These Chrome extensions just got added recently, though they're slowly becoming accessible to Google Chrome users (some of my friends can't use them yet)
What does this mean for the future of Firefox? FF is really the only other browser that could compete with Chrome's sleekness, but many were loyal to their FF because of their beloved plug-ins and customization.
But now that Google Chrome has their Extensions, are we going to see a vast shift?
For those of you who haven't gotten any Extensions yet, they are amazing, though most of them are still in Beta. Ones that I've DL'd so far can do as much as: -eliminate the wait in MU/Rapidshare -auto check plug in update -give Facebook a makeover, and eliminate ads -block Flash ads (AMAZING FOR MASS ANIME WATCHING) DL Here -a very sex RSS feed in a magazine format
Among others of course, and these just came out within a week. Thoughts? This is a discussion on whether or not FF/IE users will switch over, or if these Extensions still aren't enough to change people's minds.
EDIT: Interesting points brought up thus far: --> Chrome steals your information --> The general public is too uneducated ---> Opera's new JS engine
At first i was very sceptical about chrome, but then some day (pre plugin chrome) i started using it and never swiched back. Compared to firefox (and ive been using it since the very first phenix version on unix and windows) its rock stable (well i gues most of the ff problems are flash related and chrome handles them in a better way). I run a couple of plugins now, nothing fancy ... and have yet to notice any slowdown or problems.
I like Chrome, it loads fastest and uses the least resources BUT I'm just so familiar with FF and I have all the settings etc for it, cbf to do all that for chrome.
I do admit that Chrome is much more sleek and sexier, both in performance and aesthetics but I just prefer FF.
IMO most people who haven't switched over won't for a while. It takes time to build a developer base, and even when that's done, the functionalities of most popular Firefox extensions has to be reproduced. If Chrome "kills" Firefox, it'll be several years down the line, when more people have settled into developing and using Chrome extensions. There won't be a "vast shift" because people will shift when the extensions they want exist, not just because they could exist at some point in the future. With that timeframe, it comes down to whether Firefox devs can steal back the thunder with Firefox 4.
On February 02 2010 14:53 mOnion wrote: These Chrome extensions just got added recently, though they're slowly becoming accessible to Google Chrome users (some of my friends can't use them yet)
What does this mean for the future of Firefox? FF is really the only other browser that could compete with Chrome's sleekness, but many were loyal to their FF because of their beloved plug-ins and customization.
But now that Google Chrome has their Extensions, are we going to see a vast shift?
For those of you who haven't gotten any Extensions yet, they are amazing, though most of them are still in Beta. Ones that I've DL'd so far can do as much as: -eliminate the wait in MU/Rapidshare -auto check plug in update -give Facebook a makeover, and eliminate ads -block Flash ads (AMAZING FOR MASS ANIME WATCHING) -a very sex RSS feed in a magazine format
Among others of course, and these just came out within a week. Thoughts? This is a discussion on whether or not FF/IE users will switch over, or if these Extensions still aren't enough to change people's minds.
Let's see: Eliminate the wait in MU/Rapidshare, give Facebook a makeover, and eliminate ads is covered by Greasemonkey. Auto check plug in update is covered by Firefox itself. Blocking Flash ads is handled by noscript. As for the RSS feed, I have no idea what Firefox add-ons there are since I use a separate reader.
As far as I know, nobody's made an extension that runs scripts for Chrome. Can't live without my scripts. Otherwise, I might consider switching.
On February 02 2010 15:05 Methos wrote: ad-ons and skins were basically the only thing that FF had over Chrome, but now that that's gone...
The thing is, it's *not* gone. A lot of the extensions like Greasemonkey don't exist for Chrome yet. Just because they will exist a few months down the line doesn't mean people will switch *right now*.
People will trickle over to Chrome thanks to this, that much is true. But that doesn't mean Firefox is dead for sure. There's enough time for Firefox 4 to bring them back into the game.
On February 02 2010 14:53 mOnion wrote: These Chrome extensions just got added recently, though they're slowly becoming accessible to Google Chrome users (some of my friends can't use them yet)
What does this mean for the future of Firefox? FF is really the only other browser that could compete with Chrome's sleekness, but many were loyal to their FF because of their beloved plug-ins and customization.
But now that Google Chrome has their Extensions, are we going to see a vast shift?
For those of you who haven't gotten any Extensions yet, they are amazing, though most of them are still in Beta. Ones that I've DL'd so far can do as much as: -eliminate the wait in MU/Rapidshare -auto check plug in update -give Facebook a makeover, and eliminate ads -block Flash ads (AMAZING FOR MASS ANIME WATCHING) -a very sex RSS feed in a magazine format
Among others of course, and these just came out within a week. Thoughts? This is a discussion on whether or not FF/IE users will switch over, or if these Extensions still aren't enough to change people's minds.
Let's see: Eliminate the wait in MU/Rapidshare, give Facebook a makeover, and eliminate ads is covered by Greasemonkey. Auto check plug in update is covered by Firefox itself. Blocking Flash ads is handled by noscript. As for the RSS feed, I have no idea what Firefox add-ons there are since I use a separate reader.
As far as I know, nobody's made an extension that runs scripts for Chrome. Can't live without my scripts. Otherwise, I might consider switching.
Pretty sure userscripts install as plugins directly(without greasemonkey or whatever)
As soon as Chrome has a full lineup of effective extensions, I think Chrome will begin to pick up more market share. . A large number of tech savvy people have already made the switch for the speed benefits, and with adblock now out (which was the main thing holding people back), the number will only increase.
The main thing Chrome needs to overcome is FF's huge userbase. If they can get the name out to the average user, I can easily see it seriously competing, if not overtaking FF within the next 3 years.
I wouldn't be that optimistic about the new browser by Google, the most powerful corporation ever.
Before releasing own browser, Google was able to collect user browsing information only through Google Toolbar. If you read the G! Toolbar Terms & Conditions carefully, you'd find the lines where Google states that by installing the software a user agrees to share all browsing information with the software provider. Naturally, they couldn't force everyone to install their toolbar so the great G chose the different way.
Google wants to know every little thing about you and your relations with the world. Having billions of heavy-weighed user profiles enables the corporation to sell anything to anyone. And you wouldn't even suspect that Google is actually selling something to you -- they know the exact place (space?) and time you'll be browsing across their ad and they'll definitely know the words to convert you in a second.
There is, however, even a more dangerous aspect of Google's tremendous activities. By collecting all sorts of data about its users (read every Internet user on Earth), Google sets you and everyone else in the world under the greatest threat ever. How?
* Google Toolbar knows your location, your IP address, your Internet service provider (who knows your real location), etc. * Google Checkout knows your credit card number * Google Maps & Google Earth know your travel itineraries, your favorite places, your office location, your friends' locations... even exact distance between your home and the nearest supermarket! * Google Docs reads all your private documents * Google Notebook has all your notes * Google Desktop knows your music tastes, has your images, indexes each and every file on your computer * Gmail sees all your email conversations and has all your contacts on file * Google Talk & Lively record all your VoIP talks with friends * Picasa Web Albums knows your friends' names and faces, has seen places that you visited, remembers your dog's name and won't ever forget that birthday party where you got so drunk! * Google Calendar remembers all your events, appointments and reminders * Google AdSense has access to your website where you publish their ads and, again, knows your credit card and information and all your bank account details * Google Adwords has the list of your websites that you promote through their advertising system (And, yeah, they have your financial profile on record) * Google Analytics knows absolutely everything about your websites (and products that you sell online or offline) should you have any * Youtube views every video you submit and tags every little detail in it * Blogger reads all new posts in your blog * iGoogle has passwords to your Facebook/Myspace/Writers United accounts
Do you think you're safe with Google?!
That's a comment on some page there. I closed it by mistake T_T, but yes. Read the terms of use.
I recently made the switch back from firefox to google chrome because of the new extensions. Before, I was forced to stick with firefox because it had the mouse gestures plugin that allowed me to move my mouse left to go back a page. Now chrome has it too! and its faster.
Can someone link me to the flash ad blocker that the OP mentioned 0.o
On February 02 2010 15:22 haruharu wrote: I recently made the switch back from firefox to google chrome because of the new extensions. Before, I was forced to stick with firefox because it had the mouse gestures plugin that allowed me to move my mouse left to go back a page. Now chrome has it too! and its faster.
Can someone link me to the flash ad blocker that the OP mentioned 0.o
Well, I liked Google as a web content provider (Gmail, until they screwed it with stupid chat thingie that I can't get rid of, Docs, homepage, books etc.) for some non-important stuff. I somehow don't like it entering the software market. I'll stick to Firefox as I trust in Mozilla and support them.
I get lots of plug in problems so far with Chrome. Some times you tube videos just dont show up. Flash games players may not work, videos dont play, they sometimes just look like pictures. It seems to work sporadically.
I had to switch off FF though, lately, whatever update they did makes it handle 2 or 3 Flash applications like Idra handles DT drops. Shitty.
I forgot to mention that I really don't like this 'Let's become new Apple!' policy from Google. Seems like they're target group is the computer illiterate people and they want to release 'everything Google' for them. Come on, Chrome OS? Seriously? Compared to that even Microsoft looks good. They do release crappy stuff with a lot of bugs and stuff that's using outdated technologies but they do manage to get some things right and actually release something that can be used by more experienced people and professionals (take for example MS exchange vs Google apps, how could any serious company let all their mail/projects be stored by other company? Doesn't make sense).
