schoolhacker wrote:
um... IE 8 is the most secure web browser in all of history so far you know?
it is the most recommended for businesses and online banking
as for speed... chrome is kinda slow... Opera is definitely faster...
btw... i am kinda confused about weather your defending chrome or contradicting me for fun...
IE 8 is NOT the most secure web browser in all of history. Microsoft even ADMITTED that IE8 has had critical security flaws.
Chrome is not slow.
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/17/2010/01/500x_nine_tab_load.jpg if the image doesn't show up.
I am defending Chrome, but defending is pointless if you're hellbent in your "Chrome sucks" belief.
KeithJohansen wrote:
Graphics flashy? That's a matter of opinion. I could say that Firefox with all its theming is more graphics flashy than Chrome.
Quote:
Slower than Opera? Opera may have some of the fasted start-up times, but I believe Chrome maintains the highest page load speeds. If not, it's still pretty darn close.
Quote:
Widget fun and add-ons? Chrome has extensions. It might not be completely customizable, but it has most of the basic necessities like ABP and WoT.
Quote:
IE... secure? Internet Explorer was, is, and forever shall be the least secure internet browser on the face of the planet. Have you been ignorant of the millions of issues it has had since its conception? Chrome is many fold more secure with its process sandboxing.
Quote:
As for the "process that stays running", Chrome sometimes has trouble shutting down right. Same with Firefox. It's not spyware or anything else malicious in nature.
Individually Quoted for Emphasis.
Chrome isn't flashy. Sure, it has some neat UI affects but nothing the computer needs to devote massive or moderate resources todo. Chrome will run fast whether it's the only program running or running while you're folding virtual proteins with Folding@Home.
I use to use FireFox, but it's 20-35 second start up time was annoying. Chrome launches a short second or so later after I click the icon.
Widgets? You mean, extensions? Any browser these days without some form of add-on basically dies. Look at IE's decline after FireFox hit the web. IE reliably had 70% of the market from 2002 to 2005 when FireFox was introduced.
IE has been known to be the least secure, of anything 
comicIDIOT wrote:
I use to use FireFox, but it's 20-35 second start up time was annoying. Chrome launches a short second or so later after I click the icon.
Hehe, get an SSD. Firefox is up and running immediately after I've finished clicking - its dang fast 
Quote:
Widgets? You mean,
extensions? Any browser these days without some form of add-on basically dies. Look at
IE's decline after FireFox hit the web. IE reliably had 70% of the market from 2002 to 2005 when FireFox was introduced.
No, he means Widgets. Opera has these things called widgets that are basically stand alone desktop apps that use Opera to render. They are completely retarded and totally useless.
ahhh!
i am beaten
fine... you win haha
but ya... oh well... :\
p.s. IE8 has hugh security flaws with its beta not the official one
schoolhacker wrote:
ahhh!
i am beaten
fine... you win haha
but ya... oh well... :\
p.s. IE8 has hugh security flaws with its beta not the official one
No, IE has always had security issues, and many moreso than other browser, if you want to live in your world of lies go ahead but at least know what you are talking about.
TheStorm wrote:
schoolhacker wrote:
ahhh!
i am beaten
fine... you win haha
but ya... oh well... :\
p.s. IE8 has hugh security flaws with its beta not the official one
No, IE has always had security issues, and many moreso than other browser, if you want to live in your world of lies go ahead but at least know what you are talking about.
ahh! stop attacking me!!!
i already said i lost!!! T.T
i personally only use Opera and firefox...
i use firefox when opera doesn't work for some sites...
Quote:
As for the "process that stays running", Chrome sometimes has trouble shutting down right.
Speaking of which, Chrome's tab-isolation (Shift-Esc) is a solid reason to use Chrome; for people (such as I myself) who regularly have 15+ tabs open, having the entire browser crash is painful.
rthprog wrote:
Quote:
As for the "process that stays running", Chrome sometimes has trouble shutting down right.
Speaking of which, Chrome's tab-isolation (Shift-Esc) is a solid reason to use Chrome; for people (such as I myself) who regularly have 15+ tabs open, having the entire browser crash is painful.
I see you Tab Isolation and raise you simple and straightforward restoration of my tabs, including form contents and session data, if Firefox crashes and has to be restarted.
KermMartian wrote:
I see you Tab Isolation and raise you simple and straightforward restoration of my tabs, including form contents and session data, if Firefox crashes and has to be restarted.
