Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Feb 2009 23:29 UTC
Google The two major features of chrome when it was released was the multi-process design of the browser, as well as the focus on JavaScript performance. TechRadar has an interview with Lars Bak, the developer who headed the effort behind the v8 JavaScript engine in Chrome. He talks about the impact v8 had on the browser ecosystem, as well as why it is taking so long for Chrome to get third-party plug-in support.
Order by: Score:
Irony
by d0od on Fri 27th Feb 2009 00:27 UTC
d0od
Member since:
2009-02-25

For most people the 'must have' extension is only really an 'Adblock Plus' type add-on. Ironic in a sense that Google is one of the web's largest advertisers and AdBlock can remove GoogleAds.

I wouldn't use adblock if most adverts weren't so garish, intrusive and resource heavy, if websites really care about revenue - surely less adverts should mean higher 'rental'. if most websites didn't overload their sites with them there would be no real need for adblock.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Irony
by umccullough on Fri 27th Feb 2009 00:47 UTC in reply to "Irony"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

For most people the 'must have' extension is only really an 'Adblock Plus' type add-on. Ironic in a sense that Google is one of the web's largest advertisers and AdBlock can remove GoogleAds.

I wouldn't use adblock if most adverts weren't so garish, intrusive and resource heavy, if websites really care about revenue - surely less adverts should mean higher 'rental'. if most websites didn't overload their sites with them there would be no real need for adblock.


I pretty much fully agree with you... in fact, before AdBlock plus hit the scene, I was using just the regular AdBlock and adding my own exceptions as needed. I generally left the google ads alone (the text ads anyway), and usually shot down the really annoying animated ads.

I've been using Chrome almost exclusively since it came out (on my Windows machines) - I'm so sick of the ads again now that I'm considering a move back to Firefox now just to get my AdBlock Plus back. Chrome had a significant chance to woo me, but they still haven't offered that one major feature. Firefox is "good 'nuff" still.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Irony
by TaterSalad on Fri 27th Feb 2009 01:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Irony"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree with both of you. Websites are overloaded with ads and it makes it really annoying. I have adblock installed but don't subscribe. I usually block ads on a per site basis. For example, I will block all ads on sites like cnet, extremepc, and a few others, but I won't block them for osnews. Any ads that cover half the page will get blocked as well, especially those stupid animated ones that cover up the content of the page. If Chrome ever gets an adblock I'll be using it a lot more.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Irony
by OfficeSubmarine on Fri 27th Feb 2009 05:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Irony"
OfficeSubmarine Member since:
2006-12-14

You could always try privoxy. Did the trick for ads with opera for me.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Irony
by dvzt on Fri 27th Feb 2009 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Irony"
dvzt Member since:
2008-10-23

I've been using Chrome almost exclusively since it came out (on my Windows machines) - I'm so sick of the ads again now that I'm considering a move back to Firefox now just to get my AdBlock Plus back. Chrome had a significant chance to woo me, but they still haven't offered that one major feature. Firefox is "good 'nuff" still.


You can try this: http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/serverlist.php?showintro=0;hostformat...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Irony
by wannabe geek on Fri 27th Feb 2009 02:33 UTC in reply to "Irony"
wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27


I wouldn't use adblock if most adverts weren't so garish, intrusive and resource heavy, if websites really care about revenue - surely less adverts should mean higher 'rental'. if most websites didn't overload their sites with them there would be no real need for adblock.


If all websites agreed to have unintrusive advertisement, then people wouldn't use ABP and all websites would make more money. Alas, in an environment where people don't use ABP, agressive advertisement may well be more profitable than benign advertisement. Thus, under a few assumptions (like the fact that ABP can't distinguish benign advertisement from the annoying variety), a situation where most websites avoid annoying advertisement is clearly out of Nash equilibrium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

Reply Score: 2

I need a NoScript
by Eugenia on Fri 27th Feb 2009 00:51 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

I need to block javascript and malicious code in general (if ads are plain JPEG files and not using tracking cookies/js, they wouldn't be blocked). I simply do not trust the web anymore.

I _want_ to move to Chrome for a number of reasons, but without a NoScript extension (or in-browser made by Google), I just won't touch it. Not even if they pay me to do so.

Reply Score: 1

yo
by markw on Fri 27th Feb 2009 03:24 UTC
markw
Member since:
2005-07-09

You can use Safari 4.0 if Chrome ever gets too bloated. Apple generally makes their products simple, and Safari is no exception. Version 4 looks a ton like chrome and blends in with windows/mac very nicely.

