 4.5+) is well worth supporting.

Other browsers

Other browsers using the KHTML/WebKit rendering engine include: Android Web Browser, Arora, Bolt, Blackberry Browser (since OS4), Chromium, Dolphin, Epiphany/WebKit, Espial TV Browser, Flock 3, Iris, Midori, NetFront Life Browser, Nokia Series 60 Browser, OP (not related to Opera), Shiira, SkyFire 2+, Spicy Browser, Steel, Sunrise, Swift, ThunderHawk, WebRenderer, Epiphany, Origyn Web Browser, Uzbl, Wake3, xScope

Plugins that change the mobile Safari interface include: Edge Browser, Incognito, Shaking Web, WebMate

iCab 3

Vendor

Alexander Clauss

Operating systems

Max OS 8.5-9/X.

JavaScript

Partial DOM 1 and 2. Proprietary DOM.

Capabilities

Description

A commercial browser, with free and pro (costing about $30) versions. Version 3 now supports DOM and advanced DHTML. Its CSS is now very good, a significant improvement over its predecessor. It does have some noticable bugs, but these are being fixed very qickly.

However, although it was noticably behind Opera in terms of CSS support when it was released, it did allow generated content to be floated or positioned, something that Mozilla browsers could not do at the time. Unfortunately, its scripting and CSS engines were far slower than those of equivalent browsers. The script engine is approximately 100 times slower than Opera releases of the same age, and on very heavy CSS pages, it can take over 500 times longer than Opera to display the page (or about 3000 times longer than Safari and current Opera releases). However, on normal pages, it is usually around 10-100 times slower than Opera or Safari, so it is usually fast enough for it not to be too much of a problem, although it can be a little uncomfortable.

Perhaps the most impressive aspect of iCab is its extremely small team, consisting of just two developers. This does mean that development tends to come in bursts, and it can take a long time for major changes to happen (such as supporting CSS 2 and DOM), but overall, it has easily exceeded Internet Explorer's almost stagnant development. It also means that most of the development time is devoted to adding the standards needed to survive on the Web, as well as developing the impressively detailed features, and less time improving the performance.

Since version 4, iCab no longer uses its own engine, and instead uses the same engine as Safari, meaning that the iCab development team is losing one member, and gaining the entire WebKit team instead. It will no longer need to be considered separately, and should be treated as Safari. iCab 4 is now just the chrome on someone else's browser.

My opinion

The browser is no longer recommended for current Mac operating systems, and is only intended for use on legacy Mac systems. It is worth supporting only if your visitors are likely to be using these legacy systems. Since it is a standards compliant browser, very little extra needs to be done to support it. It should work in most cases with the same code as the other standards compliant browsers.

ICEbrowser

Discontinued.

Vendor

ICEsoft

Operating systems

Netware, Solaris, Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP/Vista, Mac OS, Linux/UNIX, Other Java supporting platforms, all abandoned after ICEbrowser 6.1.

JavaScript

Partial DOM 1 and 2. Proprietary DOM.

Capabilities

Description

A browser written in Java, designed to be embedded in commercial applications. Despite a few unexpected bugs, this is a highly capable, standards compliant browser. Prices were not given but a free, time limited trial is available.

It uses the Java based Mozilla Rhino engine to provide the ECMAScript support, and a custom DOM engine. The result is a DOM scripting engine that is better than any other Java based browser. Although noticeably behind browsers like Opera, Mozilla/Firefox, Konqueror, and Safari, it is much better than IE in many cases, and is quite similar to iCab 3 in the amount of scripting it supports (although it is much faster than iCab, but makes more mistakes).

Its CSS support is its main weak point. It supports about as much as Internet Explorer 7, but with many more bugs that can cause some sites to become quite ugly - including many bugs copied from IE 6. Unfortunately the CSS bugs generally remained unfixed, and if anything it got progressively worse with more recent releases (for example, basic widths and margins on floats fail in the latest releases, even though they used to work).

My opinion

It was by far the best Java browser available. It has a few annoying CSS bugs, but generally they are not a hinderance for most pages. No longer worth supporting, since it has been discontinued, though due to the impressive longevity of Netware installations, it may well hang around for many years on a small number of servers. If you do choose to support it, prepare for a few CSS surprises, and do not worry too much about differences between ICE's CSS and the CSS of other browsers.

