Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Chrome Beta Adds Themes, Speed, & HTML 5 Video

CmdrTaco posted about 5 years ago | from the battle-heats-up dept.

Google 207

adeelarshad82 writes "Google developers are always working on and updating Chrome in three channels — Stable, Beta, and Developer — in increasing positions on the bleeding-edge scale. Today the company thought changes to the Beta channel warranted a post on the main Google Blog. The advances range from the superficial addition of themes for customizing the browser's window borders to even faster speed under the hood to internal support for HTML 5 tags such as <video> and 'web workers,' which allows the browser to divvy processing work among sub-threads."

cancel ×

207 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frist post (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28970673)

I always wanted to do that

Anonymous Coward (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28970675)

Using it now, with a sexy theme! Woo!

Still no Adblock though (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28970677)

When will google learn that plugins, especially something like adblock, is the killer feature they need to attract the "willing to switch" audience, a lot of whom are using firefox right now. I personally love Chrome for its speed and stability, used it for a week or so, but then switched right back to Firefox because I just didn't realise how it is to do many things in Firefox with extensions such as adblock, no script, autopager, del.icio.us integration etc.

Idiot (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28970707)

No one gives a shit that you still use that stinking outdated pile of shit Firefox.

Re:Idiot (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28970817)

Ah I understand...
Looking at those flashing, blinking ads all day long would turn me into an angry frothing grumbler too...

Re:Idiot (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28970955)

ROLF + MAO = ROLFMAO

Re:Idiot (1)

silent_artichoke (973182) | about 5 years ago | (#28971643)

AC was laughing so hard on the floor, he got dyslexia in his ROFL!

Re:Still no Adblock though (4, Insightful)

Bashae (1250564) | about 5 years ago | (#28970713)

Maybe you're asking a little too much from Google. Remember that a significant share of their revenue comes from web advertising...

Re:Still no Adblock though (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28970845)

There is an Adblock already for 3.0 beta version.

Re:Still no Adblock though (2)

noundi (1044080) | about 5 years ago | (#28970889)

I think mainly people hate the flashing banners (usually made in flash) jumping around the screen. The way google advertises is to me rather harmless. I have no problems with advertisement, it finances many of my favourite services, but when you're forced to dig your way through the ads in order to get to the content someone failed horribly. As far as I know adblock doesn't filter google ads.

Re:Still no Adblock though (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 5 years ago | (#28971275)

My impression is that AdBlock Plus for Firefox blocks all ads, or at least tries to block all ads. Chrome seems to block popup ads well, and if there were an extension that blocked just Flash ads that would be good enough for me. The simple text and non-animated graphic ads at the sides of web pages don't bother me.

Re:Still no Adblock though (1)

RocketScientist (15198) | about 5 years ago | (#28971597)

Agreed. If there was a flash block extension and an extension to un-animate animated GIFs and such I'd use chrome. I don't mind Google's ads. Until then, I'll make do with Firefox.

I am willing to accept unobstrusice ads (5, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 5 years ago | (#28971735)

I hate the flashing banners, pop ups, pop unders, and distracting flash animations etc as much as anyone. But I do not mind the content providers making a little money selling my eye ball time, if the ads are not distracting and if the ad load is not too much.

In the non-cyber world, we all accept ads in the magazines and newspapers, realizing the subsidy they provide to the mags and papers. Same way here.

I wish there is a way to set my browser agent to tell the websites something like:

Will accept text ads.

Will reject all animations gif, flash or javascript.

Will allow 20% of screen real estate to ads.

Content load time not less than 0.33 times ad load time.

Currently looking for ads with keywords : digital camera, DVD cases/sleeves, air tickets to India

Re:Still no Adblock though (1)

noundi (1044080) | about 5 years ago | (#28971753)

You're absolutely right. You know all these years of adblock usage has made me completely unaware of how much it actually filters.

Adblock off [imageshack.us]
Adblock on [imageshack.us]

Re:Still no Adblock though (1)

Hadlock (143607) | about 5 years ago | (#28971705)

I just use flashblock. Doesn't break the page (creates appropriately sized boxes where the flash ads would be), and has a big play button in the middle in case I need to see it (youtube, for example). And you're not hurting anyone's non-annoying ad revenue.

Re:Still no Adblock though (1)

fredjh (1602699) | about 5 years ago | (#28972141)

And that's available for Chrome?

