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!

Google Confirms Chrome GPU Acceleration

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the browser-as-taskmaster dept.

Google 186

An anonymous reader writes "Google is already experimenting with GPU acceleration in its latest Chrome developer builds. Chrome 7 can separate different layers of a webpage into CPU and GPU processes and combine those layers using the GPU as long as the browser is now launched with certain switches. Chromium 7 has also a new Labs feature that reveals that Google is thinking about moving tabs from the top of the browser to the left side. It seems that Chrome will be catching up with Firefox 4 and IE9 in terms of hardware acceleration soon."

cancel ×

186 comments

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

Tabs on the left make sense (5, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403064)

These days most screens are wider than they are taller. And text still reads better vertically.
So the height is valuable real-estate while there is side space to waste.
My desktop has the application bars hide on the left/right.

The more vertical space the better.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403128)

No it doesn't make sense. Where is my mouse usually position when reading a page? On the right, at the scroll-bar. Now I have to go all the way across the screen just to get any tab? Sheesh.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (4, Funny)

dave420 (699308) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403146)

Don't you have a scroll wheel? Are you a time-traveller from the past?

So much so, I've forgotten it exists (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403406)

I read the parent post and thought for a second or so "he has a point". Then I suddenly realised how I was scrolling. When you've used a mouse for an average of perhaps 2500 hours a year, your brain operates it completely on auto.

And yes, left hand tabs make a lot of sense. That, or can we go back to laptops with 3 by 4 screen ratios?

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (3, Funny)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403442)

Back in the day, we had these arrow and page up/down keys that you could use for scrolling a page. Nowadays, many laptops don't even have dedicated pgup/pgdn/home/end, they are only available via the Fn key. Apparently, nobody uses the keyboard any more, since the mouse is so much easier for everything. I predict that future computers will have no keyboard, but instead the mouse will have about 100 buttons for typing.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (1)

WaroDaBeast (1211048) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403586)

I predict that future computers will have no keyboard, but instead the mouse will have about 100 buttons for typing.

You're probably joking around, but given that so many people don't bother with proper keyboard and language usage... such a product could sell.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (1)

djdanlib (732853) | more than 3 years ago | (#33404154)

We're getting close:

http://warmouse.com/ [warmouse.com]

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (3, Funny)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403154)

Try using that little wheely thing between your mouse buttons. You're welcome.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403290)

I have a trackball, you insensitive clod!

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (1)

shriphani (1174497) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403484)

My trackball comes with a wheel.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (1)

chammy (1096007) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403946)

My trackball doesn't, but I have a bind to hold mouse4 so I can scroll with the wheel. It feels great with the trackball's momentum!

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (1)

Noitatsidem (1701520) | more than 3 years ago | (#33404118)

Damn, you make us mouse users with wheels envious, I wish I could feel all of that momentum, going up, and down... Back, and forth.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (1)

imthesponge (621107) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403984)

I have a Mac, you insensitive clod!

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403184)

Try using the mouse wheel. I made the switch recently and haven't looked back! Touchpads also have scrolling capability.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (0, Redundant)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403982)

Who needs tabs at all. Press a button and display a list? show the pages in visual form?

At least Google are thinking outside a box a little.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403200)

tell that to my 1050x1900 vertical monitor

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (1)

Noitatsidem (1701520) | more than 3 years ago | (#33404126)

Okay.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403208)

Windows 7 implements a vertical taskbar better than any previous version of Windows, and that's the reason I use a vartical taskbar on my 1680 horizontal resolution monitor. I can fit a browser window between my taskbar on one side and any widgets or IM clients I might have on the other.

The only problem I find is that Windows doesn't seem to tell many programs that the vertical taskbar should be respected in the same way as the horizontal one and many apps launch with part of their window underneath the taskbar.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403288)

If already having vertical taskbar, this change in Chrome could complicate benefits of Fitts's law though - one of the nice things about Chrome was how the tabbar exploited this law, when at the absolute top. But only one thing can exploit each edge of the screen so well; and with vertical taskbar, tabbar & scrollbar...

