Can't wait to have a play. The multiprocess stuff has my loins twitching.
Submitted by brainwipe on Tue, 2008-09-02 12:52
I'll play the role of skeptic here.
Firstly, Microsoft will probably continue market dominance simply because its the default browser. They still have about 75-80% market share. Personally I'm surprised it's that low, as 99% of people don't care what they use to browse. The fact that Firefox has done as well as it has is testament to the number of geeks there actively installing it on other peoples machines.
Secondly, if Google do get a market share, it will probably be at the expense of Firefox/Mozilla. Google's policy of not advertising their products means that only the technical morlocks will appreciate the difference (for example, take a look at that cartoon... how many people in the world actually could explain the difference between single-thread and multi-threaded applications...how many would care?). These morlocks will already have installed Firefox, and roundly shunned IEx... The technically elite market will effectively get split between 2 camps, leaving the default IE market share pretty much un-affected.
Thirdly, in the app space Google don't have a great track record of beating the competition. There are several of their services which are, while better than competitors offerings, less used (mainly due to the above marketing strategy). For example;
GMail vs Hotmail/Yahoo - I just had a quick check of what I would consider a decent cross-section mailing list I'm on (Reading Roadrunners general list) to see who uses what mail provider
Company Email - 27
ISP (BT, NTL, Virgin, AOL) - 37
Yahoo - 11
Hotmail - 12
GMail - 1 (that would be me then)
Not exactly a great pickup rate for what is effectively a superior product to Hotmail/Yahoo.
Google Talk vs MSN - no contest really here...the vast majority of IM chat is via MSN these days.
Picasa vs Flickr - This one is downright weird. Google give you a coupe of gig storage for free, Flickr gives you 200 pictures (aka fuck-all). Which one is most popular?
Even when they have no real competition (for example Google Docs), there is not a big pickup rate on them...
Fourthly...can the browser market deal with 3 main products? You have to assume that the Google rendering engine will have slight differences to Firefox and IE, and slightly different interpretations of the rules. This could effectively end up meaning that your Joe Bloggs web designer has to cater for 3 different possibilities (even with Gears working in the background). We're still in a world where occasionally I have to use the "Browse in IE tab" option in Firefox, as the site I'm using does not work in Firefox (yes, bad coding I know, however it meets the 80/20 rule of design)...
Good on Google for trying, however will it catch on? Call me skepical...
Submitted by babychaos on Tue, 2008-09-02 14:11
The situation is as you state it (the statistics you quote are rubbish, you can't compare people's use of work email with personal. Yahoo is, aparently, more popular than hotmail still) but will it last? Whenever there is a fledgeling set of new technologies, you always get a load of pooh-poohers. Who will need Twitter, after all? What's it used for? How will it make money? Here's some points of reply:
1. Microsoft continually being raped for anti-trust laws. Windows 7 will not have a built in browser. They're not allowed to.
2. The new vogue is to sell super cheap (like eee) PCs with a Linux distro.
3. The google renderer is based on Mozilla, so it will be identical to FF. Safari and Opera are standards compliant like FF, so sites do tend to look the same in all.
What we're seeing here is another manifestation of the idea of Google OS. It's a pigeon step towards platform and even computer independence. Even now, you could do away with all of the main applications on your PC: email, word processor, spreadsheet, presentation software, calculator, notepad, etc etc. Although market share is important at the moment, technology users are fickle and people upgrade a lot. The technology involved in Chrome is light years ahead of IE,FF,SF,OP. Sandbox threading in Javascript for Fuck SAKE! That's insanely clever.
I think FF is doomed now. In the same way Nutscrape was.
Submitted by brainwipe on Tue, 2008-09-02 14:44
Also, what you're really doing is comparing installed applications with web based ones. It's the same as you comparing use of DOS applications and Windows based applications at the arrival of Windows 1.
Submitted by brainwipe on Tue, 2008-09-02 14:46
My main point was more that Google are not great at taking on established markets in a lot of areas.
