In addition, Apple cant even get Safari to render the same on different platforms.
We've run into issues where Safari renders things significantly different on the Mac than it does on Windows, both with current version.
Thats just sad, but its also the reality we're in.
Re:BloatWare Continues....
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Chrome is not smaller or less bloated than IE or Firefox. Chrome is intentionally bloated, in the measure of memory consumption. They choose to trade space (memory) for stability and reliability.
Chrome RAPIDLY consumes much more memory than IE or Firefox when using equivalent number of tabs/pages/apps.
Re:BloatWare Continues....
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A couple thoughts in response.
1. You're expecting wildly different mediums to display content the same. I dont think this is reasonable. Phones, kiosks, notebooks/desktops, and tv's all have wildly different typical use cases, resource restrictions and human interaction limitations. Therefore they're all going to work differently.
2. It's not physically possible to have all browser render the same, as there isnt a reference standard to compare to. No reference implementation, no conformance tests. So you're asking them all to render the same as something that doesnt exist.
3. I dont think your'e distinguishing between web 'apps' and web 'sites'. Chrome appears to me to be designed purely for web 'apps'. It may well turn out that people end up using IE, Safari, or Opera for 'surfing' and Chrome for online apps.
But in any case, web apps have different needs than web sites. What is best for one may not be best for the other.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
I do appreciate the response, but thats alot of work for something I do all the time.
With IE I just click the IE icon in my quicklaunch or use a shortcut key, and I get a new process. I dont have to type even one character, much less 30-40.
I know could create batch files, etc. But man thats alot of work to make something happen that should 'just work'.
And sometimes I want 3, 4 or even 5 separate logins into a web app. So now with FF I have to make 4 temporary profiles, and 4 new batch files, each can only be used once, etc. It's a little ridiculous.
Not to mention then you have to make sure your configuration is the same on all the profiles, even over time as your primary one evolves.
It's just a bit much, and there's no good reason for it to be that way that I have ever found or can see.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
The non-crash recovery drove me crazy shortly after installing it. Maybe it inherited some non-default settings from FF2 though, thats possible. After that happened (like an hour after installing ff3), I immediately went and tracked down TabMixPlus.
FF2 had zoom, but it was crap.
It only scaled the fonts, but didnt otherwise adjust the page or images. So it was only even remotely useful for like +1 or -1 font size. Going to like 150% or 200% was just terrible, and made pages unreadable.
Opera and FF3 and IE since v6 have a better zoom, where the whole page scales proportionately (including images, flash/flex apps, etc). Like actually zooming the entire page, but keeping the page width the same, so re-flowing it at the same time.
It works well in FF3, but was terrible in FF2.
I apologize if I get a bit ranty, but I dont understand the zeal around firefox. It's okay, but its just not very nice or polished, and having to install a bunch of plugins just to make it usable drives me crazy.
I just wish it was better out of the box, and had a bit more polish and finish.
I actually really think this approach (many processes) is the right way to go into the future.
Yeah, its resource intensive.
But memory is cheap, desktops/laptops are shipping with 4GB default right now, and I dont mind spending my memory on the apps that I use the most (ie, those that run in web browsers).
Plus it will likely lead to a much more robust and reliable (and simpler) browser platform. Multi-threading is hard, complex, and incredibly error prone. Multi-process programming is much simpler, at the cost of increased resource usage, especially on windows.
But given the trend towards the web browser being the primary platform for running our apps on, I think this is a good path into the future.
Firefox's one-process-only-for-everything is going to paint them into an architectural corner over the next 5 years, I believe.
Re:Chrome iPhone
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Just use the 'Private Bytes' in windows, and that'll give you what you need.
Thats what you see by default in Vista's task manager, and in the Chrome task manager.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1, Informative
But Firefox is a feature-rich, mature browser, lean in itself, but with lots of add-ons tailored to individuals with individual requirements.
Are you kidding me?
Firefox is anything but feature rich, and only functional when you spend a bunch of time researching and downloading plugins. It's bare bones and crappy without at least 5-10 plugins.
And lean it is not. Wow, I mean, not even close.
Right now, I've got Opera, Firefox and Chrome running.
Firefox had 38 tabs open, Opera has 33, and Chrome has 5. Opera has been running the longest.
Firefox (v3, after they've 'solved' all the memory leaks) us using ~360M private bytes.
Opera is using ~160M, and Chrome is using ~125M.