Re:Still no Adblock though (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#28971739)

Yeah, but they have two options:

  • Block everyone else's ads, and appear monopolistic
  • Block all ads, including their own, and cut off their own revenue

Either one is rather undesirable from their point of view.

Re:Still no Adblock though (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 5 years ago | (#28971199)

> Remember that a significant share of their revenue comes from web advertising...

No shit [informatio...utiful.net]

Re:Still no Adblock though (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28971349)

What happened to Microsoft was a big lesson for some companies. MS did bad things and everybody on the internet started hating it. So new companies must be careful if they want to do evil. So this is the plan:

1) Invest money in good karma production in order to be able to do evil and not be hated.
2) Generate pseudo-good products
3) flood news sites with announcements
4) have paid fanboys praise $company
5) Generate a false public impression that the general consensus is that $company is good
6) keep doing evil
7) profit.

Google goes as far as hiring famous OSS persons and having them sit around and do nothing, in order to achieve that. Because really, imagine that with all this crap (blocking wget at the google search, youtube flash crap, web2.0 abuse, etc) google would be in a position even worse than MS if it wasn't for those pseudo-oss goodies that flood /. every other day...

Re:Still no Adblock though (1)

m0i (192134) | about 5 years ago | (#28971473)

www.adsweep.org
just add "--enable-extensions" to your chrome shortcut, then click the extension on the webpage and it will be active right away. now if some people could support the project..

Re:Still no Adblock though (2, Interesting)

BlueKitties (1541613) | about 5 years ago | (#28971657)

Adblockers were never intended to completely kill ads. Add blockers were intended to tell obnoxious advertisers to stop flooding a webpage with garbage. The idea is that, given enough people blocking bad ads, the makers will pipe down and stop flooding sites with ugly litter. Look at /. -- the ad system is so nice, I don't even feel the need to click "disable ads." I think Google folk probably know this, so I would not be surprised if we get a Chrome adblock soon.

(Then again, I've recently fallen in love with google after discovered Docs/Calender/Etc... ;p)

Re:Still no Adblock though (1)

Kashgarinn (1036758) | about 5 years ago | (#28972039)

"Remember that a significant share of their revenue comes from web advertising..."

- which is the reason why you shouldn't really want an advertising company to control how you look at the internet. Google was a search company, now it is an advertisement company, it gives you access to "free" services plus ads, similar to the "free" TV networks of olde (you know.. the guys who are a part of the **AA bad guys?)

by controlling the browser, they control how you watch the web, and they're not interested in removing ads.

I can predict that Google will be an excellent catalyst for the internet and internet services for many, many years, but people have to realize that they're doing this with the paradigm to increase ad-revenue and so ads, however annoying will never be blocked.

Ad-free-internet-which-generates-revenue isn't here yet for most HTML stuff. It's here for Itunes, and Amazon and poker sites, but information sadly never got away from the "should-be-free" stamp.

Re:Still no Adblock though (2, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | about 5 years ago | (#28970721)

Yes, when will google learn to add features that block their core business model to their platform for getting at said business.

Re:Still no Adblock though (3, Informative)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | about 5 years ago | (#28971059)

Adblock is needed because of all those blinking and colourful flash ads that are all around. Googles ads are quite moderate and most people would not mind to see them, so your statement is false.

This would give a lot of people the motivation to switch to Chrome, which would be a gain for Google while not having big add revenue losses (actually they would gain add revenues, as the js cross site google ads would not be blocked any-more).

They're problem is probably, that this would raise anti-competitive questions they want to avoid, so this could only be done with an open plugin system (via trusted third party plugins).

See my post above Srware iron (1)

blahbooboo (839709) | about 5 years ago | (#28971519)

Fun fun fun. lol. I love always telling people about Srware Iron. It's awesome.

Re:Still no Adblock though (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28970903)

Privoxy is a great tool for filtering ads and other nasty things. Simply install it on your PC, then set it as your proxy server.

http://www.privoxy.org/

Re:Still no Adblock though (5, Insightful)

markkezner (1209776) | about 5 years ago | (#28971071)

While plugins would be useful, I think you have the wrong idea about Google's motives with Chrome. Chrome is Google's bid to change the browser market to make it a better platform for their core business, web applications.

Google isn't as concerned with making Firefox users switch to chrome, because they are already using a (mostly) standards compliant browser. IE is the real target. This seems to explain why, if I browse to google.com in IE7, I'm greeted with an ad banner that invites me to give Chrome a try. Google does not do this if I browse with Firefox or Safari.

