Slashdot Mirror


Google Confirms Chrome GPU Acceleration

An anonymous reader writes "Google is already experimenting with GPU acceleration in its latest Chrome developer builds. Chrome 7 can separate different layers of a webpage into CPU and GPU processes and combine those layers using the GPU as long as the browser is now launched with certain switches. Chromium 7 has also a new Labs feature that reveals that Google is thinking about moving tabs from the top of the browser to the left side. It seems that Chrome will be catching up with Firefox 4 and IE9 in terms of hardware acceleration soon."

186 comments

  1. Tabs on the left make sense by RichMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These days most screens are wider than they are taller. And text still reads better vertically.
    So the height is valuable real-estate while there is side space to waste.
    My desktop has the application bars hide on the left/right.

    The more vertical space the better.

    1. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No it doesn't make sense. Where is my mouse usually position when reading a page? On the right, at the scroll-bar. Now I have to go all the way across the screen just to get any tab? Sheesh.

    2. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by dave420 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't you have a scroll wheel? Are you a time-traveller from the past?

    3. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Shin-LaC · · Score: 3, Funny

      Try using that little wheely thing between your mouse buttons. You're welcome.

    4. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try using the mouse wheel. I made the switch recently and haven't looked back! Touchpads also have scrolling capability.

    5. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tell that to my 1050x1900 vertical monitor

    6. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Windows 7 implements a vertical taskbar better than any previous version of Windows, and that's the reason I use a vartical taskbar on my 1680 horizontal resolution monitor. I can fit a browser window between my taskbar on one side and any widgets or IM clients I might have on the other.

      The only problem I find is that Windows doesn't seem to tell many programs that the vertical taskbar should be respected in the same way as the horizontal one and many apps launch with part of their window underneath the taskbar.

    7. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These days most screens are wider than they are taller.

      Most screens have been wider than tall since well before the first web browsers.

      And text still reads better vertically.

      Text reads better in columns narrower than most screens are wide at the typical viewing distance, but its often convenient to have more than one block of text on the screen. Tabs take up more room on the side than on the top, and do more on the side to hurt the ability to have more usable windows on the screen.

      Tabs on the side are useful for some people in all circumstances, and for other people in certain circumstances, and (I suspect) for some people in no circumstances. So, if Chrome allows the user to move the tabs to the side, that's good.

      If Chrome just moves the tabs to the side, thats bad.

    8. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I turn my monitor vertical. Width is my commodity. :P

    9. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by sznupi · · Score: 1

      If already having vertical taskbar, this change in Chrome could complicate benefits of Fitts's law though - one of the nice things about Chrome was how the tabbar exploited this law, when at the absolute top. But only one thing can exploit each edge of the screen so well; and with vertical taskbar, tabbar & scrollbar...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    10. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a trackball, you insensitive clod!

    11. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I would like it if the browser was split in two frames, having the previous page on the left, and the next on the right. That way when you click, you can look ahead and go back really quick, while using the full display. Could have a sliding animation like the Apple's hierarchical browsers (e.g. iPod).

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    12. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% agreed.

      Sidebars are especially more useful for those who work with a lot of webpages at once.

      Better yet is if you could get rid of the top toolbar entirely and just have everything on the sidebar.
      Location buttons and extension buttons go at the top of the sidebar. Omni-bar and bookmarks bar (and only that) get popped out by a button next to [+new tab] button.
      Made a quick and rough sketch in Paint there for those with lax imagination.
      Chrome mockup (realized i forgot the toolbar button. woops)
      If i could do this at some point in Chrome, i'd be so happy. (and quite a few others as well probably)

    13. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you, but only because there are so many websites out there these days that have a fucking stupid fixed width, meaning instead of using the full viewport, there are huge stupid gaps down each side of the page doing nothing.

      And for those usability newbies ready to respond with something about the readability of line lengths, button it. You are repeating something you haven't thought about and don't understand. Firstly, all the research you depend on is based around print media or their methodology is the same as that for print media, so it doesn't take into account huge factors that are introduced by the differences between print and the web. Secondly, a website is more than just lines of text. For instance, multiple columns, sidebars, nested content such as comments, etc. All of these take up horizontal space, leaving less for the main body of text.

    14. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Then the problem is with the screen rather than the browser.

    15. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by slyrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These days most screens are wider than they are taller. And text still reads better vertically. So the height is valuable real-estate while there is side space to waste. My desktop has the application bars hide on the left/right.

      The more vertical space the better.

      If you want more vertical space then just adjust the display to be portrait rather than landscape. I do this at work so that I have a monitor for reading things on websites and one in landscape for doing development on. I guess most people don't think about just physically turning their displays...

    16. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by coldmist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On Firefox, I use Tree Style Tab with Tab Mix Plus, and I couldn't use any browser now that doesn't have a combo like that.

      Having the tabs grouped in a hierarchy view on the left is just so well done. It really make looking at 5-100 tabs easier!

      --
      Don't steal. The government hates competition.
    17. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Sancho · · Score: 4, Funny

      I did this on my netbook, but it made it really hard to type.

    18. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Back in the day, we had these arrow and page up/down keys that you could use for scrolling a page. Nowadays, many laptops don't even have dedicated pgup/pgdn/home/end, they are only available via the Fn key. Apparently, nobody uses the keyboard any more, since the mouse is so much easier for everything. I predict that future computers will have no keyboard, but instead the mouse will have about 100 buttons for typing.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    19. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by insufflate10mg · · Score: 1

      Amen. I use 1900x1200 resolution and have my taskbar on the left (best thing I ever did) and my Vista Sidebar on the right (also a great feature). It still affords me more than enough space to browse/work comfortably. I would love to see an option to move the Chrome tabs to the left-hand side.

    20. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by insufflate10mg · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Why post as AC? I would've given mod points...

      Dear Google,
      Go with this idea. Please.

      Love,
      snort10mg

    21. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by shriphani · · Score: 1

      My trackball comes with a wheel.

    22. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by houghi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I use the extra width to have two programs open next to each other. Adding stuff to the right of my browser would take away that ability. For me it is one of the reasons to went to bigger screens. So I could use the screen real-estate to have two programs open at the same time while both can be used easily without switching.
      http://houghi.org/shots/wmaker/left_01.png

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    23. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by WaroDaBeast · · Score: 1

      I predict that future computers will have no keyboard, but instead the mouse will have about 100 buttons for typing.

      You're probably joking around, but given that so many people don't bother with proper keyboard and language usage... such a product could sell.

      --
      "The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
    24. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by davester666 · · Score: 1
      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    25. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all monitors support pivoting and not all monitors that support pivoting are good for it.
      The trouble with most TN panels that support pivoting (especially widescreen) is viewing angles. The viewing angle over horizontal axis is very poor on most monitors and if you turn the monitor 90 degrees it'll really show. IPS monitors don't have this problem but they are much more expensive.

    26. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 1

      No problem, you just need to change the angle of your jetpack and turn on anti-grav on your netbook.

      --

      There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
    27. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by chammy · · Score: 1

      My trackball doesn't, but I have a bind to hold mouse4 so I can scroll with the wheel. It feels great with the trackball's momentum!

    28. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      Another reason: I often have so many tabs open, the tabs often shrink down until they are impossible to read or even click on. But a vertical arrangement would become a scroll area (bonus if I don't have to click on it to scroll it). Or a finger swipe area, on a touchscreen.

      Indeed, that last part may be what Google has in mind. Chrome tablets.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    29. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by gilesjuk · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Who needs tabs at all. Press a button and display a list? show the pages in visual form?

      At least Google are thinking outside a box a little.

    30. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by imthesponge · · Score: 1

      I have a Mac, you insensitive clod!

    31. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      I've put the task bat on the left since Windows 95 ... it's just a far better place for it, in my opinion, as the tasks are always in the same place, and are the same size. You can set them as wide as you need. I used to do the same in Gnome, but lately they've added some very useful panel widgets that do not re-orient themselves properly on a vertical task bar ... I eventually gave up and reverted to the default horizontal bar. It's too bad too, a lot of people seem to be realizing the vertical task bar is a better solution.

    32. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Noitatsidem · · Score: 1

      Damn, you make us mouse users with wheels envious, I wish I could feel all of that momentum, going up, and down... Back, and forth.

      --
      Feel free to mod me down, just know that unlike some Anonymous Cowards I'm not afraid to express my views as myself.
    33. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Noitatsidem · · Score: 1

      Okay.

      --
      Feel free to mod me down, just know that unlike some Anonymous Cowards I'm not afraid to express my views as myself.
    34. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      We're getting close:

      http://warmouse.com/

    35. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only are screens now much wider than they are tall, but a lot of websites are designed to be in a fixed width strip down the middle of the screen so they look pretty stupid on a widescreen display with huge blank areas either side.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    36. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      Thumb trackball > finger trackball

    37. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by BrentH · · Score: 1

      Hmm, now that I think of it, maybe the next step should be that browsers automatically 'columnize' text, so that the end results looks like a (comfortable) newspaper. Instead of scrolling down, I could just see the next text on the right. With smaller resolutions it could go back to rendering as is done now.

    38. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other drawbacks:

      * Monitors with pivot stand cost twice as much as the same monitor without it.
      * No more 3D acceleration.
      * Forget about watching videos or playing games.
      * Need to get a lower desk to avoid neck strain.

    39. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh. Screens have always been wider than they are taller, they have only been made TOO wide over the past five years, so that the scum who make screens can claim they are 'bigger' (i.e. diagonally' when actually they are SMALLER, in terms of area, and to boot, shorter vertically, so you have to scroll more to see the same amount of content.

      In other words, the triumph of form over function.

      4:3 is the proper ratio for a COMPUTER screen, fools who want to watch films as if they are in the 'cinema' should use a DVD player and its own screen, not impose their stupidity on the rest of us.

    40. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      So the height is valuable real-estate while there is side space to waste.

      I disagree. I didn't get a 24inch monitor to make webpages wider. I got one so I could open multiple contexts side-by-side, on a single screen. I have essentially maxed out my utility of vertical space. I have a good 14 inches of vertical space. My documents are rendered on screen bigger that print-size.

      That said, my text editor has a tab-like construct attached on its left, and it causes me some browsing problems, because it isn't partially transparent like the rest of the text editor.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    41. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yeah Tree Style Tabs is great. I haven't tried TMP though, what do you find useful about it?

      --
    42. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      This design looks like it is specialized for being maximized. Some of us don't do that. In fact, some of us really hate maximizing windows. Right now, my browser window is about 10 inches wide by 16 inches tall. And I have a terminal window and video player next to it. (And a text editor with a transparent background over-or-under the browser at all times). My screen space allocation is optimally efficient for my use. Throwing a side-bar in will just waste an inch an a half of my valuable and comparatively scarce (since I use it and would use more if programs became more horizontally efficient...) horizontal space.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    43. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess most people don't think about just physically turning their displays...

      I guess that most people don't have physically turning display stands.

    44. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Spewns · · Score: 1

      These days most screens are wider than they are taller. And text still reads better vertically. So the height is valuable real-estate while there is side space to waste. My desktop has the application bars hide on the left/right.

      The more vertical space the better.

      Exactly. The only time you don't want vertical tabs is on e.g. a netbook if it'll reduce the browser's horizontal viewing area to below 1024 pixels.

      Firefox users should check this out if interested.

    45. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by theCoder · · Score: 1

      Like the GP, I also use tree style tabs and TMP. The thing I like best about TMP is that it can change the text style on unread tabs. This is nice for a site like /. where I will read the summaries and open the ones I'm interested in in new tabs. Then I'll read the comments over time. I can easily see which tabs I've looked at and which I haven't.

      There are lots of other nice things in TMP, but that's the big one for me.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    46. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Spewns · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't make sense. Where is my mouse usually position when reading a page? On the right, at the scroll-bar. Now I have to go all the way across the screen just to get any tab? Sheesh.

      Assuming this post is serious:

      What does your mouse being on the right-hand side of your screen have to do with anything? We're talking about tabs. Tabs aren't on the right-hand side of the screen next to the scrollbar, so I fail to see your point. You either go "all the way across the screen" to the top or to the left. The left is even easier because you don't have to worry about overshooting into a window title bar.

    47. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I predict that future computers will have no keyboard, but instead the mouse will have about 100 buttons for typing.

      Doesn't that pretty well describe pretty much every tablet ever made? Not to mention the overwhelming majority of PDAs, smartphones, etc.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    48. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by davepermen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I had to scroll on a 24" screen to just get to your post. when ever i have to scroll, the screen lacks height. so, yeah, i have that wheel, and no, it does not allow screens to be as thin as possible, just "because you can scroll". most content IS vertical, so higher screens would make more sence (and that's why most reader-type devices are always vertical oriented. but our pc's and laptops are used most of the time for reading/writing, too..). i started with a 15" laptop 5:4 format. 16:9 now is really annoyingly loss of real estate to work on it. for movies, it's nice. but for movies, i have a fullhd projector, thanks.

    49. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by davepermen · · Score: 1

      I went from 5:4 to now 16:9. so they got even less tall over the years, massively at that, actually. when ever you scroll, tabs on the left would be a win. and on nearly every webpage, you DO scroll. (maybe not you, but in most usage cases, that is)

    50. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Spewns · · Score: 1

      These days most screens are wider than they are taller.

      Most screens have been wider than tall since well before the first web browsers.

      That's for sure. But there's an excess of pixels in the increasingly high resolution of widescreen monitors now, and so it makes sense to find ways to use it. (I'm not implying you would disagree with such a general statement - I'm just putting it out there.)

      Tabs take up more room on the side than on the top

      Eh... kind of. Once you have about 12+ horizontal tabs open, Firefox starts scrolling the tab bar, meaning all your tabs can no longer be visible at the same time. And at this point, tab titles are cut significantly short as well, so the ones you can see have less informative title bars. Horizontal tabs are limited in that way. (And I think Chrome just keeps scrunching the size of the tabs until they're little indistinguishable blobs with close buttons, which is even worse.) Vertical tabs take up more room overall, but more can be display at once, and their titlebars never have to be shrunk. This is improved usability in my eyes. And the space they do take up is wasted space that would've never been utilized to begin with.

      and do more on the side to hurt the ability to have more usable windows on the screen.

      I don't understand what you're saying here. You mean having your browser unmaximized so you can have other physical windows open beside it? If you do that, then yeah you probably don't want vertical tabs.

    51. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      Are you a time-traveller from the past?

      Yes, just like everyone (and everything) else.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    52. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I hear you - I'm notorious for have multiple windows with dozens of tabs each and until I found Tree Style Tabs, I was losing my mind trying to keep track. It sometimes causes script errors that'll freeze a window for a long time but, when it's working, it works really, really well.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    53. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by mspohr · · Score: 1
      I have a monitor that has a swivel so I turned my "widescreen" monitor vertically and now I have lots of vertical space for reading.

      Also, the "Tree-style Tabs" add-on for Firefox puts the tabs on the side so you can have more vertical space (and lots of tabs).

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    54. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      can't a more informative tab tree be visible on the left but auto hide when you mouse off? Would that not solve the issue of screen real estate and access to many tabs? Even tabs at the top can be on auto hide and peek out when u mouse over. I dunno, actual usage might not be as productive.

      --
      Balderdash!
    55. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      I figured this out a while ago which is why my taskbar always goes on the side of my widescreen monitor.
      So now we'll have a web-browser with tabs on the side as well. Might as well get rid of the tabs and go back to full windows? As long as I can switch through windows with ctrl-tab then I'd be happy.

    56. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by izomiac · · Score: 1

      I have a laptop so I use keyboard scrolling quite a bit (Home, Page Up, Page Down, and End are in a nice column on the right side, something Sony did well IMHO). Unfortunately, most webpages aren't keyboard scrolling friendly.

      If you interact with flash then you need to defocus it to scroll. If you click a random area of the page without adblock, you've probably just clicked an ad (seriously, the 200px solid color borders on a lot of pages do this). Then you have the webpages that auto-focus the search box, and I've yet to figure out a good greasemonkey hack to stop this (document.activeElement.blur() fixes scrolling, but doesn't stop the focus stealing).

    57. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by 3.1415926535 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Use the space bar (and shift+spacebar, to go backwards, at least in Chrome).

    58. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera already has the ability to select the edge placement of the tabs. I keep it at the top, but if you like the side go for it.

    59. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      I have a laptop so I use keyboard scrolling quite a bit (Home, Page Up, Page Down, and End are in a nice column on the right side, something Sony did well IMHO).

      My previous Toshiba and Fujitsu laptops had those as well, I must say I miss that column. The keyboards are probably somewhat generic and used across manufacturers; I have a Deltaco mini keyboard that looks very much like an older laptop keyboard in a separate case, with the column and everything.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    60. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Use the space bar (and shift+spacebar, to go backwards, at least in Chrome).

      I do use the space bar, but the equivalent of Page Up is not consistent across applications. Sometimes it is B (oldskool unix applications), sometimes Shift+Space (browsers), sometimes something completely different. Adding to the confusion, Page Down is not same as Space in some applications, for example some PDF readers: one goes to the next page, the other scrolls down.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    61. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      when ever you scroll, tabs on the left would be a win

      Increasing the width of a window containing a comfortably-sized viewing area for text is bad any time I want more than one thing on the screen at once.

      Other than on my netbook -- which is light enough that I often rotate both the device and the display so its 9:16 rather than 16:9 -- I don't think I'd get a lot of use out tabs-on-the-left. Really, for reading large things as the only thing on the screen, I'd rather have a "two-column" mode that used the left half of the window width to display as much as would fit, and then flowed into the right half. That, to me, is a much better way use the real estate on a large widescreen monitor.

      OTOH, again, I like the idea of an option to move tabs to the side -- I'd probably use it occasionally, though it wouldn't be my default, and some people would use it all the time. All I was saying was that it makes sense to have an option, not to switch from top-with-no-choice to side-with-no-choice.

    62. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      Get a video card that supports different orientations. My ATI seems to without issue. Also, use the NEMA mounts on the back of most monitors. Mount the monitor on the wall. For videos, either rotate it back, or watch it in smaller format.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    63. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by Spewns · · Score: 1

      can't a more informative tab tree be visible on the left but auto hide when you mouse off?

      Sure. For example, this is basically "the" vertical tab addon for Firefox, and it can autohide.

      It seems it would be harder to make tabs at the top autohide though, just because there are several things at the top, like the address bar, menu bar, etc. - where would you need to position the mouse for it to unhide? Would you have to aim the mouse for a specific point? With vertical tabs you only have to flick your mouse to the side of the screen. It's a big target you can't overshoot.

    64. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by antdude · · Score: 1

      I still prefer using the keyboard to navigate like arrow keys, page up/down keys, space bar, etc. I am much quicker than using the mouse in most cases. I really hate the mouse scroll since my finger doesn't like it. I like to move my hands and fingers around and being static is bad for my carpal syndrome (I'm old now). :(

      It is not just for web browsing, also using softwares, OS', etc.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    65. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      I agree, though I'm ashamed to admit that I'm somewhat used to mouse scrolling as well. My current laptop doesn't have dedicated home/pgup/pgdn/end keys, and I like having a scroll level between a full page-height (pgup/dn) and one or two lines (arrows).

      Nevertheless, my general feeling is that many people are shunning old technologies simply for the sake of being old, and reinventing the (scroll)wheel into something that doesn't do anything more or better than the old one. (If you think text-based interfaces are useless, please stop reading and writing.)

      One of my favourites is the logical extension of a scroll wheel, a kind of trackball on a mouse. Even without considering the keyboard, the setup looks hopelessly redundant. You already have a 2D pointing device, but apparently people are stuck on only one of its functions (moving the cursor), so another pointing device is added for other functions. It's like the Internet keys on a keyboard, making the computer look more like an appliance, where one button does only one thing. (Yo dawg, we heard you like 2D pointing devices, so we put a 2D pointing device in your 2D pointing device, so you can point while you point.)

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    66. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      There was an add on for FF that I had before where it hides the menu bar and unhides by pressing alt or some such key. I dunno if normal people like using keyboards anymore but I live on keyboard shortcuts.

      --
      Balderdash!
    67. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by antdude · · Score: 1

      I still prefer using the keyboard to navigate like arrow keys, page up/down keys, space bar, hot keys, tabs, shift, etc. I am much quicker than using the mouse in most cases. I really hate the mouse scroll since my finger doesn't like it. I like to move my hands and fingers around and being static is bad for my carpal syndrome (I'm old now). :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    68. Re:Tabs on the left make sense by anguirus.x · · Score: 1

      Also, on a square monitor tabs on the side will actually use up more vertical real estate unless you limit them to be very narrow, otherwise content may be forced to wraparound more often, negating any gains in vertical real estate..

  2. Finally ... by foobsr · · Score: 1

    TFS: "Google is thinking about moving tabs from the top of the browser top the left side"

    Reveals that:

    Google employs some people that think (ahead?)

    Common people are stuck with the overcome (top the left side ???)

    Alas.

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    1. Re:Finally ... by sznupi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nah, just keeping the tradition of taking stuff from Opera; life as usual. ;)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    2. Re:Finally ... by Beelzebud · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I know personally if Opera hadn't tried getting me to pay for the browser, I would probably still be using it. That was the worst timing ever. Firefox came out, and Opera wanted money. I know they don't ask for cash anymore, but the horse was out of the barn by the time they wised up.

    3. Re:Finally ... by sznupi · · Score: 2, Informative

      That was half a decade ago, nowadays most marriages don't last that long...

      (but more seriously - Opera is for a long time the only major browser without a corporate grandaddy (remember AOL?), probably the only way it could work back then)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    4. Re:Finally ... by NeuroKoan · · Score: 1

      In all honesty, I didn't know Opera was free these days. Ever since they tripped that switch in my brain, my mind automatically glazes over if I try to read anything about Opera.

      --

      "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
    5. Re:Finally ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      omniweb did if first

    6. Re:Finally ... by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      ...and then has the arrogance to censor people who call them out on their bigotry!

      How's rock bottom going, guys?

  3. Progress! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's fantastic that you can have your browser download executable code that can take advantage of local GPU acceleration.

    That's progress

  4. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another excuse to fill up pages with useless graphics.
    Mobile devices will love this impetus.

  5. Let me see if I've got this right... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    So, now-- in theory --I can have Flash bugger my GPU instead of my CPU and system memory? ;) Fabulous!! It would be nice if Adobe would actually fix Flash, though. It's constantly hanging or crashing my browser, and at least once or twice a week, BSODing me. Bastard thing. :( Of course it doesn't help that every webpage EVERYWHERE uses Flash for damn near anything.

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
    1. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know, I keep hearing this, how Flash keeps crashing browsers. I use quite a few Flash sites ranging from casual games to management applications for security appliances, and I think I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I've had a Flash related browser issue over the last couple of years.

      I think it's either a tired meme or some people just don't know how to setup and maintain a stable system.

    2. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by yodleboy · · Score: 0, Redundant

      wish i had mod points for you. the only times i see flash crash a browser is when my mother in law tries to open farmville AND cafe world AND mafia wars AND a few more large flash games in tabs in one browser window. even then it's less of a crash than a slowing to a crawl. Personally, I've always had way more issues with the Adobe Acrobat browser plugin than with Flash. THAT thing is horrible, thank god for Foxit.

    3. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by mikael_j · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that in order to keep Flash from crashing you pretty much need to run flashblock or noscript which cripples your browsing experience and unfortunately there are sites out there that actually try to obfuscate their javascript and Flash content to trick you into loading their annoying ads.

      Basically it's a pain in the ass to keep Flash from hogging resources so most users just don't do it even if they know how to.

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    4. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by DevConcepts · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your wife/girl friend (LMAO! A /.er having one!) or maybe a sister playing those god forsaken, crappy, waste of time, Zinga games on facebook. You will know when it crashes (after hours and hours of playing) by the scream that sounds like someone is having their finger nails pulled out. Slowly. And you will have to fix it because you can always fix it. Last time I had to fix a flash game I turned her computer off. I still sleep on the couch.

    5. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      As dreamchaser has already said - I think you exaggerate immensely. But - if Flash is so bad for you, why do you allow it to crash your browser? Run noscript. There are other flash killers available as well. I only see Flash when I WANT to see the Flash. Which, is seldom.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Flash tends to eat all available memory when I access sony-ericsson.com, slowing the computer to a crawl as it gobbles through 4 GB+ of swap space. Not every time, but far too often. This is with the beta 64 bit version for Linux, though, so I don't expect it to act the same way on other platforms.

    7. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Except that doesn't happen. First of all if it did she can fix it, she's quite smart. Second, we have properly configured and well maintained systems. She's never had a Flash crash that I know of, though she might not even tell me since it would be a rare and trivial issue.

    8. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noscript can arguably detract from the browsing experience, but certainly not Flashblock. 9/10 Flash applets are completely useless, bog down the machine, or annoy the user.

    9. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it crashes for me when listening to 5 live. say I stop the stream, and come back later to start it. Instant crash. Sometimes it crashes on its own.

      Happened at least 3-4 times this past week. I'm not going to stop doing other things on my computer just because flash wants to hog all of the system resources.

    10. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by gaspyy · · Score: 1

      I never had a flash crash or performance issues in IE or Chrome, only in Firefox - and I don't use flashblock.
      Considering that the flash plugin is the same for Chrome and Firefox, I suspect a plugin architecture issue in Firefox...

    11. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have expierenced browser crashes/hangs due to npviewer.bin until i installed noscript.

    12. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by DevConcepts · · Score: 1

      Except that doesn't happen. First of all if it did she can fix it, she's quite smart.

      I have had the iGoogle page crash (rare) on me more than any other flash games but I won't play facebook games.
      Then I guess we both have smart women but mine wouldn't know what a /. was.

      Second, we have properly configured and well maintained systems.

      Other than software updates and FF or Chrome (She has killed both), what is there to configure? Is there a special flash configuration that prevents flash crash other than no flash?
      And Linux is not an option for her, needs win for Quickbooks.

      She's never had a Flash crash that I know of, though she might not even tell me since it would be a rare and trivial issue.

      If she avoids the facebook games they are usually rare. Zinga games are horrendous and support is about the same state as AOL was decades ago, clear everything and reinstall flash, so sorry, try again.

    13. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by drewpt · · Score: 1

      If you're bsod'ing blame one of your kernel mode drivers. Flash isn't at fault, it's a user mode app.

    14. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by insufflate10mg · · Score: 1, Funny

      Amen. I cannot even recall an occasion when Flash has crashed.

      I must say, my Vista machine with an i7 and 6gb of RAM has never truly crashed. People piss and moan while I couldn't ask for more. There are over 30 tabs open on this browser instance, to the point where the tabs on the top show not even the favicon. On my second/minimized instance of Chrome, I have over 20 tabs, but at least the favicons are displayed. This includes multiple tabs of Pac-Man on level 5-15, and multiple Youtubes. My taskbar has so many applications minimized on it that it has switched from 1 column to 2 columns and I can no longer read the titles of anything I have open (I go mostly by memory/quick trial and error to find what I need when it gets to this point). I have 1 IE, 3 other Firefox windows, Limewire/MediaMonkey, 6 notepads, 3 OpenOffice Writers, my AV, Ventrilo, etc. I have VC#.Net IDE opened, along with BitPim (to fix a cellphone). My computer only costed $2,300 and still has a full warranty. So if anything goes wrong, I'll just send its ass in. RAM = 73% full, CPU = 4% (considering all of the above) while just reading.

      People complain about Flash, Windows, etc, because they are attempting to fit ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag.

      If only people would be disciplined enough to make/save and spend $2,000 on a high-quality machine, they wouldn't have so much to complain about. Vista is an incredible operating system for me, and runs so beautifully it is not funny. I got clocks, Youtube, Wikipedia, RAM/CPU monitors, calculator, notepad widget, and todo list on my Vista sidebar and they have ALWAYS worked FLAWLESSLY. Nearly everything on this machine has worked flawlessly.

    15. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I certainly know how to maintain a "stable" system and I've had quite a few problems with flash that requires me to restart Chrome.

      Also, I don't play any flash games, just happen to run into sites with flash often (work for a large website design firm)

    16. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Honestly I can't even remember the last time my browser crashed using Flash. The only time I can recall having any issues with it was when I was trying to use it on a 64 bit Linux install.

    17. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      That's simply not true in all cases. I have neither of those addons installed, and Flash never crashes on this machine. Win7 64bit, Firefox.

    18. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by zacronos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, so that's one data point. The fact that you have not had issues with Flash does not mean that no one else does, or that those who do "just don't know how to setup and maintain a stable system"; to generalize from your experience and draw conclusions about everyone else who claims to have had a problem with Flash is quite the logical fallacy. In fact, I'll counter your anecdote with one of my own -- if you will tell me what I could do to better set up or maintain my system such that this problem goes away, I will gladly buy you a beer.

      I use Firefox 3.6.8 on a MacBook as part of my job. I tend to have FF open with several tabs (gmail, reverence pages, test pages for the code I'm working on, etc). I don't close Firefox at the end of the day, as I'm going to open all those same tabs the next day, and although I have the SessionManager add-on installed, it is often unreliable; Firefox will usually run this way for days or weeks. Eventually, however, it will start hogging the CPU (running at ~60% or higher, sometimes all the way to 99.9%), regardless of what tabs are open. Or, it will start spiking up to complete UI lock (even showing the spinning rainbow ball cursor) on a very regular basis -- it may start at once per 5 minutes and last a quarter of a second, but it will eventually worsen to the point that FF is spending more time locked than running. In either case, the only thing that seems to work is to restart the browser. It took a while to determine, but the only correlation I can find with the speed at which these problems show up (and worsen) is the amount of time I let the browser sit on pages containing Flash. Now, unlike GGP, I don't necessarily blame Adobe -- it seems equally likely to me that Mozilla is at fault here. However, the fact remains that my browser gets less stable/functional the more it runs Flash.

      So, would you please explain to me how the problem I've described is my fault, rather than Mozilla's or Adobe's? Blocking Flash is not an option, and telling me I should just restart the browser frequently is like a Windows 95 user saying their system is perfectly stable as long as they reboot once or twice a day -- my usage pattern is not the problem, it merely reveals a problem in FF and/or the Flash add-on.

    19. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by zacronos · · Score: 1

      I tend to have FF open with several tabs (gmail, reverence pages, [...]

      Um, I mean "reference pages", not "reverence pages", heh. There's a joke in that typo, I'm sure of it...

    20. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Flash doesn't have the greatest performance in the world but maybe your problems are related to other software because Flash doesn't ever crash on me certainly not once or twice a week. I would have uninstalled a long time before it got to that point.

    21. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      We use Linux and Windows both, and by properly configured and maintained I mean the only conclusion I can come to about people who have persistent Flash problems is that their setups are unstable to begin with in some way. Sure there are buggy Flash apps just like any other application framework, but people just blow it WAY out of proportion.

    22. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by mpcooke3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's true flash is a lot more stable these days, particularly with the release of flash 10.1

      Just the odd browser issue here and there:
      Like it causes IE to crash very frequently on some computers
      http://forums.adobe.com/message/2925919?tstart=0
      and Firefox to crash very frequently on some computers
      http://forums.adobe.com/message/2962506#2962506
      http://forums.adobe.com/message/2920257#2920257
      and then of course there was the Safari crashing problems
      http://fairerplatform.com/2010/08/flash-10-1-crashes-safari-how-to-remove/
      and it crashes some computers with hardware acceleration enabled (the default setting)
      and it causes all browsers to crash on some computers when you try to activate a webcam
      http://forums.adobe.com/message/3031253#3031253
      and of course it crashes chrome a lot too on some computers (also remember the Adobe flash uninstaller doesn't work on chrome now, so need to uninstall in two ways)
      http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=461f66d507a8d884&hl=en

      But I'm sure your right, I haven't for instance seen anyone complain of flash crashing safari on the iPhone. oh wait....

    23. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look. I keep reading how people say that Flash doesn't crash for them. Well, that's your perspective. Meanwhile, all three browsers -- IE, Firefox, and Chrome -- implemented automatic plugin restarting precisely because Flash crashing was such a common issue. So which do you think is the real truth here?

    24. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +3 Funny? Laugh if you like, but flash is still trouble.

    25. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by sco08y · · Score: 1

      You know, I keep hearing this, how Flash keeps crashing browsers. ...

      Yeah, not only is Flash robust, but it pretty well survived the ultimate torture test: MySpace. There are millions of pages with dozens or even hundreds of Flash widgets all written by different knuckle-draggers, and they rarely bring down the browser. Slow it to a crawl, true, but Flash will keep on trucking. That's pretty impressive.

      I think it's either a tired meme or some people just don't know how to setup and maintain a stable system.

      It seems like the more clueless you are about how computers work, the more stable they are. For instance, I know that I make a lousy sysadmin because I want to do things the "right" way, and find out the actual reason for various error messages. But a typical sysadmin will just wipe the box and reinstall things, changing it up each time until somehow it mostly works, except for you have to press CTRL-C here and this one button doesn't work.

    26. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not entirely true. At least on my systems and the systems I've used before, Flash actually works fine. It's just hogs CPU resources, which is why I had to take it off of my Nexus One; it worked great on YouTube...at the expense of having Flash everywhere. No thanks.

      Now, if you want to talk about a plugin that really crashes, turn your attention over to Adobe Acrobat!

    27. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by PRMan · · Score: 1

      That's funny. It loads instantaneously (<1 sec) on Windows. And my computer doesn't crawl at all. And with Slashdot and the Sony Ericcson site open, my browser is sitting at 180 MB, which is really not that bad.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    28. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by JansenVT · · Score: 1

      It definitely happens, but it's very sporadic. My bosses vista machine does it. 2 of 3 flash objects will crash his browser (chrome, latest, no addons) I couldnt figure out why

    29. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Depends on the platform. I haven't had any problems with 32-bit Flash on Windows. Flash on 64-bit Windows has crashed a couple of times. Flash on 64-bit Linux? Forget it. Between the fact that there is no official 64-bit Flash build for Linux and nspluginwrapper's issues, Flash on 64-bit Linux crashes about half the time.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    30. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      That's simply not true in all cases. I have neither of those addons installed, and Flash never crashes on this machine. Win7 64bit, Firefox.

      Ditto. Flash is a resource hog but I never remember it crashing. This is on various 32-bit XP and Vista machines, and a Kubuntu install (though Flash performance was so abysmal on this last one that I said "to hell with it" and put XP back on it).

    31. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      Flash doesn't crash that often (unless you are using some poorly coded applet from the 90s), but it still causes more crashes than JS. JS causes more slow downs, though.

    32. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      >flashblock or noscript which cripples your browsing experience

      No they don't

    33. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      The 64 bit Linux version is the best version of Flash I have ever used.

    34. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by takowl · · Score: 1

      I've got by fine with flash without either of those. Although I do use adblock, which I guess cuts down on the number of flash things I see (but doesn't cripple browsing experience). I've not really noticed problems even when browsing without adblock.

    35. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by herojig · · Score: 1

      That's funny, Flash does not seem to bog down macs all that much, but it sure crashes FF more then it should. It seems to be getting worse in that regard as well...

      --
      I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
    36. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We use Linux and Windows both, and by properly configured and maintained I mean the only conclusion I can come to about people who have persistent Flash problems is that their setups are unstable to begin with in some way.

      "Setups are unstable to being with in some way" really? Consideri the fact that there was an official bugfix release of firefox that fixed flash crashes.

    37. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I think I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I've had a Flash related browser issue over the last couple of years.

      I used to have people tell me that their Windows 98 systems were rock solid, kept running for months at a time between reboots, and simply never, ever had the slightest hint of any problems... I still don't know how to respond to something like that. Your statement is similar.

      Meanwhile, with a stock Fedora 13 system (on older hardware), I have to kill Flash on an almost daily basis, because it pretty often gets into a CPU-eating mode, and locks up all browser tabs. Fortunately, thanks to nspluginwrapper, it doesn't take Firefox down with it.

      I can only assume your experience is likely thanks to a walled garden of simple, stable Flash apps, that just don't happen to trigger one of the overwhelming number of bugs it has.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    38. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cripples my browsing experience? I think the word you're looking for is "enhances"

    39. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Did I say it never crashes? No. I said that people who say they are constantly getting crashes from flash, not once in awhile, have other issues. Deal with it.

    40. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woah.. there it crashed again.

      Well you're a lucky dude.

    41. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I use it in FF and Chrome, and my poor little netbook goes from running cool without fans, and into a lap warmer, within a minute or so of visiting a site with Flash content.

    42. Re:Let me see if I've got this right... by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      For the first time in years, I almost fell for a troll. +5 Troll.

  6. Tabs on the left side by Shin-LaC · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Tabs on the left side work very well for people who use tabs intensively and keep many pages open at the same time. The main advantages are:
    • you can display many more tabs while keeping the titles visible
    • you save precious vertical space and use horizontal space instead, which is often wasted (a side effect of monitors being wider than they are tall while pages are taller than they are wide, and also of the fact that most pages don't benefit from being given more width past a certain point - the extra space is left empty, or the lines of text are too long)
    • you can organize tabs into a hierarchy by simply indenting them (when I use Firefox, I use the excellent Tree Style Tabs extension for this.)
    1. Re:Tabs on the left side by hannson · · Score: 1

      you save precious vertical space

      I'm not sure that's right. The tabs are fused with the title bar so moving them to another location makes the title bar ab unused waste.

    2. Re:Tabs on the left side by rreyelts · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have two widescreen monitors, with one tilted 90 degrees. I use the titled one for web-browsing, and other activities that are suited to high degrees of horizontal space. It works out pretty well. You should try it some time.

    3. Re:Tabs on the left side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just put the omnibox and controls there. But for god's sake, leave a little space so you can actually drag the window around. That's an important function of that "unused" space that often gets lost (or do most slashdotters run windows eternally maximized?).

    4. Re:Tabs on the left side by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      (a side effect of monitors being wider than they are tall while pages are taller than they are wide, and also of the fact that most pages don't benefit from being given more width past a certain point - the extra space is left empty, or the lines of text are too long)

      Erm, if you realize this, why do you maximize your browser? Set your browser window to a sane width, place/pin it to the left or right side. Now you've cleared up hundreds or even a 1000 pixels of useful screen space. My monitor is certainly wider than it is tall. And I take advantage of that fact to have TWO greater-than-an-A4-page-sized regions of useful space.

      Indeed, throwing a sidebar into the browser is a waste of space. Horizontal space is FAR more valuable than vertical space, when you start putting windows next to each other.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  7. finally gpu acceleration for android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well since chrome and android share the same 2d render engine i hope this means acclereated rendering for android, too.

  8. Vertical tabs by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Have been in there a long time, hidden by the --enable-vertical-tabs switch, so this isn't a new idea. Try it out yourself if you want (about:labs page isn't in yet so you'll need the switch).

    1. Re:Vertical tabs by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work here. Just upgraded to 7.0.503.1.

    2. Re:Vertical tabs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to use the --enable-vertical-tabs flag, and then right-click on a tab and tell it to "use side tabs".

  9. so.... by Dr.D.IS.GREAT · · Score: 0

    If this is out before ie9 them microsoftboyz are gunna shit bricks... and multiple pairs of pants.

  10. Sloooooow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These features have been available in Dev Builds through a command line for a while... a tad slow, Slashdot.

  11. Back to the future by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who never realised that we'd stopped having hardware acceleration of web browsers like we did in the 1990s? Are they really rendering everything with software? No wonder they make a 3GHz quad-core feel like a 486.

    1. Re:Back to the future by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      >hardware acceleration of web browsers like we did in the 1990s

      proof or it never happened

    2. Re:Back to the future by eggstasy · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but... What are you talking about?
      I browsed the web with a 486 DX2-66 for many years, it took a while to load an 80KB HTML page straight off my hard drive - specifically, it was a mIRC scripting guide which had no images.
      You would also have to wait a while for a JPEG to decode and display. If you were crazy enough to load one of these newfangled 4000x3000 photos kids have these days, your PC would start swapping and become unusable!

      But, you need to keep in mind that the early web was entirely made up of text with the odd 16-color GIF for decoration. There was usually no flash or video, and a 24-bit JPEG of a pretty girl in sufficiently high resolution was more like a download than an embedded component of a web page! After all, a mere 50KB file takes 20 seconds to load at 2.5KB/s!

      Graphics cards used an ISA slot and had 1 meg of memory! What they did at the time with that memory was store the frame buffer and enable you to display high (SVGA) resolutions!

      I do have vague memories of seeing an MPEG-2 accelerator card, maybe it did JPEG, I dunno, but seriously, a web accelerator? When 3D cards finally came along (and you had to have them separately from your 2D card at the time) what they added was highly 3D-specific stuff like mip-mapping and Z-Buffer... not Flash.

    3. Re:Back to the future by BZ · · Score: 1

      > like we did in the 1990s?

      Except back then we didn't...

      > Are they really rendering everything with software?

      Yes.

      > No wonder they make a 3GHz quad-core feel like a 486.

      I think you're remembering your 486 through rose-colored glasses... I remember how Really Fast it felt in 1992, and how slow the same exact machine felt doing the same tasks in 1997.

      But yes, between huge images, alpha blending, fixed-position backgrounds (requiring recomposite on every scroll movement), etc using the CPU for your compositing does start to become a bottleneck.

    4. Re:Back to the future by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who never realised that we'd stopped having hardware acceleration of web browsers like we did in the 1990s?

      Web browsers generally have to do their own font rendering because the font rendering capabilities of the underlying OS, or of the video card+driver, are insufficient. This is pathetic but going further into it would be too much of an aside. The upshot is that in your basic browser the only stuff that's accelerated is the simple 2d stuff handled by the graphics card, like drawing lines, blitting on scroll, that kind of thing. Modern browsers are attempting to use the GPU for rendering more or less directly, perhaps going through an API like OpenGL or Directsomethingorother. DirectDraw? Rather than using GDI.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. Tabs on any side? by stevenh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why don't they let people choose what side the tabs are on. Look at the windows taskbar, you could drag it to be on any side of your screen, why can't the tab bar thing work like that?

    1. Re:Tabs on any side? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't they let people choose what side the tabs are on.

      Yeah, they should copy this feature from Opera.

  13. So much so, I've forgotten it exists by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    I read the parent post and thought for a second or so "he has a point". Then I suddenly realised how I was scrolling. When you've used a mouse for an average of perhaps 2500 hours a year, your brain operates it completely on auto.

    And yes, left hand tabs make a lot of sense. That, or can we go back to laptops with 3 by 4 screen ratios?

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:So much so, I've forgotten it exists by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      one of my screens is on its side to get nice vertical view. This should be the norm for multi screen setups.

      --
      Balderdash!
  14. Acceleration by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    It seems that Chrome will be catching up with Firefox 4 and IE9 in terms of hardware acceleration soon

    I already find Chrome to be much faster then either firefox or IE.

  15. Why not just use bookmarks? by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    I'm always baffled when people use a lot of tabs. What are the advantages of keeping all those pages open at the same time? If you have so many that you feel the need to organize them in a tree, why not just use the bookmarks from the menu, which are already organized that way?

    1. Re:Why not just use bookmarks? by British · · Score: 1

      I can answer for that. If you are picking out individual pages from a base page(ie clicking links), it's sometimes faster than clicking a link, and hitting back to go back to the original. Often pages don't cache, or cache properly. Tabbed browsing is easier. So you look up something in google and find 5 results. You can open up 5 tabs to find what you want instead back & forth 5 times.Then there's those token tabs you leave open all the time, like gmail, etc.

      I can't for the life of me ever want to use it in Thunderbird, though.

    2. Re:Why not just use bookmarks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because then they're in a menu and not immediately accessible, because then they must be reloaded and re-rendered, because then they're saved permanently creating a morass of bookmarks that must be maintained.

      Because the paradigm is totally different. I don't just use a ton of tabs to keep some things I've looked at and want to read later; I use a bunch of tabs to queue up things that I want to look at. I'm currently researching a topic on Google. I'll go through a page of results and open up several pages in tabs - I'm sure as hell not going to bookmark every page from the Google results page, then go through a menu to load each one. With tabs, they're also loading and rendering for me in the background - and they'll be ready for me as soon as I get to them.

      When I'm researching something, I tend to have a few sub-topics too. So multiply the above by 3 or 4. You're saying I should waste time making bookmark folders, carefully assigning bookmarks to each one? Hell no. Currently, I have each subtopic in a different window. Vertical tabs - with indentation - would let me put that all in one window, with the Google results pages leftmost, and the results from each page indented under the appropriate results page.

      Also, bookmarks blow. I spend far more time maintaining them than using them. Often I find that if I bookmark something to read later, I'll never get back to it. If I leave it up for a few days in a tab, there's a better chance I'll get to it, and there won't be excess clutter in my bookmarks making it hard to find the few bookmarks I do use, and I won't be wasting my time cleaning up that clutter.

    3. Re:Why not just use bookmarks? by Spatial · · Score: 1

      It isn't about organisation. For me it's the instantaneous access / buffering they facilitate. I could wait five seconds for every page to load as I navigate through them one at a time, or I could open them all at once and have it done in advance.

      Usually I open everything I want to read in tabs, then read them all later. No need to wait if the connection is being hogged by torrents; no need for an internet connection to watch streaming videos, etc.

      I can have everything I want instantly with just a tiny amount of initial effort. It's what computers are all about.

    4. Re:Why not just use bookmarks? by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Because then you can't complain about Firefox's bloated memory usage.

    5. Re:Why not just use bookmarks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bookmarks are too persistent and require explicit user management.

      Often I'm in the middle of researching something, or just browsing on wikipedia or whatever, and I queue up a bunch of tabs for later. Then a few tabs down the line, I see more interesting things. Putting them in bookmarks would be cumbersome and a waste of time. And then they have to be removed again.

      Organization, whether tree-like or flat, can be accomplished automatically by the browser without any user-intervention.

      I might come to slashdot after some days, see seven interesting tabs, middle-click them all, and click a couple links just sent by (trustworthy) friends over instant messenger, and also have my email going. And every once in a while I might click on a link within slashdot, like the link to TFA. And then the phone rings, and my mom is asking how to order something on amazon.com.

      Now, I personally tend to use new windows a lot, and tear off a tab that I know is likely to spawn new ones, so the tab space thing isn't often an issue. I didn't even like tabbed browsing at first, since it fucked up window management and just added another layer and set of keyboard commands, making it difficult to find something in a background tab. The way Windows 7's taskbar lets optionally peek into a tab as though it were a window in IE or the latest Chrome builds made me breathe a sigh of relief.

    6. Re:Why not just use bookmarks? by raftpeople · · Score: 1

      Most of the tabs I have open I have entered information, sorted things, navigated to detail pages, etc. etc. etc. Going back to a top level bookmark every time isn't the same thing.

    7. Re:Why not just use bookmarks? by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      You can't complain in any case (but sometimes you still do)

      And 944MB res and 1788MB virt on a 4BG system is very reasonable for over 100 tabs

    8. Re:Why not just use bookmarks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TVTropes.

    9. Re:Why not just use bookmarks? by Quantumstate · · Score: 1

      When I am researching something I often open a lot of pages from a search, organised tabs keep these items together. I am only ever going to look it up once so I won't need a permanent bookmark, but I still might want 20 web pages open on various topics.

    10. Re:Why not just use bookmarks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      foxlover: Plz, anyone: provide a "Ungroup your tabs..." menu option. This feature f****d my days. "Firefox Made Me Sad Because" this.
      The_8472: just drag all of them into a big group
      foxlover: I have 600+ tabs. No way.
      The_8472: oh, if you're using firefox 4, there is something that can help with the memory used by images
      go to about:config and set image.mem.discardable = true and image.mem.decodeondraw = true

    11. Re:Why not just use bookmarks? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Tabs are temporary, bookmarks are far more permanent. I open each /. story in a different tab, when reading I open various links in sub-tabs, etc. With bookmarks I'd have to bookmark each link, organize the BMs into trees, then delete the BMs at the end of the session. Why go through all the extra effort when tree-style tabs do it automatically? If I need permanent sets I can use a session manager to save a session, or the "Bookmark this Tree" or "Bookmark all Tabs" features to store it for later use.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    12. Re:Why not just use bookmarks? by benhattman · · Score: 1

      What are the advantages of keeping all those pages open at the same time?

      If you're trying to keep your memory usage at it's optimum torque-to-power level of 78%, each of those tabs does a good job chewing up some inconvenient MB. Computer manufacturers have really exacerbated this problem by increasing installed memory of new systems past 2GB.

  16. Not new in WebKit Browsers..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Is this just Chrome's implementation of the ACCELERATED_COMPOSITING code path in the WebKit engine?
    If so, this is nothing new. This has long been implemented in Safari and Mobile Safari (In fact, this is key to browsing performance on the iPhone).

    There's also experimental support for this in QtWebKit's implementation: http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2010/05/17/qtwebkit-now-accelerates-css-animations-3d-transforms/

    1. Re:Not new in WebKit Browsers..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's considerably more difficult for Chrome as it sandboxes the WebKit engine. The Chrome approach means that, even if the GPU has buggy graphics drivers, it will only crash your GPU process, which can be restarted without taking down the whole browser.

    2. Re:Not new in WebKit Browsers..? by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 1

      Apple's implementation of graphics is proprietary (the engine dynamically links to its Core libraries). Google has its own version, and there is also a cairo port. Chrome's implementation is useful for Windows users.

  17. Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just yesterday I had one crash so badly it didn't just take Chrome down, I nearly had to reset XP to escape. The program got stuck in some loop but commanded the whole screen in such a way that even the task manger wasn't visible.

  18. Oh, we're just making it up are we? Try this then. by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Open a web page with linux firefox that has an embedded flash app which has to connect back to a server to load some streaming data but in an enviroment where the port for the stream is blocked by a firewall. Wait a few seconds then click the back button and watch firefox lock up solid. Works for all versions of firefox 3.x. Haven't tried 4 yet.

  19. You are welcome to tabs on the left side by diegocg · · Score: 1

    Of course, there is a Firefox extension that does exactly that.

