Too subtle for me, but in the interests of fair play I'll give you 9.2 as well
| Be Excellent To Each Other https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/ |
|
| chrome https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1738 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Malc [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:18 ] |
| Post subject: | chrome |
chrome Malc |
|
| Author: | Cras [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:19 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Assuming you're referring to Google Chrome, I can't see it being more than a toy, to be honest. |
|
| Author: | Dudley [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:29 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Why the hell have they named it after IE's rendering engine? |
|
| Author: | Curiosity [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:30 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
I'll give it a whirl... see if I take a shine to it. |
|
| Author: | Bluecup [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:32 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Going though the comic they released detailing it (http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/) I got the impression that they are more interesting in pushing some areas forward (like the java VM thingy and open sourcing everything) rather than making a really competitive browser. |
|
| Author: | kalmar [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:32 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
I think I'll wait until it's been polished up a bit. |
|
| Author: | Cras [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:36 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Dudley wrote: Why the hell have they named it after IE's rendering engine? IE's rendering engine is Trident. Mozilla uses the word Chrome to mean XML driven UI modifications, if that's what you mean? |
|
| Author: | Dudley [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:49 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Yes, I've probably got confused with something IETab spat out. |
|
| Author: | GazChap [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:18 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
kalmar wrote: I think I'll wait until it's been polished up a bit. 9.2/10. |
|
| Author: | Curiosity [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:36 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Bah, I got in there with the 'shine' joke first... was I too subtle or just not funny? Or both? |
|
| Author: | GazChap [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:22 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Too subtle for me, but in the interests of fair play I'll give you 9.2 as well
|
|
| Author: | CraigGrannell [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:53 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
My thinking is at http://reverttosaved.com/ - an article that got me flamed via email by a German Google fan within ten minutes of the thing going online, which is a record for me. |
|
| Author: | Grim... [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 13:41 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Post the email! |
|
| Author: | Doctor Glyndwr [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 13:44 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
CraigGrannell wrote: My thinking is at http://reverttosaved.com/ - an article that got me flamed via email by a German Google fan within ten minutes of the thing going online, which is a record for me. I disagree with you -- and will probably write my own blog post about why -- but the idea of emailing a flame to you over it is baffling to me.
|
|
| Author: | CraigGrannell [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 14:55 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Grim... wrote: Post the email! The entire email read: "This blog was utter crap." Someone on another forum wryly suggested: "Are you sure it's a flame, "this blog was crap" - doesn't that imply it isn't any more?" @richardgaywood—what do you disagree with, out of curiosity? |
|
| Author: | GazChap [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 14:57 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Surely it isn't a flame, given that your blog entry ends on a positive note? |
|
| Author: | Doctor Glyndwr [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 15:06 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
CraigGrannell wrote: @richardgaywood—what do you disagree with, out of curiosity? I am positive about it. Consider that it has as design goals two explicit targets (memory consumption and JavaScript speed) that Mozilla have been addressing in recent releases. WebKit is a very very good rendering toolkit, to my mind the best, and the only Windows implementation is Safari, which is a bit ugly under Windows what with it's funny Apple font rendering and suchlike. The whole thing is Open Source so it's not like Google are trying to hang on to stuff here. Separating tabs out into different processes is a very good idea, and makes some stuff like Privacy Mode easy that is hard in (e.g.) Firefox.Basically, I think they did a good job of calling out a number of the pain points that modern browsers have, and addressing them in sensible ways. That's innovation enough for me to look at a free project. Sure, it's not earth shatteringly different in the UI layer, but I think you've sold the under-the-hood changes a little short in your writeup -- it's a bigger rethink of webbrowsers than it looks at first glance. Oh, and the comic presentation is great, particularly how it namechecks engineers. Don't need to write that blog post now 
|
|
| Author: | The Rev Owen [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 15:07 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
I think it's a shit idea. I've already got too many fucking browsers to test my sites on, I don't want another fucking one. |
|
| Author: | CraigGrannell [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 15:15 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
@GazChap: Well, the whole point about the post is that although Google is doing everything I hate (pretending to be innovative, despite mostly stealing the ideas of others), it's also doing exactly what I want (creating a browser with the 'best bits'), thereby throwing me into something of a quandary. I should hate the idea of Chrome, but I don't, and I'm actually tentatively looking forward to it, even if it makes me want to scrub myself with a wire brush. Clearly, Mr. Flamer didn't really leave me much to go on. I'd much rather have "your blog is shit because [explanation]". @richardgaywood: I don't really think I've sold anything short, because the post was geared towards feature-led innovation rather than the underlying engine. And if there's one thing I've learned in doing loads of browser round-ups, it's that whatever's under the hood (bar, perhaps, Trident) makes little odds in the long-term, because it's a race where the leader constantly changes anyway. For me, browsers are mostly about usability and features now, and in that area Chrome is trying to say "look at all this new stuff", rather than "look at all this great stuff we, uh, 'borrowed' from Opera, Firefox and Safari". I really hate that, and yet Chrome still appeals. Clearly, though, Google are evil for not releasing the Mac version right away. @The Rev Owen: Chrome is WebKit, so should—in theory—work like Safari. |
|
| Author: | The Rev Owen [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 15:17 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
CraigGrannell wrote: @The Rev Owen: Chrome is WebKit, so should—in theory—work like Safari. I know it should in theory. I'm confident that it will almost all the time, but not all the time. |
|
| Author: | Doctor Glyndwr [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 15:18 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
The Rev Owen wrote: CraigGrannell wrote: @The Rev Owen: Chrome is WebKit, so should—in theory—work like Safari. I know it should in theory. I'm confident that it will almost all the time, but not all the time. |