It's improved, as firefox2 in this usage scenario would climb to over 1GB of private bytes before long, whereas now with 3 it seems to plateau for my usage at about 500M.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Firefox gives me themes. Let's talk when Chrome offers them.
Wouldnt it be better to make it look halfway decent from the start? Then users wouldnt need to waste their time hunting down themes.
3. Web Developer Bar (nothing like this on ANY other browser) 4. FireBug (nothing like this on ANY other browser, not even Safari's inbuilt "Develop" menu options comes close for debugging)
Every major browser has an equivalent, usually nearly identical.
This irritates me. The default tab behavior on FireFox is terrible. I dont think anyone I know actually uses it as is.
Heck, by default Firefox wont even remember your last session (ie, what tabs you had open, etc) if it crashes. How lame is that.
You shouldnt need TabMixPlus (mind you, thats what I use too on firefox, out of need) if the tabs behaved reasonably out of the box.
9. Foxmarks which makes sure all my bookmarks (and their keyboard shortcuts) are exactly the same in my office, on my three home machines (XP, Leopard, Ubuntu)
Does anyone actually use bookmarks anymore? I just dont close the tab, and leave it running there for months or years or whatever. Or just use the auto-complete history.
I'm half joking here... half not. I havent used bookmarks since like the early Netscape days.
Dont get me wrong, extensions in Firefox are better than NOT having them. But why cant the Mozilla folks just make Firefox better out of the box. Every time I have to build a new machine for me, or move to another, I spend 5 times as much time remembering, downloading, and configuring extensions as I do just downloading and installing firefox itself. I'd rather the product was just better in the first place, and then it wouldnt need as many extensions (and wouldnt waste so much of my time).
But with Firefox, you need plugins/extensions to do ANYTHING. The product is just not that good out of the box. But you shouldnt have to spend so much time doing that, when they could just make the product more reasonable from the start.
Until recently, the reasons to use FireFox was web app development, because of FireBug, LiveHTTP Headers, and Web Developer Toolbar. Plus it had the most consistently reliable javascript performance for non-IE targeted web apps.
But nowadays all the browsers have Firebug, webdev, and livehttp headers equivalents. And it looks like Chrome will be the new standard for testing javascript heavy web apps. And of course you use IE for the apps that need IE (Exchange OWA, tons of corporate intranet apps, sharepoint, etc).
And I use opera for my non-dev browsing (ie, slashdot, digg, theregister, serverside.com/.net, newspapers, blogs, naked ladies, etc). It doesnt crash as often, it doesnt suck memory so badly, page zooming actually works and has for years (firefox just barely got reasonable page zoome with 3), it works reasonably without a million plugins, etc.
I dont mean this to sound as anti-firefox ranty as it probably does. Firefox has its place, and I'm glad its there. But its just not a very good tool, outside of being a very extensible general tool. And its a shame, because you have something like Opera that 'just works' and is nearly flawless, not to mention lean, fast, and beautiful.
So for 'personal browsing' type of use, Opera is better, at least IMO. And for app-dev/app-use, what FireFox used to be the king of, Chrom
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As it stands today, Chrome is a bloody useless browser, and it looks butt-ugly to boot.
Thats quite an amazing thing to say as a comparison to FireFox.
Firefox has always looked like it was done by a bunch of high school art students. Mediocre ones.
It's better with 3.x than ever before, but still not very good. Looks like it was done by a bunch of amateurs who have never heard of high-dpi icons and graphics. Blocky, dumbed-down, etc.
As a comparison, Opera is a gorgeous browser. Elegant metallic chrome, beautiful high-dpi icons, gorgeous glossy black tab bar, and so nicely compact.
Even IE7 does a better job with graphics and color and icons, even if their button layout is atrocious.
Chrome has gone the minimalist direction, and it works well for it. I still like Opera better, but Chrome has a decent, bare-bones, get-out-of-your-way look to it.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
No, it doesnt.
You cant just create another instance of FireFox, you have to create another profile for each simultaneous instance running, and launch each additional instance on that profile.
And you know what, I cant even find out how to create a new profile quickly. Possibly another command line option that I'm not finding at the moment.
And frankly, I havent seen 'profiles' in a browser since ancient Netscape versions.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Consider using Flex against a Rails or Java (or anything that can dish REST or SOAP) back-end.
Gives you ubiquitous, no-install deployability of web apps, but without having to self-garrote over HTML/JavaScript/DOM incompatibilities.
Flex/BlazeDS/Java/Spring/Hibernate is incredibly powerful.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, it was good.
