|
Ok, just for the sake of this discussion I did install several browsers and did some testing on all of them to provide you with my utterly biased review.
1. Performance bullshit
Peacekeeper results:
This test isn't very relevant, seeing as I did try various web pages (TL.net, YouTube etc.) in each of the browsers and I didn't see a whole lot difference with the exception of Chrome which was not able to initialize flash player (yes, I'm on Linux but I did install Chrome for Linux so it shouldn't be a problem seeing as Opera didn't have any).
2. Aesthetics
Opera definitely wins in this department, despite my beautiful Noia Extreme theme for FF. The only issue I did have with it was tabs above the address bar (soon all browsers will follow this trend, why oh why). Chrome is just plain ugly, simplicity is nice but this is just something else, the only thing I liked was how it highlights only the main page part in the address bar, but next implementation of FF is going to have that too and I believe that Opera too so it's not a big deal.
What struck me the most in Chrome were 2 things:
1. Lack of some bars at the top, having your settings and stuff buttons on the right was really annoying/confusing.
2. Lack of window borders (scroll bar and bottom bar) which made things even more confusing. I'm used to my bottom bar as it displays a lot of valuable info on mouse hover etc. in Chrome it doesn't and it even annoys you with 'waiting for webpage.address.net...' appearing on your screen which distracts you from what's going on in the main window. The scrollbar is also useful, even if just to see how 'long' the page you're browsing is. Why did they decide to get rid of this 2 things is beyond me.
3. Stuff (customization and other bullshit)
FF definitely takes the lead here with all the add-ons, themes, about:config and what not. Opera comes in as close second with better right-off-the-bat settings even for dummies, would be better yet, if you had the 'tabs below address bar' option, it loses in add-on department though. Chrome choice of available settings in the menu was simply laughable so I'm not even going to write about it.
I really did like the side panels in Opera. Awesome stuff.
I hate tabs at the top. Pointless and very annoying, the best thing would be to give user a choice of having them above or below address bar (or even on the side if you like that).
4. Conclusion
FF wins with Opera being close second. Chrome failed to impress me in any way and, unlike the other 2 browsers, has absolutely nothing special or unique to it (maybe except the lack of borders which is a bad thing). Chrome looks like it would be good as a mobile browser for cell phones, not for computers...
That sums it up on my part. Thanks for reading.
Edit: I would switch to Opera if they also included the 'just browser' download, without torrent/mail/irc/other non-browser stuff things. A bit too bloated and I have better software to do this other things for me.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
You call 11 MB bloated? Well whatever.
Otherwise I agree.
|
That googleupdate thing also sents some unknown data as far as I know; also why does it reside in the memory constantly? Chrome could search for new versions at startup.
Imagine starcraft having such an updater; and 50 other apps having those too.
btw.How are these tests made? Do they test just one website?
I usually have 50+ tabs open in 2-3 windows.. and chrome tends to slow down at those numbers. (at least last time I tried)
|
I will not stop using FireFox until I get plugins that are as good as, or better than,
FireBug
Web Developer
Selenium IDE
ScreenshotPimp
IEView
I only use FireFox because of it's power as a development tool when building web applications. I actually prefer Safari as a browser.
|
Until Chrome has (at LEAST) adblock, noscript, and firegestures, I'm not interested.
|
On February 02 2010 19:55 orgolove wrote:
Resorting to personal attacks will do nothing to promoting your ill-guided opinions, you sorry little fool.
Personal? You feel that strongly about your web browser that you feel any attack on it is an attack on you? And you call me a sorry fool.
On February 02 2010 19:55 orgolove wrote:
One crash a week isn't nearly enough to warrant calling a piece of software inferior irregradless of all its other functionalities.
In your previous post, you said once every 48 hours. Either you were lying then, or you're lying now. In either case it doesn't matter, since you're obviously a liar.
On February 03 2010 04:16 Manit0u wrote:
utterly biased
lol.
On February 03 2010 04:16 Manit0u wrote:
...with the exception of Chrome which was not able to initialize flash player (yes, I'm on Linux ...).
There's your first problem.
On February 03 2010 04:16 Manit0u wrote:
1. Lack of some bars at the top, having your settings and stuff buttons on the right was really annoying/confusing.
"What?! My buttons are on the RIGHT?! ARHH! I'm so ANNOYED and CONFUSED!!"