With the email example I know that a single list was not comprehensive, however the point mainly was "people tend not to use GMail", preferring alternate options (Yahoo, Hotmail, ISP's and company etc etc). I just thought it looked a bit shit putting;
People using GMail - 1
People not using GMail - 87
Though that is the key point.
And the point with the various comparisons is that Google can't or won't actively compete with other developers in the same market area. They have a general policy of not advertising their services, instead allowing word of mouth to build a base.
And I keep coming back to the point...99% of people do not know or care about multi-threading and any other under-the-hood technical advances. In the same way as most people don't care about computer-controlled fuel injection in cars. Their ultimate browser experience is the same...they see the same page displayed. When there is a slowdown in the page rendering most non-technically savvy people will blame their net connection, which probably causes them more issues anyway...
Submitted by babychaos on Tue, 2008-09-02 15:00
Your statistics should actually be:
People in your running group that happen to talk to you using email that use GMail: 1
People in your running group that happen to talk to you using email that do not use GMail: 87
Which are very very shit.
The technology isn't important to Joe Public (JP) but it comes before new toys. JP care very much about being able to do more and better. Ask JP if they want 10 TB of data store and it will never, ever get accidentally lost. Yes. Ask JP if they care about cloud computing? No.
The posts on Lack-Of aren't aimed at JP, it's aimed at us. So to start saying that JP doesn't care, I'd reply "Fuck JP, this site isn't for them". Google are making $500M each year, not a patch on MS at about $6Bn but what they are doing is pushing everyone else along. Someone needs to take the first steps and when you see that first step, it's worth getting excited about.
Submitted by brainwipe on Tue, 2008-09-02 15:20
The problem here is that Google will almost certainly take down another company "pushing things along", in this case Mozilla/Firefox, which has struggled in the last few years to;
1) Get web developers to develop for multiple platforms
2) Get everyone to comply with 3w standards, rather than IE standards
If I thought that Google would in nay way lessen the IE dominance of the market then I'd be all for it... however given that Google will almost certainly only work with their normal passive uptake model thats not going to happen, all that will happen is either;
1) Chrome dies a death, and sits on Googles lab page in permanant beta. FF continues with its current
2) Chrome takes FF's
Does either of those scenarios benefit anyone? Not really. There is no change to status quo, just a change in second place. I suppose Google will have another bit of the jigsaw before they eventually release their OS, or whatever it will be that pulls everything together, however you still have a lop-sided 2-horse race in the browser market in the meantime (IE with the market share, FF/Google with the "moral highground")
Now if Google could position themselves to take a chunk out of IE's dominance instead of surplanting FF, then that would change matters...however I can't see that happening, as quite simply they don't advertise. The people using IE won't see any reason to change, and IE themselves will continue doing whatever they feel like doing...
Submitted by babychaos on Tue, 2008-09-02 15:48
not to mention that firefox is actually funded for the most part by google
Submitted by Evilmatt on Tue, 2008-09-02 16:25
I disagree with your two options:
1) Chrome dies a death, and sits on Googles lab page in permanant beta. FF continues with its current
2) Chrome takes FF's
What about:
3) Chrome takes FF's
Why is that not possible? Mozilla aren't some magical company that pay for loads of advertising, they can't afford to on MS's scale. They're passive too. Then there's the fact that WINDOWS WILL STOP BUNDLING IE as part of the antitrust court case. Everyone will be forced to choose. OEM machines will need be able to provide the consumer with choice on point of sale. At first that might just be IE but the monopoly is broken and people will do what they do anyway: shop around, read reviews and so on.
When you say 'release their OS', you're missing the point. Chrome IS an OS. All of that technical gadetry that they are including moves it away from an application to an OS of its own: thread pooling, offline as standard and so on. That IS the OS, the OS with datastore in the cloud. All that separates what Android and Chrome can do is interface with hardware drivers. If you assume that whatever is running behind the browser window (OSX, Linux, Windows) doesn't matter, Chrome becomes the OS.
