Your thoughts on Chrome

[kasakka]

Have not had a chance to use it on Mac yet, but I detest it on Windows.
It works just fine when only a few tabs are open.
However, as soon as it gets to 15-20 tabs, the browser becomes unresponsive. Firefox has no problems whatsoever under the same usage scenario.
I also hate it how this program ignores all the IU conventions. For instance, on XP it looks like a Vista/7 application... Which, obviously, costs resources.
I am not holding my breath for the Mac version.
Safari is not perfect, but it is really the best browser for OS X.

Never had any problems with a large number of tabs in Chrome, not in Windows or OSX.

As for it looking like a Vista/7 app..it shouldn't require any more resources since a custom user interface is needed anyway (Windows afaik doesn't have any built-in support for tabs). XP is so damn ugly that anything that doesn't use its interface style typically looks better. On Win7/Vista it fits into the user interface style really well. It also fits OSX quite nicely, but by comparison looks bland with the gray theme OSX has.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

Correction, as usual only nonsense

About Memory:
http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory

About Themes:
Firefox as now two theme systems.

Unfortunately have they not included https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=513158 With Bug 513158 in one of the next versions will look Personas as well much much better on Mac OS X.

On the other hand use i for example only my own themes, where i can change nearly everything. The theme system from Chrome is currently more powerful than Personas, but then again not really powerful enough for many intended possible themes variations - likewise Operas system

Cheers

This post is nonsense, it's not a fair comparison. That bug fix for Firefox isn't released yet, so you can't say a future bug fix for Firefox would make it better than an older version Chrome.

You can quote all the benchmarks you want, but Chrome has new builds quite frequently and that data could be outdated. At least in my experience and others, Firefox is resource intensive. Currently, Safari and Chrome are the "lightest" browsers and the fastest ones. The only reason Firefox hasn't done a "Netscape" is because of the many add-ons and extensions, etc.

Chrome is the best browser if you want Firefox's add-ons and Safari's speed.

 

[Aronnax]

This post is nonsense, it's not a fair comparison. That bug fix for Firefox isn't released yet, so you can't say a future bug fix for Firefox would make it better than an older version Chrome.

I have only said, with this bug is Personas much much better than now on Mac OS X - and try it self:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/

And Chrome has a more power theme system than Personas, but compared with a real Firefox theme is it a poor system.

On the other hand is it much easier to create Chrome themes than real Firefox themes, but Personas are then again much easier than Chrome themes.

You can quote all the benchmarks you want, but Chrome has new builds quite frequently and that data could be outdated. At least in my experience and others, Firefox is resource intensive. Currently, Safari and Chrome are the "lightest" browsers and the fastest ones. The only reason Firefox hasn't done a "Netscape" is because of the many add-ons and extensions, etc.

Chrome is the best browser if you want Firefox's add-ons and Safari's speed.

Chrome use for every window, every tab, every extension, every PlugIn an own separate process. It has many pros, but for the memory usage is it a big drawback.
New versions can only improve this situation, but it will never have a similar level than Browser without these separate processes system, when you open many windows, tabs and so on. And Firefox has simply the lowest value, when you open many windows, tabs and so on.

By the way,
Only 30% have one or more extensions installed on Firefox.
7% have a theme installed. In other words: Extensions are not the main reason for the popularity from Firefox.

Cheers

 

[MacBH928]

Correction, as usual only nonsense

About Memory:
http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory

About Themes:
Firefox as now two theme systems.

Unfortunately have they not included https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=513158 With Bug 513158 in one of the next versions will look Personas as well much much better on Mac OS X.


Cheers

Can you provide a similar test but for MAC OS X?

I got FireFox running with 3 tabs(youtube) minimized and its taking 11% process, and 191 MB of real memory and 1.3 GB of VM
compared to
Safari 3 tabs: 5% use process, 143 RM and 1.1GB VM
Camino 5 tabs(2 on youtube): 6% process 138 RM and 1.17 GB VM

the only disadvantage I can give to firefox here is that its the only browser with a paused video on youtube(6 min video).

if I increase my RAM from 2GB to 4GB will it help get a cooler system performance or is it a CPU thing?

btw, any one found it funny that in the browser memory test Explorer was not even included

Oh , you had your days explorer, remember when explorer was THE browser to use for the internet? Even Apple begged for one.
Its really sad to see something that was on top for so long turn out to be so neglected.

