• CIPWTTKT&GC v0x13 (v19): Ivy Bridge Edition
    10,002 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36227536]it's not a performance issue though, it's more secure than Internet Explorer (and Chrome according to some rumors about Google storing everything you've ever done, but those are probably just rumors) and has a smaller footprint than opera (not to mention that it's open source) I think pepsi is pretty gross by the way.[/QUOTE] So use [url=http://www.chromium.org/]Chromium[/url]. Doesn't send any data to Google, and is open source(although open source doesn't instantly mean it's better than the other alternatives.)
Chromium handles large images like crap too.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36227579]Chromium handles large images like crap too.[/QUOTE] I've never had this issue. Ever. It's on your end.
on my end with 4 different computers running entirely different setups.
[QUOTE=Dr. Deeps;36227584]I've never had this issue. Ever. It's on your end.[/QUOTE] his point is that a browser should work well on all computers
Buttsex, stop acting like you are 8 and just admit that people like things that you don't. You're just wasting your own time
... Well that was weird. It seems to have been fixed by deleting a registry file.... .... Belonging to Adobe???? Computers, y u no make sense?
[url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Dust_Accelerates_Snow_Melt_in_San_Juan_Mountains_-_May_31,_2008.jpg[/url] This just loaded completely fine. It loaded within 1 second and I was able to zoom in on it instantly. Again, the issue is on your end.
Let me test this so called "large image problem" on my 1.4GHz A6 quad core laptop.
And chrome runs fine on all of my computers all 24 of them
[QUOTE=wlzshroom;36227595]his point is that a browser should work well on all computers[/QUOTE] And that still isn't even the situation with Firefox. I've had such shitty performance with Firefox before on some of my computers.
Found this image. [URL]http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/290/4/4/Landscape_30_by_darksithanakin.png[/URL] loaded the entire thing in 4 seconds and zooming in only took 1 second. So if my 1.4GHz quad core does it find and your 3.8GHz hexacore doesn't, that leaves one variable... user configuration.
[QUOTE=Dr. Deeps;36227619]And that still isn't even the situation with Firefox. I've had such shitty performance with Firefox before on some of my computers.[/QUOTE] was this before 3.6 because firefox really did suck back then.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36227635]was this before 3.6 because firefox really did suck back then.[/QUOTE] Nope. It was good at 3.5 for me. 4.0 came out and it went to absolute shit for me from then on.
i dunno chrome is loading images slower than firefox for me too, but not significantly slower
[QUOTE=Protocol7;36227626]Found this image. [URL]http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/290/4/4/Landscape_30_by_darksithanakin.png[/URL] loaded the entire thing in 4 seconds and zooming in only took 1 second. So if my 1.4GHz quad core does it find and your 3.8GHz hexacore doesn't, that leaves one variable... user configuration.[/QUOTE] firefox: loaded it in about 2 and zoomed so quickly it's not even reliably measurable chrome (on default configuration which should be the one that works): loaded in about 5 and took around 1.5 to zoom
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36227684]firefox: loaded it in about 2 and zoomed so quickly it's not even reliably measurable chrome (on default configuration which should be the one that works): loaded in about 5 and took around 1.5 to zoom[/QUOTE] that's about as much as i got [editline]7th June 2012[/editline] zooming should take barely any time at all..
Firefox 3.6 was around the time I swapped over to chrome. At the time, Firefox was much different and I found chrome appealing. FF has made serious strides since then and I'm currently considering making the switch.
wlzshroom first buttsex fanboy
[QUOTE=Makol;36227725]wlzshroom first buttsex fanboy[/QUOTE] it's because he's looking at the issue objectively
nope
See for me, the performance is completely different. [url]http://drdeeps.squidfamily.net/Screen%20Recording%202.mov[/url] proof.
Uploading a video. Gimme a few.
Lets stop the browser flamewar and discuss this [video=youtube;t4eh-Cn3Pzk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4eh-Cn3Pzk&feature=youtu.be[/video] I still don't understand how does it work.
[video=youtube;NgOJqmyvgkM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgOJqmyvgkM[/video] It was a little slow zooming it in, and based on my lackluster hardware it still performed admirably.
[QUOTE=Dr. Deeps;36227872]See for me, the performance is completely different. [url]http://drdeeps.squidfamily.net/Screen%20Recording%202.mov[/url] proof.[/QUOTE] using OSX is too large a variable for a test like that in my opinion. you're also not using a nightly build of firefox which is what I'm arguing for. I'll agree that mainline is generally crap compared to Chrome.
[QUOTE=Makol;36227852]nope[/QUOTE] i was under the impression that looking at something objectively was looking at the evidence that is there and doing your own research and forming your own opinion i was not aware that had changed
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36227935]using OSX is too large a variable for a test like that in my opinion. [/QUOTE] OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO [QUOTE]8:36 PM - Waller: Waiting for him to attack me because I'm using a Mac. [/QUOTE]
Everybody knows that this beats Firefox and Chrome hands down, stop arguing. [img]http://sparkbrowser.com/images/spaer.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=1solidsnake2;36227985]Everybody knows that this beats Firefox and Chrome hands down, stop arguing. [img]http://sparkbrowser.com/images/spaer.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] i'm too poor to buy it so i use a secondary plebian browser
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.