I see all of this as great choice. Firefox is fat and it's built on old technology that can't make best use of multi-core processors and multi-channel net access. It crashes on javascript errors on a single tab - as do they all.
If Chrome is better than FF, then why should it not replace it?
Would you complain bitterly if IBM threw their considerable might behind their own browser?
Submitted by brainwipe on Tue, 2008-09-02 16:56
The reason that I can't see Chrome taking over a majority audience is the same way that FF hasn't. No advertising, and IE is the easy choice.
While MS may not be able to bundle IE with Windows in future, I really doubt that will make much of a difference. It will still be very easy for IE to be displayed to Joe Bloggs as the "preferred choice"...first on the list, easiest to find, default (as it were). We are talking about something free here...Joe Bloggs is not going to bother reading reviews, they are going to pick the first on the list.
Better does not mean most popular... You can see that again and again. A single example I'll whip out is VHS/BetaMax (why not stick with the classics). Technically BetaMax was better, however VHS won. "Better" matters to the technical morlock, easily accessed matters to Joe Bloggs.
Google would have more chance is browsers actually cost something, as then Joe Bloggs would do as you imagine, and check the worthiness of their investment, however the software is free, and bandwidth is cheap. Without advertising Joe Bloggs will see a list with IE at the top, something called Chrome uderneath it, and pick the name they recognise, probably with the big "Preferred Choice" button next to it. Google will do nothing to get out there to Joe Bloggs and explain, in their terms, why they should pick that small option lower down the list, instead relying on the friendly local morlock to guide users their way, the same as FF. Hello
Submitted by babychaos on Tue, 2008-09-02 20:36
How the hell will Windows 7 work?? How do I download a internet browser without an internet browser??
Submitted by Dwain on Wed, 2008-09-03 08:41
How did the operating system get onto your computer in the first place?
Submitted by brainwipe on Wed, 2008-09-03 09:26
I tried Chrome last night on the laptop.
It's a browser. Didn't notice any particular speed differences, even when I used apps like GMail and Calendar. It didn't like rendering Calendar that much (entries were about 10 pixels to the left of the grid), but I'll put that down to a beta-bug.
Submitted by babychaos on Wed, 2008-09-03 09:34
Using it now. From my POV, it's very different.
Lovely tabs across the top - much better when I'm using the laptop screen at 1024x768. I'm a screen size fascist, so I love anything that makes the borders smaller.
Process madness! I tried crashing the browser with some dirty infinite loop javascript. Kills IE/Saf/FF/Op. Just kills the single tab. It also gives me a task manager, (use the windows one with loads of tabs open and have a look!) which allows me to identify tabs and kill them off.
Dragging a tab outside the window automatically creates a new window in a nice way.
The default home page shows previews of the most commonly used pages.
The status bar pops up to let you know what's going on, then quietly disappears. If it obscures the page, then you can roll over it and it moves.
Search is built into the location bar as standard.
Loading up loads of pages simultaneously is much, much quicker.
I don't like:
No Firebug
No Delicious plugin
Some rendering problems (I don't get the calendar one, although I get some others on our software)
Middle button doesn't open up a folder of bookmarks in tabs
It's lovely, though. I can't see any reason not to use it.
Submitted by brainwipe on Wed, 2008-09-03 09:48
Whilst I like the idea of what Chrome is offering, in practice I am finding it far from fantastic. I am using it from my work PC and I have to fight my way through firewalls to get out, but an error message like;
"Some Google Mail features have failed to load. If this problem persists, try reloading the page, using the older version, or using basic HTML mode. Learn More."
as I access Google mail don't seem to be related to that. That seems a browser issue. If any sites are going to work on your browser they are your own sites. Google.co.uk doesn't look right, with the google logo chopped off.
Going back to the email thing. If I was on your list Pete, I wouldn't be down as having a gmail account, because I forward my other accounts to it. I don't actually give out my gmail account unless I need to. I would suspect that some yahoo and hotmail accounts may well be similar.
Submitted by baron on Wed, 2008-09-03 10:23
I would think the email thing is partly that once people have an email address it's very unlikely they will change.