I use both depending on my mood. Chrome's look is sleeker, but that's not a big deal really. I just installed FlashBlock for Chrome for OP's link. The install finished very quickly. Firefox plug-ins tend to take longer to install and update, which is annoying. I've also never had any slow start-up problems with Chrome, but I have had them with Firefox. I never noticed any significant Flash problems with Chrome, so I guess I'm just lucky there.
I'll still use Firefox occasionally since right now its plug-in selection should be much richer.
On February 02 2010 16:16 EchOne wrote: I use both depending on my mood. Chrome's look is sleeker, but that's not a big deal really. I just installed FlashBlock for Chrome for OP's link. The install finished very quickly. Firefox plug-ins tend to take longer to install and update, which is annoying. I've also never had any slow start-up problems with Chrome, but I have had them with Firefox. I never noticed any significant Flash problems with Chrome, so I guess I'm just lucky there.
I'll still use Firefox occasionally since right now its plug-in selection should be much richer.
Yea I suppose a whole minute and a half out of your day can be annoying.
You're joking right?
Opera would be the best thing out there if websites worked with it more often. It's the fastest out there but it doesn't work the best with Flash.
No, FF will be around for a looong time despite Extensions for Chrome. It's kind of like the IE phenomenon, where you have a clearly inferior browser going up against a clearly superior browser, yet too many people are too technologically illiterate to change.
That's not to say that Firefox is bad, but it does have some stability issues, and it still doesn't run plugins/tabs in separate processes, but that'll be fixed in 3.7 (thank god), so I'm just waiting for that.
Meanwhile, Firefox still has a large fan base for its add-ons, and it's a much more open environment for building them. Besides, with Jetpack, I expect people to stick to Firefox for quite a while now.
I'm still anticipating Opera's debut of their new JS engine. It looks freaking sweet already, and it's only in the Alpha stages. If only Mozilla could get their hands on that :3
Most FF enthusiasts have FF configured *exactly* the way they want through the configuration file and extensions (myself included). I have tried chrome before, and I honestly don't see how it's superior to FF. Yes, it may be faster, but given the computing power on a modern machines, the difference is not significant. As well, FF has been reducing its memory consumption with every new release.
I honestly don't think that many people would make the switch.
All things being equal, I'd support Mozilla. Much smaller company; no need to add to the concentration of power in Google's hands.
edit: There's also the fact that google has a habit of recording data from anything you do, from gmail to your browser. Usually I support google but in this battle it's Mozilla that's the good guy, or at least the better guy.
Last time I tried Chrome it sucked. It was less stable than FF and also every tab opened its own process. Since I always have 20+ tabs open it ended up being slower than FF, IE and Opera. Plus Google's background update program is kind of annoying
I'll stick with the open source community as long as I can.
I don't have anything particularly against chrome itself, but I don't like Google's strategy of controlling and gathering all personal info. Its disgusting.
So I tried posting something about how it amazed me how google tries to control all your personal info (didn't know that) and all of that and my phone just randomly reset then I realized I have the T-Mobile G1 (with google) it was just a odd coincidence . . . Hopefully
On February 02 2010 16:53 fight_or_flight wrote: I'll stick with the open source community as long as I can.
I don't have anything particularly against chrome itself, but I don't like Google's strategy of controlling and gathering all personal info. Its disgusting.
mind if u elaborate on how is chrome gathering ur personal info on a web browser? i'm curious...
i'm having abit of problem with firefox eating too much memory than it should be, however not really planning on switching unless there are other browser that i'm absolutely convinced that its better by a large margin compared to FF before switching... this is because i'm so used with the settings/add-on and UI of FF i can't really be bothered to re-learn and re-adapt myself to other browser now.
On February 02 2010 16:45 Mystlord wrote: ...a clearly inferior browser going up against a clearly superior browser...
How is Firefox clearly inferior vs Chrome?
Chrome is faster, but with the speed of modern computers, the difference is insignificant. Chrome consumes less memory, but once again, with the amount of memory modern computers have these days, the difference is negligible.
Chrome's advantage is it doesn't crash too much. I admit, Firefox does crash every so often (about every 48 hours of use or so, while constantly having 30+ tabs open).
Firefox still has the infinite configurability and the trust of an open source software. It has far more addons and miscellaneous support that Chrome lacks.
On February 02 2010 16:53 fight_or_flight wrote: I'll stick with the open source community as long as I can.
I don't have anything particularly against chrome itself, but I don't like Google's strategy of controlling and gathering all personal info. Its disgusting.
mind if u elaborate on how is chrome gathering ur personal info on a web browser? i'm curious...
I don't know what chrome is or is not gathering. Like I said, I don't think its a bad browser, its just that I'm avoiding google if at all possible.
I am not expert. I read somewhere that Firefox with plugins/extensions use far less resources than chrome with extensions. Basically orig. Chrome > orig. Firefox, modded firefox > modded chrome resourcewise
I wouldn't be that optimistic about the new browser by Google, the most powerful corporation ever.
Before releasing own browser, Google was able to collect user browsing information only through Google Toolbar.
This is not quite true. Actually all Google needs to track your browsing behavior is Google Analytics. Every website that uses Google analytics will report your browsing information to Google. And that's like more than half of the web.
About Chrome: No, extensions won't "kill" Firefox. First, it seems a lot of the killer extensions are still missing. Greasemonkey for example. Chrome has userscript support, but only half of them actually work in Chrome. I don't know much about Chrome, is there something comparable to Firebug?
Then, there is a lot more than just features to people's preference in Browsers. Distrust in Google is just one factor, but an important one. Germany for example is just crazy about Firefox, which has taken the lead over IE, but generally skeptical towards Google's market power. If anything it looks like Chrome will gain market share more from IE users than from Firefox users.
On February 02 2010 16:53 fight_or_flight wrote: I'll stick with the open source community as long as I can.
I don't have anything particularly against chrome itself, but I don't like Google's strategy of controlling and gathering all personal info. Its disgusting.
mind if u elaborate on how is chrome gathering ur personal info on a web browser? i'm curious...
On February 02 2010 16:53 fight_or_flight wrote: I'll stick with the open source community as long as I can.
I don't have anything particularly against chrome itself, but I don't like Google's strategy of controlling and gathering all personal info. Its disgusting.
mind if u elaborate on how is chrome gathering ur personal info on a web browser? i'm curious...
I don't know what chrome is or is not gathering. Like I said, I don't think its a bad browser, its just that I'm avoiding google if at all possible.
On February 02 2010 16:46 cz wrote: Only if they have something as effective as AdBlock Plus.
They don't have something as effective, they have the real thing. AdBlock Plus is also a Chrome plugin now.
And I get the 'support Firefox' rally, but then again, Chrome opens faster, doesn't crash as much, looks leaner and meaner, and it's also faster @ browsing according to benchmarks (about 20-25% faster than Firefox 3.6 on my computer, using Peacekeeper). So really, there are no more reasons for me to stick to Firefox.
And all the "STEALING MAH INFOZZ" paranoia, come on! You don't want Google to offer you maximum usability, then don't use the 'unsafe' features. Who's forcing you to store your passwords and whatnot? It's not like people don't use Google.com one billion times a day. They can also find out your ip/isp/etc and the info you're searching for. As if Google has nothing better to do then come after your tranny-porn-folders.
Not using Chrome because of 'safety issues' is as silly as not using Firefox because it's not made by a huge company like M$, so it has to be bad! (yes, I have heard that argument many times).
On February 02 2010 16:46 cz wrote: Only if they have something as effective as AdBlock Plus.
They don't have something as effective, they have the real thing. AdBlock Plus is also a Chrome plugin now.
And I get the 'support Firefox' rally, but then again, Chrome opens faster, doesn't crash as much, looks leaner and meaner, and it's also faster @ browsing according to benchmarks (about 20-25% faster than Firefox 3.6 on my computer, using Peacekeeper). So really, there are no more reasons for me to stick to Firefox.
And all the "STEALING MAH INFOZZ" paranoia, come on! You don't want Google to offer you maximum usability, then don't use the 'unsafe' features. Who's forcing you to store your passwords and whatnot? It's not like people don't use Google.com one billion times a day. They can also find out your ip/isp/etc and the info you're searching for. As if Google has nothing better to do then come after your tranny-porn-folders.
Not using Chrome because of 'safety issues' is as silly as not using Firefox because it's not made by a huge company like M$, so it has to be bad! (yes, I have heard that argument many times).
It's not paranoia, it's fact. Google makes no secret out of storing all data they can get from you. Of course you can say for yourself a sleeker browser is worth exposing your entire online life to Google. That's your choice. Don't call people who value their privacy differently than you just paranoid though.
You think they give you all this gratis software just for the kicks? They do this exactly so they can get as much data from you as possible. So no, Google doesn't have anything better to do.
On February 02 2010 16:46 cz wrote: Only if they have something as effective as AdBlock Plus.
They don't have something as effective, they have the real thing. AdBlock Plus is also a Chrome plugin now.
And I get the 'support Firefox' rally, but then again, Chrome opens faster, doesn't crash as much, looks leaner and meaner, and it's also faster @ browsing according to benchmarks (about 20-25% faster than Firefox 3.6 on my computer, using Peacekeeper). So really, there are no more reasons for me to stick to Firefox.
And all the "STEALING MAH INFOZZ" paranoia, come on! You don't want Google to offer you maximum usability, then don't use the 'unsafe' features. Who's forcing you to store your passwords and whatnot? It's not like people don't use Google.com one billion times a day. They can also find out your ip/isp/etc and the info you're searching for. As if Google has nothing better to do then come after your tranny-porn-folders.