Reply Score: 2

RE: yo
by theorz on Tue 3rd Mar 2009 19:16 UTC in reply to "yo"
theorz Member since:
2006-01-08

Really? I think Apple needs to do a lot of UI work for that to be true.

Maybe the mac version is better, I have not tried it on my MacBook yet, but the Windows version has a ways to go to catch up to Chrome's UI. Safari 4 takes a lot of steps in the right direction with it's UI, but they just do not execute very well. It seems like some decisions were made thinking saving a few pixels of space in more important that usability. Safari 4 compared to Chrome feels like a Microsoft knockoff of an Apple product.

Not to mention that even with their new javascript engine they are still a ways behind Chrome in performance. http://www.jsballs.com/benchmark.html

Reply Score: 1

There are few more must have extensions
by vtolkov on Fri 27th Feb 2009 06:21 UTC
vtolkov
Member since:
2006-07-26

Bookmark manager/synchonizer. Ironically, I prefer gmarks, which uses Google Bookmarks.

RSS subscriber. Again, I use google reader as RSS reader. But I have to switch to Firefox to find a feed.

GMail as a default mailto: protocol handler.

And download manager, which uses several connections to accelerate downloading.

Reply Score: 1

Morph Member since:
2007-08-20

download manager, which uses several connections to accelerate downloading.


Do you mean, downloads a file in blocks in parallel via multiple http connections? Are there any existing (mainstream) download managers that do this? Do you notice any download time improvements?

Of course using multiple connections makes sense for p2p when you have multiple sources. But I'm a bit dubious that it would be worth the extra complexity for http.

Reply Score: 1

BringBackAnonymous Member since:
2008-06-17

I use a standalone download manager, Free Download Manager which does this. It uses multiple connections, each making a ranged request, to download a file in multiple parts, concurrently. When I enable multiple connections to the same server, I almost always get speeds approaching my connection's maximum of 700-800KB/s, even on servers that were downloading at 50-150KB/s on a single connection. I'm pretty sure almost every download manager supports something like this.
I don't use the "heavy" download mode very often, since it's presumably 8x harder on a server than a download through an (un-extended) browser. And of course, this is in flagrant violation of the HTTP spec's required limits on connections per server, but it does work.
I'm not sure how hard it would be on the web if everyone's browsers started opening eight connections per-file when downloading, by default. I suppose servers would start getting heavy support for per-client/ip throttling rather than just per-connection throttling, and maybe just denying additional connections past a certain number.

Reply Score: 1

helf Member since:
2005-07-06

There have been download managers that have supported this for YEARS. I use DownThemAll in firefox which supports it and a friend of mine used some standalone download manager to do it, and he's been using it for pushing 7-8 years.

Reply Score: 2

Looking forward to extensions!
by TLZ_ on Fri 27th Feb 2009 07:21 UTC
TLZ_
Member since:
2007-02-05

As much as I love Firefox it's not really that light anymore. It used to be this relatively simple base that you could extend to become the powerhouse of your choosing. (As opposed to Opera which includes every software feature you can imagine.)

I hear that in the next release Firefox will include among other things Ubiquity, I think that's going a step to far. (Although I understand why Mozilla is doing it, and I don't blame them.)

I hope Chrome will be the new ultra-light-weight browser that you can extend what you want from.

I'm also really really like Safari, espascially on Mac, but I doubt that Apple will ever make it run extensions. =/ (In a proper non-hacky way.)

Reply Score: 3

Essential browser addons...
by timefortea on Fri 27th Feb 2009 10:22 UTC
timefortea
Member since:
2006-10-11

I find FireBug and FireShot essential for a bit of UI work. Foxmarks does a good job of synchronising my bookmarks across multiple machines. It's all a matter of how you use your browser really - mine does more than just show web pages. If the extension framework was optional/could be disabled, then it would suit everyone.

Reply Score: 2

AdBlock, or nothing
by Tractor on Sun 1st Mar 2009 12:56 UTC
Tractor
Member since:
2006-08-18

That's pretty clear for me too :
Either an AdBlock feature is available, or i don't use the browser, whatever its merit. Same for Opera and Internet Explorer (both have AddBlock extensions, a little more complex to install, but that works).
These Ads are so flashy and intrusive that you can't decently browse nowadays.

For the little time i tested it, Chrome seems a very interesting browser, very efficient. BUT it currently displays all these adds, so back to Firefox.

Sadly, i'm not expecting google to provide a tool that ruins their own business base; so this is going to be a job for an extension maker; and even in this case, i'm not sure that google will not interfere to make sure their own adds pass the filter.

Reply Score: 1