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#33404012)

I've put the task bat on the left since Windows 95 ... it's just a far better place for it, in my opinion, as the tasks are always in the same place, and are the same size. You can set them as wide as you need. I used to do the same in Gnome, but lately they've added some very useful panel widgets that do not re-orient themselves properly on a vertical task bar ... I eventually gave up and reverted to the default horizontal bar. It's too bad too, a lot of people seem to be realizing the vertical task bar is a better solution.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (5, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403222)

These days most screens are wider than they are taller.

Most screens have been wider than tall since well before the first web browsers.

And text still reads better vertically.

Text reads better in columns narrower than most screens are wide at the typical viewing distance, but its often convenient to have more than one block of text on the screen. Tabs take up more room on the side than on the top, and do more on the side to hurt the ability to have more usable windows on the screen.

Tabs on the side are useful for some people in all circumstances, and for other people in certain circumstances, and (I suspect) for some people in no circumstances. So, if Chrome allows the user to move the tabs to the side, that's good.

If Chrome just moves the tabs to the side, thats bad.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403224)

I turn my monitor vertical. Width is my commodity. :P

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (1, Interesting)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403296)

I would like it if the browser was split in two frames, having the previous page on the left, and the next on the right. That way when you click, you can look ahead and go back really quick, while using the full display. Could have a sliding animation like the Apple's hierarchical browsers (e.g. iPod).

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403316)

100% agreed.

Sidebars are especially more useful for those who work with a lot of webpages at once.

Better yet is if you could get rid of the top toolbar entirely and just have everything on the sidebar.
Location buttons and extension buttons go at the top of the sidebar. Omni-bar and bookmarks bar (and only that) get popped out by a button next to [+new tab] button.
Made a quick and rough sketch in Paint there for those with lax imagination.
Chrome mockup [tinypic.com] (realized i forgot the toolbar button. woops)
If i could do this at some point in Chrome, i'd be so happy. (and quite a few others as well probably)

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (0, Redundant)

insufflate10mg (1711356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403472)

Why post as AC? I would've given mod points...

Dear Google,
Go with this idea. Please.

Love,
snort10mg

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403340)

I agree with you, but only because there are so many websites out there these days that have a fucking stupid fixed width, meaning instead of using the full viewport, there are huge stupid gaps down each side of the page doing nothing.

And for those usability newbies ready to respond with something about the readability of line lengths, button it. You are repeating something you haven't thought about and don't understand. Firstly, all the research you depend on is based around print media or their methodology is the same as that for print media, so it doesn't take into account huge factors that are introduced by the differences between print and the web. Secondly, a website is more than just lines of text. For instance, multiple columns, sidebars, nested content such as comments, etc. All of these take up horizontal space, leaving less for the main body of text.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403346)

Then the problem is with the screen rather than the browser.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (2, Insightful)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403364)

These days most screens are wider than they are taller. And text still reads better vertically. So the height is valuable real-estate while there is side space to waste. My desktop has the application bars hide on the left/right.

The more vertical space the better.

If you want more vertical space then just adjust the display to be portrait rather than landscape. I do this at work so that I have a monitor for reading things on websites and one in landscape for doing development on. I guess most people don't think about just physically turning their displays...

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (4, Funny)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403422)

I did this on my netbook, but it made it really hard to type.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (1)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403900)

No problem, you just need to change the angle of your jetpack and turn on anti-grav on your netbook.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403792)

Not all monitors support pivoting and not all monitors that support pivoting are good for it.
The trouble with most TN panels that support pivoting (especially widescreen) is viewing angles. The viewing angle over horizontal axis is very poor on most monitors and if you turn the monitor 90 degrees it'll really show. IPS monitors don't have this problem but they are much more expensive.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (2, Interesting)

coldmist (154493) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403392)

On Firefox, I use Tree Style Tab with Tab Mix Plus, and I couldn't use any browser now that doesn't have a combo like that.