Not using Chrome because of 'safety issues' is as silly as not using Firefox because it's not made by a huge company like M$, so it has to be bad! (yes, I have heard that argument many times).
It's not paranoia, it's fact. Google makes no secret out of storing all data they can get from you. Of course you can say for yourself a sleeker browser is worth exposing your entire online life to Google. That's your choice. Don't call people who value their privacy differently than you just paranoid though.
You think they give you all this gratis software just for the kicks? They do this exactly so they can get as much data from you as possible. So no, Google doesn't have anything better to do.
I never said Google is not collecting data. I just said that assuming they do that with some kind of evil masterplan in mind is silly. They are collecting data so they can make as much money as possible by trying to sell you and surround you with things you're interested in. How is that evil? Nobody is forcing you to save your passwords and important documents in the applications they're offering, right? And let's get reasonable here, 99,9% of the average users don't have any kind of 'significant' data stored on Google. The only thing Google does is trying to with the info is get them to use their products so they make money off the companies that advertise/whatnot via Google.
So yeah, I'm pretty sure that my 'online persona' that browses teamliquid, watches episodes of various shows, plays a bit of HoN and browses porn sites now and then is not of THAT much use to Google. Thinking that Google will use your data to come after you IS paranoia.
I switched to chrome a while ago on my netbook and it runs a lot faster than FF. Tried Opera for a while, but didn't like it, so i'm sticking to chrome.
Very few people have mentioned how lightweight chrome is (And has been since launch), especially compared to the fat, bloated, RAM-hungry browser that goes by the name Firefox.
I wouldn't be that optimistic about the new browser by Google, the most powerful corporation ever.
Before releasing own browser, Google was able to collect user browsing information only through Google Toolbar. If you read the G! Toolbar Terms & Conditions carefully, you'd find the lines where Google states that by installing the software a user agrees to share all browsing information with the software provider. Naturally, they couldn't force everyone to install their toolbar so the great G chose the different way.
Google wants to know every little thing about you and your relations with the world. Having billions of heavy-weighed user profiles enables the corporation to sell anything to anyone. And you wouldn't even suspect that Google is actually selling something to you -- they know the exact place (space?) and time you'll be browsing across their ad and they'll definitely know the words to convert you in a second.
There is, however, even a more dangerous aspect of Google's tremendous activities. By collecting all sorts of data about its users (read every Internet user on Earth), Google sets you and everyone else in the world under the greatest threat ever. How?
* Google Toolbar knows your location, your IP address, your Internet service provider (who knows your real location), etc. * Google Checkout knows your credit card number * Google Maps & Google Earth know your travel itineraries, your favorite places, your office location, your friends' locations... even exact distance between your home and the nearest supermarket! * Google Docs reads all your private documents * Google Notebook has all your notes * Google Desktop knows your music tastes, has your images, indexes each and every file on your computer * Gmail sees all your email conversations and has all your contacts on file * Google Talk & Lively record all your VoIP talks with friends * Picasa Web Albums knows your friends' names and faces, has seen places that you visited, remembers your dog's name and won't ever forget that birthday party where you got so drunk! * Google Calendar remembers all your events, appointments and reminders * Google AdSense has access to your website where you publish their ads and, again, knows your credit card and information and all your bank account details * Google Adwords has the list of your websites that you promote through their advertising system (And, yeah, they have your financial profile on record) * Google Analytics knows absolutely everything about your websites (and products that you sell online or offline) should you have any * Youtube views every video you submit and tags every little detail in it * Blogger reads all new posts in your blog * iGoogle has passwords to your Facebook/Myspace/Writers United accounts
Do you think you're safe with Google?!
That's a comment on some page there. I closed it by mistake T_T, but yes. Read the terms of use.
Oh shit! Google knows I listen to Diablo Swing Orchestra and has access to the email account they host for me! I bet they're sending their hit-squad now! I'll be dead within a week!
Sarcasm aside, what is going to happen to me? Privacy on the internet is an illusion. Your best defense is not being a target, and that isn't something Google can take away. I have nothing to hide. Do you?
Edit:
On February 02 2010 17:16 orgolove wrote: How is Firefox clearly inferior vs Chrome? ... I admit, Firefox does crash every so often (about every 48 hours of use or so, while constantly having 30+ tabs open).
On February 02 2010 16:46 cz wrote: Only if they have something as effective as AdBlock Plus.
They don't have something as effective, they have the real thing. AdBlock Plus is also a Chrome plugin now.
And I get the 'support Firefox' rally, but then again, Chrome opens faster, doesn't crash as much, looks leaner and meaner, and it's also faster @ browsing according to benchmarks (about 20-25% faster than Firefox 3.6 on my computer, using Peacekeeper). So really, there are no more reasons for me to stick to Firefox.
And all the "STEALING MAH INFOZZ" paranoia, come on! You don't want Google to offer you maximum usability, then don't use the 'unsafe' features. Who's forcing you to store your passwords and whatnot? It's not like people don't use Google.com one billion times a day. They can also find out your ip/isp/etc and the info you're searching for. As if Google has nothing better to do then come after your tranny-porn-folders.
Not using Chrome because of 'safety issues' is as silly as not using Firefox because it's not made by a huge company like M$, so it has to be bad! (yes, I have heard that argument many times).
It's not paranoia, it's fact. Google makes no secret out of storing all data they can get from you. Of course you can say for yourself a sleeker browser is worth exposing your entire online life to Google. That's your choice. Don't call people who value their privacy differently than you just paranoid though.
You think they give you all this gratis software just for the kicks? They do this exactly so they can get as much data from you as possible. So no, Google doesn't have anything better to do.
I never said Google is not collecting data. I just said that assuming they do that with some kind of evil masterplan in mind is silly. They are collecting data so they can make as much money as possible by trying to sell you and surround you with things you're interested in. How is that evil? Nobody is forcing you to save your passwords and important documents in the applications they're offering, right? And let's get reasonable here, 99,9% of the average users don't have any kind of 'significant' data stored on Google. The only thing Google does is trying to with the info is get them to use their products so they make money off the companies that advertise/whatnot via Google.
So yeah, I'm pretty sure that my 'online persona' that browses teamliquid, watches episodes of various shows, plays a bit of HoN and browses porn sites now and then is not of THAT much use to Google. Thinking that Google will use your data to come after you IS paranoia.
Who is saying it's evil? Who is saying there is some "masterplan". Who is saying "they will come after you", whatever that's supposed to mean? They are (relatively) open about what they do and from there it's your choice, simple as that. Good for you that you have nothing to hide from Google, a lot of people do though. And that doesn't make them paranoid, at all.
Oh yeah, btw, wtf are you people doing with your Firefox? I can't remember that it ever ever crashed on me and I use it 24/7 with 5 million tabs open.
I'm very interested in this and there's some very interesting posts and points being made here and here's my two cents.
Everything that speaks for Chrome: It starts faster and is faster to use. It benchmarks very good and I can really feel the difference. A few sites I use that have very heavy flash elements makes firefox crash and sometimes videos lag a little.
The design is minimalistic and you get more space out of every page. As a google wave fan this is important since the workspace there is much smaller then Word to begin with.
The addon scene will probably progress fast as many developers will try to get their addons to chrome asap and all the ideas are already there and maybe chrome can be as good at this front eventually even though I have doubts.
Everything that speaks for Firefox Much better settings and information for the user. Rightclick any page and get detailed siteinfo. More things possible for the advanced user and also for addon makers. The adblocks to chrome works differently because it's not possible to block ads the way it works in firefox, instead they hide the ads. For this results in many of the block stuff for chrome also changes the layout of the page. This also speaks for firefox because overall I believe addons will be stronger for firefox.
Firefox newest version stopped many(all) of my problems with Flash but is still slower. Flash will perish eventually though and until then Firefox will keep getting faster and better to handle it. I trust Mozilla to keep up the good work more then I trust google. So much like Chrome is getting better on the addon front firefox is getting better when it comes to handling flash difference being that you only need that good compability with flash before the users stop noticing while addons is much deeper.
Firefox has no extra annoying processes that updates it, this makes it slower to start since it updates everything before it starts should a new version of something be available but as a reward no extra processes and being a Nazi with my processes this is a good thing.
Chrome has a cleaner look but is hard to customize for addons why they all pretty much ad a button next to the adressbar or inside the adressbar and that's just stupid. Firefox sneaks a button in here and there and I like that so much more. And even though the addons for Chrome feels more lightweight when installing them those buttons feels like they are made of lead.
Firefox is less evil but this is not an issue for me. Yes ads are customized towards me but I never click any. Reason being I block 90% or more with addons and almost every one that slips through is mentally blocked. I take all ads for scams and would never click them anyways. Google analytics sucks the juice out of my browsing regardless of browser.
I actually disliked Chrome after using it. I hate the tabs at the top and it doesn't feel as user friendly to me as FF is... same with my friend, but I guess we're the minority (we actually were talking the other day "why use chrome over FF").
On February 02 2010 17:16 orgolove wrote: How is Firefox clearly inferior vs Chrome? ... I admit, Firefox does crash every so often (about every 48 hours of use or so, while constantly having 30+ tabs open).
Pathetic.
Resorting to personal attacks will do nothing to promoting your ill-guided opinions, you sorry little fool.
