An interesting browser project of google (opensource)

the.weavster · Post by **the.weavster** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:49 am

moogle wrote:doesn't have the google toolbar

Google toolbar is listed is an Opera 'widget': http://widgets.opera.com/

blueznl · Post by **blueznl** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:59 pm

Did they fix the bugs / holes yet?

moogle · Post by **moogle** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:18 pm

the.weavster wrote:
moogle wrote:doesn't have the google toolbar
Google toolbar is listed is an Opera 'widget': http://widgets.opera.com/

From: http://widgets.opera.com/widget/4282/

(this toolbar is unofficial)

I also mean as in the style of ff.
I removed the right hand top corner one and use the google toolbar instead. quick searching with the highlight buttons.

the.weavster · Post by **the.weavster** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:39 pm

blueznl wrote:Did they fix the bugs / holes yet?

Probably: http://operawatch.com/news/2007/01/what ... fixed.html

JCV · Post by **JCV** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:27 am

Anyone tried the new Internet Explorer 8 Beta?
Its fast as Google Chrome in my experience. There are also many plugins like Adblock, etc is available.

and heres another

Automatic crash recovery
Tab isolation
If a website or add-on causes a tab to crash in Internet Explorer 8, only that tab is affected. The browser itself remains stable and other tabs remain unaffected, thereby minimizing any disruption to your browsing experience.

Crash recovery
If one or more of your tabs do crash, your tabs are automatically reloaded and you are returned to whatever page you were on before the crash.

InPrivate Blocking
Today websites increasingly pull content in from multiple sources, providing tremendous value to consumer and sites alike. Users are often not aware that some content, images, ads and analytics are being provided from third party websites or that these websites have the ability to potentially track their behavior across multiple websites. InPrivate Blocking provides users an added level of control and choice about the information that third party websites can potentially use to track browsing activity.

To use this feature, open a new tab and select InPrivate Browsing, or select "InPrivate Browsing" from the Safety menu. To end your InPrivate Browsing session, simply close the browser window.

Note: Because InPrivate Blocking is designed to watch for and block only third-party content that appears with a high frequency across sites you visit, no content is blocked until such levels are detected, nor is any such content blocked which is served directly by the site you are visiting. Depending on your web browsing activity and sites visited, the amount of time it can take before such content is automatically blocked can vary widely. However, at any time, you can customize which third-party content is blocked or allowed though subscribing to InPrivate allow and block feeds.

and it has very good integrated developer tools.

Fangbeast · Post by **Fangbeast** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:12 am

Mozilla have already pulled the plug on Thunderbird, probably because Google wants everyone to use G-Mail, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Firefox go next.

Wasn't ThunderBird now being developed by individuals now or is it totally dropped by everyone? (I haven't read any announcements)

blueznl · Post by **blueznl** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:46 am

I like that InPrivate Blocking feature that is listed. Haven't tried IE8 though... My experiences with IE have been... not entirely statisfying...

the.weavster · Post by **the.weavster** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:53 pm

Fangbeast wrote:
Mozilla have already pulled the plug on Thunderbird, probably because Google wants everyone to use G-Mail, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Firefox go next.
Wasn't ThunderBird now being developed by individuals now or is it totally dropped by everyone? (I haven't read any announcements)

If you read this and follow the links it does seem the future for Thunderbird is not entirely without hope: http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=22235 I think around 85% of Mozillas funding was coming from Google though so finding the funds to keep it going may be tough.

Having tried and liked Opera I did a little reading up and found the reason Opera are now offering their browser for free is the result of a referral deal with....
Google

With regards to IE8 a work colleague who tried it told me the installation stuffed his computer so badly it wont even boot from the XP installation disk so he can't even get to the recovery console.

gnozal · Post by **gnozal** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:22 pm

And now there is a Google Chrome Anonymizer :
http://www.ghacks.net/2008/09/07/google ... nonymizer/

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:07 pm

gnozal wrote:And now there is a Google Chrome Anonymizer :
http://www.ghacks.net/2008/09/07/google ... nonymizer/

I'm kind of thinking this may be an over reaction?

Looking at the source of the above program in reflector it only strips out the 'client_id' and sets the 'reporting_enabled' variable to false. Both of these are in the 'user_experience_metrics' structure in the '...AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Local State' file. The ''reporting_enabled' variable can be set to false in Chrome by clicking the 'Options>Under The Hood>Help Google make Chrome better....' off.'