For the 1000000 time use Srware IRON for adblock (2, Informative)

blahbooboo (839709) | about 5 years ago | (#28971501)

When will google learn that plugins, especially something like adblock, is the killer feature they need to attract the "willing to switch" audience, a lot of whom are using firefox right now. I personally love Chrome for its speed and stability, used it for a week or so, but then switched right back to Firefox because I just didn't realise how it is to do many things in Firefox with extensions such as adblock, no script, autopager, del.icio.us integration etc.

Oh here we go again! :)

SRWare Iron is the same browser as Google Chrome except it has all the privacy concerns removed.

IT ALSO HAS ADBLOCK SUPPORT.

SRWare Iron - http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php [srware.net] ADBLOCKER SUPPORT: "11.10.2008: Adblocker integrated in Iron

The wish of many users comes true: We integrated an Adblocker in Iron! With a filterlist so nearly all online-advertising can be blocked. A working list can bedownloaded here and just has to be copied to the Iron folder (e.g: C:\Program Files\SRWare Iron\). Note: You must first get the latest version of Iron you can find under "Downloads". So Iron is the first Chromium based webbrowser worldwide which has an adblocker included."

Here is the link to download the latest adblock.ini file http://www.srware.net/downloads/adblock.ini [srware.net]

Use SRWare Iron for AdBlock (2, Funny)

bunratty (545641) | about 5 years ago | (#28971691)

If you want Adblock, I think I heard somewhere that SRWare Iron supports it.

Re:Still no Adblock though (1)

idlemachine (732136) | about 5 years ago | (#28971625)

There is a lot of active work on extension support for Chrome, so I'm pretty sure Google realise how important this is to people. Despite SO many (still ongoing) claims that Google would make it technically impossible for an adblocking extension to work, one already exists [adsweep.org] , along with mouse gestures [ghacks.net] , and a start at integrating with delicious [chromeplugins.org] .

Yes, they're all still very rough around the edges, but that's what I'd expect from an extension system in development. Of course, their existence isn't enough to stop people from all kinds of speculative bullshit about Google's plans and motives, but hey, being a geek is all about ego-driven opinion and nada about facts, it seems.

Yes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28970683)

Yes, but does it run (on) Linux?

Re:Yes... (2, Interesting)

ashraya (632661) | about 5 years ago | (#28970727)

Yes it does (Not the crappy wine one). There is a beta native version I use regularly, and on 32-bit it even does plugins (Flash)... However, I got myself a 64-bit comp these days, and it does not run plugins on that one... It feels much faster than Firefox on Linux...

Re:Yes... (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | about 5 years ago | (#28971041)

Themes sound promising in terms of not having the ugly Chrome look standing out like a sore thumb against the rest of my GTK themed apps, but 64-bit is the killer. That plus the fact that they can't be bothered to make a simple RPM of it and only want to deliver a DEB. It's a shame, because I'd be interested to see how well it works and how much faster it is, especially on my quad core at work.

Re:Yes... (1)

Rhapsody Scarlet (1139063) | about 5 years ago | (#28971329)

I would certainly image it does feel faster than Firefox on Linux x64. As per bug #489146 [mozilla.org] , TraceMonkey is still not enabled on x64 Linux builds. This does make it feel rather sluggish on any page with serious amounts of JavaScript (i.e. any Slashdot story), and is something that really bugs me about the 3.5 release. I'm sure I'll really enjoy it someday, but not until I can actually use the biggest enhancement of the release.

Re:Yes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28971459)

Yes it does (Not the crappy wine one). There is a beta native version I use regularly

I, for one, do not believe Google would release anything in BETA.

Does it install in the right place? (3, Informative)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about 5 years ago | (#28970715)

Has Google managed to get Chrome install in the "program files" director yet? The fact that it installs in "application settings" is the number one reason I can't install it.

Re:Does it install in the right place? (5, Informative)

mrak_attack (928476) | about 5 years ago | (#28970887)

Installation to the "App Data" folder makes it possible to instill Chrome by users without Admin rights. For installation into Program Files you need admin rights or special permissions tweaking.

Re:Does it install in the right place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28971659)

Interesting - I never noticed that before. Thanks for sharing.

Re:Does it install in the right place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28971783)

Huh, actually it's the reason you *should* be able to install it, as it makes it possible for users without administrator privileges to complete the install. Your network administrator messed up the settings, I suppose.