I mean for all it's web 2.0 wizzyness gmail is just email. If you have email already why go to the hassle of retargeting all the things that normally feed into it and distributing it to all the people that already know it. If there is nothing overtly wrong with your email it's unlikely you are going to change it.
It is going to be a bit of a pain getting a web browser onto it without having a web browser there ... maybe aol will make a comeback with their disks.
Submitted by Evilmatt on Wed, 2008-09-03 11:35
I will admit google chrome seems to be fairly responsive and so far it seems OK I've not seen any rendering issues. Even did a quick check of the badger which seems OK though we did spend ages making sure everything was full w3 compliant (then had to add all the exceptions and hacks to make bloody IE work with its selective approach to standards compliance).
It seems not to like rss feeds but that's about the only thing so far that seems in need of a bit of work
Submitted by Evilmatt on Wed, 2008-09-03 11:48
It was install by Dell, in a factory somewhere. Firefox got on my machine by being downloaded from the internet. Does this mean we're going to go back to the AOL disc suituation where ever month i get hundred of stupid coloured disc through the post?
Google can make use of this comment if they like. Fuck bollocks cuntisticks.
Submitted by brainwipe on Wed, 2008-09-03 15:30
For what it's worth, FireFox 3.1 will feature Mozilla's new javascript engine, TraceMonkey, which is at least an order of magnitude faster that their current implementation.
They've done some comparative benchmarks against V8, and aside from a few obvious areas where they admit they get owned, performance is pretty much of a muchness between them. TraceMonkey still doesn't have V8's awesome process/threading model though; although I'll bet it won't be long before they implement something similar. Especially now they've seen (and been impressed by) what google have done.
A nice feature of Google Chrome is that it underlines spelling mistakes in your text box entry. I like that. Funnily, though, it also underlines 'Google' as an incorrect spelling. Which is funny. Ha ha.
Submitted by brainwipe on Thu, 2008-09-04 09:30
That's just inline spellchecking
firefox has had it for ages you just need to make sure it's turned on and it has a dictionary to work with. Hell even IE can do it
Submitted by Evilmatt on Thu, 2008-09-04 12:07
one thing I don't like is tieing the downloads to the tabs such that if you close the tab before the download completes bye bye download
Submitted by Evilmatt on Thu, 2008-09-04 12:19
yes yes, I know it's inline spellecking. However, my point was that it doesn't have Google in its dictionary. Haw haw.
I agree about the download thing. That's pants.
Submitted by brainwipe on Thu, 2008-09-04 13:02
You can crash the whole browser by typing :% into the address bar. You don't even need to press return.
Comments
Can't wait to have a play. The multiprocess stuff has my loins twitching.
I'll play the role of skeptic here.
Firstly, Microsoft will probably continue market dominance simply because its the default browser. They still have about 75-80% market share. Personally I'm surprised it's that low, as 99% of people don't care what they use to browse. The fact that Firefox has done as well as it has is testament to the number of geeks there actively installing it on other peoples machines.
Secondly, if Google do get a market share, it will probably be at the expense of Firefox/Mozilla. Google's policy of not advertising their products means that only the technical morlocks will appreciate the difference (for example, take a look at that cartoon... how many people in the world actually could explain the difference between single-thread and multi-threaded applications...how many would care?). These morlocks will already have installed Firefox, and roundly shunned IEx... The technically elite market will effectively get split between 2 camps, leaving the default IE market share pretty much un-affected.
Thirdly, in the app space Google don't have a great track record of beating the competition. There are several of their services which are, while better than competitors offerings, less used (mainly due to the above marketing strategy). For example;
GMail vs Hotmail/Yahoo - I just had a quick check of what I would consider a decent cross-section mailing list I'm on (Reading Roadrunners general list) to see who uses what mail provider
Company Email - 27
ISP (BT, NTL, Virgin, AOL) - 37
Yahoo - 11
Hotmail - 12
GMail - 1 (that would be me then)
Not exactly a great pickup rate for what is effectively a superior product to Hotmail/Yahoo.