One crash a week isn't nearly enough to warrant calling a piece of software inferior irregradless of all its other functionalities.
Actually the Adblock for Chrome is gimped, there are ads that i never see in FF that do come up in Chrome.
And yes, Chrome is a great browser, but I really doubt it'll come even close to "killing" Firefox. I've tried it, and still use it in parallel with Firefox at times, but for my browsing habits FF is simply better. Having the browser open basically all the time means the startup time is utterly irrelevant to me, 2-3 windows of 20 tabs each actually makes Chrome slower than FF and little details such as the lack of the search bar or keyword search overall add up to a less than optimal experience. It's nice to have two excellent browsers though.
chrome extensions are just packaged userscripts. They lack a lot of functionality. For instance on the ad blocker side, everything gets downloaded, chrome just doesn't render it. This is something they are working on, but it isn't there yet.
I'm 100% satisfied with Firefox, I really can't think of anything I'd want more of a browser right now. Fast, reliable, comfortable, customizable. Tried out Chrome some time ago but uninstalled it after 10 minutes.
The Chrome out of the box look is better than Firefox' one, but I still don't like it. Didn't find a way to change it, so that's a big minus already. Other than that I really didn't find anything appealing about Chrome. What's so great about it? I guess it's fast, but to be honest, I'm just saying that because everyone and the benchmarks are saying it. I don't recognize any difference to the speed of FF. Also about FF being ressource hungry, what do people mean by that? RAM? Mine is using 78MB right now, is that a lot? My RAM is idling around all the time anyway, might as well use it.
FF just looks better to me, FF 4 will look even better.
On February 02 2010 20:49 snowbird wrote: I'm 100% satisfied with Firefox, I really can't think of anything I'd want more of a browser right now. Fast, reliable, comfortable, customizable. Tried out Chrome some time ago but uninstalled it after 10 minutes.
The Chrome out of the box look is better than Firefox' one, but I still don't like it. Didn't find a way to change it, so that's a big minus already. Other than that I really didn't find anything appealing about Chrome. What's so great about it? I guess it's fast, but to be honest, I'm just saying that because everyone and the benchmarks are saying it. I don't recognize any difference to the speed of FF. Also about FF being ressource hungry, what do people mean by that? RAM? Mine is using 78MB right now, is that a lot? My RAM is idling around all the time anyway, might as well use it.
FF just looks better to me, FF 4 will look even better.
I fully agree with you and I really dont get what people mean that chrome is so much faster. I tried both and I didnt realise any difference. And when I look at RAM chrome doesnt use less at all, but when I start the task manager chrome uses an extra window for every opened task which I find really annoying so if i have firefox with 5 tasks open it says for example 150 000kb ram when I open 5 tasks with chrome it goes like 30 000kb 40 000 kb 35 000 kb 30 000 kb 28 000 kb ... pretty annoying if you ask me
yeah chrome looks more stylish but honestly I couldnt give less of a shit about it. And looks like firefox 4 is gonna look more chromish ^^ chrome is definitely gonna be more and more successful as time goes by but people should stop acting like it was so superior to firefox.
Also, we should not forget about Mozilla's plans on making Ubiquity an integral part of Firefox (please God, make it happen!) and I simply can't think of a way any other browser could beat that in any near future:
Chrome might become a better browser in a couple months once the addons catch up with Firefox, but I'm not switching until I absolutely have to.
Isn't anyone else just a tiny bit bothered by the information monopoly Google is trying to create? It's getting just plain creepy at this point, honestly. Yeah, let me Google that after I check my gmail account for new messages in my Google Chrome browser.
On February 02 2010 21:24 Hinanawi wrote: Chrome might become a better browser in a couple months once the addons catch up with Firefox, but I'm not switching until I absolutely have to.
Isn't anyone else just a tiny bit bothered by the information monopoly Google is trying to create? It's getting just plain creepy at this point, honestly. Yeah, let me Google that after I check my gmail account for new messages in my Google Chrome browser.
Firebug (great for developers but works for ordinary people with rudimentary knowledge if you want to see what exactly is on the site you're browsing and what it does). Ad-Block (obviously) NoScript (can be a bit annoying but is of great help if you 'accidentaly' visit some shady sites) DownloadHelper (for downloading videos from YouTube, something what Chrome will never implement seeing as YT is owned by Google)
I like Opera, only having FF installed for my online school... because it only supports FF and IE.
I have tried Chrome, it's alright. If they want to improve Chrome to make it standout more, good for them. But Opera man... I'll stay on that as long as I can. I'm too used to the mouse navigation shortcuts lol.
I wouldn't be that optimistic about the new browser by Google, the most powerful corporation ever.
Before releasing own browser, Google was able to collect user browsing information only through Google Toolbar. If you read the G! Toolbar Terms & Conditions carefully, you'd find the lines where Google states that by installing the software a user agrees to share all browsing information with the software provider. Naturally, they couldn't force everyone to install their toolbar so the great G chose the different way.
Google wants to know every little thing about you and your relations with the world. Having billions of heavy-weighed user profiles enables the corporation to sell anything to anyone. And you wouldn't even suspect that Google is actually selling something to you -- they know the exact place (space?) and time you'll be browsing across their ad and they'll definitely know the words to convert you in a second.
There is, however, even a more dangerous aspect of Google's tremendous activities. By collecting all sorts of data about its users (read every Internet user on Earth), Google sets you and everyone else in the world under the greatest threat ever. How?
* Google Toolbar knows your location, your IP address, your Internet service provider (who knows your real location), etc. * Google Checkout knows your credit card number * Google Maps & Google Earth know your travel itineraries, your favorite places, your office location, your friends' locations... even exact distance between your home and the nearest supermarket! * Google Docs reads all your private documents * Google Notebook has all your notes * Google Desktop knows your music tastes, has your images, indexes each and every file on your computer * Gmail sees all your email conversations and has all your contacts on file * Google Talk & Lively record all your VoIP talks with friends * Picasa Web Albums knows your friends' names and faces, has seen places that you visited, remembers your dog's name and won't ever forget that birthday party where you got so drunk! * Google Calendar remembers all your events, appointments and reminders * Google AdSense has access to your website where you publish their ads and, again, knows your credit card and information and all your bank account details * Google Adwords has the list of your websites that you promote through their advertising system (And, yeah, they have your financial profile on record) * Google Analytics knows absolutely everything about your websites (and products that you sell online or offline) should you have any * Youtube views every video you submit and tags every little detail in it * Blogger reads all new posts in your blog * iGoogle has passwords to your Facebook/Myspace/Writers United accounts
Do you think you're safe with Google?!
That's a comment on some page there. I closed it by mistake T_T, but yes. Read the terms of use.
OH NO I'M DOOMED, SOMEONE WILL TRY TO SELL ME SOMETHING I ACTUALLY WANT BASED ON MY PREFERENCES!!!!!
Get real man. You see ads all over the internet, and I've always hated those because, being located in Croatia, I kept seeing ads that had nothing to do with me. But lately, thanks to all the EVIL DATA they have on me, I actually see ads that interest me and am aware of what's out there for me to get. Nobody ever 'sells' you anything, you buy it if you like it.
And you can't be serious in your fears that google will decide to empty your bank account? People are too afraid that some sort of real world version of evil will take over the world. They just fail to see that it can't happen, and the best way for evil to take over the world is to stop being evil and actually offer stuff that people want. Google is the best thing that happened to the world of internet.
On February 02 2010 20:13 MamiyaOtaru wrote: chrome extensions are just packaged userscripts. They lack a lot of functionality. For instance on the ad blocker side, everything gets downloaded, chrome just doesn't render it. This is something they are working on, but it isn't there yet.
And regarding privacy, I use SRWare Iron
I prefer it that way. I'd hate for all my data to be filtered by a 3rd party server. Data going through the tubes that doesn't get executed, is just fine by me.
On February 02 2010 20:49 snowbird wrote: I'm 100% satisfied with Firefox, I really can't think of anything I'd want more of a browser right now. Fast, reliable, comfortable, customizable. Tried out Chrome some time ago but uninstalled it after 10 minutes.
The Chrome out of the box look is better than Firefox' one, but I still don't like it. Didn't find a way to change it, so that's a big minus already. Other than that I really didn't find anything appealing about Chrome. What's so great about it? I guess it's fast, but to be honest, I'm just saying that because everyone and the benchmarks are saying it. I don't recognize any difference to the speed of FF. Also about FF being ressource hungry, what do people mean by that? RAM? Mine is using 78MB right now, is that a lot? My RAM is idling around all the time anyway, might as well use it.
FF just looks better to me, FF 4 will look even better.
I fully agree with you and I really dont get what people mean that chrome is so much faster. I tried both and I didnt realise any difference. And when I look at RAM chrome doesnt use less at all, but when I start the task manager chrome uses an extra window for every opened task which I find really annoying so if i have firefox with 5 tasks open it says for example 150 000kb ram when I open 5 tasks with chrome it goes like 30 000kb 40 000 kb 35 000 kb 30 000 kb 28 000 kb ... pretty annoying if you ask me
yeah chrome looks more stylish but honestly I couldnt give less of a shit about it. And looks like firefox 4 is gonna look more chromish ^^ chrome is definitely gonna be more and more successful as time goes by but people should stop acting like it was so superior to firefox.
I'm a client-heavy web developer and I DEFINITELY notice the difference. Any UI components in Chrome are handled much better than in Firefox. I mean the difference is ENORMOUS. Try using various web-standard drag/drop packages for javascript and you'll see what I mean.
