Slashdot Mirror

Firefox's point isn't to "compete" or gain a monopoly, or any such thing, but to deliver a good, standards-compliant browser to help foster more standards-compliance in the marketplace.

You're being too generous. MoCo's actions are not as altruistic. And it's always entertaining to see what this dipshit is frothing about.

Those browsers should be competing on their merits, and they ARE. Look at the growing share of Firefox.

They are not, as Mozilla explains:

Ive been involved in building and shipping web browsers continuously since before Microsoft started developing IE, and the damage Microsoft has done to competition, innovation, and the pace of the web development itself is both glaring and ongoing. There are separate questions of whether there is a good remedy, and what that remedy might be. But questions regarding an appropriate remedy do not change the essential fact. Microsofts business practices have fundamentally diminished (in fact, came very close to eliminating) competition, choice and innovation in how people access the Internet.

When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser.

.

What's next? Requiring that they allow for the customer to choose what notepad program they want to use? What media player?

Yes, in fact, Microsoft was convicted because of their illegal bundling of WMP

As for Notepad, that comparison proves that you are either ignorant or dishonest. The browser is a communications tool to a worldwide network which should be accessible from any type of device. Microsoft tried to turn it into the Microsoft Network by locking people to IE by abusing their dominant position on the desktop. No such thing with Notepad, which actually produces plain text files that any text editor can read, and in addition to that, is only local to your machine (no network infrastructure relies on it).

Imagine for a moment that a car manufacturer had 95% marketshare and the government forced them to offer air conditioning units from three other companies in addition to their own - it's the same level of ridiculousness.

Your ignorance is astounding. Do you ever even try to educate yourself before spouting nonsense? Monopolies aren't illegal. Bundling isn't illegal. But abusing one's monopoly to prenvent competition by bundling is illegal. All over the world, including the US.

Ive been involved in building and shipping web browsers continuously since before Microsoft started developing IE, and the damage Microsoft has done to competition, innovation, and the pace of the web development itself is both glaring and ongoing. There are separate questions of whether there is a good remedy, and what that remedy might be. But questions regarding an appropriate remedy do not change the essential fact. Microsofts business practices have fundamentally diminished (in fact, came very close to eliminating) competition, choice and innovation in how people access the Internet.

And this:

When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser.

Despite your trolling, this is not about European vs. American. It's about whether Microsoft broke the law or not.

Shift+Delete deletes the message without copying it to the trash folder, and is also supposed to compact the folder (if you have that preference set). However, some users report that Shift+Delete doesn't always compact the folder.

That link has something on why what he's asking for isn't possible:

Remove it immediately

"Remove it immediately" doesn't actually remove the message despite its name. It just hides it from view and flags the message as deleted. That appears to be because Thunderbird doesn't support the optional UID Expunge command, which requires the server to support the optional UIDPLUS capability. It will be physically deleted when you compact the folder.

Although that page was last touched on Oct 2008 they may have added that functionality, I'm not sure ... but it may frustrate users to add that feature when the server doesn't support UIDPLUS. Like I said, not an expert though I think this may actually not be possible.

Use Thunderbird with GMail and configure it so that every time there's a new message it is synced to your local hard drive but also left on the server (IMAP probably though I think the same can be done with POP).

My linux box at home has been doing this for years, I just leave Thunderbird open and set my monitor to sleep after 15 minutes of inactivity. I don't care if my GMail and college mail accounts temporarily go down, it's all mirrored on that machine.

Anti-Microsoft zealot bonus rant: I stopped using Hotmail when I realized I could not access it outside of Outlook Express ... I'm aware of ways around this but there's a simpler solution: don't use Hotmail. This and the fact that (last I checked) it didn't support forwarding are two very good reasons to move on to a free mail service more dedicated to you. The choice is yours.

I mentioned this during the discussion about the Microsoft add-on three weeks ago. How is this news now?

And it's been going on for longer than that; a few months at least.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=921325&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

... is to put the Network.automatic-ntlm-auth.trusted-uris setting in a more "visible" place in the configuration in the Windows version than just accessible via the about:config interface, which no "normal" user will ever find.

Possible even have the "logon-domain" environment variable already in there so it just needs to be checked to allow it.

I have found that 90% of our corporates Intranet works just fine in Firefox when I allow NTLM authentication. The exception being statistical pages which use Excel web components.

