Google Chrome

Dr. KillGood · Post by **Dr. KillGood** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:59 am

Enjoy your data miner.

lifeisbetterwithketchup · Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:35 am

Well, I used it for about half an hour yesterday (while I was really tired

) and for about an hour just now. I like it. The interface is nice and clean, and I like having the tabs at the top of the page; it just makes sense. It renders pages noticibly faster than FF3 does, at least on my P3 Lifebook. Add-ons (especially an Ad-blocker) would be nice, but I'm sure that's coming in due time. BTW, while typing this post, I noticed the textbox bug people are talking about. >_< It's obnoxious.

EDIT: I hope that the Mac and Linux versions render pages the same as Windows, as that's been an issue with Firefox for me. The Linux version renders some pages slightly different (read: wrong) than the Windows version.

Negative_Creep · Post by **Negative_Creep** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:28 am

Electric Rain wrote:I'm too attached to FF and if this new thing ends up being better, I'll have no defense to still use FF. [/img]

Fanboy

FF is overrated lol

This browser is great, it's lighter on the RAM and loads pages faster. It's a BETA, so it will get better in time

Bibin wrote:Maybe it's because most of you have these awful Pentium-III based single-core laptops with slow busses and very low amounts of ram that a multi-core processor-optimized browser is not able to perform as well?

My PC has a Core 2 Duo and 2GB RAM. I still noticed significant difference.

Dr. KillGood · Post by **Dr. KillGood** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:21 am

Also someone said,
"Google only did this to combat IE's ability to block Google ads."

Negative_Creep · Post by **Negative_Creep** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:38 am

REVENGE OF THE FIREFOX FANBOYS OMFG LOLS

Bibin · Post by **Bibin** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:37 am

Negative_Creep wrote:
Electric Rain wrote:
Bibin wrote:Maybe it's because most of you have these awful Pentium-III based single-core laptops with slow busses and very low amounts of ram that a multi-core processor-optimized browser is not able to perform as well?
My PC has a Core 2 Duo and 2GB RAM. I still noticed significant difference.

Wait what? So does mine; I'm saying that having a dual-core PC and lots of ram reaps the benefits of the browser.

Negative_Creep · Post by **Negative_Creep** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:09 am

Bibin wrote:
Negative_Creep wrote:
Electric Rain wrote:
Bibin wrote:Maybe it's because most of you have these awful Pentium-III based single-core laptops with slow busses and very low amounts of ram that a multi-core processor-optimized browser is not able to perform as well?
My PC has a Core 2 Duo and 2GB RAM. I still noticed significant difference.
Wait what? So does mine; I'm saying that having a dual-core PC and lots of ram reaps the benefits of the browser.

oh right lol, I thought you meant the other way round haha. Yeah this new browser kicks ass

Jongamer · Post by **Jongamer** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:12 am

Bibin wrote:
Negative_Creep wrote:
Electric Rain wrote:
Bibin wrote:Maybe it's because most of you have these awful Pentium-III based single-core laptops with slow busses and very low amounts of ram that a multi-core processor-optimized browser is not able to perform as well?
My PC has a Core 2 Duo and 2GB RAM. I still noticed significant difference.
Wait what? So does mine; I'm saying that having a dual-core PC and lots of ram reaps the benefits of the browser.

apparently, because this browser in NO WAY is lighter on the RAM on my computer.

and if it is lighter on the RAM on a dual core, that doesn't make a lick of damn sense at all.

Chrome is garbage for the time being.

Personally Chrome ATM is tons worse than IE IMHO, but it is only a beta.

Rekarp · Post by **Rekarp** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:32 am

Tried it out on my EEE. Uses the same amount of ram (within 1-2mb) for both FF and Chrome when I had 9 tabs open. I turned off all the addons for FF by the way. FF wins imo.

Rekarp · Post by **Rekarp** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 11:40 am

oh and have yall read the EULA? Google owns everything you type and upload using there browser. This good be extended to passwords and usernames. Have fun with your keyloggers.

edit good=could? lol

Aguiluz · Post by **Aguiluz** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:37 pm

Rekarp wrote:oh and have yall read the EULA? Google owns everything you type and upload using there browser. This good be extended to passwords and usernames. Have fun with your keyloggers.

