User Tools

Site Tools


bkeyser_mail.roosevelt.edu

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

bkeyser_mail.roosevelt.edu [2015/02/18 11:08] (current)
bkeyser_mail.roosevelt.edu created
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== Comparing Chrome (used) vs. Internet Explorer: ======
 +
 +(Note: Chrome itself is not open source, but it is very heavily based on the open-source Chromium browser. The primary differences are proprietary Google features being included in Chrome but not Chromium. This analysis disregards the features found only in Chrome, as reported on https://​code.google.com/​p/​chromium/​wiki/​ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome)
 +
 +Internet Explorer is a proprietary web browser that ships with all versions of Windows. As a web browser, it is capable of displaying most pages similarly to all other browsers. However, it is lacking in capabilities when compared to Chrome. Testing for compatibility with HTML5, Chrome scores 511 out of 555 points, while IE scores 336. Using the Acid3 test, IE scored a 100/100, but had multiple slowdown issues. Chrome – in Incognito mode to avoid extension conflicts – scored a 100/100 as well, with fewer slowdown issues. Using the Peacekeeper testing suite, Chrome scored 2526, while IE scored 2355. Also, Chrome scored 7/7 in HTML5 Capabilities,​ while IE scored 4/7. Finally, using the Octane 2.0 suite, Chrome scored 23150, while IE scored 8987. All tests were run sequentially,​ on my laptop, with low outside CPU load and moderately-high outside RAM load. 
 +Chrome also has a wide variety of useful extensions, easily obtained from the Google Web Store. (Note: Chromium also supports the Google Web Store; this is not a Chrome-exclusive feature.) (I currently use 25, one of which is “TamperMonkey”,​ which allows me to run userscripts – essentially,​ more extensions – of which I run 26, for a total of 51 various browser modifications.) Internet Explorer supports add-ons, but does not have any easy site to find them from, and most extensions are apparently small programs you download and install, and then they modify the browser while running. There is also no support for userscripts;​ all add-ons that provided this functionality are defunct. Chrome extensions are built in to the browser, and do not operate outside it.
 +In conclusion, IE can not perform many of the features that I frequently use, and is less capable in displaying modern webpages. Therefore, it is not capable of replacing Chrome. Regarding Chrome vs. Chromium, Chromium could primarily replace Chrome for me, but I would be required to compile it myself, and I would need to perform manual updates; automatic updates are a Chrome exclusive.
 + 
 +====== Comparing VLC (used) vs. Windows Media Player ======
 +
 +
 +Windows Media Player is a proprietary media player that ships with all versions of Windows. It is capable of playing most common media formats. However, it does not natively support .mkv, .ogg, or .flac, three uncommon file types I frequently use. VLC natively supports almost all formats, with an exception for .midi files – the only open codec is outdated and insecure. WMP and VLC both have a functional GUI, and while WMP’s GUI is easier to use, as an experienced computer user, I prefer VLC’s sparse format. VLC also gives me more direct control over the layout and the internal details of playing media. WMP does have significant integration with Windows, supporting easy discovery of media files placed into the standard media libraries and media playback in Windows preview. ​
 +Due to my need for playing uncommon media, my desire of full control over my programs’ operations, and my preference for VLC’s GUI, WMP can not replace VLC for me. However, I still use it when i have a .midi file to play. 
 +
 +====== Comparing VeraCrypt (TrueCrypt fork, used) vs. BitLocker ======
 +
 +VeraCrypt and BitLocker are encryption programs that can encrypt partitions so they may only be accessed by use of a password. VeraCrypt is a fork of TrueCrypt, a widely-trusted encryption program, due to TrueCrypt’s depreciation. Both VeraCrypt and BitLocker can encrypt a drive on a computer or a portable drive, or the entire system. However, only VeraCrypt can create a file container for encrypted data. BitLocker requires the Ultimate or Enterprise version of Windows 7, or the Pro or Enterprise version of Windows 8, while VeraCrypt is supported on all versions of Windows XP or greater, as well as OSX and Linux. BitLocker also requires a TPM chip in order for most of its functionality to be enabled. Both require a password to secure the drive, but VeraCrypt also supports including “keyfiles”,​ files whose first megabyte is used as an additional input into the encryption algorithm, increasing the security at the cost of requiring an additional resource for decryption. VeraCrypt does not permit any form of recovery or backdoor in case of a lost password/​keyfile or damage (besides brute force), except for a recovery disk to replace the bootloader in case of damage when using full-system encryption. (Without the bootloader, the system could not decrypt the disk, and thus could not load.) BitLocker, on the other hand, requires that you have a form of recovery; it will not encrypt a drive without one. There are no known backdoors in BitLocker, but it has not been audited and is closed-source,​ so outside workers can not inspect the code to ensure security. VeraCrypt is open-source,​ and has taken in the recommendations of the TrueCrypt audit, and has an audit for itself planned.
 +In conclusion, BitLocker is not suitable for my purposes. Not only do I use VeraCrypt’s file container option, but I also use multiple keyfiles for all my encrypted material. I also do not trust a closed-source encryption solution, because there is no way to ensure security. Finally, I use Windows 7 Professional Edition, so I can not use BitLocker, even if I wanted to. BitLocker can not replace VeraCrypt for me. 
  
bkeyser_mail.roosevelt.edu.txt · Last modified: 2015/02/18 11:08 by bkeyser_mail.roosevelt.edu