Google Talk vs MSN - no contest really here...the vast majority of IM chat is via MSN these days.
Picasa vs Flickr - This one is downright weird. Google give you a coupe of gig storage for free, Flickr gives you 200 pictures (aka fuck-all). Which one is most popular?
Even when they have no real competition (for example Google Docs), there is not a big pickup rate on them...
Fourthly...can the browser market deal with 3 main products? You have to assume that the Google rendering engine will have slight differences to Firefox and IE, and slightly different interpretations of the rules. This could effectively end up meaning that your Joe Bloggs web designer has to cater for 3 different possibilities (even with Gears working in the background). We're still in a world where occasionally I have to use the "Browse in IE tab" option in Firefox, as the site I'm using does not work in Firefox (yes, bad coding I know, however it meets the 80/20 rule of design)...
Good on Google for trying, however will it catch on? Call me skepical...
The situation is as you state it (the statistics you quote are rubbish, you can't compare people's use of work email with personal. Yahoo is, aparently, more popular than hotmail still) but will it last? Whenever there is a fledgeling set of new technologies, you always get a load of pooh-poohers. Who will need Twitter, after all? What's it used for? How will it make money? Here's some points of reply:
1. Microsoft continually being raped for anti-trust laws. Windows 7 will not have a built in browser. They're not allowed to.
2. The new vogue is to sell super cheap (like eee) PCs with a Linux distro.
3. The google renderer is based on Mozilla, so it will be identical to FF. Safari and Opera are standards compliant like FF, so sites do tend to look the same in all.
What we're seeing here is another manifestation of the idea of Google OS. It's a pigeon step towards platform and even computer independence. Even now, you could do away with all of the main applications on your PC: email, word processor, spreadsheet, presentation software, calculator, notepad, etc etc. Although market share is important at the moment, technology users are fickle and people upgrade a lot. The technology involved in Chrome is light years ahead of IE,FF,SF,OP. Sandbox threading in Javascript for Fuck SAKE! That's insanely clever.
I think FF is doomed now. In the same way Nutscrape was.
Also, what you're really doing is comparing installed applications with web based ones. It's the same as you comparing use of DOS applications and Windows based applications at the arrival of Windows 1.
My main point was more that Google are not great at taking on established markets in a lot of areas.
With the email example I know that a single list was not comprehensive, however the point mainly was "people tend not to use GMail", preferring alternate options (Yahoo, Hotmail, ISP's and company etc etc). I just thought it looked a bit shit putting;
People using GMail - 1
People not using GMail - 87
Though that is the key point.
And the point with the various comparisons is that Google can't or won't actively compete with other developers in the same market area. They have a general policy of not advertising their services, instead allowing word of mouth to build a base.
And I keep coming back to the point...99% of people do not know or care about multi-threading and any other under-the-hood technical advances. In the same way as most people don't care about computer-controlled fuel injection in cars. Their ultimate browser experience is the same...they see the same page displayed. When there is a slowdown in the page rendering most non-technically savvy people will blame their net connection, which probably causes them more issues anyway...
Your statistics should actually be:
People in your running group that happen to talk to you using email that use GMail: 1
People in your running group that happen to talk to you using email that do not use GMail: 87
Which are very very shit.
The technology isn't important to Joe Public (JP) but it comes before new toys. JP care very much about being able to do more and better. Ask JP if they want 10 TB of data store and it will never, ever get accidentally lost. Yes. Ask JP if they care about cloud computing? No.
The posts on Lack-Of aren't aimed at JP, it's aimed at us. So to start saying that JP doesn't care, I'd reply "Fuck JP, this site isn't for them". Google are making $500M each year, not a patch on MS at about $6Bn but what they are doing is pushing everyone else along. Someone needs to take the first steps and when you see that first step, it's worth getting excited about.