Talked about, even if it didnt solve, nearly every architectural problem with browsers nowadays. Even the infamous 'youre only as secure as your crappies plugin' problem.
Though not sure exactly how they're going to solve that last one.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
You can just consider leaving the page you want as-is, and opening the next link in a new tab.
Right click and 'open in new tab' or whatever the exact wording is in the browser you're using.
Saves strokes too, compared to the CTRL+N and backspace.
I remember I used to do that years ago before tabbed browsers being commonplace.
Now I just love opening everything I want to read later in a 'background tab' and letting it sit there for weeks or months until I get to it, if I want to.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Selling ads represents a failure of creativity of the webmaster.
You cant be serious.
Selling ads doesnt represent a failure of the creativity of the creator, it represents a CHOICE of business model.
Content creation and business model are not the same thing. Even the most amazing product still requires figuring out how to translate neat product into a sustainable business.
For many companies, ad revenue is the only way to do it. Consumers are notoriously unwilling to pay per transaction charges for incremental content (articles, cartoons, etc).
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
I dont think you should feel guilty.
But you should be aware that its not sustainable.
So it only works if only a minority of people are blocking. If everyone does, the system falls apart, and someone will have to come up with a new business model that works.
It's an interesting situation. TV with Tivos/DVRs are in the same situation. The difference is that content/distribution companies can use various techniques to pressure/control/restrict DVR makers. There's no equivalent way to do so in the web browser world. Which is one of the reasons I bet that google spent the money on this project.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
When you hit Ctrl+N the window that pops up is a blank window. In IE it's a clone of the current window, which is far more useful.
Really? Why?
I cant imagine a use case where that would be useful.
Nearly 100% of the time when I spawn a new tab I want to immediately have focus in the address bar so I can type the address of where I was going.
Why would you want another copy of content you already have?
I'm not trying to be difficult, I just really cannot visualize the use case for this.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
How did you not stumble on the broken installer?
It installs the entire application in the user profile, without asking or informing.
So when you elevate/runas to install, and the install finishes, its not there! You cant find it in Program Files, cant find it in Add/Remove Programs, cant find it anywhere in the operating system.
Oh wait, they've gone and done something crazy and install it locally in the profile of the admin account you used to do the installation, so its not visible to any other users.
And they did that without ever telling you. Either in the installer, or the download page, or anything.
Seems like a nice app... but man oh man did they make some bad choices on the installer.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Except for one major problem that FireFox has always had, and still isnt fixed:
It's not physically possible to launch a new FireFox.exe process. You need this when you have a site that requires login, and you want to be logged in under multiple sessions, or many different logins at the same time.
Which means you're forced to use IE for that sort of thing. Thats one thing that Chrome does well, abandons the 'One Process to Rule Them All' mentality which is a bane of web developers (I mean app developers, not designers).
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Oh... how sad. FAIL FOR YOU slashdot.
CTRL+ENTER should do a preview or submit, like every other app on the planet.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Seems a pain though, when Opera comes with 99% of the functionality you want, the way you want it, right out of the box.
FireFox's session management is just terrible, out of the box, for example. It requires TabMixPlus and alot of configuration to make it reasonable.
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).
And why cant I move the tab bar to the bottom of the window with FireFox? Thats where my mouse spends all its time, anyway. I'm sure its possible with a plugin that someone may or may not have written, but shouldnt that level of customizability be built in by default?
To use the ever-present car analogy:
Opera is like a Ferrari. Beautiful, functional, elegant, right out of the box. Fast, lean with everything just perfect, and oh so beautiful.
FireFox is like a kit car. Sure you can theoretically make it as fast and nice as Opera. But it would take years and huge funds to get all the polish and value. It takes massive modifications to make it useful, and even with all the mods/add-ins, it'll never be as nice and elegant as Opera, though you can make it more or less as powerful (with a fair amount of work).
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, you got the entire answer right, most of the others were just wrong or partial answers.
In addition, Apple cant even get Safari to render the same on different platforms.
We've run into issues where Safari renders things significantly different on the Mac than it does on Windows, both with current version.
Thats just sad, but its also the reality we're in.
Chrome is not smaller or less bloated than IE or Firefox. Chrome is intentionally bloated, in the measure of memory consumption. They choose to trade space (memory) for stability and reliability.
Chrome RAPIDLY consumes much more memory than IE or Firefox when using equivalent number of tabs/pages/apps.