Other browsers

ICE currently serves as the main (and pretty much the only) browser for NetWare 6, Novell's high grade server platform, where it is called the 'Renderer' component of the NetWare Remote Manager.

Escape/Evo 5

Discontinued.

Vendor

Espial

Operating systems

Solaris, Netware, Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP/Vista/7, Mac OS, Linux/UNIX, Other Java supporting platforms.

JavaScript

Limited DOM 1. Proprietary DOM.

Capabilities

Description

A browser written in Java, designed to be embedded in commercial applications, but previously free to download (after registration). The version 5 release supported basic DOM functionality, and had improved CSS, making it theoretically much more useful than its predecessor.

However, its CSS was still only on a par with IE 5, far behind its competition (such as Opera). It incorrectly applied the screen and projection media types simultaneously at all times - against the CSS spec, and did not apply the handheld media type, even when running in small device mode (absolutely vital for the sort of applications that Escape is supposed to be designed for - Opera is certainly much better here). It failed to understand the > CSS 2 selector in a linked stylesheet - something that Escape 4 managed to do correctly, and it was lacking in support for common things like generated content and failing to use absolutely positioned elements inside relatively positioned elements.

Even though it supported position:fixed, its implementation was badly done, and more often than not, it obscured the page content. Its complete lack of PNG support was also very disappointing.

It used the Java based Mozilla Rhino engine to provide the ECMAScript support, and a custom DOM engine. Its event handling had significantly improved, but it's DOM implementation produced errors on even simple DOM scripts, and failed to activate try...catch error handling correctly when these errors occured. The datasheet claimed far more support than the browser was actually capable of.

It was briefly renamed to Evo, but was still the same browser as before. Espial no longer produce this browser, and have replaced it with the Espial TV Browser, which uses the same engine as Safari.

My opinion

Unlikely to be used by many of your viewers. Although it had progressed to DOM support, it was not good enough to run many DOM scripts, and even failed on several DHTML scripts that worked correctly in its predecessor. Not worth supporting. It is also no longer possible to download, which effectively prevents most Web developers from testing sites in this browser.

NetFront 3+

Vendor

Access

Operating systems

Compiled specially for individual devices. Emulator for Windows 2000/XP/Vista/7 and Linux.

JavaScript

DOM 1 and partial DOM 2. Proprietary DOM.

Capabilities

Description

A browser designed to be embedded in devices such as PDAs and mobile phones, but free to download the emulator (after registration), or occasionally available for free for some device types. It supports basic DOM functionality, but is incapable of creating new nodes, making it essentially useless for most DOM scripts. It will often crash on simple DOM manipulation.

In version 3.3, its CSS is approximately equivalent to Internet Explorer 5, with a few additions such as problematic support for CSS 2 selectors and position fixed. Since version 3.4, it is closer to Internet Explorer 7, without support for a few things like :hover, but also has minimal generated content support (text content only). It does not always handle overflow correctly, causing obscuring of content.

It competes in the mobile market with Opera, and has noticably lower capabilities than Opera, being far behind it in terms of scripting, CSS, and even HTML features like <link> tags. It does not apply the handheld or tv media types, even when running in small device mode (absolutely vital for the sort of applications that it is supposed to be designed for), and instead, it leaks some styles from other media types (due to mishandling of the @media rule) causing a potentially very bad effect. Some special phone versions only understand handheld media, and will remain unstyled on pages that target other media types or do not target any media type.

Version 3.x fails to implement PNG transparency correctly, with version 3.3- treating 100% transparency as transparent, and all other transparency values as opaque. Version 3.4 treats all except 100% opaque as transparent, so some PNG images disappear completely.

In general, the CSS support is very poor, and far behind all major browsers. However, it copes with the most simply styled pages, failing when overflow or more advanced CSS is used. DOM support is also badly lacking in several areas, so script-heavy pages will typically fail to work. The datasheet claims far more support than the browser is actually capable of.