PGO not yet turned on for linux releases, not even for trunk hourlies/nightlies yet.
See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=418866
Some work now happening (at a guess the back and forth between BZ and I above has got some prompting done - BZ has links/is inside mozilla somewhere.

PGO is when you run the instrumented program first, take the results and optimize againt the used code paths

http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/build/pgo relevant bit of the tree

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=29
You can find some 64 bit builds (search for Autofox) and a pgo build or two maybe - (search for Ted's builds). Note it does say 3rd party - not official mozilla releases.

Due to some ancient history I am one of the ones that test latest builds and so I know some of the history and a bit of may way around. I am also tqft at forums.mozillazine.org if you ask a question over there and I answer.

No ball dropped, just optimized for your platform. Really now - that 300 MB of RAM apparently sets you back about $6. Is that exorbitant? Firefox USES that RAM to speed up performance, and this can be fairly easily tweaked if the $6 is more than you can stomach.

For example, Skyfire is Mozilla based, and is quite usable on my 400 Mhz, 64 MB RAM Windows Mobile Pocket-PC phone.

Worse than rebooting is maintaining two separate configurations. For example, if you use an email client, you configure it on both sides. Browser, same thing. And so on.

If you use the same apps in both operating systems it's not hard to synchronize data files such as email and browsers. I though it was hard myself, however after some research I found out it can be easy to do. I have a MacBook Pro that runs Leopard and I've been thinking of installing Ubuntu to dualboot. What you do, er what I'll do if I install Ubuntu, is setup 3 partitions. One partition for each OS and the third as the user folder or directory. My browser is Firefox and using the profile manager in each OS you can tell Firefox where to put the Firefox user folder, so put it on the user partition in the same folder. Do the same with email, set Thunderbird to use the same folder in both OSes. Here's a webpage from Lifehacker on to Use a Single Data Store When Dual Booting. And here how to use Mozilla's Profile manager.

If you want to dualboot, or if you already do, I hope this helps.

Falcon

Maybe push out a new prefs.js file into each user's profile.

Alternatively you could create a user.js file and push that to the workstations. It can contain only those entries that are likely to change. It overrides the prefs.js. http://kb.mozillazine.org/User.js_file/

the iTune Store isnt HTML. It's XML. http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2004_06.html#005666

How about this one: Ok Microsoft, you are making automatic changes to software written by other companies without permission or request of the user. I don't care if you say it's just an extension, you didn't ask me! My trust just went right down the toilet.

You trust Microsoft? You're either very generous or incredibly ignorant of their business practices as a whole.

I checked through my plugins and extensions, and while I don't have this one in there - yet -I apparently have something called Microsoft DRM Netscape Network Object. This is just stuff for Windows Media Player.

The only reason - the ONLY reason - I used Windows XP is because I play a lot of games on the PC. Yes, you can get games to work on Linux, and Mac has *some* games, but the majority of them are on the WIndows platform.

When you have three or four games, no big deal right? Dual boot or whatever. But when you have over a hundred of them (most of which won't work on Mac), you're already heavily invested in Windows.

I wish there was an Adblock for Windows that kept out stupid Microsoft updates. How long before we see the a WPA Kill style tool to get rid of this?

I dream of the day every website gets only 10% IE6 traffic. But if this graph is at all accurate (I'm skeptical), it may happen this year.

But we're over the "hump"; now there needs to be a general push among developers to refuse to support IE6, or at least put it in the 'graceful degradation' category with a notice on the site - easy to add using conditional comments - that the user is getting a below-par experience.

Oh, and before you decide to buy into the comment placed on the DOM2 bug, consider this:

1. DOM2 Events was introduced as a standard in 1998. It was formalized in 2000. Microsoft has had over 10 years to implement the standard. One would think it would be top on their list.

2. Here's a list of the editors for the Events section of the original spec back in 1998:

Tom Pixley, Netscape Communications Corporation
Chris Wilson, Microsoft Corporation

Notice anyone interesting?

3. Consider again: Why is Microsoft implementing HTML5 features that depend on DOM 2 Events and could still change if they don't have time to implement DOM 2 Events?

Remember: the HTML5 spec is not finalized. Pieces of it are, but not the pieces that Microsoft chose. DOM2 was finalized in 2000, yet Microsoft left it out of IE 5.5, IE 6, IE 7, and now IE 8. Sensing a pattern?

If the bundling of IE is such a problem then why is Firefox so popular when compared to Opera? It couldn't be anything to do with Opera's business model or lack of advertising or it being closed source or they insisted on payment when there were 3 other free broswers or any of those other drawbacks?