Having the tabs grouped in a hierarchy view on the left is just so well done. It really make looking at 5-100 tabs easier!

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (1)

insufflate10mg (1711356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403446)

Amen. I use 1900x1200 resolution and have my taskbar on the left (best thing I ever did) and my Vista Sidebar on the right (also a great feature). It still affords me more than enough space to browse/work comfortably. I would love to see an option to move the Chrome tabs to the left-hand side.

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (2, Interesting)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403526)

I use the extra width to have two programs open next to each other. Adding stuff to the right of my browser would take away that ability. For me it is one of the reasons to went to bigger screens. So I could use the screen real-estate to have two programs open at the same time while both can be used easily without switching.
http://houghi.org/shots/wmaker/left_01.png [houghi.org]

Re:Tabs on the left make sense (1)

FuturePastNow (836765) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403966)

Another reason: I often have so many tabs open, the tabs often shrink down until they are impossible to read or even click on. But a vertical arrangement would become a scroll area (bonus if I don't have to click on it to scroll it). Or a finger swipe area, on a touchscreen.

Indeed, that last part may be what Google has in mind. Chrome tablets.

Finally ... (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403088)

TFS: "Google is thinking about moving tabs from the top of the browser top the left side"

Reveals that:

Google employs some people that think (ahead?)

Common people are stuck with the overcome (top the left side ???)

Alas.

CC.

Re:Finally ... (4, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403266)

Nah, just keeping the tradition of taking stuff from Opera; life as usual. ;)

Re:Finally ... (0, Flamebait)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403590)

I know personally if Opera hadn't tried getting me to pay for the browser, I would probably still be using it. That was the worst timing ever. Firefox came out, and Opera wanted money. I know they don't ask for cash anymore, but the horse was out of the barn by the time they wised up.

Progress! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403092)

I think it's fantastic that you can have your browser download executable code that can take advantage of local GPU acceleration.

That's progress

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403094)

Another excuse to fill up pages with useless graphics.
Mobile devices will love this impetus.

Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403120)

So, now-- in theory --I can have Flash bugger my GPU instead of my CPU and system memory? ;) Fabulous!! It would be nice if Adobe would actually fix Flash, though. It's constantly hanging or crashing my browser, and at least once or twice a week, BSODing me. Bastard thing. :( Of course it doesn't help that every webpage EVERYWHERE uses Flash for damn near anything.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (4, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403162)

You know, I keep hearing this, how Flash keeps crashing browsers. I use quite a few Flash sites ranging from casual games to management applications for security appliances, and I think I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I've had a Flash related browser issue over the last couple of years.

I think it's either a tired meme or some people just don't know how to setup and maintain a stable system.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (0, Redundant)

yodleboy (982200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403284)

wish i had mod points for you. the only times i see flash crash a browser is when my mother in law tries to open farmville AND cafe world AND mafia wars AND a few more large flash games in tabs in one browser window. even then it's less of a crash than a slowing to a crawl. Personally, I've always had way more issues with the Adobe Acrobat browser plugin than with Flash. THAT thing is horrible, thank god for Foxit.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403428)

it crashes for me when listening to 5 live. say I stop the stream, and come back later to start it. Instant crash. Sometimes it crashes on its own.

Happened at least 3-4 times this past week. I'm not going to stop doing other things on my computer just because flash wants to hog all of the system resources.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (4, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403292)

The problem is that in order to keep Flash from crashing you pretty much need to run flashblock or noscript which cripples your browsing experience and unfortunately there are sites out there that actually try to obfuscate their javascript and Flash content to trick you into loading their annoying ads.

Basically it's a pain in the ass to keep Flash from hogging resources so most users just don't do it even if they know how to.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403404)

Noscript can arguably detract from the browsing experience, but certainly not Flashblock. 9/10 Flash applets are completely useless, bog down the machine, or annoy the user.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403432)

I never had a flash crash or performance issues in IE or Chrome, only in Firefox - and I don't use flashblock.
Considering that the flash plugin is the same for Chrome and Firefox, I suspect a plugin architecture issue in Firefox...