I think once market share is gained in a basically fully "grown" market, it's difficult to "steal" market share unless you really do something to change the landscape
On February 02 2010 20:13 MamiyaOtaru wrote: chrome extensions are just packaged userscripts. They lack a lot of functionality. For instance on the ad blocker side, everything gets downloaded, chrome just doesn't render it. This is something they are working on, but it isn't there yet.
And regarding privacy, I use SRWare Iron
I prefer it that way. I'd hate for all my data to be filtered by a 3rd party server. Data going through the tubes that doesn't get executed, is just fine by me.
From what I can tell how Chrome extensions work all they can do is hide the ads you load. They are essentially glorified Greasemonkey userscripts and not at all comparable to Firefox extensions.
Adblock on Firefox does not route ads through a 3rd party server. Firefox just doesn't request them. Not loading ads speeds up browsing significantly and obviously saves bandwidth. Just not showing them has much less of an effect.
Firebug (great for developers but works for ordinary people with rudimentary knowledge if you want to see what exactly is on the site you're browsing and what it does). Ad-Block (obviously) NoScript (can be a bit annoying but is of great help if you 'accidentaly' visit some shady sites) DownloadHelper (for downloading videos from YouTube, something what Chrome will never implement seeing as YT is owned by Google)
added ad-block to the list and removed FlashBlock from there because that makes my broswer slower
This kind of competition is so amazingly good for the development of software; it improves both FF and crome, and we as consumers can just pick whatever we like better. It's so amazing.
For all those of you thinking chrome fringes on your privacy, you can turn off options to send data to google in chrome settings, and here's an article about what DOES get sent: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-communication/
Chrome is just lighter and faster in general, I don't really think FF can compete unless they do some serious overhaul to one-up webkit browsers. Updates seem to be more prominent as well, at least in the dev channel. As for extensions, I'm primarily just using the google reader and gmail checker, and the mouse gestures. Their adblock extension seems to work fine, but it has some major lag issues for some reason. Just about any userscript works like an extension on Chrome now on their latest version, so although Chrome still has some catching up to do to FF's user base, it's doing so rather quickly.
On February 03 2010 01:14 Lyriu wrote: Chrome is just lighter and faster in general, I don't really think FF can compete unless they do some serious overhaul to one-up webkit browsers. Updates seem to be more prominent as well, at least in the dev channel. As for extensions, I'm primarily just using the google reader and gmail checker, and the mouse gestures. Their adblock extension seems to work fine, but it has some major lag issues for some reason. Just about any userscript works like an extension on Chrome now on their latest version, so although Chrome still has some catching up to do to FF's user base, it's doing so rather quickly.
Incorrect. Chrome uses more memory because each tab is a seperate process, but it's faster. It's aim isn't to be memory efficient, it's aim is to be fast and responsive(and secure).
I am using Opera as main browser for a long time, tried to migrate to FF several times, but in the end returned back to Opera. However, Chrome is looking very good and I might give it a try. Anyway, I have all browsers installed on my home/office computer and laptop, as I need them for development/testing.
On February 02 2010 22:21 SaetZero wrote: I like Opera, only having FF installed for my online school... because it only supports FF and IE.
I have tried Chrome, it's alright. If they want to improve Chrome to make it standout more, good for them. But Opera man... I'll stay on that as long as I can. I'm too used to the mouse navigation shortcuts lol.
On February 02 2010 23:10 Neivler wrote: Opera's new JS engine? What kind if shit is that? I have always used Opera and I love it. Never heard of the JS engine before. What does it do?
But the Opera test build bested all of Chrome's scores...and it did so while performing relatively poorly in the rendering department. This is the truly scary part: Opera Software is developing a new browser chassis, which so far looks very attractive under Windows 7. It's leaner, but it's not too minimalistic, and it certainly pronounces its manufacturer boldly with a big red "O." The rendering engine under that chassis is not quite finished, rendering ordinary <TABLE> elements, for example, with only half the speed of stable Opera 10.1.
I already have chills imagining how fast this thing will be.
Anyway, besides my long Opera 10.5 rant, one more thing to add:
Everyone who's spouting something about Firefox using more memory than Chrome? You're all on crack. Firefox uses less:
I dont like Chrome. Apart from the long list of reasons posted by ShoCkeyy; it installs some weird "googleupdate" program that resides in the computer's memory ALL the time. You can delete it, but they treat me like some sort of an idiot by running some spyware constantly. Yes, I consider this spyware, since AFAIK noone really knows what data is sent by this thing.
This policy of "treating me as an idiot" looks pretty similar to apple; the software does things which I do not want and lacks "professional" functions. Ok, with extensions we will be able to change Chrome, but this will require lots of work.
Personally I believe that getting rid of flash, or getting some new standard would make the websites work much faster. Youtube videos and games seem to be ok; but opening few websites with popups can kill any browser, including chrome, firefox and IE.
On February 02 2010 22:21 SaetZero wrote: I like Opera, only having FF installed for my online school... because it only supports FF and IE.
I have tried Chrome, it's alright. If they want to improve Chrome to make it standout more, good for them. But Opera man... I'll stay on that as long as I can. I'm too used to the mouse navigation shortcuts lol.
On February 02 2010 23:10 Neivler wrote: Opera's new JS engine? What kind if shit is that? I have always used Opera and I love it. Never heard of the JS engine before. What does it do?
But the Opera test build bested all of Chrome's scores...and it did so while performing relatively poorly in the rendering department. This is the truly scary part: Opera Software is developing a new browser chassis, which so far looks very attractive under Windows 7. It's leaner, but it's not too minimalistic, and it certainly pronounces its manufacturer boldly with a big red "O." The rendering engine under that chassis is not quite finished, rendering ordinary <TABLE> elements, for example, with only half the speed of stable Opera 10.1.
I already have chills imagining how fast this thing will be.
Anyway, besides my long Opera 10.5 rant, one more thing to add:
Everyone who's spouting something about Firefox using more memory than Chrome? You're all on crack. Firefox uses less:
On February 03 2010 01:48 rererebanned wrote: I dont like Chrome. Apart from the long list of reasons posted by ShoCkeyy; it installs some weird "googleupdate" program that resides in the computer's memory ALL the time. You can delete it, but they treat me like some sort of an idiot by running some spyware constantly. Yes, I consider this spyware, since AFAIK noone really knows what data is sent by this thing.
This policy of "treating me as an idiot" looks pretty similar to apple; the software does things which I do not want and lacks "professional" functions. Ok, with extensions we will be able to change Chrome, but this will require lots of work.
Personally I believe that getting rid of flash, or getting some new standard would make the websites work much faster. Youtube videos and games seem to be ok; but opening few websites with popups can kill any browser, including chrome, firefox and IE.
GoogleUpdate is auto-update tool for Chrome.
Chromium is the name we have given to the open source project and the browser source code that we released and maintain at www.chromium.org. One can compile this source code to get a fully working browser. Google takes this source code, and adds on the Google name and logo, an auto-updater system called GoogleUpdate, and RLZ (described later in this post), and calls this Google Chrome.
On February 03 2010 01:04 AssuredVacancy wrote: For all those of you thinking chrome fringes on your privacy, you can turn off options to send data to google in chrome settings, and here's an article about what DOES get sent: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-communication/
To make this clear: I don't know if and how much private data chrome collects. So this is just a very general statement, not necessarily directed towards chrome alone:
Options to send data should be OFF by default, not on. You should have the choice to enable such stuff during installation, but there, too, it should be OFF by default. Just because you are able to turn something off it doesn't mean that it isn't bad. A lot of users will never change any nontrivial settings (people who have trouble with computers, careless people, stupid people, ...).
It's very sad that an increasing amount of popular software doesn't follow this rule at all.
I wouldn't be that optimistic about the new browser by Google, the most powerful corporation ever.
Before releasing own browser, Google was able to collect user browsing information only through Google Toolbar. If you read the G! Toolbar Terms & Conditions carefully, you'd find the lines where Google states that by installing the software a user agrees to share all browsing information with the software provider. Naturally, they couldn't force everyone to install their toolbar so the great G chose the different way.
Google wants to know every little thing about you and your relations with the world. Having billions of heavy-weighed user profiles enables the corporation to sell anything to anyone. And you wouldn't even suspect that Google is actually selling something to you -- they know the exact place (space?) and time you'll be browsing across their ad and they'll definitely know the words to convert you in a second.
There is, however, even a more dangerous aspect of Google's tremendous activities. By collecting all sorts of data about its users (read every Internet user on Earth), Google sets you and everyone else in the world under the greatest threat ever. How?
* Google Toolbar knows your location, your IP address, your Internet service provider (who knows your real location), etc. * Google Checkout knows your credit card number * Google Maps & Google Earth know your travel itineraries, your favorite places, your office location, your friends' locations... even exact distance between your home and the nearest supermarket! * Google Docs reads all your private documents * Google Notebook has all your notes * Google Desktop knows your music tastes, has your images, indexes each and every file on your computer * Gmail sees all your email conversations and has all your contacts on file * Google Talk & Lively record all your VoIP talks with friends * Picasa Web Albums knows your friends' names and faces, has seen places that you visited, remembers your dog's name and won't ever forget that birthday party where you got so drunk! * Google Calendar remembers all your events, appointments and reminders * Google AdSense has access to your website where you publish their ads and, again, knows your credit card and information and all your bank account details * Google Adwords has the list of your websites that you promote through their advertising system (And, yeah, they have your financial profile on record) * Google Analytics knows absolutely everything about your websites (and products that you sell online or offline) should you have any * Youtube views every video you submit and tags every little detail in it * Blogger reads all new posts in your blog * iGoogle has passwords to your Facebook/Myspace/Writers United accounts
Do you think you're safe with Google?!