Re:Does it install in the right place? (1)

lukas84 (912874) | about 5 years ago | (#28971893)

Err, no. He probably made it impossible to run executables from non-trusted locations.

Seems very, very reasonable to me.

Still not a Chrome user (4, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 5 years ago | (#28970725)

The first thing that really got me about Chrome was how well it seemed to learn my browsing habits. At least, that was my first impression when I booted it up. The first view you get in Chrome is the "most visited websites" page or something like that. As a incognito porn site surfer, I was really taken aback and worried about privacy issues.

It took a long time in Firefox to fix the URL history functionality. It used to keep the URLs in some cache so that it could be called up right away when you started entering a URL into the address bar. Now, the URLs at least seem like they are gone forever when you delete them from your History.

IE still has this problem (in addition to completely retarded address bar behavior). In fact, if you delete the entire browsing history at once, the URLs themselves can never be deleted except by completely clearing the cache, but then that also deletes the "cover" sites that I visit to make it seem like my surfing is just innocuous browsing and not the hardcore porn viewing which it ostensibly is.

So if Chrome wants my patronage, I think the first thing it needs to do is convince me that my personal privacy is safe. That my URLs aren't going to be cached and exposed at some inopportune time, and that it isn't tracking them for me to helpfully find other related websites.

In this way, I've found Firefox to be the most accommodating browser on the market today. It does what I want and doesn't try to be smart about it. Funny how so many things in life work better that way.

Re:Still not a Chrome user (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 5 years ago | (#28970775)

IIRC, you can switch that off, and instead have a more usual homepage for new tabs.

and that it isn't tracking them for me to helpfully find other related websites.

All websites keep track of the websites you've visted - it's called a History. Do you have evidence that Chrome remembers sites, even after clearing the history or whatever?

Re:Still not a Chrome user (5, Informative)

ethebubbeth (786347) | about 5 years ago | (#28970793)

Just put chrome into Incognito Mode (ctrl+shift+n, or do it from the menu). That accomplishes the same thing as Mozilla Firefox in Private Browsing mode and should prevent it from storing history while you porn surf.

Re:Still not a Chrome user (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 5 years ago | (#28970819)

I don't like the Private Browsing Mode of Firefox that much either since I want to leave some trace that I had used the browser, I just don't want to leave certain sites in the history.

also... s/ostensibly/invariably/;

Re:Still not a Chrome user (4, Informative)

mdm-adph (1030332) | about 5 years ago | (#28970915)

Then load up one window in Incognito mode, and another window that's not. I really don't know what you're complaining about. :\

If you're looking for absolute privacy, don't use the web. Otherwise, Incognito-mode is about as good as it gets (just remember to clear out your Flash cookies from time to time, the browser doesn't control those).

Re:Still not a Chrome user (1)

Clarious (1177725) | about 5 years ago | (#28971027)

But sometimes I want Chrome to remember login information & history so I browse it back later,. The sites I browse is in the 'gray' zone, it isn't porno or something despicable, but I still do not want other to know about it.

Re:Still not a Chrome user (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28970811)

1. start chrome
2. hit ctrl+shift+n
3. ??? (whatever it is you do)

Re:Still not a Chrome user (1)

craagz (965952) | about 5 years ago | (#28970821)

If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank. - Woody Allen

Swiss banks use numbered accounts!

Re:Still not a Chrome user (4, Informative)

mumb0.jumb0 (1419117) | about 5 years ago | (#28970825)

As a incognito porn site surfer, I was really taken aback and worried about privacy issues.

Interesting choice of words. Chrome has an "incognito mode". From the blurb shown when you open the browser in that mode:

Pages that you view in this window won't appear in your browser history or search history, and they won't leave other traces, like cookies, on your computer after you close the incognito window. Any files that you download or bookmarks that you create will be preserved, however.

Re:Still not a Chrome user (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 5 years ago | (#28970859)

That is actually very interesting and compelling.

I may have to give Chrome another chance. How does it handle porn sites with malicious javascript? I use NoScript in FF to protect against browser hijackings. Does Chrome have a problem there?

Re:Still not a Chrome user (1)

karstux (681641) | about 5 years ago | (#28971137)

Well, first off Chrome is famous for its sandboxing concept. Each tab is a process in its own sandbox, so in theory, any compromisation of the browser stays contained. If it's pop up windows you worry about, these are confined to the tab that (attempts to) open them. So if a page opens a billion pop ups - just close that tab and it's all gone. Chrome even has its own task manager where you can kill processes on a per-page or plugin basis.