On February 03 2010 04:16 Manit0u wrote:
2. Lack of window borders (scroll bar and bottom bar) which made things even more confusing. I'm used to my bottom bar as it displays a lot of valuable info on mouse hover etc. in Chrome it doesn't and it even annoys you with 'waiting for webpage.address.net...' appearing on your screen which distracts you from what's going on in the main window. The scrollbar is also useful, even if just to see how 'long' the page you're browsing is. Why did they decide to get rid of this 2 things is beyond me.
Chrome has all of this. I can only assume this is because you're running Linux. Get a real operating system and try again.
On February 03 2010 04:16 Manit0u wrote:
I hate tabs at the top. Pointless and very annoying, the best thing would be to give user a choice of having them above or below address bar (or even on the side if you like that).
"What?! My tabs are on the TOP?! This makes me feel ANNOYED!!"
On February 03 2010 04:16 Manit0u wrote:
Chrome failed to impress me in any way and, unlike the other 2 browsers, has absolutely nothing special or unique to it (maybe except the lack of borders which is a bad thing). Chrome looks like it would be good as a mobile browser for cell phones, not for computers...
Since your unbiased review missed a few things, I'll fill you in:
-Chrome takes up less RAM, by far. FireFaggots will say it doesn't matter because they have their RAM and they want to use it, which is retarded because I'm sure they don't drive their cars in a way that uses all it's horsepower at all times, or (Insert other shitty analogy here).
-Chrome starts up faster and loads pages faster. You need look no farther than your own "unbiased" review.
-Chrome is much more stable.
-The aesthetics you hate on so much are made to maximize the viewable area. People don't buy big monitors just to have most of the viewing space taken up by space-wasting bullshit. It's beyond me why you think not having borders is a bad thing. I bet you're the type of guy who likes his desktop cluttered with icons, huh?
On February 03 2010 04:16 Manit0u wrote:
Edit: I would switch to Opera if they also included the 'just browser' download, without torrent/mail/irc/other non-browser stuff things. A bit too bloated and I have better software to do this other things for me.
Get an older version of Opera. Opera 9 was the fastest browser before Chrome's release. Opera 10 is when they took the bloated Failfox approach to web browsing.
|
United States47024 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:45 ComradeDover wrote:
In your previous post, you said once every 48 hours. Either you were lying then, or you're lying now. In either case it doesn't matter, since you're obviously a liar.
He said once every 48 hours of use. If he holds a 9-5 job, it's not entirely implausible that 1 week ~= 48 hours of browsing time.
On February 03 2010 08:45 ComradeDover wrote:
"What?! My buttons are on the RIGHT?! ARHH! I'm so ANNOYED and CONFUSED!!"
Defying established design conventions that 99% of users will be accustomed to for no apparent gain is still a flaw, if a minor one.
On February 03 2010 08:45 ComradeDover wrote:
Chrome has all of this. I can only assume this is because you're running Linux. Get a real operating system and try again.
Minor derail, but may I inquire as to why you hold such an antagonistic attitude toward Linux? At best, you can say that it's not designed for your demographic, in which case it still doesn't warrant antagonism (different != bad). Certainly it might shed some light for me on why you similarly dislike Firefox.
On February 03 2010 08:45 ComradeDover wrote:
"What?! My tabs are on the TOP?! This makes me feel ANNOYED!!"
Again, defying established convention for no reason is a flaw.
On February 03 2010 08:45 ComradeDover wrote:
-Chrome takes up less RAM, by far. FireFaggots will say it doesn't matter because they have their RAM and they want to use it, which is retarded because I'm sure they don't drive their cars in a way that uses all it's horsepower at all times, or (Insert other shitty analogy here).
The only memory usage data that has been provided by anyone in this thread stated to the contrary--that Chrome uses more memory than Firefox or Opera.
And even if it were true, when's the last time you went over 50% memory usage on a halfway decent machine, at least while performing tasks that don't hog all your screen space to begin with (e.g. a fullscreen game)? For a good portion of users, the only time I can see that difference being relevant is on netbooks or similar portable devices.