That's a comment on some page there. I closed it by mistake T_T, but yes. Read the terms of use.
OH NO I'M DOOMED, SOMEONE WILL TRY TO SELL ME SOMETHING I ACTUALLY WANT BASED ON MY PREFERENCES!!!!!
Get real man. You see ads all over the internet, and I've always hated those because, being located in Croatia, I kept seeing ads that had nothing to do with me. But lately, thanks to all the EVIL DATA they have on me, I actually see ads that interest me and am aware of what's out there for me to get. Nobody ever 'sells' you anything, you buy it if you like it.
And you can't be serious in your fears that google will decide to empty your bank account? People are too afraid that some sort of real world version of evil will take over the world. They just fail to see that it can't happen, and the best way for evil to take over the world is to stop being evil and actually offer stuff that people want. Google is the best thing that happened to the world of internet.
Use chromePlus then, same stuff as chrome, doesn't steal your info, and it has the mouse gestures. http://www.chromeplus.org/
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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).
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.
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.
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?
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).
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 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.
And if you want to browse without mouse then you might consider getting Lynx browser (although that's a bit hardcore as there's no option for mouse at all there). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)
The guy in it does some things the same as the one in YT vid but he actually knows what he's talking about and doing. Also shows some more possibilities.
On February 03 2010 15:43 Manit0u wrote: 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?
Then your review is irrelevent because nobody cares about the Linux version of anything, and if somebody did care, they wouldn't need a review because they would just do this shit themselves.
On February 03 2010 15:43 Manit0u wrote: 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
The Windows version doesn't have this problem. See my above comments about getting a real browser.
On February 03 2010 15:43 Manit0u wrote: 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?".
Or perhaps, you know, not.
On February 03 2010 15:43 Manit0u wrote: 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.
INSTALL WINDOWS. IT'S ALL THERE.
On February 03 2010 15:43 Manit0u wrote: Edit: And what "REAL" operating system do you use?
Windows. Why? Because the purpose of an operating system is the properly run the programs I need to fulfill the various tasks I have for my computer. As your "review" has shown, Linux is incapable of doing that.
On February 03 2010 16:01 orgolove wrote: Fucking idiot can't learn how to read. Didn't I say 48 hours OF USE?
Sigh. We've been trolled. Ignore him.
48 hours straight? 48 hours over 48 years?
On February 03 2010 16:48 TheYango wrote: I guess you just never frame your pictures right?
Not unless the frame adds to the artwork, no I don't. If the picture doesn't need a frame, I use something minimalistic that doesn't obstruct the picture. Why would I have a frame just for the sake of having a frame?
On February 03 2010 16:48 TheYango wrote: 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.
Fair enough, but like you said, I don't know how long they're going to hold that advantage.
On February 03 2010 16:48 TheYango wrote: Opera - Easier out-of-the-box customizability.
This is such a small point I would say it borders on being irrelevent. This is something I'd gladly trade away in exchange for the speed and stability that Chrome offers.
On February 03 2010 15:43 Manit0u wrote: 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?
Then your review is irrelevent because nobody cares about the Linux version of anything, and if somebody did care, they wouldn't need a review because they would just do this shit themselves.
On February 03 2010 15:43 Manit0u wrote: 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
The Windows version doesn't have this problem. See my above comments about getting a real browser.
On February 03 2010 15:43 Manit0u wrote: 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?".
On February 03 2010 15:43 Manit0u wrote: 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.
On February 03 2010 15:43 Manit0u wrote: Edit: And what "REAL" operating system do you use?
Windows. Why? Because the purpose of an operating system is the properly run the programs I need to fulfill the various tasks I have for my computer. As your "review" has shown, Linux is incapable of doing that.
On February 03 2010 16:48 TheYango wrote: I guess you just never frame your pictures right?
Not unless the frame adds to the artwork, no I don't. If the picture doesn't need a frame, I use something minimalistic that doesn't obstruct the picture. Why would I have a frame just for the sake of having a frame?
On February 03 2010 16:48 TheYango wrote: 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.
Fair enough, but like you said, I don't know how long they're going to hold that advantage.
On February 03 2010 16:48 TheYango wrote: Opera - Easier out-of-the-box customizability.
This is such a small point I would say it borders on being irrelevent. This is something I'd gladly trade away in exchange for the speed and stability that Chrome offers.
On February 03 2010 08:45 ComradeDover wrote: rambling inane bullsite
stfu
Lol.
So you accept firefox customization but not opera's? Opera also features the ability to run custom scripts and had to long before firefox and it's out of the box.
Also stability on chrome is dependent on version it's not the most stable browner still better then firefox with it's massive memory leaks left and right but that's hardly a unique charm to chrome. I also find chromes decoding on images to actually be the slowest out of the 4 people are bull shitters when they say chrome is the fastest or FF is the fastest etc that's just in java-script speed the shit still has to be processed in other things such as css tables and rendered on your computer, browsers when you take into account everything including natural bandwidth caps and latency to web-servers they all are about the same speed.
Also alpha builds of newest opera that is available to the public are just as fast as FF nightly builds. IE9 not available to the pubic is just as fast as that as well in javascript speeds cause apparently fan boy campaigns have convinced Microsoft apparently script speed is a selling point even when they point out most websites aren't javascript heavy only a few like facebook are.
Chrome is win. Chrome its so awesome. simplicity and the ability to make new windows just by taking a tab out of chrome!!!!!!!!! seriously. fastest browser so far.
I just switched from FireFox to ChromePlus. ChromePlus is a fork of Chrome without the "Chrome is calling home" stuff. The extensions are solid, the newest versions of Chrome also support Greasemonkey scripts. The browser feels a lot faster than Firefox.
To the Linux-fanboys: chrome for linux is totally-beta, don't whine about flash not working and such.
"browsers when you take into account everything including natural bandwidth caps and latency to web-servers they all are about the same speed."
This is so true. The whole "fastest browser" debate is quite outdated now. Sure there can be a miniscule difference, but it's negligible.
I prefer Firefox because of it's adaptability but for those who are worried about trying chrome due to its privacy issues, there's a version of the Chromium browser (up to date etc and fully compatably with extensions) called SRWare Iron. I also like the UI of Chrome a lot too.
Also, Kenpachi, the "tearing" feature works on Ffox too.
when you take into account everything including natural bandwidth caps and latency to web-servers they all are about the same speed.
I use both Firefox and Chrome and I have no main browser at the moment. Reason being I can't choose between the two. A reason for this is that I can totally feel the difference in speed so I know you are mistaken about that.
I also realize that not everyone has the same experience but I know several people in my class that shares my experiences
when you take into account everything including natural bandwidth caps and latency to web-servers they all are about the same speed.
I use both Firefox and Chrome and I have no main browser at the moment. Reason being I can't choose between the two. A reason for this is that I can totally feel the difference in speed so I know you are mistaken about that.
I also realize that not everyone has the same experience but I know several people in my class that shares my experiences
In psychology there is a thing observed about human over confidence and how people when you tell them something and act like it's true people will say "oh yeah, i can totally see that" and then you say oh my bad i mis-read it apparently it's the other way around "Yeah totally because xxx xxx xxx, so easy right!"
The difference in speed has been measured before though macro based web page test with varying web-pages etc the difference is something 5-10ms on avg between freshly installed browsers you think you can see that most monitors can't even change their pixels that fast.
Now browsers do get slower when you use them alot and don't maintain them also when you slap on add-ons etc that is the likely thing you see, anytime you try out a new browser and you are computer illiterate and so your browser is bogged down it always seems faster on the freshly installed browser.
I use opera because i don't need any adds on with opera ffs i don't even use flash for flash i use IE8 exclusively just because it's the most efficient compared to the plug in ones.
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.
:3 Difference between the terminal and an indexer. I still like my GUI thank you very much.
when you take into account everything including natural bandwidth caps and latency to web-servers they all are about the same speed.
I use both Firefox and Chrome and I have no main browser at the moment. Reason being I can't choose between the two. A reason for this is that I can totally feel the difference in speed so I know you are mistaken about that.
I also realize that not everyone has the same experience but I know several people in my class that shares my experiences
In psychology there is a thing observed about human over confidence and how people when you tell them something and act like it's true people will say "oh yeah, i can totally see that" and then you say oh my bad i mis-read it apparently it's the other way around "Yeah totally because xxx xxx xxx, so easy right!"
The difference in speed has been measured before though macro based web page test with varying web-pages etc the difference is something 5-10ms on avg between freshly installed browsers you think you can see that most monitors can't even change their pixels that fast.
Now browsers do get slower when you use them alot and don't maintain them also when you slap on add-ons etc that is the likely thing you see, anytime you try out a new browser and you are computer illiterate and so your browser is bogged down it always seems faster on the freshly installed browser.
I use opera because i don't need any adds on with opera ffs i don't even use flash for flash i use IE8 exclusively just because it's the most efficient compared to the plug in ones.
The day I trust IE8 security will be the day that I die. But that's just me
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.
:3 Difference between the terminal and an indexer. I still like my GUI thank you very much.
when you take into account everything including natural bandwidth caps and latency to web-servers they all are about the same speed.