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403986)

Look. I keep reading how people say that Flash doesn't crash for them. Well, that's your perspective. Meanwhile, all three browsers -- IE, Firefox, and Chrome -- implemented automatic plugin restarting precisely because Flash crashing was such a common issue. So which do you think is the real truth here?

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403660)

That's simply not true in all cases. I have neither of those addons installed, and Flash never crashes on this machine. Win7 64bit, Firefox.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33404078)

That's not entirely true. At least on my systems and the systems I've used before, Flash actually works fine. It's just hogs CPU resources, which is why I had to take it off of my Nexus One; it worked great on YouTube...at the expense of having Flash everywhere. No thanks.

Now, if you want to talk about a plugin that really crashes, turn your attention over to Adobe Acrobat!

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (3, Funny)

DevConcepts (1194347) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403294)

Your wife/girl friend (LMAO! A /.er having one!) or maybe a sister playing those god forsaken, crappy, waste of time, Zinga games on facebook. You will know when it crashes (after hours and hours of playing) by the scream that sounds like someone is having their finger nails pulled out. Slowly. And you will have to fix it because you can always fix it. Last time I had to fix a flash game I turned her computer off. I still sleep on the couch.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403358)

Except that doesn't happen. First of all if it did she can fix it, she's quite smart. Second, we have properly configured and well maintained systems. She's never had a Flash crash that I know of, though she might not even tell me since it would be a rare and trivial issue.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

DevConcepts (1194347) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403508)

Except that doesn't happen. First of all if it did she can fix it, she's quite smart.

I have had the iGoogle page crash (rare) on me more than any other flash games but I won't play facebook games.
Then I guess we both have smart women but mine wouldn't know what a /. was.

Second, we have properly configured and well maintained systems.

Other than software updates and FF or Chrome (She has killed both), what is there to configure? Is there a special flash configuration that prevents flash crash other than no flash?
And Linux is not an option for her, needs win for Quickbooks.

She's never had a Flash crash that I know of, though she might not even tell me since it would be a rare and trivial issue.

If she avoids the facebook games they are usually rare. Zinga games are horrendous and support is about the same state as AOL was decades ago, clear everything and reinstall flash, so sorry, try again.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403784)

We use Linux and Windows both, and by properly configured and maintained I mean the only conclusion I can come to about people who have persistent Flash problems is that their setups are unstable to begin with in some way. Sure there are buggy Flash apps just like any other application framework, but people just blow it WAY out of proportion.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403902)

Whipped much?

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403348)

Flash tends to eat all available memory when I access sony-ericsson.com, slowing the computer to a crawl as it gobbles through 4 GB+ of swap space. Not every time, but far too often. This is with the beta 64 bit version for Linux, though, so I don't expect it to act the same way on other platforms.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 3 years ago | (#33404098)

That's funny. It loads instantaneously (<1 sec) on Windows. And my computer doesn't crawl at all. And with Slashdot and the Sony Ericcson site open, my browser is sitting at 180 MB, which is really not that bad.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403482)

I have expierenced browser crashes/hangs due to npviewer.bin until i installed noscript.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1, Funny)

insufflate10mg (1711356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403562)

Amen. I cannot even recall an occasion when Flash has crashed.

I must say, my Vista machine with an i7 and 6gb of RAM has never truly crashed. People piss and moan while I couldn't ask for more. There are over 30 tabs open on this browser instance, to the point where the tabs on the top show not even the favicon. On my second/minimized instance of Chrome, I have over 20 tabs, but at least the favicons are displayed. This includes multiple tabs of Pac-Man on level 5-15, and multiple Youtubes. My taskbar has so many applications minimized on it that it has switched from 1 column to 2 columns and I can no longer read the titles of anything I have open (I go mostly by memory/quick trial and error to find what I need when it gets to this point). I have 1 IE, 3 other Firefox windows, Limewire/MediaMonkey, 6 notepads, 3 OpenOffice Writers, my AV, Ventrilo, etc. I have VC#.Net IDE opened, along with BitPim (to fix a cellphone). My computer only costed $2,300 and still has a full warranty. So if anything goes wrong, I'll just send its ass in. RAM = 73% full, CPU = 4% (considering all of the above) while just reading.

