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 Chrome 34 Is Out: Responsive Images, Supervised Users

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the onward-and-upward dept.

Chrome 115

An anonymous reader writes "Google today released Chrome version 34 for Windows, Mac, and Linux. The new version includes support for responsive images, an unprefixed version of the Web Audio API, and importing supervised users. You can update to the latest release now using the browser's built-in silent updater, or download it directly from google.com/chrome."

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

Gay! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46698385)

Gay! This news is gay!!

Re:Gay! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46698485)

Hey look some PC asshumper can't take a joke. Go burn in hell, faggot!

Re:Gay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46700807)

What's your point? Jokes are supposed to be funny.

Wait Chrome versions are news now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46698469)

n/t

Re:Wait Chrome versions are news now? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46698495)

The last few versions were so abysmal it's worth talking about...

Re:Wait Chrome versions are news now? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46703175)

The Aura rendering stack (after chrome33) broke tons of stuf for windows users - I'm not complaining about the new UI design or lack of scroll buttons - it just broke features and added bugs. Multiple bug reports filed - no joy.

Major websites that work on every other browser (eg iplayer in the UK) have been broken on chrome (will not go fullscreen) on some MS versions for several generations.

I happily used chrome up to 32 - but now it is looking (ie behaving) like junk.

Plus the pixellated font crap eg http://www.dev-metal.com/fix-ugly-font-rendering-google-chrome/

This is what happens when you let pedo pakis (hindu indian) into your company.

Responsive Images (5, Informative)

ADRA (37398) | about 7 months ago | (#46698487)

In case anyone wanted to know what responsive images are, I googles this imformative article on the subject:
http://dev.opera.com/articles/... [opera.com]

Nah...TL:DR (5, Informative)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 7 months ago | (#46698583)

A "responsive image" will load either a small or large version (or multiple versions) depending on the browsers's screen resolution. To do this, it makes an extra request to the server before requesting the appropriate image size.

(The referenced Opera article prattles on and on - Google's faster.)

Re:Nah...TL:DR (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46698667)

Soo... they reinvented mipmapping [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Nah...TL:DR (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 7 months ago | (#46698711)

But it's "on the web"!!!!! That's totally new!!

Re:Nah...TL:DR (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46699217)

But it's "on the web"!!!!! That's totally new!!

That only is valid for Apple....

Re:Nah...TL:DR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46699707)

...so, because it's not a new idea, it shouldn't have been done? Is that what you're saying?

Re:Nah...TL:DR (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46700071)

No, but web designers are acting like it's something new. As they always do when they reinvent decades-old tech.

Re:Nah...TL:DR (1)

segin (883667) | about 7 months ago | (#46702981)

All the while using hundreds of times the system resources as the original implementations.

Re:Nah...TL:DR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46702565)

No, it's "on the cloud", that's 1000 times newer!!!

Re:Nah...TL:DR (2)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 7 months ago | (#46698829)

Sort of, except its purpose is to reduce load time over the internet rather than increasing render efficiency for the client (nobody's computer struggles to display static images on a web page)

Re:Nah...TL:DR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46698957)

In both cases you avoid busting your budget (memory/processing vs time) by loading smaller textures. Only the constraint is different - but then again another reason for mipmapping can be to optimize for better memory bandwidth usage, which is pretty analogous with network bandwidth...

Re:Nah...TL:DR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46699871)

I think excessive javascript is more of a problem than any image.

Re:Nah...TL:DR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46703105)

.."nobody's computer struggles to display static images on a web page" - not with the advances brought to use by modern web design - eg try www.computerandvideogames.com - turn off flash - makes no difference 100% cpu, a page of entirely static images.

Or try visiting a google+ or google groups page without using chrome - and wait... not sure how serving up a crippled web page to Opera users fits in with google's "use web standards" philsophy

etc etc etc. Sorry

Re:Nah...TL:DR (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | about 7 months ago | (#46698697)

Wouldn't this be better with JPEG2000 or other wavelet based image format?

You just fetch whatever level of detail you want, you just stop.

Re:Nah...TL:DR (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46698909)

Battery life... computing wavelets consumes more energy than receiving bits, especially if you have no GPU or DSP hardware acceleration, either because it doesn't exist on the client or not powering one up saves the power cost.

Re:Nah...TL:DR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46699185)

Yes, of course, then again if patents didn't get into the way, maybe we would have dedicated HW acceleration already everywhere because of wide adoption...

Re:Nah...TL:DR (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 7 months ago | (#46699267)

Because patents have prevented H.264 hardware acceleration in mobile devices... Oh wait.

