QtWeb V3.3    Suggested by I am Baas - Updated by Checker on 9 Feb 2010 6MB (uncompressed) - Popularity score (3023) Website - Screenshot - Download - Comments (27) - Post comment - Permalink

Posted comments:

 donald: Please try posting suggestions to the QtWeb Internet Browser Forum. http://qtweb.net/smf/index.php?topic

I have registered and posted a request for ad block please add your request for same to the thread etc.
http://qtweb.net/smf/index.php?topic=15.0 [2009-01-21 18:03]

 Gary: If "Save user names and passwords" is enabled (default setting) in the Privacy preference, passwords are stored in clear-text format in the settings file. Not good... [2009-01-23 09:00]

 panji: too much memory to consume... [2009-01-23 09:24]

 Spin: Very much work in development. It's still flacky, lots of odd tab behaviour and sudden crashes. I found flash objects cause problems with display, a temp fix it to turn off plug-ins. [2009-01-25 12:44]

 robin: One to watch... it's usable at this stage of development, but not an altogether pleasant experience. Some great ideas, hope to see them better & more fully implemented in future releases. [2009-01-27 09:43]

 chezduong: Starting with version 1.7, QtWeb is much more stable, scores 100% on the Acid3 tests and feels much much quicker than FF3 for loading, etc. Sometimes, FF would hang for a few seconds. QtWeb does not seem to hang at all. Also starting with v 1.7, you can download the portable zip file, create a "PlugIns" folder in the application directory and copy/paste all the flash, quicktime plugins there and it will work.

Finally, NOTHING is written to the registry and nothing is left in the C:\ drive, unlike FF3 Portable which writes to registry and deletes and writes to UserProfile and copy/deletes. Here, nothing is written outside of application directory.

It is truly awesome. And the dev's are very very reactive to requests. [2009-02-10 15:24]

 Carbonize: The fact it passes the Acid 3 test is down to the rendering engine it uses and has nothing at all to do with the browser. Any program using WebKit will pass Acid3. As to it being faster than FF that would be because Firefox has to load Gecko first to render the forms. [2009-03-30 00:26]

 Hugh H.: Why are people still associating Safari with security!??? Wasn't that the browser that was hacked in TWO MINUTES in a recent competition?

When something is hacked in less time than anything else, it's probably time to ixnay the securitay.

I'm doing fine with FireFox Portable! [2009-03-30 18:26]

 tom: oh and firefox is secure right!? Naaa. Any popular software which uses the Internet will be exploited! Seen and used a lot of exploits for FF. I use opera 10 alpha, faster than firefox and easily the safest browser available! [2009-03-31 14:47]

 Carbonize: @Tom - Opera is as insecure as every other browser. The only reason there are less published exploits for Opera is because it has such a small userbase there is little reason to find exploits in it. It's for this reason that IE exploits appear weekly. [2009-04-01 00:37]

 tom: Exactly my point carbonize! But not ony that, it can be configured to only accept cookies and run JS on sites in an exception list... It also has a content blocker which makes it a more secure and private browser! No 3rd party crap needs to be downloaded like it does with other browsers! That alone is a security risk!

Opera is not just a browser its an internet suite! i will never go back to any of the other browsers! [2009-04-02 06:55]

 Carbonize: @Tom - As to your comment about Opera 10 ALPHA being faste rthan Firefox is based on what? Is it based on Firefox 3.1beta? Or say Firefox 3.5 Alpha? No I bet it's based on Firefox 3.0.8. You cannot compare an alpha product to a stable release. I suggest you also compare it to Safari 4 and Chrome 2.

Modern browsers work so fast the difference is down to milliseconds and so is irrelvant. I'm more concerned about how much memory a browser uses and how well it cleans up after it's self.

As to the cookies per site both Firefox and IE offer this. Content blocker? Not sure about that but does it have an ad blocker built in as standard? I bet not because no browser will offer that. BUT atleast I can add one to Firefox and IE.

Mozilla used to be an internet suite but they realised that people don't want a suite. I don't want my web browser to contain a POP/IMAP mail client. I don't want my web browser to also be a bit torrent client. I want my web browser to be a web browser. Opera now comes with so many features and options it's to confusing for most people which is one of the reasons it has such a miniscule userbase. [2009-04-02 08:18]

 a: I may use this over Google Chrome. Although it's kind of silly of them to have default bookmarks to other web browsers. It could use some interface improvements, and perhaps support Firefox extensions (likely not possible?). it's a great alternative to OffbyOne web browser non the less, much faster loading than any other browser I have tried, still Firefox will be my main browser till the end. [2009-04-02 10:14]

 tom: Its based on my testing all of them, opera if configured properly destroys memory hog firefox. There is also a recent test done (i will post the result here when i find it) Which shows opera 10(1345) beats all the firefoxes hands down bar 3.5??? never heard of that one! This is not a silly js test it records load times of pages while you browse around for 30 minutes or so... chrome seems ok for a few uses but far too basic, lacks security and privacy! I also (like firefox) see exploits come out for chrome weekly this is unacceptable... Your point about firefox being secure is nonsense due to this! Firefox is also ugly and looks like a windows 3.1 program. safari 4 is faster than op but the end build is likely to be a buggy, memory consuming piece of crap like the rest. Not only that security and privacy is lax.

I would say opera's small userbase is due to them not marketing there product like the others do! Not at all to it being down to the internet suite. Difficult? How hard is it to browse with opera its common sense. [2009-04-02 16:47]

 Carbonize: @Tom - Now you're just being a blinkered fanboy slavishly devoted to one product. As someone who has actually used 3.1 I can safely say Firefox looks nothing like it and, in fact, since version 3 it looks pretty good. Of course failing that you can just change the theme.

