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: The Chief Instigator on 10 Jun 2010 00:44 On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 01:07:41 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: > The Chief Instigator <patrick(a)prismnet.com> wrote in > news:slrni107v9.2a5l.patrick(a)eris.io.com: > >> That's one of the reasons I'm using SRWare Iron...and it's more than a >> bit faster than Google Chrome. > > No it isn't. I tested both side by side...virtually the same though > Chrome has a bit of an edge. I suppose that is because they are at least > one step behind the dev's and likely much more. All of Chrome's engine is > not Open Source. No kidding...SRWare Iron reponds faster than Google Chrome, which "updates" your version of it without your consent, so you can report the problems their automatic updates cause. -- Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick(a)io.com) Houston, Texas www.prismnet.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11) NEXT GAME: The 2010-11 opener, in October 2010
From: »Q« on 10 Jun 2010 00:50 In <news:Xns9D92CD8081C75bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)news.albasani.net>, Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: > The Chief Instigator <patrick(a)prismnet.com> wrote in > news:slrni107v9.2a5l.patrick(a)eris.io.com: > > > That's one of the reasons I'm using SRWare Iron...and it's more > > than a bit faster than Google Chrome. > > "In September 2008, Google released a large portion of Chrome's > source code, including its V8 JavaScript engine, as an open source > project entitled Chromium." Wikipedia. > > But they did not release all of it. According to the Wikipedia, "Google takes this [Chromium] source code and adds on the Google name and logo, an auto-updater system called GoogleUpdate, an opt-in option for users to send Google their usage statistics and crash reports as well as RLZ-tracking which transmits information in encoded form to Google, for example, when and where Chrome has been downloaded." I can't imagine even all that would slow it down much, but I suppose you could be right about it.
From: VanguardLH on 10 Jun 2010 02:37 Spamblk wrote: (NOTE: Geez, I thought XNews was one of the good newsreaders that didn't slice apart long URLs across multiple lines.) > VanguardLH wrote: > >> I don't remember for which version and thereafter, but it looks like >> Google removed the ClientID string to identify your particular >> install. I think that change was pretty recent. > > "Removed" doesn't appear to me to be the best word, a better word > IMHO would be "change" e.g. > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/16/google_chrome_unique_identifier_change/ Depends on whether you already have Chrome installed or not. For a fresh install (which is what I did in a VM to look for the ClientID variable definition), that variable is not defined. For an update, the variable's definition gets deleted (removed). You don't get it in a fresh install. That variable isn't defined in the new version. That "feature" got removed from new installs. For an update, the change it performs is to remove the ClientID variable definition. Whether "remove" was due to a change in the installer not creating the variable's definition or "remove" is that the updater deletes the variable definition, the end result is that a feature that was there got removed in a later version of the product. > And even if the unique ID is removed after initial install, it would > appear that Chrome will still insist on its right, as it sees it, to > check for updates and provide the user with no option to opt out: > > http://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/chrome/google-chrome-privacy-whitepaper.pdf As I recall in a prior trial of Chrome, getting rid of the auto-update requires that you uninstall the Google Updater. I think it's listed in Add/Remove Programs. If not, perhaps all you have to do is delete the updater's program file (don't recall its name right now). I'm into trialing Opera right now and am not going to go do another trial install in a VM just to see what program I uninstalled or what file/folder that I deleted to thwart Chrome's auto-update. >: Google Update also sends other information that helps us understand >: how many people are using Chrome and how often they use it. This >: includes whether you used Google Chrome in the last day, the number >: of days since the last time you used it, and the total number of >: days that Google Chrome has been installed. > > The developers of the search engine Google have put a lot of effort > into the development of their products and I think this has led to a > sense of entitlement on their part to gather more and more user data. > As for CEO Schmidt's comments on privacy and the distinction between > doing something wrong and something private is rebutted better on the > pcworld website than I could ever do here. > > http://www.pcworld.com/article/184446/googles_schmidt_roasted_for_privacy_comments.html Alas, more and more products, whether free or paid, are inserting "community" (or another euphemistic term) reporting features that give the software owner more and more information about the users of their product. Microsoft Security Essentials has its community reporting as well as Avast and other security products. They always make it sound inocuous the purpose of this data collection. Their front-end story is "Help us help you by giving us information." They're just following Microsoft's long-time lead of wanting you to report info back on a program error (i.e., the Windows error reporting service). If configurable, I opt out of all this reporting. The terms describing this "feature" is always nebulous and does not constitute a binding contract between them and any user so no matter what they claim they can still do what they want with that info and also alter what info they gather.
From: Phil on 10 Jun 2010 07:34 On 07/06/2010 12:37, 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? > Firefox has become a bit bloated, and - in my personal experience - become Crasherama. Despite all its detractors on here (you'd think it's a mix of an Undercover Neo-Nazi Browser going by some of the comments), Chrome IS faster. (As is Safari) and Opera is at least as fast. And BOTH crash a lot less than Firefox (actually neither has crashed at all for me) (I enjoy doing asides in brackets. Amazing how many newsgroup dwellers it irritates !)
From: Phil on 10 Jun 2010 07:37
On 08/06/2010 04:53, Spamblk wrote: > VanguardLH<V(a)nguard.LH> wrote in news:hujpgb$5jl$1(a)news.albasani.net: > >> 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 will be a looong time before Chrome comes near to FF in > configurability. > > FF can also be reconfigured to speed it up by eliminating some, IMHO YMMV, > gimicks such as "check if a site I visit is a suspected forgery" (takes up > processing time) I also disabled periodic session store (saves file I/O). > IMHO FF 3.6 has improved JavaSript performance. Speak as you find, of course but Ive found the very pluses you talk of as the reasons for it's new nickname of Crasherama Firefox I always have been a dedicated Firefox fan until 3.0 and it's got steadily worse since then. From 3.5 in paticular. |