Re:Nah...TL:DR (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46699263)

computing wavelets consumes more energy than receiving bits

How does the wavelet transform performed with lifting [wikipedia.org] use any more energy than the 8-band cosine transform of JPEG?

TCP slow start (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46699195)

You don't need wavelets for that. Instead, all you really need is so-called "progressive JPEG": send the first 15 or 21 DCT coefficients for a half-resolution decode, then send more coefficients for the full-resolution decode. But in practice, that doesn't speed things up because in order to terminate the image download after the first few coefficients, the web browser has to close the HTTP connection instead of keeping it alive, which means yet another round of TCP slow start.

Re:TCP slow start (1)

pjt33 (739471) | about 7 months ago | (#46699235)

Should be possible to do it with range requests, surely? But it's a chicken-and-egg problem, because there's no point adding the overhead of testing whether the server supports ranges until PJPEG is more widespread, and the current status quo doesn't seem to motivate many people to use PJPEG.

Re:TCP slow start (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46699255)

Should be possible to do it with range requests, surely?

Even if the browser knows that a server supports range requests, how will a browser know in advance what byte range corresponds to each PJPEG pass?

Re:TCP slow start (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46701337)

You could add it to the HTTP request for images as a request header, say (x-image-size), to show what size the image will actually be displayed. The server can then use that to only return the required number of passes. In the alternative, the server could return alternate files with some naming scheme on the server, possibly made up of the requisite passes.

Re:TCP slow start (1)

segin (883667) | about 7 months ago | (#46702991)

Use range requests to only grab the JPEG headers, and then use further range requests to grab the rest of the data. Use HTTP Keep-Alive [wikipedia.org] and you can avoid some of the inefficiencies of multiple requests... of course, web browsers have been doing HTTP Keep-Alive for years now.

Re:Nah...TL:DR (2)

Bengie (1121981) | about 7 months ago | (#46699653)

Reminds me of viewing porn as a child and watching the images slowly "come into focus".

Re:Nah...TL:DR (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 7 months ago | (#46700351)

Reminds me of viewing porn as a child and watching the images slowly "come into focus".

Or the images on google image search. Today.

Re:Nah...TL:DR (1)

Misagon (1135) | about 7 months ago | (#46703973)

The only option would be "some other wavelet-based image format".

JPEG-2000 is completely different to ordinary JPEG. It is crippled in that the encoding is quite complex, has a tonne of different ways it can be encoded and is therefore difficult to do at speed. The software decoders that are not dead-slow are proprietary.
You wouldn't really win anything with using JPEG-2000.

Re:Nah...TL:DR (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 7 months ago | (#46701487)

A "responsive image" will load either a small or large version (or multiple versions) depending on the browsers's screen resolution. To do this, it makes an extra request to the server before requesting the appropriate image size.

I use Googles Define: option a lot, would seriously miss it. Google says almost the same thing

Yet a picture speaks a thousand word if you listen. The same picture on different platforms, requested responsive image will supply the correct picture
to the appropriate device http://brightlemon.com/files/r... [brightlemon.com]

Re:Nah...TL:DR (1)

Aewyn (836766) | about 7 months ago | (#46702333)

Don't know where you get the idea of an extra request from. What they have implemented is the srcset attribute (from the WHATWG HTML spec), which means that authors can write e.g.

<img alt="Slashdot" src="slashdot_logo.png" srcset="slashdot_logo_big.png 2x">

and the browser will then choose based on the viewport size and resolution which URL to load (whereas browsers that don't support this attribute will just load what's in src). In this case, it would load the big image if the resolution was at least 2*96dpi.

Re:Responsive Images (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46698811)

Among all the proposed solutions, srcset seems the less elegant one, shame Google decided to endorse as it will probably become standard this way.

It's also a shame that, thanks to patents overlords, jpeg2000 never took off as it seems to me it would have been a good solution to the problem with Multiple resolution representation/progressive transmission.

Re:Responsive Images (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about 7 months ago | (#46703209)

Weird... I don't understand the problem they're describing in that blog post. Surely JS code can detect when viewport size is modified, and change images accordingly.

Re:Responsive Images (1)

Ark42 (522144) | about 7 months ago | (#46704145)

That article seems to present a lot of various ways Responsive Images could be implemented, without actually telling me which way was chosen, and which syntax Chrome actually supports now.

Re:Responsive Images (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 7 months ago | (#46704373)

It was implemented retardedly. Instead of having repeated tags per item, you give a parse string srcset="jumbo.jpg 1x, jumbo2.jpg 2x, jumbo4.jpg 4x". They may as well have implemented it with JSON.