It's quite neat, really.

Re:Still not a Chrome user (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28971863)

Chrome is incapable of disabling javascript in any way that I could see.
It also doesn't have "Clear Recent History" - Ctrl Shift Delete - in case you forgot to go into private browsing mode. Firefox does. Btw, in Firefox 3.5 you no longer need an extension to get the awesome bar to behave like 2.0:
Edit -> Preferences, "Privacy" section, at the bottom for "when using the location bar, suggest:" choose "History" from the dropdown.
In about:config do the following
Change the value of browser.urlbar.matchBehavior to 3
Change the value of browser.urlbar.default.behavior to 17
Change the values of both browser.urlbar.match.url and
browser.urlbar.restrict.typed to empty strings

Re:Still not a Chrome user (1)

Get on the boat (1601391) | about 5 years ago | (#28970831)

As a incognito porn site surfer, I was really taken aback and worried about privacy issues.

Wait ...what. You mentioned key word incognito, which IS the 'private' browsing mode in Chrome that doesn't keep history or cookies, etc. exactly as you wanted.

It is tied to i386 somehow (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | about 5 years ago | (#28971163)

It is being x86 only means that it will never ship for ARM, Symbian. It is a show stopper for me since I heavily use smart phones, powerpc machines etc. for browsing.

I know the OS X developer and he is a nice person who doesn't drop PPC support for nothing. If it is not supported, it must have a reason. i386 ASM? Whatever. I don't want to rant too much about a browser which I can't use 3 of my 6 machines anyway.

Re:Still not a Chrome user (1)

Frankenshteen (1355339) | about 5 years ago | (#28971179)

Use the incognito window - sounds like a lot of folks at google must've had you in mind.

Re:Still not a Chrome user (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28971407)

Chrome works fine to browse in and rack up a "legit" set of sites visited. It does not (or has not in my case) cross with Incognito mode. If you close your Incognito windows and open a new one, the browsing history from the previous is gone. Also, incognito mode does not show those 9 "most viewed" sites option.

Interestingly enough, Google Toolbar now provides that same 9-panel service to IE (which is all we use where I work). Given enough time, the toolbar might be able to run Chrome inside IE, hah!

Re:Still not a Chrome user (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28971627)

You may not be as incognito as you think, if you're usually logged into slashdot, and you post about your porn habits.

Re:Still not a Chrome user (1)

harmonise (1484057) | about 5 years ago | (#28971777)

Just create a new Firefox profile for porn surfing. You can then run that profile with "firefox -p <profilename>".

Have they fixed the tabs yet? (0)

argent (18001) | about 5 years ago | (#28970837)

Or are they still putting them in the wrong place?

Re:Have they fixed the tabs yet? (1)

paziek (1329929) | about 5 years ago | (#28970909)

How do you define "wrong"? I for one like it when new tab is opened next to the current one, instead of the last. Am I liking it wrong?

Re:Have they fixed the tabs yet? (1)

argent (18001) | about 5 years ago | (#28971053)

How do you define "wrong"?

Tabs go above the content that is part of the tab.

The address bar is not part of the tab.

Re:Have they fixed the tabs yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28971277)

how is the address bar not part of the tab? It displays the url only for the current tab. By your logic, if I type an address into the bar, all my tabs should go to that site.

Re:Have they fixed the tabs yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28972117)

Since each tab could possibly contain content belonging to different addresses, one could argue this point.

Re:Have they fixed the tabs yet? (2, Insightful)

cparker15 (779546) | about 5 years ago | (#28972451)

Different != Wrong

In my opinion, it makes more sense for the address bar to be part of the tab, because the address of the page has a 1:1 relationship with the page you're viewing.

The music from the demo... (-1, Offtopic)

pHus10n (1443071) | about 5 years ago | (#28970855)

I really dug the music. Any ideas who it is? Or is it indie/related to the webpage designer?

Who needs a window manager (1)

IceFox (18179) | about 5 years ago | (#28970891)

After all of Ben's ranting about how inconstant Linux is I am sure glad they choose to turn on the silly blue boarder by default on Linux. Because now it really fits into every Linux desktop. Yah for branding. http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev/browse_thread/thread/b89ab99a0c848b89# [google.com]

Smooth scrolling yet? (3, Insightful)

psymastr (684406) | about 5 years ago | (#28970893)

Does it have smooth scrolling and adblock yet? If not then I can't move. Especially after the huge speedup in FF 3.5.

