pouët.net

Go to bottom

Google browser(i also read /. sue me.)

category: general [glöplog]
oh, psshhht, nevermind, it ignores high contrast colors. Pure pain to use. Back to IE I go.
added on the 2008-09-03 17:59:00 by GbND GbND
Quote:
Shifter: My way out of what?

The wet paper bag that is your solid case against tabs in whatever you want to target the next post.

Quote:
I wasn't the one who brought up Photoshop.

I know. When memory fails, I can always open a new TAB and browse to another page in this thread. P01 did, and that was pretty tongue in cheek to begin with. in case you need to be reminded, you also didn't start about televisions.

Quote:
I never said I liked tabs in Photoshop yet not in other apps

I know you didn't. You did plead the case that they were unnecessary for normal operation, which on the level you argued, is the exact same scenario for tabbed browsers.

Quote:
So what is it now, tabs are great because I don't have to use them?

If that is something that you want to plead your shaky case for, be my guest. The entertainment value probably won't be any less.

To recap: that's great Doom. Now go make a comic about it!
added on the 2008-09-03 18:25:01 by Shifter Shifter
Should we open a dedicated doom/shifter bickering thread? There you could argue all day long about all things google & photoshop. :)

On topic: I'm satisfied with my Opera 9.5x setup, config-ed and speeddial.ini-tweaked to my needs. It works for the most part and since I don't use all those soon-to-be-replacing-my-desktop online applications besides webmail, I don't think that will change all that soon.
added on the 2008-09-03 19:16:37 by tomaes tomaes
Shifter: My "case" is obviously just fine since you don't have anything to say about it. Yes, you can open another TAB. I could open another WINDOW just as easily. Difference is my window would be represented on the task bar, i.e. the bottom of the screen (though that is configurable too), whereas yours would be represented on the tab bar nearer the top of the screen. It's a question of how you want to group the documents you're working with. My belief is that one consistent system for doing so, whether those documents are web pages, pictures in Photoshop, Word documents, whatever, is a far better option, as opposed to each app doing its own thing. I believe this is also far better in tune with what Google are trying to achieve, that is, removing the distinction between web pages and applications.

If that's so shaky, please give me another perspective. Unlike you I don't get a kick out of being insulted and insulting others and I'd actually be interested in revising that opinion if there's something wrong with it. Pointing out that "oooh but you use Photoshop and that sort of uses tabs although in a completely different way from what we were talking about but they're still called 'tabs' so you must love tabs haha loser" is not another perspective, it's not even reasonable, it's just a childish way of polishing your own ego.

Tomaes: That won't be necessary. As long as Pouet is full of people looking for an argument, every thread is the bickering thread.
added on the 2008-09-03 19:48:41 by doomdoom doomdoom
Google Chrome is magic. You won't find the program installation in your usual programs folder.
added on the 2008-09-03 20:33:39 by Kodoichi Kodoichi
Quote:
i mostly use safari, it just works


but chrome *is* safari, just with google branding.
added on the 2008-09-03 20:45:05 by dila dila
also, what the hell is this image supposed to be showing me, just some arbitrary "performance" metric?
added on the 2008-09-03 20:46:56 by dila dila
Now give JavaScript the graphics API it has always lacked and this might get really interesting...
added on the 2008-09-03 21:33:59 by Blueberry Blueberry
@BattleDroid
Excel (at least the one from Office 2000) works the way you describe. Every open excel spreadsheet comes up in the taskbar seperately (although this is achieved by a hack rather than each being a seperate application instnace). I would much prefer it if it used tabs :-)

At least if EVERY app had one panel in the taskbar, and then every document in each app had a tab, that would also be consistent. Actually, i'd probably really like that.
added on the 2008-09-03 21:39:58 by xeron xeron
Bluerberry: 2D Canvas is close to it. Audio and Video are coming too, with playbackSpeed/volume/seek/loop/callbacks control, they're not perfect but that's a significant jump in the right direction. An interesting direction at least.
added on the 2008-09-03 21:40:33 by p01 p01
but how many browsers will feature sound in javascript

better look into flash's direction for now
For now.

Opera and FireFox will have it. Most likely Webkit too. So what does it leave ? IE ... good grief.
added on the 2008-09-03 22:01:01 by p01 p01
hrm the google chrome logo looks like an all seeing eye! :)

probably some truth to that, they spying on what we look up.
added on the 2008-09-03 22:49:18 by stuey stuey
Quote:
At least if EVERY app had one panel in the taskbar, and then every document in each app had a tab, that would also be consistent. Actually, i'd probably really like that.


Yes, I think that would be ideal. They sort of tried to do it in XP with the automatic grouping of "related items" on the taskbar, but it's done so stupidly it just gets in the way. Oh well.

And yeah, Excel uses the taskbar in a stupid way. Like if you close one spreadsheet, it sometimes closes other spreadsheets too, depending on whether you're actually running multiple instances of Excel or not, and you can't tell easily. Grr! That has annoyed me much over the years.
added on the 2008-09-03 23:29:46 by doomdoom doomdoom
I'm surprised nobody discussed advertising yet. That's where google makes money after all. No news on whether chrome and adwords like each other more than they should?

With the contract google have done, I doubt there's any issue about your browser reporting to the ad servers what sort of stuff you've been looking at, especially if it's not passing your history over but just 'requesting something relevant. It's indexing each page you visit, and there's a convenient 'private browsing' mode to avoid it, are those features for the benefit of the users or google? :)
added on the 2008-09-03 23:56:51 by psonice psonice
Google:

1) Release Chrome
2) Unable adblockers
3) ...
4) Profit!
added on the 2008-09-04 00:32:31 by texel texel
i hate it.

i don't want it.

get it far from me.
added on the 2008-09-04 00:59:52 by kelsey kelsey
texel: That should be like so:

1) Release Chrome
2) Unable adblockers
3) Profit!
added on the 2008-09-04 01:13:41 by GbND GbND
This doesn't make sense.

Google releases a browser, hoping to profit from the ads they can push through it and the information they can collect about browsing habits and the like.

This browser is open source.

How long will it be until someone rips out all the "phone home" stuff from the browser and releases a "clean" version, free from adware and spyware? Maybe that has already happened?

Either Google is counting on enough people using the browser unmodified, or there is some other motive behind this (though the EULA seems to suggest otherwise).
added on the 2008-09-04 01:26:20 by Blueberry Blueberry
no one making fun of chrome's EULA thing in here yet? thats odd.
added on the 2008-09-04 01:32:35 by psenough psenough
ah, no, guybrush mentioned it last page already :)
added on the 2008-09-04 01:33:11 by psenough psenough
added on the 2008-09-04 01:44:59 by alienus alienus
google doesnt need to push any ads...

...they make money by collecting informations and selling em...thats how they also do it with their search-engine ( normal google ) forever already...

that said and having in mind how stupid the installer is,i won´t ever install googlechromeshit
copy paste, still number one cause for bugs in systems ^_^
added on the 2008-09-04 02:24:58 by psenough psenough
So no more spying EULA, a permissive BSD licence, sounds like a good browser to me again. But I'll wait untill a build comes up without any "phone home" features.
added on the 2008-09-04 09:30:28 by xTr1m xTr1m

login

Go to top