Related
Hi,
i just would like to know, what are the big differences between the web browsers (Opera, Opera Mini, Skyfire) ?
I am trying to find the browser that is most suited for my needs. I bet there's a lot of people who are wondering the same. So please, come someone enlighten us (me).
just a general note. you should try all browsers and then see as browser comfort is usually individual.
as of today i'd choose either the latest edition of Opera 9.5 or Skyfire... but for the sake of comparison.
Opera Mini is very fast and stable and is java based.. but doesn't have all the features the new browsers such as Opera 9.5 and Skyfire have.
Opera 9.5 is greatlooking and supports direct flash and has a fine comfortable interface.
Skyfire has a few options for browsing.. such as using a Mouse pointer to move across the page or sweep your finger to move the page. also it has a very comfortable home page which i use constantly with weather reports and google search. it also has a very fast loading time.
one major difference between opera and skyfire is the fact that skyfire supports most languages without having to use special language packs.
Internet Explorer sucks ass.
Netfront is great.. not as fast as the others but is very multilingual and has some new options.. you should look it up in google to see what it offers.
nir36 said:
just a general note. you should try all browsers and then see as browser comfort is usually individual.
as of today i'd choose either the latest edition of Opera 9.5 or Skyfire... but for the sake of comparison.
Opera Mini is very fast and stable and is java based.. but doesn't have all the features the new browsers such as Opera 9.5 and Skyfire have.
Opera 9.5 is greatlooking and supports direct flash and has a fine comfortable interface.
Skyfire has a few options for browsing.. such as using a Mouse pointer to move across the page or sweep your finger to move the page. also it has a very comfortable home page which i use constantly with weather reports and google search. it also has a very fast loading time.
one major difference between opera and skyfire is the fact that skyfire supports most languages without having to use special language packs.
Internet Explorer sucks ass.
Netfront is great.. not as fast as the others but is very multilingual and has some new options.. you should look it up in google to see what it offers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wow, great..thnx for the info
but i got difficulty to download skyfire. it doesnt support for my country phone number
I knew i wasnt the only one that would be helped ! =)
Thanks a lot!
I will try Skyfire, and if i'm not satisfied, i will go for Opera (but i wonder if Opera Mini could be fine).
You also forgot about one VERY important thing - both Opera Mini and Skyfire use server-side processing: the phone sends all information to opera's or skyfire's server, the server downloads the page as a normal browser would, then strips it of unnecessary data, resizes pictures, compresses the page and then sends it to your device.
So everything you browse, and all the data you send, including passwords is not exchanged directly with the target website, but instead goes trough a third party server. Of course all server-device communications are encrypted, but still i don't encourage using these browsers for sensitive data like banking or shopping using your credit card information. This might be a bit paranoid, but considering how internet looks like today, paranoia is a rather healthy thing
Besides, there were already cases where browser used incorrectly made all the encryption useless: when opera (and probably skyfire too) is started for the first time, it generates a random key to encrypt data and identify your device. But when opera is cooked into ROM or made into CAB installer after this key has been generated, the server recognizes every device using this version as the same one. So if person A logs into a email account and then person B (using the same broken opera install with the same key) goes to this email website - he'll see he's already logged in as person A and can see all of his/her e-mails.
Of course this doesn't happen often (actually i know of only one such accident and the faulty opera was quickly removed from ROM) but still - better safe than sorry.
However, the advantage of these browsers is that they're really fast - all the hard work is done on the server so our devices don't need to do any html/css/javascript/etc interpreting and only have to draw the simplified version of website (opera mini) or something like a screenshot of the website (skyfire) sent by the server. And since the data sent to the device is compressed, they both use much less bandwidth than conventional browsers which is important on cellular connections where you usually pay for transmitted data quantity.
On the other hand, Opera Mobile (all versions), NetFront, Pocket Internet Explorer (which really sucks) are _real_ browsers, like the one on your PC - they communicate with websites directly. But they also have to do all the processing and interpreting, not only drawing so they're noticeably slower than Opera Mini and Skyfire. Also, they usually download all website content and transferred data is uncompressed so they use up much more bandwidth.
Generally, i prefer to use Opera Mini for general web browsing, forums, etc. But for sensitive data (shopping, banking, e-mail), or when bandwidth is not a concern (on a wifi connection) i tend to stick with Opera Mobile or NetFront.
