Let me remind you that YouTube is not making Google profit (IIRC).
This makes it even more important to get away from the ever-increasing H.264 licensing costs. Things are looking bleak from 2011 when they will tighten the grip.
Licensing H.264 from 2011 will cost you according to usage. Bandwidth and storage will keep getting cheaper, but licensing costs for H.264 will continue to increase. Do the math.
The first browser I used that had tabs was on Windows 3.1. It was from a company called GNN, that AOL had bought before becoming an ISP in their own right.
Really? What was that browser called?
Opera and FF were both VERY late to the table with tabs.
Chrome's UI is snappier than Firefox, but not Opera. Especially with 100 tabs open. Actually, Chrome can't even seem to handle that many tabs, while Opera does it with ease.
Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro
on
Google About Openness
·
· Score: 1
You just confirmed that they want anything that isn't their core business to be open, while they want to keep their own stuff closed. The stuff that matters for their bottom line.
Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro
on
Google About Openness
·
· Score: 1
I guess the problem is that Google is talking about how everyone should be doing something when it benefits Google, but they will not open up their core business. So why are they telling other people to? Of course Google should be criticized when they make hypocritical comments. Google is not above all criticism.
Firefox didn't actually render the sites correctly as such. It was the sites that were designed to work with the latest Netscape version, and Firefox used the same engine. So it got free compatibility from sites.
I never claimed that no one else wanted extensions. I pointed out that just because you want something doesn't mean that it is something Opera absolutely must do, even if some other people want it as well.
It makes Anakin a much less sympathetic character. He desires power and is driven by ego, and Palpatine manipulates him by offering those things.
Er, isn't that kind of the point? A lot of things come together to turn him into this badass motherfucker, including being manipulated, his own anger and despair, etc.
No, Firefox 2 and 3 were definitely not faster than Opera. Remember, Opera 9.5 was the fastest browser at the time. It had HUGE performance gains over the previous version. Then Safari and Chrome got their new JS engines. Now Opera 10.5 is here, and back at the top. Firefox never really competed in the performance department at all.
Again, Opera does not operate that way. Final versions are even more optimized than alphas and betas. This whole discussion is pointless because you are making false assumptions about Opera based on your own ignorance. They do not remove things that are not rendering properly. Instead they ask people to report when something doesn't render things properly so that it can be fixed!
Never mind the fact that alphas and betas could have debugging code which actually makes them slower.
Ah, so debug code doing all sorts of checks and logging will NOT slow things down, but final, optimized code will! Your logic sucks. You are just an ignorant troll.
In my experience Safari's compatibility with sites i pretty pathetic compared to Opera. Opera was designed from the ground up to be compatible. Safari will happily sacrifice compatibility for speed (even though they are only the 3rd fastest browser now, behind Opera and Chrome).
What about ACTUAL features that users have been begging for, for 5 or 6 versions.
So because you want something, they must add it or their focus is wrong? Also, if you had paid attention, you would have noticed that there's a lot of new stuff there apart from the speed.
Like a lot more control over ui customization.(try getting the menu next to your buttons so as not to waste a full row, and no, fake menus made of buttons do not behave like menus)
This is crazy. "I want more control, but I will specifically exclude the nearly limitless UI customization options that are there already." If you specifically exclude things it can do that you want, you can make any claim.
Like type as you find?
What, you mean Opera's inline find, which they added ages before Firefox was even being considered?
Features wise, opera only seems to like adding stuff pertinent to a select few, and ignore the rest of the world.
Yeah, because if they don't add exactly what you personally want, it's "just for a selected few"...
It's just a browser that needs to get out of the dark age of control-is-security.
I actually think it's just you who needs to get his head out of his ass. But that's just me.
No, many features aren't fully implemented and there are shortcuts that avoid blocks of required code. This is why not all pages are rendering properly. Once these get fixed it will seem to slow down in order to fill all the requirements.
Again, they aren't shortcuts that make things faster. They are bug that actually often make things slower.
Who knows what threads arent running currently and what features are turned off in the browser that normally would be.
We know that features you don't use don't actually affect performance, so that's irrelevant.