On February 03 2010 08:45 ComradeDover wrote:
-Chrome is much more stable.
Compared to Firefox? Yes. Compared to Opera? I doubt it.
You do realize he said *both* other browsers, and not just Firefox, right?
On February 03 2010 08:45 ComradeDover wrote:
-The aesthetics you hate on so much are made to maximize the viewable area. People don't buy big monitors just to have most of the viewing space taken up by space-wasting bullshit. It's beyond me why you think not having borders is a bad thing. I bet you're the type of guy who likes his desktop cluttered with icons, huh?
Those same large monitors reduce the need for space-saving, though. When cutting out borders and menu bars lets you see 24 lines of text instead of 20, that's a noticeable improvement. When it lets you see 84 lines of text instead of 80, I doubt you give a damn. More pleasing and more familiar/intuitive aesthetics are a reasonable tradeoff at that point. Again, the gain from this is largely on portable devices.
And what's wrong with a desktop full of icons? It's the most efficient way to access commands, as docks and menus both require more mouse-motion and time to reach (obviously a small difference, but seeing as we're arguing about differences in startup times, which take on the order of seconds and occur once per system start-up, we're already splitting hairs).
On February 03 2010 08:45 ComradeDover wrote:
Get an older version of Opera. Opera 9 was the fastest browser before Chrome's release. Opera 10 is when they took the bloated Failfox approach to web browsing.
I would argue that Opera 9 is still the way to go if you're looking for a just-browsing browser, but I haven't the test data to back it up (though neither do you, it seems).
As it is, Chrome (or Chromium/Iron--most of the philosophical disagreements people have against Google really hold no water with open-source equivalents available) is my go-to browser on a netbook or similar device. But on anything better than a mid-range desktop machine, it's advantages over Firefox and Opera are negligible, and their advantages win out.
|
Canada9720 Posts
On February 03 2010 04:45 Louder wrote:
I will not stop using FireFox until I get plugins that are as good as, or better than,
FireBug
Web Developer
Selenium IDE
ScreenshotPimp
IEView
I only use FireFox because of it's power as a development tool when building web applications. I actually prefer Safari as a browser.
hah, i just started using selenium at work the other day. do you find the ide that useful? so far i've only been using rc
|
Chrome and Firefox are both great browsers, but I will stick to my Firefox since it has so many useful addons. I can't imagine surfing the web without NoScript or Adblock Plus...or easy youtube downloader.
<3 Firefox ^_^
|
On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
He said once every 48 hours of use. If he holds a 9-5 job, it's not entirely implausible that 1 week ~= 48 hours of browsing time.
What a copout. I guess to starving children in Africa, Firefox must be the most stable browser ever since it'll never crash on them, right? Give me a break.
On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
Defying established design conventions that 99% of users will be accustomed to for no apparent gain is still a flaw, if a minor one.
The gain is that there's less space being taken up by established conventions leaving more room for the stuff you actually want to look at, and all this at no loss of functionality.
On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
Minor derail, but may I inquire as to why you hold such an antagonistic attitude toward Linux? At best, you can say that it's not designed for your demographic, in which case it still doesn't warrant antagonism (different != bad). Certainly it might shed some light for me on why you similarly dislike Firefox.
Chrome wasn't designed to run on Linux. If he managed to get it running, then good for him. If that means loss in functionality then it it's Chrome's fault, since it's more functionality than he should be getting on Linux (That amount being none). Most people don't use linux, so I don't know what garbage like that is doing in an "unbiased" review.
On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
Again, defying established convention for no reason is a flaw.
That's strange. When I had Firefox and Opera installed, both of them had their tabs on top, too. What convention is being defied, exactly? As far as I could tell, he was just bitching about not being able to move the tabs around to whatever side he wanted to, which seems like a pretty flimsy way to fill up lines of text about how much Chrome sucks while glossing over his speed test.
On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
The only memory usage data that has been provided by anyone in this thread stated to the contrary--that Chrome uses more memory than Firefox or Opera.
For one tab? No it doesn't.
For multiple tabs? Sure, but that's the price you pay for multi-process browsing and the speed and stability it provides.
On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
And even if it were true, when's the last time you went over 50% memory usage on a halfway decent machine, at least while performing tasks that don't hog all your screen space to begin with (e.g. a fullscreen game)? For a good portion of users, the only time I can see that difference being relevant is on netbooks or similar portable devices.