Of these two browsers, Opera 9.5 gives a bit nicer and more finger-friendly user interface. But this requires quite a lot of memory and processing power to work smoothly, so it's almost unusable on low memory devices like Wizard.
NetFront has much simpler UI, closer to one seen in pocketIE and while it doesn't look as impressive an Opera's, it works much better on slower and low memory phones. Since they're both in open beta testing stage, it's best to download and try both to see which one you like more.
mr_deimos said:
You also forgot about one VERY important thing - both Opera Mini and Skyfire use server-side processing: the phone sends all information to opera's or skyfire's server, the server downloads the page as a normal browser would, then strips it of unnecessary data, resizes pictures, compresses the page and then sends it to your device.
So everything you browse, and all the data you send, including passwords is not exchanged directly with the target website, but instead goes trough a third party server. Of course all server-device communications are encrypted, but still i don't encourage using these browsers for sensitive data like banking or shopping using your credit card information. This might be a bit paranoid, but considering how internet looks like today, paranoia is a rather healthy thing
Besides, there were already cases where browser used incorrectly made all the encryption useless: when opera (and probably skyfire too) is started for the first time, it generates a random key to encrypt data and identify your device. But when opera is cooked into ROM or made into CAB installer after this key has been generated, the server recognizes every device using this version as the same one. So if person A logs into a email account and then person B (using the same broken opera install with the same key) goes to this email website - he'll see he's already logged in as person A and can see all of his/her e-mails.
Of course this doesn't happen often (actually i know of only one such accident and the faulty opera was quickly removed from ROM) but still - better safe than sorry.
However, the advantage of these browsers is that they're really fast - all the hard work is done on the server so our devices don't need to do any html/css/javascript/etc interpreting and only have to draw the simplified version of website (opera mini) or something like a screenshot of the website (skyfire) sent by the server. And since the data sent to the device is compressed, they both use much less bandwidth than conventional browsers which is important on cellular connections where you usually pay for transmitted data quantity.
On the other hand, Opera Mobile (all versions), NetFront, Pocket Internet Explorer (which really sucks) are _real_ browsers, like the one on your PC - they communicate with websites directly. But they also have to do all the processing and interpreting, not only drawing so they're noticeably slower than Opera Mini and Skyfire. Also, they usually download all website content and transferred data is uncompressed so they use up much more bandwidth.
Generally, i prefer to use Opera Mini for general web browsing, forums, etc. But for sensitive data (shopping, banking, e-mail), or when bandwidth is not a concern (on a wifi connection) i tend to stick with Opera Mobile or NetFront.
Of these two browsers, Opera 9.5 gives a bit nicer and more finger-friendly user interface. But this requires quite a lot of memory and processing power to work smoothly, so it's almost unusable on low memory devices like Wizard.
NetFront has much simpler UI, closer to one seen in pocketIE and while it doesn't look as impressive an Opera's, it works much better on slower and low memory phones. Since they're both in open beta testing stage, it's best to download and try both to see which one you like more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you're right. my bad.
Incredible. Thanks for the update.
You guys @ XDA need a real THUMBS UP. Thanks for the fast answers, i hope that this will help a couple of users who we're wondering the same thing as I.
=)
That settles it. I'll try Skyfire & Opera Mini and find out wich one i like the most (since i don't use my cell phone for private use (banking & shopping) but more for browsing (forums & other).
YOU GUYS ROCKS!
Bitstream releases BOLT 1.5 - the most reliable, stable and fastest browser in market
We are proud to announce that we’re officially dropping the beta tag with today’s release of BOLT 1.5. New features include viewing videos of any length, a dedicated search bar, a download manager that downloads files directly from BOLT, improved navigation and text rendering, and caching support. Version 1.5 includes a host of new features designed to improve usability and stability, including:
Server upgrades (make v1.5 more than 15% faster than Beta3)
Cache support that enables directly browsing back to a previously visited page
Download manager that downloads files directly within BOLT on JSR 75 capable devices
Dedicated search bar, enabling search on popular search engines directly from BOLT
Enhanced column width control that auto-aligns the text to columns for ease of reading
Enhanced video support that includes inline media playing capability even on low-end devices
Enhanced copy-paste support for BlackBerry devices
Support for streaming videos of any length
Volume UP/DOWN controls in the inline media player
Ability to rearrange the subscribed feeds using the 'grab' feature
Access to History links from the URL window with inline editing OFF
One click access on Home Page that ensures the cursor jumps to the desired widget
Download:
Code:
http://boltbrowser.com/aindex
this appears to be a java browser? am i correct?
is there a windows mobile cab somewhere?