I've seen similar in Chrome, though not from a crash but after reopening closed tabs during the same session. I can't say if it works after a session crash as I've actually had none 
KeithJohansen wrote:
As for the "process that stays running", Chrome sometimes has trouble shutting down right. Same with Firefox. It's not spyware or anything else malicious in nature.
There's no excuse for the sloppy GoogleUpdate.exe, however.
KeithJohansen wrote:
Slower than Opera? Opera may have some of the fasted start-up times, but I believe Chrome maintains the highest page load speeds. If not, it's still pretty darn close.
Opera keeps trouncing Chrome in benchmarks for rendering speed and JavaScript execution. Older versions of Opera were quite sluggish, but 10.5's new JavaScript and graphics rendering engines are incredibly fast (though, admittedly, at these speeds it's all a bit academic - even the slowest benchmarked browser is still more than fast enough to provide a pleasant browsing experience).
How often are your browsers crashing to make isolated tabs that useful?
benryves wrote:
There's no excuse for the sloppy GoogleUpdate.exe, however.
True. But I feel like I sort of understand why they did it; Chrome is sort of meant to be idiot-proof. Installing Chrome itself is insultingly simple, while extensions are installed almost instantly, with no need to restart the browser.
Honestly, it's kind of nice having an up-to-date browser without having to "decide" to update and wait for a new version to be installed.
benryves wrote:
How often are your browsers crashing to make isolated tabs that useful?
Again, good point. But periodically when my browsing experience starts to slow down, I'll kill plugins like flash, and happily get back to browsing.
And sure, Firefox can restore my session... but it's no where near as fast as killing one tab and refreshing it (instead of waiting for all my other tabs to also reload). Plus, I can restore multiple sessions in Chrome.
I don't ever like the idea of stuff updating without letting me know. Case in point (although of course this didn't personally affect me), when Apple decided that everyone with iTunes needed a 30MB Safari install.
KermMartian wrote:
I don't ever like the idea of stuff updating without letting me know. Case in point (although of course this didn't personally affect me), when Apple decided that everyone with iTunes needed a 30MB Safari install.
Oh yeah. Thanks for reminding me that I need to update to Safari 5.
benryves wrote:
Opera keeps trouncing Chrome in benchmarks for rendering speed and JavaScript execution. Older versions of Opera were quite sluggish, but 10.5's new JavaScript and graphics rendering engines are incredibly fast (though, admittedly, at these speeds it's all a bit academic - even the slowest benchmarked browser is still more than fast enough to provide a pleasant browsing experience).
Unfortunately, Javascript execution speed on all major browsers is still a bit behind as far as Facebook is concerned (at least for those of us with >1000 contacts).
KermMartian wrote:
I don't ever like the idea of stuff updating without letting me know. Case in point (although of course this didn't personally affect me), when Apple decided that everyone with iTunes needed a 30MB Safari install.
Unfortunately, anyone who publishes updates for their products is in a lose-lose situation as far as rolling out updates goes. Respectful update managers don't ever actually get used by anyone accept power users, but if you try and reach the rest of the population through automatic updates, the power users b*tch and moan.
Kerm the SAX pop-out is broken on chrome........
rthprog wrote:
benryves wrote:
There's no excuse for the sloppy GoogleUpdate.exe, however.
True. But I feel like I sort of understand why they did it; Chrome is sort of meant to be idiot-proof. Installing Chrome itself is insultingly simple, while extensions are installed almost instantly, with no need to restart the browser.
Honestly, it's kind of nice having an up-to-date browser without having to "decide" to update and wait for a new version to be installed.
Since when does Chrome update automatically? I've always had to go and manually update Chrome, as far as I can remember.
KermMartian wrote:
I don't ever like the idea of stuff updating without letting me know. Case in point (although of course this didn't personally affect me), when Apple decided that everyone with iTunes needed a 30MB Safari install.
I don't think I've ever had the iTunes installer thing install Safari without my consent.
rthprog wrote:
benryves wrote:
How often are your browsers crashing to make isolated tabs that useful?
Again, good point. But periodically when my browsing experience starts to slow down, I'll kill plugins like flash, and happily get back to browsing.
And sure, Firefox can restore my session... but it's no where near as fast as killing one tab and refreshing it (instead of waiting for all my other tabs to also reload). Plus, I can restore multiple sessions in Chrome.