For netbook users, browsing the internet is just about all you can do, making browser choice that much more important.
On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
Compared to Firefox? Yes. Compared to Opera? I doubt it.
You do realize he said *both* other browsers, and not just Firefox, right?
My bad. I must have misread the tread title. I thought it said "Will Chrome Extensions Kill FF?", not "Will Chrome Extensions kill FF, and that other browser that doesn't even have extensions?"
On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
Those same large monitors reduce the need for space-saving, though. When cutting out borders and menu bars lets you see 24 lines of text instead of 20, that's a noticeable improvement. When it lets you see 84 lines of text instead of 80, I doubt you give a damn. More pleasing and more familiar/intuitive aesthetics are a reasonable tradeoff at that point. Again, the gain from this is largely on portable devices.
Are you really making the argument that menu bars are more pleasing than the page you're looking at? I'd rather have more TL.net and less HUD, wouldn't you?
On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
And what's wrong with a desktop full of icons? It's the most efficient way to access commands, as docks and menus both require more mouse-motion and time to reach (obviously a small difference, but seeing as we're arguing about differences in startup times, which take on the order of seconds and occur once per system start-up, we're already splitting hairs).
Personal opinion here, but desktop full of icons are ugly as sin.
On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
I would argue that Opera 9 is still the way to go if you're looking for a just-browsing browser, but I haven't the test data to back it up (though neither do you, it seems).
Other than having to actually used them, no. Then again, nobody is convincing anybody here, so what difference does it make?
On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
As it is, Chrome (or Chromium/Iron--most of the philosophical disagreements people have against Google really hold no water with open-source equivalents available) is my go-to browser on a netbook or similar device. But on anything better than a mid-range desktop machine, it's advantages over Firefox and Opera are negligible, and their advantages win out.
What advantages?
|
I used to be hellbent on using FF over Chrome. After awhile, I eventually moved over to chrome, and I like it alot more now.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On February 03 2010 11:37 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
Minor derail, but may I inquire as to why you hold such an antagonistic attitude toward Linux? At best, you can say that it's not designed for your demographic, in which case it still doesn't warrant antagonism (different != bad). Certainly it might shed some light for me on why you similarly dislike Firefox. Chrome wasn't designed to run on Linux. If he managed to get it running, then good for him. If that means loss in functionality then it it's Chrome's fault, since it's more functionality than he should be getting on Linux (That amount being none). Most people don't use linux, so I don't know what garbage like that is doing in an "unbiased" review.
No, Chrome works just as well on Linux as on any other OS. Any issues with Flash is independent of Chrome. And it's very important for an open source browser to work on an open source OS...
Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
The only memory usage data that has been provided by anyone in this thread stated to the contrary--that Chrome uses more memory than Firefox or Opera. For one tab? No it doesn't. For multiple tabs? Sure, but that's the price you pay for multi-process browsing and the speed and stability it provides.
If you're worried about memory usage with just one tab open, your computer must be from 1990. Not only that, but multi-process browsing should decrease memory usage. Chrome's code is rather inefficient in that regard. Multi-process browsing is the way to go... If you implement it properly (which Chrome has not).
Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
And even if it were true, when's the last time you went over 50% memory usage on a halfway decent machine, at least while performing tasks that don't hog all your screen space to begin with (e.g. a fullscreen game)? For a good portion of users, the only time I can see that difference being relevant is on netbooks or similar portable devices. For netbook users, browsing the internet is just about all you can do, making browser choice that much more important.
The netbook market is still a rather small subsidiary of the computer market as a whole. And netbook computers aren't THAT bad in terms of hardware.
Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
And what's wrong with a desktop full of icons? It's the most efficient way to access commands, as docks and menus both require more mouse-motion and time to reach (obviously a small difference, but seeing as we're arguing about differences in startup times, which take on the order of seconds and occur once per system start-up, we're already splitting hairs). Personal opinion here, but desktop full of icons are ugly as sin.
Again, more personal opinion, but desktops full of icons are not only ugly as sin, but they're also vastly inefficient. Much easier would be something like the awesome bar of Windows 7 where you just start typing in the name of the program and the indexer grabs it for you :3.
Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
As it is, Chrome (or Chromium/Iron--most of the philosophical disagreements people have against Google really hold no water with open-source equivalents available) is my go-to browser on a netbook or similar device. But on anything better than a mid-range desktop machine, it's advantages over Firefox and Opera are negligible, and their advantages win out. What advantages?
Greater extensibility is the one that we're discussing in this thread, so I'll go with that one.
|
Well, mr. Linux hater... One thing you failed to notice is that I was testing the Linux versions of all browsers to provide reliable results, it would be pointless for me to install Windows version of Chrome if a native one is available, wouldn't it?
Google did a rather bad job with the Linux version of their browser though as not only it failed with flash (while both Opera and FF had no trouble with it and didn't even require me to do anything, they're fully usable right after installation) but with other things too:
- it failed to locate folder for downloads as for unknown reason it was looking for a folder called Downloads in my home directory by default (and I don't have such folder)
- it failed to check if it's the default browser and shown a red error in the options screen that it is even unable to perform this check
I know this are minor flaws but when you see them you can't help but think: "If there are such basic flaws in it, perhaps there are also some major ones that I just can't see yet?".
Also, on the sidebar/more visibility stuff:
Sure, take away the scroll but leave the god damned statusbar at the bottom of the page. Like I mentioned, in Chrome, whenever you're trying to transmit some data (open a new page or do stuff on it) it displays things that usually are displayed in the statusbar on the screen which distracts you (if something pops-up on your screen every now and then it's bound to draw your attention). I don't know if constant annoying distraction is a good tradeof for this 10-12 pixels at the bottom of the page.
And on the tabs on top:
I don't care if it breaks my familiar design (which might be an issue for some). What I care about is that I need to travel a lot more distance with my mouse to reach them, they also don't look too good there, somehow the ones in classic firefox/opera seem a lot smaller/sleeker. That's why I mentioned giving users the option to choose where they want their tabs. If you want them on top like in Chrome, be my guest, but if you want them below the address bar, you definitely should have the option to do so.
Edit: And what "REAL" operating system do you use?
|
Vatican City State1650 Posts
Fucking idiot can't learn how to read. Didn't I say 48 hours OF USE?
Sigh. We've been trolled. Ignore him.
|
Relevant data (shown in % of total memory available - 2GB):
Chrome
1 tab:
MEM - 1.60
10 tabs:
MEM - 2.61
Note: if I just leave the tabs open and don't touch the window this values are lower, when I move through tabs however it starts to increase, I put in the average values I got in 10 tabs case.
Firefox
1 tab:
MEM - 3.35
10 tabs:
MEM - 4.69
Opera
1 tab:
MEM - 2.73
10 tabs:
MEM - 3.20
Note: Memory usage in FF and Opera does increase only marginally when cycling through tabs - by about 0.01 (unlike in Chrome where it increased by 0.7 per tab).
Conclusion
Chrome does use less memory initially but scales rather bad with the number of open tabs. Opera has a very nice scaling as memory usage doesn't grow a whole lot with opening new tabs (with 16 open tabs Opera beats Chrome 3.63 vs 3.86). Firefox uses the most memory but that's to be expected with my 5 extensions which are quite heavy (Ad-Block, FireBug, FireGestures, FlashBlock, DownloadHelper).
Winner: Opera
|
United States47024 Posts
Mystlord addressed the other stuff I was going to say.
On February 03 2010 11:37 ComradeDover wrote:
What a copout. I guess to starving children in Africa, Firefox must be the most stable browser ever since it'll never crash on them, right? Give me a break.
Well it's his personal experience. I can't say mine are consistent with his, seeing as I get a Firefox browser crash on the order of maybe once every 6 months, but I also have no measure of my usage frequency (it's probably more than 48 hours a week, but I also rarely have 8 tabs open). It's anectodal evidence either way, and I don't expect it to be a major argument.
On February 03 2010 11:37 ComradeDover wrote:
That's strange. When I had Firefox and Opera installed, both of them had their tabs on top, too. What convention is being defied, exactly? As far as I could tell, he was just bitching about not being able to move the tabs around to whatever side he wanted to, which seems like a pretty flimsy way to fill up lines of text about how much Chrome sucks while glossing over his speed test.