Bolt has always been a Java browser, that's why I don't use it. It feels too limited for me.
I have made a bundled for local install. However, the notify still connects, but it should minimize the download. Full Cert version (dual signed) attached. Unzip, run the jad using your Java (JBED/JBlend). It should use the local bolt.jar file.
Java or not Java, I've been enjoying Opera Mini a lot, and been beta testing BOLT (not so good that time). I'll test again now that they have much richer options (including disable picture/image, which is important to me)
Does anyone know how to get the youtube flash content working in bolt? When I click on the selected video it ask to "Open URL"? And when I click yes it says, "Opera Invoke error". Any Ideas? Do I possibly need another program or something to get this to work.
it suck
i can't play video every time i click on play it loading to 100%then again show me to click plsy button then again circle goes on....why?HTC P3400
Youtube does't play too.
where's the back button?
UPDATE!!!
Updated BOLT 1.7
Extract, run the bolts2local.jad file that will pickup the local jar instead of going to the net.
Enjoy ..
BOLT 2.0 Beta
BOLT 2.0 Beta features include: socket transport protocol, copy-paste operations, favorites/feeds organization, inline editing, find in page feature, download manager, password manager and up to 3XL magnification.
Really fast on my Artemis WM 6.5.5 using Cloudyfa Esmertec Jbed. Excellent for reading and replying to xda-forum.
Can anyone suggest a suitable MIDlet manager that works from SD card and handles passwords?
Cheers
Tom
P.S. See added attached thumbnail of post being written in BoltBrowser:
with no flash this is just another browser frankly .
Bolt 2.1
Bolt 2.1 now available
http://boltbrowser.com/
"BOLT is a full featured mobile Web browser that supports widgets, direct Twitter and Facebook integration, streaming videos, RSS feeds, social media sites, Google Maps".
Can someone write a widget for xda-developers please?
Cheers
Tom
help!
Anyone help me, connection problem it can't connect using WIFI. I have O2 XDA Zinc other browser was able to connect via WIFI only Bolt that can't connect..
has anyone tried bolt 2.3? http://boltbrowser.com/dnld.html
mr8820 said:
has anyone tried bolt 2.3? http://boltbrowser.com/dnld.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes - Boltbrowser automatically updates to 2.3 which introduced a dowload site to help them make some money. Now that Skyfire has abandoned WM I use Bolt more along with Opera mini.
Every browser has advantages and disadvantages. I like the RSS feeds and large fonts.
Cheers, Tom
bolt browser
'opera invoke error' keep getting this from all video link on bolt browser 2.3
This review is just based on July 2010 situation, when Opera Mini 5.0 final and BOLT 2.1 are released, UC Browser (UCWEB) version 7.2 is officially released as well. All this comparison is based on my own experience. The purpose is to introduce you the alternative choice for mobile internet surfing.
Scale used (points)
1. Feature is missing.
2. Feature exists but implementation is poor.
3. Implementation of the feature is adequate.
4. Feature is well implemented, aka it's good.
5. Implementation of the feature is excellent.
OS Supported
Bolt 2p
Opera Mini 4p
UC Browser 3p
Bolt is a Java ME based mobile browser, its rendering and processing is restricted by the Java MIDP 2, especially in Symbian and WM OS.
Except Java based version, Opera mini could support Blackberry/Windows mobile/Android.
To UC Browser, exclude the generic Java version, the dedicated Symbian/Blackberry/Windows mobile/iPhone/Android version is all available
But is it too much and complex for the user to download? Whatever, more choice is better.
Speed and traffic cost
Bolt 4p
Opera Mini 4.5p
UC Browser 5p
Bolt Opera Mini UC Browser
BBC.COM 7.8s 5s 4.5s
Traffic 700K 320Kb 251k
Opera mini and UC browser is based on proxy server-to-client architecture, the speed and traffic cost is much better than Bolt.
With the same architecture, it seems that the UC browser compressed more than Opera mini, But the high speed and less traffic UC gained is at cost of page quality loss.
Please see the rendering comparison below. At least, according to the speed and traffic volume tested , UC browser is the winner.