A couple thoughts in response.
1. You're expecting wildly different mediums to display content the same. I dont think this is reasonable. Phones, kiosks, notebooks/desktops, and tv's all have wildly different typical use cases, resource restrictions and human interaction limitations. Therefore they're all going to work differently.
2. It's not physically possible to have all browser render the same, as there isnt a reference standard to compare to. No reference implementation, no conformance tests. So you're asking them all to render the same as something that doesnt exist.
3. I dont think your'e distinguishing between web 'apps' and web 'sites'. Chrome appears to me to be designed purely for web 'apps'. It may well turn out that people end up using IE, Safari, or Opera for 'surfing' and Chrome for online apps.
But in any case, web apps have different needs than web sites. What is best for one may not be best for the other.
I do appreciate the response, but thats alot of work for something I do all the time.
With IE I just click the IE icon in my quicklaunch or use a shortcut key, and I get a new process. I dont have to type even one character, much less 30-40.
I know could create batch files, etc. But man thats alot of work to make something happen that should 'just work'.
And sometimes I want 3, 4 or even 5 separate logins into a web app. So now with FF I have to make 4 temporary profiles, and 4 new batch files, each can only be used once, etc. It's a little ridiculous.
Not to mention then you have to make sure your configuration is the same on all the profiles, even over time as your primary one evolves.
It's just a bit much, and there's no good reason for it to be that way that I have ever found or can see.
The non-crash recovery drove me crazy shortly after installing it. Maybe it inherited some non-default settings from FF2 though, thats possible. After that happened (like an hour after installing ff3), I immediately went and tracked down TabMixPlus.
FF2 had zoom, but it was crap.
It only scaled the fonts, but didnt otherwise adjust the page or images. So it was only even remotely useful for like +1 or -1 font size. Going to like 150% or 200% was just terrible, and made pages unreadable.
Opera and FF3 and IE since v6 have a better zoom, where the whole page scales proportionately (including images, flash/flex apps, etc). Like actually zooming the entire page, but keeping the page width the same, so re-flowing it at the same time.
It works well in FF3, but was terrible in FF2.
I apologize if I get a bit ranty, but I dont understand the zeal around firefox. It's okay, but its just not very nice or polished, and having to install a bunch of plugins just to make it usable drives me crazy.
I just wish it was better out of the box, and had a bit more polish and finish.
No, it just means that it's taken resources away from the half dozen other things I'm doing in the background, making my whole system slower.
Using more resources (memory) doesnt inherently slow other apps down or take anything away from them.
It only slows other apps down in the very specific case where using more resources uses the last of your memory, and you have to start paging.
But in general, using more resources does NOT slow other apps down, only when you're already resource constrained.
Actually, its almost always the other way around. Classic time/space tradeoff.
Usually, you bleed space for faster execution, or if your space is tight, you optimize for that often at the cost of execution time.
In one way, this is exactly the approach for Chrome. Except its a stability&security/space tradeoff.
The multi-process approach is much more robust, and easier to secure, and simpler to code. But it uses up a lot more resources.
You realize that Chrome does precisely that, right?
Like right now, I opened a page with a flex app.
The tab running the page is one chrome.exe process, and the flash plugin is running in a different chrome.exe process.
I'm not sure yet whether if the flash plugin crashes whether it'll also take out its 'parent' process though.
I actually really think this approach (many processes) is the right way to go into the future.
Yeah, its resource intensive.
But memory is cheap, desktops/laptops are shipping with 4GB default right now, and I dont mind spending my memory on the apps that I use the most (ie, those that run in web browsers).
Plus it will likely lead to a much more robust and reliable (and simpler) browser platform. Multi-threading is hard, complex, and incredibly error prone. Multi-process programming is much simpler, at the cost of increased resource usage, especially on windows.
But given the trend towards the web browser being the primary platform for running our apps on, I think this is a good path into the future.
Firefox's one-process-only-for-everything is going to paint them into an architectural corner over the next 5 years, I believe.
Just use the 'Private Bytes' in windows, and that'll give you what you need.
Thats what you see by default in Vista's task manager, and in the Chrome task manager.
But Firefox is a feature-rich, mature browser, lean in itself, but with lots of add-ons tailored to individuals with individual requirements.
Are you kidding me?
Firefox is anything but feature rich, and only functional when you spend a bunch of time researching and downloading plugins. It's bare bones and crappy without at least 5-10 plugins.
And lean it is not. Wow, I mean, not even close.
