Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 21:36 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Internet & Networking Now this is a subject sure to cause some discussion among all of you. LifeHacker's Adam Pash is arguing that Chrome has overtaken Firefox as the browser of choice for what he calls 'power users'; polls among LifeHacker's readership indeed seem to confirm just that. He also gives a number of reasons as to why this is the case.
Permalink for comment 442367
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I need NoScript
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Sep 2010 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE: I need NoScript"
Member since:

"Without NoScript, I won't switch to anything. NoScript can offer added security on top of Chrome's current security. I just need the flexibility and added security of NoScript. The web is not as innocent was it was 10 years ago.
I don't use NoScript, but I do use adblock and flashblock. If Chrome has these, I might consider switching. I hear the adblock implementation in Chrome isn't quite full-featured, but not sure why? Does it update automatically with filter subscriptions like FF's adblock plus? "

For a long while, because of the design of Chrome not Adblock, Adblock couldn't actually block ads on Chrome. Adblock on Chrome was only an "ad hider", and ads would still be downloaded but not actually shown. What was the purpose of that I might ask ... why download the ad and use up the users bandwidth if it wasn't going to be displayed anyway?

However, for a few months now, this has been partially fixed. Now Chrome implements a mechanism whereby Adblock can actually mostly prevent the ads from being downloaded ... mostly. Adblock under Chrome still can't do this for every ad.

Adblock under Firefox has no such limitation.

Reply Parent Score: 6