Opera 10.5 isn't fast because it does shortcuts or lacks features. It's fast because the Opera devs know how to write fast code.
What things would they add that would start running in the background? If you don't add mail, the mail client won't be "running" so it won't affect performance. They add all the features, then they optimize the hell out of them. How did you think Opera got to be this fast (older versions)?
Slashdot Mirror
This makes it even more important to get away from the ever-increasing H.264 licensing costs. Things are looking bleak from 2011 when they will tighten the grip.
Licensing H.264 from 2011 will cost you according to usage. Bandwidth and storage will keep getting cheaper, but licensing costs for H.264 will continue to increase. Do the math.
Really? What was that browser called?
Opera certainly wasn't late.
So if you don't have a working methodology, just pick a random one? How is false data better than no data?
Browsers? As in all versions of IE? I can't think of any other such browsers worth considering.
Really? Where?
Are you surprised. Anyone can get more users by using their online ad monopoly like that.
Opera has always gotten faster despite getting more features. Also, shouldn't the final version be faster since they remove all the debug stuff?
How is it Microsoft's fault if new hardware isn't working with XP?
Chrome's UI is snappier than Firefox, but not Opera. Especially with 100 tabs open. Actually, Chrome can't even seem to handle that many tabs, while Opera does it with ease.
You just confirmed that they want anything that isn't their core business to be open, while they want to keep their own stuff closed. The stuff that matters for their bottom line.
I guess the problem is that Google is talking about how everyone should be doing something when it benefits Google, but they will not open up their core business. So why are they telling other people to? Of course Google should be criticized when they make hypocritical comments. Google is not above all criticism.
Firefox didn't actually render the sites correctly as such. It was the sites that were designed to work with the latest Netscape version, and Firefox used the same engine. So it got free compatibility from sites.
I never claimed that no one else wanted extensions. I pointed out that just because you want something doesn't mean that it is something Opera absolutely must do, even if some other people want it as well.
Er, isn't that kind of the point? A lot of things come together to turn him into this badass motherfucker, including being manipulated, his own anger and despair, etc.
No, Firefox 2 and 3 were definitely not faster than Opera. Remember, Opera 9.5 was the fastest browser at the time. It had HUGE performance gains over the previous version. Then Safari and Chrome got their new JS engines. Now Opera 10.5 is here, and back at the top. Firefox never really competed in the performance department at all.
Never mind the fact that alphas and betas could have debugging code which actually makes them slower.
Never mind the fact that alphas and betas could have debugging code which actually makes them slower.
Ah, so debug code doing all sorts of checks and logging will NOT slow things down, but final, optimized code will! Your logic sucks. You are just an ignorant troll.
Except Anakin wasn't thinking rationally, and he was being held back by the Jedi, causing animosity.
Lawrence_Bird = trolling fail. RTFA.
In my experience Safari's compatibility with sites i pretty pathetic compared to Opera. Opera was designed from the ground up to be compatible. Safari will happily sacrifice compatibility for speed (even though they are only the 3rd fastest browser now, behind Opera and Chrome).
So because you want something, they must add it or their focus is wrong? Also, if you had paid attention, you would have noticed that there's a lot of new stuff there apart from the speed.
This is crazy. "I want more control, but I will specifically exclude the nearly limitless UI customization options that are there already." If you specifically exclude things it can do that you want, you can make any claim.
What, you mean Opera's inline find, which they added ages before Firefox was even being considered?
Yeah, because if they don't add exactly what you personally want, it's "just for a selected few"...
I actually think it's just you who needs to get his head out of his ass. But that's just me.
Again, they aren't shortcuts that make things faster. They are bug that actually often make things slower.
We know that features you don't use don't actually affect performance, so that's irrelevant.
Opera 10.5 isn't fast because it does shortcuts or lacks features. It's fast because the Opera devs know how to write fast code.
Aww, sad that Opera beat the crap out of your fav browser when it comes to speed?
What things would they add that would start running in the background? If you don't add mail, the mail client won't be "running" so it won't affect performance. They add all the features, then they optimize the hell out of them. How did you think Opera got to be this fast (older versions)?