People complain about Flash, Windows, etc, because they are attempting to fit ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag.

If only people would be disciplined enough to make/save and spend $2,000 on a high-quality machine, they wouldn't have so much to complain about. Vista is an incredible operating system for me, and runs so beautifully it is not funny. I got clocks, Youtube, Wikipedia, RAM/CPU monitors, calculator, notepad widget, and todo list on my Vista sidebar and they have ALWAYS worked FLAWLESSLY. Nearly everything on this machine has worked flawlessly.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403594)

I certainly know how to maintain a "stable" system and I've had quite a few problems with flash that requires me to restart Chrome.

Also, I don't play any flash games, just happen to run into sites with flash often (work for a large website design firm)

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403652)

Agreed. Honestly I can't even remember the last time my browser crashed using Flash. The only time I can recall having any issues with it was when I was trying to use it on a 64 bit Linux install.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (2, Interesting)

zacronos (937891) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403672)

Ok, so that's one data point. The fact that you have not had issues with Flash does not mean that no one else does, or that those who do "just don't know how to setup and maintain a stable system"; to generalize from your experience and draw conclusions about everyone else who claims to have had a problem with Flash is quite the logical fallacy. In fact, I'll counter your anecdote with one of my own -- if you will tell me what I could do to better set up or maintain my system such that this problem goes away, I will gladly buy you a beer.

I use Firefox 3.6.8 on a MacBook as part of my job. I tend to have FF open with several tabs (gmail, reverence pages, test pages for the code I'm working on, etc). I don't close Firefox at the end of the day, as I'm going to open all those same tabs the next day, and although I have the SessionManager add-on installed, it is often unreliable; Firefox will usually run this way for days or weeks. Eventually, however, it will start hogging the CPU (running at ~60% or higher, sometimes all the way to 99.9%), regardless of what tabs are open. Or, it will start spiking up to complete UI lock (even showing the spinning rainbow ball cursor) on a very regular basis -- it may start at once per 5 minutes and last a quarter of a second, but it will eventually worsen to the point that FF is spending more time locked than running. In either case, the only thing that seems to work is to restart the browser. It took a while to determine, but the only correlation I can find with the speed at which these problems show up (and worsen) is the amount of time I let the browser sit on pages containing Flash. Now, unlike GGP, I don't necessarily blame Adobe -- it seems equally likely to me that Mozilla is at fault here. However, the fact remains that my browser gets less stable/functional the more it runs Flash.

So, would you please explain to me how the problem I've described is my fault, rather than Mozilla's or Adobe's? Blocking Flash is not an option, and telling me I should just restart the browser frequently is like a Windows 95 user saying their system is perfectly stable as long as they reboot once or twice a day -- my usage pattern is not the problem, it merely reveals a problem in FF and/or the Flash add-on.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

zacronos (937891) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403692)

I tend to have FF open with several tabs (gmail, reverence pages, [...]

Um, I mean "reference pages", not "reverence pages", heh. There's a joke in that typo, I'm sure of it...

Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403696)

Just yesterday I had one crash so badly it didn't just take Chrome down, I nearly had to reset XP to escape. The program got stuck in some loop but commanded the whole screen in such a way that even the task manger wasn't visible.

