Linked by David Adams on Mon 19th Jul 2010 15:56 UTC, submitted by Jonathan DePrizio
Permalink for comment 434071
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-02
Chromium (and WebKit-based browsers in general) ARE light-weight. Not in terms of functionality or supported standards (not that "light-weight" was ever intended to have that meaning).
The browser is light-weight in regard to resource consumption when compared with browsers like IE and Firefox. There has never (until now) been any doubt about the meaning of light-weight in regard to WebKit-based browsers. It loads faster, is less sluggish (particularly in regard to flash-infested sites), is less prone to crashing, and uses less memory and typically also less cpu time (all bets are off when visiting flash-infested sites).