The problem here is that Google will almost certainly take down another company "pushing things along", in this case Mozilla/Firefox, which has struggled in the last few years to;
1) Get web developers to develop for multiple platforms
2) Get everyone to comply with 3w standards, rather than IE standards
If I thought that Google would in nay way lessen the IE dominance of the market then I'd be all for it... however given that Google will almost certainly only work with their normal passive uptake model thats not going to happen, all that will happen is either;
1) Chrome dies a death, and sits on Googles lab page in permanant beta. FF continues with its current 2) Chrome takes FF's
Does either of those scenarios benefit anyone? Not really. There is no change to status quo, just a change in second place. I suppose Google will have another bit of the jigsaw before they eventually release their OS, or whatever it will be that pulls everything together, however you still have a lop-sided 2-horse race in the browser market in the meantime (IE with the market share, FF/Google with the "moral highground")
Now if Google could position themselves to take a chunk out of IE's dominance instead of surplanting FF, then that would change matters...however I can't see that happening, as quite simply they don't advertise. The people using IE won't see any reason to change, and IE themselves will continue doing whatever they feel like doing...
not to mention that firefox is actually funded for the most part by google
I disagree with your two options:
What about:
3) Chrome takes FF's
Why is that not possible? Mozilla aren't some magical company that pay for loads of advertising, they can't afford to on MS's scale. They're passive too. Then there's the fact that WINDOWS WILL STOP BUNDLING IE as part of the antitrust court case. Everyone will be forced to choose. OEM machines will need be able to provide the consumer with choice on point of sale. At first that might just be IE but the monopoly is broken and people will do what they do anyway: shop around, read reviews and so on.
When you say 'release their OS', you're missing the point. Chrome IS an OS. All of that technical gadetry that they are including moves it away from an application to an OS of its own: thread pooling, offline as standard and so on. That IS the OS, the OS with datastore in the cloud. All that separates what Android and Chrome can do is interface with hardware drivers. If you assume that whatever is running behind the browser window (OSX, Linux, Windows) doesn't matter, Chrome becomes the OS.
I see all of this as great choice. Firefox is fat and it's built on old technology that can't make best use of multi-core processors and multi-channel net access. It crashes on javascript errors on a single tab - as do they all.
If Chrome is better than FF, then why should it not replace it?
Would you complain bitterly if IBM threw their considerable might behind their own browser?
The reason that I can't see Chrome taking over a majority audience is the same way that FF hasn't. No advertising, and IE is the easy choice.
While MS may not be able to bundle IE with Windows in future, I really doubt that will make much of a difference. It will still be very easy for IE to be displayed to Joe Bloggs as the "preferred choice"...first on the list, easiest to find, default (as it were). We are talking about something free here...Joe Bloggs is not going to bother reading reviews, they are going to pick the first on the list.
Better does not mean most popular... You can see that again and again. A single example I'll whip out is VHS/BetaMax (why not stick with the classics). Technically BetaMax was better, however VHS won. "Better" matters to the technical morlock, easily accessed matters to Joe Bloggs.
Google would have more chance is browsers actually cost something, as then Joe Bloggs would do as you imagine, and check the worthiness of their investment, however the software is free, and bandwidth is cheap. Without advertising Joe Bloggs will see a list with IE at the top, something called Chrome uderneath it, and pick the name they recognise, probably with the big "Preferred Choice" button next to it. Google will do nothing to get out there to Joe Bloggs and explain, in their terms, why they should pick that small option lower down the list, instead relying on the friendly local morlock to guide users their way, the same as FF. Hello
How the hell will Windows 7 work?? How do I download a internet browser without an internet browser??
How did the operating system get onto your computer in the first place?
I tried Chrome last night on the laptop.
It's a browser. Didn't notice any particular speed differences, even when I used apps like GMail and Calendar. It didn't like rendering Calendar that much (entries were about 10 pixels to the left of the grid), but I'll put that down to a beta-bug.
Using it now. From my POV, it's very different.
Lovely tabs across the top - much better when I'm using the laptop screen at 1024x768. I'm a screen size fascist, so I love anything that makes the borders smaller.