|
| Author: | Mimi [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 15:37 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
You can never get those small rust spots of of a chrome towel rack, no matter whether you think you can or not - they will only worsen. Oh wait, what's this thread about? |
|
| Author: | GazChap [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 15:43 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
 Drool. |
|
| Author: | Bluecup [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 15:51 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
kalmar wrote: I think I'll wait until it's been polished up a bit. I get what you saying, but chrome wasn't built in a day. |
|
| Author: | kalmar [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 15:57 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Bluecup wrote: kalmar wrote: I think I'll wait until it's been polished up a bit. I get what you saying, but chrome wasn't built in a day. It'll be a slow transition then. edit: AS IN TRANSITION METAL. |
|
| Author: | Mimi [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 16:43 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
GazChap wrote: Drool. That's disgusting. Also, most probably dangerous - being so reflective as to e almost mirrored, surely there is a risk of it camouflaging into backgrounds or traffic in certain conditions? |
|
| Author: | mrbogus [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 19:19 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Mimi wrote: That's disgusting. Also, most probably dangerous - being so reflective as to e almost mirrored, surely there is a risk of it camouflaging into backgrounds or traffic in certain conditions? I'd be more concerned about it reflecting sunlight.* Argh, my eyes! *If we ever got any sun in this country, that is. |
|
| Author: | Guwuffle [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 19:40 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
richardgaywood wrote: Oh, and the comic presentation is great, particularly how it namechecks engineers. I like the locked up web page being pointed at http://www.wtf??.com on page 3. |
|
| Author: | Doctor Glyndwr [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 20:09 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Download is available, I'm writing this post from Google Chrome. |
|
| Author: | Malc [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 20:25 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
richardgaywood wrote: Download is available, I'm writing this post from Google Chrome.  Hmmm, spangly Malc |
|
| Author: | Zen-Chan [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 20:51 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
I'm usually loathe to download beta's of things, but this got the better of my curiosity. Seems to be rather damn excellent, and will no doubt assist google to eventual world domination. A quick look at the task manager shows it has a smaller footprint than Firefox also. |
|
| Author: | Grim... [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 20:59 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Buggery, this is fast. |
|
| Author: | Doctor Glyndwr [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:00 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
It goddamn is. With this browser, I can achieve faster nudity. |
|
| Author: | Grim... [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:01 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
ZOMG PORN! |
|
| Author: | Myfinger [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:05 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
I just like new stuff! I wish I could have a new browser every week. I would run the daily builds except I need to be actually able to use it without crashing. Hang on, I have to restart Firefox so the Chrome installer can import from it... |
|
| Author: | Grim... [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:08 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Oh, now YouPorn is on my front page. Arses. |
|
| Author: | Cras [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:11 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
It's blisteringly fast, but the fonts are foul. |
|
| Author: | Myfinger [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:12 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Damn. Chrome hates the little scrolly doobry on the right hand side of my mouse pad. It just rushes the page to the bottom and then refuses to do any scrolling. This will prevent me from using Chrome very quickly. |
|
| Author: | Cras [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:13 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
And it doesn't autorefresh the forum contents when you back out of a thread. Bye bye Chrome! |
|
| Author: | Cras [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:16 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Nice default security settings, too! Attachment: sec.JPG
|
|
| Author: | Grim... [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:19 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Craster wrote: And it doesn't autorefresh the forum contents when you back out of a thread. Bye bye Chrome! Does IE? |
|
| Author: | Cras [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:20 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
7 does. It's brilliant. |
|
| Author: | Doctor Glyndwr [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:20 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Grim... wrote: Craster wrote: And it doesn't autorefresh the forum contents when you back out of a thread. Bye bye Chrome! Does IE? |
|
| Author: | Grim... [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:20 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Craster wrote: Nice default security settings, too! Didn't it get them from FF? Mine are different. |
|
| Author: | Cras [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:23 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
I assume it's the default, because my IE settings are a damned sight tighter than that and I don't have FF installed. What I'm talking about with refreshing the front page is if you go into a thread using read new topics in IE, when you come out, it shows that thread as read (as well as updating any threads that have been updated since you went into that thread). In this, it takes you back to the page exactly as it was then. Which is out of date. |
|
| Author: | Doctor Glyndwr [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:24 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Grim... wrote: Craster wrote: And it doesn't autorefresh the forum contents when you back out of a thread. Bye bye Chrome! Does IE? |
|
| Author: | Cras [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:26 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Well then FF is also rubbish. I was under the impression that it was a quite simple no-cache meta that IE was actually obeying. |
|
| Author: | Doctor Glyndwr [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:42 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Craster wrote: I was under the impression that it was a quite simple no-cache meta that IE was actually obeying. Hmm, interesting. Beex is sending "Pragma: no-cache" in the headers.
|
|
| Author: | Doctor Glyndwr [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 21:55 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
Chrome's Find-in-page is very nice. |
|
| Author: | Grim... [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 22:20 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: chrome |
richardgaywood wrote: Craster wrote: I was under the impression that it was a quite simple no-cache meta that IE was actually obeying. Hmm, interesting. Beex is sending "Pragma: no-cache" in the headers.Yes, because my old office had an annoying firewall that cached everything. I still think that IE's behaviour is wrong, however. The back button should never cause a refresh. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|