The key point you're missing is that interoperability is everything to those who aren't IE. And that HTML5 is being driven by vendors sorting out what's actually implementable in reasonable time to a reasonable degree - compare the car crash that is the CSS spec, where someone wrote a wishlist that was largely ambiguous and/or unimplementable. Multiple good implementations of a good spec are to our advantage.
I'm not a Google employee, and per the first post on this story I'm less than enthralled with their habits regarding personal data about people. (I don't see them releasing it, but I do feel uneasy at gathering it all in one place at all.)
That said, I have Google employee friends who regard the place in a sensible manner, certainly as much as my Microsoft employee friends do. It's a company, y'know? Nice place to work, highly imperfect, etc.
200MB memory sounds reasonable too. In my experience of rejuvenating old PCs, a 2000-era Pentium II does just fine doing modern things... if you put 768 to 1024MB memory in it. Modern browsing is fat. (Even Opera, which achieves its speed mostly by cutting corners, and makes Firefox 2 look solid in memory leaks.)
I see no reason not to assume stupidity instead of malice. Remember, they started writing this as a pure Windows application they now have to try to port to Mac and Linux (registry twiddling, DLL hell, etc), rather than writing it cross-platform from the outset - there's copious evidence of stupidity along the way. Developers set free to go "not invented here, I could sooo roll my own better" is hardly unique to Google...
Uh, Google is participating wholeheartedly in the HTML5 effort. Which isn't a W3C standard as yet to become compliant with. Also, Ian Hickson, the editor of HTML5, works for Google (and has previously worked for Opera and Mozilla). It's entirely too much in flux to assert that they're trying to break a standard here.
Nah. They're both good and up-to-date renderers; competition improves quality. The way KDE and Gnome staying separate improves the desktop for both, even though they could happily interchange code.
Note that this doesn't install under Wine - you need the binary Zip file (which I can't find a direct link to) to try it under Wine. And it still doesn't actually work, so find the missing functions and get to work writing them for Wine;-)
Even KDE's switching to WebKit, at least as an option. It appears to be sinking into Apple's head that they can 0wn this project, but playing nice with others is more likely to get them something that works well. You know... open source.
Webkit is completely safe; Apple is completely good and noble. Google will maintain complete confidentiality within the marketing department of whatever the browser accessed concerning your confidential business data, bank account details, medical information and personal preferences in pornography. Apple won't even tell you about you.
"We are so, so happy with Google Chrome," mumbled Mozilla CEO John Lilly through gritted teeth. "That most of our income is from Google has no bearing on me making this statement. Their implementation of our JavaScript is SO GOOD it's... pleasing. Really."
This ad appears to be about winning industry awards rather than selling something. British ad agencies are particularly susceptible to this, but US ones are far from immune.
All this is scaremongering. Your confidential business data, bank account details, personal preferences in pornography, medical records and DNA sequence are strictly a matter between you and Google's marketing department, and no-one else. Remember, they're not evil!
Re:The browser is irrelevant to applications!
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
*cough* It's Chrome's fault! Chrome killed all those kids! NOT MEEEEE!
Slashdot Mirror
The key point you're missing is that interoperability is everything to those who aren't IE. And that HTML5 is being driven by vendors sorting out what's actually implementable in reasonable time to a reasonable degree - compare the car crash that is the CSS spec, where someone wrote a wishlist that was largely ambiguous and/or unimplementable. Multiple good implementations of a good spec are to our advantage.
In this case I suspect Flash is the major offender.
Wine but not Win2k? We all LOLed.
I'm not a Google employee, and per the first post on this story I'm less than enthralled with their habits regarding personal data about people. (I don't see them releasing it, but I do feel uneasy at gathering it all in one place at all.)
That said, I have Google employee friends who regard the place in a sensible manner, certainly as much as my Microsoft employee friends do. It's a company, y'know? Nice place to work, highly imperfect, etc.
200MB memory sounds reasonable too. In my experience of rejuvenating old PCs, a 2000-era Pentium II does just fine doing modern things ... if you put 768 to 1024MB memory in it. Modern browsing is fat. (Even Opera, which achieves its speed mostly by cutting corners, and makes Firefox 2 look solid in memory leaks.)
Dunno. Have you asked them?
I see no reason not to assume stupidity instead of malice. Remember, they started writing this as a pure Windows application they now have to try to port to Mac and Linux (registry twiddling, DLL hell, etc), rather than writing it cross-platform from the outset - there's copious evidence of stupidity along the way. Developers set free to go "not invented here, I could sooo roll my own better" is hardly unique to Google ...
Yeah, I forgot website developers are often idiots ;-p
I haven't had anything keep me out with Konqueror for a while. Except my bank, which accepts Firefox but not SeaMonkey. o_0
Uh, Google is participating wholeheartedly in the HTML5 effort. Which isn't a W3C standard as yet to become compliant with. Also, Ian Hickson, the editor of HTML5, works for Google (and has previously worked for Opera and Mozilla). It's entirely too much in flux to assert that they're trying to break a standard here.
winnah!
Yeah, the fixes are simple enough. Someone just has to write them. That's how Wine gets better :-D
How's it run on a lesser box? Using available resources to do their job is what apps are supposed to do, after all ...
Eh? Non-starter? Apple used it in Safari because it was technically way easier to work with than Gecko.
Nah. They're both good and up-to-date renderers; competition improves quality. The way KDE and Gnome staying separate improves the desktop for both, even though they could happily interchange code.
Direct Google link to standalone installer.
Note that this doesn't install under Wine - you need the binary Zip file (which I can't find a direct link to) to try it under Wine. And it still doesn't actually work, so find the missing functions and get to work writing them for Wine ;-)
Even KDE's switching to WebKit, at least as an option. It appears to be sinking into Apple's head that they can 0wn this project, but playing nice with others is more likely to get them something that works well. You know ... open source.
Webkit is completely safe; Apple is completely good and noble. Google will maintain complete confidentiality within the marketing department of whatever the browser accessed concerning your confidential business data, bank account details, medical information and personal preferences in pornography. Apple won't even tell you about you.
Obviously they have to rewerite it for Google Chrome to compete with the LHC.
"We are so, so happy with Google Chrome," mumbled Mozilla CEO John Lilly through gritted teeth. "That most of our income is from Google has no bearing on me making this statement. Their implementation of our JavaScript is SO GOOD it's ... pleasing. Really."
... is a new Xbox 360 logo.
And I'm sure those $200 cheap Xboxes aren't all refurbished red ring casualties. Not all of them.
You can go to preview.tinyurl.com with the same ending if you don't like mystery meat urls. The full url is as long as yr arm.
This ad appears to be about winning industry awards rather than selling something. British ad agencies are particularly susceptible to this, but US ones are far from immune.
What's the message? "Vista is hard, let's go shopping!"
I toldja, they shoulda gone with a tried and tested comedic genius. http://tinyurl.com/5c3r6y
If they were the US, they'd just license it from Google.
(If they were the UK, they'd probably license it from Microsoft.)
All this is scaremongering. Your confidential business data, bank account details, personal preferences in pornography, medical records and DNA sequence are strictly a matter between you and Google's marketing department, and no-one else. Remember, they're not evil!
*cough* It's Chrome's fault! Chrome killed all those kids! NOT MEEEEE!