Quoted for truth. [Redacted statement]
The isolated tabs aren't just crash prevention. It's security as well. The sandboxing helps keep anything malicious that goes on in a tab stuck in that tab so that when that tab closes, it dies.
Also, returning to what rthprog was talking about, it's useful in memory management. When each tab is a process, there's less fragmentation and bloating as number of tabs and length of session increases.
KeithJohansen wrote:
rthprog wrote:
benryves wrote:
There's no excuse for the sloppy GoogleUpdate.exe, however.
True. But I feel like I sort of understand why they did it; Chrome is sort of meant to be idiot-proof. Installing Chrome itself is insultingly simple, while extensions are installed almost instantly, with no need to restart the browser.
Honestly, it's kind of nice having an up-to-date browser without having to "decide" to update and wait for a new version to be installed.
Since when does Chrome update automatically? I've always had to go and manually update Chrome, as far as I can remember.
Unless they have since fixed this, installing Chrome would install a permanently-running GoogleUpdate.exe process that is started by a scheduled task. On top of that (or possibly because of that) Chrome would install into the user's application data directory (and not into the protected Program Files directory). If you search online you'll see several guides on how to disable this behaviour.
there is tab restoration i everything these days...
Opera has it
rthprog wrote:
benryves wrote:
There's no excuse for the sloppy GoogleUpdate.exe, however.
True. But I feel like I sort of understand why they did it; Chrome is sort of meant to be idiot-proof. Installing Chrome itself is insultingly simple, while extensions are installed almost instantly, with no need to restart the browser.
Honestly, it's kind of nice having an up-to-date browser without having to "decide" to update and wait for a new version to be installed.
And, don't quote me on this, but I do believe it is removed after removal of all Google softwares.
KeithJohansen wrote:
Since when does Chrome update automatically? I've always had to go and manually update Chrome, as far as I can remember.
There is an option to have it update automatically, I believe. GoogleUpdate.exe is used for updates to all of Google's softwares.
Which is another reason why I don't believe it's such a terrible thing that it runs in the background. I mean, honestly, if it's hurting your processing power that badly you might want to invest in a new box. For those of us who have Google Talk, Chrome, and other softwares by Google, the extra payload of GoogleUpdate.exe is virtually unmeasurable, especially since it's not always running. (Mine isn't, atm ).
KeithJohansen wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
I don't ever like the idea of stuff updating without letting me know. Case in point (although of course this didn't personally affect me), when Apple decided that everyone with iTunes needed a 30MB Safari install.
I don't think I've ever had the iTunes installer thing install Safari without my consent.
KeithJohansen wrote:
rthprog wrote:
benryves wrote:
How often are your browsers crashing to make isolated tabs that useful?
Again, good point. But periodically when my browsing experience starts to slow down, I'll kill plugins like flash, and happily get back to browsing.
And sure, Firefox can restore my session... but it's no where near as fast as killing one tab and refreshing it (instead of waiting for all my other tabs to also reload). Plus, I can restore multiple sessions in Chrome.
Quoted for truth. [Redacted statement]
The isolated tabs aren't just crash prevention. It's security as well. The sandboxing helps keep anything malicious that goes on in a tab stuck in that tab so that when that tab closes, it dies.
Also, returning to what rthprog was talking about, it's useful in memory management. When each tab is a process, there's less fragmentation and bloating as number of tabs and length of session increases.
In reply to Kerm's statement, I have had form data be restored along with a tab on refresh. But in certain circumstances it doesn't always work (which is sometimes a pain, but I've had form data lost plenty more times in Firefox then I have in Chrome... maybe it's just because I stopped using Firefox before they improved it?)
IE8 is more secure then it used to be and Trident is finally at a moderately decent point in its development to allow for us web developers to actually be able to write decent designs without having to stick with HTML 1.0 and CSS1 (sarcasm). The point, however, is that IE8 is still behind in the race to keep their engine up to date with technology. It's always a pain seeing IE lag behind so frivolously.
I enjoy Chrome because it's not graphics heavy (it has a very simple and out-of-the-way design, which is what they were going for), it doesn't need extensions to satisfy my browsing experience (I always had to add a good number of extensions to Firefox every time I installed it because I couldn't bare using Firefox dry), and it's fast. Opera, Firefox, and even IE, IMHO, are way too bloated. Firefox especially, but I've found Opera to be as well. IMO.
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.
»
Go to Registration page
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