Bookmarks favorites
Bolt 5p
Opera Mini 4p
UC Browser 4p
Here are only assessed the simplicity and efficiency how bookmarks can be arranged on client side, not the possible synchronizations tools.
[image not allowed]
Managing bookmarks on Bolt 2 is quite simple. Bookmarks are displayed on start page for easy access. Folders can be used, and what is best is the possibility to arrange bookmarks and folders. Therefore it is actually possible to do the same as on Opera Mini: show few "speed dials" at first and then all the rest in folders. Access is easy thanks to #0 key shortcut.
Bookmark folders are finally implemented on Opera Mini 5 as well. However, bookmarks and folders can't be arranged, but they are in alphabetical order. Access to bookmarks is under menu, so several steps (clicks or finger moves) have to be taken to use bookmarks. User can however, create nine speed dials on start page. Unfortunately only small thumb nail images are displayed for speed dials. In case you have two exactly similar speed dials for the same Web site, you can only rely on your memory to distinguish them. Using speed dials and bookmarks are made simple and easy especially for touch screen phones, but this turns into disadvantage on non-touch screen devices.
Using bookmarks on UC Browser 7.2 is somewhat similar as on Bolt 2. Bookmarks can be rearranged and organized into folders. Access to bookmarks is almost just as simple as on Bolt. The bookmark can be synchronized and backup both from/to local mobile phone and server. You could share your bookmark both by SMS and Bluetooth.
Cookie and password manager
Bolt 5p
Opera Mini 5p
UC Browser 5p
Saving passwords and using cookies is possible on Bolt 2. Keeping passwords saved is very useful since some sites just does not seem to keep login cookies saved. All private information can be cleared at once.
Opera Mini 5 gives possibility to save passwords and keep the cookies, just like Bolt 2. There's separate settings to clear passwords and cookies.
There's no password manager on UC Browser 7.2 but cookies are saved. There is a option to clear the cookies as well
Download and upload manager
Bolt 3p
Opera Mini 4p
UC Browser 5p
Downloading and uploading works somewhat fine on Bolt 2. No special or highlights in Bolt
Downloading and uploading files on Opera Mini 5 works as well. Currently there is some server issues because uploading fails sometimes, and it has to be started again.
Some People keep on claiming UC Browser has the best file manager on J2ME browsers. According to my experience this time, it is much better than the others.
Fast speed, resume broken downloads, maximum 9 concurrent download tasks, maximum 3 downloading tasks, manually default download folder setting, and etc…
All files downloaded even deleted are remembered in download manager, so once you re-download it again, the system will remind you so that you could save your time and traffic.
Select, copy and paste text
Bolt 3p
Opera Mini 4p
UC Browser 4p
Select, copy and paste text works adequately on Bolt 2. Personally I find the Bolt's "select box" cumbersome and inaccurate.
In Opera Mini 5, complete new and improved tools to select, copy and paste text were introduced. Selecting text works almost as it does on desktop browsers. You can select and copy almost anything, and paste it exactly where you like using inline mode. Only reason why I did not give full 5 points is lack of possibility to copy link URL.
I like very much is the possibility to copy link URL. This makes it possible to copy URL without need to open the page, but what is even more important is the possibility to copy URL addresses of PDF and other closed source format files. The copied content is stored in mobile clipboard rather than browser clipboard which can allow you to send the content by SMS or Bluetooth.
Settings preferences
Bolt 3p
Opera Mini 5p
UC Browser 4p
There are adequate selection of preferences on Bolt 2. Worth to mention is possibility to install fonts. Personally I find no use for it but I admit it can help making the UI more usable with proper choice of font used.
Opera Mini is full of useful settings. For some strange reason part of them are located on so called power user settings page.
There are plenty of preferences on UC Browser 7.2. Worth to mention are possibilities to change the shortcuts and choose the night theme (useful at night time).
Rendering
Bolt 4p
Opera Mini 5p
UC Browser 3.5p
Page rendering aka way how pages are displayed is very delicate issue and certainly a matter of personal tastes. All the comments here are certainly just my own opinions but when it comes to rendering, it's important to remind the reader about this.
Bolt 2 continues showing Web pages as true as possible. This approach has it's advantages. For example many pages and features that just does not work on any other J2ME browser works on Bolt, and looks just the same as on desktop browsers. For example here at MyOpera I can easily access all features of my photo albums. I can edit and sort photos etc. There's also rather interesting split screen view available on Bolt, which is useful sometimes. However, I personally like Opera Mini's zoom more.