Now on to kill Windows and Microsoft Office

 

[ctt1wbw]

Chrome has ceased to function for me on my Macbook. I've downloaded the current version and the dev version. I've installed them both, one at a time, and each time I open Chrome, it's a no go. It crashes upon the web page opening, but nothing gets displayed.

I've used AppCleaner to delete it and all its files and then reinstalled it again, to the same effect. It just has ceased to work.

 

[s1m0ne]

I have installed both the beta version 4 and the dev. version 5 of Chrome yesterday on my mbp. I found it very fast and user friendly. The only claim is that the thumbnail bottom is not displayed on the bar and u need to set as home page to directly access to it. Even the shortcuts are few but the speed is impressive!!!! I use safari (v. 4) as default browser and I found that the real memory used between safari and chrome is comparable (a little bit more chrome) while the latter one uses very less virtual memory. The graphics of safari is definitively the best!!!

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

Safari and Chrome feel about the same speed at loading pages to me. I like Chrome, but have gotten used to Safari. I like how easy it is in Safari to enable private browsing,

It's easy to switch into "Incognito" mode with Chrome. As easy as opening another window in fact:

From file drop-down menu select "New Incognito Window".

All there is to it. Easy!!

 

[clevin]

At least in my experience and others, Firefox is resource intensive. Currently, Safari and Chrome are the "lightest" browsers and the fastest ones. The only reason Firefox hasn't done a "Netscape" is because of the many add-ons and extensions, etc.

Chrome is the best browser if you want Firefox's add-ons and Safari's speed.

opera 10.5 is 4x faster than chrome and safari.

and just to add, your experience is doubtful since you have a track record of making false statement against non-apple products.

Can you provide a similar test but for MAC OS X?

I got FireFox running with 3 tabs(youtube) minimized and its taking 11% process, and 191 MB of real memory and 1.3 GB of VM
compared to
Safari 3 tabs: 5% use process, 143 RM and 1.1GB VM
Camino 5 tabs(2 on youtube): 6% process 138 RM and 1.17 GB VM

1. the memory test need to last more than a hour with active usage. Just open browser and several tabs don't tell you the memory leaks.

2. the memory test need to be performed when you open all the same tabs in browsers.

3. the 11% CPU usage is nothing, if thats your concern.

4. chrome outsource extra process for flash, so you should count that process in activity monitor when talking about memory and CPU.

you really need to be a bit more professional in doing these tests, since you are trying to make a serious point.

Finally:
============================================
my thoughts on chrome?

good, more competition is always good!

 

[js81]

If it (currently) had a way to manage bookmarks, I'd be all up on it. Its very annoying as is, though - but its beta, so I can forgive them... for now...

 

[gødspeed]

I use the nightly Chromium build, and update every few days, or right away if a major update comes along. It does have a bookmark manager, and it's real zippy. I've kept Firefox installed solely for Torbutton. Once there's a dedicated TOR extension for Chrome/Chromium, I'll uninstall Firefox.

 

[Forsaken]

The 5.0.307.5 dev is wonderful to use. 'nuff said.

 

[kasakka]

If it (currently) had a way to manage bookmarks, I'd be all up on it. Its very annoying as is, though - but its beta, so I can forgive them... for now...

Get the dev build. The bookmark manager works on that.

I'll wait a few versions before I'll use Chrome again. The lack of smooth scrolling, performance issues (sometimes can totally stop when loading tabs - especially ones with lots of YouTube embeds) and good bookmark/password syncing (Xmarks) keeps me away. I also find that not being able to turn off spellchecking is really annoying because I write in several languages.

I feel that apart from extension quality, Chrome is very close to being on par with Firefox on Windows, but on OSX it's still a bit too much behind in many areas.