Oh, we're just making it up are we? Try this then. (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403712)

Open a web page with linux firefox that has an embedded flash app which has to connect back to a server to load some streaming data but in an enviroment where the port for the stream is blocked by a firewall. Wait a few seconds then click the back button and watch firefox lock up solid. Works for all versions of firefox 3.x. Haven't tried 4 yet.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (4, Informative)

mpcooke3 (306161) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403880)

It's true flash is a lot more stable these days, particularly with the release of flash 10.1

Just the odd browser issue here and there:
Like it causes IE to crash very frequently on some computers
http://forums.adobe.com/message/2925919?tstart=0 [adobe.com]
and Firefox to crash very frequently on some computers
http://forums.adobe.com/message/2962506#2962506 [adobe.com]
http://forums.adobe.com/message/2920257#2920257 [adobe.com]
and then of course there was the Safari crashing problems
http://fairerplatform.com/2010/08/flash-10-1-crashes-safari-how-to-remove/ [fairerplatform.com]
and it crashes some computers with hardware acceleration enabled (the default setting)
and it causes all browsers to crash on some computers when you try to activate a webcam
http://forums.adobe.com/message/3031253#3031253 [adobe.com]
and of course it crashes chrome a lot too on some computers (also remember the Adobe flash uninstaller doesn't work on chrome now, so need to uninstall in two ways)
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=461f66d507a8d884&hl=en [google.com]

But I'm sure your right, I haven't for instance seen anyone complain of flash crashing safari on the iPhone. oh wait....

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33404032)

+3 Funny? Laugh if you like, but flash is still trouble.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 3 years ago | (#33404056)

You know, I keep hearing this, how Flash keeps crashing browsers. ...

Yeah, not only is Flash robust, but it pretty well survived the ultimate torture test: MySpace. There are millions of pages with dozens or even hundreds of Flash widgets all written by different knuckle-draggers, and they rarely bring down the browser. Slow it to a crawl, true, but Flash will keep on trucking. That's pretty impressive.

I think it's either a tired meme or some people just don't know how to setup and maintain a stable system.

It seems like the more clueless you are about how computers work, the more stable they are. For instance, I know that I make a lousy sysadmin because I want to do things the "right" way, and find out the actual reason for various error messages. But a typical sysadmin will just wipe the box and reinstall things, changing it up each time until somehow it mostly works, except for you have to press CTRL-C here and this one button doesn't work.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

JansenVT (1235638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33404146)

It definitely happens, but it's very sporadic. My bosses vista machine does it. 2 of 3 flash objects will crash his browser (chrome, latest, no addons) I couldnt figure out why

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

quanticle (843097) | more than 3 years ago | (#33404168)

Depends on the platform. I haven't had any problems with 32-bit Flash on Windows. Flash on 64-bit Windows has crashed a couple of times. Flash on 64-bit Linux? Forget it. Between the fact that there is no official 64-bit Flash build for Linux and nspluginwrapper's issues, Flash on 64-bit Linux crashes about half the time.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403338)

As dreamchaser has already said - I think you exaggerate immensely. But - if Flash is so bad for you, why do you allow it to crash your browser? Run noscript. There are other flash killers available as well. I only see Flash when I WANT to see the Flash. Which, is seldom.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

drewpt (3975) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403546)

If you're bsod'ing blame one of your kernel mode drivers. Flash isn't at fault, it's a user mode app.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403724)

Flash doesn't have the greatest performance in the world but maybe your problems are related to other software because Flash doesn't ever crash on me certainly not once or twice a week. I would have uninstalled a long time before it got to that point.

Tabs on the left side (3, Interesting)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403132)

Tabs on the left side work very well for people who use tabs intensively and keep many pages open at the same time. The main advantages are:
  • you can display many more tabs while keeping the titles visible
  • you save precious vertical space and use horizontal space instead, which is often wasted (a side effect of monitors being wider than they are tall while pages are taller than they are wide, and also of the fact that most pages don't benefit from being given more width past a certain point - the extra space is left empty, or the lines of text are too long)
  • you can organize tabs into a hierarchy by simply indenting them (when I use Firefox, I use the excellent Tree Style Tabs [mozilla.org] extension for this.)

Why not just use bookmarks? (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403468)

I'm always baffled when people use a lot of tabs. What are the advantages of keeping all those pages open at the same time? If you have so many that you feel the need to organize them in a tree, why not just use the bookmarks from the menu, which are already organized that way?

