Google Chrome - 30X faster - Hardware & Software

[QUOTE=BJK;16563823]1. The tabs are at the top. How does this make sense? It is supposed to resemble files in a cabinet, where the tabs always go directly on top of what you are looking at. 2. There is no ugly bar at the side, there never has been. This is a feature of IE. 3. It takes the layout of FF and looks like IE...definitely not original. 4. No support for NoScript, AdBlock and Greasemonkey. Keep arguing, this won't change anytime soon. It is in fact, a fact. Point being made, it is faster, but not the browser for me. Its standards aren't parallel to my needs-not internet speed, but the ability to have everything laid out in one, get 10 sites checked in a minute, and without ads or useless/malicious scripts. I'm not as secure with NoScript on my laptop, and it gets 30 warnings every other day for ad cookies, something Chrome cannot prevent altogether.[/QUOTE] Wow, have you read anything in this thread? 1. Tabs are at the top because all the controls below the tab do stuff in that tab. Hit the back button, that tab goes back. Click a bookmark, it goes into that tab. 2. Firefox does have a sidebar, go to View>Sidebar. 3. Who cares if a browser copies the best from 2 things and make itself better than both. 4.Gonna make a list for this one [url=http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/extensions/content-scripts]Content Scripts = Greasemonkey[/url] [url=http://www.adsweep.org/]AdSweep[/url] Who cares if it's not in development anymore, it works if you MUST be a dick and get rid of ads. And if you are so arsed by javascript, turn it off. There will probably be an extension soon anyways if it's such a big fucking deal. Please note, I'm not trying to convert you. But you seem to not know that this stuff exists for chrome even though they have been said many times in this thread. I'm starting to think that you haven't even TRIED chrome fairly and thus spew the ignorance that you do.

Acid3 actually doesn't mean anything because the standards being tested for aren't actually standards yet. That said It's still handy being "ready" I suppose. But you never know what changes in the final version.

[quote=everyone]Chrome is faster than Firefox[/quote] [B]BAM![/B] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHNL1kB8YqM[/media] Also, I have no idea why that can be viewed as HD. It was recorded at a resolution of 1366x768. I thought it had to be 780p.

[QUOTE=nos217;16564897][B]BAM![/B] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHNL1kB8YqM[/media] Also, I have no idea why that can be viewed as HD. It was recorded at a resolution of 1366x768. I thought it had to be 780p.[/QUOTE] It's 720p, not 780p. And 720p is 1280x720, so that vid is counted as HD. Secondly, please tell me you haven't gone through this thread thinking browser speed meant how long it took to start up.

Actually people have been talking about startup speeds. [editline]08:02PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr Egg;16561132]When you take your mouse cursor out of the scroll box window box element thing while stilling having left click held, it will jump back to where you on the page, instead of just carrying on scrolling. Firefox does this too and it's stupid[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. Well Firefox doesn't.

[QUOTE=nos217;16565049]Actually people have been talking about startup speeds. [editline]08:02PM[/editline] No it doesn't. Well Firefox doesn't.[/QUOTE] But your quoted post was not. And firefox does. I specifically opened it to see/hope if it didn't but it let me down(again)

[QUOTE=BJK;16563823]Point being made, it is faster, but not the browser for me.[/QUOTE] By that I believe he means browsing isn't faster, but the program itself is. Someone else also mentioned speeds other than browsing but I can't be bothered finding it. I was just showing that the program itself is no faster. I can't remember how fast browsing was on Chrome so I can't comment on that. Just to let you know, I am not baised towards Firefox. I actually really like Chrome, and I look forward to a Linux release. I was just pointing out that the program itself is not necessarily faster.

[QUOTE=admiral_Cola;16551541]Too bad its apparently missing a grammar checker.[/QUOTE] [url=http://screencast.com/t/9CyUSDYkHHA]No it doesn't.[/url]

Well Mozilla's latest beta browser (minefield) is faster then google chrome, but I'm not sure what version of chrome it's compared too. Hope chrome gets a Linux port soon!

I thought Minefield was an old Source Build? I've got the absolutely latest source build from Mozilla and it's called Shiretoko. [editline]08:16PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr Egg;16565102]But your quoted post was not. And firefox does. I specifically opened it to see/hope if it didn't but it let me down(again)[/QUOTE] It doesn't. Or it must be your build then: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Z3EYRE46I[/media] Sorry if I sound beefy by the way. [editline]08:16PM[/editline] Ok what the hell, I recorded at the same reolution and now it isn't HD. [editline]08:17PM[/editline] Oh no, nevermind it just became HD.

My firefox is fast enough. It's pretty much instant loads everywhere for me.