What you are writing here is basically a red herring because it does not address the actual issue. It is illegal to tie products from different pre-existing markets with products from a monopolized market. Thus, bundling IE with windows is against the law.

That said, I will respond to this, just for your benefit. I did point out specifically that:

"Opera is currently the dominant mobile browser. Opera Software is experiencing massive growth in every single business segment (including the desktop version) every single quarter, is profitable, and has a large pile of cash saved up."

Interesting how Opera is actually dominant in markets with actual competition, isn't it?

As for Firefox, even Mozilla disagrees with your assertion:

"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser."

The one problem that strikes me with including other software is responsibility, both for support and for updates.

I agree. Which is why Microsoft shouldn't bundle any browser. Windows should simply be without a browser. The OEM should do the browser bundling.

Where will updates come from? Windows Update or an manufacturer? Who supports the browsers?

Minor detail. OEMs will support they browser they choose. Updates can happen in many ways. Most browsers these days update themselves automatically anyway.

And then there's updates for manufacturers. How often does Firefox update? Rather a lot. So do manufacturers absorb the cost to redo their disk images?

How often does IE update? How often does Windows update? Rather a lot. So do manufacturers absorb the cost to redo their disk images today?

Or do we have a downloader that starts the first time an internet connection is there; in which case you're shipping an OS without a browser at all, which, in this day and age is ridiculous.

No, the OEM picks the browser. Your PC will definitely come with a browser. It just won't be Microsoft choosing which one.

If the bundling of IE is such a problem then why is Firefox so popular when compared to Opera? It couldn't be anything to do with Opera's business model or lack of advertising or it being closed source or they insisted on payment when there were 3 other free broswers or any of those other drawbacks?

What you are writing here is basically a red herring because it does not address the actual issue. It is illegal to tie products from different pre-existing markets with products from a monopolized market. Thus, bundling IE with windows is against the law.

That said, I will respond to this, just for your benefit. I did point out specifically that:

"Opera is currently the dominant mobile browser. Opera Software is experiencing massive growth in every single business segment (including the desktop version) every single quarter, is profitable, and has a large pile of cash saved up."

Interesting how Opera is actually dominant in markets with actual competition, isn't it?

As for Firefox, even Mozilla disagrees with your assertion:

"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser."

The one problem that strikes me with including other software is responsibility, both for support and for updates.

I agree. Which is why Microsoft shouldn't bundle any browser. Windows should simply be without a browser. The OEM should do the browser bundling.

Where will updates come from? Windows Update or an manufacturer? Who supports the browsers?

Minor detail. OEMs will support they browser they choose. Updates can happen in many ways. Most browsers these days update themselves automatically anyway.

And then there's updates for manufacturers. How often does Firefox update? Rather a lot. So do manufacturers absorb the cost to redo their disk images?

How often does IE update? How often does Windows update? Rather a lot. So do manufacturers absorb the cost to redo their disk images today?

Or do we have a downloader that starts the first time an internet connection is there; in which case you're shipping an OS without a browser at all, which, in this day and age is ridiculous.

No, the OEM picks the browser. Your PC will definitely come with a browser. It just won't be Microsoft choosing which one.

Does MS have a monopoly on the PC?

Yes.

Do they sufficiently have control of the market to demand terms to Apple, for example?

I don't understand what that has to do with anyting. Apple has, what, maybe 5% desktop market share?

Is Firefox beholden to MS? Again, another thriving market with no ties to MS.

The browser market is not "thriving", thanks to Microsoft's illegal actions.

It's just interesting to me that whenever there has been a superior competitor (Apple computers -- although I think the OS is actually somewhat subpar, but the hardware is great -- or Firefox's browser) they've made great strides against the "monopoly". These are things that shouldn't happen in a world with a real monopoly flexing its muscle.

Apple has not made great strides. Windows still has 90% market share. As for Firefox, you are not quite getting it:

"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser."

Does MS have a monopoly on the PC?

Yes.

Do they sufficiently have control of the market to demand terms to Apple, for example?

I don't understand what that has to do with anyting. Apple has, what, maybe 5% desktop market share?

Is Firefox beholden to MS? Again, another thriving market with no ties to MS.

The browser market is not "thriving", thanks to Microsoft's illegal actions.