Re:Smooth scrolling yet? (2, Insightful)

TREE (9562) | about 5 years ago | (#28971571)

How can you *stand* smooth scrolling? It's so slow!

It's one of the first things I turn off, in any app.

Re:Smooth scrolling yet? (1)

gardyloo (512791) | about 5 years ago | (#28971901)

Agreed. Smooth-scrolling feels mushy, like a 1977 Lincoln Continental.

I refuse to use a browser that phones home.. (3, Interesting)

KlaasVaak (1613053) | about 5 years ago | (#28970901)

I'm just not going to give google more info about me by using their browser.

Re:I refuse to use a browser that phones home.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28971347)

Give SRware Iron a try. It's Google Chrome without the Google.

NoScript and Adblock (4, Insightful)

pzs (857406) | about 5 years ago | (#28970935)

I'm a not-very-happy Firefox user, since I find it has horrendous memory leaks. I can get it up to 2GB virtual memory in a morning's average browsing. Yes, I have tried the tips on the Mozilla site [mozillazine.org] .

However, I have become addicted to a controlled web experience with NoScript and Adblock. I won't be switching to Chrome until I can get similar tools.

Re:NoScript and Adblock (1)

pmontra (738736) | about 5 years ago | (#28971029)

However, I have become addicted to a controlled web experience with NoScript and Adblock. I won't be switching to Chrome until I can get similar tools.

Me too!

About the memory leaks, Firefox 3.0 solved that for me on Windows and I'm using a lot of extensions. I'm on Linux now so this might be totally different beast. Did you try disabling one extension per day and checking the level of your RAM after browsing all the day?

Re:NoScript and Adblock (1)

pzs (857406) | about 5 years ago | (#28971147)

I only use AdBlock and NoScript and there are no issues listed.

I do run a lot of windows, rather than tabs - usually half a dozen, some with sub-tabs, spread across many virtual desktops. Still, I've been running Firefox for about 4 or 5 hours today and it looks like this:

  3206 pzs 20 0 1132m 639m 28m R 1 8.1 92:38.58 firefox

which seems very high.

Re:NoScript and Adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28971651)

you can try to tweak some stuff in about:config, for example browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers

Re:NoScript and Adblock (3, Interesting)

pmontra (738736) | about 5 years ago | (#28972205)

Oh I see. I'm running Firefox 3.5 like this (I'm on Linux too):

1213m 272m 43m R

and this is not a problem. The first figure 1213 MB includes also libraries shared with other programs. 272 MB is how much memory Firefox is using on its own. 639 MB for you, which is quite a lot but if you have a lot of tabs and windows it should be expected.

Re:NoScript and Adblock (1)

Krneki (1192201) | about 5 years ago | (#28971043)

How the hell can you get such memory leak? I'd consider myself a power Internet user, yet I never manage to get past 400Mb.

Tell me your secret.

Re:NoScript and Adblock (3, Funny)

imakemusic (1164993) | about 5 years ago | (#28971477)

Two slashdot pages at once.

Re:NoScript and Adblock (1)

PieSquared (867490) | about 5 years ago | (#28972045)

Hrm... I've got three slashdot pages open right now in two windows with a total of 15 extensions and I'm at 103MB memory. So... nope. There's something else going on.

Re:NoScript and Adblock (2, Interesting)

Clarious (1177725) | about 5 years ago | (#28971087)

In all 4 years I have been using Firefox, I have never seen it went pass 800MBs RAM, even with the heaviest browsing (about 70+ tabs), so I can't understand why people complains so much about it consuming too much ram :-/ Sure it consume quite a bit of ram with normal browsing (171MB with 10 tabs open on Linux right now) but I haven't seen any memory leak yet. I also tend to keep Firefox open for several days too.

Re:NoScript and Adblock (1)

pzs (857406) | about 5 years ago | (#28971185)

Man, there must be something seriously broken with my (vanilla Ubuntu) install. I regularly have to kill Firefox because it's causing my 8GB machine to hit the swap.

Re:NoScript and Adblock (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28971169)

However, I have become addicted to a controlled web experience with NoScript and Adblock. I won't be switching to Chrome until I can get similar tools.

