![]() I hate to answer my own question, but here are the results of my research. This basically rules out portable versions of Chrome and Firefox. After the extensive browser test, I have to say though that I don't consider any browser being 100MB and bigger lightweight, especially when considering what QtWeb can pull off with its tiny 7.5MB. Ideally, all of that should be kept as small as possible, but it's impossible to set fixed standards here, so I'm willing to make sacrifices. Qupzilla browser logo update#Update after my answer I gave below: I'm aware that "lightweight" is an incredibly ambiguous term that might relate to physical size, memory usage or CPU usage. There is plenty of software out there that calls itself portable, because it doesn't need to be installed, but stores the user data in the Windows user folder making it effectively "unportable", since moving the software to another computer will cause it to lose all the user's personal information. To clarify what I mean by portable: An application is properly portable if it doesn't need to be installed, doesn't write settings to the Windows registry and keeps user files like the profile, bookmarks, plugins etc. compatible with video streaming websites like youtube.adblock functionality either built-in or through plug-ins/addons.single executable/very few files (optional). ![]() So for reasons of security, but also compatibility, I'm wondering if there are other browsers out there that offer a similar functionality: While I still enjoy using it, it does have compatibility issues with video websites. It's portable and uses only a single 8MB executable, has a very capable built-in adblocker and renders most websites without problems. I've been using QtWeb for a few years now. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |