Firefox users are not going to switch to Chrome. It's just inane to suggest that's the case.
Inane? Hardly. Chrome is quite clearly the superior browser right now, it's not unreasonable to think that people will switch to it. Linux Firefox users won't be switching, but then again, they aren't equal to the set of all Firefox users.
On the resource side of things, they're going to have to make a significant amount of improvement to be competitive with Firefox on performance.
Considering it renders faster than Firefox (which ain't hard)... I fail to see where you're getting this from. Its performance is already better. If you mean resource consumption, well, that may go down (it is beta, after all, which implies they have quite a bit of tweaking to do yet), but quite frankly, even if it doesn't, it's well worth it to have tabs which don't crash your entire browser. Hopefully one day the Firefox developers will pull their heads out of their asses and realize that single-threaded tabs are simply unacceptable, but until then, Chrome's extra resource usage is well worth it.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is another proof that human beings have the uncanny ability to look so hard for underlying meaning, they start seeing it where it doesn't actually exist.
The most interesting part of this is that this and other projects like it were begun before 9/11 and other large scale attacks.
Did anyone ever seriously believe that 9/11 was anything more than a pretext for grabbing more power? They don't actually give a damn about the event, but it makes it convenient for them to satisfy their control lust.
These seem to be pretty much direct opposites of each other.
Huh? Isn't procedural generation about content, not texturing? Anyways, even if they are direct opposites, that doesn't mean both aren't really good, promising technologies.
"Well if you think our cards are so insecure, perhaps we should just pull our credit card processing from your web and retail stores".
Wouldn't Discovery have an excellent basis for a lawsuit here? I imagine that pulling someone's merchant account just because you don't like what they said wouldn't be allowed, but then again, IANAL.
That's true, but there are issues on which there can be no compromise. This is one. We are a country based on the rule of law, we absolutely cannot have a president who chooses to allow breaking of the law whenever it's convenient.
There are precious few issues which singlehandedly can break someone's ability to serve in office, but this is one. It's similar to if Obama wanted to make everyone a slave of the US government: that would be (and this is) completely antithetical to the spirit of our nation, and unallowable at any cost.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, useless extensions. I can't imagine any possible use for them.
The fact that none of the extensions people usually tout for Firefox are useful to me is not my fault.
Oh, right.
So? There's nothing stopping anyone from putting extensions out for Chrome, they have an API in place for it. Not only will this feature probably become native, an extension can be developed. What's your point? I never said that having extensions available is bad, just that I don't find any of the ones espoused to me to be useful.
No, they have no faith. They aren't willing to take a risk that the PS3 won't do great, even with their game, so they make it for the 360 as well. It's the safe bet, but it's also a self-fulfilling prophecy: if, for example, FF13 and DMC4 hadn't gone cross-platform, the PS3 would easily have enough exclusives to put it on even footing with the 360. Because the developers backed out, it doesn't. The developers are playing it safe, but they're also causing the problem at the same time.
Good for you and your ilk. If you keep a lookout for opportunities to learn and put in some time, you'll find there's more money in doing things right than often.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? It's not like I don't value doing things properly. But I'm a realist: if I have to choose between highly-optimized code, and features my user will like, I'll choose the features every time. They use my program for the features, not how tightly I can optimize things.
It's not like I don't care about optimization at all, it's that I realize it's not a perfect world, and you can't have everything you want. So, I prioritize.
That is a completely unfair remark. I do concentrate more on gameplay than graphics, for starters. It just happens that there's a level of graphical badness which I won't tolerate, gameplay be damned, and TF2 crosses that line. Furthermore, even if I valued graphics more than gameplay, that doesn't mean I'm not an excellent team player.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Why would you ever want have a browser NOT open its last state when you open it? (as an example of FireFox & IE default behavior).
Because, when I close my browser, it's because I'm done browsing those sites. I don't want them to open again when I open my browser, if I wanted to look at them I'd have just left the browser open. I can't fathom why you would ever want a browser to open its last state, in fact (assuming it closed normally, and wasn't crashed).
I guess we're just going to have to disagree, then. The gameplay in Assassin's Creed, for me, never got old, and always succeeded in making me feel like I was an assassin stalking my target, then taking him down. Brilliant game.
Tried Metroid Prime 3? I find it to be an extremely fun game that makes excellent use of the Wii controller.
I also think Mario Kart and Smash Bros Brawl are excellent games, but they don't really utilize Wii controls, so they're not great examples. Great games, though.
Seen TF2? Awesome cartooning, quality abounds, its a whole new look for games of that type, and it works really well.
I've seen TF2, but ironically, this is a counterexample to me of the "gameplay > graphics" argument. I hate TF2's graphics. I think they suck, I think that Valve's developers are, quite frankly, idiotic for marrying such crappy graphics to a good game. Because my hate for their graphics is so strong, I don't play TF2, even though it's a good game otherwise.
So, I would have to disagree that TF2's style "works really well", because their graphics choices actually drive me to not play the game.
If you've been following cross-platform titles at all, you'd be aware that the Xbox 360 version always, without fail, works better than the PS3 version, has better graphics and more consistent frame rate than the PS3 version, and infinitely better online support than the PS3 version
You're on crack. I've played both versions of some popular titles (indeed, I own both consoles), and there's never a discernable difference between the two. The two versions look the same, play the same. Unless you have a controller preference (or want some exclusive DLC that either side has snapped up, see GTA IV), there's no reason to buy one over the other.
And saying the 360 has better online support is laughable. Online play which you have to pay for is inferior to free online play. Period.
There's more downloadable content on the Xbox 360
Both consoles have exclusive DLC, so your statement is ridiculous. The vast majority is cross-platform, too.
There's a larger, better game library on the Xbox 360.
Actually, there isn't. Any cross-platform games which are worth anything have been on both consoles, and the exclusives aren't exactly legion and great. At this point, there's pretty much Halo 3 and Forza 2. Fable 2 is forthcoming. Forgive me if I'm not ready to pronounce the 360 the winner because of 3 good games.
There's a reason the PS3 is losing exclusives left and right.
Yeah, it's because the developers aren't willing to have a little faith. Now that the PS3 is a reasonable price, there's no reason that a good few exclusive games wouldn't make it the top dog.
The writing's on the wall, even in Japan: the PS3 is doomed.
Have you been paying attention to reality? The PS3 is gaining steam. It may never top the 360 (and we can thank Sony's ridiculous pricing at the beginning of the console's life for that), but it will probably do quite well by the time it's all said and done.
Seriously, the amount of sheer wrong in your post leads me to believe you must either be a serious 360 fanboy, or a serious PS3 hateboy.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Firefox's set of extensions and features are very, very important to a "Web 2.0" user for whom the Chrome is meant.
Less universal statements, please. Not everyone gives a damn about FF extensions. Bully for you that you do, but I find them to be rather uninspiring and useless. See? That's why universal statements are bad, they open you up to counterexamples that way.
As it stands today, Chrome is a bloody useless browser...
I dunno, it browses Web pages. That's what I want a browser for, should I be expecting something else? The only thing that disappoints me right now is the lack of native RSS support.
...and it looks butt-ugly to boot.
Uglier than Firefox? Shit, that's saying something!
To be fair, Firefox isn't actually ugly, it's just plain. That's fine, that's their choice. But don't hate on Chrome because the developers wanted to make it look halfway decent. Its aesthetic sense isn't bad (it's a bit minimalist for my taste, but their choice of colors and icons are good in my opinion), and at least they're trying to look good, which is more than you can say for Firefox.
Re:BloatWare Continues....
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Whatever happened to stealthy tight code?
We stopped caring about how tightly we can tune our applications when we got more leeway with hardware, and rightly so. If we spent the same care tuning our applications now as we did in the 640K days, that's a lot less time to spend on making our applications do nifty things. Why spend the time if you don't need to?
That's a good goal, but that doesn't mean you have to sacrifice adding new features. It requires working together (which is where the difficulty will be, even if you do put new features on hold while you work on compatibility).
Not a bad thing.
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
...surely announce a new, very demanding era in Web-centric computing.
How is this a bad thing? Modern browsers are far more demanding than Mosaic, because they do more. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a more demanding browser if you need the increased requirements to add functionality... that's the point of advancing our hardware capabilities!
Next thing you know, people will be complaining that it takes more muscle to run a 360 game than it took to run an Atari game. Jeez.
Are you kidding? First of all, the PC version was a simultaneous release with the 360 version. By definition, that makes it not a port, because the two versions were developed at the same time. Second, I have both versions (I bought the 360 version and pirated the PC version), and they are exactly the same. The only difference, in fact, is in the PC's favor, what with the fact that you have mouse and keyboard support.
Slashdot Mirror
Wherever you read is completely wrong. Chrome runs beautifully on Vista.
Firefox users are not going to switch to Chrome. It's just inane to suggest that's the case.
Inane? Hardly. Chrome is quite clearly the superior browser right now, it's not unreasonable to think that people will switch to it. Linux Firefox users won't be switching, but then again, they aren't equal to the set of all Firefox users.
On the resource side of things, they're going to have to make a significant amount of improvement to be competitive with Firefox on performance.
Considering it renders faster than Firefox (which ain't hard)... I fail to see where you're getting this from. Its performance is already better. If you mean resource consumption, well, that may go down (it is beta, after all, which implies they have quite a bit of tweaking to do yet), but quite frankly, even if it doesn't, it's well worth it to have tabs which don't crash your entire browser. Hopefully one day the Firefox developers will pull their heads out of their asses and realize that single-threaded tabs are simply unacceptable, but until then, Chrome's extra resource usage is well worth it.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is another proof that human beings have the uncanny ability to look so hard for underlying meaning, they start seeing it where it doesn't actually exist.
Disclaimer: yeah I know you're being sarcastic, but some people actually believe that bullshit.
I think you might've missed that important bit.
The most interesting part of this is that this and other projects like it were begun before 9/11 and other large scale attacks.
Did anyone ever seriously believe that 9/11 was anything more than a pretext for grabbing more power? They don't actually give a damn about the event, but it makes it convenient for them to satisfy their control lust.
Rock Band 2 is not an exclusive if it's an exclusive for only one month. C&C: RA 3 is not an exclusive at all.
These seem to be pretty much direct opposites of each other.
Huh? Isn't procedural generation about content, not texturing? Anyways, even if they are direct opposites, that doesn't mean both aren't really good, promising technologies.
How the fuck did you arrive at the conclusion that debit cards are somehow more evil than credit cards?
"Well if you think our cards are so insecure, perhaps we should just pull our credit card processing from your web and retail stores".
Wouldn't Discovery have an excellent basis for a lawsuit here? I imagine that pulling someone's merchant account just because you don't like what they said wouldn't be allowed, but then again, IANAL.
That's true, but there are issues on which there can be no compromise. This is one. We are a country based on the rule of law, we absolutely cannot have a president who chooses to allow breaking of the law whenever it's convenient.
There are precious few issues which singlehandedly can break someone's ability to serve in office, but this is one. It's similar to if Obama wanted to make everyone a slave of the US government: that would be (and this is) completely antithetical to the spirit of our nation, and unallowable at any cost.
Yeah, useless extensions. I can't imagine any possible use for them.
The fact that none of the extensions people usually tout for Firefox are useful to me is not my fault.
Oh, right.
So? There's nothing stopping anyone from putting extensions out for Chrome, they have an API in place for it. Not only will this feature probably become native, an extension can be developed. What's your point? I never said that having extensions available is bad, just that I don't find any of the ones espoused to me to be useful.
No, they have no faith. They aren't willing to take a risk that the PS3 won't do great, even with their game, so they make it for the 360 as well. It's the safe bet, but it's also a self-fulfilling prophecy: if, for example, FF13 and DMC4 hadn't gone cross-platform, the PS3 would easily have enough exclusives to put it on even footing with the 360. Because the developers backed out, it doesn't. The developers are playing it safe, but they're also causing the problem at the same time.
Good for you and your ilk. If you keep a lookout for opportunities to learn and put in some time, you'll find there's more money in doing things right than often.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? It's not like I don't value doing things properly. But I'm a realist: if I have to choose between highly-optimized code, and features my user will like, I'll choose the features every time. They use my program for the features, not how tightly I can optimize things.
It's not like I don't care about optimization at all, it's that I realize it's not a perfect world, and you can't have everything you want. So, I prioritize.
That is a completely unfair remark. I do concentrate more on gameplay than graphics, for starters. It just happens that there's a level of graphical badness which I won't tolerate, gameplay be damned, and TF2 crosses that line. Furthermore, even if I valued graphics more than gameplay, that doesn't mean I'm not an excellent team player.
Why would you ever want have a browser NOT open its last state when you open it? (as an example of FireFox & IE default behavior).
Because, when I close my browser, it's because I'm done browsing those sites. I don't want them to open again when I open my browser, if I wanted to look at them I'd have just left the browser open. I can't fathom why you would ever want a browser to open its last state, in fact (assuming it closed normally, and wasn't crashed).
I guess we're just going to have to disagree, then. The gameplay in Assassin's Creed, for me, never got old, and always succeeded in making me feel like I was an assassin stalking my target, then taking him down. Brilliant game.
Tried Metroid Prime 3? I find it to be an extremely fun game that makes excellent use of the Wii controller.
