Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 18th Dec 2009 17:28 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones "The Mozilla development community has rolled out the latest beta of its Firefox 3.6 browser. In addition to the usual round of bug fixes, Firefox 3.6 beta version 5, comes with a number of new features and performance enhancements. The browser offers the ability for users to easily reskin the browsers with a new visual theme. The new version can also run scripts asynchronously, which should speed load times of pages that have multiple scripts. The new release also aims to appease cutting-edge developers, with support for various new standards."
Thread beginning with comment 400553
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: chrome vs firefox
by lemur2 on Mon 21st Dec 2009 11:51 UTC in reply to "chrome vs firefox"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

I decided to give Chrome a chance since it now supports extensions. Has firefox finally met its match?

Well, the verdict is clear: there is no comparison, especially with the *one Firefox extension that everyone uses* that you wonder how users of other browsers can do without.

I don't care how fast or how many other features other browsers have. I refuse to use an internet that's full of junk that I'm not interested in.


If you are talking about Adblock, be aware that the ad-blocking extensions for Chrome don't really block ads so much as hide them from view. Your bandwidth and page-loading time will still be consumed for someone to send you advertising content, even if that content is not displayed to you.

http://www.chromeplugins.org/google/chrome-plugins/blocking-ads-hid...

Edited 2009-12-21 11:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: chrome vs firefox
by Erunno on Mon 21st Dec 2009 11:55 in reply to "RE: chrome vs firefox"
Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22

If you are talking about Adblock, be aware that the ad-blocking extensions for Chrome don't really block ads so much as hide them from view. Your bandwidth will still be consumed for someone to send you advertising content, even if that content is not displayed to you.


Plus, they can still feed you with all those crunchy cookies to track you across the net. There's currently no match for Adblock Plus on Chrome simply because AFAIK Chrome does not have an API for content filtering (yet). Probably for good reason as advertisement is Google's bread and butter business and it shouldn't be *too* easy (that is: impossible) to write an efficient and effective advertisement blocker.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: chrome vs firefox
by bobi on Mon 21st Dec 2009 22:24 in reply to "RE[2]: chrome vs firefox"
bobi Member since:
2005-11-14

funny how on osnews if you wanna troll you just need to do it in 2 subsequent posts, then you can only vote down a user once per thread.
oh yes, thats you, the troll.

Edited 2009-12-21 22:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: chrome vs firefox
by sbergman27 on Mon 21st Dec 2009 16:49 in reply to "RE: chrome vs firefox"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

If you are talking about Adblock, be aware that the ad-blocking extensions for Chrome don't really block ads so much as hide them from view. Your bandwidth and page-loading time will still be consumed for someone to send you advertising content, even if that content is not displayed to you.

That's a feature, not a bug.

Which is exactly what people need for supporting sites they care about (like OSNews) while sparing themselves the pain of the seething, gyrating ads.

All AdBlocking software should have that option.

And I'm wondering comments googleninja might have about this, since his view on the topic of ad blockers differs from that of many of us.

Edited 2009-12-21 16:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: chrome vs firefox
by lemur2 on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 07:18 in reply to "RE[2]: chrome vs firefox"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"If you are talking about Adblock, be aware that the ad-blocking extensions for Chrome don't really block ads so much as hide them from view. Your bandwidth and page-loading time will still be consumed for someone to send you advertising content, even if that content is not displayed to you.

That's a feature, not a bug.

Which is exactly what people need for supporting sites they care about (like OSNews) while sparing themselves the pain of the seething, gyrating ads.
"

It isn't a feature as far as I can see.

I can't see where it can be considered a fair and reasonable contract where the end user gets to pay for equipment and communications bandwidth for commercial interests to us in showing unwanted ads.

Reply Parent Score: 2