Re:Why not just use bookmarks? (1)

British (51765) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403592)

I can answer for that. If you are picking out individual pages from a base page(ie clicking links), it's sometimes faster than clicking a link, and hitting back to go back to the original. Often pages don't cache, or cache properly. Tabbed browsing is easier. So you look up something in google and find 5 results. You can open up 5 tabs to find what you want instead back & forth 5 times.Then there's those token tabs you leave open all the time, like gmail, etc.

I can't for the life of me ever want to use it in Thunderbird, though.

Re:Why not just use bookmarks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403646)

Because then they're in a menu and not immediately accessible, because then they must be reloaded and re-rendered, because then they're saved permanently creating a morass of bookmarks that must be maintained.

Because the paradigm is totally different. I don't just use a ton of tabs to keep some things I've looked at and want to read later; I use a bunch of tabs to queue up things that I want to look at. I'm currently researching a topic on Google. I'll go through a page of results and open up several pages in tabs - I'm sure as hell not going to bookmark every page from the Google results page, then go through a menu to load each one. With tabs, they're also loading and rendering for me in the background - and they'll be ready for me as soon as I get to them.

When I'm researching something, I tend to have a few sub-topics too. So multiply the above by 3 or 4. You're saying I should waste time making bookmark folders, carefully assigning bookmarks to each one? Hell no. Currently, I have each subtopic in a different window. Vertical tabs - with indentation - would let me put that all in one window, with the Google results pages leftmost, and the results from each page indented under the appropriate results page.

Also, bookmarks blow. I spend far more time maintaining them than using them. Often I find that if I bookmark something to read later, I'll never get back to it. If I leave it up for a few days in a tab, there's a better chance I'll get to it, and there won't be excess clutter in my bookmarks making it hard to find the few bookmarks I do use, and I won't be wasting my time cleaning up that clutter.

Re:Why not just use bookmarks? (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403670)

It isn't about organisation. For me it's the instantaneous access / buffering they facilitate. I could wait five seconds for every page to load as I navigate through them one at a time, or I could open them all at once and have it done in advance.

Usually I open everything I want to read in tabs, then read them all later. No need to wait if the connection is being hogged by torrents; no need for an internet connection to watch streaming videos, etc.

I can have everything I want instantly with just a tiny amount of initial effort. It's what computers are all about.

Re:Why not just use bookmarks? (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403674)

Because then you can't complain about Firefox's bloated memory usage.

Re:Why not just use bookmarks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403686)

Bookmarks are too persistent and require explicit user management.

Often I'm in the middle of researching something, or just browsing on wikipedia or whatever, and I queue up a bunch of tabs for later. Then a few tabs down the line, I see more interesting things. Putting them in bookmarks would be cumbersome and a waste of time. And then they have to be removed again.

Organization, whether tree-like or flat, can be accomplished automatically by the browser without any user-intervention.

I might come to slashdot after some days, see seven interesting tabs, middle-click them all, and click a couple links just sent by (trustworthy) friends over instant messenger, and also have my email going. And every once in a while I might click on a link within slashdot, like the link to TFA. And then the phone rings, and my mom is asking how to order something on amazon.com.

Now, I personally tend to use new windows a lot, and tear off a tab that I know is likely to spawn new ones, so the tab space thing isn't often an issue. I didn't even like tabbed browsing at first, since it fucked up window management and just added another layer and set of keyboard commands, making it difficult to find something in a background tab. The way Windows 7's taskbar lets optionally peek into a tab as though it were a window in IE or the latest Chrome builds made me breathe a sigh of relief.

Re:Why not just use bookmarks? (1)

raftpeople (844215) | more than 3 years ago | (#33404268)

Most of the tabs I have open I have entered information, sorted things, navigated to detail pages, etc. etc. etc. Going back to a top level bookmark every time isn't the same thing.

Re:Tabs on the left side (1)

hannson (1369413) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403756)

you save precious vertical space

I'm not sure that's right. The tabs are fused with the title bar so moving them to another location makes the title bar ab unused waste.