 

[wilsonhaven]

I'm writing this using firefox. Chrome is my default browser though. It works *most* of the time. It does crash about 5 to 6 times a day. That is way too many. Safari works my nerves though. I can't believe that it wants to download everything to the same folder all of the time. That may be nice for grandmothers, but ...

The thing that keeps bringing me back to Chrome is being able to type a search directly into the address window!

 

[MacBH928]

opera 10.5 is 4x faster than chrome and safari.

and just to add, your experience is doubtful since you have a track record of making false statement against non-apple products.


1. the memory test need to last more than a hour with active usage. Just open browser and several tabs don't tell you the memory leaks.

2. the memory test need to be performed when you open all the same tabs in browsers.

3. the 11% CPU usage is nothing, if thats your concern.

4. chrome outsource extra process for flash, so you should count that process in activity monitor when talking about memory and CPU.

you really need to be a bit more professional in doing these tests, since you are trying to make a serious point.

Finally:
============================================
my thoughts on chrome?

good, more competition is always good!

This was not a test, just comments and something I noticed.

Honestly I really like FireFox, but it really looks like the end of days for it. They can't [ay for h264 and its the slowest of all browsers, it might take a home next to explorer or netscape. Safari and Chrome got a ton of money behind them and they are being supported like crazy money wise.

 

[Aronnax]

Honestly I really like FireFox, but it really looks like the end of days for it. They can't [ay for h264 and its the slowest of all browsers, it might take a home next to explorer or netscape. Safari and Chrome got a ton of money behind them and they are being supported like crazy money wise.

Mozilla could easily pay the h264 license - for example:

While 2006 revenues totaled $66.8 million, expenses were a relatively small $19.8 million.

it is from: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9044160/Mozilla_can_live_without_Google_s_money_Baker_says_

The other reasons are by far more important for Mozilla:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html

its the slowest of all browsers

It is nonsense and nonsense is for example as well:

opera 10.5 is 4x faster than chrome and safari.

And nonsense in particular is this limited view to JavaScript Benchmarks.

Compared to Safari 2.0 is for example Safari 4.0 10times or 20 or 30times faster on these Benchmarks and can Safari 4.0 really display a usual website 30times faster. Naturally not.

Opera 10.0 was for example 4 times slower than Firefox 3.6 on these Benchmarks and Opera 10.5 is now much faster than every other. Is Opera now really entirely 10times faster. Naturally not.

Mozilla has now around 200 full-time employees. Around 40% of all Firefox code changes are from thousands of volunteer. Firefox 1.0 for example was build from 15 full-time employees and much less volunteer.

Not sure how many employees Opera has, but i would bet they have less and they could build anyhow a faster JavaScript Engine than Google or Apple. Mozilla want must and will build sooner or later as well again a much faster Engine .. and Apple, Google, Opera will do the same .. and so on .. and so on ..

They rebuild Gecko all the time, the JavaScript engine .. everything.
Or in other words: They have for sure enough experts, money and volunteer to persist the game.

Cheers

 

[ruinfx]

i thought i read that google was thinking coming out withe their own open source codec to replace h264. chrome would obviously support it and i think firefox/opera would be more willing to support it as well.

 

[Aronnax]

i thought i read that google was thinking coming out withe their own open source codec to replace h264. chrome would obviously support it and i think firefox/opera would be more willing to support it as well.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/0...ssion-technology-company-on2-for-106-million/

Google and On2 Technologies jointly announced today that they have entered into a definitive agreement under which Google will acquire On2, a developer of video compression technology.

...

If would be great if Google decides to open-source On2’s VP7 and VP8 video codecs and free them up as the worldwide video codec standards, thus becoming alternatives to the proprietary and licenced H264 codecs. On2 has always claimed VP7 is better quality than H264 at the same bitrate.

Also noteworthy: Google could use the VP8 codec for YouTube in HTML5 mode, basically forcing its many users to upgrade to HTML5-compliant browsers instead of using Flash formats.

Yes, would be great