My opinion

Unlikely to be used by many of your viewers. Although it supports DOM, current releases may have problems with advanced DOM scripts, and its lower CSS support and failure to use handheld media makes it hard to design pages that work properly with it. In general, you will have to rely on the Smart-Fit rendering of older versions to readjust your pages to make them work. The smart-fit rendering has some serious limitations, such as failing to scale large fonts and margins, and as a result it is very common for pages to be obliterated and unreadable, with just one or two letters on each line.

Its handling of DHTML menus is often very frustrating, and inappropriate for small screens, and stylus or keypad interfaces. It tries to render framesets as if it had a desktop screen, so they do not have enough space, and look very clumsy. However, it is one of the most capable and popular mobile phone browsers and should be supported if any of your visitors use mobile phones for browsing.

Other browsers

Other browsers using the NetFront rendering engine include: Blazer. Netfront is also used as the browser in many phones, as well as Sony PSP and PlayStation 3.

Tkhtml Hv3 (HTML Viewer)

Vendor

tkhtml.tcl.tk

Operating systems

Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP/Vista/7 and Linux.

JavaScript

Partial DOM 1 and minimal DOM 2.

Capabilities

Description

A browser designed to demonstrate the Tkhtml rendering engine. It is intended to replace Hv2 in the Tcl/Tk distribution, and can be embedded in other Tcl applications. It uses SEE (Simple ECMAScript Engine) to provide the ECMAScript support, and has a custom DOM engine. The ECMAScript option is disabled by default.

Its CSS support includes nearly all of CSS 2.1 that applies to screen media, but has many problems, such as it fails with many table styles, as well as font and text spacing settings, the advanced box model (for replaced elements), layering of positioned elements and text, non-solid borders, and generated quotes and counters. It's CSS support has been improving quite fast, however.

Its JavaScript and DOM support is very new (since early 2007), and very much incomplete. At the moment, it understands enough to be capable of basic DHTML, and many simple DOM scripts. More complicated DOM scripts tend to trip over at least one bug, and fail to work correctly. However, it is still being actively developed, and its DOM support should improve soon.

My opinion

Unlikely to be used by many of your viewers. Although it supports minimal DOM, current releases will not be able to run advanced DOM scripts. Although it is interesting to test with, and can be supported if you are only using DHTML, it is not worth making sure DOM scripts work in it yet. Simply make sure that your code uses proper code branching without browser detects, and when Tkhtml's DOM support improves enough, your DOM scripts will work.

Other browsers

Other browsers using the Tkhtml rendering engine include: BrowseX (though this uses a very old version with no CSS, and a different (limited) JavaScript engine)

OpenTV / SpyGlass Device Mosaic

Vendor

OpenTV

Operating systems

OpenTV Core.

JavaScript

DOM 1.

Capabilities

Description

A television browser package. Reasonably capable (according to their PDF datasheet). This was developed from SpyGlass Mosaic, Internet Explorer's ancestor.

My opinion

Since they require you to buy the SDK before you can see this, I have never seen it. I am not aware of its exact capabilities, so I don't explicitly support it, but pages should work in it if they are properly written.

NetBox

Vendor

Netgem

Operating systems

Netgem 4 on linux core.

JavaScript

DOM 1 (assumed).

Capabilities

Description

A television browser based in Europe. Reasonably capable according to their old technical specs page. However, they have now removed all references to a browser from their site, so the project may have been abandoned.

My opinion

There is no way for me to know what this browser is capable of, so I don't explicitly support it, but pages should work in it if they are properly written (assuming the browser still exists).

iPanel MicroBrowser

Vendor

EmbiSoft

Operating systems

pSOS, OS20, VxWorks, Linux, Embedded Linux, uClinux, RT-Linux, ATI Nuclues.

JavaScript

DOM 1, partial 2.

Capabilities

Description

A television browser based in China. Reasonably capable according to their technical specs page. Their old pages used to give more information, saying that you had to install the advanced modules to get DOM support.

My opinion

I am not aware of its exact capabilities, so I don't explicitly support it, but pages should work in it if they are properly written.

Internet Explorer 4 (Windows)

Vendor

Microsoft via Evolt, QuirksMode and TredoSoft

Operating systems

Windows 3.x/95/98/NT. QuirksMode zip packages also run on ME/2000/XP.

JavaScript

Proprietary DOM.