Bull****.

*Firewalls out Google Chrome*

Electric Rain · Post by **Electric Rain** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:37 pm

Wait, why are you guys quoting me on that? I never said anything about a Core 2 Duo.

Bibin · Post by **Bibin** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:56 pm

Jongamer wrote:
Bibin wrote:
Negative_Creep wrote:
Electric Rain wrote:
Bibin wrote:Maybe it's because most of you have these awful Pentium-III based single-core laptops with slow busses and very low amounts of ram that a multi-core processor-optimized browser is not able to perform as well?
My PC has a Core 2 Duo and 2GB RAM. I still noticed significant difference.
Wait what? So does mine; I'm saying that having a dual-core PC and lots of ram reaps the benefits of the browser.
apparently, because this browser in NO WAY is lighter on the RAM on my computer.

and if it is lighter on the RAM on a dual core, that doesn't make a lick of damn sense at all.

Chrome is garbage for the time being.

Personally Chrome ATM is tons worse than IE IMHO, but it is only a beta.

That's certainly not what I said. We are not talking the processor influencing the lightness of RAM usage; I'm just saying that I have lots of ram and it helps too. most people have over 256MB, and those who don't should seriously consider upgrading their hardware in various ways to get at least 1GB; stop saying 256MB is enough.

It's the processor that makes it faster. It's dual core. Mutlitasking. Two processes running simultaniously. This is one of the prime reasons this browser is so fast. It opens near instantaniously on all of my computers, including my horrible Dell c600 with a Mobile Pentium III at 800mhz, my Fujitsu's P4 at 1.8ghz (No HT!) and my Core 2 Duo machine. Singlecores simulate this with rapid timesharing; it's not the same. Quad cores get it even better. I think you can figure out that eight-core processors do even better. Downloading files usually pushes the speed to the limits of my ISP. This browser, once complete with features and such, is going to reign supreme.

Rekarp · Post by **Rekarp** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:57 pm

Bibin wrote:
Jongamer wrote:
Bibin wrote:
Negative_Creep wrote:
Electric Rain wrote:
Bibin wrote:Maybe it's because most of you have these awful Pentium-III based single-core laptops with slow busses and very low amounts of ram that a multi-core processor-optimized browser is not able to perform as well?
My PC has a Core 2 Duo and 2GB RAM. I still noticed significant difference.
Wait what? So does mine; I'm saying that having a dual-core PC and lots of ram reaps the benefits of the browser.
apparently, because this browser in NO WAY is lighter on the RAM on my computer.

and if it is lighter on the RAM on a dual core, that doesn't make a lick of damn sense at all.

Chrome is garbage for the time being.

Personally Chrome ATM is tons worse than IE IMHO, but it is only a beta.
That's certainly not what I said. We are not talking the processor influencing the lightness of RAM usage; I'm just saying that I have lots of ram and it helps too. most people have over 256MB, and those who don't should seriously consider upgrading their hardware in various ways to get at least 1GB; stop saying 256MB is enough.

It's the processor that makes it faster. It's dual core. Mutlitasking. Two processes running simultaniously. This is one of the prime reasons this browser is so fast. It opens near instantaniously on all of my computers, including my horrible Dell c600 with a Mobile Pentium III at 800mhz, my Fujitsu's P4 at 1.8ghz (No HT!) and my Core 2 Duo machine. Singlecores simulate this with rapid timesharing; it's not the same. Quad cores get it even better. I think you can figure out that eight-core processors do even better. Downloading files usually pushes the speed to the limits of my ISP. This browser, once complete with features and such, is going to reign supreme.

You don't need more then 256mb to surf the web, write documents and make spread sheets which is about what 90% of computers out there do. There are allot of stores out there that still use 486 POS systems for inventory and sales.

oh and here

http://lifehacker.com/5044668/beta-brow ... is-fastest

FF has the least amount of memory usage.

Harshboy · Post by **Harshboy** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:17 pm

I love Google but no person or thing can ever pull me away from Firefox.