Process madness! I tried crashing the browser with some dirty infinite loop javascript. Kills IE/Saf/FF/Op. Just kills the single tab. It also gives me a task manager, (use the windows one with loads of tabs open and have a look!) which allows me to identify tabs and kill them off.
Dragging a tab outside the window automatically creates a new window in a nice way.
The default home page shows previews of the most commonly used pages.
The status bar pops up to let you know what's going on, then quietly disappears. If it obscures the page, then you can roll over it and it moves.
Search is built into the location bar as standard.
Loading up loads of pages simultaneously is much, much quicker.
I don't like:
No Firebug
No Delicious plugin
Some rendering problems (I don't get the calendar one, although I get some others on our software)
Middle button doesn't open up a folder of bookmarks in tabs
It's lovely, though. I can't see any reason not to use it.
Whilst I like the idea of what Chrome is offering, in practice I am finding it far from fantastic. I am using it from my work PC and I have to fight my way through firewalls to get out, but an error message like;
"Some Google Mail features have failed to load. If this problem persists, try reloading the page, using the older version, or using basic HTML mode. Learn More."
as I access Google mail don't seem to be related to that. That seems a browser issue. If any sites are going to work on your browser they are your own sites. Google.co.uk doesn't look right, with the google logo chopped off.
Going back to the email thing. If I was on your list Pete, I wouldn't be down as having a gmail account, because I forward my other accounts to it. I don't actually give out my gmail account unless I need to. I would suspect that some yahoo and hotmail accounts may well be similar.
I would think the email thing is partly that once people have an email address it's very unlikely they will change.
I mean for all it's web 2.0 wizzyness gmail is just email. If you have email already why go to the hassle of retargeting all the things that normally feed into it and distributing it to all the people that already know it. If there is nothing overtly wrong with your email it's unlikely you are going to change it.
It is going to be a bit of a pain getting a web browser onto it without having a web browser there ... maybe aol will make a comeback with their disks.
I will admit google chrome seems to be fairly responsive and so far it seems OK I've not seen any rendering issues. Even did a quick check of the badger which seems OK though we did spend ages making sure everything was full w3 compliant (then had to add all the exceptions and hacks to make bloody IE work with its selective approach to standards compliance).
It seems not to like rss feeds but that's about the only thing so far that seems in need of a bit of work
It was install by Dell, in a factory somewhere. Firefox got on my machine by being downloaded from the internet. Does this mean we're going to go back to the AOL disc suituation where ever month i get hundred of stupid coloured disc through the post?
Apparently this it the message you get if you try to uninstall Chrome. :)
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7848/55334208ze6.png
Ooh, the EULA is not very good.
beaten!
Same point, different person
http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA...
Google can make use of this comment if they like. Fuck bollocks cuntisticks.
For what it's worth, FireFox 3.1 will feature Mozilla's new javascript engine, TraceMonkey, which is at least an order of magnitude faster that their current implementation.
They've done some comparative benchmarks against V8, and aside from a few obvious areas where they admit they get owned, performance is pretty much of a muchness between them. TraceMonkey still doesn't have V8's awesome process/threading model though; although I'll bet it won't be long before they implement something similar. Especially now they've seen (and been impressed by) what google have done.
Tabs in title bar. Tabs. In. Title. Bar.
Google says my bad and they will be fixing the EULA retroactively.
A nice feature of Google Chrome is that it underlines spelling mistakes in your text box entry. I like that. Funnily, though, it also underlines 'Google' as an incorrect spelling. Which is funny. Ha ha.
That's just inline spellchecking
firefox has had it for ages you just need to make sure it's turned on and it has a dictionary to work with. Hell even IE can do it
one thing I don't like is tieing the downloads to the tabs such that if you close the tab before the download completes bye bye download
yes yes, I know it's inline spellecking. However, my point was that it doesn't have Google in its dictionary. Haw haw.
I agree about the download thing. That's pants.
You can crash the whole browser by typing :% into the address bar. You don't even need to press return.
seems like zdnet agree with pete
http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9595_22-219394.html