With the NSA API? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46698493)

With the NSA API?

What about the hershey fonts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46698509)

That is very nice. Do the fonts still look like total crap?

Re:What about the hershey fonts? (0)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 7 months ago | (#46698677)

Did they fix the bug where tabbing out of a full screen video exits full screen mode? Drives me nuts.

Re:What about the hershey fonts? (1)

blue trane (110704) | about 7 months ago | (#46698983)

Did they put the arrows back at the top and bottom of the scrollbar? I use those a lot.

Re:What about the hershey fonts? (1)

spitzak (4019) | about 7 months ago | (#46699387)

I see arrows there. Never noticed they were missing however.
This is on Linux with 34.

Re:What about the hershey fonts? (1)

Harlequin80 (1671040) | about 7 months ago | (#46699813)

I have arrows on both my Linux and windows installs.

Re:What about the hershey fonts? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 7 months ago | (#46699629)

I was still using 33 on Windows until I read your message. At the time, I also did not have any arrows. Reloaded Chrome to apply 34, and now they're back.

Re:What about the hershey fonts? (1)

SpinyUK (1241190) | about 7 months ago | (#46700183)

Arrows back on regular sites, seem to be still gone from google sites. Oh google, you're so funny...

Re:What about the hershey fonts? (1)

segin (883667) | about 7 months ago | (#46702997)

HTML/DOM scrollbars, not native. Not sure how they work (at a low level), but they seem to be "standard" for some sites to use these days for any content that scrolls separately from the overall page itself.

Re:What about the hershey fonts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46699021)

That isn't a bug. Deal with it.

And the malware-style install? (0)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#46699133)

I tried chrome some time back. After installing it I switched user accounts and it was gone. Silly thing had installed in %appdata% or something like it thought it was Reveton. Even if I liked it (in my short experience it seemed a bit creepy) I would not find it reasonable to have to spend all day installing the same program over and over again just to have access to it across user accounts.

So, fixed? Or defective by design?

Re:And the malware-style install? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46699333)

I'm guessing that the installer, in a failed attempt to be intelligent and helpful, installs it locally if you run it under a normal account and installs it for everyone if you run it under an admin account.

Re:And the malware-style install? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46699727)

I'm guessing that the installer, in a failed attempt to be intelligent and helpful, installs it locally if you run it under a normal account and installs it for everyone if you run it under an admin account.

It's much worse than that, chrome installs into the local, temporary profile instead of the permanent profile.

The temporary profile is for temporary things, such as firefox's file cache. The permanent profile is for things that should persist, such as your firefox bookmarks.

Plus, the chrome installer is a real POS and often requires the user to use regedit to clear out the registry to reinstall after the temporary profile was deleted (because it's temporary!).

Re:And the malware-style install? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46703097)

use the installer you get from www.google.com/chrome/eula.html?msi=true that one will indeed install globally if run as admin (and in the appdata if not)

Re:And the malware-style install? (1)

Harlequin80 (1671040) | about 7 months ago | (#46699799)

The installer does ask you if you want it installed for all users or just this user. Potentially you had the wrong box marked.

Re:And the malware-style install? (0)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#46700491)

Yeah except that wasn't it. I even re-installed once to make sure I had not missed an option. It installed itself to a hidden temp directory that is not accessible under a different user account, and that's frankly unacceptable behavior even if I DID have the wrong box checked.

I have noticed google products in general seem to have very, very odd ideas about installation behavior. Just try to get get google earth to install to d: for instance. It's very odd for such a supposedly tech-savvy company to produce such bizarrely broken tech.

Re:And the malware-style install? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46701369)

Programs that install into the %APPDATA% directory bug me more than those that install to /var, not the least of which is because there is not an easy way to mark it "noexec."

Re:And the malware-style install? (1)

segin (883667) | about 7 months ago | (#46703007)

Look here [google.com] for the Chrome "IT Administrator" installer that will install to %ProgramFiles%.

Chrome 34 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46698673)

If it exists there is ...
Wait, sorry, misread the subject.

HiDPI (1)

itamihn (1213328) | about 7 months ago | (#46698751)

What about proper HiDPI support?

Re:HiDPI (3, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 7 months ago | (#46699047)

It is in the works. You can check their progress by opening chrome://flags/#high-dpi-support and enabling the experiment.

Re:HiDPI (1)

Ark42 (522144) | about 7 months ago | (#46704125)

Nope, but Firefox still works great on my 192dpi Windows 8.1 laptop. Chrome looks like crap still, completely unusable font rendering.

