Does the world really need another browser when it has plenty of perfectly mediocre, vulnerability-riddled ones available for download already? You can have IE (more of the same unless you buy in to the idea that IE 7 will solve world hunger), Mozilla Firefox (worthy features, but not always the ones you care about) and Opera (it’s Norwegian).
Here's some more discussion on what has made it controversial. It's amazing what passes for controversial nowadays...
Browzar is a different type of browser altogether, and is what is known as a “shell” Internet Explorer shell program. In simple parlance, it hitches a ride on IE without actually being IE. There are a number of these about, the best known of which is probably AOL’s.
Why anyone would want such a browser is an interesting point. Its main function is, it claims, that is does not store the sites a browser has visited, does not keep a cache, and does not cache forms. This makes it more secure than a conventional browser if it is anonymity you’re after.
On the downside, Browzar defaults to a startup page that is actually a search page based on the Ask engine, a setting that cannot be changed. Like almost every search engine, this returns search results that show paid-for listings prominently. Some of its security has also been hacked at – you can, in fact, find out the sites a user has been visiting if you know where and how to look.
But Browzar is still incredibly useful if it is used sensibly. Take the executable around on a USB flash drive, and it can be used quite happily on a public PC before being deleted to cover any traces of what was done on the PC
Conceived as a consumer tool, it has obvious uses for businesses. Instead of carrying around a laptop and worrying about data security, why not carry data around on a USB drive in encrypted form, and use the cheery Browzar for SSL VPN access, deleting it behind you?
It’s like having all the advantages of IE with few of the disadvantages, surely a software first.
Find your next job with techworld jobs