Capabilities

Description

Microsoft's first decent attempt at a browser, which also served as the file manager for Windows 98. This used proprietary extensions, introduced the proprietary DOM, and was the cause of the major browser incompatibilities. The W3C adopted many of these proprietary extensions and incorporated them into their DOM standard.

My opinion

This browser has been replaced by newer versions. Many DHTML scripts will still work in it, however. I do not explicitly support this browser.

(Internet) Explorer 4 (Mac)

Vendor

Microsoft via Evolt

Operating systems

Mac OS Classic (8/9/emulator).

JavaScript

Proprietary DOM.

Capabilities

Description

Microsoft's first decent attempt at a browser for Mac, using a completely different rendering and JavaScript engine from the Windows version. It suffers from significant bugs and takes a bit of work to support. Versions lower than 4.5 are so badly bugged that valid code often produces errors (such as checking for support of internal methods). Version 4.5 is a big improvement and actually becomes capable of performing DHTML without errors.

My opinion

This browser has been replaced by newer versions which have since been abandoned. Some DHTML scripts will still work in it, however. I do not explicitly support this browser.

Opera 6-

Vendor

Opera Software ASA

Operating systems

Windows 3.x/95/98/ME/NT3.5/NT4/2000/XP/Vista/7, Linux IBM-PC/SPARC/POWERPC, Mac OS 8/9/X, Solaris, OS/2, EPOC, BeOS, many mobile devices.

JavaScript

Limited DOM 1. (Proprietary DOM emulation mode.)

Capabilities

Description

The best 4th generation browser available, despite being slightly limited in its DHTML handling. Its CSS support is the best of any 4th generation browser. Free versions contain banner ads, licenses cost about $40.

My opinion

This browser has been replaced by newer releases, but this is the latest release available for Mac OS 9 and below, and is still used on a number of mobile devices. I no longer explicitly support this browser, but it is still able to display most pages, as long as they do not require DOM (script support should never be required to view page content).

Netscape 4

Vendor

Netscape Corporation (now part of AOL) via Evolt

Operating systems

Windows 3.x/95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP, Mac OS 8.5+, many Linux and UNIX distributions.

JavaScript

Layers.

Capabilities

Description

The first browser ever to support DHTML. Sadly, its implementation was badly bugged and the proprietary extensions used to provide the DHTML were rejected soon afterwards. Its CSS support had many bad problems, and it would frequesntly crash with common CSS declarations. The browser remained popular for a few years, until it was largely replaced by Internet Explorer and later Mozilla.

My opinion

Thankfully, this browser has now been replaced. Even in its own time, it was one of the worst browsers in use. Its regular crashes and inability to render pages correctly made it one of the hardest browsers to code for. It is not worth supporting. As it has now been superceded by Netscape 6-8 and the entre Mozilla Gecko family, I no longer explicitly support it. If pages work in it, then that is a bonus.

Escape 4

Vendor

Espial

Operating systems

Solaris, Netware, Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP, MacOS, Other Java supporting platforms.

JavaScript

Layers.

Capabilities

Description

A browser written in Java, designed to be embedded in commercial applications, but free to download (after registration). This one attempts to emulate the Netscape 4 implementation of JavaScript and DHTML, without most of the bugs that Netscape 4 suffers from, but with limited event handling. This has now been replaced by Escape 5.

It uses the Java based Mozilla Rhino engine to provide the ECMAScript support, and a custom layers engine.

My opinion

Unlikely to be used by any of your viewers. However, it is the best layers browser available, so you may want to try it, just for the sake of interest. I do not recommend explicitly supporting it.

Other browsers

Escape 4 is used by iBrow.

OmniWeb 4.2-

Vendor

Omni Group via Evolt

Operating systems

Mac OS X 10.1-10.2.

JavaScript

Partial layers.

Capabilities

Description

A commercial browser, costing about $30. Despite excellent support for unicode and international character sets (the best of any browser, so they claim), version 4.2- is plagued by annoying bugs, has probably the worst rendering of any 4th+ generation browser, and is not worth supporting.

They kept changing their minds as far as which DHTML it supports, but version 4.2- supports layers DHTML and version 4.1- also supports proprietary DOM DHTML.

