|
Google updates Chrome browser to stable 3.0
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 15 September, 2009
Google has updated their Chrome browser this week to a stable version 3.0, and also announced that an official Mac version will be available before the end of the year.
Chrome has been on the market for almost one year now, and has seen quick upgrades, mainly speed tweaks as well as compatibility updates. In comparison, Mozilla Firefox has been around for over five years and is currently ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
15. September 2009 @ 16:57 |
Link to this message
|
Maybe I'll have to switch to chrome for awhile seeing how much of a POS firefox 3.5X has been.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
Ben79
Junior Member
|
15. September 2009 @ 17:19 |
Link to this message
|
I'd use Chrome, only after they implement some type of plug-in that removes advertisements and flash/java scripts without crippling the browser. Having a small seizure after opening a website with flashing crap everywhere is not going to get me to buy something. It's going to keep me from going back to that website.
Privoxy is not an acceptable alternate to Adblock Plus + Element Hiding Helper.
|
|
GryphB
Member
|
15. September 2009 @ 19:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Too much hype over nothing special.
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
15. September 2009 @ 19:54 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by GryphB:
Too much hype over nothing special.
Very much agreed, though I hadn't really tried Chrome past 1.0 due to it accessing all my hard drives for unknown reasons. Ever since Google moved to online installers for their apps, I don't really trust them as much as I used to.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. September 2009 @ 19:56
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
15. September 2009 @ 23:23 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by GryphB:
Too much hype over nothing special.
Very much agreed, though I hadn't really tried Chrome past 1.0 due to it accessing all my hard drives for unknown reasons. Ever since Google moved to online installers for their apps, I don't really trust them as much as I used to.
You used to trust them? Even back when the browser bar was only available as an EXE, it was still spyware that caused all sorts of problems. Never trust any organization as big as google.
|
Moderator
|
16. September 2009 @ 05:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by canuckerz:
Maybe I'll have to switch to chrome for awhile seeing how much of a POS firefox 3.5X has been.
No problems at all with 3.5.x across my machines. I can't get my head around Chrome, but then again there's always Opera if FF started playing up. On my old linux machines i use FF 2.0.0.20 with various addons (with no problems, they don't even crash when using Flash, now that's unheard of)
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules *** |
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
16. September 2009 @ 16:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
From Forum Rules regarding Signatures...
4. If you want to use both text and image in your signature the image should not be more than 500 pixels wide and 100 pixels tall, and you can use up to three lines of text.
Where's the part of the Forum Rules that says Moderators don't have to abide by them? ;-)
|
Moderator
|
16. September 2009 @ 17:13 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xnonsuchx:
From Forum Rules regarding Signatures...
4. If you want to use both text and image in your signature the image should not be more than 500 pixels wide and 100 pixels tall, and you can use up to three lines of text.
Where's the part of the Forum Rules that says Moderators don't have to abide by them? ;-)
The cheek of it :p
Didn't realise the text had pushed me over to a 4th line. Have fixed it, banned myself and paid homage to the Forum Rules.
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
16. September 2009 @ 18:14 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by xnonsuchx:
From Forum Rules regarding Signatures...
4. If you want to use both text and image in your signature the image should not be more than 500 pixels wide and 100 pixels tall, and you can use up to three lines of text.
Where's the part of the Forum Rules that says Moderators don't have to abide by them? ;-)
The cheek of it :p
Didn't realise the text had pushed me over to a 4th line. Have fixed it, banned myself and paid homage to the Forum Rules.
Actually, I thought it was 5-6 lines due to first viewing on a non-widescreen monitor and a few lines word wrapped, but now looking on a different monitor, it was just the last animated character, which could technically fall into the "three lines of text" rule since it's not text. My bad.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
17. September 2009 @ 04:17 |
Link to this message
|
I've gotten some crap from a mod for having too long of a signature too...it was only 5 lines at 720P...but I guess the mod was using an even smaller screen. Open afterdawn with an Iphone, and just about everone breaks this rule.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
6 product reviews
|
19. September 2009 @ 00:44 |
Link to this message
|
I switched from IE to Firefox then to chrome awhile back and am not planning to move anytime soon.
I just updated to version 3 today and i have to say i like the tweaks of the new tab interface but i have to find out what else it has going for it. Overall a winner in my book regardless.
|