Re:Tabs on the left side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33404114)

Just put the omnibox and controls there. But for god's sake, leave a little space so you can actually drag the window around. That's an important function of that "unused" space that often gets lost (or do most slashdotters run windows eternally maximized?).

Re:Tabs on the left side (2, Interesting)

rreyelts (470154) | more than 3 years ago | (#33404060)

I have two widescreen monitors, with one tilted 90 degrees. I use the titled one for web-browsing, and other activities that are suited to high degrees of horizontal space. It works out pretty well. You should try it some time.

finally gpu acceleration for android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403148)

well since chrome and android share the same 2d render engine i hope this means acclereated rendering for android, too.

Vertical tabs (4, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403168)

Have been in there a long time, hidden by the --enable-vertical-tabs switch, so this isn't a new idea. Try it out yourself if you want (about:labs page isn't in yet so you'll need the switch).

Re:Vertical tabs (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403362)

Doesn't work here. Just upgraded to 7.0.503.1.

so.... (1)

Dr.D.IS.GREAT (1249946) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403178)

If this is out before ie9 them microsoftboyz are gunna shit bricks... and multiple pairs of pants.

Sloooooow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403268)

These features have been available in Dev Builds through a command line for a while... a tad slow, Slashdot.

Back to the future (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403382)

Am I the only one who never realised that we'd stopped having hardware acceleration of web browsers like we did in the 1990s? Are they really rendering everything with software? No wonder they make a 3GHz quad-core feel like a 486.

Tabs on any side? (2, Insightful)

stevenh2 (1853442) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403386)

Why don't they let people choose what side the tabs are on. Look at the windows taskbar, you could drag it to be on any side of your screen, why can't the tab bar thing work like that?

Re:Tabs on any side? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403424)

Why don't they let people choose what side the tabs are on.

Yeah, they should copy this feature from Opera.

Acceleration (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403448)

It seems that Chrome will be catching up with Firefox 4 and IE9 in terms of hardware acceleration soon

I already find Chrome to be much faster then either firefox or IE.

Not new in WebKit Browsers..? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33403608)

Is this just Chrome's implementation of the ACCELERATED_COMPOSITING code path in the WebKit engine?
If so, this is nothing new. This has long been implemented in Safari and Mobile Safari (In fact, this is key to browsing performance on the iPhone).

There's also experimental support for this in QtWebKit's implementation: http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2010/05/17/qtwebkit-now-accelerates-css-animations-3d-transforms/

You are welcome to tabs on the left side (1)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403822)

Of course, there is a Firefox extension [mozilla.org] that does exactly that.

Re:You are welcome to tabs on the left side (1)

Klinky (636952) | more than 3 years ago | (#33404110)

Except you have to remove Tabs Mix Plus if you want to install it, also the color scheme looks like a unicorn dragged it's ass across the left side of my browser. I also don't like the nesting. I use VertTab, but even that lacks one of the nice features of Opera's tabs, where you can click to minimize the tab, great for toggling between two websites.

Chrome 7? Will it run on... (1)

Psicopatico (1005433) | more than 3 years ago | (#33403894)

...Emacs?

Hah! Take that!

Quick way to speed up your browser (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#33404100)

If you want to speed up your browser, just block the following domains:

*.doubleclick.net
*.polldaddy.com
*.quantserve.com
*.google-analytics.com
*.scorecardresearch.com
*.gravatar.com
*.247realmedia.com
*.likeme.net

If you block the top 10 ad services, browsing speed improves substantially. Firefox BlockSite is useful for blocking, or you can edit HOSTS.TXT. This alone will make Slashdot pages load twice as fast. AdBlock isn't enough; it still loads the data, but doesn't display it. There's too much ad code out there which stalls page loading until the ad is served. So you get to wait for the ad servers. Sequentially.

Opera still lead the browser UI innovations (1)

Bazouel (105242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33404116)

Opera have allowed you to place tabs wherever you want since a long time. You can reorder/pin them and when on the sides, a dynamic thumbnail of the page is displayed.

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>