My opinion

Not worth supporting. Properly written pages may work in Omniweb 4.2- but that is a bonus. You could waste months of your life trying to produce workarounds for this browser, and even then, they would not be much good. Thankfully, the decision to move to the faster and much more standards compliant Safari core for version 4.5+ means the unstable and low quality 4.2 core can be abandoned.

Clue browser

Vendor

NetClue Corporation

Operating systems

Java supporting platforms.

JavaScript

Limited proprietary DOM.

Capabilities

Description

A commercial browser, written in Java and designed for embedding. This browser attempts to support the proprietary DOM model, but fails to perform many of the functions of normal DHTML browsers. It uses the Java based Mozilla Rhino engine to provide the ECMAScript support, and a custom proprietary DOM engine. It cannot cancel events properly, occasionally loops through scripts multiple times and has cross window communication problems. They claim it supports DOM but it does not from JavaScript, just from the Java core.

The project seems to have been abandoned.

My opinion

Not worth supporting. Pages may work in Clue browser but that is a bonus. You could waste months of your life trying to produce workarounds for this browser, and even then, they would not be much good.

WebTV / MSN TV

Vendor

Microsoft Corporation

Operating systems

WebTV OS, emulator available for Windows (emulator for Mac has been abandoned).

JavaScript

Partial proprietary DOM.

Capabilities

Description

A browser for televisions, maintained by Microsoft, available only in USA. This requires its own receiver box to work. It supports DHTML to the same level as Internet Explorer 4 (with many bugs), and is updated automatically on an occasional basis. Receivers cost about $100, rental costs between $10 and $25 per month and calls are usually charged at local rate (Ouch!). Free emulators are available for Windows.

The browser itself is far outdated, and competes with much more capable browsers, such as Opera.

My opinion

TV browsers should be included if your users are likely to use them, but I do not attempt to create workarounds for the limitations of this browser. I do try to make sure that my sites will work on the small screen sizes available with TV browsers.

iCab 2

Vendor

Alexander Clauss

Operating systems

Max OS 8.5-9/X.

JavaScript

Limited DOM 1. Proprietary DOM.

Capabilities

Description

A commercial browser, costing about $30, still in development. It supports DHTML, but only to change colours. It has very limited regular expression handling, meaning that it cannot handle most form validation scripts. Its CSS 1 support is relatively complete, but since it does not support CSS 2, it cannot handle most CSS based pages.

My opinion

This browser has now been replaced with the much more capable iCab 3, so there is no need to support iCab 2. I tend to treat this browser as a text-only browser, except when only creating basic scripts. I recommend you do the same.

HotJava Browser 3

Vendor

Sun

Operating systems

Solaris, Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP, MacOS, Linux, Other Java supporting platforms.

JavaScript

Full ECMA. No DHTML support.

Capabilities

Description

Sun's browser, written in their own language, Java. The development of this browser has ceased, and it has been left without support for many major standards such as CSS. Unfortunately, it tests positive for support of Netscape 4 layers DHTML, but in fact does not understand it at all.

This is a concept browser, not designed for normal use, but merely an example showing that browsers could be written in Java.

My opinion

As this browser does not support DHTML, it is not worth trying. However, like many minor browsers, it supports enough script to be capable of performing form validations and other basic scripts. This browser, and all similar browsers should be supported if only writing basic scripts like these.

AWeb

Vendor

AmiTrix

Operating systems

Amiga OS.

JavaScript

ECMA. No DHTML support.

Capabilities

More details.

Description

A limited but fast browser written specifically for the Amiga operating system. The plan appears to be to embed the KHTML/WebKit (Konqueror) engine in a future release, but this has not happened yet.

My opinion

As this browser does not support DHTML, it is not worth trying. However, like many minor browsers, it supports enough script to be capable of performing form validations and other basic scripts. This browser, and all similar browsers should be supported if only writing basic scripts like these.

iBrowse

Vendor

IOSPIRIT

Operating systems

Amiga OS.

JavaScript

Partial ECMA. No DHTML support.

Capabilities

More details.

Description

A very limited but popular browser written specifically for the Amiga operating system. It is commercial, costing about $65.