Er, did you read the paragraph? It *starts* by saying "tabs at the top", but it's pretty obvious he means above/below the address bar from context, and as far as I can tell, that is a browser convention.
On February 03 2010 11:37 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 09:13 TheYango wrote:
Those same large monitors reduce the need for space-saving, though. When cutting out borders and menu bars lets you see 24 lines of text instead of 20, that's a noticeable improvement. When it lets you see 84 lines of text instead of 80, I doubt you give a damn. More pleasing and more familiar/intuitive aesthetics are a reasonable tradeoff at that point. Again, the gain from this is largely on portable devices. Are you really making the argument that menu bars are more pleasing than the page you're looking at? I'd rather have more TL.net and less HUD, wouldn't you?
I guess you just never frame your pictures right?
On February 03 2010 11:37 ComradeDover wrote:
Other than having to actually used them, no. Then again, nobody is convincing anybody here, so what difference does it make?
Anecdotal evidence is pretty shaky at best, when it goes for things that can/should be quantified and can vary greatly from system to system.
On February 03 2010 11:37 ComradeDover wrote:
What advantages?
Firefox - Extensibility. This might not remain an advantage for long, but until extensions are more stable and cover more of what people want/need, it's still a Firefox advantage.
Opera - Easier out-of-the-box customizability.
On February 03 2010 15:21 Mystlord wrote:
Again, more personal opinion, but desktops full of icons are not only ugly as sin, but they're also vastly inefficient. Much easier would be something like the awesome bar of Windows 7 where you just start typing in the name of the program and the indexer grabs it for you :3.
Well sure, but if we're going down that line, Terminal > all.
On February 03 2010 16:33 Manit0u wrote:
Chrome does use less memory initially but scales rather bad with the number of open tabs. Opera has a very nice scaling as memory usage doesn't grow a whole lot with opening new tabs (with 16 open tabs Opera beats Chrome 3.63 vs 3.86). Firefox uses the most memory but that's to be expected with my 5 extensions which are quite heavy (Ad-Block, FireBug, FireGestures, FlashBlock, DownloadHelper).
Winner: Opera
While I'd hardly call this single test conclusive, I disagree with saying Opera is the winner here. If Chrome has less memory usage for the most realistic numbers of tabs (I'd say 6-10), then it's at least tied, if not better than Opera in this department. That said, you should specify the Opera version being used (if it's not 9, I'd like to see the test redone).
|
Well, this was my conclusion and winner in my eyes (as I tend to have a lot of tabs open at a time). Also, I checked it on Opera 10.10.
Want me to try and install 9 and see how it works there? I used the latest builds available (excluding alpha and pre-release versions) for my OS for each browser for consistency (and I guess getting the latest version would be what most people would do).
Edit: And the memory usage I posted was all in idle mode. When you begin to cycle through your tabs Chrome is using even more memory than FF.
|
About memory usage, the numbers are flawed in my opinion.
I got ~15 addons for firefox about half of that for Chrome. When I start chrome every addon get's its own process so the total memory usage right after startup is:
Chrome: 0.1297 GB
Firefox: 0.0724 GB
Conclusion: Chrome uses 58 MB more memory after start up.
I also saw the video about Ubiquity and I must say it looked mighty sweet. However if I want to wiki search using firefox I click ctrl+t and type "wiki meatball". Choosing language is not hard either, I either want it in swedish or english and if I type "wiki köttbullar" the result will be in swedish.
This not a bashing of that addon, it's just how amazing the awesomebar in firefox is - strength being, if I have visited the page before it will suggest it while i type. Chrome has similar functionality but it wants to to drop by google every time you search something instead of using the "I am lucky" that firefox uses.
Edit: I'm really into mouseless computer usage and Windows 7 can be used fast as hell with no mouse seing as there's great hotkeys and slickrun takes care of the rest. My big problem is browsing, cant find a way to browse pleasantly using only keyboard but if they implement a command prompt in firefox I will get a lot closer. I've tried every related plug-in so far (I think) and I disliked them all. I also realize that what I want is very far away even if they implement Ubiquity+++ prompt.
|
|
|
does chrome have a version of noscript?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4714/97548192.jpg)