[Image not allowed]
In case of Opera Mini 5, I must confess being just so used to the way it renders the pages. I don't care if pages are not always showed exactly as they are on PC browsers. Usability is the most important issue for me and if the Web site provides a page that looks nice and is easy to use, then I really don't care if mobile site is different than users on PC can see. Many Web sites have finally started to understand how important it is to offer all the same features for all users, no matter what device they use. It is perfectly acceptable to give different content for mobile phone users, but it just should never be something less or limited compared to desktop browsers. Opera Mini 5 shows pages as I want to see them and that's all I have to care.
Rendering on UC Browser is not so good as opera mini. But I still have to say it's adequate, because at least they tried to offer a sort of desktop view. Their default setting is page view which is more fit able for the mobile with small-sized screen. In desktop view, many pages I use just looks not so good as opera mini. But on normal mode many pages are much better.
Save page
Bolt 3p
Opera Mini 3p
UC Browser 4p
Save page works just fine on Bolt 2 and it's easy to access saved pages on start page.
Save page feature works fine also on Opera Mini 5. It's easy to save pages and open them via menu. On Opera Mini 4.2 I liked the possibility to show few of the saved pages on start page. This is no longer possible on Opera Mini 5 but the lack of this feature is a question of start page features.
Except the saved URL page as opera mini and bolt, UC Browser 7.2 has an option to save the page as txt format which could save the mobile memory and easier to extract the content you like. Then you can easily copy to your word document or send SMS to your friends. After all, the content is more important than the URL, isn’t it?
Conclusion and summary
Bolt 3.55p
Opera Mini 4.27p
UC Browser 4.22p
From the point perspective, Opera mini is the most function-Rich browser with
most users around the world, and actually it is!
But its leading position is facing the challenge from new mobile browser players such as Bolt and UC browser. Especially for UC browser, comparing with its 7.2.0 version, more function and optimization is deployed in version 7.2.2.Botl is good as well. But not good enough. As a java based mobile browser, the function they provided is enough for the java supported feature phone. But not for the smartphone with high processing ability and more memory. Bolt should consider how to satisfy these customers.
So I have noticed that Google recently updated the mobile youtube version of their site and it is fully html5 capable like an app inside the browser...
the question is why does the html5 mobile version of gmail does not load up in the IE9 on Windows Phone Mango...when its fully capable of handling HTML5 ???
going to the mobile version simply loads up the generic mobile UI version of the site....any help ???
backlashsid said:
the question is why does the html5 mobile version of gmail does not load up in the IE9 on Windows Phone Mango...when its fully capable of handling HTML5 ???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's no where near "fully capable"..
Go here on your WP7 browser for proof: http://html5test.com
See how IE9 stacks up compared to other phone browsers (the results are poor): http://html5test.com/results-mobile.html.
It is possible that HTML5 Gmail site is using a feature that is not supported. It's also possible that like touch.facebook, they simply haven't enabled support for IE9 yet as they haven't tested it properly yet.
HTML5Test is not a good "benchmark". It verify only if the browser has been marked to support, not the way it has been supported
Aphasaic2002 said:
It's no where near "fully capable"..
Go here on your WP7 browser for proof: http://html5test.com
See how IE9 stacks up compared to other phone browsers (the results are poor): http://html5test.com/results-mobile.html.
It is possible that HTML5 Gmail site is using a feature that is not supported. It's also possible that like touch.facebook, they simply haven't enabled support for IE9 yet as they haven't tested it properly yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well touch.facebook.com works perfectly fine and so does m.youtube.com which features a new HTML5 UI and support...its only Gmail and Google+ I am talking about.
dada051 said:
HTML5Test is not a good "benchmark". It verify only if the browser has been marked to support, not the way it has been supported
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agreed !!!!!!
Some websites that target WebKit, do not take advantage of the HTML5 / CSS that non webkit browsers do support, just because it is not WebKit, even if the browser supports another implementation of the style.
Normally, the issues are with experimental features.
In May of 2010, Microsoft was actually considering spoofing this, so sites targeting WebKit will render properly, despite the fact website developers did not do a good job at being cross browser compliant.
Here's a good link that explains it: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft...prefix-for-ie-mobile-for-windows-phone-7/6173
The problem is that webkit uses experimental css, but much is actually supported by IE. But, there is no corresponding -ie css specified.