My opinion

As this browser does not support DHTML, it is not worth trying. However, like many minor browsers, it supports enough script to be capable of performing form validations and other basic scripts. This browser, and all similar browsers should be supported if only writing basic scripts like these.

Amiga Voyager

Vendor

VaporWare

Operating systems

Amiga OS.

JavaScript

Partial ECMA. No DHTML support.

Capabilities

More details.

Description

A very capable browser written specifically for the Amiga operating system.

My opinion

As this browser does not support DHTML, it is not worth trying. However, like many minor browsers, it supports enough script to be capable of performing form validations and other basic scripts. This browser, and all similar browsers should be supported if only writing basic scripts like these.

GNUscape Emacs-W3

Vendor

William M. Perry via Evolt

Operating systems

Amiga OS.

JavaScript

No script support.

Capabilities

More details.

Description

A browser written specifically for the Amiga operating system. The project site is no longer available, and the project may have been discontinued.

My opinion

Treat this browser as a text-only browser when writing scripts.

Amaya

Vendor

World Wide Web Consortium

Operating systems

Windows NT/2000/XP, Several Linux/UNIX, Mac OS X. Windows 98/ME abandoned after Amaya 8.8.

JavaScript

No script support.

Capabilities

Description

The browser produced by the W3C, trying to comply with their strict standards. Designed as a test-bed, where new standards can be tested. Useful for testing only as it is one of the most awkward and annoying browsers to use. Its CSS support is fairly poor - significantly worse than even Internet Explorer.

My opinion

Use this browser to check your HTML does not contain errors, then ignore it completely. It will never make pages look good.

Dillo

Vendor

Dillo Project

Operating systems

Linux/UNIX, with some broken versions available for Windows.

JavaScript

No script support.

Capabilities

Description

A very limited browser, designed to be small, lightweight, and supposedly fast. However, it generally performs worse than full browsers like Opera, or other simple browsers like Links 2, and is relatively crippled on many Web sites because of its lack of capabilities. It has a very simple interface, and in general is used by people who want a quick utility browser, without having to load a complete - and therefore supposedly slower - normal browser.

My opinion

Users of Dillo do not expect it to work on all sites. In fact, they use it specifically because they believe its limited capabilities are a benefit to them. However, they are right in at least one respect; a properly written site should not fail just because the browser does not support JavaScript or CSS. Treat this browser as a text-only browser when writing scripts.

Lynx

Recommended.

Vendor

Multiple. For Windows 2000/XP, use CSant's distribution. For others, see the Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. site for more details.

Operating systems

Almost everything you can think of and very popular with Linux/UNIX.

JavaScript

No script support.

Capabilities

None.

Description

The most basic and portable browser available. It can be used on almost all operating systems, and it is one of the fastest and most lightweight browser available. It works only in text mode, but has surprisingly good support for internet standards.

My opinion

This browser is usually treated as the generic text-only browser. It is vital that your pages support browsers like these, not just from the point of view of the people using Lynx, but from the point of view of people who are blind and use text readers, people who do not support images, people who do not support script, people who do not support CSS, etc. A well designed site will remain usable in a text-only browser. Use this one to test your sites.

Recommended.

Vendor

Multiple, but the most up-to-date (Links 2) is Twibright Labs.

ELinks from ELinks site.

Operating systems

Almost everything you can think of and very popular with Linux/UNIX.

JavaScript

ECMA. No DHTML support.

Capabilities

Description

By far the best text mode browser available, although it is not as popular as its Lynx predecessor. Links supports tables, frames, font colours, multiple windows (with some operating systems), mouse controls and has a full featured menu system. On top of that, it has basic JavaScript support even in text mode, and can run in high resolution frame buffer, with support for images.

ELinks is an alternative branch of Links. It is similar to using Links in text mode, without mouse support. However, it has very basic CSS support, and can use simple text styles such as underlines and bold.

My opinion

Although most of us have no use for a text mode browser, if you do ever need one, you would welcome the ease of use that this browser provides. For development, it can replace Lynx as your text mode browser, but only if you configure it not to display tables, frames or colours, and possibly disable JavaScript as well, as that is what text / Braille readers would display.

This site was created by Mark "Tarquin" Wilton-Jones.
Don't click this link unless you want to be banned from our site.