I also think Mario Kart and Smash Bros Brawl are excellent games, but they don't really utilize Wii controls, so they're not great examples. Great games, though.
Seen TF2? Awesome cartooning, quality abounds, its a whole new look for games of that type, and it works really well.
I've seen TF2, but ironically, this is a counterexample to me of the "gameplay > graphics" argument. I hate TF2's graphics. I think they suck, I think that Valve's developers are, quite frankly, idiotic for marrying such crappy graphics to a good game. Because my hate for their graphics is so strong, I don't play TF2, even though it's a good game otherwise.
So, I would have to disagree that TF2's style "works really well", because their graphics choices actually drive me to not play the game.
Wait... Assassin's Creed had bland gameplay? Did you play the same game I did? The gameplay in AC kicked so many levels of ass, it wasn't even funny.
If you've been following cross-platform titles at all, you'd be aware that the Xbox 360 version always, without fail, works better than the PS3 version, has better graphics and more consistent frame rate than the PS3 version, and infinitely better online support than the PS3 version
You're on crack. I've played both versions of some popular titles (indeed, I own both consoles), and there's never a discernable difference between the two. The two versions look the same, play the same. Unless you have a controller preference (or want some exclusive DLC that either side has snapped up, see GTA IV), there's no reason to buy one over the other.
And saying the 360 has better online support is laughable. Online play which you have to pay for is inferior to free online play. Period.
There's more downloadable content on the Xbox 360
Both consoles have exclusive DLC, so your statement is ridiculous. The vast majority is cross-platform, too.
There's a larger, better game library on the Xbox 360.
Actually, there isn't. Any cross-platform games which are worth anything have been on both consoles, and the exclusives aren't exactly legion and great. At this point, there's pretty much Halo 3 and Forza 2. Fable 2 is forthcoming. Forgive me if I'm not ready to pronounce the 360 the winner because of 3 good games.
There's a reason the PS3 is losing exclusives left and right.
Yeah, it's because the developers aren't willing to have a little faith. Now that the PS3 is a reasonable price, there's no reason that a good few exclusive games wouldn't make it the top dog.
The writing's on the wall, even in Japan: the PS3 is doomed.
Have you been paying attention to reality? The PS3 is gaining steam. It may never top the 360 (and we can thank Sony's ridiculous pricing at the beginning of the console's life for that), but it will probably do quite well by the time it's all said and done.
Seriously, the amount of sheer wrong in your post leads me to believe you must either be a serious 360 fanboy, or a serious PS3 hateboy.
Firefox's set of extensions and features are very, very important to a "Web 2.0" user for whom the Chrome is meant.
Less universal statements, please. Not everyone gives a damn about FF extensions. Bully for you that you do, but I find them to be rather uninspiring and useless. See? That's why universal statements are bad, they open you up to counterexamples that way.
As it stands today, Chrome is a bloody useless browser...
I dunno, it browses Web pages. That's what I want a browser for, should I be expecting something else? The only thing that disappoints me right now is the lack of native RSS support.
...and it looks butt-ugly to boot.
Uglier than Firefox? Shit, that's saying something!
To be fair, Firefox isn't actually ugly, it's just plain. That's fine, that's their choice. But don't hate on Chrome because the developers wanted to make it look halfway decent. Its aesthetic sense isn't bad (it's a bit minimalist for my taste, but their choice of colors and icons are good in my opinion), and at least they're trying to look good, which is more than you can say for Firefox.
Whatever happened to stealthy tight code?
We stopped caring about how tightly we can tune our applications when we got more leeway with hardware, and rightly so. If we spent the same care tuning our applications now as we did in the 640K days, that's a lot less time to spend on making our applications do nifty things. Why spend the time if you don't need to?
That's a good goal, but that doesn't mean you have to sacrifice adding new features. It requires working together (which is where the difficulty will be, even if you do put new features on hold while you work on compatibility).
...surely announce a new, very demanding era in Web-centric computing.
How is this a bad thing? Modern browsers are far more demanding than Mosaic, because they do more. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a more demanding browser if you need the increased requirements to add functionality... that's the point of advancing our hardware capabilities!
Next thing you know, people will be complaining that it takes more muscle to run a 360 game than it took to run an Atari game. Jeez.
Are you kidding? First of all, the PC version was a simultaneous release with the 360 version. By definition, that makes it not a port, because the two versions were developed at the same time. Second, I have both versions (I bought the 360 version and pirated the PC version), and they are exactly the same. The only difference, in fact, is in the PC's favor, what with the fact that you have mouse and keyboard support.