I use both Firefox and Chrome and I have no main browser at the moment. Reason being I can't choose between the two. A reason for this is that I can totally feel the difference in speed so I know you are mistaken about that.
I also realize that not everyone has the same experience but I know several people in my class that shares my experiences
In psychology there is a thing observed about human over confidence and how people when you tell them something and act like it's true people will say "oh yeah, i can totally see that" and then you say oh my bad i mis-read it apparently it's the other way around "Yeah totally because xxx xxx xxx, so easy right!"
The difference in speed has been measured before though macro based web page test with varying web-pages etc the difference is something 5-10ms on avg between freshly installed browsers you think you can see that most monitors can't even change their pixels that fast.
Now browsers do get slower when you use them alot and don't maintain them also when you slap on add-ons etc that is the likely thing you see, anytime you try out a new browser and you are computer illiterate and so your browser is bogged down it always seems faster on the freshly installed browser.
I use opera because i don't need any adds on with opera ffs i don't even use flash for flash i use IE8 exclusively just because it's the most efficient compared to the plug in ones.
The day I trust IE8 security will be the day that I die. But that's just me
IE8 is the most secure esp under a non admin account in windows 7. Only porb is IE is the most targeted browser so get it right yo =p oddly enough opera is probably the least secure out of the 4 but it's hardly ever targeted for it's exploits.
On February 04 2010 06:52 ComradeDover wrote: Insert random bullshit here.
Usually I'm a polite guy, but you're so full of shit that I just can't stand it any more. The fact that you insult OS I'm using - which is much better than yours but this is for another debate and me personally as well as other people that have made their points in this thread is something I can't really understand. I advise you to read the definition of the word 'forum' first. Then to seriously revise your behaviour.
But I can't speak for others so I'll just speak for myself here.
What I did was provide information relevant to the discussion at hand from my point of view. To do so I took my time, installed different browsers on my computer, did some testing on them all and then took even more time to write about my findings here. All you did on the other hand, is blindly piss on everything and everyone in your sheepish fanboyism (because if you're using Windows and Chrome just like many other computer illiterate people out there - no offence - who claim them to be superior over everything else). I could put up with it if you even provided some relevant information (just a simple link would suffice), but you failed even in doing such a simple thing.
Now, because I'm in the mood:
Then your review is irrelevent because nobody cares about the Linux version of anything, and if somebody did care, they wouldn't need a review because they would just do this shit themselves.
I do care about Linux version of most things and I do need reviews from time to time even if I can do this shit myself.
Your argument is invalid
INSTALL WINDOWS. IT'S ALL THERE.
Windows hasn't got half the things I care about.
Your argument is invalid
The Windows version doesn't have this problem. See my above comments about getting a real browser.
One browser not working on my OS while 2 others are working flawlessly clearly isn't my OS problem...
Your argument is invalid
Windows. Why? Because the purpose of an operating system is the properly run the programs I need to fulfill the various tasks I have for my computer. As your "review" has shown, Linux is incapable of doing that.
Windows was incapable of doing that so I switched to Linux.
Your argument is invalid
I'm tired of this bullshit. Go trolling elsewhere, beer >>> my awareness today.
I wouldn't be that optimistic about the new browser by Google, the most powerful corporation ever.
Before releasing own browser, Google was able to collect user browsing information only through Google Toolbar. If you read the G! Toolbar Terms & Conditions carefully, you'd find the lines where Google states that by installing the software a user agrees to share all browsing information with the software provider. Naturally, they couldn't force everyone to install their toolbar so the great G chose the different way.
Google wants to know every little thing about you and your relations with the world. Having billions of heavy-weighed user profiles enables the corporation to sell anything to anyone. And you wouldn't even suspect that Google is actually selling something to you -- they know the exact place (space?) and time you'll be browsing across their ad and they'll definitely know the words to convert you in a second.
There is, however, even a more dangerous aspect of Google's tremendous activities. By collecting all sorts of data about its users (read every Internet user on Earth), Google sets you and everyone else in the world under the greatest threat ever. How?
* Google Toolbar knows your location, your IP address, your Internet service provider (who knows your real location), etc. * Google Checkout knows your credit card number * Google Maps & Google Earth know your travel itineraries, your favorite places, your office location, your friends' locations... even exact distance between your home and the nearest supermarket! * Google Docs reads all your private documents * Google Notebook has all your notes * Google Desktop knows your music tastes, has your images, indexes each and every file on your computer * Gmail sees all your email conversations and has all your contacts on file * Google Talk & Lively record all your VoIP talks with friends * Picasa Web Albums knows your friends' names and faces, has seen places that you visited, remembers your dog's name and won't ever forget that birthday party where you got so drunk! * Google Calendar remembers all your events, appointments and reminders * Google AdSense has access to your website where you publish their ads and, again, knows your credit card and information and all your bank account details * Google Adwords has the list of your websites that you promote through their advertising system (And, yeah, they have your financial profile on record) * Google Analytics knows absolutely everything about your websites (and products that you sell online or offline) should you have any * Youtube views every video you submit and tags every little detail in it * Blogger reads all new posts in your blog * iGoogle has passwords to your Facebook/Myspace/Writers United accounts
Do you think you're safe with Google?!
That's a comment on some page there. I closed it by mistake T_T, but yes. Read the terms of use.
I don't like when people play the big brother card against google. Every website, application, operating system, and any piece software available right now does this...even Starcraft. The only difference is that when the FBI/equivalent government investigation group comes knocking on other companies' doors for information, which may or may not violate end user privacy agreements, google doesn't budge. The most serious form of intervention google has ever performed based on information they have collected has been tailoring ads (which are easily disabled) to better suit your interests and banning sites with illegal content from their search engine; and mind you, they always have a written report available for anyone to see explaining why the site was banned.
On February 04 2010 08:42 Manit0u wrote: Usually I'm a polite guy, but you're so full of shit that I just can't stand it any more. The fact that you insult OS I'm using - which is much better than yours but this is for another debate and me personally as well as other people that have made their points in this thread is something I can't really understand. I advise you to read the definition of the word 'forum' first. Then to seriously revise your behaviour.
You're offended? Either you're feigning offense or you're new to the internet. In either case, I suggest you wear a thicker skin when online if this is all it takes.
On February 04 2010 08:42 Manit0u wrote: What I did was provide information relevant to the discussion at hand from my point of view. To do so I took my time, installed different browsers on my computer, did some testing on them all and then took even more time to write about my findings here.
All you did on the other hand, is blindly piss on everything and everyone in your sheepish fanboyism (because if you're using Windows and Chrome just like many other computer illiterate people out there - no offence - who claim them to be superior over everything else). I could put up with it if you even provided some relevant information (just a simple link would suffice), but you failed even in doing such a simple thing.
The guy who can't get his scrollbar working on Chrome is calling me computer illiterate? Oh ho ho ho...
On February 04 2010 08:42 Manit0u wrote: Windows hasn't got half the things I care about.
Your argument is invalid
On February 04 2010 08:42 Manit0u wrote: One browser not working on my OS while 2 others are working flawlessly clearly isn't my OS problem...
Your argument is invalid
You specifically mentioned scrollbars and status bars as two things that you found missing in Chrome. Here is a screenshot of my Chrome running on Windows.
Note the big red arrows pointing to things you claimed were missing. Does Linux not have that? Boo hoo. That isn't a problem people with real operating systems have.
Also;
On February 04 2010 07:42 Doso wrote: To the Linux-fanboys: chrome for linux is totally-beta, don't whine about flash not working and such.
This. I wasn't even aware there WAS a chrome for Linux.
On February 04 2010 08:42 Manit0u wrote: I'm tired of this bullshit. Go trolling elsewhere, beer >>> my awareness today.
What is it with this community that posting anything that disagrees with others is considered trolling? Wear a thicker skin, friend, and try not to take offense at everything. Life will be much easier for you.
Chrome is by google that's what not to like :D Mainly the thing is that chrome does alot of things that other browsers already do and do them just fine if not better, I mean out of the box nothing beats operas features and ui customization, IE8 security on windows 7 is fucking amazing how far they gone to make it secure (as long as you're not an idiot and surf the web on a true admin account or disable uac and keep protected mode on you're nearily golden to alot of types of attacks) or FF add on data base, all chrome is doing is taking attenion away and making an already filled market more cramped.
Mostly i dislike it becuase google keeps tring to make me download it when i go to anything by google.
On February 04 2010 06:52 ComradeDover wrote: Fair enough, but like you said, I don't know how long they're going to hold that advantage.
Developer bases take time to build. Look how long it took Firefox to get where they are now? There's at least enough time for Firefox to do something good with Firefox 4.
On February 04 2010 06:52 ComradeDover wrote: This is such a small point I would say it borders on being irrelevent. This is something I'd gladly trade away in exchange for the speed and stability that Chrome offers.
Speed I'll concede, but I'm still not convinced that Chrome is more stable than Opera. Stress-testing them is hard to do convincingly though.
On February 04 2010 16:43 Virtue wrote: Chrome is by google that's what not to like :D ... Mostly i dislike it becuase google keeps tring to make me download it when i go to anything by google.
Again, these are not real arguments you can hold against Chrome when Chromium and Iron exist as equivalents.
On February 04 2010 17:01 FragKrag wrote: Oh, I never realized Chromium was a standalone browser :o I'll take it out for a test run :D
It is. It's baiscally Chrome but without Google branding and auto-updater.