Right now, I've got Opera, Firefox and Chrome running.
Firefox had 38 tabs open, Opera has 33, and Chrome has 5. Opera has been running the longest.
Firefox (v3, after they've 'solved' all the memory leaks) us using ~360M private bytes.
Opera is using ~160M, and Chrome is using ~125M.
It's improved, as firefox2 in this usage scenario would climb to over 1GB of private bytes before long, whereas now with 3 it seems to plateau for my usage at about 500M.
Firefox gives me themes. Let's talk when Chrome offers them.
Wouldnt it be better to make it look halfway decent from the start? Then users wouldnt need to waste their time hunting down themes.
3. Web Developer Bar (nothing like this on ANY other browser)
4. FireBug (nothing like this on ANY other browser, not even Safari's inbuilt "Develop" menu options comes close for debugging)
Every major browser has an equivalent, usually nearly identical.
IE Web Developer Toolbar
Opera Web Developer Toolbar (old version, not super great)
Opera Dragonfly (new developer tools)
Plus there's always FireBug Lite.
7. Tabmix Plus
This irritates me. The default tab behavior on FireFox is terrible. I dont think anyone I know actually uses it as is.
Heck, by default Firefox wont even remember your last session (ie, what tabs you had open, etc) if it crashes. How lame is that.
You shouldnt need TabMixPlus (mind you, thats what I use too on firefox, out of need) if the tabs behaved reasonably out of the box.
9. Foxmarks which makes sure all my bookmarks (and their keyboard shortcuts) are exactly the same in my office, on my three home machines (XP, Leopard, Ubuntu)
Does anyone actually use bookmarks anymore? I just dont close the tab, and leave it running there for months or years or whatever. Or just use the auto-complete history.
I'm half joking here ... half not. I havent used bookmarks since like the early Netscape days.
Dont get me wrong, extensions in Firefox are better than NOT having them. But why cant the Mozilla folks just make Firefox better out of the box. Every time I have to build a new machine for me, or move to another, I spend 5 times as much time remembering, downloading, and configuring extensions as I do just downloading and installing firefox itself. I'd rather the product was just better in the first place, and then it wouldnt need as many extensions (and wouldnt waste so much of my time).
But with Firefox, you need plugins/extensions to do ANYTHING. The product is just not that good out of the box. But you shouldnt have to spend so much time doing that, when they could just make the product more reasonable from the start.
Until recently, the reasons to use FireFox was web app development, because of FireBug, LiveHTTP Headers, and Web Developer Toolbar. Plus it had the most consistently reliable javascript performance for non-IE targeted web apps.
But nowadays all the browsers have Firebug, webdev, and livehttp headers equivalents. And it looks like Chrome will be the new standard for testing javascript heavy web apps. And of course you use IE for the apps that need IE (Exchange OWA, tons of corporate intranet apps, sharepoint, etc).
And I use opera for my non-dev browsing (ie, slashdot, digg, theregister, serverside .com/.net, newspapers, blogs, naked ladies, etc). It doesnt crash as often, it doesnt suck memory so badly, page zooming actually works and has for years (firefox just barely got reasonable page zoome with 3), it works reasonably without a million plugins, etc.
I dont mean this to sound as anti-firefox ranty as it probably does. Firefox has its place, and I'm glad its there. But its just not a very good tool, outside of being a very extensible general tool. And its a shame, because you have something like Opera that 'just works' and is nearly flawless, not to mention lean, fast, and beautiful.
So for 'personal browsing' type of use, Opera is better, at least IMO. And for app-dev/app-use, what FireFox used to be the king of, Chrom
As it stands today, Chrome is a bloody useless browser, and it looks butt-ugly to boot.
Thats quite an amazing thing to say as a comparison to FireFox.
Firefox has always looked like it was done by a bunch of high school art students. Mediocre ones.
It's better with 3.x than ever before, but still not very good. Looks like it was done by a bunch of amateurs who have never heard of high-dpi icons and graphics. Blocky, dumbed-down, etc.
As a comparison, Opera is a gorgeous browser. Elegant metallic chrome, beautiful high-dpi icons, gorgeous glossy black tab bar, and so nicely compact.
Even IE7 does a better job with graphics and color and icons, even if their button layout is atrocious.
Chrome has gone the minimalist direction, and it works well for it. I still like Opera better, but Chrome has a decent, bare-bones, get-out-of-your-way look to it.
No, it doesnt.