Call me when they have a 64-bit version for the OS (0)

wavedeform (561378) | about 7 months ago | (#46698779)

Why is this still a 32-bit browser? Java won't install in 32-bit browsers.

Re:Call me when they have a 64-bit version for the (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46698943)

The 32-bit [java.com] version will install in a 32-bit browser.

Re:Call me when they have a 64-bit version for the (1)

wavedeform (561378) | about 7 months ago | (#46700575)

Not on OS X. See http://www.java.com/en/downloa... [java.com]

Safari and Firefox are both 64-bit, fwiw. I don't understand why Google is dragging their feet on this.

Memory usage? (0)

war4peace (1628283) | about 7 months ago | (#46698823)

If it still eats up 1 GB memory for 3 open tabs (or 500 MB with no tabs), then sorry, it's still shit.

Re:Memory usage? (1)

Harlequin80 (1671040) | about 7 months ago | (#46699781)

Running on linux mint I currently have 2 windows and a combined 29 tabs. Current memory footprint for all processes is 2256mb. Each tab seems to consume a minimum of 30mb uo to a max of 112mb.

For specifics this page is using 31.1mb

I personally don't have a problem with that given ever tab is a separate process.

Re:Memory usage? (4, Informative)

Ingenium13 (162116) | about 7 months ago | (#46700001)

Wow, that's surprising. Chrome eats memory on Ubuntu 12.04. Using version 34, with 19 tabs open, I'm using 2.9GB of private memory and 1GB proportional. This page is using 150MB for me. Maybe it's a 64-bit thing? After a day or so memory usage will approach 6-8GB.

I've found gmail to be particularly bad. My gmail tab is at 400MB right now, but within 24 hours it will balloon to 1GB and then keep growing. I think it usually ends up around 2-2.5GB after a few days, but I've seen it higher. I think there must be some kind of JS memory leak or something.

That said, it's not usually that big of a deal for me. I have 16GB of RAM, most of which is just cache unless I load a VM. Chrome's memory leaks do force me to close the browser and restart it though when I need to free up a few GB for running multiple simultaneous VMs.

Re:Memory usage? (1)

Harlequin80 (1671040) | about 7 months ago | (#46700159)

Should probably have specified - I'm on a 32bit system and the machine only has 4gb of ram. (custom software at work which is not currently 64bit friendly at all)

Also have adblcok, ghostery, gmail notifier and a few other random things installed.

Re:Memory usage? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 7 months ago | (#46704391)

32 bit supports up to 64GB of RAM.

Re:Memory usage? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 months ago | (#46703353)

Maybe it's an issue with the Linux version. On Win7 x64 I see about 25MB for a Slashdot story tab. I'm using about 1.6GB total but have over 40 tabs open in three windows.

Re:Memory usage? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 7 months ago | (#46700113)

I have 3 tabs and 11 process for chrome running. Total memory usage is about 500MB
I have ad blocker, and a few developer extensions running.
I'm on a win7 64 bit box.

Just this one page as a tab (2)

justthinkit (954982) | about 7 months ago | (#46700549)

32-bit Windows -- chrome taking 256MB...at first. Has shrunk down to 165MB a few minutes later. Not my idea of acceptable memory usage.

Opera, with 17 tabs, and it has been running for a few days, is only using 323MB

It looks ugly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46698891)

Compared to Firefox, it looks extremely ugly and many UI elements don't look as good as they do in other Windows programs.

Re:It looks ugly (1, Troll)

Desler (1608317) | about 7 months ago | (#46699055)

Well good news! Once Firefox fully apes the Chrome UI they can both look equally ugly!

Re:It looks ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46700607)

huh?? NOTHING looks as ugly as Firefox, it's freakin hideous

Re:It looks ugly (1)

segin (883667) | about 7 months ago | (#46703017)

So draw us a better UI... and don't just say "Internet Explorer 9!"...

Rather have vector (2, Interesting)

Chelloveck (14643) | about 7 months ago | (#46699131)

I have a dream... Where, instead of learning to support some new "responsive image" paradigm, the web designers of the world focus their efforts on learning to make use of the responsive vector images that browsers already support.

Re:Rather have vector (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 7 months ago | (#46699169)

Ignoring the fact that most images on the web are not vector-based to begin with?

Re:Rather have vector (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 7 months ago | (#46703229)

Most images on the web are used to render fancy box borders user elements, another set is used to simulate their shadows. If those elements would not be kludged together as so-called css-sprites, the majority of images on the web WOULD be vector based.