Edit: Also, to the person that mentioned Chrome for Linux being in beta... This doesn't mean that some core features shouldn't be working. Firefox alpha builds haven't any problem with that.
On February 04 2010 16:27 FragKrag wrote: What isn't there to like about Chrome? Just a few compatibility issues, but even those aren't as common anymore.
But yeah ComradeDover, you're either going to get banned for liking Chrome, or for attacking the other person's choice of OS and ridiculing them :D
chrome is an excellent browser and may even run a bit faster on my system but i get really paranoid surfing without the firefox noscript plugin.
On February 04 2010 16:43 Virtue wrote: Chrome is by google that's what not to like :D Mainly the thing is that chrome does alot of things that other browsers already do and do them just fine if not better, I mean out of the box nothing beats operas features and ui customization, IE8 security on windows 7 is fucking amazing how far they gone to make it secure (as long as you're not an idiot and surf the web on a true admin account or disable uac and keep protected mode on you're nearily golden to alot of types of attacks) or FF add on data base, all chrome is doing is taking attenion away and making an already filled market more cramped.
Mostly i dislike it becuase google keeps tring to make me download it when i go to anything by google.
other browsers do not manage tabs like chrome does, and one of the best features is dragging out a tab to create a new window or placing it in an existent window without reloading the page. that's enough to make chrome my main browser. if i want to use firefox addons i'd use firefox for those occasions. so no, not all browsers can do the things in chrome "just fine" and certainly they can't do it better.
On February 04 2010 06:52 ComradeDover wrote: Fair enough, but like you said, I don't know how long they're going to hold that advantage.
Developer bases take time to build. Look how long it took Firefox to get where they are now? There's at least enough time for Firefox to do something good with Firefox 4.
On February 04 2010 06:52 ComradeDover wrote: This is such a small point I would say it borders on being irrelevent. This is something I'd gladly trade away in exchange for the speed and stability that Chrome offers.
Speed I'll concede, but I'm still not convinced that Chrome is more stable than Opera. Stress-testing them is hard to do convincingly though.
On February 04 2010 16:43 Virtue wrote: Chrome is by google that's what not to like :D ... Mostly i dislike it becuase google keeps tring to make me download it when i go to anything by google.
Again, these are not real arguments you can hold against Chrome when Chromium and Iron exist as equivalents.
Nope it's still an arguement aganist chromeium and iron easily because i want chrome to die i wont support any of it's off shoots just because google is shoving it down my thoat every time i use something by google
Also my quote the first line is scarcasm hard to get scarcasm accross the internet.
if people allowed to shoot down IE just because it's by microsoft i can shoot down chrome and everything like it just because google is fucking annoying.
They argument goes you lessen the preceived value of the brower to the clients by using adverts to get the message accross that CHROME IS BY GOOGLE.
On February 04 2010 16:27 FragKrag wrote: What isn't there to like about Chrome? Just a few compatibility issues, but even those aren't as common anymore.
But yeah ComradeDover, you're either going to get banned for liking Chrome, or for attacking the other person's choice of OS and ridiculing them :D
chrome is an excellent browser and may even run a bit faster on my system but i get really paranoid surfing without the firefox noscript plugin.
You do know you could just disable your javascript or set up a trusted core list of website notiables that get lax security and beef it up everywhere else it's how i run my IE and i know you can do it in opera i'm sure you can do it in FF too
Frankly i find it funny that people love no script and yet claim they use FF for it's javascript speed basiclly they calim ff is so fast becuase it doesn't render javascript when i don't want it to it's how i can tell the diff t-t
Personally i don't know why people who just check maybe 10 20 sites don't take the time to set up trusted websites then just disable everything else to beef up security, my opera and ie only has maybe 30 trusted websites else by defult javascript and everything else is pretty much disabled. Take maybe 10 mins of you're life really like 5 and then you no longer need those shittty point less plug ins like no script which is just a shortcut to disable and creative zones to what you can already do with FF.
does anyone use flock? My roomie has been using that for a long time and it always looked shitty to me, he swears by it. Are there browser comparison charts anywhere?
On February 05 2010 08:17 CharlieMurphy wrote: does anyone use flock? My roomie has been using that for a long time and it always looked shitty to me, he swears by it. Are there browser comparison charts anywhere?
Been using FF for years, switched over to Chrome a few months ago just because I was curious. Now when I reformatted my computer a month ago, I got back to FF.
As far as I experienced, FF handled everything marginally better than Chrome, except for flash players and games. Also, Chrome was quite glitchy, it kept "skipping" sometimes when I had too much shit going on, tabbing out to my messenger or something else running behind it. It will probably be fixed in the future if it hasn't already, but aside from that, the difference was so miniscule that I don't see a reason to switch from either to the other at all.
But I would really prefer using IE, if it didn't fuck up my bookmarks whenever I try to import them
As a graduate student I'm opening up academic articles, papers, etc in PDF form very often. Does anybody else notice that Chrome handles PDFs very poorly? For me it won't even load properly about 10% of the time. When it does load, it scrolls like crap about 50% of the time. Is ANYBODY else having this problem besides me?
Also, it seems to handle videos and flash inadequately sometimes..
On February 06 2010 03:39 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: I have a question for other Chrome users:
As a graduate student I'm opening up academic articles, papers, etc in PDF form very often. Does anybody else notice that Chrome handles PDFs very poorly? For me it won't even load properly about 10% of the time. When it does load, it scrolls like crap about 50% of the time. Is ANYBODY else having this problem besides me?
Also, it seems to handle videos and flash inadequately sometimes..
Wouldn't it be better to open your PDF's in an external app designed for this (aka FoxitReader)?
Well Adobe Reader (outside of Chrome) works fairly well if I actually want to sit down and read the entire thing that I've saved to my hd. The problem is that I often find myself browsing PDFs online and reading the abstracts to see if it matches my research topic.
I guess I'm wondering if this is something Google knows about and will hopefully be trying to fix with the next update?
On February 06 2010 03:39 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: I have a question for other Chrome users:
As a graduate student I'm opening up academic articles, papers, etc in PDF form very often. Does anybody else notice that Chrome handles PDFs very poorly? For me it won't even load properly about 10% of the time. When it does load, it scrolls like crap about 50% of the time. Is ANYBODY else having this problem besides me?
Also, it seems to handle videos and flash inadequately sometimes..
On my work computer I use preview and at home i just use foxit for pdf handling both of which work well. There might be a new addon for foxit integration for in browser pdf files but wouldnt you rather use an external application to begin with?
On February 06 2010 03:39 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: I have a question for other Chrome users:
As a graduate student I'm opening up academic articles, papers, etc in PDF form very often. Does anybody else notice that Chrome handles PDFs very poorly? For me it won't even load properly about 10% of the time. When it does load, it scrolls like crap about 50% of the time. Is ANYBODY else having this problem besides me?
Also, it seems to handle videos and flash inadequately sometimes..
I believe that should be an Adobe thing. Adobe probably hasn't done that good of a job in adapting their Adobe Reader code for Chrome (though I haven't heard any reports of this so take my advice with a grain of salt).
On another note, you could always open PDFs with Google Docs or just open them on your computer. You download the PDF whether you read it online or not so....
On February 04 2010 07:32 Kenpachi wrote: Chrome is win. Chrome its so awesome. simplicity and the ability to make new windows just by taking a tab out of chrome!!!!!!!!! seriously. fastest browser so far.
You know you can do that with opera, infact you can always drag that tab and add it into another window and combine it!
Ofc this is becuase how opera handles "tabbed" browsing is acutlly though making them a series of windows grouped into another window so pulling those windows out and putting them back in is a simple task.
On February 06 2010 06:01 Virtue wrote: Ofc this is becuase how opera handles "tabbed" browsing is acutlly though making them a series of windows grouped into another window so pulling those windows out and putting them back in is a simple task.
This is at this point considered good browser design. That Firefox doesn't have this feature is certainly a flaw, but one that's almost certainly going to be gone in Firefox 4.
I tried chrome and its slow, even the ad-blocker only blocks select ads and not the stupid commercials you get when you first open a stream or play certain youtube videos. I'll stick with FF.
Me personally I haven't had any problems with FF it runs fast and my computer is garbage so i don't know where people are getting this "ff is slow" stuff.
It comes from the poeple that have 28 add ons and 33 greesemonkey scripts running on their firefox and it's so bloated it melts their computer and the people that never clean anything on their computer so the browser remebers and has to sort though everything they ever done.
On February 06 2010 06:01 Virtue wrote: Ofc this is becuase how opera handles "tabbed" browsing is acutlly though making them a series of windows grouped into another window so pulling those windows out and putting them back in is a simple task.
This is at this point considered good browser design. That Firefox doesn't have this feature is certainly a flaw, but one that's almost certainly going to be gone in Firefox 4.
Oh god no! I wish they even took out 'open in new window' option from the current builds. I freaking hate having more than 1 instance of browser running (even if it means having 60 open tabs) so the 'take tab out and make new window out of it' is not an option for me.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/SgtXj.png)
![[image loading]](http://cdn.mashable.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/firefox-4-bottom.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Mywdl.pngasd)
![[image loading]](http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/3382/4222.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/4811/500xaggmemoryuse.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4714/97548192.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/7807/scrollbarandstatusbar.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.fedoraforum.org/gallery/file_4gallery/5/7/5/9/1765ffox-wp-1024a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1433/1140859578_f772cb1455.jpg?v=0)
![[image loading]](http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/tech_games/firefox2.jpg)