Then I don't think you will be using Chrome anytime soon. Javascript and ads are everything when talking about Google.

Re:NoScript and Adblock (1)

Noam.of.Doom (934040) | about 5 years ago | (#28971175)

I've had bad memory leaks using FF 3 under an Ubuntu x64, but 3.5 solved it all. The usage never tops 120~M these days, even after running the same instance for a week or so.

Re:NoScript and Adblock (1)

pzs (857406) | about 5 years ago | (#28971619)

Thanks for the tip. I'm using it now. We'll see how it goes.

Re:NoScript and Adblock (1)

Tom9729 (1134127) | about 5 years ago | (#28971375)

What version of Firefox are you using?

I've experienced memory leaks in the past, but recently I've been using Firefox 3.5 (on Fedora 11) and Firefox doesn't get over a few hundred megabytes. That's with 7-8 tabs running for several weeks straight.

Re:NoScript and Adblock (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 5 years ago | (#28971589)

It would be a shame if those MBs of RAM would be lying around unused! If
the browser can cache something you might still need, why not store it on a
if-another-app-needs-the-space-I'll-free-it level?

Seriously, I only have problems when I use adobe flash.

Re:NoScript and Adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28972017)

If you can figure out how to use this [almaer.com] let us know.

I want a Mac beta of that (1)

Stephan Seidt (803125) | about 5 years ago | (#28970987)

Although I like them, I see no point in using alternative webkit-based browsers like Stainless or Shiira. I'd definitely give Chrome a try, though - their extra efforts really make it worth!

Re:I want a Mac beta of that (1)

Jugalator (259273) | about 5 years ago | (#28971077)

Yes, I may switch from Firefox for work (Windows) and home (Mac) if they only got the Mac version more mature. I can still not even drag my bookmarks on the bookmarks bar, and such basic things. Besides, I find the touchpad scrolling much more sluggish in Chrome for Mac than Firefox for Mac, for some reason. It's a bit annoying, because it's a wonderful browser on Windows.

Re:I want a Mac beta of that (1)

saddino (183491) | about 5 years ago | (#28971645)

The point of using (now and even after Chrome is released) Stainless [stainlessapp.com] is its nifty "parallel sessions" feature (i.e. log into the same site with different accounts simultaneously) -- something Chrome, FF and Safari don't have.

Themes. (1)

mdwntr (1367967) | about 5 years ago | (#28971003)

I like to think that themes for individual applications died out in the nineties.

Re:Themes. (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 5 years ago | (#28971063)

I'm glad I'm not the only one that felt winamp needed to grow up and wear a suit and tie.

Firefox (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28971081)

I use Firefox and will never in my lifetime use a browser made by a data collector like Google.

Big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28971145)

Firefox 3.5 had this ages ago. Fawn over Google, Google, Google at the price of forgetting the achievements of others.

What's the video codec ? (2, Interesting)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | about 5 years ago | (#28971217)

are they supporting theora (like firefox) or just h.264 ? both would be great, of course.

Re:What's the video codec ? (1)

Locklin (1074657) | about 5 years ago | (#28972371)

I just noticed the latest chromium update on Linux requires ffmpeg. It will be funny if Chromium/Linux supports all formats while Chrome only supports h.264 by default.

AdSweep != AdBlock+ (4, Informative)

rshol (746340) | about 5 years ago | (#28971283)

Downloaded the latest Chrome Beta (3.0.195.4), installed AdSweep, failed to be impressed. AdSweep loads ads the first time you visit a page in a session then erases them, highly annoying. The biggest problem I had was that I failed to notice any speed difference between Chrome and Firefox 3.5.2 on the sites I visit. If anything my non-scientific observation was that with AdSweep loaded, Chrome was significantly slower than Firefox.

mod down (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28971855)

followed. Obviously they're gone Came GGod mannerS Has steadily

Re:mod down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28971985)

WTF?!

Google (1)

Mr_Plattz (1589701) | about 5 years ago | (#28972013)

Chrome has an interesting dilemma.

Cost benefit for speed vs Ads.

Everyone *does* want to use it, heck, I can open 14 Chrome windows and have boobs in my face before FF even decides it wants to open. But the fact that it wants to show you every add on every dodgie internet site trying to make a quick buck, means I can wait an extra few milliseconds.

Obviously one cannot look negatively on GOOG for *not* having an ad-blocker, but at the same time they must accept it kills there user-base.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>