It's just interesting to me that whenever there has been a superior competitor (Apple computers -- although I think the OS is actually somewhat subpar, but the hardware is great -- or Firefox's browser) they've made great strides against the "monopoly". These are things that shouldn't happen in a world with a real monopoly flexing its muscle.

Apple has not made great strides. Windows still has 90% market share. As for Firefox, you are not quite getting it:

"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser."

Seriously, Firefox is up to more than 20% marketshare. IE doesn't have a monopoly.

Asa Dotzler of Mozilla disagrees strongly:

"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field."

Never mind Google's free advertising for Firefox all over the place. What do you think any other browser vendor would have had to pay for that kind of advertising, which Mozilla got for free? Hundreds of millions of dollars?

Seriously, Firefox is up to more than 20% marketshare. IE doesn't have a monopoly.

Asa Dotzler of Mozilla disagrees strongly:

"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field."

Never mind Google's free advertising for Firefox all over the place. What do you think any other browser vendor would have had to pay for that kind of advertising, which Mozilla got for free? Hundreds of millions of dollars?

The fact that the IE market share is declining is enough to demonstrate to reasonable people that the public IS aware that there are alternatives to using IE, and they ARE able to use these alternatives.

To "reasonable people"? You seem to think that Firefox grabbing 15% after spending hundreds of billions dollars proves that Microsoft didn't break the law. Asa Dotzler of Mozilla disagrees strongly:

"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field."

Never mind Google's free advertising for Firefox all over the place. What do you think any other browser vendor would have had to pay for that kind of advertising, which Mozilla got for free? Hundreds of millions of dollars?

The fact that the IE market share is declining is enough to demonstrate to reasonable people that the public IS aware that there are alternatives to using IE, and they ARE able to use these alternatives.

To "reasonable people"? You seem to think that Firefox grabbing 15% after spending hundreds of billions dollars proves that Microsoft didn't break the law. Asa Dotzler of Mozilla disagrees strongly:

"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field."

Never mind Google's free advertising for Firefox all over the place. What do you think any other browser vendor would have had to pay for that kind of advertising, which Mozilla got for free? Hundreds of millions of dollars?

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2009/01/competition_is.html

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2009/01/no_it_hasnt.html

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2009/01/competition_is.html

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2009/01/no_it_hasnt.html

Oh, and use NoScript!

Another simple change is to set dom.disable_window_open_feature.location to true. That should make it pretty obvious when a popup comes from source different than what it's claiming.

I've just posted December and 2008 total stats for all of the browsers along with a bit of analysis. IE lost another point and a half of share in December and will finish the year down almost 8 points from where it started the year. That's not just bad, that's awful, horrible, really really bad. It's especially bad considering that 2008 was a record year for new PC sales, with ~300,000,000 new PCs shipping with IE7 as the default browser!! They shipped 300 million copies of IE as the default and still lost 8 points of share during the year. More at my blog (it really is worth reading if you're interested in this topic. i promise.) Browser Market Share for December and 2008 - A

I strongly suggest to all Firefox users to learn about the Profile Manager, it's useful for trying out new extensions or running tests while minimizing the risk your current setup will get permanently bollixed up.

By the way mozillaZine is a great Firefox support site, at least for the things I use it for (finding about:config names and values). Support as in a place to ask questions and find answers? No idea, but that site does have a large FAQ list.

TraceMonkey is reportedly faster than V8.

Then turn it off. If you don't want search results, set "browser.urlbar.maxRichResults" to zero in about:config. If you want the old appearance try oldbar. I actually found that Firefox 3 was a tiny bit faster than 2, so I'm happy.

For more information look here and here.

No, it's not WebKit. Dave Hyatt, the development lead on WebKit and Safari has said as much himself. http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2004_06.html#005666

I used Mozilla/SeaMonkey/Phoenix/Firefox for 9 years.

You forgot Firebird.

"That's ok," you say: "I link directly to ftp.mozilla.org!" That can be even worse! Killing the project's FTP server does not help anyone, least of all people trying to obtain Firefox builds. And it makes for a grumpy IT group. And nobody wants grumpy IT groups. Especially a day before a release.

I have a couple of suggestions for Firefox...

Don't load images: Preferences -> Content and uncheck "Load images automatically".

Block other media you don't want: FlashBlock, AdBlock, QuickJava (for Java and JavaScript)

You could also try fiddling with the browser.cache.check_doc_frequency in your about:config. I haven't tried it, but setting it to 2 might yield good results.