[QUOTE=BJK;16563823]1. The tabs are at the top. How does this make sense? It is supposed to resemble files in a cabinet, where the tabs always go directly on top of what you are looking at. 2. There is no ugly bar at the side, there never has been. This is a feature of IE. 3. It takes the layout of FF and looks like IE...definitely not original. 4. No support for NoScript, AdBlock and Greasemonkey. Keep arguing, this won't change anytime soon. It is in fact, a fact. Point being made, it is faster, but not the browser for me. Its standards aren't parallel to my needs-not internet speed, but the ability to have everything laid out in one, get 10 sites checked in a minute, and without ads or useless/malicious scripts. I'm not as secure with NoScript on my laptop, and it gets 30 warnings every other day for ad cookies, something Chrome cannot prevent altogether.[/QUOTE] 1. It also has to do with how chrome.exe is just the container, and the tabs represent seperate processes. That's what they meant by Virtual Sandbox. 2. I don't think I understand. What bar is this? Like the history window? 3. The layout of Google Chrome is simple and basic. That's the point of a light-weight web browser. Originality isn't always the best thing if the other stuff works fine. 4. There is support for Greasemoney, and you can bypass the AdBlock problems by modifying the hosts file under C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc. There are plenty of pre-made files that you can easily install. So for the most part, it's not a fact at all. Aside from that, most people can manage to keep their PC clean without AVs. it just takes a bit of caution. I can understand that it may not suit your preference, but I figured I should point out some of the things you have wrong.

I love Opera 10 beta. It looks nice. Greasemonkey isn't that big a feature, it just goes by different names in different browsers. In Opera its called "User Javascript". [IMG]http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c82/Jjlugnut/opera.png[/IMG] Yes I have my monitor sideways when I'm online, its awesome for forums.

That looks awful in my opinion.

I don't like the tabs, but I do like the vertical monitor setup.

[QUOTE=nos217;16564897][B]BAM![/B] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHNL1kB8YqM[/media] Also, I have no idea why that can be viewed as HD. It was recorded at a resolution of 1366x768. I thought it had to be 780p.[/QUOTE] That's hardly scientific since you didn't open the linux build of chromium. And even then, it's still a early build of it for linux so it might not be very fast at all. Plus, you could have done some shifty stuff since it's linux, like putting ff into a ramdisk, or already running ff once before you did the video, because every one know it loads faster the second time you open it. That said, I don't really care about startup speed, you only have to notice it once. What matters more is UI speed and javascript speed, which is so fast in both now that you are talking in milliseconds.

Why do you regret getting it if it's so good?

[QUOTE=nos217;16565319]I thought Minefield was an old Source Build? I've got the absolutely latest source build from Mozilla and it's called Shiretoko. [editline]08:16PM[/editline] It doesn't. Or it must be your build then: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Z3EYRE46I[/media] Sorry if I sound beefy by the way. [editline]08:16PM[/editline] Ok what the hell, I recorded at the same reolution and now it isn't HD. [editline]08:17PM[/editline] Oh no, nevermind it just became HD.[/QUOTE] Nah I just tested it and screen recorded it. Doesn't do it for me, but it does in IE.

[QUOTE=jivemasta;16566105]That's hardly scientific since you didn't open the linux build of chromium. And even then, it's still a early build of it for linux so it might not be very fast at all. Plus, you could have done some shifty stuff since it's linux, like putting ff into a ramdisk, or already running ff once before you did the video, because every one know it loads faster the second time you open it. That said, I don't really care about startup speed, you only have to notice it once. What matters more is UI speed and javascript speed, which is so fast in both now that you are talking in milliseconds.[/QUOTE] Nonono, I'm comparing to Chrome on my Windows PC. I love Chrome, I want it released on Linux, but I'm defending Firefox from some of the fanboyish comments :P.

[QUOTE=nos217;16565988]That looks awful in my opinion.[/QUOTE] nos217 what looks awful about it? I want to know what you think doesn't look awful, default firefox, chrome, etc? This is the stock setup for opera with a different skin [IMG]http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c82/Jjlugnut/opera3.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Dr Egg;16566216]Nah I just tested it and screen recorded it. Doesn't do it for me, but it does in IE.[/QUOTE] So it acts fine like it does in my video for you? [editline]09:09PM[/editline] [QUOTE=4RT1LL3RY;16566368]nos217 what looks awful about it? I want to know what you think doesn't look awful, default firefox, chrome, etc? This is the stock setup for opera with a different skin [IMG]http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c82/Jjlugnut/opera3.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Sorry, it's just my opinion. The blue gradient at the top got me. That screen there actually looks really nice.

[QUOTE=nos217;16566385]So it acts fine like it does in my video for you? [editline]09:09PM[/editline] Sorry, it's just my opinion. The blue gradient at the top got me. That screen there actually looks really nice.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oZ1XEkEM-4[/media]

It's just yours :S.

[QUOTE=4RT1LL3RY;16566368]nos217 what looks awful about it? I want to know what you think doesn't look awful, default firefox, chrome, etc? This is the stock setup for opera with a different skin [IMG]http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c82/Jjlugnut/opera3.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] That looks god awful

[QUOTE=nos217;16566385]So it acts fine like it does in my video for you? [editline]09:09PM[/editline] Sorry, it's just my opinion. The blue gradient at the top got me. That screen there actually looks really nice.[/QUOTE] That is my windows theme, its not how opera looks, its normally dark grey like the rest of it.

Ohhh right. I see :).

I downloaded chrome to use for like a week, since i heard it got better. It crashes every FUCKING time i do anything.

I have an issue with youtube HD with chrome. I get low FPS

chrome is all I use now

[QUOTE=BAZ;16568770]I have an issue with youtube HD with chrome. I get low FPS[/QUOTE] Do you get low FPS in other browsers? I don't get low FPS in either, it's always at 24FPS.