Vectorize this (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46699237)

True, with IE for XP officially dead, it's finally safe to use SVG on the vast majority of browsers. But good luck efficiently vectorizing a photograph received through a camera lens.

Re:Rather have vector (1)

Dynedain (141758) | about 7 months ago | (#46699685)

Yeah, vector photographs, those work great!

Re:Rather have vector (1)

segin (883667) | about 7 months ago | (#46703043)

The vast majority of images on the web aren't photographs and could easily be vectorized. Need some examples? The Slashdot logo, the stats "medal" icon, the user settings icon in the user info box, the Slashdot TV icon, the Chrome logo in the summary, every single comment's "flag this comment" icon, the friends bubbles...

There's about 700 images on this very page alone that could be vectorized. None of them are actual photographs.

Re:Rather have vector (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46703125)

The vast majority of images on the web ARE photographs

fixed for you

Re:Rather have vector (5, Insightful)

locopuyo (1433631) | about 7 months ago | (#46699691)

I'll just snap a vector image here with my camera....

Re:Rather have vector (1)

narcc (412956) | about 7 months ago | (#46700955)

I think the idea is to use vector images for the zillions of things that aren't photographs. It's a very good idea.

Re:Rather have vector (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46701219)

Hopefully this actually happens in the near future.

Consider having new metadata in your phone that records not only geographic location, but directional heading and speed. Add that to videos and you've got a great new method of documentation. Tack that onto something like Google maps, with new rendering tech that can stitch together these videos and images together based on that new metadata and visual similarities, and you've got a veritable time machine on your hands. Think of how awesome something like this would be for a situation like Hurricane Sandy, other natural disasters, or even something like the Super Bowl.

The future is awesome.

Re:Rather have vector (1)

Waccoon (1186667) | about 7 months ago | (#46702595)

Ever heard of an autotracer? Some of the new ones work amazingly well.

Bug fixes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46699449)

Did they fix the problem with not showing urls when hovering over links?

Re:Bug fixes? (1)

Harlequin80 (1671040) | about 7 months ago | (#46699687)

In what usage case does this happen? I always get the url appear as a status bar along the bottom.

Re:Bug fixes? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46700209)

If the browser's open for a while, such as a few days (and there were reports it kicked in instantly if pages contained certain form elements that were interacted with). Should be fixed in 34, along with the completely non-standard scrollbars that were missing arrows.

Re:Bug fixes? (1)

Harlequin80 (1671040) | about 7 months ago | (#46700343)

Ok. I've never managed to have that happen but that just means I was lucky (even with a browser open for week+). Also I've always had arrows....

Re:Bug fixes? (1)

0ld_d0g (923931) | about 7 months ago | (#46702753)

You can temporarily fix it by disabling and re-enabling hardware acceleration from the settings. (no restart needed)

Extensions (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46699461)

Did they fix the "Walled Extension Garden" problem yet?

If not, then I'm fine without a Nanny Browser.

Re:Extensions (1)

Harlequin80 (1671040) | about 7 months ago | (#46699717)

Download the crx file from where ever you want and drag & drop the file into the extension tab in settings. Done.

Still no good options for mouse gestures? (1)

supervillain (737115) | about 7 months ago | (#46700297)

All of the good mouse gesture add-ons broke when chrome update 32 removed some legacy features in the name of security. The only mouse gestures that work now have ad-ware built in. Why can't someone make an open source mouse gesture add on?

Re: Google Chrome 34 is Out (4, Funny)

Zanadou (1043400) | about 7 months ago | (#46700545)

You can update to the latest release now using the browser's built-in silent updater

Whoa, whoa, slow down... could you walk me though that?

Let me know (4, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 7 months ago | (#46701713)

when they add a menu bar. Until then, I have ZERO interest in Chrome.
I'm not trolling. I'm completely serious. Removing a standard UI component "just because" is an absolute deal breaker for me.

LK

Re:Let me know (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46701997)

No major browser has an menu bar (by default) anymore.

Re:Let me know (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46702579)

But on Firefox one can still get it back easily. Of course, this feature will be removed on next version as the UI designers hate that people can select if they use the re-invented wheels or not.

Re:Let me know (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46702735)

How about "Just because it gives more vertical space for the webpage". Yes, that 7mm is appreciated on a 16:9 screen.

Re:Let me know (2)

jez9999 (618189) | about 7 months ago | (#46703245)

Then stop buying computer monitors that are designed for viewing Hollywood movies and start buying ones that are designed for general-purpose computing.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?