Disable prefetching.
about:config
network.prefetch-next false

• from John Ressig
• from Darren Hobbs
• From Brendan
• SquirrelFish seems faster?

apparently, feature suggestions should be posted to this forum http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=826005

'temporarily allow site in tab' and 'temporarily allow all in tab' are features i'd suggest, but i'm too lazy to sign up for a forum and post there.

being specific to a single tab would be nice, it might add to the size of the engine, but again it would make annoying broken ad supported sites like pogo that require 26 separate sites to be 'allow' to properly load a webgame... no, i don't play pogo, but i disabled noscript from one of my parents computers so she could use pogo. I checked to see if i could just add to the white list, but that basically defeated the point of a white list, so it was disabled.

on windows it's no big deal, she uses ie, and i use firefox, but on their linux system, which she rarely uses, except when there are issues with the other computer... well, it has to stay set so she can play pogo on it if needed.

Are you sure Thunderbird supports cached IMAP (well, at least usable for the purposes we're talking about)? This MozillaZine KB article suggests otherwise.

More info here; haven't tried it myself though:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Outlook_Web_Access

Excuse me, but I think that Tracemonkey is actually faster than V8. Has Tracemonkey really fallen that far behind in two weeks?

Yes. On XP (that's the best case), Tracemonkey takes 1.340 seconds to do a Sunspider run, which equals to 32.6 Sunspider rus per minute. And Squirrelfish Extreme does 63.6 Sunspider runs per minute. That makes Squirrelfish Extreme 1.95 times faster than Tracemonkey.

Time for Mozilla to catch up again. In any case, the winner is... the public! (the engines won't get any slower)

According to comparative benchmarks, the new engine is around 35% faster than the V8 engine recently introduced in Google Chrome, and 55% faster than Mozilla's TraceMonkey.

If you remember, TraceMonkey was benched to be faster than V8, Brendan Eich said: "We win by 1.28x and 1.19x, respectively. Maybe we should rename TraceMonkey "V10" ;-)."

And now somehow Safari beats TraceMonkey by 20% more than it beats V8. Funny that.

Those benchmarks are useless.

Excuse me, but I think that Tracemonkey is actually faster than V8. Has Tracemonkey really fallen that far behind in two weeks?

Read this http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/archives/2008/09/tracemonkey_update.html

Chrome is better at some things and tracemonkey at other things.

For the moment, recursion is not yet traced so this is why Chrome is a lot faster that Tracemonkey for this kind of stuff.

The example you give is completely recursive...

There are some pretty benchmarks on the Mozilla site that show what TraceMonkey is faster at and what it's not. What you have here is slow because TraceMonkey doesn't optimize recursion. This feature is scheduled to be implemented in Firefox 3.1b2, so the final version of 3.1 may indeed perform this benchmark faster than V8.

Either set Extensions.checkCompatibility in about:config or edit the targetApplication max_app_version in an extension's RDF file.

What he's saying is that is appears to be written by some low-skill windows only programmers.

I didn't question the skill of the programmers. I was saying that the reality of the project is far removed from the marketing hype about Chrome being a cross platform open source web browser. V8 has been in development for a couple of years yet still only builds on Windows and lacks x86-64 code generation while the Chrome code has obviously been developed in a Windows only environment.

For the record I think that Ben Goodger (is Ben the lead?) is a very good programmer and he himself has made no secret of the fact he's not really comfortable with anything other than Windows.

chrome has fixed a lot of the things ff users have been asking for a long time. one of the biggest frustrations with FF is the bugs that never get fixed after literally years and years. i read the latest mozillazine post where they try to dig at google at every opportunity. http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=25592 it's pretty pathetic and they need to just admit that google has made a good browser. hell even the IE team acknowledged what FF had achieved.

Hopefully Firefox will not use V8 given that TraceMonkey in the upcoming Firefox 3.1 is faster - http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/archives/2008/09/tracemonkey_update.html

Also, while Chrome is nice and fast, note that a future version of Firefox (3.1?) will have tracemonkey, which speeds up javascript. This might nullify some/much of the speed improvements of Chrome. The early numbers look good, but we'll have to see how it performs on actual pages.

Chrome is interesting, but I'm sticking with FF3 for now -- I have a boatload of FF3 addons that I just need . Also, for the web sites that I use, I don't find Chrome to be significantly faster, and I'm using a middle-of-the-road, aging desktop (Intel E6600, 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, using 800MHz FSB instead of 1066MHz). However, perhaps I'll reevaluate it next year, once it matures a bit more.