    1. Re:You are welcome to tabs on the left side by Klinky · · Score: 1

      Except you have to remove Tabs Mix Plus if you want to install it, also the color scheme looks like a unicorn dragged it's ass across the left side of my browser. I also don't like the nesting. I use VertTab, but even that lacks one of the nice features of Opera's tabs, where you can click to minimize the tab, great for toggling between two websites.

    2. Re:You are welcome to tabs on the left side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And on Opera you can add "Windows" to have a "tabs" list in your panels.

  20. Chrome 7? Will it run on... by Psicopatico · · Score: 1

    ...Emacs?

    Hah! Take that!

    --
    Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
  21. Quick way to speed up your browser by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you want to speed up your browser, just block the following domains:

    *.doubleclick.net
    *.polldaddy.com
    *.quantserve.com
    *.google-analytics.com
    *.scorecardresearch.com
    *.gravatar.com
    *.247realmedia.com
    *.likeme.net

    If you block the top 10 ad services, browsing speed improves substantially. Firefox BlockSite is useful for blocking, or you can edit HOSTS.TXT. This alone will make Slashdot pages load twice as fast. AdBlock isn't enough; it still loads the data, but doesn't display it. There's too much ad code out there which stalls page loading until the ad is served. So you get to wait for the ad servers. Sequentially.

    1. Re:Quick way to speed up your browser by tburke261 · · Score: 3, Informative

      AFAIK adblock has been able to stop even loading data from blocked domains for a while.

    2. Re:Quick way to speed up your browser by Spewns · · Score: 1

      AdBlock isn't enough; it still loads the data, but doesn't display it.

      Not true anymore. Although there's apparently some limitation in Chrome itself that isn't allowing full functionality of this yet even though it exists in Webkit.

    3. Re:Quick way to speed up your browser by DaveGod · · Score: 1

      Some sites slow down loading significantly if I block them. There are several sites that I can open and they appear to do nothing for a few moments before loading, yet if I disable AdBlock (in some cases rename hosts file and reboot) there is no initial pause. Granted, it's much better overall though.

      You should probably also have added the caveat that some site features like video will not work if you block the ads. AdBlock is useful over the hosts file here because you can disable it on individual pages and domains, either for the current visit or permanently.

    4. Re:Quick way to speed up your browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      AdBlock isn't enough; it still loads the data, but doesn't display it.

      Used to be true for the Chrome version due to a deficient extensions API. No longer true now. Well mostly since according to the developer a few elements might still slip through the net. The Firefox version on the other hand has always kept the blocked sites' data from being downloaded.

    5. Re:Quick way to speed up your browser by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Hosts files don't support wildcards...

      A better solution is to just get a good hosts file :)

      I highly recommend MVPS HOSTS. It blocks pretty much all of the nasties and it's updated regularly.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    6. Re:Quick way to speed up your browser by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      Certain sites are wired up to block desirable content if ads are blocked. I call this fair and unblock the site (usually)(if the content is really good, not some stupid copypaste blog).

  22. Opera still lead the browser UI innovations by Bazouel · · Score: 1

    Opera have allowed you to place tabs wherever you want since a long time. You can reorder/pin them and when on the sides, a dynamic thumbnail of the page is displayed.

    --
    Intelligence shared is intelligence squared.
    1. Re:Opera still lead the browser UI innovations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it was the first to support GPU acceleration...

  23. Are these dev releases available to the public? by Tynin · · Score: 1

    I'm unsure if this dev release is out there for download, and I'm really not sure what would be the trusted site to get the (I hope) binary from. Can anyone help make this clear? Thanks :)

  24. I'm starting to feel old by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

    Back in the day we only needed powerful GPUs to play state of the art games. But it is really starting to look like you are also going to need it for browsing the world wide web.

    1. Re:I'm starting to feel old by silviuc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Today's GPUs are FAST and their power is wasted if not used. What's the harm in harnessing it ? It's not mandatory, browsers will use GPUs if they can, else they will fallback to the CPU. OTOH if you complain about the state of the web in that it requires GPU power to actually provide a faster experience, well partially I feel the same, but then again imagine being able to to all kinds of fancy content without writing one line of C/C++ code. Enabling more people to create. This is going to be awesome!

    2. Re:I'm starting to feel old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      so when will have have a way to run the OS in the GPU instead of the CPU?

      Seems strange the OS API's and drivers are not fast enough for browsing that the browser is starting to get tuned to the GPU. Sounds like we're going back to the DOS days.

  25. A $600 keyboard by tepples · · Score: 1

    A product like Warmouse will especially useful when the patent on half keyboards runs out.

    1. Re:A $600 keyboard by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      A half keyboard for the right hand would be nice, as I mouse on the left. I'm right-handed, and my right hand is much more at home on the keyboard; even the arrows and pgup/dn etc. are on the right side! Many keyboards also have a number pad on the right, so mousing on the left keeps it closer to the active typing area, which is nice when you need both hands for extensive typing.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  26. OmniWeb style image tabs please... by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tabs on the left make sense, but unless you have a whole lot of them, tab images make better use of space. They are recognizable even when small, provide feedback, and make for a better click target. Also, for some sites, the text titles are just not useful for distinguishing tabs. (Actually, I would take out the text entirely, and only display it when one hovers over the tab bar--in the complete form next to, and over over the web page.)

    Of course, a per window switch would be best, as there are definitely cases where you would want to use text tabs. (Lots of tabs from the same site, etc. )

    Another nice presentation for image tabs would be an in-browser expose type interface. It could be implemented much like the Chrome downloads window; just another html page with the images/text, or in your own format entirely.

  27. What you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AdBlock isn't enough; it still loads the data, but doesn't display it.

    But AdBlockPlus doesn't load the date (and so it does't have to "think about", how to not view it).

  28. Wake up Adobe! by Burpmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google is putting Adobe to shame. The need for GPU acceleration is much greater with Flash and the difficulty should be similar, but Google's done the work and Adobe hasn't. To quote myself from earlier:

    The penguin.swf blog is just an endless stream of excuses. Adobe absolutely can accelerate YUV->RGB. It's standard practice in software development to create a special fast path for a common scenario when performance matters. They can fall back to the slow path if the swf is trying to do something incompatible with the fast path.

    Anyone writing a flash-based video player would opt for the fast path and follow whatever rules are necessary. But thanks to Adobe's laziness, that option isn't available. Flash is just a dinosaur that doesn't want to evolve.

    FYI, here's how to accelerate video: Flash draws the scene in layers, back to front. For alpha blending or anti-aliasing of edges, it must read the RGB value below the layer currently being drawn to blend it with the current color. This is the problem, and there's a fairly simple solution. After rendering a YUV layer, render the layers above to an RGBA surface that starts out 100% transparent. Then send the output layers (RGB below video, YUV video, RGBA above video) to the video card for final compositing. The only scenario where this wouldn't work is if the player uses filters above the video. Have you ever seen a flash-based player that uses filters?

  29. Ctrl-Tab by electrosoccertux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You control the tabs by pressing ctrl-tab.

  30. RE: text-based interfaces by antdude · · Score: 1

    Yes! I still love text-based interfaces too depending on the situation especially for speeds/quickness. I still use it for e-mails (Mutt and Pine), usenet/newsgroups (tin, nzbget, etc.), chat (e.g., BitchX -- wished it still get updates [not even a fork?] :(), console/SSH2, rz and sz (Zmodem, baby! forget sftp ;)), etc.

    OK kids/younglings, get off my frakkin' lawn!

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).