Topic: Google Chrome

[Deathlike2]

Poor quoting.

 

[Odbarc]

Where did that come from? I never said that :P

I messed up the post. I think part of what I was trying to say got quoted when I didn't want that.

a few early wheel mice had a thumb button instead of a clickable wheel.  the original wheel mouse (microsoft intellimouse 2.0, i believe) had a clickable wheel.

My older mouse had it's wheel create this large circle on my screen and moving my cursor above or below it would scroll hyper fast or very slowly depending on how far away you were from it.

My newer mouse does nothing. Maybe I need to change something in the mouse settings.

Poor quoting.

 

But awesome  ing!

[Leviathan Mist]

The main reason I use Firefox is because in classic-windows set up, the scroll bar on the very right can be clicked and dragged when the cursor is right against the edge.

I wonder if Vista would allow this easy-click scroll bar? I know XP doesn't or I'd actually use it.

Wow, I didn't even realize this, I've been conditioned to actually aim my cursor at the scrollbar in order to scroll - though I've been using Firefox as my main browser for the past 3 years. Thanks for the info

I don't have a middle click on this mouse though I do have a mouse scroll wheel that has that. Sometimes it's just faster to left click the bar and move it yourself though.

Fixed. Though essentially you just commented in response to your own message.

[Deathlike2]

 

I'm using Chrome starting today, testing it exclusively for Flash heavy sites.... which would normally chokes on Firefox (well, if there's lots of Flash crap) faster than anything else (I'm not touching IE with a stick either way though).

It seems to run much faster that Firefox for that very purpose (Hulu and Youtube seems alright), so I'll stick with that for a while.

At the moment, I have my browsers lined up...

1) Opera - main browser for most things
2) Firefox - for compatibility when Opera isn't the best option
3) Chrome - for everything Flashcraptacular

I'm probably looking to move Chrome up because of its sandboxing ability, but I'm not entirely sold on the compatibility.... and it's Google.

[JCE3000GT]

I use Opera and won't touch Google Chrome because of the memory leaks and shotty code.  And I know Firefox is good but I won't use it. 

[bond697]

And I know Firefox is good but I won't use it. 

soo... why?  just wondering.

[JCE3000GT]

And I know Firefox is good but I won't use it. 

soo... why?  just wondering.

I know Opera in and out and prefer to stick with what I like. 

[Deathlike2]

I use Opera and won't touch Google Chrome because of the memory leaks and shotty code.  And I know Firefox is good but I won't use it.

I thought that was an issue for Firefox, not Chrome...

[assassin]

JCE3000GT: as an Opera user, have you had the following problem?  for me, with prior versions of Opera (6 and 7, iirc), the interface is very fast, but the actual downloading is painfully slow.  this is especially evident on a page with multiple images -- even on a simple Google Images search results page -- it'll take a long time to load entirely.  i can't find any options to tweak this.  the closest one is something like "(A)synchronous DNS", and if i toggle that, the browser will eventually stop downloading entirely, so it's not an option for me.  IE 6 and Firefox 1.x on the same machine are plenty fine, so it's not a global Windows issue.

Opera is nice, but this pathetic downloading has stopped me from using it regularly, or from trying the newer versions.

i'm guessing you don't currently encounter the problem, if it's your favorite browser..  but have you encountered it on older versions of Opera?  i'm just trying to figure whether Opera hates my computer for some reason.

[Deathlike2]

I wonder why you are making references to older versions of Opera?

The only way downloading slows down is if you set a large cache...

[assassin]

I wonder why you are making references to older versions of Opera?

because those are the only ones i used before abandoning it.  as said previously:

Opera is nice, but this pathetic downloading has stopped me from using it regularly, or from trying the newer versions.

The only way downloading slows down is if you set a large cache...

i doubt that's it..  it's hard to believe Opera could be *that* shoddy at accessing the hard drive.

[JCE3000GT]

JCE3000GT: as an Opera user, have you had the following problem?  for me, with prior versions of Opera (6 and 7, iirc), the interface is very fast, but the actual downloading is painfully slow.  this is especially evident on a page with multiple images -- even on a simple Google Images search results page -- it'll take a long time to load entirely.  i can't find any options to tweak this.  the closest one is something like "(A)synchronous DNS", and if i toggle that, the browser will eventually stop downloading entirely, so it's not an option for me.  IE 6 and Firefox 1.x on the same machine are plenty fine, so it's not a global Windows issue.

Opera is nice, but this pathetic downloading has stopped me from using it regularly, or from trying the newer versions.

i'm guessing you don't currently encounter the problem, if it's your favorite browser..  but have you encountered it on older versions of Opera?  i'm just trying to figure whether Opera hates my computer for some reason.

 
My experience with slowness only occurs with pages that use an assload of plugins and flash (IE ebay).  I've found that the best thing to do is set the limit of active downloads per server to less than 4~5 and don't do redraw instantly.  But everything is reletive depending on the sites you visit. 

[Deathlike2]

I wonder why you are making references to older versions of Opera?

because those are the only ones i used before abandoning it.  as said previously:

Opera is nice, but this pathetic downloading has stopped me from using it regularly, or from trying the newer versions.

It's working fine, but like most browsers, they have their own quirks.

The only way downloading slows down is if you set a large cache...

i doubt that's it..  it's hard to believe Opera could be *that* shoddy at accessing the hard drive.

When any browser is forced to load lots of cache (we're talking >400-500 MB), the browser craps on itself in general. This is the same for Firefox, Opera... and probably Chrome. There's something about the resources required that makes it go uber sluggish, so a "small" cache like 100MB should be "enough" generally.

JCE3000GT: as an Opera user, have you had the following problem?  for me, with prior versions of Opera (6 and 7, iirc), the interface is very fast, but the actual downloading is painfully slow.  this is especially evident on a page with multiple images -- even on a simple Google Images search results page -- it'll take a long time to load entirely.  i can't find any options to tweak this.  the closest one is something like "(A)synchronous DNS", and if i toggle that, the browser will eventually stop downloading entirely, so it's not an option for me.  IE 6 and Firefox 1.x on the same machine are plenty fine, so it's not a global Windows issue.

Opera is nice, but this pathetic downloading has stopped me from using it regularly, or from trying the newer versions.

i'm guessing you don't currently encounter the problem, if it's your favorite browser..  but have you encountered it on older versions of Opera?  i'm just trying to figure whether Opera hates my computer for some reason.

 
My experience with slowness only occurs with pages that use an assload of plugins and flash (IE ebay).  I've found that the best thing to do is set the limit of active downloads per server to less than 4~5 and don't do redraw instantly.  But everything is reletive depending on the sites you visit. 

I believe Flash is less harmful to Chrome than any other browser because of the sandboxing. Resource allocation for any browser when Flash is involved eats the browser up to varying degrees. I couldn't tell you which has it worse, but I'd say that Firefox suffers the most. When Opera gets sluggish, it usually starts with the rendering (there's some noticable delay)... it appears a tad different from say Firefox, but Firefox goes kaput in terms of rendering... where scrolling a page causes garbage-like effects to the point of invisibility.

[Deathlike2]

This board renders oddly under Chrome... the sigs are specifically looking odd.

[Deathlike2]

Chrome has updated to version 4, and the bugs seem to have gone away...