Code: Select all

   "user_experience_metrics": {
      "client_id": "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000",
      "client_id_timestamp": "1220391824",
      "num_bookmarks_in_other_bookmark_folder": 88,
      "num_bookmarks_on_bookmark_bar": 57,
      "num_folders_in_other_bookmark_folder": 17,
      "num_folders_on_bookmark_bar": 9,
      "num_keywords": 11,
      "reporting_enabled": false,
      "security": {
         "renderer_on_sbox_desktop": 569
      },

I agree though the unique 'client_id' is a bit worrying.

Trond · Post by **Trond** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:18 am

I hate software that creates folders in My Documents. It's called My Documents for a reason.

You call this browser fast? Typing in the address bar makes the cpu jump to 60-70%. The UI animations are jerky. And some tests:

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/csstest.html
Reload the page and press the "Get All Divs" button.
Opera 9.51: 20-60 ms.
Chrome: 102-280 ms.

http://www.quirksmode.org/dom/innerhtml.html
Use the calculated average from 6 runs:
Opera W3C DOM 1: 209 ms
Chrome W3C DOM 1: 337 ms

Opera W3C DOM 2: 137 ms
Chrome W3C DOM 2: 511 ms

Opera "Table methods": 170 ms
Chrome "Table methods": 267 ms

Opera "innerHTML 1": 47 ms
Chrome "innerHTML 1": 119 ms

Opera "innerHTML 1": 85 ms
Chrome "innerHTML 1": 154 ms

Reloading the page between each test method was also noticeably slower and more jaggy in Chrome.

And the memory usage:
Chrome with one tab (the test page from above): 35332 kb (+ 2mb of updater software which is running in the background even when you do not use Chrome, and does not go away when Chrome is uninstalled.)
Opera with that tab and 3 other big pages: 31756 kb

pdwyer wrote:nice rendering though for a first version

They are actually using WebKit, which means the rending engine has been in development since 1998.

thefool wrote:tried opera for a bit and turned back to firefox again, i just like it. Nothing against opera at all of course, but firefox's feature set and layout just seems to suit me well

Opera's layout can be changed to match Firefox's.

garretthylltun wrote:I was recently using Opera myself, but when I visited a website for some Windows Themes, it infected me with that damn "XP Antivirus 2008" malware program. I was a bit upset because I thought Opera might be a bit more safer to use and wouldn't get hit by such a thing, but it did. So I'm back to using FireFox with some plugins to prevent such things from hitting me again.

Other than that, Opera has come a long long way. Solid, useful, well done if you ask me.

If it did that, it means you clicked "Run" when asked. It's not Opera's fault.

pdwyer · Post by **pdwyer** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:09 pm

This is the first rendering screw up I've seen

http://battlefield.ea.com/battlefield/bf/

It's okay in IE7, no good in Chrome

But then, EA is evil so frak 'em

Post by **Kiffi** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:03 pm

pdwyer wrote:http://battlefield.ea.com/battlefield/bf/

W3C says: 287 Errors

No wonder that Chrome is confused

Greetings ... Kiffi

pdwyer · Post by **pdwyer** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:35 pm

W3C :roll:

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/03/17.html

In practice, with the web, there’s a bit of a problem: no way to test a web page against the standard, because there’s no reference implementation that guarantees that if it works, all the browsers work. This just doesn’t exist.

great article

Rescator · Post by **Rescator** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:43 pm

csstest
FF 3.0.1: ca 33 ms.
Chrome: ca 63 ms.

Use the calculated average from 6 runs:
FF 3.0.1 W3C DOM 1: 80 ms
Chrome W3C DOM 1: 55 ms

FF 3.0.1 W3C DOM 2: 72 ms
Chrome W3C DOM 2: 44 ms

FF 3.0.1 "Table methods": 87 ms
Chrome "Table methods": 57 ms

FF 3.0.1 "innerHTML 1": 39 ms
Chrome "innerHTML 1": 18 ms

FF 3.0.1 "innerHTML 2": 41 ms
Chrome "innerHTML 2": 18 ms

You didn't specify what OS or how many CPU cores you have.
I got a tripple core and 32bit Vista. I think that Chrome is highly tuned to take advantage of multiple cores and is tuned for Vista firstmost and XP secondly.
Vista has much better thread handling than XP as well.

And that BF site is a nightmare. 86KB of html code for THAT?
It's a template slaptogether nightmare. I would never hire the webdesigner that did that mess.
I'm surprised only the vebkit rendered (thus Chrome and Safari and KDE?) chokes on that, possibly a broken comment or html tag someplace?