Again you are saying that Opera 10 beats Firefox and say that Safari 4 will be buggy and a memory hog yet, as I have already said, Opera 10 is ALPHA, meaning it has a lot of changes to come before it will be released so you cannot compare it to any stable product or even beta product.

In my opinion that black tab bar Opera now sports is seriously ugly.

BTW I just compared Opera 9.64 to Firefox 3.1 and Firefox is only using 10MB more memory and I can safely say most of that is down to the add ons I have installed.

Basically stop being a fanboy and take the blinkers off. No program is perfect and each has their flaws. [2009-04-03 01:34]

 semiRocket: Chrome is like all Microsoft crap. It install itself to unwanted places, it's disk consuming (around 50 MB after first startup) and don't ask user what he really wan't him to do. The browser itself is really fast and simple, but for above reasons is not for ME.

Firefox 2 is ok for most users, but for me lacks some of the most important options (again for me).

Firefox 3 is way to slow, and I don't wan't to spend eternity just to load a browser. (In my computer around 40sec on cold-startup :-P)

I'm using Opera 9 cause' it's got some advanced features/options that other browsers lack. I'm very satisfied with it's cold-startup and loading and it is a best browser for me :-)

But back to the subject, I wan't to use QtWeb for a portable browser cause' it's small, fast and little disk consuming.

When coms to portability, all other browsers consume to much disk space and/or are too slow. [2009-04-23 11:45]

 Atomic: Anyone using Lynx or Arachne in DOS. Those should be very secure, small, and fast. LOL. [2009-07-04 00:36]

 AshGhost: @Hugh H: Except for Gary's warning about insecure password storage, nothing in the description or the comments above you even mentions security. The description mentions _privacy_ features of QTWeb, which are independent of its use of WebKit. [2009-07-19 13:28]

 Billy-Bob: Carbonize, I use browsers all day, every day. I have tabs open to my server monitoring systems, time/project management, igoogle, gmail, google reader, and a few other internal work related sites.

I am no slavish fanboy, I use what is best, fastest, most efficient. I have always been a fan of Firefox, but compared to Opera, it is a bloated pig in memory use. Try using it seriously, for just two or three days, with anything from 3 - 10 tabs open. The exact same tabs open in both will use 180Mb in Firefox (every version, alpha, beta and stable), while in Opera the same tabs will use 80 - 120Mb at most. Memory utilization does not go up in Opera, when I minimize, it goes down to 10 - 20Mb. In Firefox, minimizing makes no difference at all, and over time, memory use actually creeps up because of memory leaks. Yes, I do still use Firefox a lot, I still like it, and I still have many add-ons that I really like having in Firefox, but it is not the same in memory use at all.

Add a similar memory experience with Thunderbird and my 1Gb of memory on XP does not go far at all. Opera does all that Firefox plus Thunderbird and a few other things do, in significantly less memory, and generally much faster.

It does still have many moments of lag in page update speeds where I never have that with Opera.

I think there is one slavish fanboy and narrow minded application basher here. You. And I think the Opera user base is nowhere near as small as you're making it out to be. [2009-07-19 19:12]

 Corporal Klinger: - "In my opinion that black tab bar Opera now sports is seriously ugly."

Agreed. And the new Firefox default theme is seriously ugly. But I'm smart enough to know how to change the theme in both Firefox and Opera and make it look better to me. [2009-07-19 20:46]

 someone: sadly, this web browser has much fewer features than what i'm used to on maxthon2 . hopefully it will become much more powerful web browser some day. [2009-07-21 21:06]

 abc: The browser's strong points are the fact it's small in size and lacks useless bloated features incorporated in other browsers. I don't know about you but I'd rather have a fast and stable browser over a buggy feature filled one. On the contrary I am a feature fiend, that's why I use Firefox with a ton of extensions as my main browser. But when the time comes I'd like to use a lightweight browser. One of the best features of Firefox is it's support of add-ons, I think the developer should incorporate some sort of add-on system before adding tons of features that may or may not be used by it's users. [2009-07-25 15:24]

 Webfork: Great browser: lightweight, simple, clean, and very useful with lots of privacy and annoyance-kiling features. Also, the only other browser besides K-Meleon to be licensed under the GPL. [2009-09-12 21:08]

 folofong: Can't not play media with Windows Media Player
==> Error occur [2009-11-22 02:34]

 freakazoid: Just checked the changelog (thanks Checker).
No idea why they added a BitTorrent client... [2009-11-27 17:58]

 granny: QTweb seems nice for actual online browsing, but I won't be adopting it. It can't save web pages as a usable file to my hard-drive, and it can't open MHT files. Those are deal-breakers for me, so I'll stick with OperaUSB. [2010-02-08 04:54]

 freakazoid: Looks like the new version fixed the slow mousewheel scrolling. Plus there appears to be a nifty feature to save a webpage as a PDF. [2010-02-10 01:11]

Post your comment:

All HTML tags will be removed from your comment. URLs (http, https, ftp) will be automatically detected and hyperlinked. I reserve the right to delete irrelevant, frivolous or offensive comments. For more general topics (eg. whether apps that write to the registry, leave traces on the host machine, rely on certain versions of IE etc. can be considered portable), please post to the Portable Freeware Discussion forum. If your virus scanner has detected a virus in the application, please email the author directly or post to the forum. Note that false positives (i.e. flagging a virus when there is actually none) are extremely common for virus scanners. When in doubt, try an online scanner like Online Malware Scanner or VirusTotal, which scans files using multiple anti-virus engines. It is very likely to be a false positive if only a few engines raise the red flag.