09-03-2008, 04:02 PM | #1 |
Last of the Early 30
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Yelm, WA
Posts: 4,679
|
Google Chrome
Anyone else running Chrome for a browser? (I know, I know, the EULA sucks pond water, but other than that.....)
Pam |
09-03-2008, 05:55 PM | #2 |
Account Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: teh Ether
Posts: 559
|
As someone who builds websites, I s'pose I'm gonna have to install it just to see how websites are rendered. I hate it when a site looks different in Firefox than it does in IE. I already use those and Opera to check my code, so I guess I'll have to use Chrome too. A lot of people will use it just to be different, even though it uses far too many system resources.
Jim |
09-03-2008, 06:48 PM | #3 |
Last of the Early 30
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Yelm, WA
Posts: 4,679
|
Well, I will say this, if you right click on the top bar, you can get a drop down box to check the task manager. And in the bottom of that box, there's a stats for nerds link that gives you a lot of information about exactly how those resources are being used. <G> They don't mean a lot to me, but I'm sure they'll mean something to someone.
Pam |
09-03-2008, 07:12 PM | #4 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Where Boris runs free and so do !!!
Posts: 782
|
Quote:
__________________
I voted before it was cool!! - A wise young lad! |
|
09-03-2008, 07:49 PM | #5 |
Last of the Early 30
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Yelm, WA
Posts: 4,679
|
I think Chrome was only released on Tuesday, so it's still a little early yet. I actually like it. Given the EULA, I'd be hmmm, cautious about putting my distance learning classes on it (through it, whatever) - I'll still use firefox and IE for them. They're obviously collecting information, but what browser doesn't?
Here's a link to a discussion about the legal issues of the EULA that a friend sent me. Something tells me that this is a case of the lawyers trying to cover all the angles (like we see with Inc), rather than the techs trying to get in our pockets. (Maybe I'm naive <G>). Pam Last edited by pam; 09-03-2008 at 07:58 PM.. |
09-04-2008, 10:57 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 2,086
|
While Chrome has a higher demand for system resources upfront, its architecture makes it much more efficient than firefox or ie. It is much smarter about resources than the other guys. Also, it uses webkit for rendering, so it should look very similar to Safari, other than the fonts used.
My favorite feature: Pulling off one of the tabs and making it its own window. Yes, I am aware that safari does this too. The most important feature: Blazingly fast javascript performance makes using JS-heavy webpages much, much snappier. |
09-04-2008, 11:29 AM | #7 | |
Advanced Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Marin County, CA
Posts: 3,783
|
Quote:
As for system resources -- when my system gets slow, the first place I look is for the usual culprit -- Firefox. Firefox 3.0 is a bit better, but it STILL hogs memory and CPU. I'm usually more concerned with the CPU -- and better Javascript performance will help a lot. As for IE / Firefox compatibility -- it's usually IE that's at fault, since Microsoft has ignored standards when it suited them. Hopefully they've learned their lesson, but it'll take many years before we stop having to worry about IE7 compatibility. Probably somewhat less time for Firefox 2.0 compatibility. Anyway, I find it more productive to create and test in the most standards-compliant browser you have available, and then test in non-compliant ones, and apply workarounds for the non-compliance, rather than develop in IE, and try to make it work in a standard way while not breaking IE. The workarounds for IE are well known and well-documented. Less so the anti-workarounds! |
|
09-04-2008, 04:45 PM | #8 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 655
|
Quote:
"Consuming twice as much RAM as Firefox and saturating the CPU with nearly six times as many execution threads, Microsoft's latest beta release of Internet Explorer 8 is in fact more demanding on your PC than Windows XP itself, research firm Devil Mountain Software found in performance tests. According to the firm, which operates a community-based testing network, IE8 Beta 2 consumed 380MB of RAM and spawned 171 concurrent threads during a multi-tab browsing test of popular Web destinations. InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy speculates that Microsoft may be designing IE8 for the multicore future. But until your machine sports four or eight discrete processing cores, IE8 will remain 'porcine,' Devil Mountain's Craig Barth says." |
|
09-04-2008, 05:36 PM | #9 | |
Advanced Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Marin County, CA
Posts: 3,783
|
Quote:
|
|
09-05-2008, 05:09 AM | #10 |
Advanced Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North west England, UK.
Posts: 3,043
|
I'd reserve judgement on IE8 until it is released. Microsoft are nolonger resting on their laurels when it comes to browsers and I would hope any poor performance issues will be resolved - it knows its competition.
But, I find myself wondering, apart from competition driving the competing products forward (a benefit to the end user), what is in it for Google, to create yet another new browser? Why bother? It'll be free, no ads in it (I'm guessing, I don't use Chrome). Perhaps just to drive traffic to their site to download it? I don't understand browser wars. Is it the case they believe "he who controls the largest web browser marketshare controls the web"??
__________________
Gareth Brandwood The comments posted are made by the fat figners of the individual and do not necessarily represent the views of the brain. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|