Google Chrome 5.0 vs Mozilla 3.x
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: alt.comp.freeware links at Mon Jun 7 21:20:01 2010
Next: alt.comp.freeware newsgroup statistics for 05/2010
From: Mike Gasson on 7 Jun 2010 09:54 On 07/06/2010 13:59, Craig wrote: > On 06/07/2010 04:37 AM, Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps) wrote: >> I noticed a report claiming that Chrome 5.0 was a lot faster > > Absolutely! Indubitably! Except in certain, broad and poorly-defined > situations. > > "hth," Should I be concerned about using Chrome considering what Google are reputed to do with people's history and browsing data? Before I give it a try.
From: Craig on 7 Jun 2010 11:43 On 06/07/2010 06:54 AM, Mike Gasson wrote: > On 07/06/2010 13:59, Craig wrote: >> On 06/07/2010 04:37 AM, Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps) wrote: >>> I noticed a report claiming that Chrome 5.0 was a lot faster >> >> Absolutely! Indubitably! Except in certain, broad and poorly-defined >> situations. >> >> "hth," > > Should I be concerned about using Chrome considering what Google are > reputed to do with people's history and browsing data? > > Before I give it a try. That's such a big question that I can't even begin to answer it. Try reading over the following. With luck it'll help you decide: <http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php>. It's one of the browsers I use but browser selection is only a small part of the identity-management equation. hth, -- -Craig
From: Poutnik on 7 Jun 2010 12:50 In article <874c10Fi0vU1(a)mid.individual.net>, mtg(a)rosbert.freeserve.co.uk says... > > > Should I be concerned about using Chrome considering what Google are > reputed to do with people's history and browsing data? > > Before I give it a try. Well, Chrome was installed on my Pc for a while only. after realizing it had installed itself into my profile even without asking for location and it had installed a service just for google updates. only one thing left - to say "it was nice to meet you" -- Poutnik The best depends on how the best is defined.
From: Mike Echo on 7 Jun 2010 17:22 In article <huilmj$fc6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, toylet.toylet(a)gmail.com says... > I noticed a report claiming that Chrome 5.0 was a lot faster than > Mozilla 3.x! And Opera 10 was on par with Chrome 5.0! > > Is it really true? To me, speed is not the most important factor. Yes, FF is still a bit slower compared to Chrome or Opera but it remains my first choice. R.
From: VanguardLH on 7 Jun 2010 17:49
Mike Easter wrote: > Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps) wrote: >> >> I noticed a report claiming that Chrome 5.0 was a lot faster than >> Mozilla 3.x! And Opera 10 was on par with Chrome 5.0! >> >> Is it really true? >> > You notice an unlinked report. > > I saw a 2010 Feb betanews report (Opera 10.5 beta beats Chrome 5 dev), > but I haven't seen the latest Opera 10.60 alpha compared to the latest > Chrome 5 development version. > > http://peek.snipr.com/x6o2d Opera's lead over Chrome is no longer a > narrow gap. That article was published on Feb 23 (which means it was compiled earlier than that). Opera 10.5 was release on March 2. 10.53 was released on April 30. I couldn't find a benchmark report at BetaNews on a non-beta 10.5x version (i.e., a released version). One of the problems with Opera 10.5x is dealing with wrapping of the tabs. If you leave the DPI at 100% then wrapping works. If you increase the DPI then wrapping fucks up. When you get a larger LCD monitor with higher resolution, leaving DPI at 100% means every object on the screen gets smaller and you wasted your money because you didn't take advantage of the higher resolution to use it for those objects. By upping the DPI to make the objects about the same size, you get a higher resolution used to paint them (sharper, less jaggies). At 1600, you should be at 120%. At 1900, you should be at 150%. If you don't up the DPI as you up the monitor's resolution, you wasted money buying a bigger LCD monitor with higher resolution. There was also a problem that text inside cells of a table were extending outside the cell boundaries. Streaming support is erratic: some plays, some doesn't. Chinese characters have an extraneous space between them. Multi-language pages can end up with characters overlapped. Problems were reported when upgrading from 10.1 to 10.5 so the recommendation was to uninstall 10.1 and then install 10.5. Looks like Opera scrambled to get out 10.5 so they could make it into Microsoft's choice screen for the European versions of Windows (ah, the wonderful EU enforcing nebulous requirements). Opera 10.5 is a bit too rough right now so I'll wait until another slew of hotfixes addresses the problems they put into the one-weekend flood of changes they made. Most of what I know of Opera was from reading up on it back in March. They might've made additional bug fixes since then (along with more bugs discovered and some getting reported). Speed isn't the only measure of why users choose a web browser. I suspect Chrome hasn't taken off faster simply because it is far less configurable than other web browsers. It was a long time before they added extension support. Of course, you get leapfrogging in the benchmarks. Now Chrome 5 Dev just barely beats Opera 10.5 in the SunSpider benchmark. I waited 7 months before switching from IE7 to IE8 to ensure getting a more stable version with all the hotfixes. I'd probably wait as long before spending time installing and trialing Opera. I've trialed Chrome and it was much faster than IE8 but the lack of configurability was disappointing. |