This article gives some basic info: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/thebeebs/ar...-for-all-browsers-or-just-your-favourite.aspx
Here is an example of the css that targets specific browsers, but then also uses the general. It comes from here: http://felipe.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/a-proposal-to-drop-browser-vendor-prefixes/
Code:
#elem {
-moz-box-shadow: 0 0 10px gray;
-webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 10px gray;
-o-box-shadow: 0 0 10px gray;
-ms-box-shadow: 0 0 10px gray;
box-shadow: 0 0 10px gray;
}
Personally, I don't see a reason for IE to not handle -webkit prefixes.
If -webkit-box-shadow is specifed, but no -ms-box-shadow is specified, then treat the -webkit-box-shadow as -ms-box-shadow.
It is also possible that the server is not even supplying it, if the css supplied by the server is specific to the browser. Although most css, is just a file on theserver, it can be dynamically generated by the server or have fiel dynamically selected by the server. And the browser information that is sent to the server can be used to determine this.
There are toolkits out there for site development that basically makes your site only render properly on webkit browsers. Serious web developers should avoid these, since it creates more work to acually make a site that will render on all major browsers.
Again, the problems occur because of usage of experimental css and css that is not sent to non webkit browsers.
Excellent explanation @JVH3.
Mind you, it would also be nice if Microsoft had provided any way to change the user-agent string of the browser, beyond the "Desktop"/"Mobile" setting. It is a sad thing, but on the modern web having a user-agent switcher is being increasingly important.
Also, and possibly more relevant to the question, Google is absolutely atrocious about using non-standards-compliant HTML/CSS. Seriously, try sticking any of their sites into the W3C validator, and most will come up as totally broken. Instead of making a single cross-browser-compatible site, they code to specific quirks of Chrome first, Safari and other WebKit browsers second, Firefox third, and IE9 or Opera last or never. The official reason they do this is to minimize the amount of network bandwidth they use by taking advantage of various shorthand techniques that most browsers have, and not including browser-checks in the code they send (which increase the file size and therefore bandwidth). Unofficially, it feels an awful lot like a push to get people to use Chrome...
nice responses....makes sense...the only worry is when Google or other sites fix it as in making it cross platform and the same with every browser...be in html5 or webkit
UC Browser is the best mobile browser I have ever used. It is even faster and smarter than Opera: With cloudy system, makes your mobile browsing smoothly as well as save your traffic.With various popular wap sites embedded, helps you open the most visited sites conveniently.
But I think the most important advantage of UC Browser is the powerful download manager, which supports to resume downloads from breakpoints, especially for network with a higher disconnection rate.It's really smart. I think that's why it is so popular all over the world They have 300 million users in 150 countries, which is much more than Opera.
Now UC Browser released their latest version, which is even more thoughtful. It developed net disk and App center for Symbian and Java ! I'm sure some of you are in great need that I can't wait to introduce it to you immediately. It's something I copied from UC's official introduction:
Main features of Java 8.3 and Symbian 8.4
1、UDisk (Net Disk)----Save once, download anywhere.
Different from other net disks, UDisk works with almost all the web resources, because it deeply integrate with the browser.
Just bundling UC Account, and you can save everything, no matter from local storage or web resources, to UDisk. Each file may have an expire date, for 7 days or forever. There are 70MB for long-time storage and 2GB for 7-days storage. Extra storage space for purchase may be available in future days.
2、App Gallery （App Center）----Install nothing, play everything.
Firstly introduced with our Android version, App Gallery is used by many users. You can read news, watch videos, sync bookmarks, just from UC App Gallery .
Nowadays, there are Online Disk, for free online storage; Quick Reads, for quick read the latest headlines; as well as Online Bookmarks, for access your bookmarks everywhere.
Although the initial version comes with only 3 apps, the App Gallery will soon get big enough to become your web center.
Overall, I really recommend you to try UC Browser immediately, it always give me surprise, I'm sure you will like it as long as you try it once. You can download here:
Download English version from PC:
ucweb.com/English/UCbrowser/download.html
Download from mobile: wap.ucweb.com
Facebook link： facebook.com/ucmob
I like it a lot so far, thanks for the tip!
How's Flash support on this browser?
~Sent from my Unlocked, Rooted, Faux 1.45gHz Motorola Atrix 4G~
It has flash enabled by default. I only installed this last night, but I just tested every video on ESPN Mobile, and they all worked perfectly.