Basilisk is not a browser most Windows users will install by accident, and that is part of the point. It appeals mainly to people who already know they want to explore a browser path outside the dominant mainstream options and who care about interface philosophy and browsing behavior enough to test something more specialized.
It is especially suitable for technically curious users or long-time alternative-browser users who want a more traditional-feeling browser environment and are comfortable evaluating compatibility for themselves. If your priority is simply the path of least resistance on the modern web, this will not be the most obvious first choice.
What makes it worth keeping is difference with intent. It gives a certain kind of user another browser option that is not trying to imitate every mainstream choice exactly, and that can matter when interface feel or browsing philosophy is part of the decision.
The tradeoff is practical compatibility. Alternative browsers should always be judged against the real websites, extensions, and workflows you use every day. A browser that feels philosophically appealing but struggles with important sites is still a weak main browser for most users.
My recommendation is to try Basilisk only if you already understand why a niche alternative browser interests you and you are willing to test it honestly on current Windows web tasks. Use a small trial first, verify your essential sites, and make the decision from real compatibility rather than from concept alone.