You cant just create another instance of FireFox, you have to create another profile for each simultaneous instance running, and launch each additional instance on that profile.
And you know what, I cant even find out how to create a new profile quickly. Possibly another command line option that I'm not finding at the moment.
And frankly, I havent seen 'profiles' in a browser since ancient Netscape versions.
Consider using Flex against a Rails or Java (or anything that can dish REST or SOAP) back-end.
Gives you ubiquitous, no-install deployability of web apps, but without having to self-garrote over HTML/JavaScript/DOM incompatibilities.
Flex/BlazeDS/Java/Spring/Hibernate is incredibly powerful.
Yeah, it was good.
Talked about, even if it didnt solve, nearly every architectural problem with browsers nowadays. Even the infamous 'youre only as secure as your crappies plugin' problem.
Though not sure exactly how they're going to solve that last one.
You can just consider leaving the page you want as-is, and opening the next link in a new tab.
Right click and 'open in new tab' or whatever the exact wording is in the browser you're using.
Saves strokes too, compared to the CTRL+N and backspace.
I remember I used to do that years ago before tabbed browsers being commonplace.
Now I just love opening everything I want to read later in a 'background tab' and letting it sit there for weeks or months until I get to it, if I want to.
Selling ads represents a failure of creativity of the webmaster.
You cant be serious.
Selling ads doesnt represent a failure of the creativity of the creator, it represents a CHOICE of business model.
Content creation and business model are not the same thing. Even the most amazing product still requires figuring out how to translate neat product into a sustainable business.
For many companies, ad revenue is the only way to do it. Consumers are notoriously unwilling to pay per transaction charges for incremental content (articles, cartoons, etc).
I dont think you should feel guilty.
But you should be aware that its not sustainable.
So it only works if only a minority of people are blocking. If everyone does, the system falls apart, and someone will have to come up with a new business model that works.
It's an interesting situation. TV with Tivos/DVRs are in the same situation. The difference is that content/distribution companies can use various techniques to pressure/control/restrict DVR makers. There's no equivalent way to do so in the web browser world. Which is one of the reasons I bet that google spent the money on this project.
When you hit Ctrl+N the window that pops up is a blank window. In IE it's a clone of the current window, which is far more useful.
Really? Why?
I cant imagine a use case where that would be useful.
Nearly 100% of the time when I spawn a new tab I want to immediately have focus in the address bar so I can type the address of where I was going.
Why would you want another copy of content you already have?
I'm not trying to be difficult, I just really cannot visualize the use case for this.
How did you not stumble on the broken installer?
It installs the entire application in the user profile, without asking or informing.
So when you elevate/runas to install, and the install finishes, its not there! You cant find it in Program Files, cant find it in Add/Remove Programs, cant find it anywhere in the operating system.
Oh wait, they've gone and done something crazy and install it locally in the profile of the admin account you used to do the installation, so its not visible to any other users.
And they did that without ever telling you. Either in the installer, or the download page, or anything.
Seems like a nice app ... but man oh man did they make some bad choices on the installer.
Except for one major problem that FireFox has always had, and still isnt fixed:
It's not physically possible to launch a new FireFox.exe process. You need this when you have a site that requires login, and you want to be logged in under multiple sessions, or many different logins at the same time.
Which means you're forced to use IE for that sort of thing. Thats one thing that Chrome does well, abandons the 'One Process to Rule Them All' mentality which is a bane of web developers (I mean app developers, not designers).
Oh ... how sad. FAIL FOR YOU slashdot.
CTRL+ENTER should do a preview or submit, like every other app on the planet.
Seems a pain though, when Opera comes with 99% of the functionality you want, the way you want it, right out of the box.
FireFox's session management is just terrible, out of the box, for example. It requires TabMixPlus and alot of configuration to make it reasonable.
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).
And why cant I move the tab bar to the bottom of the window with FireFox? Thats where my mouse spends all its time, anyway. I'm sure its possible with a plugin that someone may or may not have written, but shouldnt that level of customizability be built in by default?
To use the ever-present car analogy:
Opera is like a Ferrari. Beautiful, functional, elegant, right out of the box. Fast, lean with everything just perfect, and oh so beautiful.
FireFox is like a kit car. Sure you can theoretically make it as fast and nice as Opera. But it would take years and huge funds to get all the polish and value. It takes massive modifications to make it useful, and even with all the mods/add-ins, it'll never be as nice and elegant as Opera, though you can make it more or less as powerful (with a fair amount of work).